Stimulating public transport

This week the Prime Minister announced billions of dollars in cash handouts and funding for various projects to 'stimulate the economy'. The object appears to be, in Keynes style, to get people spending and thus retain jobs. There are some things like home insulation subsidies, road blackspot fixes and community facilities that might benefit. However the spirit of the personal handouts appears to be that it matters less where the money goes than if it ends up being spent. Besides most of those working aren't too badly off at the moment; lower interest rates and lower petrol prices are bringing relief to the key outer suburban 'mortgage belt' electorates.

But what if you had a stimulus package to spend on public transport? What sort of things would be in it, and what would be missed? Given the emphasis is on short-term spending on quick projects, very large rail and road projects would not be included. And though highly desirable, and necessary to maximise use of public transport infrastructure, off-peak and shoulder-peak service frequency increases involves some recurring funding so might not be sustainable if funded by a one-off 'stimulus measure'. Hence while important, they won't qualify for money from this particular bucket.

So having excluded them, here's my list of top five transport projects that would deliver lasting benefits from stimulus money.

1. Small scale pedestrian access improvements. Each metropolitan municipality might have an average of 50-100 such projects, which might include zebra crossings, underpasses, traffic islands, roadworks, roundabout conversion to traffic lights, cycle modification, etc. These would be focused around shopping centres, bus stops and railway stations, and also larger roads where there are long intervals between safe crossing points.

2. 1000 kilometres of new cycleway to form a new city-wide network, including grade-seperation with roads on major routes. This rate of construction is several times that which currently occurs.

3. Modification of suburban streets in transit-hostile neighbourhoods. This might include widenings (to permit bus movements), modified roundabouts (to permit buses), opening of culs-de-sac (to permit more direct bus, cycle and pedestrian movement) and new pedestrian and bicycle bridges over rivers and creeks between suburbs. The latter would expand the pedsheds of bus stops and railway stations and reduce backtracking. On larger roads, minor works to assist bus and tram movement could also be done, perhaps complementing the worthwhile 'blackspot' program.

4. An expansion of passenger information, with bus information at railway stations and general information in 'main streets' off the system. Travelsmart-style maps at interchanges and in public places would also identify key walking and cycling routes.

5. A program of works to improve train reliability and make the currently fragile network more robust. This might include projects such as accelerated concrete sleepering, better security for often vandalised trains, lightning protection of vulnurable signal boxes, track duplications, communication improvements and more.

A veritable shopping list for sure, but doing them would kill two birds with one stone; 'stimulate the economy' and deliver improvements of enduring value. At least the higher taxes we'll have to pay in the future to support increased public debt will have had something to show for it in this period of building.

An Airport Bus Network

Australia's capital cities have different approaches when it comes to providing airport public transport. Perth (Domestic) and Adelaide run airport services as part of the regular bus network. Sydney and Brisbane have privately-built lines that charge a premium fare.

Like the smaller cities Melbourne uses buses, with the services offered representing both the extreme best and the extreme worst of bus transport in Melbourne. At the top end we have the premium fare exress Skybus, which offers train-level travel speeds and frequent service at all times. At the bottom end we have three very infrequent and poorly signed regular bus routes that not even airport staff know about (picture below).

The equivalent pictures for Sydney, showing wayfinding signs and timetables full of services, are below:

Somebody over at Transport Textbook has posted a piece that contains many good points. Most pertinent to this article is the fact that airports are major employment centres and should receive similar service to any other major suburban centre.

As mentioned in one of the responses, local buses around Melbourne Airport are being reviewed. There are also plans afoot to include the Airport as an orbital bus route stop. Hence if you want better services to Melbourne Airport, now is a good time to lodge a submission to this effect. The deadline is February 28. See the Department of Transport website for more details.

Following are possible plans for an airport bus network serving the major surrounding suburbs. The most frequent service would run to Broadmeadows to connect with trains. It would have limited stops, run every 20 minutes and be shown as a dotted line on rail network maps. Other services could run to (i) Sydenham via Airport West and (ii) Sunbury, with the latter timed to connect with V/Line trains. All centres served are significant local train, tram or bus nodes, so it should be possible for a significant part of the airport's workforce to commute with no or one change of vehicle.

Our recession threat and its impact on public transport

With opinions varying on what's in store for Australia's economy, it's worth reflecting on the effect the economy has on public transport.

Here's a few possible consequences of a slowing economy on public transport.

Recruitment and retention of key staff, eg train drivers Operators and maintenance companies should find staff retention easier. No longer will the big money in mining lure eastern states workers. Wages pressure may also moderate and the effect of the 'skills shortage', impacting industries from bus drivers to maintenance will lessen.

Unemployment and a reduced labour participation rate Should boost off-peak patronage on all modes, especially if households sell their second or third car. This increases the importance and use of local public transport, especially suburban buses.

Reduced tourism, overseas student recruitment and retail activity May affect the CBD and some student-dependent suburban centres. These groups have high public transport usage so patronage may also suffer, especially if retail and catering staff numbers fall.

Reduced immigration Would reduce the rate of household formation and thus housing development. Especially in outer areas a slower pace of growth would reduce pressures to extend bus routes to new areas.

Reduced business activity The Australian car industry, propped up by fleet and government purchases, is in for more hard times. Consumers might stick with small cheaper to run imports, despite lower petrol prices. Lower business activity (eg fewer taxis, tradesmen, couriers) may lower traffic volumes during the day and even provide relief for crawling trams and buses.

CBD employment and office vacancy rates Fewer full-time jobs, especially in the CBD, will reduce our very high rates of patronage growth. In a perverse way, decision-makers who did not predict the 2005 - 2008 patronage boom may heave a sigh of relief as 'train crush' stories no longer feature in the papers. Demands on infrastructure may be less and fewer improvements may be proposed. Job suburbanisation or casualisation is also bad for our existing transport network since driving is so much more competitive outside the CBD and 'business hours'.

Reduced environmental consciousness Historically green consciousness and activism peaks towards the end of long booms. During good times few people worry about the economy and environmentalism surges. But during a recession 'it's the economy stupid' and 'the environment' becomes less urgent amongst decision makers. Given that the environment is an often quoted justification for public transport investment, this reduced emphasis makes it harder to successfully advocate improved public transport.

The evaporation of private capital for big infrastructure projects Ambitious projects (eg the Very Fast Train and various road tunnels) often get proposed by entrepeneurs and financiers after generous tax write-offs. However during leaner times such projects are considered risky, credit is tighter and growth projections are less rosy so financiers lose interest. Big ideas die and emphasis instead turns to holding on what we have. However this applies to freeways as much as public transport, so the net effect in modal shift may be negligible.

Less favourable government budgetary position Every person who loses their job makes the government at least $30k pa worse off (from less tax revenue and more benefits paid). Company tax and stamp duty revenues also fall. Governments also lose heavily if they 'play business' and bail out failed companies or finance dodgy public/private partnerships. The effect of all this are 'across the board' cuts, which affect public transport since it is majority government-funded. Infrastructure spending, maintenance, staffing and service levels are the main casualties, if the 1990s experience is anything to go by.

Big 'recession-busting' infrastructure projects In contrast to the above two points, governments facing recession may be willing to follow Keynesian-style economics and go into deficit to 'stimulate the economy'. Major capital infrastructure benefits (which provide jobs and build for the future) may be funded. Sometimes these involve public transport, such as the Cranbourne electrification. However these have long lead times, and recent government policy has instead been to provide one-off cash bonuses to certain groups such as pensioners and first homebuyers since these can be spent quickly. While the federal government has invited submissions for infrastructure spending, few asked for projects will proceed since the money's already been spent.