Herald Sun: Smartbuses a bomb

From Herald Sun 23 March 2006:

SMARTBUS, a central plank of the Government's transport vision, has bombed, leaving Victorians with a $68 million white elephant that is now being torn down.

The futuristic bus system designed to run on five major city arterials was meant to be a cure-all for road gridlock and public transport black holes.

SmartBus stops are meant to display real arrival times based on traffic conditions and satellite tracking of buses. more (HS link).

A couple of comments about the Herald Sun article. It is possibly unfair in that it doesn't mention the service increases that occurred as part of the SmartBus program. Though initially not part of SmartBus, these extra services became the project's only tangible and successful component and resulted in worthwhile patronage increases. This (cheaper) part of SmartBus therefore deserves kudos.

Daniel Bowen's comment though was spot-on. Whether it's the dead monitors at Flinders Street Station, erroneous PIDs on trains, very modern trams that still display superseded route numbers, or the aforementioned not-very-smart bus displays, Melbourne's record with electronic passenger information systems is mixed at best.

Until this record changes, the famous luddism of Melbourne passengers (apparent in any serious discussion about electronic ticketing and/or pre-purchased tickets) will remain a rational response to the host of expensive short-lived fixes that have cost heaps but delivered little.

'Free' transport: a threat to the 'virtuous circle'?

Recent 'Age' articles have suggested that public transport should be free (or nearly so) with more funding coming from taxes.

'Free transport' is a populist mantra that sometimes gets headlines but doesn't solve very much at all. Though there are cases where fares are dear (eg Glenhuntly to Patterson costs $5.20, only slightly cheaper than a taxi), the overwhelming problem is a lack of service rather than the fare.

This is particularly so for the 60-70 % of the metropolitan population whose only service is a bus route, nine-tenths of which operate limited hours unsuited to modern lifestyles.

How is this fixed?

The solution is to establish the conditions for a virtuous circle that build more attractive and usable services. Because fares bring in revenue, these can usefully be employed to make it a sustainable cycle of improvement, rather than a one-off boost. The revenue benefit is amplified if a disproportionate number of new passengers are those who previous drove, ie 'choice passengers', many of whom will be paying full fare.

The ingredients of the 'virtuous circle' in public transport are:

1. More/better service (cheapest improvements first)
V
2. Increased service attractiveness (especially to full fare-payers)
V
3. More patronage
V
4. more revenue (especially more passengers paying full fares)
V
5. even better services

And so the cycle repeats in an upward spiral.

Allowing some costs to be recovered by charging fares assists security of service. Indeed service security probably increases with higher cost-recovery. For example, when a system recovers 60% of its costs, it's much harder for a politician to save money by cutting services (as happened under Kirner when buses were severely pruned) than if it recovers only 30% of costs. A 'free' service that returned 0% of costs would be an even 'softer' target, and the biggest losers would be those with no alternative (the rest can just drive).

With service-driven patronage increases, PT would become a sort of 'sacred cow' that politicians daren't meddle with because its constituency is so large. This is much like neither Liberal nor ALP governments will touch veteran's entitlements as they fear the RSL (remember Bruce Ruxton?). It's the same story for negative gearing, private school subsidies and other things, but there is no reason why public transport shouldn't be on this list as well.

With a stronger public transport system meaning that more passengers and dollars are at stake, it will be easier to dismantle the road lobby's control of our roads. Finally the old paradigm of 'maximising throughput of car traffic' will have to play second fiddle to accessibility, bus/tram priority, pedestrian amenity, cycleways, etc. This further improves public transport's attractiveness and thus patronage.

My biggest objection is that making PT free or very cheap (eg a $365 yearly ticket) kills this virtuous circle and returns us to a stalemate of bad service with no improvements. The only difference is that crowding might be a bit worse.

As mentioned earlier, being able to take fares represents a leverage opportunity that can be used to magnify the benefits of service improvements.

How so? If transport was free (or very cheap), service improvements would not cause revenue to increase. Yet if fares were charged, $10 worth of service improvements might return $3 of increased revenue. If it's particularly high-value improvements (eg co-ordinating timetables, fixing bad connections and removing route duplications) benefits might be nearer $10, ie an elasticity of 1. And so you've got an extra $3 (or $10) which could go towards even more improvements.

In contrast, with free or very cheap PT, the financial returns drop to zero. Hence the business case for service improvements diminishes. Even fewer will be attempted. And if some are done, it will only be possible to get half the improvements for a given sum since returns are zero.

Eventually (i) service will deteriorate due to lack of improvement (and mounting road congestion in the case of trams), and (ii) those who persist taking PT will complain about all the begging vagrants. Then people will start calling for fares to be reintroduced, politicians will think 'that's a good idea' and the deed will be done (possibly manufacturing a financial crisis to justify it).

After a few years have been wasted then maybe it's time to return to the substantive issues, like creating the virtuous service - patronage - revenue circle mentioned above, which is what should have been done in the first place!

Transport alternatives during the Games

With the increased patronage tipped for the Commonwealth Games it has been officially recommended that commuters take a different route, travel earlier or later or work at home during the Games.

The increased patronage is likely to be distributed from early morning to late at night, helped by substantial evening service increases on trains, trams and buses.

Even if the percentage patronage increase is smaller during already-busy peak periods, this may lead to crowding on already stretched services. Passengers have already been warned that they may not be able to board the first service that comes along.

Though the bringing forward of school holidays will help, my guess is that the short, intense 7-9am morning peak will present more challenges than the 4-7pm afternoon peak, which tends to be flatter and longer.

So with this in mind, and following the advice above, what should people do to ensure they get a seat or at least a standing spot?

Assuming that you don't wish to drive (which is being discouraged anyway), can't alter the time of travel and don't want to stay homebound, the only choice remaining is to take a different route.

The official material offers little guidance on the specifics, so here's some tips to get you started:

1. If you have a choice of a shorter railway line or a longer railway line, try the shorter line. The theory here is that as the train on the shorter line will have just left its terminus it won't have 20+ kilometres worth of passengers already on board, so you've got a better chance of a seat.

2. As above, but try other modes. Many suburbs around 10km from the CBD have a choice of tram or train. Again boarding near the tram terminus will guarantee a seat at the cost of a longer ride. But sometimes it's worth it.

3. Consider a less-known service, which in Melbourne is typically a bus. It might be slower and less frequent, but again could be worth it.

4. Combine several of the above, for instance a bus or tram to a different station or even to a tram or bus route.

5. To plan the above, a $2.00 Public Transport Map (available Met Shop & Premium Stations) is helpful. Add a Melways, Meltrip and updates from Metlink, and you'll get there quicker than almost anyone else.

Happy travelling during the Games!

Update 27 March, 2006: As it turned out, public transport performed well over the games period and once again proved its worth in efficiently transporting large crowds.