Transcript National Public Transport Scorecard

Promoting Public Transport
Investment in the National Interest
Reece Waldock
Chief Executive Officer,
Public Transport Authority (WA)
AusRailPlus 2003 Conference & Exhibition
Wednesday November 19, 2003
The Big Issues - Population
 More and more people living in urban areas
 Australia is one of the most urbanised countries in the
world, with strong population growth
 Western Australia – currently 1.8 million people
 Perth – 1.5 million people
 Perth – an additional 700,000 (50% increase) by 2031
The Big Issues - Car dependency
 On every indicator, Australia has a high level of car
dependency – much higher than European standards
and comparable with US averages
Road supply (length of
road per person)
CBD parking spots per
1000 persons
% of work trips on
public transport
Australian avg – 8.3m pp
Perth – 10.7m pp
Melbourne – 7.7m pp
Sydney – 6.2m pp
USA avg – 6.9m pp
European avg – 2.4m pp
Australian avg – 489
Perth – 631
USA avg – 468
European avg – 238
Australian avg – 14.5%
Perth – 9.7%
Melbourne – 15.9%
Sydney – 25%
USA avg – 9%
European avg – 39%
Economic costs of car dependency


A detailed study of 100 cities worldwide showed that
Australian cities spend 12-13 per cent of its local GDP
on passenger transport (private and public transport
operating and investment costs)
Brisbane
17.7%
Melbourne
11.8%
Perth
12.9%
Sydney
11.1%
This is due to the intense car dependence in cities
with less than 10% of total transport costs invested in
public transport
High costs of passenger transport

Progressive cities – 7 – 8% GDP

Perth – 13% GDP
City
Annual trips per
person on public
transport
Annual GDP per
capita of the Metro
Region ($US)
Vienna (pop. 1.59 million)
Munich (pop. 1.32 million)
Stuttgart (pop. 0.59 million
Berne (pop. 0.30 million)
Zurich (pop. 0.79 million)
Hong Kong (pop. 6.31 million)
Tokyo (pop. 32.34 million)
Singapore (pop. 2.99 million)
472
466
484
578
505
545
611
482
$39,316
$54,692
$40,342
$43,469
$50,168
$22,969
$45,425
$28,578
Average of 8 highest public transport cities
Perth
Average for 4 Australian cities
Average for 10 major US Cities
518
59
90
59
$40,642
$21,995
$20,226
$31,386
Rail v car – economic factors


A public-transport oriented Perth could save about $1.7
billion annually in passenger transport costs (based on 7
to 8% GDP rather than 13%). $300 million dollars more
than the entire New MetroRail project budget
In Perth, total passenger transport costs (operating and
investment) amount to an average of about $3,800 per
person per year. The annual per capita cost of the Perth
to Mandurah rail project over the 38 year financial life
of the project, including capital and interest payments
is estimated to be $47 per person (based on a Perth
population of 1.395 million)
Source: Don’t Rail Against Rail, by Jeffrey Kenworthy, Associate Professor in Sustainable Settlements,
Institute for Sustainability and Technology Policy, Murdoch University
Key messages
 Wealthy, successful cities are also high public transport
users
 Good public transport reduces individual’s transport
costs
Imbalances between road &
public transport funding


Long history of gross imbalances between road and
public transport funding in Australia
Criticism over the public transport system reflects the
privileged position of roads in the funding hierarchy and
the uncritical way roads have been funded for decades
The Big Issues – Urban Sprawl

Urban sprawl brings high transport costs, traffic
congestion and pollution to the community
Triple bottom line – the other two
dimensions
Social
 Cost of congestion
 Quality of life – amenity
 Traffic accidents
 Social underclass
Environmental
 Pollution – quality
 Energy wastage
 Noise - urban
The Big Issues - Transport Planning



Should urban roads be built according to traffic
demand or should traffic, with the help of public
transport, be adapted to existing urban road space?
Predict and provide approach no longer valid
By 2006 the Northern Suburbs Railway will be carrying
the equivalent of 3 freeway lanes of people to Perth
Decision makers underestimate
community aspirations

Perth (SKM), Australian (Warren Centre) and international
market research (UITP) suggests decision-makers
underestimate the expectations and strengths of public
opinion relating to public transport funding or investment
Europe
82% favour public
transport
Warren Centre
89% favour public
transport
Public Opinion
80% favour public
opinion
70% favour public
transport
Decision makers
expectations of
public opinion
43% favour public
transport
56% favour public
transport
Decision Makers
Opinion
Sources: UITP and the Warren Centre. Commissioned by the University of Sydney
Dialogue with the City – The Event


The ‘Dialogue with the City’ (September 13, 2003)
consultation forum was the biggest interactive
consultation ever held in the southern hemisphere
The forum was held to devise objectives for Government
to assist Perth to become the world’s most liveable city
Dialogue with the City - Key
Conclusions




More than 80% of people wanted trends of other liveable
cities in Perth. In particular, for environmental protection to
be of equal importance to economic growth, for public
transport to take the load off private cars, and for planning
decisions to be made with the needs of the whole of Perth in
mind, not just local residents
More than 70% of delegates wanted the Government to limit
urban sprawl and supported an urban growth boundary
Delegates’ hopes for the future included reduced car
dependency and more public transport, especially rail and
bus
Delegates were concerned about the sustainability of our
future and protecting Perth’s unique quality of life for
future generations
Dialogue with the City – Conclusions 2




77 per cent of delegates thought we needed to take
further action to reduce our high level of car dependency
There was a preference for expansion of rail systems over
new road construction
Two thirds of delegates preferred that development occur
around corridors based near major public transport
routes, rather than growing evenly in all directions
People who visited the on-line discussion group were
mainly concerned about improving and promoting public
transport
National public transport scoreboard

Percentage of weekday trips:
 Perth
7%
 Sydney
11%
 Melbourne
9%
 Brisbane
7%
 Adelaide
5%

Whilst Perth has shown better patronage growth than
other Australian cities, market share of all trips is not
increasing given overall trip growth

Requires strong leadership to achieve target of 12% by
2021
How do we grow public transport?
LAND USE PLANNING
Public Transport
Investment
Road Pricing
Timetabling
Frequency
Behaviour
Change
TRAVEL
DEMAND
Travelsmart
SERVICE
IMPROVEMENT
Parking
Routes
Reliability
Taxation & Pricing
Distortions
Ticketing
INFORMATION
Customer
Call Centre
Marketing
On-line
route
Selection
Timetables
Land use planning dimensions
LAND USE PLANNING
Public Transport
Investment
Road Pricing
Timetabling
Frequency
Behaviour
Change
TRAVEL
DEMAND
Travelsmart
SERVICE
IMPROVEMENT
Parking
Routes
Reliability
Taxation & Pricing
Distortions
Ticketing
INFORMATION
Customer
Call Centre
Marketing
On-line
route
Selection
Timetables
Timetables
Land use planning dimensions


Urban density is more cost-effective than urban sprawl
Urban development around transport nodes
Travel demand
LAND USE PLANNING
Public Transport
Investment
Road Pricing
Timetabling
Frequency
Behaviour
Change
TRAVEL
DEMAND
Travelsmart
SERVICE
IMPROVEMENT
Parking
Routes
Reliability
Taxation & Pricing
Distortions
Ticketing
INFORMATION
Customer
Call Centre
Marketing
On-line
route
Selection
Timetables
Timetables
Travel demand

Need to get policy settings right at Federal, State and
Local Government level
Service Improvement/Information
LAND USE PLANNING
Public Transport
Investment
Road Pricing
Timetabling
Frequency
Behaviour
Change
TRAVEL
DEMAND
Travelsmart
SERVICE
IMPROVEMENT
Parking
Routes
Reliability
Taxation & Pricing
Distortions
Ticketing
INFORMATION
Customer
Call Centre
Marketing
On-line
route
Selection
Timetables
Timetables
Service Improvement/Information
 Need to provide quality, high frequency and reliable
services
 Services need to be integrated in terms of ticketing
(SmartRider) and modality (buses feeding into railway
stations) in order to remove transfer penalties
Public Transport Integration
vs
Competition
 Recent decades have seen a shift towards integration
within the public transport system enabling different
modes to serve the roles to which they are best suited
 Based on passengers interchanging easily between modes
(need to get physical infrastructure, ticketing, fare
systems integrated)
 Increased investment in urban rail has been associated
with re-orientation of bus network into feeders
Public transport usage in Perth
People who travel to
work by public transport
Correlation of rail investment
vs patronage in Perth
Rail patronage growth analysis
Source: RTSA “Rail for Sustainable Cities”
New MetroRail project scope (green)
New MetroRail project
The New MetroRail Project will effectively double the
size of the urban passenger rail system:
 Extension of the Northern Suburbs Railway to Clarkson
(2004)
 Spur line to Thornlie (2004)
 Perth to Mandurah Railway to Rockingham (2006) and
Mandurah (2007)
 93 new electric railcars
 84 route kilometres of new track
 15 new stations
 Patronage to increase from 101,000 to 170,500 per day
in 2006/07
Rail v car journey times &
speeds – morning peak
Section
Intermediate
Station Stops
Kilometres
from Perth
Journey Time
Rail
Road
(all day)
Average Km/h
Rail
Road
Mandurah – Perth
Rockingham –
Perth
Thomsons Lake –
Perth
7
5
72
44
48 mins
33 mins
68 mins
54 mins
90
80
82
49
3
21
16 mins
34 mins
79
37
City map
Artist’s impression of
Esplanade Station
Artist’s impression of William St Station
Rail – an investment in the future



Investment in Perth’s rail system has been effective
and it’s difficult to imagine the city without its
electric lines
Perth rail patronage rose from eight million boardings
per year in 1991 to almost 31 million in 2002 and was
only prevented from rising further because of a lack
of railcars. This figure will reach 50 million by 2007
Cities world-wide have reaped enormous benefits by
building high quality rail systems especially in creating
attractive, vital and liveable cities that attract
investment
National Public Transport Scorecard
Public Transport Agencies/Operators
 Getting their act together
 Progress on:
System integration
Efficiencies (competition)
Improved frequencies/patronage/building and marketing of
key routes
Better customer information and ticketing
National Public Transport Scorecard
State Government(s)
 Generally clear public transport targets (desired
market share) but lack of real commitment and
funding to close the gap
 Investment in PT often episodic and modal in nature
(also capital focussed “ribbon cutting” versus
investment in recurrent service budgets)
 Mixed effort in travel demand initiatives (parking
demand/control management, $’s for Travelsmart)
National Public Transport Scorecard
Federal Government
 No national framework or plan for public transport
 Current policies on balance are having a negative
influence on public transport (e.g. FBT, novated
leases)
 Confusing signals (Kyoto, Auslink)
National public transport –
the way ahead

A united industry approach to drive the national
agenda - National Passenger Transport Alliance
Federal and State support for:
National PT plan
Demonstrates project funding support
PT friendly policy particularly travel demand, taxation etc
PT investment support
National public transport –
the way ahead (2)

Forming a coalition of support/advocacy to realise
community aspirations:
Grass roots support e.g. old growth forests, environment,
recycling
Educate the kids

Promote best practice models:
Success stories – cities that work
The decade of rail