|
Melbourne Transport |
Common Urban Myths About TransportMyth:
'Real' people don't use public transport
Fact:
Public transport is just another way of getting around, and where it is
competently planned and managed is the travel mode of choice for large
numbers of people, regardless of creed, social status or political
affiliation. People just like you, the reader of this page.
It's not uncommon for users of Melbourne's barely-functional public transport system to be taunted by friends and work colleagues with all-too-familiar jibes: "You're not a dinkum Aussie if you don't drive a car" or "Public transport, that's something they use in socialist countries" or "Get sold any good drugs this morning?" Such taunts are usually made in good humour and would be harmless enough, were it not for the fact that some of the bureaucrats and managers responsible for planning our transport system seem to take them, like Maggie Thatcher did, as entirely serious comments on the kind of people who use public transport. When public transport use in Melbourne nosedived in the postwar era, the public transport planners and managers (with the possible exception of the now-defunct Tramways Board) responded not by improving the quality of their service to compete with the car, but instead by giving up on the idea of public transport as a conveyance for 'normal' people. Like the 'Protectors' of Aborigines in the 1930s, they regarded the people under their care as fated to die out in favour of a 'superior' alternative, to be provided in the meantime with a barely adequate service at minimal cost to taxpayers. Thus, for nearly half a century the view has persisted in Melbourne's transport planning circles that public transport is only for
Little wonder that public transport in Melbourne has trouble being taken seriously! Evidence for this attitude among transport bureaucrats, both before and after privatisation, is not hard to find. Here are just a few examples. Example 1: People with money to spend always drive carsWhen the Southland shopping centre expanded its premises in the early 1990s, owner Westfield canvassed the option of building a new station on the Frankston train line, which runs right past Southland but where the nearest station is over a kilometre away. A new station made commercial sense for Westfield, as having people come by train would avoid the need for a lot of extra car parking. Before long it had gained the support of the community, the council and the PTUA (for whom it had been long-standing policy). The only opponent was the Public Transport Corporation, who complained that the extra station would add to their trains' running time - and besides, 'real' people would continue to drive there anyway. The Southland expansion duly went ahead without the station and with greatly expanded car parking instead. Example 2: People who want hassle-free transport should drive carsWhen automated ticketing was introduced in 1997 it rightly infuriated many 'real' people, who were getting a greatly reduced service thanks to the sacking of tram conductors and station staff, and being made to put up with a round of endless ticket revalidation and equipment failures into the bargain. While many people blame the Kennett Government for this, the plans were being made in the bureaucracy even before Kennett was elected, and date from the aftermath of the 'scratch ticket' debacle in 1990. Our public transport planners long ago formed the view that public transport users were not 'real' people and so didn't deserve a system staffed by real people; the result was the abortive scratch tickets, and later the Metcard system. Another example of the government's contempt for public transport users occurred in September 2006, when work on the EastLink tollway ran half a day late and closed the Ringwood train line for the entire Monday morning peak. Though tens of thousands of Melburnians were delayed for hours, the government claimed that was not its concern, saying it was a matter between passengers and the private train operator. But the system would have been far better prepared for unforeseen delays if the government treated public transport as vital infrastructure (like power lines and freeways), rather than just something that makes a few unimportant commuters grumpy when it fails. Example 3: People who've finished their uni degree drive carsIn the late 1990s the Moreland City Council began an investigation into Sydney Road trams and how they could run more effectively. The tram operator was wondering what all the fuss was about, because (they said) the North Coburg tram was used mainly by students going to and from Melbourne University, and the Sydney Road section of the route was of lesser importance. But when the council did their own survey, they found more people used the North Coburg tram on the Sydney Road part of the route than on the Parkville section around the university. In fact, this tram route was and is extensively used by 'real' people, largely for shopping purposes, something our transport bureaucrats would never have thought possible but for this reality check. Example 4: People who don't want needless obstacles in their way should drive carsMany supposed 'improvements' made to the public transport system since privatisation in 1999 have come at the expense of passenger convenience. These include the removal of direct access from Swanston Street to Melbourne Central station; the obstacle course that pedestrians must now negotiate at the Melbourne University tram terminus; and the current obsession with removing tram stops to speed up trams by making passengers walk further. We sympathise with motorists who are told to get out of their car and walk an extra 200 metres to where they used to park, but since public transport users are supposedly not 'real' people they are supposed to dutifully obey when told to walk the extra distance. The reality: It's all about attitudeIn world cities where public transport is taken seriously, people from all walks of life use it and rely on it for many of their day-to-day travel needs. The difference is not in the people themselves (who also own cars and like using them), but in the attitude of government planners toward public transport, and the expectations about public transport quality that have evolved in these cities. Far from being a characteristic of 'socialist' countries, the cities where public transport is most used by 'ordinary' people are also the very centres of global capital: New York, London, Zurich, Hong Kong. Ignorant statements by economic-rationalist politicians notwithstanding, appreciation of public transport has nothing to do with one's preferred political ideology - merely a concern with the efficient use of scarce resources. Australia's richest politician (and current Leader of the Opposition) certainly has no qualms about putting in a good word for public transport:
The problem that occurs when planners cease to take public transport seriously - as in Melbourne - is that the situation becomes self perpetuating. People start to see fewer and fewer people like themselves on public transport, cease using it themselves, and advise their children not to use it. Eventually a kind of stigma attaches to the very fact of being a public transport user. This can be most clearly seen in Geelong, where traders now routinely petition against bus stops being located outside their businesses! Fortunately, this vicious cycle can be reversed. If it is perceived that ordinary people use the system, more and more people will be attracted to it as confidence in the system increases and the stigma dissipates. This has been seen in Perth where public transport, once shunned by the populace, has become respectable again as a direct result of the government taking it seriously and investing in genuine service improvements. Both principles can be seen at work when comparing the perception of Melbourne trams with that of Melbourne buses. In cities with well-planned public transport, the kind of vehicle isn't a major factor in people's willingness to use the system. But in Melbourne, trams have historically been operated by a government entity (the Tramways Board) with a strong sense of public purpose and a healthy respect for its passengers; whereas buses were operated by private companies with a condescending or even hostile attitude to their passengers. In recent years the bus industry has made a real effort to improve its record, and buses are a lot better than they used to be. But their history has nonetheless led to clear differences in performance: trams are frequent, well-patronised, have high cost recovery, and have earned an iconic status as symbols of the city; buses are infrequent, poorly patronised, have low cost recovery, and are regarded as the ugly ducklings of the transport system. People are not stupid. If public transport is the best option to get them somewhere, many people will use it, as attested by the crowding every peak hour on Melbourne's trams and trains. A good proportion of these people are the 'real' people that are perceived as not using public transport. It is for non-commuting trips that most 'real' people will not consider using public transport, not necessarily because they 'won't' use it, but because it simply isn't a reasonable option for the trip, due to poor frequencies, long waiting times, and limited hours of operation. But it need not be the case that only those with no choice use public transport. In many European and North American cities, public transport is much better patronised than in Melbourne, not only in absolute terms, but as a proportion of trips. The difference between these cities and Melbourne is not that people don't own cars, but that they don't use them as much. This is because these cities have good public transport systems which give their residents an option to leave their cars at home. For most Melburnians, who have a car at their disposal, it is cheaper, easier and quicker to use that car for any given trip than to use public transport. Unless you are lucky enough to live near a station or a tram, you have to put up with slow, infrequent and tortuous bus routes, which often do not run in the evenings or weekends. © 2007 Public Transport Users Association Inc. (PTUA), Victoria, Australia. ABN 83 801 487 611. Last modified: 17 September 2008
|
