How is public transport performing in Australia CILTA Moving People Thursday 17 March 2011 Professor Corinne Mulley Institute of Transport and Logistics Studies
Outline Measuring performance Australia vs the world Australian performance - Mode share - Cost - Community satisfaction Improving performance in Australia Conclusions Source: Parramatta Advertiser, 13 Jan 2009 2
Measuring performance Measurement of performance only make sense relative to goals Measurement can be quantitative and qualitative Public transport offers accessibility in a spatial area so - Measurement can be within a spatial area - Measurement can compare performance between spatial areas Concentrate here on urban public transport Source: Jenny Brake, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK 3
Measuring performance Public transport policy objectives are multidimensional contributing to cities in - Economic aspects - reduction in congestion through mode shift away from car - Environmental sustainability with the transport sector being a significant contributor to greenhouse gas emissions - Social aspects - positive health impacts - positive social inclusion benefits Elements of performance measurement - Mode share - Cost - Community satisfaction/ Liveability 4
Australia vs the world Australian cities are difficult to benchmark against other world cities in the aspects known to be important in public transport provision Different characteristics suggest different comparators (and data difficult to ensure comparisons) Source: teacher.scholastic.com/.../australia_globe.gif 5
Cities and population size Population (million inhabitants) 25 20 15 10 5 Australia North America S. America and Asia Europe 0 City Source: Susteren: Metropolitan World Atlas, 2007 6
Densities 25000 20000 inhabitants/km 2 15000 10000 5000 0 Melbourne Sydney Perth Vancouver Montreal Chicago New York Washington-Baltimore Las Vegas Los Angeles City Bogota Santiago de Chile Singapore Bejing Copenhagan Berlin Paris Madrid Geneva Frankfurt Source: Susteren: Metropolitan World Atlas, 2007 Metropolitan density Residential Density 7
CBD share of employment % metropolitan employment in CBD 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Melbourne Sydney Vancouver Montreal Chicago Washington-Baltimore Los Angeles City Singapore Copenhagan Paris Source: Susteren: Metropolitan World Atlas, 2007 8
Built area 14000 12000 10000 km 2 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 Melbourne Sydney Perth Vancouver Montreal Chicago New York Washington-Baltimore Las Vegas Los Angeles City Bogota Santiago de Chile Singapore Bejing Copenhagan Berlin Paris Madrid Geneva Frankfurt Source: Susteren: Metropolitan World Atlas, 2007 9
Australia vs the world conclusions In terms of size, Australian cities have more in common with Europe In terms of densities, Australian cities have more in common with North America CBD employment shares are low, only Los Angeles lower Built up area is slightly higher than Europe but considerably lower than North America South American and Asian comparators have higher populations and densities of several magnitudes greater as a result of their small built up areas Source: teacher.scholastic.com/.../australia_globe.gif 10
Measuring performance Measuring performance from whose perspective? - Government? Users? Non-users? Measuring performance: - Mode share - Costs - Customer satisfaction 11
Travel in all Australian Cities Source, State of Australian Cities, 2010, p 55 Major Cities Unit 12
Mode share for travel to work for Australian Cities Source, State of Australian Cities, 2010, p 106 Major Cities Unit 13
The role of density The traditional role of density - Is there a relationship between density and public transport use for Australian cities? - Density also a major factor in successful public transport provision 14
Public Transport Mode share for JTW and density Adelaide: 627 people/km 2 Max %: 12-15 Melbourne: 487 people/km 2 Max %: 23-31 Sydney: 353 people/km 2 Max %: 32-39 Brisbane: 308 people/km 2 Max %: 22-29 15
Mode share for JTW and density Density clearly helps in the supply of public transport BUT Perth: 282 people/km 2 Max %: 17-21 In Australia not a clear link between density and public transport take-up 16
(Poor) International comparison: daily trips per inhabitant Source: UITP Mobility in Cities database 17
Modal information Percentage of trips by public transport Percentage of trips by private transport Source: UITP Mobility in Cities database 18
Impact of supply Percentage of trips by public transport Source: UITP Mobility in Cities database 19
Performance Total Costs in Sydney (2005/6) Source, Glazebrook, G (2009) Taking the Con Out of Convenience: The True Cost of Transport Modes in Sydney, Urban Policy and Research, Volume 27 20
(Poor) International comparison: costs of motoring Cost ($)of one private motorised passenger kilometre for the traveller Source: UITP Mobility in Cities database 21
Congestion Costs Source, State of Australian Cities, 2010, p 54 Major Cities Unit 22
Performance Customer satisfaction Surveys of users and non-users - TOPS - Auspoll (Property Council) Surveys of users - Sydney - HTS questions on satisfaction - ITSR survey of bus and rail users with 10 elements relating to - Reliability - User cost - Travel time - Physical accessibility etc 23
ITLS-Interfleet Transport Opinion Survey Public transport is highest priority issue for transport in Australia Highest priority in every quarter of TOPS and in every state Highest priority transport issue by state, December 2010 100% 90% 80% 17% 70% 22% 22% 60% 26% 28% 20% 50% 40% 30% 67% 56% 54% 48% 20% 45% 45% 10% 0% NSW Vic Qld SA WA Australia Transport Opinion Survey Other No issues Don't know Aviation and airports Environment issues Economic/financial issues Freight and interstate rail Roads Public transport Source: http://sydney.edu.au/business/ data/assets/pdf_file/0006/86640/tops-dec-2010-q4-results.pdf 24
Property Council Auspoll Source: The Property Council of Australia ( 2011), My City: The People s Verdict Available from http://www.propertyoz.com.au/library/110122_auspoll_my%20city%20the%20peoples%20verdict_final.pdf 25
Sydney users satisfaction with train over time Satisfied = always or mostly satisfied Source: Household Travel Survey 2008/09 Summary Report, 2010 release http://www.bts.nsw.gov.au/articledocuments/79/2008_09_hts_summary_report.pdf 26
Sydney users satisfaction with all modes over time 27
Improving public transport performance short run Australia has to live with the urban form/low density cities it has, at least in the short run Improving public transport in the short run is not about doing the big things eg creating new links - but making sure money is well spent - Network planning, co-ordination and integration with high frequency being the key to encouraging public transport use - Measure and address inequities in spatial access (accessibility planning) - Ensure access to public transport is not thwarted by physical features such as footpaths, shelters, lighting, information - Fares have a role particularly integrated fares in maintaining passengers - Supportive policies: eg transport/land use integration, taxation, parking policy - Innovative flexible transport services for low density areas to provide accessibility - TravelSmart - targeted action has shown mode shift is indeed possible 28
Improving public transport performance long run In the longer run, transport and land use planning must be done together to try and influence the location of density to help make public transport more accessible at high frequency and viable 29
Lead in to workshop discussion What are the things holding us back from achieving better performance, growth and development? 30
Questions? Professor Corinne Mulley: corinne.mulley@sydney.edu.au 31