A PARADIGM FOR TRANSPORT REFORM JOHN GARDINER

A PARADIGM FOR TRANSPORT REFORM JOHN GARDINER

Why do we need a re-think?! A very vocal and ill-informed public! Governments stop-start on major transport infrastructure! At present, transport pricing unfair and discriminatory! Inadequate funds for:! Public transport (PT) new works! Roads new works! Operations! Maintenance! Road congestion very widespread and getting worse! Public Transport congestion getting worse 2

SUGGESTED PARADIGM! PRINCIPLE 1: DENSER CITIES DESIGNED FOR PEOPLE! Both land use and transport planning should continue to encourage denser cities focussed on quality of life and facilitate greater use of walk, cycle and public transport and a reduction in people s need for cars.! PRINCIPLE 2: FAIRNESS! To the greatest extent possible, there should be fairness for all who use transport facilities. We must move away from some members of the community subsidising others travel.! PRINCIPLE 3: FREEDOM OF CHOICE! Transport users should be able to choose the mode of transport which best suits their need for any trip they choose to take. We have an obligation to improve all forms of transport to enable freedom of choice.! PRINCIPLE 4: USER PAYS! All users should make a direct contribution to the cost of the construction, operation and maintenance of the transport facilities they use and to the social and environmental impacts caused by their travel 3

The Paradigm 2. Fairness 4 1. Denser cities designed for people 4. User pays Higher charges during peaks 3. Freedom of choice Uniform distancebased charges Less km more trips Move from cars to PT More walk/ cycle Optimise road use Sound revenue base Expand PT infrastructure Reduced congestion Assure efficient commute, freight, commerce, ES Build road missing links + MMS Subsidies reform

Principle 1: Denser cities designed for people! Both land use and transport planning should continue to encourage denser cities focussed on quality of life and facilitate greater use of walk, cycle and public transport and a reduction in people s need for cars 5

Core City and Car City 6 Source: Wikipedia - Public Transport in Sydney Percent using public transport

Core City Car City 7 Designed for people Mostly built 19 th early 20 th century High public transport use High walk and cycle use Rapid densification Designed for cars Mostly built 1940s onwards High car use Almost no walk and cycle Resistance to densification Compared to the greater city, Core City contains: More affluent people More CBD workers More assisted housing More students Diverse Well educated Articulate Political

Denser cities 8! 23% of all Sydney s contribution to GDP is generated in the CBD Height of bar indicates total economic activity Bar not shown for economic activity less than $1 billion Grattan Institute: Mapping Australia s Economy - Kelly and Donegon Jul 2014

Australian cities vs European cities!! Popula(on!!! Area!!! Density!!!!! persons! millions! world! ranking! sq!km! world! ranking! persons! per!sq!km! world! ranking! Sydney! 3.98% 93% 2037% 40% 2000% 816% Melbourne! 3.788% 100% 2543% 29% 1500% 839% Brisbane! 1.932% 230% 1972% 43% 1000% 880% London! 10.149% 29% 1738% 56% 5800% 447% Paris! 10.975% 27% 2845% 22% 3900% 663% Copenhagen! 1.231% 273% 453% 247% 2700% 769% Stockholm! 1.456% 323% 382% 276% 3200% 720% Zurich! 0.747% 601% 246% 373% 3000% 733% 9 Oz cities are different Australian cities: Population: Mid range Area: Very large Density: Very low

The big question How do we reconcile the needs ot 10 Core City and Car City?

An extra 2m population in Melbourne? 11 Rob Adams Transforming Australian Cities City of Melbourne Project Team led by Prof Rob Adams Mar 2010

Are we building cities for cars or people?! Dinan vs Green Square? 12

Principle 2: Fairness 13! To the greatest extent possible, there should be fairness for all who use transport facilities. We must move away from some members of the community subsidising others travel.! Arguments based on fairness can change people s minds

Examples of unfairness! Should:! frequent travellers be subsidised by infrequent travellers?! a car driver s taxes subsidise public transport (or vice versa)?! PT users pay a fare whilst car users drive most roads for no charge?! a motorist pay a toll on one motorway and not on another?! a Sydney motorist on CCM pay 13x the toll on Westlink?! M5 tollroad users get Cashback refunds and M2 users not?! an electric car make no contribution through fuel excise?! fuel excise be diverted to non-road expenditure?...etc, etc 14

Principle 3: Freedom of choice 15! Transport users should be able to choose the mode of transport which best suits their need for any trip they choose to take. We have an obligation to improve all forms of transport to enable freedom of choice.

Car City vs Core City 16! Core City wants:! more public transport! better cycleways! less cars on their local roads! Car City wants:! better roads! less congestion! What we really need:! More trips, less kms 20-30% of daily trips 70-80% of daily trips

Do we need to take sides? 17

Freedom of choice Blackburn to South Dandenong! by public transport! by car 18 1 hr 40 minutes (walk, bus, train, bus, walk) 25 minutes + 600 hours a year

The road hierarchy 19! Motorways the most efficient movers of road transport! Missing links make them less efficient! High tolls make them less efficient! MMS improves efficiency considerably

Public transport 20! PT is congested during peak! We urgently need a big step up in PT carrying capacity! Densification makes PT more efficient more trips less km! Buses efficient but not so people friendly in CBDs! PT is most efficient when separated from roads! Light rail can help people reclaim the streets

Does Freedom of Choice come with obligations?! Do I need to make this trip during peak periods?! Should I use public transport for this trip?! Should I walk or cycle rather than catch a train or drive?! Should we move closer to work?! As an employer, should I facilitate more flexible working hours?! Should I buy a low polluting, safe car?! Should we criticize others for their choice of transport mode? 21

Principle 4: User pays 22! All users should make a direct contribution to the cost of the construction, operation and maintenance of the transport facilities they use and to the social and environmental impacts caused by their travel! WHY? BECAUSE IT IS THE ONLY FAIR WAY + DISINCENTIVE TO UNDERTAKE UNNECESSARY TRAVEL

User pays 23 What is so different about road transport?

How should user pays be calculated?! OFF PEAK! For roads: Rate per km! Whole of network?! Same cost to use a local road as a motorway?! For Public Transport: Rate per km (zones)! Whole of network?! Same cost to use an urban bus as a train or light rail or ferry? 24 Level playing field

Pay more during congested periods?! All Australians understand why it costs more to rent a beach house in January than July. We just don t call it congestion charging Rod Sims ACCC 25 2005: $ 9.4b 2020 $20.4b Time of day? or More trauma More pollution

Subsidies! Bad Subsidies:! SUVs! Freeways! Sydney s Cashback 26! More sensible subsidies:! To change choice in order to maximise network efficiency! For Public transport to encourage diversion from cars! Assisted housing in Core City for the very poor! Assisting those very poor who make long trips to their place of work! Encouraging the move to cleaner, safer road vehicles

Subsidies 27 Easier to apply than remove Should only be applied:! To a level playing field, fair and equal to all! For a particular period! When it not encourage wrong behaviour

The Paradigm 2. Fairness 28 1. Denser cities designed for people 4. User pays Higher charges during peaks 3. Freedom of choice Uniform distancebased charges Less km more trips Move from cars to PT More walk/ cycle Optimise road use Sound revenue base Expand PT infrastructure Reduced congestion Assure efficient commute, freight, commerce, ES Build road missing links + MMS Subsidies reform