![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
tcpipA couple of weeks ago The Age raised possibility of free public transport (paid through rates) as a means to relieve congestion adn pollution, Prosper Australia have asked me to write a an article on said topic. Anyone have some clever ideas on how to break this proposal? (special kudos to ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
severina_242 for some good ideas). On a related matter I've discovered that two previous articles on a similar theme have made their way to the School of Cooperative Individualism library. Prosper Australia have also approached me to do more public relations work for them.
All systems go for the Ballarat Install Fest. I've written general public and IT literate press releases and have started some modest distributions. This weekend will see it crank up a couple of notches with training on Sunday. The event itself is all happening during the Commonwealth games, which look like they'll be a bit of non-event, with the exception of the graffiti event (hat-tip toadricongirl and the StolenWealth games. Interesting reference to previous paragraph - what will be the net loss of the Commonwealth games? Will it be more than the $340 million required to provide free public transport for a year?
Three gaming events since my last post; Outbreak of Heresy last Sunday has led the party to Wallachia after escaping the castle of the lich of Vlad Tepes (hey, the body was never found!), last night was Dogs in the Vineyard which involved convincing the local Steward to let two "Mountain People" (read: Amerindians) marry and pray with rest of the faithful as his refusual was allowing demonic influences into the town (very cool narrativism), and finally, I've started composing a RuneQuest II module for RetroCon. Adventures continue on Sunday with GURPS Australian Noir. Hell that's a lot of dice-rolling and cooperative storytelling.
Want to go on SBS's Insight program? Register here. Ten worst dictators (hat-tipartbroken. Death of a Liberal Party Nazi. Korea calls for a Linux city. The USA really is going theocratic.
severina_242 for some good ideas). On a related matter I've discovered that two previous articles on a similar theme have made their way to the School of Cooperative Individualism library. Prosper Australia have also approached me to do more public relations work for them.All systems go for the Ballarat Install Fest. I've written general public and IT literate press releases and have started some modest distributions. This weekend will see it crank up a couple of notches with training on Sunday. The event itself is all happening during the Commonwealth games, which look like they'll be a bit of non-event, with the exception of the graffiti event (hat-tip to
adricongirl and the StolenWealth games. Interesting reference to previous paragraph - what will be the net loss of the Commonwealth games? Will it be more than the $340 million required to provide free public transport for a year?Three gaming events since my last post; Outbreak of Heresy last Sunday has led the party to Wallachia after escaping the castle of the lich of Vlad Tepes (hey, the body was never found!), last night was Dogs in the Vineyard which involved convincing the local Steward to let two "Mountain People" (read: Amerindians) marry and pray with rest of the faithful as his refusual was allowing demonic influences into the town (very cool narrativism), and finally, I've started composing a RuneQuest II module for RetroCon. Adventures continue on Sunday with GURPS Australian Noir. Hell that's a lot of dice-rolling and cooperative storytelling.
Want to go on SBS's Insight program? Register here. Ten worst dictators (hat-tip
artbroken. Death of a Liberal Party Nazi. Korea calls for a Linux city. The USA really is going theocratic.![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-03-11 03:34 am (UTC)Its my strong view that I would prefer to spend the $340 million per annum (or even more) in providing genuine transport choice to suburbs of acute disadvantage. VCOSS has done some excellent work on how lack of public transport in disadvantaged areas helps to entrench inequality. It seems to me that a better use of government money, and indeed of rates, is in expanding transport choice to all of Metropolitan Melbourne (and indeed regional areas as well).
Another factor is that the cities with free public transport (like the Belgian example citied by the Sunday Age) are almost exclusively small cities. Melbourne has one of the world's most extensive tram and train systems. It is not a small city and the economics of dealing with increased capacity demand arising from a free system would be almost too much to bear.
ALSO, the actual impact on congestion seems to be rather minimal. Free Public Transport is adressing the price points of transport from the wrong end of the stick. Consumers of public transport largely pay a fair price - the big problem is that users of private road transport do not! The massive externalities of provate road transport are not born by users, but by society as a whole and we need to make private road transport users bear more of the costs before we should address the public transport user costs (ie, removing tax incentives for car use, congestion charges anyone, remove GST on public transport fares)
And only after this is all done, then we should we have a debate about ticketing/free public transport.
no subject
Date: 2006-03-11 03:44 am (UTC)Ah yes, but if the cost is incorporated into rates then only those places that receive the benefits would have the changes. If a council region wanted additional services then they could expand at the violition of that council.
Basically it would mean that regions that wanted public transport could get it and those that didn't would not.
Consumers of public transport largely pay a fair price
Really?
http://www.ptua.org.au/farecomparison.shtml
http://www.ptua.org.au/melbourne/betterservice.shtml
The question is largely one of efficiency. Those transaction costs have to be a killer.
no subject
Date: 2006-03-11 04:29 am (UTC)PT fares do not cover the full cost of the system - no where near it. But the proportion of cost fairly accurately - in my view - reflects the private benefit of PT travel. There are huge positive externalities involved in PT use, and that is why it is appropriate that the State subsidises PT.
Private Road transport users do not pay a fair price. The massive externalities of private car use (environmental, pollution, road trauma, health costs etc.) are NOT borne by the private car user. There is some social benefit to private car use (ie improved mobility), but no social benefit to exclusive car dependency. That is why we should be concentrating on making car users pay a fairer price for car based travel through tradition means (petrol taxes) as well as newer methodologies such as car parking taxes, congestion charges etc.
In terms of Local Government rates as a method of collection I fear that while this may work in some LGA's, but many LGA's do not have universal transport choice. For instance in Moreland there are excellent PT services in Brunswick and Coburg, but the rest of the municipality suffers from bad transport choice. A supplementary rate (which I think is allowed under the current Local Govt Act) would disproportionately benefit Brunswick & Coburg - the wealthiest areas of Moreland, compared to the transport poor, and disadvantaged areas of Fawkner and Glenroy. Hence why I continue to be sceptical of its value.
If your interested in PT subsidies provided by the government I strongly suggest you contact Glenyys Romanes. Glenyys is the Upper House MP for Melbourne Province, is on the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee and is pretty much an expert in this area.
Congestion fees
Date: 2006-03-11 07:06 am (UTC)Is a terrible implementation of a good idea. It should be charged per sq meter of land-use not per car-parking space.
I may indeed talk to Glenyys about PT issues; I need excuse to drop into the William St office and say hello...
Re: Congestion fees
Date: 2006-03-12 10:50 am (UTC)In terms of cultural change the congestion levy on long term car parking spaces is a great leap forward.
no subject
Date: 2006-03-11 08:06 am (UTC)I agree with the first of those sentences. Private transport users pay way more than a fair price, in order to provide tax revenue to other parts of the community, including public transport. Road trauma and health costs ARE borne by the road users, both in terms of the actual effects of the events, as well as massive insurance costs. We get roughly 100% taxation on petrol, large rego charges and ever increasing numbers of taxation cameras on top of that.
Eh?
Date: 2006-03-11 10:42 am (UTC)I'm not sure whether you're agreeing or disagreeing. You say you agree and your statements say you disagree.
The relative cost-payment according to the PTUA is as follows;
http://www.ptua.org.au/myths/petroltax.shtml
Re: Eh?
Date: 2006-03-11 11:20 am (UTC)Roads are a necessity to the whole of our society. We need them for walking, riding bikes, etc, not just driving cars, and many need them in order to earn a living. Using the PTUA's figures alone ignores two major things:
1) How many public necessities are user-funded? Schools are almost 100% tax-funded. Health and public transport are largely tax funded. Roads are already far closer to user-funded than most other public services, so why should it be considered "fair" to make them even moreso, unless you want a user-pays hospital system and a user-pays school system along with it.
2) Roads are used by more than just car drivers, yet there seems to be an effort here to charge car users for everything and charge those who walk, use bikes, etc, nothing at all. We (at least, city-dwellers) are all road users when we go anywhere, including when we catch trams and buses. While some of the costs (eg. pollution) are attributable largely to cars, the majority are shared by all road users.
Re: Eh?
Date: 2006-03-12 10:54 am (UTC)However, most experts will tell you that economically we do not charge a fair price for single car travel compared to other forms of mass transport (PT, not walking or riding). It goes back to public vs private benefit issue. There is a MUCH smaller public benefit to me driving into the city alone each day, then catching the train into the city. My argument at the moment is that we do not recognise it by building in financial incentives to drive, and financial dis-iocentives to use PT
Re: Eh?
Date: 2006-03-12 01:31 pm (UTC)1) I don't consider relevant to the discussion at hand.
2) I agree there are some positive externalities to roads that have not been taken into account. However, checking the PTUA figures carefully they have been careful to exclude the minimal use of roads by public transport (e.g., in land use values) and have adopted the minimum of estimates.
Where it is not the case, I think it would be relatively easy to calculate the relative costs - simply by counting the number of public versus private vehicles over a period of time on a stretch of road (adjust for tonnage if one likes)! I would be surprised if it was greater that 5%.
Friday's Hack
Date: 2006-03-11 10:32 pm (UTC)They interviewed people who used teh service and they said that they'd probably "drink and drive" if no service was offered.
They interviewed a local councellor who said he'd be happy to fund it, IF the interviewer could tell him which other council service to cut to do so.
Coming from a "disadvanted suburb" (most of the drains in my street are ditches) FREE public transport (or even ANY public transport that came here) would make a HUGE difference to me! The private bus service that runs here is barely adequate, and even though they try to do their best, it's still very limited.
Re: Friday's Hack
Date: 2006-03-12 01:33 pm (UTC)They interviewed people who used teh service and they said that they'd probably "drink and drive" if no service was offered.
They interviewed a local councellor who said he'd be happy to fund it, IF the interviewer could tell him which other council service to cut to do so.
Two terrible options. Not so bad that the State government is handing it over to the Council. Positively evil that they're not providing the funding. Hmmm.. Perhaps they'll have to raise rates!
no subject
Date: 2006-03-11 05:05 am (UTC)In other words, the two needn't be mutually exclusive, as implied here: http://www.ptua.org.au/myths/free.shtml
We need both -- free trains/trams/busses and improvements to the range (more routes) and frequency of service.
It's a crying shame that there's still no train-line to Rowville. The same is true of the extension to the recent tram-line down the Burwood Highway. It stopped at Vermont South (they started building it outside where I used to work a couple of years ago) when it should keep going to Knox.
On a positive note, it looks like the government is taking the SmartBus seriously and is investing millions in it. They're going as far as crediting the SmartBus with the need for road-widening and changing traffic signals/traffic-flow in the City of Monash. Interestingly, they're taking an integrated approach and including dedicated bicycling paths (about time!) [info at VicRoads]
no subject
Date: 2006-03-11 07:04 am (UTC)Of course what holds patronage back the most is infrequent services and high fare costs; which remains and increases whilst there are infrequent services and high fare costs leaving only stubborn people in high density pt areas (like myself) being increasingly annoyed at a collapsing service. It's a damn vicious downward spiral.
no subject
Date: 2006-03-12 03:47 pm (UTC)As I've lost my concession card (ie, no longer a student) it works out that in an efficient car, discounting parking, it's cheaper to drive then take PT. It would also be significantly faster (~40min vs, ~1hour). If I were to get a motor bike it would be cheaper still. I hate the fact that this is true, it means that when I get my license later this year I probably will start driving most places because it's cheaper then PT.
no subject
Date: 2006-03-12 11:18 pm (UTC)The cost of PT in Melbourne seems unncessarily high, the service poor and the transit speed and patronage low - this seems to be a universal claim.
The tricky thing I have for my article is working out how to fix these things.
no subject
Date: 2006-03-13 03:30 am (UTC)I hate the fact that this is true
You and me both. I would use PT if it were good value (in terms of both my money and my time), but quite frankly, it isn't.
no subject
Date: 2006-03-13 04:41 am (UTC)Ahh, now in the inner city I've noticed that cycling is much faster than car, bus or tram (trains are still quicker tho') - working on that...
no subject
Date: 2006-03-13 04:51 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-03-11 08:11 am (UTC)Also, I believe the economic cost of free public transport is over-estimated by just looking at current system costs. The fare money wouldn't just disappear into a vacuum. If public transport were free, more people would use it to go places and spend money on other goods and services.
no subject
Date: 2006-03-11 10:38 am (UTC)I can see the reasoning behind that, but I can also forsee the extreme rebellion of people in Gippsland, Yea, Mildura etc to the funding of the inner city.
If public transport were free, more people would use it to go places and spend money on other goods and services.
An estimated 30% increase in existing services. Personally I think that's pretty low.
no subject
Date: 2006-03-11 10:46 am (UTC)I'm sure much of the estimated increase in use of existing services is from people not driving as much, which is a good thing, but of little economic use except in reduced petrol use. What I was referring to is the increase in travel in general, because some people will go and do things instead of doing nothing if transport is free.
Ration by queue
Date: 2006-03-11 08:19 am (UTC)That the advantage is very unevenly distributed is also a reason not to have free public transport. (And the payment-by-rates idea strikes me as messy and hit-and-miss in a narrower way. Rates probably already reflect access to the network, as do rents, so it is reasonable to add in a usage charge.)
Experience around the world suggests that about 10% of journeys being on public transport is all one can expect, particularly given such a small percentage of jobs nowadays are where the public transport goes to. Add in the carrying-inconvenience, the small-child inconvenience and the personal security issues to the coverage-inconvenience and I doubt that the effect can be made worth the cost.
Re: Ration by queue
Date: 2006-03-11 10:28 am (UTC)If, and only if, current services are fill to capacity - of which there is some justification of saying this in peak hours (and in the inner 'urbs, they already have effective free public transport at this time).
Experience around the world suggests that about 10% of journeys being on public transport is all one can expect, particularly given such a small percentage of jobs nowadays are where the public transport goes to.
If we get to 10% then that may be enough.
*nods* to transport - jobs issue.
How do you think we can increase the patronage?
Re: Ration by queue
Date: 2006-03-11 10:49 am (UTC)But the biggest problem is the lack of radial connections. Though I doubt that the capital cost would be worth the return.
Really, one would need decent controlled studies. This is one of the brute empirical questions that one needs such studies to really tease out.
no subject
Date: 2006-03-11 09:44 am (UTC)I suspect most people who don't use PT aren't troubled by the price. After all, they are presumably driving cars instead.
And I suspect that most PT users are commuting to work, which suggests they can afford to pay something. (And let's not forget the ease with which you can dodge paying now that we don't have conductors...).
I wonder sometimes about more flexible PT arrangements - somewhere between a minibus network and a taxi system.
no subject
Date: 2006-03-11 10:23 am (UTC)The estimates are that free public transport would lead to at least a 30% increase; and the price is a problem - Melbourne has one of the highest prices in the world.
You're probably right about the buses; as much as I love them aesthetically, trams are a financial drain.
no subject
Date: 2006-03-11 10:55 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-03-11 01:16 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-03-11 01:50 pm (UTC)Consequently, according to the Department of Infrastructure, "The Victorian Action Plan aims to achieve full compliance under the Federal Disability Standards" and then goes on to say that includes 90 per cent compliance 2017 and 100% by 2032.
If they'd fitted the latest trams with lifts or ramps, they could have achieved those figures within a few years. Instead, they are planning on spending astronomical amounts to remove both parking and traffic lanes from major arterial roads to do it in 30 years.
no subject
Date: 2006-03-11 03:18 pm (UTC)Where I live, public transport is very much bus-based, and even on the four arterial train lines it is fairly rare to see the wheelchair-bound travelling.
I'm also less concerned with providing "fair and equal access" to existing infrastructure, although I do tend to agree that where possible new infrastructure should strive to achieve those lofty aims of "fair and equal access", and that light rail should be rolled out far more than it is.
(Of course, I'm one of those people who gets really annoyed when they build zig-zag, wheelchair-friendly ramps instead of up-and-down, direct stairs.)
no subject
Date: 2006-03-11 03:55 pm (UTC)I don't see equal access as being terribly lofty an aim in public transport. Vehicles get replaced and can be replaced with accessible vehicles with minimal extra cost. (Buses that kneel and have extending or flip out ramps are pretty common.) Since the US has had anti-discrimination legislation for longer than most places, there are some cities there (eg. Seattle) in which all buses are accessible. Perth is pretty poor for disabled transportation, except in the city itself. Even the public bus from the airport and the shuttle bus from the airport (unless you specifically book it in advance) aren't wheelchair accessible.
I can understand you not seeing many people in wheelchairs on your trains. Many people will get to the train by catching a bus and get to the bus by going along the road. Most Perth bus lines seem to be randomly accessible and then some of your suburbs don't have footpaths on some of their streets at all, making it rather hard and/or dangerous to get to the train by wheelchair in the first place.
FWIW, I find zig-zag ramps are often a lazy way out when a better solution could have been found. I guess more architects need to be tied into a wheelchair for a few days.
no subject
Date: 2006-03-11 10:55 pm (UTC)From what little research I've seen on the subject, that is what the wheelchair bound would prefer.
no subject
Date: 2006-03-12 09:29 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-03-13 03:24 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-03-13 03:52 am (UTC)Sydney's tranport is a problem regardless what option is taken. Wrong sized city in the wrong place. I'm pretty sure lightrail would be much worse than bus congestion. Think of the space it takes up for starters, and the lack of maneuverability, and what happens when a single tram breaks down on the St Kilda Rd route etc etc.
no subject
Date: 2006-03-13 04:09 am (UTC)Light rail subways have been suggested which would probably work well for Sydney. The existing light rail was routed along disused goods lines, which was also a good solution. Being a bit creative with it could pull us through, but one thing is clear - we cannot improve the situation in Sydney with more buses, because the roads in the city centre are already at maximum capacity.
no subject
Date: 2006-03-13 04:33 am (UTC)Radial routes seems to be a common problem in both Melbourne and Sydney. They've tried to fix the problem in Melbourne throught bus services, but the private companies can't seem to get a consistent line or timetable happening (some exceptions; the 246 from Elsternwick to Clifton Hill through to La Trobe University which has been running for at least 10 years).
I must confess I'm a little surprised that light rail has been suggested as a plausible option in Sydney. I would have thought the place too hilly.
Public Transport
Date: 2006-03-11 10:24 pm (UTC)I don't have direct access to public transport. I thought I did when I moved here, but turned out to be a PRIVATE bus company. And that makes a huge difference. Just to get to Glendale costs me $2 concession one way. Once I get there I can go anywhere (including down to Sydney) on the buses/trains/ferrys for $2.50, because I'm a disability allowance.
Now you'd think that wouldn't be such a big issue, but it is. The private bus company doesn't run onpublic holidays, and the latest bus home is about 7pm on weekdays. If I could catch a public bus from where I'd live, I'd use it a lot more than I do now. That's the main reason I still keep a car running, even though (just right now) the engine's blowing A LOT of smoke - something I'm unhappy with, but don't have the resources to fix.
If the pubic bus came here at decent hours, I'd do food shopping via it; I'd go to uni via it (even though it would take 3 times longer). But it doesn't, so I HAVE to run a car as long as I can.
Re: Public Transport
Date: 2006-03-11 10:37 pm (UTC)A private company is interested in extracting the maximum profit according to market demand. It doesn't care less about whether the units for profit extraction have a disability or not. That requires regulations for standards of service or "market-like" incentives.
Re: Public Transport
Date: 2006-03-11 11:21 pm (UTC)I've over barely been able (with the help of friends and relatives) to keep my car going for the alst seven years. There's a good chance that at the end of thios year I just will not be able to keep it on the road (either due to mechanical problems or rego charages) any longer.
Also, even though I converted her to LPG, increases to fuel costs really cut down the ability to run my car. A few years ago, when LPG was 30c or less a litre, I could actually afford to drive it down to Sydney and back for about $40. Try doing that now (and apart from probably having it towed back) and it just isn't econiomical. Far better to drive to a railway station and spend $2.50 for the train trip, which I can sit down and relax with (which is exactly what I've been doing).
no subject
Date: 2006-03-12 01:56 pm (UTC)I've since looked for the paper in the past but haven't had any success. I think it may be paper number 71 on this list from 1985 http://www.btre.gov.au/op_index.aspx but it's only available as hard copy, so don't count on it. There might be some other info on that site that's useful though.
no subject
Date: 2006-03-12 11:25 pm (UTC)Magnificant! I'd been using some BRTE stats but this surely is gold. I'll see if I can get a copy.
Thank you!