Advertisement

Public transport is always greener on the other side

By Alexa Delbosc, Monash University.

Australians have very high expectations of their public transport systems. They consistently prefer investment in public transport over investment in roads. State elections have been lost when politicians don’t meet those expectations.

As a researcher in public transport, I am frustrated by a narrative I see time and again. It comes up in comments in focus groups and pops up at the bottom of news articles. It goes something like this:

I’ve been to London / New York / Tokyo and their public transport system is better / cheaper / more reliable than ours! Why can’t our public transport be that good?

Australia’s public transport systems seem shoddy compared to other countries for a number of reasons. These reasons make me question whether those comparisons are valid.

When on holiday, don’t do as commuters do

The first reason this comparison is flawed is because when we’re on holiday, we don’t use public transport the same way we do in our mundane commute back home.

When you’re on holiday your concept of time and money is different. A few extra dollars for a tourist pass, a few extra minutes on the platform, it all becomes part of the adventure of travel. A few extra dollars or minutes back home is another inconvenience in your daily grind.

Chances are when you visited London, Tokyo or New York you visited the exciting tourist centres of these cities – places where public transport is at its best.

You probably didn’t visit Woldingham, Tachikawa or Port Washington – outlying suburbs beyond the reach of metro systems. Places where the trains only run every 20 minutes or, heaven forbid, you may have to use a bus. Places a lot more like the suburbs back home.

Australia’s super cities

The other reason this comparison is flawed is due to the super-size of Australia’s cities. How that came about is an accident of history as much as anything. Many of the overseas cities Australians idolise did most of their growing before the private car became embedded into the transport system. This resulted in compact urban forms served by narrow, winding streets.

That urban form was designed to suit the needs of pedestrians, horse carts and trams. By the time the car came along it had to be retrofitted into the city.

In contrast, Australian cities – along with many American cities – did most of their growing in parallel with the explosion of motor vehicle ownership. Highways and cars facilitated the post-war suburban explosion, allowing millions to live the dream of quarter-acre blocks far from the city centre.

Because of this legacy, Australian cities are enormously far-reaching. In most capitals you can drive for 100km and still be within the same city limits. Melbourne’s footprint is six times the size of London with half its population; Brisbane is 20 times the footprint of New York City with one-quarter of its population.

London (1,572 sq km, 8.3 million people) vs Melbourne (9,990 sq km, 4.3 million). http://mapfrappe.com
New York City (790 sq km, 8.4 million people) vs Brisbane (15,826 sq km, 2.2 million). http://mapfrappe.com

In Australia, public transport has to play catch-up constrained by an urban form designed by and for the car. This isn’t an impossible task, by any means, but it suggests that perhaps we’re comparing ourselves to the wrong cities.

What if we made more realistic comparisons? For example Portland, Oregon, is around the same size and has about the same population of Brisbane. It is held up as one of the “best transit cities” in the United States. Yet Brisbane has more public transport trips per capita – around 70 per year – than Portland, which has 58 per year.

If Australia’s cities were ranked alongside American cities in public transport trips per year, Sydney and Melbourne would both rank third behind New York and San Francisco, Perth would rank ninth (above Chicago) and Brisbane would rank tenth (above Philadelphia).

A call to (realistic) action

I am glad that Australians have high expectations of their public transport systems, and I will continue to advocate for improving public transport as an integral part of efficient, sustainable cities. But Sydney will never be Tokyo and Adelaide will never be London – nor should they be.

We already have strong, uniquely Australian legacies to build on. Adelaide and Brisbane were some of the first cities in the world to invest in bus rapid transit. Melbourne has the largest streetcar (tram) network in the world.

Rather than lamenting what we are not, let us focus on making Australian public transport systems the very best they can be.The Conversation

Alexa Delbosc is Lecturer in Transport at Monash University. This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Lead image credit: flickr

2 comments

Uncle Monty's picture

Very well put.

Uncle Monty

Back to top
Llib's picture

Very good article although I must disagree on one paragraph.

"When you’re on holiday your concept of time and money is different. A few extra dollars for a tourist pass, a few extra minutes on the platform........A few extra dollars or minutes back home is another inconvenience in your daily grind"

Which is why its even more surprising to wait at most 2 minutes for the train to arrive at a cost of a fraction of what we pay in many of these overseas cities.

I think the difference between these overseas cities is the attitude towards public transport is different not just due to density but because of the changing paradigm of moving away from private car usage as many of these overseas cities were also fixated on freeways during the 50's and 60's.

Cities like New York and London have begun reinvesting in major public transport projects only in the last ten years as during the post war years their PT infrastructure was deteriorating and maintenance was limited with many road project plans to bulldoze high density inner city areas and run freeways through them. Many cities dismantled their tramway networks in France, the US and the UK only to rebuild them later at much greater cost.

The problem I see in Australia is that many politicians and senior bureaucrats are stuck in the 50's and 60's by refusing to fund urban rail and only with a paradigm change in government will we start to see better public transport services.

Back to top
Advertisement

Development & Planning

Wednesday, December 13, 2017 - 12:00
The swirl of development activity in Footscray has found another gear as new projects are submitted for approval, or are on the verge of beginning construction. Two separate planning applications have been advertised by Maribyrnong City Council; their subsequent addition to the Urban Melbourne Project Database has seen the overall number of apartment developments within Footscray in development swell to 40.

Policy, Culture & Opinion

Monday, November 20, 2017 - 12:00
The marriage of old and new can be a difficult process, particularly when the existing structure has intrinsic heritage value. In previous times Fitzroy's 237 Napier Street served as the home of furniture manufacturer C.F. Rojo and Sons. Taking root during 1887, Christobel Rojo oversaw operations though over time the site would become home to furniture manufacturer Thonet.

Visual Melbourne

Friday, August 25, 2017 - 07:00
The former site of John Batman's home, Batman's Hill is entering the final stages of its redevelopment. Collins Square's final tower has begun its skyward ascent, as has Lendlease's Melbourne Quarter Commercial and Residential precinct already. Melbourne Quarter's first stage is at construction and involves a new 12-storey home for consultancy firm Arup along with a skypark.

Advertisement

Transport & Design

Tuesday, December 12, 2017 - 12:00
When a site spans 19,280 square metres, it becomes a 'district'. That's the case according to the development team behind the Jam Factory's pending overhaul. Reporting on the project to date has focused on the close to 60,000 square metres of new commercial space that is earmarked for the site, but more importantly from a layperson's perspective is the extensive new public realm that is planned as part of the development.

Sustainability & Environment

Tuesday, October 24, 2017 - 12:00
Cbus Property's office development for Medibank at 720 Bourke Street in Docklands recently became the first Australian existing property to receive a WELL Certification, Gold Shell and Core rating. The WELL rating goes beyond sustainable building features with a greater focus on the health and well-being of a building's occupants.