Common Urban Myths About Transport
Myth:
Car travel is popular, so we should provide more roads
Fact:
This is confusing cause and effect. Car travel is popular precisely
because we have spent so much on the road system to make it as
easy as possible. If we invested seriously in public transport, that
would become popular too (and we'd save money into the bargain). And
opinion polls regularly confirm that government action on public transport
is more popular than road building, and that public transport can be a
vote-winner.
Perhaps the first question any public transport advocate is called on to
answer is: why bother? As Paul Mees writes on the opening page of A
Very Public Solution:
Patronage has declined since World War II in most developed countries,
which seems to suggest that people no longer want public transport.
Perhaps it is simply a superseded transport technology, like the horse and
buggy. Many people thought this way in the 1950s when the promise of the
car seemed unlimited, and the view retains many adherents.
---Mees, A Very Public Solution, p.1
But Mees also provides the answer to this question: although most people
drive cars, they are also conscious of the limitations of car travel and are
concerned about the lack of alternatives. Quite simply, car travel is
popular because too many people have no choice.
Bus services in particular are of extremely low quality, with a confusing
and inefficient route structure....and poor frequencies and hours of
operation....[T]he majority of Melburnians have no access to public
transport at all in the evening or on weekends, and those served by public
transport have a limited choice of destinations, poor levels of safety and
cleanliness and, for those travelling to the inner city from Zones 2 and 3,
high fares. From the perspective of a passenger wishing to travel to a
destination, and at a time, of their own choosing, this is extremely
inflexible public transport.
---Mees, A Very Public Solution, p.253
Government planners have spent the past half-century quite deliberately
creating a car-dominated transport system, by giving the lion's share of
funding to roads and neglecting alternative modes. Their approach is the
one characterised by Britain's Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution
as 'predict and provide': road planners predict massive increases
in traffic, and provide the new roads to cater for it.
Probably the most bare-faced recent example is the Eddington 'East West
Needs Assessment' of 2008. In essence, the report (a) predicted that road
traffic would increase by 30 per cent by 2031; (b) found that the current
Melbourne road system wouldn't cope with the increased traffic; and (c)
recommended the provision of a $9 billion road tunnel. Of course, nothing
could do more to ensure road traffic continues to increase.
Similar predict-and-provide reasoning runs right through the Federal
Government's 'AusLink' transport strategies:
[C]ar travel will continue to increase substantially in absolute terms,
and cars will account for a large (but declining) share of the total
vehicle kilometres travelled in metropolitan Melbourne. Light commercial
vehicles and rigid trucks will account for growing shares of vehicle
kilometres.... It is apparent that the Melbourne transport network will
experience increased traffic pressures over the next 25 years, and
investments in infrastructure capacity....will be necessary to alleviate
these pressures.
---AusLink: Melbourne Urban Corridor Strategy, December 2006,
pp. 19-20
The capacity of the road infrastructure along the Melbourne-Geelong
corridor generally meets current demand. However, with significant
growth occurring along and beyond the corridor, capacity and congestion
challenges will emerge along the corridor in the medium term, affecting
the corridor's ability to provide an appropriate level of service.
---AusLink: Melbourne-Geelong Corridor Strategy, February
2007, p.11
Because the new roads built produce their own
induced traffic, the predictions of increased
traffic inevitably become self-fulfilling, and public transport use declines
as people take to the new roads. Governments beholden to the road lobby
reinforce the trend, making statements like we have to cater for the 90
per cent of people who drive cars , and ensuring that nothing changes.
As a result, the majority of Melbourne residents are practically forced
to do all their travel by car, because they do not live within walking
distance of a railway station and have access only to a bus route running
to Third World standards. Road planners and politicians misread this
(wilfully or otherwise) as free choice, and evidence that Melburnians
will never give up their cars and there is
no alternative to more roads.
[Parliamentary Secretary for Transport Martin] Pakula agrees there has
been much more work on road infrastructure than public transport over the
past 15 years, but argues this has been necessary. It's because car
usage has expanded exponentially, he says.
---The Melbourne Times, 14 February 2007
Many ordinary people, on the other hand, can see what is really going on
here.
Example No.1
Our area's only public transport is the prohibitively expensive Bus Route
788.... commuters who may prefer route 788 to rising petrol prices, are
all forced to pay exhorbitant bus fares - up to $17.40 return from
Frankston to Portsea.... No wonder [the major roads] are so clogged with
traffic when no effective public transport competition is offered to
private car transport.
Interestingly....the recent Labor Budget does commit millions of
taxpayers dollars to be spent on improved private transport on another
north-south peninsula arterial route - the widening to four lanes of
Western Port Highway from Frankston-Cranbourne Rd to North Rd. This will
do nothing to encourage people to use public transport on the Peninsula.
---Kangerong Ward Action Group convenor, Mornington and Southern
Peninsula Mail, 22 June 2006
Example No.2
Janet lives in Keysborough and works at the Royal Womens' Hospital in
Carlton. Janet's nearest station is Noble Park, but the bus service is
abysmal: the first bus arrives at the station at 7:25am, too late for
Janet to reach work at the starting time of 8:30. The last bus home
leaves at 6:30pm, which means Janet misses it whenever she leaves work
after 5:00. So Janet can't even reach the station without driving a car,
and unless she's one of the lucky few who rush to fill the station car
park in the morning, she can't even do that. So Janet does the perfectly
rational thing and drives all the way to work instead. We're now at the
point where Melbourne's public transport can't even cater for a peak-hour
central-city commuter like Janet: clearly those whose travel patterns are
less predictable are in even more trouble.
Example No.3
Karen, a young recently married professional working in the CBD, has just
moved to rapidly growing Sydenham to start a family. There is a bus stop
right outside the door of her new house, but the bus service runs at 50
minute intervals so hardly anyone catches it unless they are desperate
and have no choice. The bus takes about 20 minutes to get to the station.
The Watergardens station car park has been under construction for about 6
months. It is so huge that when Karen tries driving to the station to
catch the train it takes 7 minutes to walk from her car to the platform.
Despite this, the car park is always full from a very early hour.
Despite lack of adequate bus services and carparking the new carpark does
not accommodate any new secure bicycle parking. Karen would be prepared
to ride to the station but the few lockers provided are already taken and
there is a long waiting list.
Whether going to the city or coming home again, the trains are always
packed - even at 10pm. Karen is lucky to find space on the train home.
After trying public transport for a little while she gives up and drives
instead.
Example No.4
In the evening, [Mr Giddings] catches the 5:13pm express from Parliament
to Werribee, then the bus home, stepping into his house about 6:15pm.
But there's not a direct link from the train to every bus, he said,
glumly.... Buses don't run after 7pm, so if he's working late he will miss
the last bus from the station. And that's during the week.
Bus services are further limited on the weekends, so Mr Giddings doesn't
bother. Even though I've got a yearly ticket, it's just so much more
convenient to use the car, he said.
The Giddings household - Jim, his wife and their 25-year-old son - has
three cars.... (My son) needs a car on the weekend to get around,
he said. So does Dad. Mrs Giddings' work in Altona North is not well
serviced by public transport, so she must drive. And she occasionally
works on the weekends, he said, so we got the extra car (for me).
---"Facing up to the long haul", The Age, 21 August 2005
Example No.5
Let's imagine you [living in Monbulk] have a friend who lives in Belgrave
and relies on the bus, as you do also. She has come to visit and have
dinner. Obviously 6:10pm [the last bus back to Belgrave] is far too early
to leave so you hurry with dinner, have a short yet nice time and she is
on the 7:50pm Monbulk to Lilydale bus. She arrives in Lilydale at 8:25pm.
She has to wait until the train leaves at 8:48pm. The train arrives in
Ringwood at 9:04pm.
Your friend's lovely evening is a now long gone memory as she has already
waited on the Lilydale station for 23 minutes and faces the long wait at
Ringwood for the Belgrave train for another 22 minutes; that is a total of
45 minutes in the dark. She arrives seven kilometres from where she began
her trip two hours later at 9:50pm. She could have walked it in half the
time, but without footpaths she would have to walk along the dark,
dangerous and narrow Monbulk road.
More interesting is the fact that this 7:50pm bus set out for its final
nightly journey from Belgrave to Monbulk where the commuters have to depart
the bus and alight another to Lilydale. Why? Believe or not the bus
returns [to Belgrave] to service another route, without taking passengers.
Sorry people, I know I will be in Belgrave in 20 minutes but you can catch
the Lilydale train and be in Belgrave in two hours. At least that would
not happen on a weekend, there is no Lilydale service. And we still have
absolutely no bus service on a Sunday or public holidays.
---Letter to Ranges Trader Mail, 8 April 2008
People really do want something better
So yes, car travel is 'popular'. But so too is the search for
alternatives. In 2001, as part of the background studies for its
Melbourne 2030 planning blueprint, the State Government
conducted community forums all over the metropolitan area. Participants
were asked what planning issues they considered the most important, then
invited to break into small groups to discuss particular topic areas.
The forum organisers were surprised to discover that wherever they went,
from Broadmeadows to Berwick, public transport rated as the most important
issue (closely followed by residential development).
The transport and accessibility topic area was the most popular during
Round 2 of consultation and almost 33 per cent of forum participants were
involved in discussions. Strong support was recorded for initiatives to
reduce or improve car usage, and increase the service levels of public
transport. Initiatives to encourage walking and cycling to work also
drew general support from participants. The participants in support of
more roads and freeways were in the minority.
---Metropolitan Strategy Information Bulletin, November 2001
TRAMS, TREES AND NEIGHBOURHOODS: MELBURNIANS SET THEIR PRIORITIES FOR
THE NEXT 30 YEARS
Reducing car dependence, controlling the urban sprawl and taking better
care of our environment are the keys to the future of Melbourne,
according to its residents....
The report is the culmination of 17 public forums held last year across
Victoria, to canvass community opinion on the Metropolitan Strategy - a
30-year action plan that will guide the development of Melbourne and
its relationship with regional Victoria.
---State Government media release, 2002
We had 1500 people on the consultation process for Melbourne 2030, and
less than 10 people said they wanted to see bigger roads and the freeway
network finished. The rest wanted better public transport, and to be
able to walk and cycle safely to more places.
---Dr John Grant (Melbourne 2030 planner), The Age,
8 November 2008
Similarly, the Herald-Sun newspaper has consistently rated
public transport ahead of new roads as a significant public concern. For
example:
-
In January 2005 an 'Issues Survey' of over 18,000 Herald-Sun
readers found that an overwhelming 87 per cent wanted the Bracks Government
to do more to improve train, tram and bus services. As with the
Metropolitan Strategy workshops, this survey asked people about a whole
range of issues (not just transport), yet it was improved public transport
that emerged as having wide support.
-
A survey of business leaders reported on 21 January 2005 found that most
considered public transport to be the single most important issue facing
the city.
-
When the Herald-Sun conducted vox-pops in November 2005 on
the question
What would you prefer: major public investment in roads or
in better public transport? , all respondents said public transport.
The following February, a Herald-Sun poll on the question
Should the state government give priority to improving public
transport? gained a 'Yes' vote of 92.9 per cent. A subsequent poll
on the more radical question Should cars be banned in Melbourne's
CBD? still found two-thirds of people in favour.
-
Another poll of Herald-Sun readers in June 2008 asked them to
choose from a range of options for easing traffic congestion. The most
popular, attracting 54% of the 1,737 votes, was
provide better and more
frequent trains and trams . It beat alternatives that included a new
cross-city road tunnel, widening existing roads, and introducing a
congestion tax.
More on public transport because apart from traffic and other things, it's
much better for the environment.
---Matt Griffin (Mt Waverley), Herald-Sun, 15 November 2005
Public transport. I catch public transport as much as possible. There's
too much traffic and if there were a viable option, more people would use
it.
---Renee Prochazka (Upwey), Herald-Sun, 15 November 2005
Herald-Sun surveys even suggest there are more votes in public
transport than in roads and cars, contrary to the assertions of many
'pragmatists' on all sides of politics. A poll commissioned in April 2006
by the Sunday Herald-Sun on the issues that Victorians consider
important in determining how they vote yielded 61% for environmental issues
and 55% for public transport, compared with just 25% for speed cameras and
20% for Eastlink tolls.
Many other public surveys reveal the strength of support for improving
public transport, even when it comes at the expense of road construction.
A 2001 Newspoll survey conducted for the Australasian Railway Association
found 84% supported building more rail lines to reduce road congestion,
compared with just 38% in favour of more freeways. A similar high
percentage supported the Federal Government funding new urban rail lines on
the same basis as urban roads. Also in 2001, a study by the University of
Sydney's Warren Centre for Advanced Engineering found that
- 85% of people were opposed to spending money on roads at the expense of
public transport;
- 71% considered that transport planning should focus on public transport
rather than toll roads;
- 70% favoured public transport improvements being funded by diverting
money from the roads budget; and
- 64% favoured road demand management over new freeways.
In 1999, a survey by Western Australia's Department of Transport showed 87%
support for diverting funds from new roads to public transport, walking and
cycling, and even a majority of those who did not support this
still recognised the need for increased public transport usage and
decreasing car usage.
And little has changed since then: in March 2007, ABC Science's
Road
to 2050 project surveyed its online audience on preferred ways to reduce
greenhouse emissions by 60% by 2050 (the original 'Rudd target'). Once again,
the most popular suggestion was to increase public transport and discourage
private car use. (This is despite our political leaders focussing almost
exclusively on electricity generation and not
transport in their responses to the climate change threat.) In the leadup
to the 2007 Federal election, an ACF
survey
found that two-thirds of people in Sydney would prefer that the budget
surplus be spent on public transport ahead of tax cuts.
Last but not least, in case it's thought all this support comes just from
inner-city trendies, there is the Eastern Transport Coalition's survey of
1000 people in Melbourne's outer eastern suburbs in August 2007. 62% of
those surveyed said it was unacceptable for the Federal Government to provide
funding for major roads and not for public transport infrastructure. And
while 71% said they used cars to get to work, 61% also said they would use
public transport if the option was available.
This state of affairs has many parallels. Most of us drink alcohol,
derive a great deal of enjoyment from it, and relish our freedom to do so.
At the same time, we are aware of the harm that results from excessive
alcohol consumption, and keep an eye on how much we drink. Importantly, we
also understand the need for government intervention in support of
responsible drinking. Perhaps the message that comes from these forums and
surveys is that Australians see the need to 'use cars in moderation' -
though so many of us aren't able to keep our car use down, because of the
lack of alternatives.
Return to index
© 2007 Public Transport Users Association Inc. (PTUA), Victoria, Australia. ABN 83 801 487 611.
General copying and distribution on a non-commercial basis is permitted subject to proper acknowlegement.
Authorised by Tony Morton, 247 Flinders Lane, Melbourne, for the PTUA
Last modified: 8 November 2008
|