Download - National Passenger Transport Agenda Passenger Transport Agenda - 2006.pdfgrown from policy settings that favour car users, whether at the city design level, in road-funding or tax

National Passenger Transport Agenda |2006>

>06N

ational Passenger Transport A

genda |20

06

>

General

The ARA would like to thank L.E.K. Consulting

for the preparation of this report. The provision

of ideas, data and comments from State and

Commonwealth Governments and Transport

Operators is gratefully acknowledged.

ARA Office

Unit 17, Level 3, National Circuit,

Barton ACT 2600

PO Box 4864, Kingston ACT 2604, Australia

Telephone 02 6270 4500

Facsimile 02 6273 5581

Website www.ara.net.au

Published by the

Australasian Railway Association Inc

© 2006 All Rights Reserved

Designed by GRi.D, Canberra

Printed by Pirion

Images on pages ii, viii, 34, 58, and 72

provided by RailGallery

Intro Para National Passenger Transport Agenda |2006>

Australia is the only OECD country without a national ‘moving people’ strategy. Only 10% of daily city travel is undertaken by public transport. This trend has historically grown from policy settings that favour car users, whether at the city design level, in road-funding or tax incentives to the car industry and car users.

NATIONAL PASSENGER TRANSPORT AGENDA > iii

Message from the ARA Chairman

There have been encouraging increases in public transport

usage nationally over the past 12 months. Some of this is

due to people re-considering their options with rising fuel

costs, together with individual network improvements. Some

State Governments are supporting the public transport

system with better planning, integration and injections of

much-needed funding. But there is still much to do.

This is an industry that sees responsibility for its planning,

policy-making and funding spread across a number of

areas and levels of government. There is a need for a

coordinated and focussed approach to best usage of the

existing system. To date this has had its challenges.

The irrefutable benefits of an effective public transport

system go beyond economic considerations alone.

Benefits for the community and the environment affect

our very way of life.

This report presents a clear analysis of the Australian

Public Transport System to allow and promote informed

debate. It also proposes actions for all levels of government,

passenger transport operators and the business community

to significantly improve and expand Australia’s public

transport sector.

This report underlines the vital need for action if we

are to truly achieve a revitalisation of urban public

transport in Australia. I urge you play your part in taking

recommendations of this report forward.

Bob Scheuber

ARA Chairman

iv < AUSTRALASIAN RAILWAY ASSOCIATION

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ix

Main Report x

Chapter One—Australia’s Public Transport System—Issues and Challenges 1

1.1 Social and Demographic Trends 3

1.1.1 Employment Trends 3

1.1.2 Changing Travel Patterns 7

1.1.3 More Affordable Cars with Better Features 7

1.1.4 Ageing Population 7

1.2 City Design Issues 11

1.3 Operational and Funding Issues 11

1.3.1 Peak Period Capacity Constraints 14

1.3.2 Poor Capacity Utilisation (off peak) 18

1.3.3 Inadequate Service Coverage in the Outer Suburbs 18

1.3.4 Passenger and Freight Rail Interaction 19

1.3.5 Historical Public Transport Under-Funding 20

1.3.6 Impact of Road Congestion (Bus, Tram) 20

1.3.7 Low Cost Recoveries 20

1.3.8 Ineffi cient Work Practices 24

1.4 Policy and Governance Challenges 26

1.4.1 Fragmented and Inconsistent Governance 26

1.4.2 Unfavourable Tax System (Fringe Benefi ts Tax) 31

1.4.3 Approaches of Other National Governments 31

1.5 Concluding Remarks 32

Chapter Two—The Case for Public Transport 35

2.1 Congestion 37

2.1.1 Drivers of Congestion 37

2.1.2 Measures of Congestion 38

2.1.3 Costs of Congestion 38

2.1.4 Implications of Congestion 42

2.1.5 Possible Solutions to Congestion 42

NATIONAL PASSENGER TRANSPORT AGENDA > v

Table of Contents

2.2 Fuel Use and Related Effects 48

2.3 Environment and Health 48

2.4 Social Exclusion 53

2.5 Concluding Remarks 56

Chapter Three—Proposed Actions for Stakeholders 59

3.1 Commonwealth Government 63

3.1.1 Establish a Mechanism for a Comprehensive, National Treatment of Public Transport Issues 63

3.1.2 Provide Oversight and Monitoring of Operator Effi ciency 64

3.1.3 Provide One-off Reform Payments 64

3.1.4 Take Leadership on a Number of Specifi c Initiatives 64

3.1.5 Align Taxes with Public Transport Policy 65

3.1.6 Reduce Compliance Burdens 65

3.1.7 Develop a Coordinated National Public Transport Plan 66

3.1.8 Targeted Funding for Major Capital Works 66

3.2 State Governments 66

3.2.1 Improve the Approach to Planning 66

3.2.2 Enhance the Public Transport Service Offering 67

3.3 Local Government 68

3.3.1 Planning 68

3.3.2 Liveability 69

3.3.3 Service Delivery 69

3.4 The Business Community 70

3.5 The Public Transport Operators 70

Appendices 73

Appendix A—Sources 75

Appendix B—Rail Networks—Projects to 2020 78

Appendix C—APTG Terms of Reference 81

vi < AUSTRALASIAN RAILWAY ASSOCIATION

Exhibits List

Exhibit 1 Total Public Transport Patronage 4

Exhibit 2 Mode Share 4

Exhibit 3 Public Transport Issues and Challenges 5

Exhibit 4 Employment Trends 5

Exhibit 5 Employment Within CBDs 6

Exhibit 6 Passenger Vehicles and Car Ownership 6

Exhibit 7 International Road Motor Vehicles 8

Exhibit 8 Car Affordability and Disposable Income 8

Exhibit 9 Relative Value Proposition of “Personal Car Space” 9

Exhibit 10 Vehicle Kilometres Travelled 9

Exhibit 11 Australia’s Ageing Population 10

Exhibit 12 Population Density 10

Exhibit 13 Transit Operating Cost Recovery in Global Cities 12

Exhibit 14 Proportion of Wealth Spent on Passenger Transport in Global Cities 12

Exhibit 15 Suburban Rail Networks 13

Exhibit 16 Passenger Volumes by Time of Day 13

Exhibit 17 Rail Capacity Constraints—Sydney and Melbourne 15

Exhibit 18 Major Rail Capacity Enhancements 15

Exhibit 19a Melbourne Rail Network 2020 16

Exhibit 19b Sydney Rail Network 2020 16

Exhibit 19c Brisbane Rail Network 2020 17

Exhibit 20 Patronage Impact of Fuel Price Rises 17

Exhibit 21 Service Level Benchmarks 18

Exhibit 22 Rail Freight Enhancements—Sydney Metropolitan Area 19

Exhibit 23 Length of Road Per Capita 21

Exhibit 24 Major Rail Projects 21

Exhibit 25 Average Age of Australian Metropolitan Rollingstock Fleet 22

Exhibit 26 Total Operating Cost and Farebox for Public Transport 22

Exhibit 27 Operating Cost Recovery 23

Exhibit 28 Populations Entitled to Concession Fares 23

Exhibit 29 Examples of Concession Discounts 25

Exhibit 30 Farebox Revenue Foregone Due to Concession Policies 25

NATIONAL PASSENGER TRANSPORT AGENDA > vii

Exhibits List

Exhibit 31 Operating Cost Metrics 27

Exhibit 32 Cost Comparison of Sydney Buses and Private Operator 27

Exhibit 33 Responsibility for Transport 28

Exhibit 34 National Forum for Transport 28

Exhibit 35 Ministerial Responsibilities for Transport and Planning 30

Exhibit 36 Customer Management Organisations 30

Exhibit 37 Fringe Benefi ts Tax (Cars vs Public Transport) 32

Exhibit 38 Road Use Trends 39

Exhibit 39 Urban Road Freight 39

Exhibit 40 Road Freight Activity by Vehicle Type 40

Exhibit 41 Average Travel Speeds in Peak Hour 40

Exhibit 42 Delay Times 41

Exhibit 43 Cost of Congestion 41

Exhibit 44 Australian Congestion Costs 43

Exhibit 45 Types of Road Use Pricing 47

Exhibit 46 Projected Oil Prices 47

Exhibit 47 Fuel Price Elasticity 49

Exhibit 48 Energy Use by Mode 49

Exhibit 49 Fuel Price Sensitivity 50

Exhibit 50 Per Capita Greenhouse Gas Emissions 50

Exhibit 51 Transport Emissions 51

Exhibit 52 Emissions by Source 51

Exhibit 53 Mortality and Morbidity 52

Exhibit 54 Air Pollutant Exposure 52

Exhibit 55 Passenger Transport Externality Costs 54

Exhibit 56 Total Cost of Transport 54

Exhibit 57 Costs of Transport in Sydney 55

Exhibit 58 Vehicle Ownership and Income 55

Exhibit 59 Accessibility of Employment 57

Exhibit 60 Disadvantage in Suburban Melbourne 57

Exhibit 61 The Roles of Different Levels of Government 62

NATIONAL PASSENGER TRANSPORT AGENDA > ix

Executive Summary

Without such an across-the-board focussed agenda,

backed by all levels of government including the

Commonwealth, Australia faces growing urban congestion

and mobility issues, constraining the national economy

and diminishing the quality of life that Australians so value

— and expect as our birthright.

Fact: Only 10% of city trips in Australia are undertaken by

public transport, yet

Fact: if those 3 million plus trips currently made daily by

public transport were converted to private car trips,

our cities would cease to function effectively.

Fact: The Commonwealth Government takes a ‘hands-off’

approach to public transport yet in effect, promotes

car usage. It does so through such areas as roads

funding, tax incentives favouring company car usage

and support to the automotive industry.

Fact: In the last year rising petrol prices have driven a 4%

rise in rail patronage nationally—up to 10% in some

instances, with resultant impact on the capacity of

already constrained passenger systems and also

affecting freight movements.

Fact: Recognising the need for action some State

Governments have invested in public transport, but

these efforts alone will struggle at best to maintain

the status quo.

Fact: The National forum for passenger transport issues

(APTG) is under-resourced.

Fact: Throwing money at this significant problem is not

the only solution—much can be achieved through

coordinated planning and a national approach.

Fact: Lines of responsibility for the broad range of

transport issues including funding, policy, planning,

maintenance and taxes can cut across government

departments with conflicting interests.

Fact: A continuation of the current fragmented approach

to public transport has a potentially enormous,

deleterious impact on Australia’s economy,

city liveability, and the health of its population

and ecology.

The benefits of an effective public transport system reach

through economic issues and the mitigation of rising fuel

prices—into the very heart of the Australian way of life. It

can ameliorate and avert further growing traffic congestion

(already costing the economy more than $15bn pa),

improve city liveability, have far-reaching environmental

and health benefits, and provide mobility for those who for

numerous reasons are otherwise excluded.

This Report, commissioned by the ARA and prepared with

the assistance of L.E.K. Consulting in wide consultation

with major stakeholders, seeks to draw an urgent, collective

and concerted focus on the critical situation of passenger

transport in Australia. It provides not only analysis of the

current situation but also a call to action in proposing a

way ahead, via a comprehensive list of actions for all key

stakeholders in Australian passenger transport.

Australia is the only OECD country without a national ‘moving people’ strategy. This report presents a compelling case for an integrated and coordinated approach to public transport, involving all levels of government, public transport operators, and the business community. It proposes a National Passenger Transport Agenda, clearly outlining actions required to significantly improve the effectiveness of Australia’s public transport sector.

x < AUSTRALASIAN RAILWAY ASSOCIATION

Every day, public transport provides over 3million passenger trips in Australian capital cities. In Sydney it carries nearly 80% of city bound-workers on weekdays; the comparable figure in Melbourne is 60%. If these commuters were to drive their cars, there would need to be many more car parks and significant land space would have to be turned into roads.

Main Report

NATIONAL PASSENGER TRANSPORT AGENDA > xi

Main Report

Effective public transport can provide compelling benefits

for the economy, community and environment. It can help

to relieve road congestion in metropolitan areas, reducing

delays for drivers and freight transport. It can provide relief

from rising fuel costs, particularly for households in the

“mortgage belt” middle and outer suburbs that are most

impacted by rising petrol prices. Emissions from public

transport are significantly lower than for private cars on a

per capita basis, so it can help to reduce transport emis-

sions that contribute to climate change. Public transport is

safer and healthier for communities, and can reduce social

exclusion for the significant numbers of people without

access to a car, particularly the aged, the disabled and

the unemployed.

State Governments spend at least $5bn on public transport

annually but, for many different reasons, our public trans-

port systems are barely treading water. First and foremost,

our cities have been designed around private cars and

cheap fuel (petrol is significantly cheaper in Australia than

in most other countries), a design philosophy that must

be re-considered. Not surprisingly, dispersed, car-centric

cities have to dedicate proportionately higher amounts of

their economic wealth to transportation. Low urban density

contributes to the poor cost recovery of our public transport

systems with revenue covering only 32% of operating costs,

very low by international standards. Over the last 12 months

there has been a pronounced increase in public transport

patronage (up by 10% in some cities) as a result of higher

petrol prices. This has compounded capacity constraints,

with increasing levels of crowding and overloading reported

on trains and other modes. Increasing traffic and associated

congestion is slowing down road based modes (bus, light

rail). On the rail system, there are also capacity constraints

between passenger and freight services, limiting the amount

of freight that can be carried by rail.

Australia needs a more focussed passenger transport

agenda, or we will see urban congestion and mobility con-

straining the national economy and diminishing the quality

of life in cities. Over the last two years, most State Govern-

ments have recognised the scale of historical underinvest-

ment in public transport, and begun to act. Over $25bn of

additional funding has been committed to public transport

improvements over the next fifteen years. This is a good first

step, but it will take a considerable time before the benefits

of these investments are apparent. Many additional actions

will be required by State and Local Governments, by the

business community and by transport operators them-

selves. Many of these actions do require significant funding;

however initiatives such as road pricing, fares reform and

efficiency improvements require political leadership, rather

than capital. Australia is the only OECD country that does

not have a national ‘moving people’ strategy. The Com-

monwealth Government has a strong interest in ensuring

efficient freight movements and furthering economic growth

through vibrant, prosperous and well functioning cities. It

also bears many of the costs and consequences of social

exclusion that can arise through poor access to jobs and

services. There is a clear need for the Commonwealth

Government to take action to help improve public transport,

recognising that State Governments will still have primary

responsibility for funding and delivery of services.

The Australasian Railway Association (ARA) has developed

an industry proposal for a National Passenger Transport

Agenda. The focus of the report is on metropolitan public

transport, including all public transport modes, not just rail,

recognising that all modes have legitimate and complemen-

tary roles in getting our cities to function better. It has been

prepared with the assistance of L.E.K. Consulting, a leading

global consulting firm with significant expertise in passen-

ger transport. In developing this proposal, ARA seeks to

increase the quality of debate and policy development about

passenger transport in Australia, provide new analysis to

contribute to this debate and engage key stakeholders. The

national agenda sets out a diagnosis of the current situation,

but more importantly, outlines clear actions for each of the

key stakeholders in passenger transport. Collectively, these

actions can create a passenger transport system that under-

pins the sustainability, liveability and economic prosperity of

Australia’s great cities.

Australia’s Public Transport System—Issues and Challenges |Ch.1>

NATIONAL PASSENGER TRANSPORT AGENDA > 3

Over the last two decades, public transport patronage across

Australia grew by 1.1% p.a., effectively at the same rate as

population growth (see Exhibit 1).1

Over the last 30 years, Australia’s public transport mode

share has declined significantly. Between 1973 and 2003,

mode share fell from 12% to 7%. Data for major cities

suggest mode share has been broadly flat over the last

10 years (see Exhibit 2). However these overall mode share

statistics understate the importance of public transport to

functioning cities. For example, the proportion of people

who use public transport to access city areas in the morning

peak ranges from 35% in Perth, to 60% in Melbourne and

over 80% in Sydney. It has been estimated that the 200,000

plus people that commute into Sydney each working day by

rail would need 65 freeway lanes and 782 hectares of car

parking if they travelled by car.2

A necessary step towards defining a future agenda is

a clear diagnosis of the status quo. L.E.K. Consulting

met with a wide range of transport stakeholders

across Australia, including public transport operators,

Government Departments, leading academics and industry

commentators in order to determine and highlight the most

pertinent issues facing public transport. These issues are

summarised in Exhibit 3.

Australia’s public transport systems currently face significant

social and demographic trends, city design issues,

operational and funding issues and policy and governance

challenges. Each of these topics is discussed throughout

the remainder of this section.

1.1 Social and Demographic Trends

Various clearly observable social trends are impacting

Australia’s public transport networks. Employment trends,

changing travel patterns and greater car affordability have

all led to increasing reliance on private vehicles. Australia’s

ageing population is also impacting public transport usage

and cost recovery.

1.1.1 Employment Trends

Over the last decade, employment patterns across the

country have been changing; the traditional 9 am to 5 pm

working day is no longer the ‘norm’. There is also now a

higher proportion of employees with a varied work week

schedule (i.e. flexible working hours such as 40 hours in

4 days), or working part-time (see Exhibit 4). In addition to

employees working differently, they are also working longer

hours. From 1979 to 1999, the proportion of employees who

work 50 hours or more per week increased from 14 to 19%.

The location of work is also changing. CBD employment has

been growing in absolute terms, underlining the importance

of having strong CBD-bound public transport systems to

efficiently move large numbers of people in peak periods.

Despite this growth, the proportion of employment in CBD

areas has declined to varying degrees in all of the five

largest cities in the period 1981 to 2001 (see Exhibit 5).

Transport systems are therefore having to deal with more

dispersed employment and travel patterns.

Australia’s Public Transport System—Issues and Challenges

A well integrated and efficient transport system (incorporating both road and public transport) is a vital ingredient for a liveable and economically prosperous city. Good transportation allows people to efficiently access employment, services such as education and healthcare as well as recreation. This section describes the current status of public transport in Australian cities, and identifies key issues and challenges facing the sector.

4 < AUSTRALASIAN RAILWAY ASSOCIATION

EXHIBIT 1: TOTAL PUBLIC TRANSPORT PATRONAGETotal Public Transport Patronage. All Modes by Capital City (1985–05)

CAGR%(1985–05)

Perth

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1985 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03 05

Melbourne

Sydney

Note: CAGR = Compound Annual Growth RateSource: QLD (CityTrain, Brisbane Transport and Brisbane City Council Ferries); NSW (State Transit Authority,

RailCorp, Transport and Population Data Centre); VIC (Department of Infrastructure); WA (Transperth); SA(Adelaide Metro and TransAdelaide)

Mill

ions

of P

asse

nger

s p.

a.

1.1

1.4

2.4

Total

Adelaide (1.6)

PopulationGrowth

1.3

Brisbane 1.2

1.1

EXHIBIT 2: MODE SHAREPublic Transport Mode Share Public Transport Share of Motorised TravelUrban Motorised Passenger Transport (1973–03) Melbourne (1994–02)

0

5

10

15

1973 83 93 03

Source: Road Facts (2005), Victorian Activity and Travel Survey

Perc

ent

Perc

ent

0

5

10

15

1994 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02

WeekdayAverage



EXHIBIT 3: PUBLIC TRANSPORT ISSUES AND CHALLENGES

SOCIAL AND DEMOGRAPHIC

TRENDS

OPERATIONAL AND

FUNDING ISSUES

CITY DESIGN ISSUES

POLICY AND GOVERNANCE

CHALLENGES

PUBLIC TRANSPORT

ISSUES AND

CHALLENGES

EXHIBIT 4: EMPLOYMENT TRENDSProportion of Employees with Varied Working Days1 Full Time and Part-Time Workers

Perc

ent

Mill

ions

of P

eopl

e

Note: 1 Employees who do not work Monday-FridaySource: ABS Working Arrangements (November 2000); ABS Social Trends (4102.0)

0

20

40

60

80

100

1993 000

2

4

6

8

10

1994 04

Part-Time

Full-Time72%

28%

24%

76%

7.8

9.6

3641



EXHIBIT 5: EMPLOYMENT WITHIN CBDSPercentage of Jobs in CBD (1981–01)

Perc

ent

Source: ABS

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Sydney Melbourne Brisbane Adelaide Perth

1981

2001

11.7 11.2 11.410.2

14.012.9

24.1

21.1

13.2

8.5

EXHIBIT 6: PASSENGER VEHICLES AND CAR OWNERSHIPRegistered Vehicles and New Vehicle Sales, Australia (1990–05) Car Ownership/Population, Australia1 (1990–04)

Vehi

cles

(Mill

ions

)

Cars

/,00

0 po

pula

tion

Note: 1 Car Ownership rate based on NSW, VIC, QLD, WA and SASource: ABS; 2006 Black and White Book

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

1990 92 94 96 98 00 02 04

CAGR%(1990–04)

1.4

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

1990 95 00 05

CAGR%(1990–05)

TotalVehicles

NewVehiclesSold

2.2

3.2



These changes in employment patterns have significant

implications for Australia’s transport systems. Varied work-

week schedules have increased the number of commutes

that occur during non-peak periods. Longer working hours

have increased the length of the evening peak period

because fewer people leave the office at 5pm. Jobs in the

suburbs are increasing but they are harder to serve with the

existing predominantly radial, city-focussed public transport

networks. The extent to which these jobs are located in, or

near, transit-friendly developments will be a key driver of the

ability to serve them via public transport, either now or in

the future.

1.1.2 Changing Travel Patterns

Over the last few decades, there has been a continuing shift

in employment away from manufacturing and into services.

These types of jobs tend to be more geographically diverse,

and many involve travel between sites (eg cleaning, child

minding, couriers etc).

There has also been an increase in multi-itinerary trips as

people live busier and more complex lives; dropping the

children at school before work; travelling to sport after work;

shopping at night etc.

Each of these factors has tended to favour car use over

public transport. With current levels of service coverage and

frequency, public transport has not been competitive with

private cars for these more complex trips.

1.1.3 More Affordable Cars with Better Features

Our major cities have been designed around cars and

most residents, particularly those in the outer metropolitan

areas, are largely car dependent. There are now over

13m registered vehicles in Australia, or two for every three

people, and annual new car sales number around 1m p.a.

Car ownership per person has grown steadily and Australia

now has one of the highest ownership rates in the world

(Exhibits 6 and 7).

This strong growth in vehicle ownership has been driven

by two factors. Since 1995, the price of cars, (as measured

by the Motor Vehicle CPI) has decreased by 3.8% p.a. in

real terms making cars 25% cheaper (see Exhibit 8). At the

same time, average weekly earnings have grown steadily.

In 1995, a new Ford Falcon cost 44 weeks average salary.

Today, it costs around 38 weeks.3 Modern cars also have

more features that make them much more comfortable and

safe to drive. 20 years ago, a four door Toyota Corolla cost

$16,800 (in 2006 dollars). This car would have included

little more than a standard radio cassette player. Today,

a four door Toyota Yaris can be purchased for around

$16,000 dollars. Not only is the Yaris cheaper, but it

includes many additional features such as a CD player, air

conditioner, power windows and power steering (Exhibit 9).

Such features, now readily available in low cost vehicles,

have raised the bar for customer expectations of public

transport. For example, air conditioning is now considered

essential on most trains, trams and buses.

In addition to the falling cost of cars, Australian motorists

also pay less for their fuel than people in most other

developed countries.4

Over the last twenty years, car usage, measured by vehicle

kilometres travelled, has been growing faster than public

transport patronage (Exhibit 10). Historically there has

been a relatively strong relationship between economic

wealth and travel undertaken by individuals5. However the

last several years of vehicle use data suggest that we have

begun to see a slow down in traffic growth as measured by

vehicle kilometres travelled. This is consistent with a similar

trend observed in the US, where growth in vehicle miles

has slowed significantly over the last 15 years. While it is

too early to be definitive about this trend, it suggests the

possibility that we may be reaching some sort of upper limit

in terms of the amount of travel individuals are prepared to

undertake. It is not unreasonable to expect that rises in fuel

prices and concerns over climate change might further slow

growth in car travel. If these trends continue, it may not be

necessary to continue to invest in roads to the extent that

has occurred over the last several decades, freeing up some

proportion of funds for public transport and other uses.

1.1.4 Ageing Population

Like many western countries, Australia’s population is

ageing. Currently, approximately 18% of the population is



EXHIBIT 7: INTERNATIONAL ROAD MOTOR VEHICLESRoad Motor Vehicles/Population (2004)

Vehi

cles

/1,0

00 p

opul

atio

n

Note: Road Motor Vehicles includes buses, freight vehicles and motorcycles as well aspassenger motor cars

Source: OECD Factbook 2006 Economic, Environmental and Social Statistics

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

USA

Portu

gal

New

Zeal

and

Italy

Aust

ralia

Japa

n

Fran

ce

Germ

any

Spai

n

Switz

erla

nd

Aust

ria

Norw

ay

Belg

ium

Unite

d Ki

ngdo

m

Neth

erla

nds

Finl

and

Swed

en

Irela

nd

Gree

ce

Denm

ark

Czec

h Re

publ

ic

Pola

nd

Slov

ak R

epub

lic

Hung

ary

EXHIBIT 8: CAR AFFORDABILITY AND DISPOSABLE INCOMEMotor Vehicle CPI1 (Real 2005), (1995–2005) Average Weekly Full Time Earnings (Real 2005), (1995–2005)

Inde

x 199

5 =

100

Inde

x 199

5 =

100

Note: 1 The Motor Vehicle CPI is a measure of the prices of personal motor vehicles. This index does notinclude the cost of use such as fuel, insurance, and maintenance

Source: ABS Consumer Price Index; ABS 6302

CAGR%(1995–05)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1995 97 99 01 03 05

(3.8)

CAGR%(1995–05)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

95 97 99 01 03 05

1.8



EXHIBIT 9: RELATIVE VALUE PROPOSITION OF ‘PERSONAL CAR SPACE’

Source: 2006 Black & White Automotive Industry Data Book; Toyota Company Website

1985 2006

Toyota Yaris 1.3YR Toyota Corolla AE80

New: $16,800(1985 $A: $9,100)

New: $16,190

Radio / Cassette Player CD Player

Air Conditioning

ABS

Alarm System

Power Steering

Power Windows

Air Bags

Car Features Car Features

EXHIBIT 10: VEHICLE KILOMETRES TRAVELLEDTotal VKT in Personal Vehicles (1979) Total VKT in Personal Vehicles within State Capital (2000–05)

Billi

ons

of K

MS

Billi

ons

of K

MS

Source: ABS Survey of Motor Vehicle Use

2.3

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

1979 95 98 00 03 04 05

NSW

VIC

QLD

WASA

TAS

ACTNT

Australia

2.7

0.2

4.7

4.10.6

2.7

(0.6)(1.6)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2000 01 02 03 04 05

0.5

CAGR% CAGR%



EXHIBIT 11: AUSTRALIA’S AGEING POPULATIONAustralia’s Population, 2006 vs 2021

Source: ABS; Productivity Commission

200 150 100 50 0 50 100 150 2000

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100+

Age

Thousands of Population

Female Male

2006

2021

EXHIBIT 12: POPULATION DENSITYPopulation Density in Major Cities (2004)

Peop

le p

er h

ecta

re

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

New

York

Toky

o

Chic

ago

Sina

pore

Hong

Kon

g

Lond

on

San

Fran

cisc

o

Paris

Berli

n

Sydn

ey

Mel

bour

ne

Bris

bane

Source: DOI Submission to VCEC “Inquiry into Managing Transport Congestion”; The Economist

48

90

1814

10

102

38

59596365

79



60 years or older. By 2021, this proportion will increase

to approximately 25% (see Exhibit 11). This has several

implications for public transport.

First, a higher proportion of people will be eligible for

concession tickets and this will lower cost recoveries.

Currently, Melbourne and Sydney already forgo annual

fare box revenues of approximately $100 million and

$200 million p.a. respectively due to concessions. This will

increase with the ageing population if concession policies

are left unchanged. Second, public transport systems must

be prepared to accommodate a greater proportion of the

customer base who are over 60 in the future by modifying

the design of stations, stops and rollingstock to allow for

their reduced mobility.

1.2 City Design Issues

As we enter an era of higher fuel prices and greater

pressure on carbon emissions, it is becoming increasingly

clear that Australian cities have, for many decades, been

designed around private vehicles and cheap fuel. This

imposes significant constraints on the costs of transport

for cities, the efficiency of greater investment in public

transport, and our ability to change.

Australian cities are large, with low population densities

relative to many international cities (see Exhibit 12).6

This low urban density has a number of implications

for the overall cost of transport provision and both the

competitiveness and economics of public transport.

Low density cities with high car dependency are typified by

low public transport mode share, low cost recovery public

transport systems and a high overall cost for passenger

transport. Extensive analysis of mode share and cost

recovery trends undertaken by Newman and Kenworthy,

based on data from the early 1990s, concluded that “the

percentage transit cost recovery follows very precisely the

level of car dependency of a city” (Exhibit 13) and that

“cities with the highest automobile dependence (Australian

and US cities) have the highest overall proportion of

transport costs” (Exhibit 14).7

An example of the impact of urban design is its effect on the

efficiency of the public transport network, as indicated by

rail track length per capita (Exhibit 15), which in part drives

higher transport costs.

Most States have recently developed and released

planning policies with an explicit focus on increasing urban

density. For example, Melbourne’s 2030 planning policy

targets 30% of new dwellings in Greenfield locations,

down from 40-50% historically.8 Sydney’s Metropolitan

Strategy and the South East Queensland Regional Plan

incorporate similar objectives. In Sydney, the plan is to

contain 60-70% of new housing to existing urban areas and

locate 66% of new dwellings near transit nodes,9 while the

South East Queensland Regional Plan aims to restrict urban

development to areas defined by “Urban Footprints”.10

From a public transport perspective, these plans represent

a material step in the right direction. A tighter urban

form will improve both the mode share and economics of

public transport. There is, however, significant pressure

on Governments to continue to release cheap land at the

urban fringes, not the least because there is a perceived

crisis in housing affordability. There is also pressure for

high levels of parking provision in infill developments.

Giving in to these pressures will simply amplify existing

transportation problems.

The implications of the preceding discussion is clear;

greater urban consolidation and concentration of

development around transport nodes is an action of the

highest priority, and political leadership will be required to

bring it about in the face of stakeholder resistance. It is also

critical that these regional plans are regularly updated, and

that progress towards their goals is closely monitored. In this

regard, the process that the Queensland Government has

laid out for the regular updating of its Regional Infrastructure

Plan is to be highly commended.

1.3 Operational and Funding Issues

Australia’s metropolitan public transport networks face a

number of operational and funding issues. These include

peak period capacity constraints, poor off-peak utilisation,



EXHIBIT 13: TRANSIT OPERATING COST RECOVERY IN GLOBAL CITIESTransit operating cost recovery (1990)

Perc

ent

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

WealthyAsian Cities

DevelopingAsian Cities

Toronto EuropeanCities

AustraliaCities

US Cities

Source: Sustainability and Cities, Peter Newman and Jeffrey Kenworthy

EXHIBIT 14: PROPORTION OF WEALTH SPENT ON PASSENGER TRANSPORTATION IN GLOBAL CITIESWealth spent on passengers transport (1990)

Perc

ent o

f GRP

Source: Sustainability and Cities, Peter Newman and Jeffrey Kenworthy

AustraliaCities

US Cities EuropeanCities

Toronto Wealthy AsianCities

0

2

4

6

8

1 0

1 2

1 4



EXHIBIT 15: SUBURBAN RAIL NETWORKSSuburban Rail Network Length Per 1000 Inhabitants

Met

res

of R

oute

/1,0

00 In

habi

tant

s

Oslo

Bern

Glas

gow

Prag

ue

Mun

ich

Buda

pest

Vien

na

War

saw

Paris

Gene

va

Barc

elon

a

Vale

ncia

Rotte

rdam

Rom

e

Chic

ago

Hels

inki

Dubl

in

Turin

Nant

es

Krak

ow

Athe

ns

Sevi

lle

Tuni

s

Sing

apor

e

Mar

seill

es

Cler

mon

t

Zuric

h

Cope

nhag

en

Stoc

khol

m

Stut

tgar

t

Brus

sels

Sydn

ey

Lond

onBr

isba

neLy

ons

Berli

n

Bilb

ao

Ham

burg

Mel

bour

neLi

lle

Adel

aide

Mila

n

Amst

erda

m

Man

ches

ter

Mad

rid

Lisb

on

Newc

astle

Perth

Talli

nn

Ghen

t

Mos

cow

Graz

Bolo

gna

Hong

Kon

g

Sao

Paul

o

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Note: Data for Australian cities is from 2006; Other cities are 2001Source: UITP Mobility in Cities Database, Australian Rail Operators

EXHIBIT 16: PASSENGER VOLUMES BY TIME OF DAYMelbourne Rail Passenger Volumes by Time of Day. Cordon Counts—Example Line, Melbourne

Aver

age

Load

Source: Department of Infrastructure

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

7:00 7:47 8:28 9:15 10:05 11:05 14:09 15:09 16:06 16:44 17:25 18:08 18:56 19:34

Scheduled Time



freight congestion (rail), road congestion (impacting tram

and bus) and low cost recoveries. There is also some

evidence of inefficient work practices leading to high costs.

1.3.1 Peak Period Capacity Constraints

Australia’s public transport systems generally have sharp

peaks. While the overall morning and evening peaks extend

for at least two hours, there is an intense “super-peak”

period of 30-45 minutes particularly in the morning. The

Victorian Department of Infrastructure recently commented

that “…average loads were extremely high for only short

bursts of time…” Average loads over the day are shown for

one rail line in the diagram below, and this profile would be

generally representative of rail systems around the nation

(see Exhibit 16).11

Rail systems are also constrained by the capacity of

rollingstock and by the spacing between trains. For reasons

of signalling and boarding/unloading time, the average

spacing between trains at peak times is usually around

3 minutes.

Many of our rail systems are facing significant capacity

constraints in peak periods. In Melbourne, a considerable

number of train lines including the Sydenham, Dandenong,

Pakenham and Broadmeadows lines are either at or near

capacity during peak times. Spare capacity in the city loop

is now limited during the peak as the Northern Loop already

operates at capacity whilst the Burnley, Caulfield and Clifton

Loops are approaching capacity (see Exhibit 17).

In Sydney, the problem is similar and it is expected that

Sydney’s inner city train lines will shortly reach full capacity:

“…despite all the operational refinements proposed on

all corridors into the city…the inner city lines will all be

saturated within the next ten years or so…”.12 The West/

North Shore line, City Circle and Eastern Suburbs line all

face serious capacity constraint problems during peaks

(see Exhibit 17).

Brisbane is also approaching a major inner-city capacity

problem with the river crossing and inner-city tunnels

approaching capacity limits within about 10 years, imposing

a serious constraint on overall system capacity if not

addressed appropriately.

Over the last 2 to 3 years, most State Governments have

announced or commenced several major rail projects aimed

at improving the capacity of the metropolitan rail systems.

Some of these projects are described in the table below

(see Exhibit 18).

Despite the significant funds already committed to rail

expansion, more funds will be required to meet projected

growth. There will also be a need to invest in new

technologies (eg signalling, communications, train control)

that can increase the effective capacity of rail infrastructure.

The diagrams in Exhibits 19a, 19b and 19c show the

Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane Rail networks. The orange

areas of the diagrams show enhancements that have been

announced or planned (many are still subject to approval of

detailed business cases). The green areas of the diagrams

show additional capacity expansions required to meet 2020

patronage that are not yet included in plans.

Given these peak capacity constraints, greater effort will be

needed to manage certain aspects of demand while also

increasing supply. In many Australian cities, Government

fares policy includes some heavily discounted tickets for

seniors/pensioners that can be used all day, including

peak periods. In one city examined by L.E.K., such tickets

accounted for 11% of patronage in the morning peak. This

is in contrast to cities like London where heavily discounted

tickets for seniors are only able to be used after 9:00am.13

Recent strong growth in fuel prices has caused a surge in

public transport usage, putting further pressure on capacity

in peak periods. There are a large number of factors that

can influence patronage growth, making any year-on-year

comparison difficult. Nevertheless, the last 12-18 months

have seen patronage growth well above long run averages,

almost certainly as a consequence of petrol price increases.

The national growth in rail patronage over the 12 months

from April 2005 to April 2006 was 4.2% (see Exhibit 20).

At the same time, petrol was on average 16-17% higher in

major cities. Even when the effect of the Commonwealth

Games is removed from the Melbourne rail figures, the

growth rate is still 9%. In Brisbane, total patronage (rail plus

other modes) is estimated to have grown by 11% for the

year to June 2006.14 Rail patronage in Sydney is likely to



EXHIBIT 17: RAIL CAPACITY CONSTRAINTS – SYDNEY AND MELBOURNE Peak Capacity and Utilisation

Perc

ent C

apac

ity

Note: *17 per hour in pm peakSource: The Age, ‘Melbourne’s Rail Network Fit to Bust’, Christie, R. ‘Long-term Strategic Plan for Rail’ (2001)

0

20

40

60

80

100

Away fromCity

TowardsCity

AntiClockwise

BondiTo City

BurnleyLoop

Clifton HillLoop

Clockwise City ToBondi

NorthernLoop

CaulfieldLoop

PresentCapacityUtilised

SpareCapacity

2221

20 13

22 22 22 15*

20

13

1716

20 18 18 18

13 13

18 18

Sydney (2004) Melbourne, City Loop (2004)

West/North Shore Line City Circle Eastern Suburbs Line

Trains per hour

EXHIBIT 18: MAJOR RAIL CAPACITY ENHANCEMENTS

14km Rail Link through the Sydney CBD, acrossSydney Harbour to Chatswood

$8bn

CBD Rail Link

Additional tracks and track extensions$1.6bnSEQIPP Gold Coastprojects

Gold Coast

New rail lines and track duplications$2.0bnSEQIPP Sunshine Coastprojects

Sunshine Coast

New rail lines, track duplications, metropolitanfreight upgrades. Rail crossing gradeseparations

$1.1bnSEQIPP GreaterBrisbane and WesternCorridor projects

Brisbane

Extra peak and late night services, new rollingstock and improved traffic systems

$1.8bnImproving Metro Trainand Tram services

Upgrading capacity on the City Loop andcongested lines

$2.0bnBoosting Melbourne’sRail Network

Melbourne

20km rail link from the main North Line toMungerie Park

8km rail link from Glenfield to the future centreof Leppington, via Edmondson Park

15 separate projects aimed at removingbottlenecks and enhancing capacity. Includesturnbacks, line duplication and stabling projects

Description

$1.5bn

Cost

North West Rail Link

South West Rail Link

Clearways

Title

Sydney

City

Source: NSW Department of Planning; Meeting Our Transport Challenges (VIC); SEQIPP (QLD)



EXHIBIT 19A: MELBOURNE RAIL NETWORK 2020

Source: Systemwide Pty Ltd

EXHIBIT 19B: SYDNEY RAIL NETWORK 2020




EXHIBIT 19C: BRISBANE RAIL NETWORK 2020


EXHIBIT 20: PATRONAGE IMPACT OF FUEL PRICE RISESIncrease in rail patronage (Year to April 2006 vs Year to April 2005)

Annu

al G

rowt

h (p

erce

nt)

Sydney Melbourne Brisbane AdelaidePerth0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Source: Rail Operators; Motormouth

WeightedAverage

4.2%

17% 16% 16%17%16%Petrol pricegrowth (percent)

0.7

4.6

10

6.8

5.6



have been held back somewhat by reliability problems prior

to the introduction of the new timetable in September 2005.

This level of growth in patronage is in stark contrast to long

term patronage gains of just 1-1.5% p.a. over the last 20

years. Clearly, increasing petrol prices have caused a big

influx of patrons to public transport and to rail in particular.

This is consistent with trends observed in other low mode

share countries. In the US, public transport patronage

in the first quarter of 2006 increased by 4.25% over the

prior year.15

Such a rapid increase in public transport patronage has

profound implications for the speed with which system

expansion may be required if we are entering into an era

of sustained high oil prices. This is discussed further in

Section 2.2.

1.3.2 Poor Capacity Utilisation (off peak)

Outside of peak periods, mode share is quite low for most

operators. In order to maintain a base level of service

frequency in off peak periods (30 minutes to 1 hour

between service), rail, bus, tram and ferry operators run

many services at very low occupancy levels, particularly in

the outer suburbs. This means there is substantial capacity

available to be used (contra-peak, off peak, weekends) at

very low marginal cost, and with effectively no incremental

emissions. Better use of this available spare capacity is a

key opportunity for public transport systems.

1.3.3 Inadequate Service Coverage in the Outer Suburbs

Rail, tram and ferry networks largely serve central areas with

radial networks. In large outlying areas of our cities, much

of the population has no access to these transport modes,

and bus services are the only viable public transport option.

While benchmarks have been established for service levels

in some cities, large proportions of the population currently

experience service levels below these benchmark (see

Exhibit 21).

Lack of transport access significantly limits employment

opportunities in these outlying areas and contributes to

social exclusion, as discussed in Section 2.4 below.

EXHIBIT 21: SERVICE LEVEL BENCHMARKSService Level Benchmarks

Perc

enta

ge o

f Pop

ulat

ion

at B

ench

mar

k

0

20

40

60

80

100

Perth Sydney Melbourne

BenchmarkGoal

71

46

17**

20 min peak, 60 minoff-peak headway500m accessdistance

30 min headway800m accessdistance

30 min headway>

>

>>

>> Services from 5am

to midnight

Service Level Benchmarks*

Note: *Each city has defined its own Service Level Benchmark **Currie notes that recent data suggests this may be improving

Source: Prof. Graham Currie (Monash University). ‘Perspectives on Transport and Access Issues andYoung People’ Conference on Transport, Social Disadvantage and Well Being (April 2006)



1.3.4 Passenger and Freight Rail Interaction

Across some areas of urban rail networks, passenger and

freight trains share the same tracks. With both passenger

and freight traffic growing, there is increasing congestion

and insufficient train paths to satisfy demand. This is a

particular problem in Sydney where there are already

significant peak hour capacity constraints.

Significant money has already been committed in Sydney to

achieve partial separation. ARTC is constructing a dedicated

freight line to separate passenger and freight rail trains into

Southern Sydney. The access line, known as ‘The Southern

Sydney Freight Line (SSFL) Project’, should improve freight

reliability and travel times between Melbourne and Sydney

and Sydney and Brisbane. Additionally, the new rail line

should free up enough capacity to allow the equivalent of

an additional 36 commuter trains per day. However, further

investment will be required to better separate the passenger

and freight networks in Sydney (see Exhibit 22).

In the diagram, the black lines represent existing and

committed freight lines and the blue projects are part of the

Clearways program. The red, blue and purple projects would

further reduce interaction between freight and passenger

services in Sydney, but these are yet to be funded.

EXHIBIT 22: RAIL FREIGHT ENHANCEMENTS—SYDNEY METROPOLITAN AREA



1.3.5 Historical Public Transport Under-Funding

Historically the majority of Government transport

expenditure has been committed to roads rather than public

transport. As a consequence, we have among the highest

road metres per capita in the world (see Exhibit 23).

There have been several large passenger rail projects

over the last few years, few of which have provided any

material capacity expansions with the exception of the

Perth-Mandurah rail line. Most of the major projects that

have occurred, or are expected to start, achieve only modest

gains to their respective networks’ capacity. In fact, most

projects have added less than 2% of additional track to their

respective systems (see Exhibit 24).

As another illustration of under-funding, it is worth reviewing

the age and replacement rate of rollingstock over the last

five years (see Exhibit 25). Both Melbourne and Perth have

introduced new rollingstock over the last five years, but the

average age in Sydney is still 20 years. There have been

no new vehicles purchased in Brisbane during the last five

years and in Adelaide, the last new rail car entered service

in December 1996.

The Commonwealth Government provides no funding for

public transport. It provides Auslink funding for roads, with

a relatively small proportion allocated to freight rail and none

to passenger rail. While Auslink acknowledges that a more

integrated response to urban passenger transport is needed,

funding duties are left to the State and Local Governments,

“…The Australian Government’s position on public transport

is clear: it is primarily a State and Territory government

responsibility. State and Territory governments are best

placed to deal with the metropolitan and local complexities

of public transport…”16

Given the changes being experienced in fossil fuel

prices, their impact on household incomes, the growing

environmental pressure on vehicle emissions and the

negative impact that car generated congestion is having

on the economy, the Commonwealth’s position with regard

to its role in public transport should be reviewed. There

are a number of important roles that the Commonwealth

can play including co-ordinating actions across the many

levels of Government. The approaches adopted in COAG

in areas such as water, health and education provide some

precedent. If it fails to help, there is a high risk of substantial

deleterious economic and social impacts on Australia.

1.3.6 Impact of Road Congestion (Bus, Tram)

Greater numbers of private vehicles on our roads and

higher levels of traffic congestion negatively impact road

based public transport modes in terms of speed and

reliability. In Melbourne, Yarra Trams is facing significant

congestion problems because approximately 80% of the

tram network is shared with other vehicles. A recent review

reported that “…the available evidence shows that tram

speeds have been declining slowly over a number of years.

If this continues, it could adversely affect the productivity

of the tram system (by requiring a larger fleet to service

a given level of demand) and deter some people from

using trams…”.17

Bus operators in many cities report falling average bus

speed. In addition to the journey time and reliability impacts

on customers, slower journeys also raise costs as drivers

can complete fewer trips per shift. On major road corridors,

vehicle movement can be improved through the use of

dedicated priority bus lanes. There has already been some

significant investment in bus priority in some cities, but

there is plenty of scope for further bus-only zones. Other

measures that can reduce the impact on buses and trams

are traffic-light priority and car parking restrictions.

1.3.7 Low Cost Recoveries

Public transport places a significant cost burden on State

Treasuries. In any discussion about the future of passenger

transport, it is vital to understand the nature of the revenues,

costs and Government subsidies. Perhaps even more

important is to understand the main drivers of financial

performance and the extent that they can be altered.

The annual operating cost of public transport in our

five major cities is $4.9bn (see Exhibit 26). Fares from

passengers contribute around $1.6bn pa, but the shortfall

needs to be made up by Governments; taxpayers contribute

$3.3bn to annual operating costs. The overall cost recovery

(passenger revenues/operating costs) is therefore 32%.

These figures exclude significant capital works that are



EXHIBIT 23: LENGTH OF ROAD PER CAPITALength of Road Per Capita (2001)

Met

res

per c

apita

Mel

bour

nePe

rthBr

usba

neSy

dney

Oslo

Glas

gow

Gene

vaM

adrid

Chic

ago

Zuric

h

Dubl

inNe

wcas

tleRo

tterd

amCo

penh

agen

Hels

inki

Duba

iPr

ague

Vale

ncia

Rom

eAm

ster

dam

Turin

Buda

pest

Athe

nsBa

rcel

ona

Lond

onPa

risSa

o Pa

ulo

Brus

sels

Mun

ich

Vien

naBe

rlin

Krak

owSt

uttg

art

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Note: Australian figures from 1995Source: UITP Mobility in Cities database, L.E.K. Analysis

EXHIBIT 24: MAJOR RAIL PROJECTSExample Rail / Tram Infrastructure Projects Costs and Incremental Network Growth

Source: DOI; NSW Transport Infrastructure Development Corp.; Press Releases

State Project Name Status Cost($m) Scale Network Total % of Total

Vermont South tram extension Complete 22 3km 245km 1.2%

Box Hill Tram Extension Complete 28 2km 245km 0.9%

Clifton Hill and Westgarth Duplication Underway 52 1km 372km 0.2%

Craigieburn Rail Project Underway 58 10km 372km 2.7%

NSW Epping to Chatswood Underway 2,000 13km 2,060km 0.6%

WA Perth to Mandurah Underway 1,200 73km 101km 72.4%

VIC Sydenham Rail Electrification Start 2009 44 2km 372km 0.5%

Kingsgrove to Revesby Quadruplication Complete 2010 230 7km 2,060km 0.3%

Quakers Hill to Schofields Duplication Complete 2010 80 4km 2,060km 0.2%

North West Rail Link Start 2012 20km 2,060km 1.1%

South West Rail Link Start 2012 8km 2,060km 0.6%

CBD Rail Link Complete 2017 14km 2,060km 0.1%

Total Start 2012 8,000 38km 2,060km 1.8%

NSW

VIC

8,000

Completed or Currently Underway Projects

Future Projects



EXHIBIT 25: AVERAGE AGE OF AUSTRALIAN METROPOLITAN ROLLING STOCK FLEETAverage age of rolling stock fleet

Aver

age

age

(Yea

ts)

0

5

10

15

20

25

Sydney Melbourne Brisbane Perth Adelaide

Source: Rail Operators

2000

200516

20 21

14

11

16

98

18

23

(RailCorp) (Connex) (QR) (PTA) (TransAdelaide)

EXHIBIT 26: TOTAL OPERATING COST AND FAREBOX FOR PUBLIC TRANSPORTTotal Public Transport Operational Costs, Five Capital Cities (2005)

Billi

ons

of D

olla

rs

(6)

(5)

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

0

Note: Sydney, Melbourne, Perth, Brisbane, and Adelaide; Operating costs exclude interest and depreciation chargesSource: Public Transport Operators

CostRecovery

= ~32%

~1.6

~3.3

~4.9

Operating Costs Farebox Subsidy required



EXHIBIT 27: OPERATING COST RECOVERYPublic Transport Operating Cost Recovery (2001)

Perc

ent

Source: Transport Operators; Mobility in Cities Database (2001)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Average

Hong

Kon

gDu

bai

Newc

astle

Man

ches

ter

Dubl

inKr

akow

Lond

onTu

nis

Graz

Buda

pest

Barc

elon

aCo

penh

agen

Athe

nsGl

asgo

wM

unic

hOs

loM

adrid

Stut

tgar

Vale

ncia

Lisb

onHe

lsin

kiM

osco

wSt

ockh

olm

Mar

seill

esBi

lbao

Vien

naBe

rnLi

lleW

arsa

wPa

risTa

llinn

Cler

mon

t-Fe

rrand

Berli

nCh

icag

oGe

neva

Mila

nRo

tterd

amNa

ntes

Amst

erda

mGe

ntPr

ague

Turin

Rom

eBr

usse

ls

Australia’s current (2005-06)cost recoveries range from

20% to 34%

EXHIBIT 28: POPULATIONS ENTITLED TO CONCESSION FARESConcession Population by Type, Victoria 2005

Perc

ent o

f Sta

te P

opul

atio

n

Pensionersand Seniors

PrimaryStudents

SecondaryStudents

TertiaryStudents

HealthCare

Total0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Source: ABS; Centrelink

1.2m

0.5m

0.4m

0.2m

0.4m 2.7m

Total Population of Victoria is 4.5 million



required to upgrade and expand transport systems, which

can add another $1-2bn p.a. or more over and above

operating costs.

Most public transport systems across the world require

significant government subsidies. The level of subsidy

depends upon a wide range of factors such as fare levels

and concession policies, city characteristics (population

density, topography), cost elements (labour, fuel), the

degree of modal competition, etc.

The cost recoveries of Australia’s major cities range from

20-34%. Some modes, particularly buses serving high

density routes, operate at higher cost recoveries and some

lower. Our cities compare poorly with the cost recovery

figures of many other international cities (see Exhibit 27).

While fare levels vary significantly around the world

(London’s public transport fares are notably higher than

most), there is no strong evidence that Australian fares

are particularly low by international standards. There are

some heavily discounted fares in some cities (e.g. some

long distance rail trips in Sydney) but overall Australian

cities are around the international average for fares. Fare

levels do not therefore appear to fully explain the low cost

recoveries observed.

Although fares do not appear to be the cause of low cost

recoveries across Australia, liberal concession policies are

a material factor. In Victoria, for example, approximately

50% of the population is entitled to concession tickets

(see Exhibit 28). Concession tickets are not only available

for pensioners and seniors, but they are also available

for students and health care beneficiaries. There are

strong policy grounds for offering discounted travel to

disadvantaged members of the population; however it is

perhaps questionable whether 50% of the population should

fall into this category.

Across modes, buses tend to sell the most concession

tickets with the proportion of concession trips ranging from

33% to 76%. Concession travellers on buses are mostly

students. Rail operators generally sell fewer concession

tickets, with the proportion of concession trips ranging

between 30% and 60%.

Concession discounts are quite significant as well

(Exhibit 29). The discount on concession tickets compared

to comparable full fare tickets range from approximately

50% to 100%. In Melbourne, a daily ‘zone one’ concession

ticket is discounted by 48%, whilst a concession ‘peak-rail’

return ticket in Sydney is discounted by 50%. Likewise,

Perth’s ‘2-zone’ concession ticket is approximately 58% less

than a comparable full fare ticket. In the most extreme case,

Perth’s Seniors Card allows seniors to ride for free on public

holidays and Sundays.

Whilst concession issues are a matter of policy for

Governments, they do substantially impact cost recovery.

In 2005, approximately $100 and $200 million of farebox

revenue was foregone in Melbourne and Sydney respectively

due to concession discounts (see Exhibit 30). High

concession proportions also contribute to the impression

that the public transport system is for the “down and outs”;

a system carrying 50% concession passengers is actually

reasonably representative of the population as a whole!

Currently, approximately 18% of Australia’s population is

60 years or older. By 2021, this proportion is expected

to increase to approximately 25%. If current concession

policies remain, public transport systems are likely to have

even lower levels of cost recovery.

1.3.8 Inefficient Work Practices

There is a mixture of public and private ownership of

the Australian public transport industry. Most of the rail

industry remains in public ownership, with RailCorp,

Queensland Rail, PTA WA and TransAdelaide all State-

owned. Melbourne’s metropolitan rail and tram services are

operated by Connex and Yarra respectively under franchise

agreements with the State Government.

In the bus industry there are several large public operators;

Sydney Buses, Brisbane Transport (owned by Brisbane City

Council) and ACTION in Canberra. All other bus operations

have either been contracted out to the private sector or have

always been privately owned.

Sydney Ferries is State-owned, but Brisbane Ferries is

operated by the private sector under contract. The light rail

in Sydney is privately owned.



EXHIBIT 29: EXAMPLES OF CONCESSION DISCOUNTSConcession Discounts for Selected Tickets by Australian City (2006)

Perc

ent D

isco

unt o

n Pr

ice

of C

ompa

rabl

e Fu

ll Fa

re Ti

cket

0

20

40

60

80

100

Daily Zone 1 60+Ticket(All day)

Peak Rail Return(10kms)

PensionerExcursion Ticket

(All day)

2-Zone travel Seniors Card(Sundays, Public

Holidays)

Melbourne Sydney (CityRail) Perth

Relative toZone 1 full-fare Daily

Relative toZone 1+2+3

full-fareDaily

Source: Transport websites

EXHIBIT 30: FAREBOX REVENUE FORGONE DUE TO CONCESSION POLICIESMelbourne Implied Farebox Foregone (2005) Sydney Implied Farebox Forgone (2005)

Mill

ions

of D

olla

rs

Mill

ions

of D

olla

rs

Source: DOI Victoria; RailCorp; L.E.K. Analysis

0

200

400

600

Farebox0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

Farebox revenue lost toConcession tickets

195

830

~41% of ticketsare concession

~38% of ticketsare concession

INDICATIVE

ApproximateFarebox Revenue

Forgone due toConcession Tickets

2005 Farebox

ApproximateFarebox Revenue

Forgone due toConcession Tickets

2005 Farebox

108

418



There is limited quality benchmarking available across

companies and transport modes. High-level benchmarking

undertaken by L.E.K. Consulting for this study across rail

operators identifies some anomalies that warrant further

investigation. While it is inherently difficult to get like-for-

like comparisons between rail operators across a range of

metrics, Melbourne’s privately operated system appears

more efficient than most Government-owned systems in

terms of cost per passenger, although less so in terms of

cost per service kilometre (Exhibit 31).

Comparing public versus private bus operators reveals

a similar cost difference. For example in Sydney, the

Government owned operator (Sydney Buses) has

significantly higher costs than private operators. While some

of these differences can be ascribed to slower operating

speeds in central Sydney, this is not sufficient to account

for all of the difference (see Exhibit 32). This is consistent

with the findings of Prof. David Hensher who has observed

significant cost reductions when Government-run bus

services are contracted out to the private sector.18

The extent of inefficiencies in transport operations,

particularly publicly run operations, is unknown. However,

these simple benchmarks suggest that there is significant

scope for efficiency gains to free up recurrent funding that

could be better deployed on extra services or improved

facilities. Given that the total annual operating cost of

the public transport system in Australia is $4.9bn, every

1% efficiency saving is worth $49m p.a. For a number of

reasons, State Governments have faced structural barriers

to accessing these savings. There may be a role for the

Commonwealth Government in providing incentives that

help deliver these reforms.

1.4 Policy and Governance Challenges

1.4.1 Fragmented and Inconsistent Governance

Having the right (or least worst) governance structure is

essential for getting transportation optimised. There are

four areas in current governance arrangements that are not

working well today.

Responsibilities between Commonwealth, State and

Local Government

Exhibit 33 highlights the primary areas of responsibility

for transport-related matters across the different levels of

Government.

All the levels of Government play a role in road funding.

Freight policy is developed at both a Commonwealth and

State Government level. For roads and rail freight, the

Department of Transport and Regional Services (DOTARS)

executes its policy and strategy tasks through Auslink, which

was created in May 2002. Additional planning for roads and

rail freight is carried out through the Australian Transport

Council’s rolling three-year strategic plan whose primary

focus is to develop reform platforms that are consistent

through all levels of government.

Metropolitan public transport systems are funded and

managed solely by State Governments; there is no federal

funding. Brisbane City Council, a major bus operator,

is the only LGA directly providing a significant city-wide

public transport service. Moreover, the Commonwealth

Government does not have any other significant role

in public transport, with regard to policy or planning.

By international standards it is unusual for a central

Government to have such a “hands off” role in public

transport. Indeed, Australia is the only OECD country

that does not have a national “moving people” strategy.

Many other Federal Governments centrally fund passenger

transport, including public transport. Neverthless, there

have been provisions in Federal law that enabled the

Federal Government to allocate funding to Urban Public

Transport projects if the Minister was satisfied that the

project would result in a reduction in traffic on arterial roads.

This provision was included in the Australian Land Transport

Development Act 1988 Section 7C.

Metropolitan transport and land planning is conducted both

at a State and Local Government level. This fragmentation of

policy and administrative responsibility means that decisions

made in one area can have significant positive or negative

ramifications in another area. For example, decisions

made on public transport and roads can affect other parts

of the transport network, impacting freight movements.



EXHIBIT 31: OPERATING COST METRICSOperating cost* per passenger Operating cost* per Service Kilometre

$ pe

r pas

seng

er

$ pe

r km

* Excluding depreciation and interestSource:Note:

Rail Operators

0

2

4

6

8

Syd

ney (

City

Rail)

Bris

bane

(Ci

tyTr

ain)

Ade

laid

e (T

rans

Adel

aide

)

Mel

bour

ne (

Conn

ex)

Per

th (P

TA) 0

10

20

30

40

50

Syd

ney (

City

Rail)

Bris

bane

(Ci

tyTr

ain)

Ade

laid

e (T

rans

Adel

aide

)

Mel

bour

ne (

Conn

ex)

Per

th (P

TA)

EXHIBIT 32: COST COMPARISON OF SYDNEY BUSES AND PRIVATE OPERATOR

%42.1

$/hr21.65

$/hr30.77

Bus Hourly Cost ElementWages

39.923.0

2,71613,977

3,80017,196

Non-busTotal capital cost

20.011,26113,396Bus%$/bus$/busCapital Costs

67.711.7819.76Bus overhead costs42.37.2410.30Other overhead costs108.64.549.47Salaries and on-costs

%$/hr$/hrBus overhead cost element

Bus Kilometre costOther bus kilometre costsWages and on-costsBus Kilometre Cost Element

Bus Hourly CostsWages on-costs

0.940.650.29$/km

37.166.38

Sydney Buses

0.620.490.13$/km

25.093.44

Private Operator

51.632.7123.1

%

48.185.5

Difference

Source: Ministerial Inquiry into Public Transport, NSW



EXHIBIT 33: RESPONSIBILITY FOR TRANSPORT

Aviation

Freight rail

Passenger rail/bus/ferry *

Metropolitan Planning

Registration fees

Tax/User charges

Toll Roads

Maintenance

Funding

LocalStateCommonwealth

Road

s

Note: *Brisbane City Council provides bus services

EXHIBIT 34: NATIONAL FORUM FOR TRANSPORT

Australian Transport Council(ATC)

National Transport Commission(NTC)

Standing Committee on Transport(SCOT)

Transport Agencies Chief Executives(TACE)

SCOT AustralianPassenger Transport

Group (APTG)

SCOT SpecialWorking Groups

Other SCOT ModalGroups (Aviation,Maritime, Rail and

Road)

> Ministers

> TransportDepartment Heads

> Officials



Improvements in service levels on buses or ferries can

be hampered by old infrastructure at bus interchanges

or wharves, the responsibility for which typically lies with

Local Government.

The lack of national policy or guidelines for public transport

has a number of negative consequences; some are trivial,

but others are material. Each State implements land

use and transport policies that best suit their individual

circumstances. However, this approach has some

obvious limitations. There is no policy vehicle that links

(or even measures) public transport provision with social

disadvantage. Individual States are following different

approaches to toll roads, which directly affect traffic flows

and public transport use. Each State has adopted different

smartcard standards for new ticketing systems.

Given the changes being experienced in fossil fuel

prices, their impact on household incomes, the growing

environmental pressure on vehicle emissions and the

negative impact that car generated congestion is having

on the economy, the Commonwealth’s position with regard

to its role in public transport should be reviewed. There

are a number of important roles that the Commonwealth

can play including co-ordinating actions across the many

levels of Government. The approaches adopted in COAG

in areas such as water, health and education provide some

precedent. If it fails to help, there is a high risk of substantial

deleterious economic and social impacts on Australia.

Under-resourced National Forum

The current structure for coordinating Commonwealth

and State Government activities in public transport is

outlined in Exhibit 34:

The Australian Transport Council is composed of

Commonwealth and State Government Ministers. COAG will

refer matters of transport to the ATC for advice or resolution.

Reporting to ATC is the Standing Committee on Transport

(SCOT) comprised of the heads of transport departments,

and a number of SCOT modal groups and special working

groups. The Australia Passenger Transport Group (APTG)

is the group responsible for public transport matters.

This approach seems, at first sight, to have the

appropriate structure and scope to provide effective

national coordination for public transport. The terms of

reference for APTG (see Appendix C) indicates that this

organisation has the participation of the appropriate State

and Federal organisations (and some representation from

Local Government) and relevant roles, e.g. to lead the

development of national strategies for sustainable public

transport including identifying and clarifying the roles and

constitutions of the three levels of government.

However the APTG is under-resourced and is thus unable to

progress passenger transport issues of national significance

as quickly or thoroughly as required. APTG has minimal

staffing with most of the working groups staffed by people

who have other, full-time jobs within Commonwealth and

State departments. It meets every three to four months and

this, coupled with few dedicated staff, means slow progress

on most issues. Its decisions and recommendations are not

binding on Governments, and there is only representation

from the transport sector, not central agencies (Treasuries or

Premiers’/Cabinet departments) with a broader perspective.

By contrast, AustRoads demonstrates what can be

achieved with a well coordinated and funded national body.

AustRoads aims to be the Australasian leader in providing

high quality information and advice and fostering research

in the road sector. In 2003 some 35 national guides were

produced by AustRoads. Each describes best practices

in road development, management and planning19. Over

160 best practice guides are available from its website.

Divided Responsibilities at State Level

At the State level, too, there are instances of poor

coordination with mixed responsibilities for public transport

systems across various State Ministries and Departments

(see Exhibit 35). In some States, the responsibility for public

transport, roads, infrastructure and planning is spread

across three or even four ministers. Achieving consistency

in decision making across a number of these closely linked

portfolios is difficult when responsibilities are divided and

frequently changed.



EXHIBIT 35: MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITIES FOR TRANSPORT AND PLANNING

Public Transportation Roads Planning

NSW Minister for Trains

Infrastructure and Projects

QLD

SA

VIC

WA

Minister for Roads/Assistant Minister

for TransportMinister for PlanningMinister

for Infrastructure

Minister for Transport Minister for Planning

Treasurer and Minister forInfrastructure

Minister for Transport and Main RoadsMinister for Local

Government, Planning& Sport

Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Energy Minister of Urban Development & Planning

Minister for Planning and Infrastructure

Minister Major Projects

Source: Government websites

EXHIBIT 36: CUSTOMER MANAGEMENT ORGANISATIONS

Department ofInfrastructure

Connex

Yarra Trams

Private Buses

Ministry ofTransport

RailCorp

Sydney Buses

Sydney Ferries

Private Buses

QueenslandTransport

QueenslandRail

BrisbaneCity Council

PrivateBuses

Ferry

PublicTransportAuthority

Rail

Bus

Ferry

PrivateBuses

PublicTransportDivision

TransadelaideTrain

TransadelaideTram

PrivateBuses

VIC NSW QLD WA SA

CentralCustomer-facing Metlink None TRANSLink Transperth Adelaide Metro

Organisation

Government-owned Private

DedicatedTicketing

TransportTicketingAuthority

TcardAuthority

V/Line

Note: Metlink is 100 percent operator owned



Different Structures for Public Transport Functions

With regards to public transport, most States have a central

body that has responsibility for managing customer facing

issues (see Exhibit 36), e.g. system-wide marketing,

customer service, revenue collection, and in some cases,

contract management and route planning. Just as in

the departmental structures, responsibility areas differ

across these customer-facing organisations and dedicated

ticketing authorities. Sydney is to some extent now an outlier

without a central body responsible for ticketing, marketing,

modal integration and customer information. It is also the

only major capital city without integrated fares that allow

customers to transfer across modes without penalty. This

will be an on-going impediment to growing multi-modal

journeys until it is addressed.

1.4.2 Unfavourable Tax System (Fringe Benefits Tax)

There are taxation anomalies that provide perverse

incentives for transport. The current fringe benefits tax

system encourages the use of private transport over public

transport by effectively taxing use of company-owned

cars at a lower tax rate than public transport tickets (see

Exhibit 37). In fact, for company-owned cars, the more

kilometres driven per annum, the lower the effective

statutory fringe benefit tax rate becomes. While employer-

provided public transport tickets are always taxed at 48.5%,

the fringe benefits tax for cars can be as low as 7%. This

issue has been raised by a number of earlier reviews, but so

far the Commonwealth Government has chosen not to revise

the tax rates. In some other countries, Governments offer

tax breaks to employers or employees for the cost of public

transport tickets.

1.4.3 Approaches of Other National Governments

To contrast the “hands off” approach to passenger transport

by the Commonwealth Government in Australia, the policies

of the USA and Canadian governments were examined.

These two countries were selected because they, like

Australia, have three layers of government (Federal, State

and Local) and have some similarities in terms of urban

density, car dependence etc.

In the USA, the Federal Government has a direct role in

urban transport. It provides 25% of funding for passenger

transport, the other 75% coming from State and Local

Government.20 This funding is channelled through the

Federal Transit Administration, which receives 13% of the

total Department of Transport Budget. In 2007 the FTA will

have a budget of US$8.9bn, and funding has been growing

at around 8% annually.21 The FTA has considerable

discretion in how it allocates its funding. It supports a range

of different programs to address specific identified needs

(eg for the aged, or disabled or for non-urban areas). The

FTA supports State and Local Governments in planning and

project development, and also carries out a number of tasks

in public transport safety.

While it is not part of the FTA, the US Government

also funds the Transportation Research Board (TRB),

which is part of the National Research Council. It has

total funding of US$58m, of which $16m comes from

the Federal Government. The mission of the TRB is to

“promote innovation and progress in transportation through

research. The Board facilitates the sharing of information

on transportation practice and policy by researchers and

practitioners; stimulates research and offers research

management services that promote technical excellence;

provides expert advice on transportation policy and

programs; and disseminates research results broadly

and encourages their implementation.”22

The Canadian Government has historically had a much

smaller role in funding of public transport, but has recently

established two funds. The Canada Strategic Infrastructure

Fund seeks to establish partnerships between all levels

of Government and the private sector to invest in large

scale projects of national and regional importance.

Maximum Federal contribution is 50% of eligible costs.23

Investment categories include local transport infrastructure,

as well as other infrastructure categories (telecoms,

water etc). To date CDN$1.2bn has been invested in a

range of urban transport projects. In addition, the Green

Municipal Fund was established to stimulate environmental

projects by municipal Governments. This provides loans

of CDN$50-70m and grants of CDN$7-10m p.a.24 Finally,



there is a CDN$50m Enabling Fund for sustainable

community developments for transport and other projects.

In addition to funding, Transport Canada’s policy group

provide advice on how transportation policy issues fit within

the broader government agenda. In particular the role of

the policy group is to develop, recommend and coordinate

modal and multi-modal policies.

From the 1st July, 2006, public transit users across Canada

became eligible for a tax break on the cost of public transit.

To encourage individuals to use public transit, ease traffic

congestion in urban areas and improve the environment,

individuals can claim a non-refundable tax credit of 15.5%

for the cost of monthly or annual passes. As a result of

the transit tax credit, a transit user who spends $80 per

month on a transit pass could save about $150 for the year.

Individuals are also able to claim expenses on behalf of their

spouses and children.

These two country examples describe quite different

levels of Federal involvement in passenger transport. In

the case of the US, there is direct funding and assistance,

as well as planning support and, via TRB, research

and knowledge transfer. The Canadian Government is

providing some targeted support for infrastructure more

broadly, as well as tax breaks for public transport use

and some limited overall policy and coordination. Based

on either of these comparators, the involvement that the

Australian Commonwealth Government has in passenger

transport is insignificant. It also demonstrates that, were the

Commonwealth Government to take a more active role, a

number of mechanisms for participation would be possible,

not all requiring large funding commitments.

1.5 Concluding Remarks

In aggregate, this brief analysis presents a stark picture of

the current status of our public transport system. Significant

change will be required to deliver a vastly different level of

service to the community. One might reasonably ask “Why

bother?”. The next section deals with the case for more

focus and investment, and highlights some of the large

negative consequences of not doing so.

EXHIBIT 37: FRINGE BENEFITS TAX (CARS VS PUBLIC TRANSPORT)Statutory Percentages of FBT for Car vs PT By Annual Kilometres (2005)

Stat

utor

y FBT

Per

cent

age

Source: Australian Taxation Office

0

10

20

30

40

50

Public Transport 0–15k 15–25k 25–40k 40k+

Annual Kilometres Travelled

PT use is more highlytaxed than private

cars...

...encouraginggreater car use



heading

The Case for Public Transport |Ch.2>


2.1 Congestion

Urban road congestion is brought about by overall

economic expansion, trends in freight movements, and

changes in the travel patterns of residents. It has been

estimated that approximately half of Australia’s total urban

vehicle kilometres travelled are currently performed under

congested traffic conditions.25 Congested road conditions

contribute to increased levels of air and noise pollution

and under, the most extreme cases, reduce a city’s urban

accessibility. Congested traffic conditions can reduce

the competitiveness of a city by impeding the flows of

people and freight and its ability to attract businesses

and skilled employees.22

Australian governments have recognised the problem of

congestion. In November 2005 the Victorian Government

requested the Victorian Competition and Efficiency

Commission to conduct an inquiry into managing transport

congestion, and a draft report was published in April 2006.

At a national level, the COAG Urban Congestion Review is in

progress. This is being managed by the COAG Competition

and Regulation working group, with the involvement of

Commonwealth, State and Local governments. The review

is scheduled for completion by December 2006.

For freight hauliers, congestion adds significantly to overall

transit costs through increased travel times, more late

deliveries, and overall reduced reliability. The greater

welfare of the community is also impacted by congestion.

Congestion not only makes ‘day-to-day’ trips difficult,

but it also increases the costs of access to destination

areas in terms of time spent travelling and higher vehicle

operating costs.

Public transport systems are capable of playing a significant

role in reducing road congestion. When public transport

systems have spare capacity, they not only have the ability

to move a large number of people in a short amount of

time, but their ability to do so is less expensive than cars

in terms of externality costs and the costs avoided from

increased congestion.

2.1.1 Drivers of Congestion

Across Australia, road use has been increasing, with road

freight transport experiencing the greatest growth in road

use (see Exhibit 38). Whilst the total network of roads (i.e.

road length) barely grew between 1998 and 2003, there

were substantial increases in vehicle registrations, licensed

drivers, motor fuel consumption, vehicle kilometres travelled

and road freight transport. In fact, vehicle kilometres

travelled increased by 16.8% and road freight transport

(measured in billion tonne kilometres) increased by 34.2%

during the same time.26

Increases in road use are primarily caused by economic

prosperity, which results in increases in freight movements,

population growth and higher rates of car ownership.

Freight Innovations and Just- In-Time Processes

Road freight innovations and travel have grown substantially

over the past decade due to Australia’s strong economy.

“Just-in-time” stocking policies are now the norm and many

The Case for Public Transport

There are four main reasons that greater focus on, and investment in, public transport is important right now. This chapter describes each of these in detail.


companies are outsourcing their transport and logistic

functions. Constant restocking has increased the number

of freight trucks on the road. To stay competitive, freight

companies must offer high service level frequencies to

customers. The changing freight task has increased the total

freight kilometres travelled within Australia’s capital cities by

an average of 4.8% per year between 2000 and 2005 (see

Exhibit 39).

Increases in road based freight movements have contributed

to greater road congestion. It is currently estimated that

freight vehicles make up approximately 19% of Australia’s

capital city traffic stream.27 Whilst heavy freight vehicles

(i.e. articulated trucks) carry approximately 77% of the

freight task in terms of tonne-kms, these vehicles are not

a major contributor to peak period congestion because

they tend to travel evenly throughout the day and most

of their kilometres are in non-metropolitan areas. They

are, however, affected by metropolitan congestion. Light

commercial vehicles, on the other hand, carry 4% of the

road transport freight task, but account for the vast majority

of freight vehicles and vehicle kilometres (as opposed to

tonne kms) (see Exhibit 40). They have been estimated to

represent 15% of the total metropolitan traffic stream.28

Moving forward, light commercial vehicle freight movements

are expected to continue to add to congestion because of

their relatively heavy weighting on the traffic stream. The

Bureau of Transport and Regional Economics (BTRE)

estimates that from 2003 to 2020, the light commercial

vehicle task will grow by 3% per annum.

Increased private vehicle ownership and use is a further,

and very significant, driver of congestion. This is discussed

in some detail above in section 2.1.2.

2.1.2 Measures of Congestion

Congestion can be defined as the value of excess time and

other resource costs incurred by a vehicle and driver due

to traffic, over that which would have been incurred under

free-flow speeds. Economists often describe congestion as

a situation that develops when travellers do not bear the

full costs of their travel, including the costs imposed on

other users. A motorist entering a congested traffic stream

will not only incur higher vehicle operating costs and lost

time, but also increase the level of congestion incurred

by other motorists and hence impose costs on them. The

increase in total costs due to an additional driver entering

a traffic stream represents the marginal social cost of road

congestion. As more motorists enter a road space, the

rate at which congestion costs rise increases exponentially

because the average speed of traffic on the road slows at

an ever increasing rate.

There are several ways to measure the occurrence of

congestion. Austroads monitors both average travel speeds

and delays per kilometre to establish congestion levels

across Australia.

As shown in Exhibit 41, average travel speeds from 1999

to 2005 in the urban areas of New South Wales, Victoria

and South Australia all decreased during the morning

peak period. In the case of NSW substantial investment

in toll roads occurred over this period. These States, and

Queensland, also showed decreases in travel speeds during

the evening peak over the same time period.

Traffic delays have increased across Australia as well.

Measurement of delays (Exhibit 42) shows increasing

congestion in both morning and evening peaks for urban

areas in all States except WA. Based on this data, as well

as the perception of the travelling public, it seems clear

that congestion is getting worse in Australia’s largest

urban areas.29

2.1.3 Costs of Congestion

There are a number of ways to measure the costs of

congestion. Perhaps the simplest approach is to compare

observed traffic speeds with those that would have occurred

under free-flow traffic conditions. From this analysis, a

congestion penalty can be determined, comprising the

additional journey time, extra fuel consumed and additional

emissions generated.

The results of such analysis indicate that road congestion

is very expensive. It has been estimated that the cost of

time lost due to congestion is about 2% of GDP for the

OECD countries. If fuel and other costs are included,

the cost of congestion approaches 3% of GDP.30 Costs



EXHIBIT 38: ROAD USE TRENDSTotal Australia Indicators of Road Use (1998–03)

Perc

ent i

nc re

ase

0

10

20

30

40

Road Length Population VehicleRegistrations

LicensedDrivers

Motor FuelConsumption

Vehicle KMsTravelled1

Road FreightTransport2

Source: Austroads, Road Facts 2005

1.2

5.3

9.1 9.3

15.316.8

34.2

EXHIBIT 39: URBAN ROAD FREIGHTTotal Freight Kilometres Travelled, Within State Capital Cities (2000–05)

Billi

ons

of K

M

Source: ABS Survey of Motor Vehicle Use

22

19191818

17

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

2000 01 02 03 04 05

CAGR%(2000–05)

Total 4.8



EXHIBIT 40: ROAD FREIGHT ACTIVITY BY VEHICLE TYPEVehicle Share of Road Freight (2004)

Perc

ent

Projected growth(tonne km)2003-2020

4.3% pa

1.3% pa

3.0% pa

Rigid

LightCommercialVehicles

Note: Vehicles with a mass of up to 3.5 tonnes are classified as Light Commercial Vehicles. Vehicles with a massgreater than 5.5 tonnes are classified as Rigid Trucks

Source: ABS, Survey of Motor Vehicle Use, October 2004; BTRE, Freight Measurement and Modelling in Australia, March 2006

Articulated

0

20

40

60

80

100

Billions of Tonne Millions of Vehicles Billions of Vehicleskm km

121.2

341.9

6.07.6

0.10.4

29.8

6.6

157.7 2.4 47.7

EXHIBIT 41: AVERAGE TRAVEL SPEEDS IN PEAK HOURAverage Travel Speed, Urban Areas (1999 and 2005)Morning Peak Evening Peak

KM/H

our

KM/H

our

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

N S W V IC Q L D W A S A0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

N S W V IC Q L D W A S A

1999

2005

Source: Austroads

1999

2005



0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

N S W V IC Q L D W A S A0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

N S W V IC Q L D W A S A

EXHIBIT 42: DELAY TIMESMinutes of Delay per KM Travelled, Urban Areas (1999 and 2005)Morning Peak Evening Peak

Min

utes

/KM

Min

utes

/KM

Source: Austroads

1999

2005

1999

2005

EXHIBIT 43: COST OF CONGESTIONCongestion Costs as a % of GDP1 (2001 Estimate)

Perc

ent

0

1

2

3

4

5

Australia2 United States Western Europe Korea3 OECD Average4

~2.6

Note: 1 For Australia, The BTE states that congestion measures the cost of lost time and “other resources”.2 The BTE estimated congestion costs in Australia for 1995 and 2015. The 2001 congestion cost was determined by applying a linear growth

3 1997 Estimate;4 2003 Estimate

rate. This congestion cost was converted to 2001 dollars and divided by Australia’s GDP for 2001; 3 1997 Estimate; 4 2003 Estimate

Source: Australian statistics from BTE Information Sheet 14; ABS; Statistics from other countries from Deloitte Research’s paper Combating Gridlock

~1.5~1.9 ~2.0

Congestion Cost(Billions)

~$16.5

~4.4

~3.0

Congestion cost isapproximately 3% of GDP

when fuel is added



vary considerably from one country to another; estimates

show that congestion in the United States costs about

1.5% of GDP compared with 4.4% of GDP for Korea

(see Exhibit 43).31

There have been a number of measures of the costs

of congestion in Australia.32 The Bureau of Transport

Economics (BTE) estimated congestion costs for Australia’s

six largest cities to be about $13 billion in 1995 and rising

to almost $30 billion by 2015 (Exhibit 44). More recently,

the Centre for International Economics analysed congestion

costs in Sydney, suggesting that the cost would rise from

$12 billion in 2005 to over $16 billion by 2020.

Exhibit 44 also describes the estimated cost of congestion

on freight. In Australia, the BTE estimates that freight

vehicles bear approximately 25% of the total cost of

congestion, or approximately $3 billion in 1995, rising

to $7.5 billion in 2015.33

It should be acknowledged that the congestion costs used

above are measures of the total cost of congestion, i.e.

the cost relative to that under conditions of free-flowing

traffic. In practice, this is an upper limit since as the level

of congestion that is acceptable is likely to be much higher

than that of free-flowing traffic.

2.1.4 Implications of Congestion

Business

Road congestion adversely affects business productivity

across Australia. Poor on-time deliveries by freight haulers

have created a higher operating cost environment for

businesses on the receiving end of freight deliveries.

In VCEC’s 2006 report on congestion, the cost of delay

per hour to businesses receiving goods was estimated

at, “…$21 per hour for light commercial vehicle use,

to nearly $450 per hour for heavy freight vehicles…”17.

To compensate for unreliable services, businesses are

reverting to less efficient production scheduling processes

and keeping higher inventory levels than would otherwise

be recommended under ‘just-in-time’ practices. This is

especially the case for deliveries with perishable goods,

deliveries of goods that are difficult to warehouse, and

deliveries of goods that are subject to rapid changes in value.

Aside from bearing high congestion costs, freight companies

are also facing additional operating costs as a result of

congestion. In order to increase delivery reliability, freight

companies have started to add vehicles and drivers to their

fleet in order to extend hours of operation and compensate

for longer travel times. This has resulted in freight haulers

with higher unit costs.34

Lastly, businesses suffer when employees face long

commuting times or delays. Additional time spent

commuting eats into either work or personal time, directly

or indirectly affecting employee productivity.

The full economic cost of road congestion may not be

included in the measurement approaches used by

Austroads and other agencies.

Social Costs of Congestion

Long commuting times in cars can also cause stress

(sometimes expressed as “road rage”), increased social

isolation, reduced productivity at work and loss of time

available for family and community life.

According to research by the Australia Institute,35 about one

in three Sydney fathers in full-time work, with children under

15 years, spend an average of eight hours and 17 minutes a

week travelling to work but only three hours and 44 minutes

with their children.

Public Transport Operators and Other

Metropolitan Factors

Road congestion also affects some public transport

operations, viz. tram and bus companies, in terms of

average vehicle speed and on-time performance. This was

discussed previously in section 1.3.6.

2.1.5 Possible Solutions to Congestion

There are a number of approaches that have been adopted,

or which are under active consideration, to manage road

congestion, i.e. to reduce it to “acceptable” levels. Most

of these approaches rely on changing demand for travel

(the number of trips, the mode, the timing of the trips,

etc.), although there are some supply-side initiatives that

warrant consideration.



Transportation Demand Management (TDM) is a broad term

covering a range of mechanisms that, in the simplest way,

share a common objective, namely to limit or discourage

car use particularly in peak hours. There are other broader

definitions of TDM, such as that of Litman who defines

TDM as “a general term for strategies and programmes

that encourage more efficient use of transport resources

(road and parking space, vehicle capacity, funding, energy,

etc.)”.36 It is useful to consider these methods in six

categories suggested by the Washington State Department

of Transport.37

1. Support for alternative modes; generally government or

employer-sponsored programs to encourage the shift to

public transport

2. Employer-initiated programs, to encourage employees to

change their commuting patterns

3. Land use planning; use of government planning tools to

change travel patterns

4. Programme and policy support; the use of range of non-

price mechanisms, e.g. regulations, to ration the use of

congested roads

5. Telecommunications; the use of telecommunications

(e.g. teleworking) as an enabler to change travel patterns

6. Pricing; the use of price tools to change traveller’s

behaviour

These approaches are discussed in some more detail

below, but it should be noted that a comprehensive

program of TDM is likely to incorporate a combination

of these methods.

Support for Alternative Modes

An essential feature of this approach is public education and

promotion necessary to effect behavioural change. Specific

initiatives can include support for non-motorised travel

(cycling and walking), promotion of the health benefits,

supply-side initiatives such as dedicated bike paths and

cooperation with special interest groups (such as Bicycle

EXHIBIT 44: AUSTRALIAN CONGESTION COSTSAustralia’s Congestion Cost by Vehicle Type1 “Cost of Lost Time”

Billi

ons

of D

olla

rs

Note: 1 BTE estimated congestion costs in Australia for 1995 & 2015. This was computed by applying a uniform congestion cost rate to total kilometrestravelled by each vehicle type (Congestion rate for Rigids was applied 2x for every kilometre and for Articulated 3x for every kilometre)

Source: BTE Information Sheet 14; BTCE Congestion Report 1996

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1995E 2015E

CAGR%(1995-15)

4.2

5.04.6

5.2

4.0

Total

ArticulatedRigid

LightCommercialVehicles

PersonalVehicles



Organisations). Promoting and developing extra capacity

for park-and-ride is another way to encourage mode shift,

particularly for outer suburban commuters. A variant of

mode shift is the use of van pools, where a group (typically

seven to fifteen) commute together on a regular basis in a

van. The vehicle is driven by one of the commuters and is

generally rented or leased from private sector companies.

Alternatively it can be a van used for business purposes

during the day, and for transport morning and evening.

This is considerably cheaper than the cost of single car

travel. In addition, some transport authorities allow such

vehicles to travel in special road lanes (High Occupancy

Vehicle (HOV) lanes), with an associated benefit of reduced

travel time. This is not strictly public transport, but certainly

provides some of the benefits (reduced congestion, lower

per capita travel costs, reduced pollution per capita) of

public transport. It is perhaps worth repeating that an

implicit assumption of alternative mode support, and all the

other TDM measures, is that there must be a real, attractive

public transport alternative for travellers to shift use.

Employer Initiated Programs

There is much that employers can do to change entrenched,

car-based commuting patterns. Perhaps the simplest is to

offer alternative or variable work hours that allow employees

to avoid travelling in prime peak hours. The benefits can

be manifested in two ways, (1) the employee can travel to

and from work by public transport and gain some benefits

(less crowding, more likelihood of a seat, off-peak fares) as

does the public transport system in terms of increased peak

capacity, or (2) the employee can travel by car outside the

peak, with reduced transit times, reduced congestion and

decreased vehicle emissions.

Employees can also assist with ride-matching or ride-

sharing services, essentially a variation of vanpooling or car

sharing which is based at a single workplace. An extension

of the single work-site approach is that provided by Travel

Management Associations (TMAs), which can be described

as private, member-controlled organisations that provide

transport services in a particular geographical area such

as a town centre, an industrial estate, new development

or public transport corridor.38

The advantages of TMAs are that they can offer scale

advantages (and greater cost effectiveness), accountability

and a focus for change. They are usually set up on a not-for-

profit basis and their directors often include representatives

of local government, transport operators and the business

community. There are more than 150 TMAs in the USA and

they are being introduced into the UK.

Property owners and developers also have a role, most

obviously in the provision of work-site amenities such as

bike racks, showers and lockers for cyclists, walkers and

runners. Given the low economic yield of car parking space

(relative to retail, commercial or industrial space) it is in

developers interest to minimise the number of necessary car

parks by encouraging vanpooling, ridesharing and similar

initiatives (by, for example, offering undercover or otherwise

privileged parking).

Land Use Planning

An effective, although necessarily longer term, approach

is to use controls, i.e. planning for land use, to make explicit

consideration of transport needs. Planning authorities’

decisions on urban population density, on the mix of land

use and on the resulting urban design can affect travel

patterns. As discussed earlier, higher population densities

favour both public transport alternatives to private cars

and also the nearby development of related services,

e.g. schools, shops, community and health centres.

Urban design considerations are also important, and

planning authorities can, and should, encourage bike

and walking paths for commuters and school children in

particular, and appropriate access to transport facilities,

including park-and-ride.

Effective land use planning requires both good policy and

more importantly, incentives for implementing the policy at

all levels of Government. For example, it is one thing to set a

good policy about parking or urban infill, it is another to see

this actually delivered through completed developments at

a local level. This requires significant political will to achieve

and sometimes comes at a cost to individual stakeholders

(e.g. landowners and developers).



Programme and Policy Support:

The most obvious of these strategies are those that

encourage vanpooling and ride-matching, such as the

declaration (and enforcement) of HOV lanes and priority

parking for such pooling arrangements. Other actions which

can discourage single car use are reducing (or eliminating)

road-side parking and declaring certain streets off-limits

for private vehicles. Another approach that has been tried

with some success is the use of trip reduction programs,

generally directed at large employers and developers

in congested areas to help them (through a range of

incentives and controls) to encourage mode shift or a

reduction in car trips. An example of this is the program

undertaken in Washington State, USA (the Washington State

Commuter Trip Reduction Legislation). Between 1993 and

1998 this indicated a reduction of 1 to 4% in regional

vehicle miles travelled and up to 8% in the use of single

occupied vehicles.39

Telecommunications

This category could perhaps be regarded as an “enabler”

for the other approaches discussed above, viz. that greater

use of telecommunications can reduce, or change the

demand for, travel. Some examples of this would be the use

of broadband-based internet to allow employees to work

from home (“telework”) and for householders to shop from

home (“teleshop”). Another is providing access to detailed,

real-time information on travel conditions and congestion

(on road and public transport networks) and on timetables

so that travellers can make rational solutions. However,

it should be noted that the evidence for the impact of

telecommunications is not conclusive. Moreover, there is

little that governments or specifically arms of government

responsible for transport and land use planning, can do to

affect the use of teleworking or teleshopping.

Pricing

There are many ways to provide financial incentives (or,

perhaps more likely, disincentives) to encourage changes

in travel behaviour. Subsidies for vanpooling are clear

examples of providing an incentive, but ones which must

be funded, generally by an arm of government. The range

of disincentives is also clear, covering, for example, the

imposition of additional taxes on automotive fuel and raising

the price of both on-street parking and commercial car

parks. Road (or congestion) pricing, which seeks to set the

cost of transport closer to the full (economic and social) cost

is a topic which merits further analysis and is discussed

more fully below.

Passenger Transportation Demand Management—

Application

Travel Demand Management (TDM) features as a

component in most States’ metropolitan transportation

strategies. Governments generally recognise the arguments

for TDM and have made some broad policy objectives.

Nevertheless, it seems reasonable to say that, despite the

good intentions, there has not been much real progress.

There has, for example, been little or no effort placed

on encouraging vanpooling or ride-matching, and, with

the exception of the VCEC inquiry into congestion, the

consideration of road pricing seems to be a long way

off. This reflects, in part, the real political difficulties of

implementing change.

On the other hand, the TravelSmart programs have shown

promising returns in Perth and Melbourne. The TravelSmart

program educates people in their homes, work places,

schools and universities about environmentally sustainable

ways to travel, in particular directed at reducing single

vehicle occupancy travel.

An example of a more comprehensive approach is that of

Washington State’s Commuter Trip Reduction (CTR) Law.

This combined elements of three strategies discussed

above, viz. alternative mode support, worksite change and

telecommunications. It involves collaboration between

local jurisdictions and employers, under which the State’s

nine most populated counties were required to adopt

CTR and support local employers in implementing CTR.

Programs include:

> Subsidies for transit fees

> Flexible work schedules

> Telework opportunities



The results of the program were encouraging. The

proportion of single occupancy commuters dropped from

70.8% in 1993 to 65.7% in 2005. The Washington State

Authorities estimate the overall benefit of 20,000 fewer car

trips each weekday, with the resulted annual reduction

of 5.8 million gallons of fuel consumed, of 74,000 tons

of GHG emissions and 3,700 tons of other air pollutants.

A significant reduction in traffic congestion in the morning

peak was also noted (almost 12% across the region).40

Implementation of Road Pricing Schemes

This section describes different approaches to road pricing,

which can be broadly defined as charging a fee (or imposing

a financial cost) on road users for driving on a specific

section of road or on roads in a specified area. There are

a number of ways for categorizing road pricing schemes41

and the table below provides a common categorisation

(see Exhibit 45).

It should be noted that there are some variations in

definition, i.e. sometimes a distinction is made between a

cordon charge (i.e. one imposed for entering a specified

area) and an area-based charge which is imposed for

driving within a specified area. It is also important to notice

the distinctions in objectives in the table, between reducing

congestion and raising revenue. For the purposes of this

study, the discussion will be largely confined to road pricing

aimed at reducing the congestion, i.e. congestion pricing

and cordon fees.

The rationale for road pricing is simple, namely to set

the price for travelling on roads so that it reflects the full

economic costs, including congestion, environmental and

health effects. Road users, it is argued, can only make

economically rational decisions when faced with the full

cost of the various options, including travel by private car.

It should be noted that some of the externality costs (such

as health effects) are likely to vary proportionally with

distance travelled, but congestion costs do not since they

are very dependent on time and location, e.g. the inner-

city, morning commuter peak. Accordingly, many cities are

investigating the potential use of time-and-location-based

charging schemes using on-vehicle transponders and

remote, automated recording equipment.

Despite this enthusiasm and the (apparent) availability

of suitable technology, there have been no full-scale

implementations of such fully-variable congestion pricing,

although some are planned. There have been five

fully operational road pricing schemes that have been

evaluated, those in London, Europe, Singapore and three

Norwegian cities.

The main conclusions from the evaluation were that the

London scheme was most successful in that the volume

of road traffic declined materially. There was a substantial

increase in public transport usage and bus service quality

improved because of reduced road congestion. There

did not seem to be any damage done to the economy of

London (the impact was broadly neutral) and the attitude

of the business community and the general public living in

and near London was significantly more positive after the

scheme was introduced than it was beforehand. It seems

reasonable to conclude that the Singapore program was

successful in increasing mode shift to public transport, but it

was difficult to draw conclusion about more recent initiatives

such as fully automated charging technology and changes

to charges and hours. The impact of the initiatives in the

three Norwegian studies was, in contrast, relatively minor.

A full analysis is available.42

Other price-based approaches have been tried in the USA.

These generally involve employing financial incentives

to manage freeway traffic congestion and have been

briefly evaluated.43 In general, it appears that the various

approaches have had some meaningful impact on

travel patterns.

It can be concluded that there are a range of measures that

can be used to manage road congestion and that pricing

is a tool worthy of serious consideration. However, it seems

clear that (1) there is no “silver bullet”, (2) city-specific

solutions are required, (3) a mix of price and non-price

measures is generally required and (4) the practical and

political complexities should not be underestimated.

Supply Side Policies

There are a number of supply side initiatives that can

complement the various TDM options outlined above.

These include:



EXHIBIT 45: TYPES OF ROAD USE PRICING

To raise revenue and reduceimpacts of vehicle use

A vehicle use fee based on how many miles a vehicle isdriven

Distance-based fees

To favour HOVs compared with ageneral-purpose lane, and toraise revenues from singleoccupancy vehicles using theHOT lanes

A high-occupancy-vehicle (HOV) lane that accommodateslower-occupant vehicles for a fee

Highoccupancytoll lanes

(HOT)

To reduce congestion in majorurban centres

Fees charged for driving in a particular areaCordon fees

To raise revenue and reducetraffic congestion

A fee that is higher under congested conditions thanuncongested conditions, intended to shift some vehicletraffic to other routes, times and modes

Congestionpricing (time

variable)

To raise revenueA fixed fee for driving on a particular roadRoad toll(fixed rates)

Description Objectives

Source: Making the Right Choices: Options for Managing Transport Congestion; VCEC, April 2006

EXHIBIT 46: PROJECTED OIL PRICESProjected Oil Prices (2005–2010 Estimate)

Oil P

rice

(US$

/bar

rel)

Source: Monthly Oil Survey (2006): International Energy Agency

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

2005 06E 07E 08E 09E 10E

CAGR%(2005–10E)

12.9



> provision of more, and more secure, parking facilities

near railway stations generally and of specifi c park-and-

ride facilities in particular

> development of bike paths and dedicated road lanes to

encourage more cyclists; and

> creation of more bus lanes and HOV lanes on motorways

Such initiatives are particularly important for achieving the

desired outcomes and reducing negative sentiment.

In summary, there are many possible approaches for

tackling congestion, and a combination of strategies is

going to be required to avoid the negative economics

consequences of growing congestion in our cities. Strategies

that reduce the amount of travel will have neglible impact

on the demand for public transport. However those

strategies that seek to change use of modes, as in London,

require that the public transport systems are capable of

dealing with the influx of patrons that occurs. Investment

in public transport alone will not ease congestion, but it

will be an essential part of implementation of many of the

strategies that will.

2.2 Fuel Use and Related Effects

In Australia, crude oil prices have increased significantly in

recent years (of the order of 19% per year in nominal terms

between 1998 and 2004).44 While there is considerable

disagreement about the future direction of oil prices, some

commentators believe that oil prices will rise further in the

future (see Exhibit 46).

This increase in the price of fuel has led to

significant increase in usage of public transport, as

described previously.

Analysis from Germany indicates the effect of fuel price

changes on transport usage. As Exhibit 47 indicates, rising

fuel prices caused a significant modal shift from car to

public transport for the school and work commuting tasks.

The other notable observation is that leisure and holiday

traffic declined, but with much less modal shift.

Recent work by Professor Graham Currie of Monash

indicates that a rise of 10% in fuel prices appears to

generate an increase of 4.5% in heavy rail use (a cross

elasticity of 0.45).45 The results for bus and trams were

lower. It also suggests that elasticity in peak periods may be

higher again. If these relationships continue to hold as fuel

prices rise, this will place significant additional demand on

public transport, and on rail in particular.

Public transport, and rail in particular, is vastly more fuel

efficient than private cars. This is illustrated in Exhibit 48.

It is important to note that the impact of high fuel prices falls

disproportionately on those in the outer metropolitan areas

(Exhibit 49).

Fuel price rises will compound the economic problems of

those in outer metropolitan areas. Many marginal seats are

located on the outskirts of cities in the so-called mortgage

belt and play a crucial role in deciding federal elections.

People in these areas are vulnerable to both interest-rate

and fuel rises46.

In short, increased use of public transport is a sensible

alternative to private car transport under conditions of high

fuel price. However, this is likely to require (1) increased

system capacity to handle those who switch modes, and (2)

new services for suburbs, particularly in outer metropolitan

areas, that are at present poorly served by public transport.

This is discussed further in Section 2.4 below.

2.3 Environment and Health

There is now widespread acceptance that average global

temperatures are rising and that human-generated CO2

emissions are the cause. Policy makers around the world

have largely accepted the scientific evidence, and are

actively debating and or implementing measures to reduce

carbon emissions and avoid the more catastrophic impacts

of global warming. Australia accounts for 1.5% of global

CO2 emissions, but has one of the highest overall rates of

greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions per capita, as indicated

in Exhibit 50.

Similarly it has high per capita emissions for transport

activities, as indicated in Exhibit 51.

Australian GHG emissions from transport grew by 16%

between 1990 and 2000 and are expected to grow about

seven times the overall rate up to 2020.47



EXHIBIT 47: FUEL PRICE ELASTICITYElasticities of Automobile and Public Transport Trips to a 10% increase in Fuel Price in Germany (1995)

(25) (20) (15) (10) (5) 0 5 10 15 20 25

OverallHolidayLeisure

ShoppingBusiness

SchoolWork

OverallHolidayLeisure

ShoppingBusiness

SchoolWork

Percentage Change in Number of Trips

Source: Storchman, K. The impact of fuel taxes on public transport- an empirical assessment for Germany (2000)

Automotive

Public Transport

EXHIBIT 48: ENERGY USE BY MODEEnergy Use per Passenger Kilometre, Australia and New Zealand 1995

Note: 1 Estimate comes from 1999 and comes from a measure of energy efficiency in urban areasSource: PATREC – Transport Energy Use and Greenhouse Gases in Urban Passenger Transport Systems; Sustainable Transportation and Global

Cities by Peter Newman, CES, Commuter Transport

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

PrivateTransport

PublicTransport

Bus Tram Suburban Rail Car

2.9

0.50.4

1.7

0.9

2.6

MJ o

f ene

rgy /

pass

. KM



EXHIBIT 49: FUEL PRICE SENSITIVITYEffect of Change in Petrol Prices on Weekly Fuel Spend on Work Travel by Individual (2006)

Dolla

rs

0

10

20

30

40

Melbourne Outer Suburbs Melbourne Inner City

Note: *Assuming average fuel price of 119c/LSource: ‘Transport and Liveability—The Path to a Sustainable Victoria (PTUA), ABS, Motormouth

Weekly petrolcost at currentprices*

Weekly petrolcost at 20%higher fuel prices

INDICATIVE

EXHIBIT 50: PER CAPITA GREENHOUSE EMISSIONSGreenhouse Gas Emissions/Capita (Selected Countries) (2002)

Mill

ions

of T

onne

s CO

2 Equ

ival

ent p

er C

apita

Source: UN Statistical Data Centre

0

5

10

15

20

25

30 Australia

Australia

OECD members

Non-OECD countries



EXHIBIT 51: TRANSPORT EMISSIONSTransport CO2 Emissions per Capita (1990)

KG/p

erso

n

Note: 1 Peter Newman report uses Toronto instead of Canadian cities because Toronto is most like the cities inthe other counties listedSource: Sustainable Transportation and Global Cities by Peter Newman

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

US Australia Toronto1 Europe Wealth Asian Dev. Asian

EXHIBIT 52: EMISSIONS BY SOURCESources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Australia (2004)

Perc

ent

Source: Australian Greenhouse Office, “Australian Greenhouse Gas Inventory 2004”; BTRE, “Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Australian Transport”

0

20

40

60

80

100

All Greenhouse Gas Emmissions Transport Greenhouse Gas Emmissions2

Stationary Energy

Agriculture

Transport

Industrial ProcessesFugitive Emissions

Land UseWaste

Cars & Motorcycles

Trucks

Civil Aviation Shipping

Rail

Buses



EXHIBIT 53: MORTALITY AND MORBIDITYAssociated Mortality in Australia Associated Mortality1 in Australiadue to Motor Vehicle Air Pollution (2000) due to Motor Vehicle Air Pollution (2000)

Mor

talit

y Est

imat

e

Mor

bidi

ty E

stim

ate

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

N S W V IC Q L D S A W A

Note: 1 Morbidity includes cardio-vascular disease, respiratory disease, and bronchitisSource: BTRE Estimates (Health Impacts of Transport Emissions in Australia, published by DOTARS)

CapitalCity

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

N S W V IC Q L D S A W A

Capital City

NonCapitalCity

NonCapitalCity

EXHIBIT 54: AIR POLLUTANT EXPOSUREExposure to Air Pollutants by Commuting Mode, Sydney Sample Pool1 (2004)

Parts

per

Bill

ion

0

20

40

60

80

100

Car Bus Cycle Train Walk

Note: 1 A sample of 44 participants who commuted to work using one of the five modes of transportwas recruited for the study. Participants were required to travel for a minimum of 30 minutesand follow specific instructions when using the BTEX sampler tube and NO2 (Nitrogen dioxide) sampler

Source: Health Promotion Journal of Australia 2004, Air Pollution Exposure for Five Commuting Modes

NO2

XylenesEthylbenzene

Toluene

Benzene



Private motor vehicles comprise the largest single source

of transport-related GHG emissions (Exhibit 52). In this

context, it should be noted that the lower GHG emissions

of public transport reflects its greater fuel efficiency (see

Exhibit 48 above).

It should also be noted that fuel combustion (i.e. electricity

generation) and transport are two major groupings of

GHG emissions where (1) there are some degrees of

freedom for government to act, and (2) some prospects

of making short-medium term reductions through energy

efficiency and behavioural change. Reductions in GHG

emissions in agriculture and industry are likely to be more

difficult to achieve and come with significant, negative

economic impact.

GHG reduction initiatives in transport can focus on fuel

economy and on voluntary agreements with industry to

improve vehicle efficiency. The introduction of fuel taxes or

road pricing designed to reduce emissions (and congestion)

could provide new funds to be re-invested in growing the

capacity of public transport systems.

Ambient air pollution caused by motor vehicles is also a

major health problem. As Exhibit 53 illustrates, in 2000

such pollution was the cause of an estimated 2,700 cases of

morbidity and an estimated 1,400 cases of premature death.

The main causative factors were cardio-vascular problems,

bronchitis and other respiratory diseases.

Not surprisingly, the impact of this pollution was much

greater in the capital cities. The cost of the death and

disease that can be attributed to motor vehicle pollution

is very significant, of the order of AU$2.9 to AU$3.9billion

in 2000.48 Of this amount, just over 70% is due to

mortality effects.

A switch to public transport would have beneficial health

outcomes. The results of a recent study in Sydney illustrates,

(Exhibit 54), exposure to air pollution is lowest for train travel

and significantly lower for cyclists and walkers. Bus travellers

shared overall exposure levels similar to car travellers,

although with lower levels of volatile organic compounds.

In addition to less pollution exposure, public transport also

helps promote a healthier lifestyle. Taking public transport

requires more physical activity at the beginning and end of

a trip than does private motor vehicle use. public transport

or cycling to work is a good way to obtain regular exercise,

the benefits of which include a 50% reduction in the risk of

developing a coronary heart disease, the risk of developing

adult diabetes and the risk of becoming obese.49

Physical inactivity is associated with high direct health costs

which are conservatively estimated at around $400 million

per year in Australia. Additionally, diseases of inactivity are

now the biggest killer of women and second only to smoking

for men.50

There are a wide range of studies that estimate the costs of

transport modes, incorporating one or both of direct costs

or externalities. Three examples of such comparisons are

shown in Exhibit 55, 56 and 57. Calculating the full cost

of the externalities is complex, and will differ significantly

between countries and cities. While the magnitude of cost

estimates in the diagrams below differ significantly, in each

case the full cost of private car use is substantially higher

than that of public transport.

2.4 Social Exclusion

There are a number of sections of Australian society that

are particularly reliant on public transport. Such people risk

social exclusion if the available public transport services are

inadequate (e.g. too infrequent or inappropriate for special

needs). Social exclusion results when a person lacks a set

of services and opportunities available to other parts of the

population, decreasing that person’s ability to participate

successfully in society.

There are three broad groups who are at risk of social

exclusion. They are:

The Disabled; since many disabled individuals cannot drive,

public transport and personal hire transport are the only

options to make trips; effective public transport provides a

cost effective way for the disabled to travel

The Elderly; while elderly people value the independence

that the car can provide, their ability to drive safely

diminishes as they get older (through impaired vision and

hearing, slower reaction times, etc). Accordingly, they must

then rely on public transport for affordable, independent

transport. The alternatives are relatively expensive taxis



EXHIBIT 55: PASSENGER TRANSPORT EXTERNALITY COSTSPassenger Transport Externality Costs1 (2005)

Dolla

rs/1

,000

Pas

seng

er k

ms

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Rail Bus Car

Note: 1 Externality cost estimation based on INFRA’s estimation of externality cost for 17 European countries Source: INFRAS

Nature and LandscapeClimate Change

Air Pollution

Noise

Accidents

INDICATIVE

Urban EffectsUpstream Process

Considered a separate type of costsince a large portion of the extra timeand operating costs are internal tothe individual

Congestion

Includes miscellaneous costs suchas other types of pollution

UpstreamProcess

Time losses incurred by pedestriansUrban Effects

Additional costs to repair damagesNature andLandscape

Damages of global warmingClimate Change

Damages of human health andbiosphere

Air Pollution

Includes opportunity costs of landvalue and human health

Noise

Includes opportunity costs and costsof suffering for individuals not inthe accident

Assumptions

Accidents

Externality Cost

~160

~74

~35

EXHIBIT 56: TOTAL COST OF TRANSPORTTotal costs by mode–NZ (Auckland–Peak)

NZ c

ents

per

Pas

seng

er K

ilom

etre

93.773.1

57.6 58.7

34.8

34.9

24.9

17.5

46.2

10.1

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Car Car Car Bus Rail

Source: Surface Transport Costs and Charges, NZ Ministry of Transport

128.6

98

75.1

104.9

44.9

(1.0) (2.0)(1.4)

ResourceCosts

Externalities

VehicleOccupancy



EXHIBIT 57: COSTS OF TRANSPORT IN SYDNEYAllocation of costs by mode

Cent

s pe

r Pas

seng

er K

ilom

etre

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

CityRail State TransitBuses

Private Buses Total PublicTransport

Car

Note: Immediate cost to user includes petrol, paid parking and tolls (for cars) and fares (for publictransport); Perceived cost to government includes direct subsidies; Other costs are “hidden”; including externalities

Source: Glazebrook (2006)

Immediatecost to user

Hidden costto user

Perceivedcost togovernment

Hidden costto society

10

28

2

22

21

5

20

21

5

14

26

3

13

32

2

34

EXHIBIT 58: VEHICLE OWNERSHIP AND INCOMEPercentage of Dwellings with No Motor Vehicle by Weekly Household Income, Sydney (2001)

Perc

ent o

f Hou

seho

lds

0

5

10

15

20

25

Under $300 $300–499 $500–699 $700–999 $1,000–1,499 $1,500+

Average Weekly Household Income

Source: Anne Hurni (UWS) ‘Transport and Social Exclusion’ NCOSS Conference (October 2005)

INDICATIVE24

22.5

1312

8 8



and, if available, community provided services or assistance

from friends or family. Even parts of the cities which are

well served by public transport (in terms of high service

frequencies within reasonable proximity) can be effectively

inaccessible to the elderly and disabled. This inaccessibility

relates largely to tram and bus modes, but also to stations

without escalators or lifts. For example only about 15%

of Melbourne’s tram network is accessible, by virtue of

the new, low-floor trams and super-stops. An associated

difficulty for the aged and disabled is being able to get from

the footpath to tram stops in the middle, as opposed to an

edge, of the road.

Low Income Groups; this is a large category (and will

overlap with some of the elderly and disabled groups

discussed above). It will include the unemployed, single-

parent families and students. The relationship between low

household income and dependency on public transport

is quite marked. Based on data from Sydney (Exhibit 58),

20 to 25% of the households in the two lower income bands

(below $500 per week) have no car, compared to 8 to 13%

for the higher income bands

The lack of accessibility to transport (both private and

public) is a significant barrier for unemployed people to

gain work, especially in the outer metropolitan (and non-

metropolitan) areas.

There is a vicious cycle for the unemployed; no job means

no money; no money means no transport which means

no job. This impact is particularly important for those in

the outer metropolitan areas. A recent study in Victoria

for the Brotherhood of St. Lawrence indicated that about

14% of the long-term unemployed in outer metropolitan

areas cited lack of transport as a major factor in preventing

employment, compared to about 4% for inner metropolitan

residents.51 This finding is consistent with an earlier study

looking at job accessibility in Melbourne (Exhibit 59), which

illustrates the much poorer accessibility to potential jobs for

those reliant on public transport.

It is not surprising, then, that measures of disadvantage

(See Exhibit 60) are greater in outer metropolitan (and

non-metropolitan) areas, where public transport services

are generally poor.

Finally, from an economic perspective, there are benefits

for employers in having a workforce that has ready access

to transport for travel to work. Better service coverage will

create a broader pool of employees than would otherwise

be available, and reduce required commuting times for staff.

2.5 Concluding Remarks

Australia is a very urbanised society; approximately half the

population live in the three, Eastern-seaboard capital cities.

For the metropolitan economies, increasing reliance on road

transport and the resultant congestion will impose significant

economic costs.

In summary a number of economic and social benefits can

be generated by investing in metropolitan public transport

systems. Better public transport will:

> reduce congestion; Increased investment in public

transport systems can help reduce congestion costs,

reduce the amount of kilometres driven in congested

conditions, and help to free up road space for freight

> reduce reliance on fuel; public transport uses much less

fuel per passenger kilometre than private vehicles

> reduce transport pollution; Public transport modes are far

more energy effi cient than personal cars. Public transport

modes emit less greenhouse gases per passenger

kilometre as well as require far less energy (fuel) per

passenger kilometre

> increase Community health; Increases in public transport

modal share will positively impact community health.

Public transport requires more physical activity than

driving a car does (i.e. walking from public transport stop

to house etc) and causes less stress than driving a car

does (e.g. no “road rage”); and

> prevent social exclusion; Effective public transport

diminishes geographic isolation and improves access to

employment and education for all individuals, regardless

of their socio-economic background. Better accessibility

also has an economic benefi t by increasing the number

of people able to more easily participate in the workforce.



EXHIBIT 59: ACCESSIBILITY OF EMPLOYMENT

By Car By Public Transport

<3% of jobs 3-25% of jobs >25% of jobsSource: Melbourne 2030—Planning for Sustainable Growth

Percentage of Jobs Accessible Within 40 Mins of Travel, Victoria (1996)

EXHIBIT 60: DISADVANTAGE IN SUBURBAN MELBOURNE

Source: Melbourne 2030—Planning for Sustainable Growth

Melbourne—Areas of Relative Disadvantage (1996)


Proposed Actions for Stakeholders |Ch.3>


Firstly, there are four specific matters that will best

be addressed by a comprehensive approach to

public transport.

1 Congestion: the costs of congestion are large, growing

and affect all Australians directly or indirectly. More

effective public transport systems are an essential

component of solutions to congestion.

2 Fuel Use and Related Effects: greater use of public

transport will help reduce both Australia’s reliance on

petrol refined from imported crude oil and also the

impact of higher fuel prices. Better public transport in the

outer suburbs will give people at the outer edges of our

cities viable alternatives to driving their cars.

3 Environment and Health: greater use of public transport,

in particular train, would reduce the levels of vehicular air

pollution and the associated cost and noise impacts, with

the additional benefit of a lower risk of road accidents.

Greater use of public transport will enable Australia to

reduce its emissions of greenhouse gases.

4 Social Exclusion: large numbers of Australians, in

particular the elderly, the poor and the unemployed, are

reliant on public transport for their basic needs (e.g. trips

for shopping, medical appointments and visiting friends).

More public transport is also a key element in reducing

barriers to employment, especially for the poorly paid and

for those in outer-metropolitan or regional areas, many of

whom simply do not have access to cars.

Secondly, it is useful to review the current allocation of

responsibilities of the various levels of government for

these five matters. This is outlined in exhibit 61 on the

following page.

While this diagram is necessarily simplistic, it does convey

some of the challenges in achieving a coordinated response

to these issues. In the case of road transport, the various

aspects of funding, responsibility for maintenance, taxes,

etc. lie across different levels of government. Freight

rail is a mixed Commonwealth/State responsibility, while

metropolitan public transport is a purely State-controlled

activity. This highlights the challenges in achieving a

coordinated response to increasing traffic congestion.

More importantly, this simple representation of

responsibilities tends to mask some important overlaps

and interactions that mean that decisions in one area can

have significant ramifications in other jurisdictions. It is

worthwhile reviewing some of these:

> road pricing to force cars off roads (to aid freight

fl ows) is only effective if there is suffi cient public

transport capacity

> freight rail capacity (a Commonwealth policy

responsibility) is impacted by other users of train paths

(e.g. public transport) or by poor access to terminals

(road congestion)

Proposed Actions for Stakeholders

Before laying out a suggested plan of action for the many stakeholders in transport, it is useful to recap briefly both the logic of the case for a national agenda for public transport and also the various institutional overlaps that characterise public transport in Australia. These two matters provide context for the prioritisation and allocation of the various roles and responsibilities in the suggested action plan.


> better public transport for socially disadvantaged could

be considered to directly benefi t the Commonwealth

Government (lower levels of unemployment benefi ts,

more income tax revenues) than State or local

governments who fund it; and

> decisions that States make on public transport and roads

can affect other parts of the transport sector in which the

Commonwealth Government has signifi cant interest e.g.

the fl ow of passengers and freight into and out of airports

and of freight to and from port terminals.

From this brief overview, it is clear that:

> it is in Australia’s interests to signifi cantly improve and

expand its public transport sector; and

> a more integrated and co-ordinated approach to

policy and funding is necessary for the three levels

of government. In addition, there are very important

roles for the public transport operators in delivering the

services as well as the business community, which has

an interest in the outcome.

While the average person is somewhat aware of the different

responsibilities of local, state, and the Commonwealth

Government, they are not interested in matters of

jurisdictional responsibility. What they want to see is

tangible actions delivered in their communities, that

improve their day-to-day travel, irrespective of which layer

of Government is accountable.

EXHIBIT 61: THE ROLES OF DIFFERENT LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT

Note: *Brisbane City Council provides bus services

Fuel

Passenger rail/bus/ferryrail *

Metropolitan Planning

Freight rail

Health and Environment

Social access and inclusion

Registration fees

Tax/User charges

Toll Roads

Maintenance

Funding

Road

s

Cong

estio

n

LocalStateCommonwealth



3.1 Commonwealth Government

There is a clear need to develop a coordinated, national

approach to public transport. Under any scenario the

primary responsibility for funding and delivering public

transport services will remain a State responsibility. However

there are a number of important actions the Commonwealth

Government could take even with its currently largely

“hands off” approach to public transport. These could form

part of an expanded Auslink program, with emphasis on

urban transport issues. Were the Government to change its

current policy position, and take a more interventionist role,

then a number of further actions are logical.

Actions that are recommended, even with the Government’s

current policy position, are listed below.

3.1.1 Establish a Mechanism for a Comprehensive,

National Treatment of Public Transport Issues

A high priority task for the Commonwealth Government

is to establish an improved institutional setting for

passenger transport. This should assist bridging across the

various local, State and federal boundaries and allow the

development of a more national and coordinated approach

to public transport.

State Governments

Local Governments

> Engage withFederal and StateGovernments, inparticular toimprove integrationof transport andland use planning

> Develop land useplanningapproaches thatare consistent withpublic transportneeds to enhanceliveability anddelivery ofcommunityservices

> Take responsibilityfor someinfrastructure (eginterchanges andstops)

Business Community

> Lobby State and FederalGovernments for action

> Develop publictransport-friendlyemploymentstrategies (workhours, bike racks,showers, salarysacrifice, etc)

> Encouragecompanies toimplementtransportationdemandmanagementprograms

Public Transport Operators

Commonwealth Government

> Continue to improvecontractual servicestandards in terms ofreliability, punctuality,cleanliness, etc

> Contribute to publictransport morebroadly

assist in labourreform

influence modalintegration

support policy andplanning initiatives

share knowledgeand best practicethroughout theindustry

–

–

–

–

> Under the current“hands off” approach

establish an entityfor a comprehensive,national treatment ofpublic transportissues

provide monitoring ofefficiency ofproviders

provide one-offreform payments

take leadership indevelopment of anational approach toroad congestion andpricing

align taxes withpublic transportpolicy

reduce complianceburdens

> Under a more activepolicy role

develop acoordinated nationalpublic transport plan

provide targetedfunding for majorcapital works

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

> Improve the approachto planning

improve policy andplanningcoordinationacross modes andbetween transportand land-useplanning

develop betterplanning disciplines

improveimplementation ofpolicies

> Enhance the publictransport serviceoffering

maximise use ofexisting assets

invest for growth

promote modal shift

foster social transit

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

THE MAJOR SUGGESTED ACTION ITEMS FOR THE KEY INDUSTRY PARTICIPANTS ARE SUMMARISED BELOW:



There are a number of approaches that could be

considered, e.g.:

> as an additional stream through the COAG process

> through a “beefed-up” and suitably empowered

DOTARS; and

> through a re-vamped APTG.

Of these alternatives, the first two have some significant

disadvantages. The COAG process is useful for one-off

changes, whereas it appears that a more sustained, year-

round approach is needed for public transport; an enduring

institutional home is required. The problem with a DOTARS

governed body would be its exclusive Commonwealth

Government location. APTG offers an existing organisational

framework and already has representation of the necessary

government and private stakeholders. However, as indicated

in the analysis of the current mechanisms for coordinating

Government activities in public transport (see Section 2.1),

it is clear that some significant overhaul is indicated. At a

minimum, this would appear to require:

> giving APTG dedicated staff and funding. This requires

contributions from all participants, not just the

Commonwealth Government

> revising APTG’s scope and priorities

> increasing meeting frequency; and

> increasing the involvement of other agencies, particularly

State and Federal Treasuries.

The ultimate choice on the approach is clearly the province

of the Commonwealth Government, requiring definition

of the scope, the participants and their roles, the level of

funding, etc.

3.1.2 Provide Oversight and Monitoring of

Operator Efficiency

There is some evidence of mixed levels of efficiency

among passenger transport operators, but currently there

is no mechanism for rigorous assembly and review of

high quality comparative information. The Commonwealth

Government could play a valuable role by providing

objective, independent review of operational performance

and efficiency delivered by passenger transport operators

in each State.

There would be a valid role for such a function to grow over

time into a broader knowledge management or transport

research function.

3.1.3 Provide One-off Reform Payments

Given the scale of the investment in passenger transport,

small efficiency savings can provide material additional

funds to be re-deployed in additional services. There are

structural barriers at State level that preclude Governments

and operators from accessing obvious efficiency savings,

particularly among publicly owned operators.

The Commonwealth Government could provide incentive

payments to facilitate the delivery of one off step changes in

efficiency. For example, to the extent that efficiency gains

may involve redundancies, incentive payments could help

meet the cost of transitioning redundant staff into other

roles. Efficiency gains achieved under such a program could

be very significant, and would have lasting benefits in terms

of value for money delivered by public subsidies.

3.1.4 Take Leadership on a Number of Specific Initiatives

As outlined earlier in this document, there are a number

of areas where the Commonwealth Government has an

important role in policy and planning. The first two of these

warrant specific Commonwealth Government involvement to

drive essentially national initiatives. The remaining initiative

covers matters which are largely within the control of the

Commonwealth Government.

Freight and Congestion

Several of the Commonwealth Government’s transport

sector responsibilities will be affected by the increased

in road congestion in two areas. First, increasing road

congestion will slow down road freight traffic into and out

of ports and rail terminals, thereby nullifying improvements

made (and planned) to new important elements of

interstate and international freight infrastructure. Second,

as road congestion worsens, commuters will switch to

public transport which will (because of existing capacity

constraints, in particular load limits) require additional



passenger services. These are likely to be gained at

the expense of rail freight services (a Commonwealth

Government responsibility), which are less time critical.

Clearly, the Commonwealth Government cannot act

unilaterally to address these issues. A coordinated

approach, acting jointly with State Governments and other

stakeholders, is required to develop a workable policy

framework. In this regard, it is pleasing to note the formation

of the Urban Congestion Working Group to begin the

process of addressing some of these issues.

Road Pricing

Road pricing is an obvious component to a national

approach to road congestion. It is, however, not without a

number of practical and political difficulties. Some of the

practical matters that need to be addressed include:

> adequate public transport capacity; unless steps are

taken to ensure that the public transport networks can

absorb the extra patronage generated by the imposition

of road pricing, there will be a smaller than desired

reduction in congestion and the initiative will be open

to the criticism that it is purely a revenue source or a

defacto tax

> interoperability; it is important that the systems used

to do the charging have suffi cient common elements

so that a car from Sydney can be driven in Brisbane or

Melbourne and be charged appropriately. Any system (or

systems) developed should also be compatible with any

mass-distance based charging schemes for large road

freight vehicles; and

> universality; there is some logic for a goal of having road

charging transponders in every road vehicle in Australia.

This would avoid the problems instanced by infrequent

and unintentional users of electronically tagged tollways.

These are complex matters with some clear political

difficulties, e.g. the understandable reluctance to introduce

another charge on motorists. Nevertheless, road pricing is

an important potential tool for congestion relief and it seems

that a national, as opposed to a purely State or city-based,

approach is warranted.

3.1.5 Align Taxes with Public Transport Policy

The current rules for Fringe Benefi ts Tax favour car use over

alternative transport modes and can encourage excessive

use of cars to qualify for greater FBT concessions. This

anomaly should be eliminated to provide a “more level

playing fi eld” for public transport and car use. Federal tax

arrangements could be revised more broadly to encourage

more travel by public transport. There are several possible

initiatives in this regard, e.g.:

> the public could receive tax breaks on public transport

fares (particular attention should be given to commuters

and students); and

> businesses could receive tax incentives to promote

greater use of public transport (i.e. tax breaks for

purchasing public transport tickets on behalf of

employees, “ride a bike to work” programs etc.).

The introduction of smartcards will allow employers to

provide transport to employees in a way that is more

transparent for all parties, including the ATO. As occurs

in other countries, employers could set up bulk billing

arrangements with public transport operators that add

value to an employees card from the employers account.

Employers actively encouraging public transport use with

appropriate taxation benefits is a positive step that the

Commonwealth Government and employers can take.

In this context, the support that the Commonwealth

and State Governments provide (through a variety of

mechanisms) to the automotive industry gives advantage

to car use over public transport. This support should also

be reviewed in light of the changing priorities for urban

transport and the environment.

3.1.6 Reduce Compliance Burdens

Current DDA requirements place a burden on operators who

face significant compliance costs. In order to support DDA

compliance, the Commonwealth Government should provide

tax incentives or grants to operators to implement DDA

requirements, or reduce compliance regulations all together.



Similarly, the Commonwealth Government should provide

financial assistance for funding upgrades in security for

public transport. The Commonwealth Government’s security

guidelines and instructions are expensive and materially

impact operator profitability. Thus the Commonwealth

Government should support security compliance initiatives

through funding.

If the Government were to change its policy, and have a

more active involvement in passenger transport, then the

following actions could be considered:

3.1.7 Develop a Coordinated National Public

Transport Plan

Australia is one of the only OECD countries that lacks a

national “moving people” strategy. There is a valid task to

develop a national plan that (1) focuses on metropolitan

public transport, (2) incorporates all modes, i.e. private road

vehicles as well as rail, bus, cycling and walking and (3) is

national in its scope. The plan should include:

> a clear exposition of the policy priorities for public

transport

> an articulation of Australia’s future transport needs

> prioritisation of required actions

> clarity over responsibility for key issues and interfaces;

and

> integration (as far as is possible) with the transport plans

of State and, to a lesser extent, Local Government.

Such a plan would have greatest impact if there were

meaningful incentives to following it at a State and

Local level.

3.1.8 Targeted Funding for Major Capital Works

In keeping with the strategies adopted by the USA and

Canada, the Commonwealth Government could consider

targeted capital grants for major metropolitan transport

schemes. Funding of this type was clearly anticipated in

the Australian Land Transport Development Act 1988.

Due to the rapid growth of Australian cities during the

car-dominated age, insufficient provision has been made

for public transport corridors and the only way for this to

be rectified is substantial seed funding to allow new rail

network or bus priority measures to be implemented. This

may involve meeting the costs of reclamation of housing or

the costs of construction of tunnels to avoid reclamation.

These would have to be schemes of national significance,

selected against clearly agreed criteria. This would limit the

Government’s involvement to large capital injections, similar

to the better cities program of the mid-1990s.

3.2 State Governments

Public transport is now, and is likely to remain, the primary

responsibility of State Governments. Moreover, a number

of States have recently committed substantial funds to

public transport. Yet there is still signifi cantly more that the

States can do, both within their own jurisdictions and by

contributing to broader, national activities.

3.2.1 Improve the Approach to Planning

There are several elements required to improve transport

planning at the State level. The first is to ensure that the

division of responsibilities at the bureaucratic and ministerial

level does not impede effective policy development and

decision making in relation to (1) land use planning,

roads and public transport, and (2) choices between

different transport modes. In this regard, single ministerial

responsibilities, integrated portfolios, or other mechanisms

should be considered. An interesting example of this is

the recently created Office of the Co-ordinator General,

Infrastructure within the Victorian Government’s Department

of Infrastructure. These models need to be given time

to succeed.

The second element is to improve planning disciplines.

State Governments need to apply both rigour and repetition.

This means that:

> State Governments should develop “living” infrastructure

strategy documents that are updated every two to three

years; ideally documents would be integrated into, or

consistent with, the Commonwealth Government’s public

transport strategy; and



> infrastructure plans should include methods for

supporting population growth through cohesive land

use and transport planning

In terms of planning, it is important that funding decisions

take into account all relevant factors and are based on

economic merit, and other relevant factors. In particular,

capital funding allocation decisions (in particular between

public transport and road-based private transport) should

originate from a detailed cost/benefit assessment. The

assessments should include consideration of all the direct

costs incurred as part of the project, as well as an analysis

that measures the externalities generated by the project

(e.g. increased pollution and congestion). They also need

to take into account factors that are not well captured in the

economic appraisal methodologies (eg benefit of reduced

road expenditures), and the impact on city liveability

and social inclusion. The consideration of congestion in

such assessments needs to be done in a more rigorous

and systematic manner. This requires better measures

for congestion, more comprehensive measurement of

congestion in metropolitan Australia and better estimation of

the full economic costs of congestion.

Transport planning requires long lead times. Greater

priority needs to be given to funding activities such as early

corridor preservation. There is significant resistance to this

from a funding perspective because it is simply seen as

a “cost” rather than a future investment. If corridors are

not reserved, later development requires large sections of

underground railway (at large cost), which makes public

transport less viable. In some cases, legislation may need to

be changed to ensure effective land resumption for public

transport purposes.

3.2.2 Enhance the Public Transport Service Offering

There are many actions that State Governments can take

to improve services. Some require capital spending, others

mainly involve more operating expenditure. Some require

neither and could increase revenue or reduce costs, but

require political leadership.

The first priority is to ensure that the maximum value for

money is delivered from existing assets and operating

expenditures. Peak travel is expensive to grow, which

means that maximizing the use of assets and infrastructure

in the peak is critical, and more shoulder and off-peak travel

can deliver significant gains without major expenditures.

Examples of such strategies include:

> cheaper off peak pricing, in particular, a pre-peak

discount for arrival before 7:30am

> limiting the use of heavily discounted tickets in peak

periods. In some Australian cities, heavily discounted

concession tickets account for more than 10% of am

peak patronage

> improving bus (and tram) priority, to decrease journey

time and improve service reliability

> providing integrated fares, to allow seamless transfer

between modes

> improving service planning, particularly for bus networks,

to ensure that optimal peak vehicle deployment

> considering higher ticket prices during peak periods

into congested CBD areas, where the cost of alternative

transport is very high. This can help to improve cost

recoveries, and free up funds for additional services.

However, it may need to be introduced at the same

time as higher prices on other modes (eg parking levies,

road pricing)

> reviewing generous concession and free-travel policies

> improving the operating performance of systems in terms

of punctuality, cancellations, cleanliness and continuing

to make transit organisations more customer-centric; and

> modernising operator work practices. This may require

transitional funding to achieve permanent change.

The second priority is to invest in public transport networks

to accommodate significant growth. The recent rise in

fuel prices, and the associated surge in patronage has

highlighted the significant capacity limitations across our

transport systems.



Key initiatives will include:

> investing in new mass transit systems where justifi ed

(rail, bus rapid transit, light rail)

> increasing service frequencies, particularly in peak and

shoulder periods, and particularly on bus networks

> investing in greater rail capacity on the existing system,

and the modes and facilities that support rail patronage

(eg car parks, feeder buses)

> improving customer information and the softer aspects

of service delivery; and

> achieving more effective separation of passenger and

freight rail networks.

The third priority is to promote modal shift through

initiatives such as:

> better understanding of customer segments, and their

attitudes and behaviours

> improving off peak frequencies to help make public

transport a viable alternative to car on more occasions;

frequencies of greater than 30 minutes fall well short of

achieving this aim

> implementing travel demand management strategies

such as car parking levies

> supporting travel behaviour change programs such as

TravelSmart

> improving cycling and walking facilities; and

> exploring the potential of road pricing as a congestion

management strategy.

The fourth priority is to ensure adequate provision of social

transit. Here Governments need to:

> establish benchmarks for acceptable levels of access to

transport within metropolitan areas

> invest in system growth to achieve a reasonable level of

compliance with benchmarks; and

> be prepared to implement alternatives to scheduled bus

services where patronage levels are too low to justify a

minimum service frequency.

Inevitably, these initiatives require more funding. However,

Treasuries will be more likely to allocate additional funding

if they are confident that existing funds are being optimally

deployed, and that there is a coherent policy framework

underpinning all expenditures

3.3 Local Government

As indicated (in Exhibit 33, page 28) the role of Local

Government in transport is small compared to those of

State and Commonwealth Government. It has very limited

responsibility for public transport and its main, direct role

is for the maintenance and minor upgrade of local roads.

Despite this, Local Government does have an important part

to play in developing a better public transport system in its

role in urban planning (implementing State Government

policies), in ensuring enhanced liveability for ratepayers and

in ensuring effective delivery of a range of local services.

Local Governments are often torn between their own

policies, local community pressures and developer priorities.

3.3.1 Planning

Local Government is responsible for land use planning at

the micro (or grass roots) level and the decisions made

should be consistent with public transport planning.

While delivery of public transport is a State Government

responsibility, Local Government bodies should use their

infl uence to maximise the likelihood of appropriate levels

of public transport when considering proposed housing,

retail and commercial developments. Councils should

seek levies or contributions from developers to help fund

the public transport infrastructure necessary to service

proposed developments. Local Governments can also take

responsibility for some small, but important, elements of

public transport infrastructure, such as the planning, design

and maintenance of bus stops and modal interchanges and

for associated matters such as ensuring appropriate lighting

of the these areas.

Local Government should take the initiative and engage with

State (and, to a lesser extent, Commonwealth) Government

on public transport and planning issues. This means,

for example:



> identifying specifi c local transport and planning issues

> developing municipal transport plans that complement

State Transport policy; and

> lobbying State Government agencies about developments

and funding priorities.

Unconstrained growth is spoiling Australia’s liveable cities.

Planning disasters such as Caroline Springs in Melbourne’s

West should not be repeated.

3.3.2 Liveability

The notion of city liveability is a function of the attractions

and attractiveness of local communities and involves a

(necessarily subjective) trade-off between considerations or

purely residential matters (e.g. the streetscape), of access

to services (e.g. shopping) and of access to entertainment

(e.g. music and cinemas). Local Government is the level

where these trade-offs are made explicit and, to a greater

or lesser extent, get resolved.

Examples of such trade-offs include those regarding:

> on-street parking in strip shopping centres; users of

public transport, public transport operators and private

vehicle uses would all benefi t from lower congestion

levels that result from reductions in, or elimination of,

on-street parking. Retail traders, however, are generally

opposed to any such reductions in parking because of

the perceived impact on business

> parking facilities; local governments have the ability

to cap (or levy) parking spaces in crowded urban

areas, restricting the number of vehicles that enter and

encouraging the use of public transport. To the extent

that levies are implemented, ideally these should be

hypothecated to public transport, rather than absorbed

into general revenues

> cultural attractions; one of the elements of city liveability,

in particular for inner-suburban areas, is the existence of

cultural attractions such as museums, galleries and live

music venues. However, some residents are opposed to

such attractions because of the noise, traffi c, perceived

security risks, effect on property prices and so on; and

> resident parking and new developments; there is a

signifi cant tension between the view of existing residents

and developers on inner suburban areas which has an

impact on public transport issues. Existing residents

would prefer any new housing developments to have

signifi cant off-street parking as an integral component of

the design in order that there is not any further pressure

on limited on-street parking. Developers may attempt

to resist providing parking because of the additional

cost, but the important issue is that additional parking

spaces will serve to increase, rather than decrease,

traffi c congestion.

There are no simple answers to resolve these differences

but it is apparent that Local Government is the most logical

forum and that it should have some input into the process of

resolution. In this process, Local Government bodies should

be clearly mindful of public transport issues.

3.3.3 Service Delivery

Local Government is increasingly becoming the delivery arm

for a wide range of community services that are directed

at special, and often disadvantaged, groups such as the

aged, the disabled and children with special needs. These

services include parent and family support, community

transport, maternal and child health and those provided

by community health centres.

Many of the people that are the targets of these services

are also those who rely on public transport systems for their

general transport needs. Local Government organisations

are thus the natural advocates for better public transport

(so called “social transit”) for these people and this is

thus another valid role for this level of government. In this

context, some Local Government bodies already have some

involvement in planning local transport services, such

as bus-based community services (e.g. in conjunction

with voluntary organisations, churches and other

community groups).



3.4 The Business Community

Members of Australia’s business community should not be

bystanders in the debate over public transport, since they

have significant involvement in several areas.

First, the costs of congestion are borne directly by

many businesses, e.g. in distributing goods to their own

warehouses, to retailers and wholesalers and to consumers.

Other businesses bear these costs indirectly, through the

impact of congestion costs on their suppliers. Second,

businesses have an interest in employing and retaining

talented staff that are, as outlined above, attracted to

liveable cities with good public transport. Third, businesses

do not want their staff to arrive at work tired after long

commuting times in congested traffic. Accordingly, there

is a role for the Business Community to engage actively

with State and Commonwealth Governments to support the

cause for public transport.

There is, however, a role for business beyond seeking to

influence government policy. There are a number of matters

within the control of individual businesses that can further

the natural agenda for public transport. These include

developing public transport-friendly employment strategies,

such as:

> encouraging demand management travel initiatives

through flexible working hours and home offices

> providing salary benefits (or other incentives) for those

individuals who utilise public transport

> introducing “bike-to-work” programs to encourage

sustainable transport and healthy lifestyles; and

> installing proper facilities, such as showers and

bike racks.

Finally, there is a role for business leaders to lead by

example. One way is by being seen to use public transport

when appropriate. An example here is the publicity that

Bicycle Victoria gives to some senior business leaders who

choose to commute via bicycle (Ian Lazarus (VicSuper CIO),

Dr David Hills (Royal Australasian College of Surgeons CEO),

Dr Rob Moodie (VicHealth CEO), Shelly Lavendar (YHA

CEO) and Judy Slatyer (Lonely Planet CEO) were mentioned

in Bicycle’s Victoria's email newsletter of 27 July, 2006).

Others, such as NSW MHR Malcolm Turnbull, also have

demonstrated leadership in their use of trains.

3.5 The Public Transport Operators

There is a significant amount that public transport operators,

whether government or privately-owned, can do to support

the National agenda. The simplest, and most obvious, is to

continue to provide more and better services for passengers,

i.e. to meet and exceed the standards set for punctuality,

cancellations, cleanliness and so on in order to retain and

expand their customer base. There are, however, a range of

other measures, beyond the requirements of their franchise

or service agreements with their owners that the operators

should adopt. These include:

> working with State governments and unions to implement

the necessary elements of labour reform, where

necessary. The more that operators can demonstrate

their delivery of value for money to State Treasuries, the

more likely that more funds will be forthcoming

> improving modal integration; this would involve the

development of timetables and structures to provide

services for passengers covering several modes

> supporting research, policy and planning activities;

operators should take a prominent role in shaping the

direction of public transport policy by actively supporting

and commissioning projects in research and policy

development. This should involve long term timeframes

(beyond those of applicable franchise or contractual

arrangements) and considerations beyond incremental,

business-as-usual change

> introducing service innovations; these include areas such

as real time customer information, notifi cation of delays/

cancellations by SMS, stop and station layout, vehicle

design, introduction of smartcards with “pay as you go”

functionality and automatic re-load etc

> benchmarking and information sharing; operators can

do much more to improve the operations of public

transport in Australia by sharing best practice. There may

be some reluctance for privately-owned operators to do



this, but it would seem more sensible for the operators to

take the initiative in this regard (with suitable protocols)

rather than have it forced upon them by the various

State agencies who have, in most cases, access to the

information anyway. A related matter is that there would

be some signifi cant benefi ts to seek ways to harmonise

systems and procedures (and potentially equipment)

between different operators. This could range from joint

purchase of bus scheduling software, development of

common safe-working procedures, conducting mutual

operational audits, etc.; and

> continuing to move towards customer-oriented

organisations that provide a viable alternative to

car travel.

Collectively, these actions can create a passenger transport

system that underpins the sustainability, liveability and

economically prosperity of Australia’s great cities.


Appendices: A—Sources; B—Rail Networks: Projects to 2020; C—APTG Terms of Reference |App.>


1 Sydney: CityRail patronage excludes Countrylink.

Sydney Ferries patronage was estimated in 1985

by applying the 1986-2005 CAGR. Sydney Buses

patronage includes Newcastle. Patronage in 1989 was

estimated from the average of 1988 and 1990. Private

Bus patronage was estimated from limited data.

Brisbane: CityTrain patronage in 1985 was estimated

by applying the 1986-2005 CAGR. No private bus

data was available for Queensland.

Adelaide: Bus patronage was estimated from 1985

to 1991 using a CAGR based on 1988-2005 initial

bus boardings.

2 ‘Sydney is a sprawling, gridlocked, polluted mess. It’s

time to fi x it’, Sydney Morning Herald, 30 May 2005

3 Making the Right Choices: Options for Managing

Transport Congestion; VCEC, April 2006, Pg 36

4 Austroads (2005), Road Facts 2005, An Overview

of the Australian and New Zealand road systems,

Pg 52 & 53

5 Predicting Traffi c Growth in Australian Cities, BTRE

Staff Paper

6 VCEC (2006) and The Economist; Population density

statistics appear to vary widely between sources

7 Newman, P and Kenworthy, J (1999) Sustainability

and Cities

8 Melbourne 2030 Report, p30; The plan also imposes

an urban growth boundary

9 Sydney Metropolitan Strategy, p131-133

10 South East Queensland Regional Plan part F8 (Urban

Development)

11 Department of Infrastructure (2004);

12 Offi ce of the Coordinator General (2001), Long-

Term Strategic Plan for Rail, Greater Sydney

Metropolitan Region

13 Transport for London, Freedom Pass conditions

14 Translink, QLD

15 American Public Transport Association (APTA)

Ridership Survey Q1 2006

16 Auslink White Paper (2004)

17 Making the Right Choices: Options for Managing

Transport Congestion; VCEC, April 2006

18 Hensher, D and Houghton, E (2004) Performance

Based Contracts, Instituted of Transport Studies

Working Paper 04-03

19 The Knowledge Management Gap in Australian Public

Transport, Professor Graham Currie, 30 May 2004

20 Federal Transit Administration 2006 Apportionment

21 United States Department of Transport Budget, 2007

Appendix A—Sources

Sources


22 Transportation Research Board website

23 Canada Strategic Infrastructure Fund website

24 Green Municipal Fund website

25 BTE (2000), Information Sheet 16, Urban

Congestion—the implications for Greenhouse

Gas Emissions

26 Austroads (2005), Road Facts 2005, An Overview of

the Australian and New Zealand road systems

27 BTRE (2006), Freight Measurement and Modelling in

Australia (Report 112)

28 BTRE (2006), Freight Measurement and Modelling in

Australia (Report 112)

29 Austroads (2005), Road Facts 2005—An Overview of

the Australian and New Zealand road systems

30 Deloitte (2003), Combating Gridlock: How Pricing

Road Use Can Ease Congestion

31 Deloitte (2003), Combating Gridlock: How Pricing

Road Use Can Ease Congestion

32 For example BTE (2000), Information Sheet 16,

Urban Congestion—the implications for Greenhouse

Gas Emissions; BTE, (1999) Urban Transport Looking

Ahead, Information Sheet 14; Centre for International

Economics (2002) ‘Sydney’s Transport Infrastructure:

The Real Economics’; Centre for International

Economics (2001) ‘Subsidies and the Social Costs

and Benefi ts of Public Transport

33 BTE, Urban Transport: Looking Ahead, Information

Sheet 14, BTE (1999)

34 DOI Submission to VCEC on Congestion (2005);

Linking Melbourne: Metropolitan Transport Plan

35 The Australia Institute, No 43, June 2005, Stuck

in Traffi c

36 T.Litman, The on-line TDM encyclopaedia: Mobility

Management Implementation Gateway; Transport

Policy, 10, 245-249, 2003

37 Transportation Demand Management: A Guide for

Including TDM Strategies in major Investment Studies

and in Planning for other Transportation Projects;

Washington State Department of Transportation

(August 1996)

38 An Innovative funding mechanism to support and

implement area-wide travel planning programs, Sue

Mills, May 2006 (www.iht.ogr/technical/downloads/

IHT%20Paper%20Nov%202005%20revision%206.

doc)

39 New Seward Highway Rabbit Creek Road to

36th Avenue, prepared for Alaska Department of

Transportation and Public Facilities, February 2002.

40 www.wsdot.wa.gov/TDM/progam_summaries/ctr_

summ.cfm; Washington State Department of Transport

41 Combating Gridlock, How pricing road use can

ease congestion; Deloitte Research; Online TDM

Encyclopaedia, Road Pricing, 26pp, April 4, 2006,

www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm35.htm; Making the Right

Choices: Options for Managing Transport congestion;

VCEC, April 2006.

42 International Approaches to Tackling Transport

Congestion, Paper 1: Area Road Use Charging; VCEC,

Booz Allen Hamilton, April 2006

43 Online TDM Encyclopaedia; Road Pricing, 26pp, April

4, 2006; www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm35.htm.

44 Monthly Oil Survey: International Energy Agency

45 Currie G and Phung J (2006) ‘Exploring the Impacts

of Fuel Price Increases on Public Transport Use in

Melbourne’ Australian Transport Research Forum

Sept 2006

46 Lateline, 28/04/2006

47 Australian Greenhouse Offi ce; BTRE “Greenhouse Gas

emissions from Transport—Australian Trends to 2020”



48 BTRE Working Paper 63, Health Impacts of Transport

Emissions in Australia. Note: The value of a statistical

life used was $1.3 million (a discount of 30% on the

Bureau’s costing of transport accident fatalities. This

refl ects the older age profi le of air pollution-related

early deaths).

49 Transport and Liveablity—The Path to a More

Sustainable Victoria

50 Bauman, A et al, Getting Australia active: towards

better practice for the promotion of physical activity,

National Public Health Partnership, March 2002

51 Janet Stanley (Brotherhood of St. Lawrence). ‘Social

Exclusion and PT’ Conference on Transport, Social

Disadvantage and Well Being (April 2006); Daniel

Perkins (BSL) ‘Personal Support Program Evaluation-

Interim Report’ (October 2005) Melbourne 2030-

Planning for Sustainable Growth (p.24)



Melbourne

# Project MOTC initiative

Potential upgrades

1 Clifton Hill loop reversal P

2 City loop—signalling upgrade P

3 West Footscray to Sunshine—3rd track and Sunshine to Watergardens—Signalling Upgrade P

4 North Melbourne station—Interchange Upgrade (no relevance to capacity) P

5 Clifton Hill to Westgarth—Track duplication P

6 Caulfield to Springvale—3rd track P

7 Laverton to Werribee—Signalling Upgrade P

8 Flinders Street station upgrades P

9 Werribee Corridor—new Station, stabling P

10 Old Geelong Road level crossing upgrade ( no relevance to capacity) P

11 Broadmeadows corridor—stabling P

12 Upfield to Roxburgh Park—link P

13 Sandringham station—2nd platform, stabling P

14 Cranbourne station—stabling P

15 Springvale to Dandenong P

16 Pakenham station—3rd platform, stabling P

17 Keon Park to Epping—duplication P

18 Epping to South Morang—extension P

19 Newport to Altona Junction—3rd track P

20 Frankston line—stabling P

21 Richmond station upgrade ( committed beyond 2020) P

22 Footscray to West Footscray—3rd track and Footscray to Sunshine—4th track (committed beyond 2020) P

23 Dandenong station—4th platform (committed beyond 2020) P

24 Capacity enhancement: Clifton Hill—Jolimont P

25 Duplication from Ferntree Gully—Upper Ferntree Gully P

26 Segregated access to the city and additional tracks for regional services to avoid line and junction constraints from Footscray to North Melbourne/Southern Cross Station

P

27 Signalling upgrade Eltham—Hurstbridge P

28 Additional Richmond crossover for Burnley services P

29 Southern Cross station enhancement for Metro and through regional services P

30 3rd track from Footscray to Newport and Laverton to Werribee P

31 Duplication and signal upgrade between Greensborough and Eltham P

32 3rd track from Box Hill to Ringwood P

33 3rd track from Mooroolbark—Lilydale P

34 North Melbourne Station Enhancement P

Appendix B—Rail Networks: Projects to 2020


Sydney

# Project Publicly funded initative

Potential upgrades

1 Bondi Junction turnback P

2 Cronulla branch line duplication P

3 Lidcombe turnback and platform P

4 Two extra tracks, Sydenham to Erskineville P

5 Liverpool turnback and platform P

6 Extra tracks, Kingsgrove to Revesby P

7 Macarthur Extra Platform P

8 Macdonaldtown turnback & stabling P

9 Homebush turnback and platform P

10 Revesby turnback and platforms P

11 Berowra Extra Platform P

12 Epping to Chatswood Rail Line P

13 Hornsby extra Platform & Stabling P

14 Carlingford Line upgrade P

15 South West Rail Link (land acquisition funded only) P

16 North West Rail Link (land acquisition funded only) P

17 North Sydney station capacity upgrade P

18 Quakers Hill to Schofield Duplication P

19 Town Hall station capacity upgrade (in State Infrastructure Strategy but no dollars allocated)

P

20 CBD underground rail corridor (planning work and safeguarding corridors only in metro rail expansion prog)

P

21 Illawarra Junction P

22 Track amplification Granville to Homebush (depends on effectiveness of NWRL in drawing patronage away from Main West)

P

23 Solution to improve capacity on city suburban lines (depends on effectiveness of NWRL in drawing patronage away from Main West)

P

24 Extension of quadruplication beyond Revesby P

25 Track amplification Campbelltown to Glenfield P

26 Track amplification beyond Hurstville P

27 Duplication beyond Schofields P

28 Grade separation Wolli Creek junction P



Brisbane

# Project Publicly funded / SEQIPP committed Potential upgrades

1 New branch line to Springfi eld P

2 Extension of Gold Coast line to Elanora P

3 New branch line to Caloundra P

4 New cross—city alignment from Park Road to Bowen Hills P

5 Partial duplication between Cleveland and Manly P

6 Additional track for passenger services on the Cleveland Line P

7 Dual gauging and extension of Murarrie refuge loop P

8 New refuge loop near Lytton Junction P

9 Upgraded/new stabling (some suggested locations) P

10 Extension of third track from Salisbury to Kuraby P

11 Extension of third track from Kuraby to Beenleigh P

12 Full duplication of Gold Coast Line from Ormeau to Robina P

13 Signaling upgrade between Ormeau to Beenleigh P

14 Third track from Darra to Corinda P

15 Grade separation of Darra Junction P

16 Extend third track from Darra to Redbank P

17 Corinda freight bypass P

18 Duplication of Mitchelton to Ferny Grove P

19 Third platform at Mitchelton P

20 Extend third track from Lawton to Petrie P

21 New freight refuge loop at Petrie P

22 Extend third track from Petrie to Burpengary P

23 Realign and duplicate track Caboolture to Landsborough P

24 Build a second platform at Shorncliffe P



Terms of Reference

Introduction

The Australian Passenger Transport Group—Moving People

(APTG) was established by the Standing Committee on

Transport (SCOT) to provide advice, leadership and support

on passenger transport policy and strategic issues.

The APTG takes a broad view of integrated transport policy

and its interface with wider government objectives for

economic development, fiscal prosperity, environmental

protection, health and safety and social inclusion. The APTG

also provides expert advice supported by government and

independent research.

The key principle of the group is to develop sustainable

passenger transport in Australia. In pursuing the goal of

sustainable passenger transport the APTG will seek to

influence and shape the overall task of moving people in

Australia. In this context passenger transport accessibility,

mobility and sustainable car use will all receive attention.

Role of the Group

The APTG will provide SCOT with advice on passenger

transport strategy, policy issues and respond where national

attention adds value. The APTG will support SCOT’s role

in advising the Australian Transport Council (ATC) on

national strategy and policy, underpinning its advice with

rigorous analysis.

The APTG’s main roles include:

> Leading the development of national strategies for

sustainable passenger transport including identifying and

clarifying the roles and contributions of the three levels

of government.

> Supporting SCOT and the ATC at the national level.

> Providing SCOT with advice on emerging passenger

transport issues and trends.

> Advising on policies and strategic initiatives that

enhance passenger transport, including making formal

submissions to reviews of policies and programs.

> The development of frameworks for program evaluation.

Vision:

> The APTG’s vision is for, passenger transport systems

which are sustainable, accessible, safe and affordable.

Objectives

The key objectives of the group are to:

> Increase knowledge and awareness of the national

significance of passenger transport.

> Provide a national approach on key issues.

> Effectively consult and liaise with passenger transport

interest groups.

> Influence decision makers.

> Develop partnership initiatives with agencies involved in

effective and sustainable passenger transport.

> Develop and implement an action plan for

passenger transport.

> Support and promote the National Charter of Land Use

and Transport Planning.

Australian Passenger Transport Group—‘Moving People’ (APTG)

Appendix C—APTG Terms of Reference


Key Tasks

The key tasks involve:

> Preparing and implementing a 3 year strategic plan and

annual prioritised work agenda with recommendations

for resourcing.

> Working with stakeholders to develop and implement

the strategies.

> Coordinating the activities of SCOT APTG sub-groups.

Composition of the SCOT APTG

The APTG comprises of high level representatives from

Queensland Transport’s Passenger Transport Division,

The Public Transport Division of the Department of

Transport, Energy and Infrastructure (South Australia),

Ministry of Transport (New South Wales), Department of

Infrastructure (Victoria), VicRoads (Victoria), Department

for Planning and Infrastructure (Western Australia),

Department of Infrastructure Energy and Resources

(Tasmania); Department of Urban Services (Australian

Capital Territory), Department of Infrastructure Planning and

Environment (Northern Territory), Department of Transport

(Commonwealth) and Regional Services and observers

from the National Transport Commission (NTC) and the

Australian Local Government Association (ALGA).

Responsibilities of Chairperson

The Chairperson will:

> Chair APTG meetings, which will be held at least twice

a year.

> Report to SCOT.

> Manage the agenda to ensure that the items listed for

discussion are appropriate and are addressed at an

appropriate level.

> Guide the development and coordinate the assessment

of proposals and initiatives.

> Liaise with key stakeholders, including government and

non-government organisations.

> At all times exercise the degree of care and diligence in

the performance of their duties that could reasonably be

expected of a person in such a position.

Responsibilities of Members

Agreed responsibilities of members are:

> To contribute positively to the role and vision of

the group.

> To communicate back to own jurisdiction, industry and

interest groups.

> To actively promote and raise awareness of the APTG

and its role.

> To commit to taking responsibility for approvals for the

action plan, recognising that the group may advance

particular issues without necessarily committing

individual jurisdictions.

Working outside the APTG meeting

From time to time working groups may be established,

where appropriate to progress specific issues. This may

involve people who are not APTG members but who may

have particular expertise or ability to influence outcomes.

Appendix C—APTG Terms of Reference

General

The ARA would like to thank L.E.K. Consulting

for the preparation of THIS report. The provision

of ideas, data and comments from State and

Commonwealth Governments and Transport

Operators is gratefully acknowledged.

ARA Office

Unit 17, Level 3, National Circuit,

Barton ACT 2600

PO Box 4864, Kingston ACT 2604, Australia

Telephone 02 6270 4500

Facsimile 02 6273 5581

Website www.ara.net.au

Published by the

Australasian Railway Association Inc

© 2006 All Rights Reserved

Designed by GRi.D, Canberra

Printed by Pirion

Images on pages ....... Provided by RailGallery

National Passenger Transport Agenda |2006>

>06

National P

assenger Transport Agenda |2

00

6>