65 public transport - ppt public transport-1.pdf · pp 282 final report public transport sixty -...

PP 282

FINAL REPORT

PUBLIC TRANSPORT

SIXTY - FIFTH REPORT

OF THE

ENVIRONMENT, RESOURCES AND DEVELOPMENTCOMMITTEE

Tabled in the House of Assembly and ordered to be published, 1 December 2009

Third Session, Fifty-first Parliament

- ii -

Parliament of South Australia. Environment, Resources and Development Committee

Committee’s Foreword

The Environment, Resources and Development Committee commenced its inquiryinto Public Transport on 2 April 2008. As part of the inquiry, 42 submissions werereceived and 11 witnesses were heard. Submissions and witnesses included keyplayers from state and local government, industry, academics, non-governmentorganisations and community groups, providing a cross-section of views and ideason Public Transport in South Australia.

The Committee extends its thanks for the effort made by those involved in preparingand presenting evidence to the Committee. It provided the Committee members witha better understanding of Public Transport in South Australia, and highlighted someof the key issues facing our state.

The Committee thanks the research team; Professor Michael A P Taylor, ProfessorDerek Scrafton and Dr Nicholas Holyoak, Institute for Sustainable Systems andTechnologies, University of South Australia whose work, research and collation ofinformation ensures that the report will be of great value to individuals andorganisations concerned with transport in SA.

Ms Lyn Breuer, MPPresiding Member

1 December 2009

- iii -


Committee Summary of Findings

In an ideal world public transport would be available, affordable, safe and clean - inthe carbon neutral sense. Somehow the domination of the car would not have itplaced in catch up mode and being ill prepared to face the challenges raised byclimate change and peak oil. In a comparison with other states and similar citiesworldwide South Australia has some admirable aspects and some faults. A onesentence summary of where SA is at the moment is: SA was lagging but the plannedinfrastructure spending will bring us in line with other states but this will not beenough to carry the State into the future scenarios influenced by peak oil and climatechange.

The reality is that in Adelaide less than 10% of people used public transport tojourney to work. The private car dominates. Arguably Adelaide is the most car-dominated city in Australia, but the statistics show that Perth and Canberra are aboutthe same. This should not be surprising; the car has been an easy, relativelyinexpensive, fast way to get to where you want to be. An extensive road network isprovided for car users.

Public transport is used by two groups; those going to the CBD (about 43% of allpublic transport trips are CBD bound journeys) and the 50% of the population who donot have access to a private vehicle. These are people who are old or young or cannot afford to run a car. Public transport for many historic reasons has providedservices that radiate out from Adelaide. This does not effectively serve traveller’sneeds and a chicken and egg situation arises. Suburban centres that are designedto accommodate cars arise and these are difficult to serve by public transport.

It is recognised that there must be a shift to public transport as the current use ofprivate cars is unsustainable. The environmental and economic consequences arewell known.

Recent history shows successive state and local governments making considerableprogress in improving Adelaide’s public transport. Integrating the fare and ticketingsystems, the O-Bahn to the north-east suburbs, extending rail to Noarlunga,providing an interchange and creating community bus networks to name a few. Theintegration of state and private services through the establishment of the StateTransport Authority, now Passenger Transport Board and Public Transport Divisionhas been very positive.

Compared to other states funding for capital works for public transport was low. TheCommittee’s visit to Perth, a city comparable in size etc to Adelaide demonstratedthe vast improvements that capital funding provide. This situation has now changedfor the better: the current State Government now has a program of works to improvemajor elements of Adelaide’s public transport system, including the following railinfrastructure projects:

Re-sleepering the Noarlunga and Belair lines; Constructing a tramline overpass at South Road; Electrifying the Noarlunga and Outer Harbor lines; Extending the tramline to the Entertainment centre; Extending the Noarlunga line to Seaford.

For these and other projects, including replacement buses and improved access forO-Bahn buses into the city, the State Government expects to invest some $2 billion

- iv -


over the period 2008-2018, with some financial assistance from federal governmentprograms. The initial thrust is on rebuilding the rail and tram infrastructure, butimprovements to other services are expected to take place concurrently.

A key recommendation of the Committee is that the government produce a StrategicTransport Plan. This would set the new program of public transport improvements,the costs involved and the budgets required, into a strategic framework, provide aguideline for the medium-term future, and form a platform on which longer-term planscan be developed. It would demonstrate that South Australia was ‘adopting anintegrated, inter-modal, best-practice approach to transport planning andmanagement’ and ‘planning for long-term change’. These were the findings of therecently published report from the Senate Committee on Rural and Regional Affairsand Transport and echoed by many others. A new Draft Plan could be preparedquickly and released for public consultation by updating the 2003 Draft TransportPlan for South Australia. If existing resources cannot be spared to prepare such aplan, consideration could be given to a future ‘Thinker-in-Residence’ being invitedfrom interstate or overseas to complete the task.

Current plans have targets for increasing public transport patronage that are set toolow. The current SA Strategic Plan target to improve Adelaide’s public transportpatronage to 10% of passenger kilometres by 2018 should be increased to a moreaspirational 25%. The targets for public transport travel into the Adelaide CBDshould be raised to 50% of trips by 2018.

The Committee realises improved public transport is only one element of reducingprivate car use and moving towards a sustainable future. Planning such as TransitOrientated Development (TODs), taxes on car use, encouraging cycling and walking,and education campaigns should all be part of the approach.

It is important to raise the general standard of services in all of the following areas ifpublic transport is to be an attractive alternative to the private car:

Frequent services; Reliable services; Bus priority measures; Realistic operating timetables; Accurate and comprehensive public timetables; Convenient and pleasant interchanges; Convenient access to vehicles, stops, interchanges and platforms; Maintaining low fare levels; Smartcard integrated ticketing; Overall comfort and security; and Capacity for shopping, schoolbags and luggage.

The Smart Stop real time information system needs improvement and then should berolled out to all major bus, tram and rail stops. The Crouzet ticketing system shouldbe replaced with a Smartcard system with a high priority.

Another key recommendation centres on funding. The Committee identified thegreatest impediment to maintaining such a program of improvements as theavailability of finance. The capital budget has been increased greatly in recent years,but there has not been a corresponding increase in the operating budget to cover thecontracts between the State Government, its rail and tram operating agency(TransAdelaide) and the private contractors providing bus services. To the contrary,the main effort in the last decade or more has been to maintain the operating budget

- v -


or make savings. Given the expansion of the rail and tram systems, additional fundswill be required to cover increased operating costs. If the overall budget for servicecontracts is limited to current levels, then savings will have to made elsewhere in thepresent system, which will negate the effectiveness of the capital works program. Itwould be folly to cut bus services to fund increased rail operating costs as theimprovements to the total network are as important as action on particular corridors.Such cross-subsidisation would also be economically inefficient as the cost recoveryon rail services from fares is much lower than that on the bus network, and busescarry far more travellers than the rail system.

The Terms of Reference included the consideration of restoring certain railpassenger services. The Committee is firmly of the view that the future as impactedby peak oil and climate change will include public transport to the areas reviewed.The Committee’s research concludes that restoration of passenger train services tonear-metropolitan areas is unlikely to occur in the immediate future, for a number ofreasons. The Committee therefore recommends:

Continued reservation of rail rights-of-way that are currently unused by railservices.

A short eastward extension of the Gawler line rail service to the plannedConcordia/Buckland Park development and construction of a secure park &ride facility at the new terminal.

Extensions of rail networks and stations precede urbanexpansion/development.

Review of the potential for restoring passenger trains to Mount Barker if andwhen all or most freight trains are removed from the Adelaide Hills line tooperate via a new freight by-pass rail line.

A study to determine whether improvements to public transport services in theeastern suburbs of the City of Onkaparinga would benefit from use of theWillunga rail right-of-way through the area.

Although restoring regional rail passenger services to Whyalla and to Broken Hill ispossible (both cities, plus Port Augusta, are on the ARTC standard gauge network),such services are unlikely to be needed or justified in the near future. Considerationof re-opening passenger train service to Mount Gambier must await any action tostandardise and re-open the currently unused broad gauge freight branch line fromWolseley.

The State Government and member companies of the Bus SA organisation shouldreview the level of service to near-metropolitan communities and the regional citiesand develop measures to raise the quality and image of coach services, to offset theview presented to the Committee that improved public transport can only be achievedby re-introducing passenger train services.

Moving forward there will need to be more consultation across the spectrum fromproducing a strategic plan to making changes to bus routes. The Committee hasmade several recommendations regarding consultation, including a researchpartnership between DTEI, local governments and local communities. This would beuseful in identifying and addressing safety (from assault and traffic) and amenityissues in the areas around stops and stations.

It is hoped that this report will be of use to the Parliament and benefit the governmentin setting its policy for the future. The report contains research and analysis that willserve many of the stakeholders in public transport.

- vi -


Committee Recommendations

Committee Recommendation 1The Committee recommends that Government planning and funding forpublic transport in metropolitan Adelaide and regional South Australia reflectthe urgent need to increase public transport’s share of the passengertransport task. This should recognise that if South Australia is to be able tocope with Peak Oil and if the transport sector is to meet its share of thelegislated State Greenhouse Gas reduction target, then a massive increase incapital and operational funding will be required.

Committee Recommendation 2The Committee recommends that the Government encourage consultationwith users of public transport and other stakeholders, including members ofParliament, who have an interest in the development of services as anintegral element of the planning process for service improvements in generaland of the planning and design of specific projects.

Committee Recommendation 3The Committee recommends that as a matter of urgency a draft long-termstrategic transport plan for South Australia be prepared, published, discussedwith all interested parties, finalised and tabled in Parliament. This Plan shouldbe developed and integrated with the proposed Oil Vulnerability Assessment& Peak Oil Action Plan, existing State Strategic Plan and Planning Strategyand the over-arching State Government program, Tackling Climate Change.

Committee Recommendation 4The Committee recommends that the Urban Growth Boundary should beretained to minimise the physical and the ecological ‘footprint’ of Adelaide andreduce greenhouse gas emissions from transport emissions.

Committee Recommendation 5The Committee recommends that the SA Strategic Plan target to improveAdelaide’s public transport patronage to 10% (passenger kilometres) by 2018should be increased to a more aspirational 25% overall.

Committee Recommendation 6The Committee recommends that the targets for public transport travel intothe Adelaide CBD should be raised to 50% of trips by 2018.

Committee Recommendation 7The Committee recommends that State Government should continue to lobbyfor a substantial proportion of the federal Building Australia Fund to beinvested in public transport and active transport infrastructure in SouthAustralia.

- vii -


Committee Recommendation 8The Committee recommends that the operating budget for public transport beincreased to take into account increased operating costs incurred when newcapital projects become operational, so that savings do not have to be madeelsewhere in the system to offset the increased costs. In particular, busservices should not be reduced to finance any increased costs on the railnetwork.

Committee Recommendation 9The Committee recommends that any savings made by more efficientoperation of public transport be used to provide additional services.

Committee Recommendation 10The Committee recommends that the State Government and Adelaide CityCouncil should work towards progressively reducing private car use in theAdelaide CBD.

Committee Recommendation 11The Committee recommends that the Government and the contracted buscompanies continue to refine bus timetables to ensure that travel times onbus routes (and sections of routes) reflect the prevailing traffic conditions,speeding up services where justified and extending travel times when andwhere drivers have difficulty running to time due to congestion.

Committee Recommendation 12The Committee recommends that the government continually review thecurrent competitive process for contracting public transport services to ensurethat processes are transparent and service quality is maintained. Conditionspertaining to all contracts for public transport services should be published inthe annual report of DTEI.

Committee Recommendation 13The Committee recommends that regional bus service fares be reviewed witha view to reducing the fares within country towns and between Adelaide’snearby country towns. Metropolitan and country public transport fares shouldadjusted according to CPI on a regular basis and metro ticket boundaries bereviewed in light of the expanded urban area.

Committee Recommendation 14The Committee recommends that public transport be considered to be anessential element contributing to the achievement of the community’s socialgoals, such as equity, social inclusion and the welfare of disadvantagedgroups, through the network’s geographical and temporal coverage and thequality of services provided.

Committee Recommendation 15The Committee recommends that all staff involved in the delivery of publictransport services be encouraged to put forward ideas and plans for serviceimprovements, particularly at the ‘micro’ level, as drivers and others in directcontact with passengers are those most likely to be aware of the benefits thatmight accrue from detailed changes to services and practices. Members ofParliament and elected members of local councils should also be consultedabout planned or potential service improvements or changes.

- viii -


Committee Recommendation 16The Committee recommends that the Smart Stop real-time informationsystem be improved so that the information provided is more accurate than atpresent, to ensure that passengers can rely on the aural and visual data at alltimes, particularly when normal service patterns are disrupted due to delaysor diversions.

Committee Recommendation 17The Committee recommends that Smart Stop real time information systemsbe expanded to all major bus stops and all train and tram stops.

Committee Recommendation 18The Committee recommends that replacement of the Crouzet ticketingsystem by a new Smartcard system be accorded the highest priority by theGovernment.

Committee Recommendation 19The Committee recommends further research to understand the nature ofrecent changes in public transport use and the reasons for these changes.

Committee Recommendation 20The Committee recommends that a research partnership between DTEI, localgovernments and local communities be implemented.

Committee Recommendation 21The Committee recommends that when creating park & ride facilities that theyincorporate low cost secure parking.

Committee Recommendation 22The Committee recommends that any further urban expansion around Gawlerbe preceded by extensions of the rail network and new stations to cater forboth local residents and park & ride commuters from the Barossa region andto other potential urban development including Buckland Park.

Committee Recommendation 23The Committee recommends that the proposed DTEI investigation into thefuture of rail service in the Barossa valley be expanded to cover all aspects ofpublic transport provision and the future needs for transport in the Barossaregion.

Committee Recommendation 24The Committee recommends that the potential to restore passenger trainservices into the Hills region be investigated as a complement to and/orimmediately on completion of the Adelaide Rail Freight Movements Study,including identification of a suitable site for a park & ride station in theBridgewater/Aldgate area.

Committee Recommendation 25The Committee recommends that any consideration of restoring regionalpassenger train service to Victor Harbor and/or Murray Bridge be deferreduntil a decision is made on restoring service to towns in the Hills region.

- ix -


Committee Recommendation 26The Committee recommends that a transport planning study of the easternpart of the City of Onkaparinga be undertaken to determine, inter alia,whether improvement of public transport services in the area might benefitfrom use of all or part of the former railway right-of-way between Reynella andHuntfield Heights. The Committee also recommends that the railway right-ofway continue to be protected and used for recreational purposes until itspotential as a public transport route is determined.

Committee Recommendation 27The Committee recommends that the government investigate the extension ofthe Tonsley rail line and the development a TOD around Flinders MedicalCentre/Flinders University and Darlington.

Committee Recommendation 28The Committee recommends that the government adopt as a primaryprinciple that all land reserved as potential transport corridors should haveongoing protection.

Committee Recommendation 29The Committee recommends that, although re-instatement of the Northfieldrail line is not warranted at present, the right-of-way should continue to beprotected for potential use by public transport in the future.

Committee Recommendation 30The Committee recommends that high priority is given to the followingprojects:a) the redesign of Grenfell Street and Pulteney Street, in collaboration with

Adelaide City Council, to give greater priority to buses;b) the creation of a fare-free zone within the City of Adelaide;c) evaluating the feasibility and benefits of carrying bicycles on buses; andd) consideration of the extension of the tram network in the CBD and

beyond.

Committee Recommendation 31The Committee recommends that further investigation into the mostappropriate bike parking facilities at railway stations, including overnight atAdelaide station.

Committee Recommendation 32The Committee recommends that the role of the Public Transport AdvisoryCommittee be expanded to include consultation with users on route changes,and a public education role to publicise the costs of transport, (includingexternalities) and the long-term implications of relying on the private car andpetroleum-based fuels.

Committee Recommendation 33The Committee recommends that the Government investigate, incollaboration with the Adelaide City Council, a levy on all long-term parkingspaces, public and private, within the Central Business District with fundsraised used to compensate country drivers parking in the CBD and users ofpublic transport, cycling and walking in and around the CBD.

- x -


Committee Recommendation 34The Committee recommends that Transit Oriented Developments (TODs) arebased on successful examples from Portland, USA and Subiaco in WesternAustralia and they should form a central focus of an integrated approach toland use in a Transport Master Plan.

Committee Recommendation 35The Committee recommends that Adelaide’s TODs should aim for world’sbest practice in terms of carbon neutrality, passive solar design, energy andwater efficiency and waste management.

Committee Recommendation 36The Committee recommends that the State Government argue throughCOAG for reform of the fringe benefit tax system that currently encouragesprivate car use.

- xi -


Table of Contents

Committee’s Foreword ..................................................................................iiCommittee Summary of Findings................................................................iiiCommittee Recommendations ....................................................................viTable of Contents..........................................................................................xiThe Environment, Resources and Development Committee ..................xiiiThe Inquiry ..................................................................................................xivAbbreviations...............................................................................................xvChapter 1. .......................................................................................................1INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................1

1.1 Terms of Reference................................................................................11.2 Structure of the Report ...........................................................................2

Chapter 2. .......................................................................................................4REVIEWS ........................................................................................................4

2.1 The Submissions....................................................................................42.2 Australian Metropolitan Transport Planning Studies...............................82.2 Summary..............................................................................................14

Chapter 3. .....................................................................................................16A SNAPSHOT OF CURRENT PUBLIC TRANSPORT IN SOUTHAUSTRALIA ..................................................................................................16

3.1 Introduction...........................................................................................163.2 Metropolitan Adelaide...........................................................................163.3 Regional Cities; Country areas; Inter-city services ...............................213.4 Current SA Government plans and proposals ......................................303.5 Summary..............................................................................................34

Chapter 4. .....................................................................................................35EFFICIENCY & INTEGRATION IN METROPOLITAN PUBLIC TRANSPORTSYSTEMS INTERSTATE AND OVERSEAS.................................................35

4.1 Introduction...........................................................................................354.2 Australia ...............................................................................................364.3 New Zealand ........................................................................................484.4 Canada.................................................................................................504.5 United States of America......................................................................564.6 Europe..................................................................................................624.7.Asia ......................................................................................................764.8 Other Cities ..........................................................................................794.9 The Relevance of Overseas Experience to Adelaide ...........................804.10 Summary............................................................................................91

Chapter 5. .....................................................................................................93OUTER METROPOLITAN AND REGIONAL RAIL PASSENGER SERVICES.......................................................................................................................93

5.1 Introduction...........................................................................................935.2 Background ..........................................................................................935.3 The Barossa line ..................................................................................965.4 The Hills line.........................................................................................995.5 The southern routes ...........................................................................1015.6 The regional cities ..............................................................................1035.7 The Northfield line ..............................................................................105

- xii -


5.8 Summary............................................................................................106Chapter 6. ...................................................................................................108OPPORTUNITIES AND IMPEDIMENTS TO INCREASING THE USE OFPUBLIC TRANSPORT ................................................................................108

6.1 Introduction.........................................................................................1086.2 Opportunities......................................................................................1086.3 Impediments.......................................................................................112

Chapter 7. ...................................................................................................115SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ..............................................................115

7.1 The Importance of Public Transport ...................................................1157.2 Progress to Date ................................................................................1167.3 Strategic Transport Planning..............................................................1167.4 Capitalising on Opportunities..............................................................1177.5 Regional South Australia....................................................................1187.6 Conclusions........................................................................................119

Bibliography...............................................................................................121Submissions...............................................................................................124Witnesses ...................................................................................................125

- xiii -


The Environment, Resources and DevelopmentCommittee

The Environment, Resources and Development Committee (the Committee) isappointed pursuant to the Parliamentary Committees Act 1991 (the Act) on 27 April2006. Its membership during the reporting period was:

Ms Lyn Breuer MP, Presiding MemberHon Michelle Lensink MLCHon Mark Parnell MLCHon Dr Bob Such MPMr Ivan Venning MPHon Russell Wortley MLC

Executive Officer to the Committee: Mr Philip Frensham

FUNCTIONS OF THE COMMITTEE

Pursuant to section 8 of the Act, the terms of reference for the Committee are:

(a) to inquire into, consider and report on such of the following matters as arereferred to it under this Act:

(i) any matter concerned with the environment or how the quality of theenvironment might be protected or improved;

(ii) any matter concerned with the resources of the State or how they ight bebetter conserved or utilised;

(iii) any matter concerned with planning, land use or transport;(iv) any matter concerned with the general development of the State;

(b) to perform such other functions as are imposed on the Committee under this orany other Act or by resolution of both Houses.

REFERRAL PROCESS

Pursuant to section 16(1) of the Act, any matter that is relevant to the functions of theCommittee may be referred to it in the following ways:

(a) by resolution of the Committee’s appointing house or Houses, or either of theCommittee’s appointing Houses;

(b) by the Governor, or by notice published in the Gazette; or(c) of the Committee’s own motion.

- xiv -


The Inquiry

This Inquiry was first contemplated in an environment where the state’s transportinfrastructure was topical because it was considered behind the standard found inother states of Australia. Public transport was often criticised in the media andMembers of Parliament were keen to discuss how the issues being raised could beresolved. The House of Assembly referred Terms of Reference to the Committee on2 April 2008. The Legislative Council on 4 June 2008 gave the same Terms ofReference but with additional specific rail lines for consideration.

The Committee advertised its Terms of Reference in the local press in September2008 and called for submissions. The Committee heard witness from theDepartment of Transport in September 2008 and from other groups in June 2009.

Initial deliberations of the Committee realised that the Inquiry could be both verybroad and involve a lot of research and that the Committee would require expertassistance. The Institute for Sustainable Systems and Technologies, University ofSouth Australia was approached to provide a research team for the Inquiry. The staffengaged was: Professor Michael A P Taylor, Professor Derek Scrafton and DrNicholas Holyoak.

The Terms of Reference are provided in Chapter One.

- xv -


Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are to be found in the report, together with standardabbreviations such as Govt, LGA, etc, and those for Australian states (e.g. NSW,WA), US states (e.g. CA, OR), and Canadian provinces (e.g. ON, BC). Organisationsin brackets are translations.

ACCC Australian Competition and Consumer CommissionALRT Automated Light Rail TransitAN Australian National RailwaysARTC Australian Rail Track Corporation

BART Bay Area Rapid TransitBCC Brisbane City CouncilBVC Barossa Valley Coaches

CBD Central Business DistrictCCSA Conservation Council of South AustraliaCIE (Irish National Transport Authority)CNG Compressed Natural GasCPN Community Passenger Network

DART Dublin Area Rapid TransitDDA Disability Discrimination ActDITRD&LG Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and

Local GovernmentDoE Department of EnvironmentDoT Department of TransportDSB (Danish State Railways)DSTO Defence Science & Technology OrganisationDTA Dublin Transport AuthorityDTEI Department for Transport, Energy and Infrastructure

ERC Economic Research Centre

FBT Fringe Benefits TaxFMC Flinders Medical Centre

GHG Greenhouse GasGIS Geographic Information SystemGSR Great Southern RailGWA Genesee & Wyoming Australia

HUR (Greater Copenhagen Authority)

IA Infrastructure AustraliaITS Intelligent Transport Systems

LNG Liquified Natural GasLRT Light Rail TransitLRV Light Rail Vehicle

LUAS (Dublin Light Rail System)

- xvi -


MATS Metropolitan Adelaide Transportation StudyMFP Multi-Function PolisMTT Municipal Tramways TrustMUNI San Francisco Municipal Railway

OPT Office of Public Transport

pass/km passenger/kilometrePPP Public Private PartnershipPPT People for Public TransportPTB Passenger Transport Board

QR Queensland Rail

RAA Royal Automobile Association of SA

SAR South Australian RailwaysSATC South Australian Tourism CommissionSATSS South Australian Transport Subsidy SchemeSLTC (Lyon Public Transport Authority)SNCF (French National Railways)STMP Strategic Transport Master Plan

TA TransAdelaideT&WITA Tyne & Wear Integrated Transport AuthorityTOD Transit Oriented DevelopmentTTC Toronto Transit Commission

VBK (Karlsruhe Public Transport Authority)VCEC Victorian Competition & Efficiency Councilveh-km vehicle/kilometrevpd vehicles per dayVV Verkehrsverbund (German regional public transport authorities)

WCE West Coast ExpressWES Westside ExpressWYITA West Yorkshire Integrated Transport Authority

1


Chapter 1.

INTRODUCTION

The Institute for Sustainable Systems and Technologies, University of SouthAustralia were engaged to assist the Committee in the preparation of the reportbased on the Terms of Reference provided below.

1.1 Terms of Reference

Pursuant to section 16(1)(a) of the Parliamentary Committees Act 1991 theCommittee is to conduct an inquiry; namely:

That the Environment, Resources and Development Committee inquire into andreport into the current and future transport needs for South Australia and in particular:

I. the development of an efficient and integrated public transport systemincorporating all forms of public transport and necessary infrastructureimprovements;

II. the needs of metropolitan and outer metropolitan regions;III. the opportunities and impediments to increasing public transport patronage

with a view to reducing greenhouse emissions and other relevant matters;and

IV. an assessment and report of the feasibility and cost and benefits of thefollowing proposals (to include the benefit to car users who remain on theroad network, road crash cost savings, benefits to car drivers who shift topublic transport, revenue, journey time savings, emission reductions, noisereductions, avoided car ownership) -

(a) the introduction of a high speed passenger train service betweenAdelaide and Angaston to service the Barossa tourist area, with areport on the feasibility of co-use leasing or of purchasing the currentline from Gawler to Angaston from GWA to restore rail coverage toLyndoch, Tanunda, Nuriootpa and Angaston;

(b) the introduction of a passenger train service between Adelaide andMount Barker via either the duplication of a broad gauge line fromBelair to Mount Barker or conversion of the Belair metropolitan trainline to standard gauge during scheduled re-sleepering works in such away that the metropolitan line can reconnect with the standard gaugeARTC line from Mount Barker to restore rail coverage to MountBarker, Littlehampton, Balhannah, Bridgewater, Aldgate and Stirling;

(c) the re-laying of the now defunct Northfield line to include “Park andRide” stations at Port Wakefield Road and Main North Road, and toprovide high-speed passenger rail coverage to the suburbs of GeppsCross, Pooraka, Walkley Heights, Northfield, Gilles Plains, Ingle Farmand Valley View;

(d) the relaying of the now defunct southern suburbs line from Reynella toHuntfield Heights (known as the “Willunga line”), with an investigationas to the feasibility of using either the old corridor from Hallett Covestation, or of alternatively linking viable portions of the old corridor to a

2


new line extending from Tonsley station to provide high-speed railcoverage to Sheidow Park, Trott Park, Fountain Valley, Reynella,Woodcroft, Morphett Vale, Hackham, and Huntfield Heights (andprovide new coverage to Flinders University and Medical Centre,Darlington, and O’Halloran Hill should the line extend from Tonsleystation);

(e) costs and feasibility of providing high-speed rail services fromAdelaide to Aldinga via a restored Willunga rail line and the feasibilityof re-using the existing but defunct Willunga line bridge over theOnkaparinga River as an alternative to a new extension and newbridge from Noarlunga to restore rail coverage to Seaford and providenew coverage to Aldinga; and

(f) the re-instatement of regular regional passenger rail services,including services to Murray Bridge, Victor Harbor, Whyalla, Mt.Gambier and Broken Hill;

and such report to include any other factors or recommendations that the Committeedeems appropriate, along with a summary of submissions provided in response to arequest for community input regarding each proposal.

1.2 Structure of the Report

The report comprises seven chapters:

1. Introduction.

2. Reviews of published and submitted materials. This chapter reviews andsummarises the public submissions received for the Inquiry. It also considersinformation provided in Hansard, documentation from the Department forTransport, Energy and Infrastructure (and its predecessors) and other SAGovernment sources (e.g. the State Strategic Plan and the StateInfrastructure Plan), and transport policy documentation available from otherstates and territories.

3. Public transport in South Australia. This chapter is a snapshot of the existingoperations of public transport in the metropolitan area and regional areas ofSouth Australia. It also considers the available inter-city public transportservices. The chapter discusses the determinants of public transportpatronage, implications for greenhouse gas emissions, and the relationshipbetween the existing situation and the specific public transport-relatedobjectives in the State Strategic Plan. It includes a summary of the SAsubmission to Infrastructure Australia.

4. Efficient and integrated public transport. This includes a description of thecurrent metropolitan Adelaide public transport system and its characteristics,and information on the public transport systems of Sydney, Melbourne,Brisbane and Perth. It draws on information from some cities in New Zealand,North America, Europe and elsewhere. The focus is on the integration ofmulti-modal, multi-operator public transport systems in medium-sized cities.

5. Re-opening SA passenger railways. This chapter considers the issuessurrounding the possible restitution of passenger rail services as listed inTerm of Reference IV of the inquiry, including near-Adelaide services (e.g.Barossa Valley, Mount Barker and Victor Harbor) and regional services (e.g.to Whyalla, Broken Hill and Mount Gambier).

3


6. Opportunities and impediments. This chapter provides a response to Term ofReference III, concerning the opportunities for and impediments to increasingpublic transport patronage with a view to reducing greenhouse gas emissionsand related matters.

7. Summary and conclusions.

4


Chapter 2.

REVIEWS

This chapter reviews firstly the Submissions received by the Parliament of SouthAustralia’s Environment, Resources and Development Committee (hereinafterreferred to as ‘the Committee’), together with relevant material from debates in theSA Parliament and the transcript of hearings before the Committee; and, secondly,reviews South Australian transport planning documentation over a 40 year periodand summarises recent published reports on transport in Perth, Brisbane, Melbourneand Sydney.

2.1 The Submissions

Of the 42 submissions received by the Committee, only four address all or most ofthe Transport Inquiry’s Terms of Reference: Nos. 09 Department of Transport,Energy and Environment (DTEI); 36 Dr Jennifer Bonham; 40 Conservation Council ofSouth Australia (CCSA); and 41 People for Public Transport (PPT). Another smallgroup of submissions contain detailed and/or innovative suggestions concerningpublic transport in general (e.g. 01 David Ingleton) or aspects of rail transport (e.g. 07John Drennan, 32 Les Fordham, 34 Paul Aslin, 35 Aidan Stanger). The majority ofthe submissions focus on Term of Reference IV, i.e. on specific rail lines andservices, and most of them on IVa, the Barossa rail line.

Comprehensive submissions

Taken together, the four submissions that respond to Terms of Reference I, II and IIIpresent an overview of most of the issues that call for improvements to publictransport in South Australia (and to transport in general) to be considered, plannedand evaluated within a strategic framework:

Uncertainty about the long term supply and price of oil; The contribution of transport to climate change; The ageing of South Australia’s population; The needs of persons without access to private transport; The significance of land use planning and lifestyle on the demand for

transport and on mode choice; A willingness to acknowledge and confront the negative aspects of private car

use; Public safety, security and health; and The significance of parking provision and price on the ability of public

transport to increase patronage.

All of these factors demonstrate that present patterns of mobility and accessibility areunsustainable in the long term; together they constitute a problem that is easy toleave for future generations to solve or to cope with the consequences of beingunable to do so. Unfortunately, when one of more of these factors becomes a criticalproblem, such as a future oil crisis, the solutions will be more difficult and/or moreexpensive to apply. So the current public transport system, both metropolitan andstate-wide, must not only serve current demand, but be a platform on whichimprovements can be made to enable it to cope with increased demand in the future.

5


Committee Recommendation 1The Committee recommends that Government planning and funding forpublic transport in metropolitan Adelaide and regional South Australia reflectthe urgent need to increase public transport’s share of the passengertransport task. This should recognise that if South Australia is to be able tocope with Peak Oil and if the transport sector is to meet its share of thelegislated State Greenhouse Gas reduction target, then a massive increase incapital and operational funding will be required.

These four submissions, and others, put forward some recommendations thatdeserve consideration by government transport authorities, operators and the public,to ensure that the public transport system is capable of responding to much greaterdemand in the future, e.g.

Improving the performance of the existing system; Extending networks and services; Improving the quality and nature of information to public transport users and

potential passengers; and Understanding the factors that influence individuals’ and families’ travel habits

and preferences.These and more specific recommendations are dealt with elsewhere in the Report.

The DTEI submission (09) outlines the current and proposed initiatives and projectsgeared to improving SA’s public transport system, placing them in the context of theState Strategic Plan, the State Infrastructure Plan and current budgets. Theemphasis is on the Adelaide metropolitan region, and the submission includes anexcellent summary (in Section 4.1) of peri-urban and longer distance bus and coachservices, but regional air services are not considered. However, DTEI does notattempt to describe its program in a strategic transport planning framework, relyingon the SA Strategic Plan, which is a series of targets that may or may not beachievable. A problem caused by the generality of the Plan is that almost anydevelopment can be justified by quoting the objectives of the State Strategic Plan.

In their appearance before the Committee, the Department’s Chief Executive, JimHallion, and his senior staff elaborated on aspects of the submission, including somevery useful comments on specific aspects of Term of Reference IV, the rail lines.

Some specific recommendations

A number of initiatives not previously considered in any detail in previous (published)SA transport plans are put forward in some submissions. David Ingleton (01)suggests a simple form of direct levy on all (except presumably residents) who parkin the City of Adelaide, effectively doubling the cost of all-day parking. Such a levywould need to apply to those who currently park at no cost to themselves, otherwiseit will be ineffective. This is a thoughtful but radical proposal, one which highlights thereality that free or cheap all-day parking will always limit the potential of publictransport to attract CBD-bound patronage, but which has always been resisted in thepast because of its effect on the City’s ability to attract retail and other business incompetition with regional centres where parking is free or relatively inexpensive.

Les Fordham (32) challenges the State Government’s plan to maintain the existingmetropolitan rail system at the same time as it creates a separate light rail (LRT)network, and queries the necessity of the tram-train approach to the north-westsuburban lines. Mr Fordham suggests that the rail network would be more effective ifconverted to LRT, but his submission also includes some specific recommendations

6


if the existing rail network is to be maintained. Mr Fordham’s views should be readwith an observation in the PPT submission (41) that the existing rail corridors are notthe most optimal alignments for an LRT network. Aidan Stanger (35) describes thebenefits of electrification, now accepted as policy by the State Government. JohnDrennan (07) describes in detail the benefits that might accrue from use of the oldWillunga line right-of-way for extensions to the southern suburbs, rather than thealignment chosen by DTEI running directly south from Noarlunga Centre andrequiring a major crossing of the Onkaparinga estuary. In the long term, both mayprove to be desirable, as noted in Brian Leedham’s submission (06). Paul Aslin’ssubmission (34) covers similar ground, linking the Tonsley rail line to the Willungaline right-of way.

The suggestion is put forward in the submission from the District Council of Grant(15), that an improved bus and coach terminal for Mount Gambier should be highpriority for investment in transport in the regional city, notwithstanding the protracteddiscussion about re-opening the rail line to the South-east of SA.

Rail service to the Barossa

Although some submissions make reference to re-introducing rail service to MountBarker, Northfield (e.g. 11 & 05), Victor Harbor (08), and regional cities (39), and toimproving the rail passenger service to Melbourne (16), most of the remainingsubmissions relate to the Barossa Valley line. As well as supporting the re-opening ofthe line, some of the submissions throw light on broader issues, such as choosing tolive in the Barossa but work in the metropolitan area, the impact of passenger rail onthe current bus operator, and the interface between freight and passenger trains on asingle track branch line.

The most comprehensive submission on the possible re-opening of the Barossa lineis that from Trevor & Liz Langridge of Tanunda (10). It includes the current busschedule and fares, and an undated TransAdelaide (TA) proposal to provide a railservice to the Barossa at Metroticket fares. If the TA proposal is taken as a guide, itis hardly surprising that many submissions seek the return of a rail passengerservice, drawing a parallel with the Hills bus services, where former country bus fareswere replaced by much cheaper Metroticket fares. Equally, one can understand thereluctance of government to provide what would be an expensive service (thoughcosts are not mentioned in the TA report) if the community’s assumption is thatMetroticket fares were to be charged. The DTEI submission (09) outlines the currentcondition of the track, station infrastructure, speed restrictions, limited passingopportunities, and the large number of level crossings, most of them unprotected.

An interesting feature of the submissions from the Barossa region (Gawler to Truroand Angaston) is the picture they present of lifestyle choices. Some describe theconditions and costs involved in commutes to Adelaide, DSTO and Gawler, othersthe changes required and costs incurred as children grow older. Most submissionsare unsympathetic to the bus service and fail to acknowledge the gradualimprovements that Barossa Valley Coaches have made to the service over the years.Extensive LinkSA Barossa private and government school bus services in theBarossa region are largely ignored in the submissions.

Some of the Barossa rail submissions acknowledge that any rail service would needto be gradually introduced and have to be justified by the patronage build-up on theinitial service, which might be as basic as a single commuter trip feeding into the TAservice at Gawler. Most of the submissions mention the potential significance totourism, though the Bluebird experience demonstrates the costs and problems

7


involved in running such a service. None of the submissions discuss the capital andoperating costs that might be incurred in reinstating rail services, but they dodemonstrate that if extension of passenger rail services was being considered in theouter metropolitan area, then the Barossa is making its case. DTEI’s submissionstates that the Department will investigate the costs and benefits of options, whichshould include consideration of a short extension to a new park-and-ride facility in thelower Barossa, as well as reopening a service as far as Tanunda or Angaston.

A few of the submissions from the Barossa (e.g. 14 - Lutheran Community Care)draw attention the need for improved public transport more generally in the region,particularly for those who are disadvantaged by having no access to private transportand who are dependent on community services and/or the assistance of family,friends or neighbours, which raises the question of whether government funds wouldbe more effectively used in improving public transport service throughout the Barossarather than focussing on the rail line. A new rail service will be no use to those in theregion who cannot access the stations.

The submissions relating to the Barossa rail line were supplemented by discussion athearings at which some of the proponents of reopening passenger servicesappeared before the Committee. The significance of the rail line to tourism washighlighted, including the possibility of reinstating the Barossa Wine Train.

Legislative Council debate

The Terms of Reference for the Inquiry reflect the content of debate in the LegislativeCouncil in June 2008 on a motion of Hon. DGE Hood. The debate on the motioncovered some aspects of the factors influencing the use of public transport in SouthAustralia, e.g. the development of the system, existing and possible future demand,opportunities to improve public transport, and impediments to improvement projectsand programs.

Summary

The most striking feature of the submissions to the Committee is that mention ofcosts and prices is limited to the capital costs of projects and the perennial complaintabout the price of petrol. There is discussion of the provision of regional bus services,but nothing on the operating costs incurred, or of the level of funding of concessionfares by the Government. There is a list of the number of riders annually onmetropolitan rail and tram services, but no breakdown of the subsidy per trip by modeand route, or their comparison with bus costs. Similarly the DTEI’s summary of majorprojects lists the estimated capital costs to be incurred, but there is no indication ofthe long-term impact of these projects on TA’s operating budget or the Department’scontractual payments to TA and private bus operators. Similarly, the TA paper onrestoring rail service to the Barossa, which describes in detail the possible benefits ofsuch a service, never mentions costs and seems to assume the funding will comefrom elsewhere.

The fact that a number of organisations and individuals thought it appropriate toprepare considered submissions in response to the Committee’s Terms ofReference, that several respondents put forward imaginative and radical ideas, andthat a large number of Barossa residents feel strongly about their local publictransport, all support the view that transport users, their representatives, and peopleat large should have the opportunity from time to time to contribute to the formulationof transport policy and the development of project proposals. The ability to considertransport problems and alternative approaches to their solution in a local and

8


strategic context creates an environment in which constructive transport plans can bedeveloped and discussed. No one organisation, government or group has‘ownership’ of the future of the State’s transport system: developing a good standardof mobility and accessibility to work, schools, shopping and services is a process inwhich all who are interested are entitled to participate. After all, the primary role ofthe system is to serve the needs of transport users, who, one way or another, have topay for the network and services.

Committee Recommendation 2The Committee recommends that the Government encourage consultationwith users of public transport and other stakeholders, including members ofParliament, who have an interest in the development of services as anintegral element of the planning process for service improvements in generaland of the planning and design of specific projects.

2.2 Australian Metropolitan Transport Planning Studies

South Australia

The following is a list and summary of documents relating to transport planning inSouth Australia. The baseline date chosen is 1968, when the Metropolitan AdelaideTransport Study (MATS) was published, a classical freeway-dominatedcomprehensive transport study, prepared by a team of consultants (with support fromstaff of State Government departments and agencies) following the convention thathad commenced in the United States in the mid-1950s with, for example, theChicago Area Transportation Study. The MATS report is an appropriate baseline,firstly because it was the only such comprehensive transport study of MetropolitanAdelaide, and secondly the recommendation to construct freeways in Adelaide is atopic still raised from time to time.

Some of the reports were published (P), others were freely available on request (A),and a third group were internal government documents not generally released (I).The list covers reports on metropolitan and state-wide transport, but does not includea large number (over 250) of documents relating to specific projects or policyinitiatives, or planning studies relating to particular localities or a single mode oftransport. It is not necessarily complete, but indicative of the strategic direction oftransport planning in SA over the past 40 or so years.

1. Metropolitan Adelaide Transportation Study (MATS) 1968 (P)

A major report prepared primarily by US-based consultants (led by DeLeuw Cather),which was notable for containing detailed maps of recommended freeways, thatproved to be controversial. MATS was analytically sound, and presented anintegrated approach to transport planning, including express buses on freeways andan underground rail link under King William Street. The horizon year of 1986 wasoptimistic in terms of predicted demand, but traffic levels on some arterial roadsreached the predicted densities by the end of the 20th century.

2. Royal Commission on State Transport Services 1968 (P)

An excellent report that was in some ways a state-wide equivalent of MATS; it led toreform of the South Australian Railways and the final stages of deregulation of thefreight transport industry in SA.

9


3. Adelaide Transportation (The Breuning Report) 1970 (A)

Reviewed the MATS findings and recommendations, suggested an alternativeapproach to the freeway plans, and endorsed the adoption of an integrated approachto transport planning and to the State Government’s transport operatingresponsibilities.

4. Transport Policy Implementation Committee 1971 (I)

Formalised the Breuning Report, by recommending the recruitment of a Director-General of Transport and the establishment of a new Transport Policy & Researchunit, along the lines of similar organisational structures in other major governmentportfolios such as Health and Education.

5. Public Transport in Metropolitan Adelaide 1973 (P)

A Parliamentary Paper (PP 109) tabled by the Minister of Transport which set out aprogram of improvements to public transport including electrification of the suburbanrailway, a double-track extension of the rail line to Christie Downs (later Noarlunga),and use of the Modbury Corridor for public transport (in lieu of a freeway).

6. Establishment of the State Transport Authority 1975 (I)

Report by a Government Committee which developed a structure and set out theinstruments for the merger of the South Australian Railways, Municipal TramwaysTrust and Transport Control Board, to create the STA. (Note the sale of the countryrailways to the Commonwealth Government occurred about the same time).

7. Transport Policy & Planning in South Australia 1975 (I)

A progress report, prepared by Dr Fred Affleck, which first documented the impactthat financial constraints would have to limit the rate of implementation of transportplans, despite federal funds being available at the time.

8. Transport Investment in South Australia 1978 (A)

The first attempt at a ten-year investment plan for transport in South Australia,undertaken by staff of Adelaide University Economics Department (Dr John Taplin &Trevor Hastings).

9. Adelaide into the 1980s (Ecoplan International) 1980 (A)

This report, which was prepared by a Paris-based ‘thinker in residence’ emphasisedthe factors such as high fuel prices and technological innovation, that would influencetransport development to the end of the 20th century.

10. Public Transport Subsidies in Adelaide 1984 (P)

A paper by Paul Amos & Margaret Starrs, which drew on studies of the costs ofAdelaide’s metropolitan rail and bus systems, to demonstrate that not all of thesubsidy to public transport can be justified on social or environmental grounds.

10


11. Issues in Metropolitan Passenger Transport 1984 (I)

An internal report for the Minister of Transport outlining problems and possiblefuture directions, including topics such as a Southern O-Bahn, road pricing andparking controls. Note concurrent activities included the City of Adelaide Plan Reviewand the Multi Function Polis (MFP).

12. Adelaide Strategic Transport Planning Study 1985 (A)

Described how to investigate alternative investment strategies within a given(constrained) capital budget for the Transport portfolio, particularly allocationsfor roads compared to public transport

13. Public Transport in Metropolitan Adelaide (The Fielding Report) 1988 (A)

Prepared by a California-based academic working with local and overseasconsultants, this report for the Minister of Transport is most notable for beingthe first to recommend contracting out (or franchising) of the metropolitan publictransport bus, tram and suburban rail services.

14. Options for public transport in Adelaide 1990 (I)

The Minister of Transport’s 5-year plan covering finance, transport alternativesand future of the elements of the network, including the encouragement ofcommunity transport services.

15. Transport Strategy for Adelaide 1990s (I)

A series of internal reports prepared between 1995 and 1998, mainly by David Bray,consultant to the Minister of Transport, as the basis of a government transportstrategy. The only published document was a brochure, released in June 1995.

16. Public Transport Costs in Adelaide 1999 (P)

A paper by Ian Wallis and David Bray, based on work for the Passenger TransportBoard, to the Australasian Transport Research Forum. Includes a very useful graphshowing the relative costs of on-street bus services, the O-Bahn, the Glenelgtram and individual suburban rail lines.

18. South Australia’s Draft Transport Plan 2003 (P)

A plan for metropolitan and state-wide transport, prepared following technicalanalysis and extensive public consultation. A very useful background document,against which subsequent transport activities can be assessed.

19. The Corridor Strategies 2006 (P)

All major Australian inter-city corridors were studied (by joint Commonwealth-Stateteams and consultants) to provide background data on which evaluations were basedfor funding under the AusLink program. Five reports, which are to be found on theAusLink website, covered the South Australian corridors, i.e. those linking Adelaidewith Perth, Darwin, Sydney and Melbourne, plus the urban corridors. All modes,passenger and freight, are covered in the strategies.

11


20. New Connections 2008/9 (P)

A regular series of newsletters containing considerable detail on current transportprojects and other initiatives. Together, the four newsletters published to date give anexcellent picture of the progress being made towards implementation of Governmenttransport programs.

21. Adelaide Rail Freight Movements Study 2009 (P)

A Discussion Paper outlining the options for constructing a new freight railway to theeast or south of Adelaide, to improve the performance of freight trains on the mainline from Melbourne to Adelaide, Perth and Darwin.

Since 2003, aside from internal reports, proposals for improvement of publictransport, which have been mainly infrastructure projects, have been incorporatedinto broader planning documents such as the State Strategic Plan and StateInfrastructure Plan. In addition, progress on infrastructure improvements have beenreported in government documents, such as budget papers, the DTEI submission(09) to the Committee and the New Connections newsletters.

From time to time documents released by other State Government departments andagencies have contained recommendations on transport that have influenced thedevelopment of the State’s transport network, e.g. the 1990s State Planning Review,and the Department of Economic Development’s promotion of construction of theAlice Springs-Darwin railway line. (Note MATS simply put the technical finish torecommendations for an even more extensive network of freeways first outlined inthe 1962 Metropolitan Development Plan.)

As in the example of the Corridor Strategies, some transport planning reports havebeen jointly prepared under the direction of more than one level of government, e.g.the MFP studies, and those on the future of Adelaide airport (that later resulted in thesale of the airport), involved all three levels of government. Currently, the funding ofthe extension of the railway to Seaford, and the study of a rail line to by-pass theAdelaide Hills are examples of joint federal/state cooperation. In other cases, reviewsthat covered, inter alia, Adelaide’s and/or SA regional transport, were undertaken byorganisations with a measure of independence from government, such as the UrbanTransport Inquiry by the Industry Commission (reported in 1994) and that onProgress in Rail Reform by the Productivity Commission (1999).

Reports relating to specific elements of the transport network have also beenprepared from time to time by other organisations, the recommendations oroutcomes from which have had a major impact on the State system, e.g. the GrainHandling Strategic Plan, the RAA of SA’s periodic reports on the State’s road system,the Adelaide Airports and Flinders Ports master plans, the investment program of theARTC, etc. Whether governments do or do not publish strategic plans for transport,such reports by other organisations are important, and the ability to comprehendthem within the overall framework of the State’s transport contributes to strategicoversight of the system and its performance.

It is interesting to note that the current emphasis on infrastructure means thatplanning for transport has come full circle in 40 years, but with a difference: whereasthe freeway and railway proposals in MATS were set in the context of acomprehensive and government-endorsed prescriptive master plan, current projectsare to seen in the broader context of the State Strategic Plan, which is a target-based

12


(aspirational) planning document. In the intervening years the emphasis has been oncoordinated or integrated transport planning, in an attempt to create a ‘balanced’and/or sustainable transport system for South Australia, but these approaches havefailed in an environment dominated by the private car. For the time being, at least,the belief prevails that we can build our way out of existing transport problems. It isunlikely current projects will provide long-term solutions, but they will alleviate somecurrent problems. A long-term strategic plan for transport is required, to determinewhether, how and at what cost the current transport system can form the basis of anetwork that will serve the demand for accessibility in the future.

Committee Recommendation 3The Committee recommends that as a matter of urgency a draft long-termstrategic transport plan for South Australia be prepared, published, discussedwith all interested parties, finalised and tabled in Parliament. This Plan shouldbe developed and integrated with the proposed Oil Vulnerability Assessment& Peak Oil Action Plan, existing State Strategic Plan and Planning Strategyand the over-arching State Government program, Tackling Climate Change.

Other Australian state capital cities

The four major Australian state capital cities of Perth, Brisbane, Melbourne andSydney are selected to illustrate recent trends for transport planning in general andfor urban public transport in particular, as evidenced by studies published in the pastdecade or so. The cities are described in reverse order of size, because Perth is theonly Australian city that, in terms of population, area, public transport systemcharacteristics, etc., is similar to Adelaide. Transport planning in all four cities in themid to late 20th century followed a pattern similar to that in Adelaide, commencingwith publication of master plans in the 1960s, followed by a period of coordinated orintegrated planning reports in the 1970s and 1980s, and the search for sustainabilitythrough strategic planning in the 1990s and early 21st century. The main difference isthat for all four cities far more documents were published by the respectivegovernments (including all those summarised below) than was the case in SouthAustralia, although it should be noted that the findings and recommendationscontained in the reports were not necessarily endorsed by the relevant StateGovernment so their status was not much different from SA reports that may nothave been published but were made freely available to interested parties.

Note although the emphasis in the following review is on urban transport in the mainmetropolitan regions, several of the reports that are summarised cover issues thatare state-wide, and one or two contain findings and recommendations that areapplicable beyond the jurisdictions that commissioned the studies.

PERTH

1995: Metropolitan Transport Strategy (Govt. of WA)

A major report, complemented by a ‘Directions’ report, which attempted to create amore balanced transport system for Perth, while acknowledging the dominance of theprivate car.

1998: A Ten Year Plan for Transperth (Transport WA)

13


A support document to the Transport Strategy, which identified specific markets forpublic transport and ways to attract them, such as greater priority for public transportvehicles and better information.

2000: Metropolitan Land Transport: Directions (Transport WA)

A ten year investment program including extension of the suburban rail network andimprovements to bus services.

2003: Way Ahead: Metropolitan Transport Directions (Planning WA)

Essentially an updating and re-issue of the 1995 Directions document.

BRISBANE

1997: Integrated Regional Transport Plan for South East Queensland (Qld Govt)

The IRTP covered the region from Sunshine Coast in the north to Gold Coast and theborder with NSW in the south. The horizon year is 2021 when the regional populationis forecast to be 3.8 million (compared to 2 million in 1991 and approximately 2.6million in 2005)

2001: Transport 2007 (Qld Transport)

The emphasis in this report is on short term initiatives such as travel demandmanagement, Intelligent Transport Systems, and parking policy.

2002: Transport Plan for Brisbane (BCC)

A report published by the Brisbane City Council, describing forecast expenditures ontransport within the city to be equally split between road and urban public transport.

MELBOURNE

1996: Transporting Melbourne (Dept of Infrastructure)

Described transport needs in a broad framework of land use, economic developmentand population growth. A ‘directions’ document providing a framework for short-termplanning.

2002: Melbourne 2030: Planning for Sustainable Growth (Dept of Sustainability)

Another land use/transport report setting an urban growth boundary for Melbourne.Some emphasis on freight transport to ports.

2004: Linking Melbourne – Metropolitan Transport Plan (Vic. Govt.)

Detail on short-term transport plans to support Melbourne 2030. described majorchallenges to be overcome.

2006: Meeting our Transport Challenges (Vic. Govt.)

14


A state-wide transport study, which included programs and projects to support the2004 Metropolitan Transport Plan.

2006: Managing Transport Congestion (VCEC)

A report by the Victorian Competition and Efficiency Council into the costs andeffects of congestion which recommended better use of existing transport andconsideration of congestion charging. Many of the findings of this report areapplicable to other Australian cities.

2008: The Victorian Transport Plan (Vic. Govt.)

A major infrastructure program suitable for submission to the Building Australia Fund.Emphasis on new construction, in contrast to, and at the same time complementing,the VCEC’s recommendations to make better use of existing networks.

SYDNEY

1998: Action for Transport 2010 (NSW Govt.)

Recommended investment in new rail lines, LRT and Transitways (busways), andcomplemented by a series of reports on specific aspects of Sydney’s transport, e.g.vehicle emissions, cycleways.

2003: Financial Sustainability of Public Passenger Transport (NSW Govt.)

The Parry Report, which recommended major changes to bus services, countrypassenger trains, fares and concessions. Another report containing findings andrecommendations that are relevant to issues and problems found in all states andurban areas.

2004: Reform of Bus Services in New South Wales (NSW Govt.)

The Unsworth Report, which led to major changes in the regulation and funding ofbus services in NSW, the designation of bus priority corridors in Sydney, and creationof new zonal arrangements for contracting bus and coach services.

2005: Metropolitan Transport Strategy for Sydney (Dept of Planning)

Ancillary to the major City of Cities planning strategy, the transport report pointed outthat trying to meet all transport demand with new infrastructure is unsustainable, andcontained practical recommendations such as widening of existing freeways, andconstruction of more Transitways.

2.2 Summary

It will be noted that fewer reports were published in South Australia in the last decadeor so than in most other states, though many of the documents released interstatewere not endorsed as government policy, or at best received ‘in-principle’ recognitionby governments. This is understandable if governments wish to release reports fordiscussion purposes and/or where the reports contain recommendations for

15


improvements for which no funding has been committed or economic justificationidentified.

The review of transport planning reports in South Australia and interstate showssimilar trends across the nation, commencing with the publication of master plans inthe 1960s, through attempts to manage demand and change modal split in lateryears, to a renewed recognition that transport planning and land use planning mustbe closely coordinated, and that full cooperation between the professionals involvedis essential. Although sustainability is an overused term, variously defined ineconomic, environmental and social contexts, the reality that the present transportsystem is unsustainable in the long term is clear from the economic cost andenvironmental damage borne by the community as a trade-off for improved mobility.

16


Chapter 3.

A SNAPSHOT OF CURRENT PUBLIC TRANSPORT INSOUTH AUSTRALIA

3.1 Introduction

This chapter describes the transport options and current travel behaviour patternswithin the Adelaide metropolitan region and services linking South Australian regionalcentres to Adelaide. The analysis looks at the metropolitan area as a whole andemphasises the needs of the outer North and South metropolitan regions. Regionalareas include Broken Hill, Mount Gambier, Murray Bridge, Onkaparinga, VictorHarbor and Whyalla with a special focus on the Barossa and Adelaide Hills. Thisqualitative analysis is based on most recent available data to summarise existingsituations. Where this chapter identifies specific transport issues, possible solutionsto these are described in subsequent chapters.

3.2 Metropolitan Adelaide

The Adelaide metropolitan region extends 85km from Gawler in the far north toSellicks Beach in the far south, bordered by the Mt Lofty Ranges to the East andcoastline to the West. In 2006, the city had a total population of 1.15 million and anaverage growth rate of 0.7% per annum since 2001. There are approximately297,000 families in Adelaide, the majority of which are couples either with children(43%) or without children (38%). The city population is dispersed to the North andSouth with 30% of the population each, and East and West with 20% each. Thepopulation of Adelaide’s outer metropolitan regions in the North, East and South areprovided in Table 3.1.

Outer Region LGA’s Population(2006)

Total Growth(since 2001)

North Gawler and Playford 91,421 5%East Adelaide Hills 23,509 1%

South Onkaparinga 154,586 2%

Table 3.1: Population of Adelaide’s outer metropolitan regions

The previous table shows that the outer metropolitan regions contain approximatelyone quarter of Adelaide’s total population with healthy growth rates, especially in theNorth. Some sub-regions in the Adelaide Hills such as Mt Barker are also expectedto maintain strong growth rates into the future.

In terms of population density, metropolitan Adelaide’s population of 1.15 millionpersons is dispersed throughout the urbanised area with an estimated populationdensity of 1400 persons per square kilometre. This is quite low when compared toother cities as shown in Figure 3.1.

17


Figure 3.1: Cities’ population densities1.note 1: figures reported here are indicative rather than definitive because of spatial definitiondifferences and differing census dates.

The Brazilian city of Santos has the highest population density in the previous figure,followed by London, Hiroshima and Tokyo. Smaller European cities do not commonlyexceed 4,000 persons per sq/km. Adelaide’s density is greater than that of Perth butone of the lowest, comparable to some North American and some European cities. Inall cities, population density has implications for the transport system in terms of cardependence and public transport operations. This is especially the case whenconsidering vehicle affordability.

Adelaide is serviced by an extensive road network based on rectilinear arterial roadsthat more or less criss-cross the city in North-South and East-West directions withmajor radial links from the CBD to the outer regions. Figure 3.2 displays strategic ormajor transport links in the Adelaide metro area, including rail and O-Bahn tracks.

18


Figure 3.2: Adelaide metropolitan strategic transport network.

The road network is also characterised by the presence of many signalisedintersections, centrally controlled by the SCATS computer-based traffic controlsystem. The public transport network is based heavily on bus provision and train andtram services; more detail on these services is provided in a later sections.

Car Ownership

On average, each person in Adelaide travels a total of 22 km per day. The number ofregistered passenger vehicles in South Australia as a whole in 2008 was 940,791with a growth rate of 1.5% per annum since 2003. This equates to approximately 589cars per 1000 persons. For comparative purposes, Figure 3.3 lists vehicle ownershiprates in a sample of countries in 2002 (Dargay, Gately and Sommer, 2007).

19


Figure 3.3: Comparison of vehicle ownership rates.

A comparison of South Australia’s vehicle ownership rate shows that it is close to theaverage for Australia and European slightly lower than the USA, but significantlygreater than Asian countries.

Within Adelaide car ownership averages 1.54 vehicles per household with slightlygreater ownership in the outer North and outer South metro regions with 1.65 and1.56 vehicles per household respectively. Within the inner regions the ownership isslightly lower than the metro Adelaide average at 1.52 cars per household.

Metropolitan Adelaide Public Transport Services

Public transport services in Adelaide are provided by a collection of service providersas listed in Table 3.2.

Provider Description

TransAdelaideA Government agency that provides the metropolitan train andtram services.

Torrens TransitProvides bus services to the Outer North East, North West,Inner North, South, East and West suburbs.

SouthLinkProvides bus services to the Outer North and Outer Southsuburbs.

TransitplusProvides Adelaide Metro bus services to the Hills and someregional services.

Bus SABus SA brings together the regional bus operators as partnersin the Bus SA network to provide passenger services toregional South Australia.

Table 3.2: Bus service providers in Adelaide and South Australia

In terms of public transport service provision for the Adelaide population, some keycharacteristics of the Adelaide’s passenger transport system include:

20


Mode Route KilometresRoute

ServicesNo. ofStops

Vehicles

Bus 1,510 (12km O-Bahn) 259 Over 7,000 832 Buses

Train 120 6 81 94 Trains

Tram 12 1 23 22 Trams

Taxi n/a n/a n/a 1019 Taxis

Table 3.3: Summary of Adelaide public transport services.

Bus services are by far the most dominant service type in metropolitan Adelaide with92% of the service kilometres for timetabled services. There are a total ofapproximately 7,100 stop locations for the public to access public transport services.Taxis are included in the previous table for comparison.

Comparison of Modes

The modal proportions for journeys made by Adelaide residents reflect their travelbehaviour and are important indicators of the overall modal utilisation of thepopulation. In Table 3.4 this estimate is provided for all residents and also for thepopulation in outer and inner regions for comparison. The reported figures onlyconsider the motorised modes, (i.e. excluding walking or cycling trips) within Adelaideon an average weekday.

Mode All Adelaide Outer North Outer South Inner Regions

Car Trips (Driver) 67.5% 62.9% 67.0% 68.3%

Car Trips (Passenger) 28.0% 33.7% 29.9% 27.0%

Bus Trips 3.4% 2.1% 2.3% 3.7%

Rail Trips 1.1% 1.3% 0.8% 1.0%

Table 3.4: Percentage of trips by mode (excluding walking and cycling).

The previous table shows that there are higher proportions of car driver trips in innerregions whilst there are likely to be more passengers travelling in cars that begin theirtrip in the outer regions. Very few trips are made by rail overall, especially in the outerSouth. The ratio of bus to rail trips in outer Adelaide indicates higher importance ofthe rail mode in the outer North while inner regions have a greater proportion ofjourneys made by bus when compared to the outer regions.

In addition to travellers’ choice of mode, average travel distances provide furtherinsight into modal utilisation as presented in Table 3.5. All distances are reported inkilometres and the results report on individual trips, not total daily travel.

Mode All Adelaide Outer North Outer South Inner Regions

Car Trips (Driver) 7.9 8.6 9.0 7.7

Car Trips (Passenger) 6.9 7.1 8.0 6.7

Bus Trips 9.5 8.9 9.8 9.6

Rail Trips 17.8 21.7 31.3 16.0

Table 3.5: Average trip kilometres by mode (excluding walking and cycling).

On average rail trips in metropolitan Adelaide are the longest, especially those fromthe outer South. Car driver trips are longer than those made by car passengers, an

21


observation that may be influenced by drop-off and pick-up trips for passengers(linked trips). Bus trips are slightly longer than car trips which may be due to the busroutes taken and/or those without cars choosing to walk shorter trips. Whenanalysing this table along with the previous table, it is apparent that although the busand rail modes are less popular than the car mode, people who choose these modestravel longer distances.

Car Emissions

The vehicle emission calculations presented herein have adopted an aggregated orlarge-scale approach. It is possible to perform very detailed calculations on vehicleperformance to estimate a wide range of emission types but this is not appropriate forthe Adelaide-wide scale that we are describing. Carbon Dioxide equivalent (CO2e) isa quantity that describes, for a given mixture and amount of greenhouse gas, theamount of Carbon Dioxide that would have the same global warming potential. Anaverage Australian car emits 293 grams of CO2e per kilometre or put another way,will be driven 3.4km to generate 1kg of CO2e. The amount of CO2e generated withinthe Adelaide regions due to car travel within metropolitan Adelaide is approximately4,750 tonnes per day. The proportions of CO2e generation closely match the car-driver trip kilometres reported in previous tables with approximately 12% generated inthe outer north, 10% the outer south and 78% from inner regions.

Congestion costs

Traffic congestion in Adelaide has an economic impact in terms of lost private timecosts, lost business time costs, the cost of running vehicles for longer than necessaryand extra air pollution costs. The BTRE estimates of the ‘avoidable’ cost ofcongestion (i.e. where the benefits to road users of some travel in congestedconditions are less than the costs imposed on other road users and the widercommunity) for the Australian capitals (using an aggregate modelling approach) totalapproximately $9.4 billion per annum for 2005. Of this total, Adelaide contributed$600 million whilst other cities such as Sydney contributed $3.5 billion and Perthcontributed $900 million. On a per capita basis in Adelaide, this cost equates toapproximately $532 per person p.a. and when considering vehicular travel it appliesa cost of 5 cents per kilometre of travel made. The possibility of imposing congestioncharges is considered later in the report.

3.3 Regional Cities; Country areas; Inter-city services

Within regional South Australia there are a total of 142 country bus routes and 11community passenger networks that service approximately 155,608 trips per month.The following analysis is structured to provide a detailed analysis on towns in theBarossa region and Adelaide Hills region supported by the regional centres ingeneral. The possible improvement of services to these regions is dealt with inChapter 5.

Towns in the Barossa

The Barossa Valley is a located approximately 60 km to the North of Adelaide and forthe purposes of this study extends from Gawler in the West to Angaston in the East.The region includes the towns of Lyndoch, Tanunda and Nuriootpa with a combinedresident population of these towns close to 26,000 as summarised in Table 3.6.

22


These locations have been chosen for analysis because of their identification in theoriginal Terms of Reference for this inquiry.

Town Population (2006)

Gawler 11,949

Lyndoch 1,827

Tanunda 4,683

Nuriootpa 5,030

Angaston 2,213

Table 3.6: Population of towns in the Barossa region.

Gawler is the dominant town in the region with more than double the population ofNuriootpa. The Barossa region as a whole has experienced significant recentpopulation growth at a rate of 2.2% per year in the 5 years to 2006.

For residents who travel to the Adelaide CBD by car, an attractive route to take is toGawler along the Barossa Valley Highway and connect to Main North Road for therest of the journey. Table 3.7 summarises this travel including the travel distance,time, cost and emissions for a single average family sedan. Travel cost is based onlyon the fuel cost, assumed as $1.20 per litre.

Town

Distance toAdelaide CBD

(km)

Travel TimeTo Adelaide

CBD

Cost of fuelused by 1vehicle toAdelaide

Emissions of 1vehicle to Adelaide

(kg CO2e)

Gawler 41 1hr 10min $5.32 10

Lyndoch 55 1hr 20min $6.59 13

Tanunda 68 1hr 35 min $7.72 15

Nuriootpa 75 1hr 40 min $8.35 16

Angaston 81 1hr 45 min $8.89 17

Table 3.7: Summary of car travel from Barossa region to Adelaide CBD.

For a single average car, it can take up to almost 2 hours to travel from Angaston tothe Adelaide CBD and cost close to $9.00. This trip will generate 17kg of carbondioxide equivalent from a single vehicle. Travel to Gawler from the other townsranges from 14km to 40km with up to an additional $3.57 in fuel cost and 7kg inemissions.

Gawler TransAdelaide Rail Services

The closest TransAdelaide rail link with regular timetabled services exists at GawlerCentral station, 14km (10 minutes) from Lyndoch and 40km (35 minutes) fromAngaston. From here it is possible to catch a train to Adelaide CBD on a regularweekday service that runs about every 30 minutes. The journey from here takesapproximately 55 minutes to travel to Adelaide CBD. From the previous table, it canbe noted that this is quicker than the average car journey of 1 hour and 10 minutes. Asingle ride with a multitrip Metroticket costs $2.90 and the service is the bestpatronised from all TransAdelaide rail services with an average daily patronage of13,000 boardings in both directions (DTEI, 2008).

23


Bus Services

The Adelaide Metro bus services do not extend to Gawler as they only service as farnorth as Munno Para, approximately 10 kilometres South of Gawler and accessibleby train. Barossa Valley Coaches operate a regular service to the towns in theBarossa region with the provision of 2 services each weekday in each direction. Thefare from Angaston to Adelaide CBD is $21.00 with reductions for towns that arecloser to Adelaide. The approximate travel time on the weekday morning inboundservice is 2 hours and 15 minutes from Angaston. On average, this is 30 minuteslonger than a car journey and 45 minutes longer than a combined car trip to Gawlerand rail trip to Adelaide. In terms of environmental impact however, the bus tripgenerates far fewer emissions per person than a drive-alone journey from theBarossa region.

Tourist Travel

Tourism is an important industry for towns in the Barossa region with localeconomies depending on visitor numbers and tourist expenditure. Table 3.8 providesa summary of total tourist numbers in 2008.

Traveller Origin/Type Travellers (2008)International 14,200Domestic – Overnight Stop 176,000Domestic – Day Trip 707,000

Table 3.8: Tourist visitors to Barossa region.

Domestic visitors are by far the greatest number of visitors to the region withdomestic day trips the most popular type. The international visitor class combinesday and overnight visitors. Primary modes of travel utilised by these tourists areprovided in Figure 3.4.

Figure 3.4: Barossa tourist mode choice.

All tourists to the Barossa prefer travel by a private vehicle, especially for thedomestic day visitors. International tourists utilise rented or chauffeured vehicles as

24


their car mode. Bus is the next most preferred option with the train following.International visitors make the most use of the bus and train alternative modes with6% and 3% of trips respectively. This analysis is based on current data and thereforereflects the behaviour of travellers utilising the existing transport modes.

Towns in the Adelaide Hills

The Adelaide Hills region lies immediately to the east of the metropolitan area andcontains the towns of Mt. Barker, Littlehampton, Balhannah, Bridgewater, Aldgateand Stirling, as cited in the ERDC Terms of Reference. Table 3.9 summarises the2006 Census population estimates for these towns.

Town Population (2006)

Stirling 4,566

Aldgate 3,343

Bridgewater 3,469

Balhannah 1,626

Littlehampton 2,064

Mt. Barker 12,735

Table 3.9: Populations of towns in the Adelaide Hills region.

The combined population of these Adelaide Hills towns of 27,803. Some of theseregions in the Adelaide Hills have been experiencing very high growth rates in therecent past with trends expected to continue. Mount Barker alone experiencedpopulation vigorous growth rate of 7.6% per annum in the 5 years to 2006.

Travel from the Adelaide Hills to the Adelaide CBD by car is most commonlyachieved via the high capacity South Eastern Freeway as it provides the fastest andmost direct route through the hills. Table 3.10 summarises this travel including thetravel distance, time, cost and emissions for a single average family sedan. As withprevious analysis, the travel cost is based only on the fuel cost, assumed as $1.20per litre. The outer Adelaide suburb of Belair is included for comparison to the rail linkas the final TransAdelaide rail station along the Belair line is at Belair.

Town

Distance toAdelaide CBD

(km)

Travel TimeTo Adelaide

CBD

Cost of fuel usedby 1 vehicle to

Adelaide

GHG emissions of1 vehicle toAdelaide (kg

CO2e)

Belair 12 25min $1.08 2

Stirling 16 22min $1.75 3

Aldgate 18 26min $1.93 4

Bridgewater 21 26min $2.20 4

Balhannah 30 36min $3.01 6

Littlehampton 33 35min $3.29 6

Mt. Barker 33 34min $3.29 6

Table 3.10: Summary of car travel from Adelaide Hills regions to Adelaide CBD.

All of the selected Adelaide Hills locations are relatively close in travel distance andtravel time to the Adelaide CBD. The settlements of Belair and Stirling are closest tothe Adelaide CBD and this is reflected in the travel times. The towns of Mt Barker,

25


Littlehampton and Balhannah are close to each other and take just over 30 minutestravel time to Adelaide CBD.

Belair TransAdelaide Rail Services

Belair is the closest rail link to the Adelaide Hills towns with regular TransAdelaideservices to access the region. A regular rail service to Adelaide is maintained toBelair which is 10km (7 minutes driving time) from Stirling and 28km (20 minutes)from Mt. Barker. On a regular weekday the rail service runs every 15 to 30 minutes(peak and off-peak) and takes approximately 35 minutes from Belair to travel toAdelaide CBD. A single trip made with a multitrip Metroticket costs $2.90 and theaverage weekday patronage is 4,500 persons in both directions (DTEI, 2008).

Bus Services

The Adelaide Hills region is serviced by regular bus services provided by Transitplusthat connect Mt. Barker and other towns to the Adelaide CBD. These servicesoperate at a frequency of between 5-20 mins in the morning peak and eveningpeaks, and 30 mins during the interpeak. Currently there are 4 direct services to theregion with many connections to service other towns in the area from Mt Barker. Thefare to Mt Barker (and all other locations as far as Nairne and Mylor) is $2.90 on asingle multitrip Metroticket which is competitive with petrol costs for a singlepassenger vehicle. The travel time for this service is approximately 1 hour.

Tourist Travel

As with the Barossa region, tourism is an important industry for the towns in theAdelaide Hills region. A summary of total tourist numbers in 2008 is presented inTable 3.11.

Traveller Origin/Type Travellers (2008)International 5,800Domestic – Overnight Stop 103,000Domestic – Day Trip 721,000

Table 3.11: Tourist visitors to Adelaide Hills region.

The reported visitors numbers are not only to the selected towns but to the region asa whole and are similar in scale to the numbers of visitors to the Barossa region.Again, the domestic day visitors far outnumber all other types. The primary modes oftravel utilised by these tourists are provided in Figure 3.5.

26


Figure 3.5: Adelaide Hills tourist mode choice.

Observations from the Adelaide Hills towns are similar to those made from theBarossa, with the car as the preferred mode of transport for these travellers. Againthere are very few bus and train travellers.

South Australian Regional Centres

Serving the travel needs to and from other South Australian regional areas is also animportant element of transport planning. A selection of regional cities along withpopulation statistics is provided in Table 3.12.

Regional CentrePopulation

(2006)Growth per annum

since 2001

Murray Bridge 17,678 1.9%

Victor Harbor 12,012 6.8%

Whyalla 21,416 -1.7%

Mt. Gambier 23,494 1.1%

Broken Hill NSW 19,359 -1.9%

Table 3.12: Populations of South Australian regional centres.

The selected regional centres display a range of growth rates between 2001 and2006 with the strongest observed at Victor Harbor. Negative growth is reported in theregions of Whyalla and Broken Hill.

Car versus Bus Travel Times

The following illustration compares the average car travel time to that made by ascheduled bus service (from a range of service providers) from regional centres tothe Adelaide CBD.

27


Figure 3.6: Car and Bus travel times from regional centres to Adelaide CBD.

Figure 3.6 shows a range of travel times from 1 hour from Murray Bridge to around 7hours from Broken Hill in New South Wales. Car travel time estimates here may beslightly conservative and bus travel times are estimated from timetabled serviceshowever both are dependant on prevailing traffic conditions. Estimates of car and bustimes from each centre are very close and all are within a 20% difference. Overall,bus services travel at lower speeds and are slowed by stops made during thejourney, extending their travel time.

The emissions made by a single car from the regional centres to Adelaide aresummarised in Table 3.13.

Regional Centre

Road Distanceto Adelaide CBD

(km)

GHG emissions of1 vehicle to

Adelaide (kg CO2e)

Murray Bridge 70 21

Victor Harbor 80 23

Whyalla 390 114

Mt. Gambier 440 129

Broken Hill 520 153

Table 3.13: Travel distances and emission estimates for car travel from regionalcities.

The emissions generated by a journey between Adelaide and the regional cities aredirectly proportional to the travel distance. The Broken Hill to Adelaide car journeyemits 153 kg CO2e, which may be greatly reduced (per person) by replacing this witha bus journey.

28


Car versus Bus Travel Cost

In addition to travel time, the perceived travel cost is an important factor to thetraveller. Figure 3.7 compares the average car travel cost to that made by ascheduled bus service (from a range of service providers) from regional centres tothe Adelaide CBD.

Figure 3.7: Perceived car costs and actual bus fares from regional cities to AdelaideCBD.

In Figure 3.7 car cost is only approximate and is based only on petrol costs ($1.20per litre). In reality other costs relating to wear and tear, registration and so on arelikely to cause a much a larger cost for the private car. Generally, the cost for a singleperson-journey is comparable to that of a bus journey. From Whyalla, the costs arevery similar with towns closer to the Adelaide CBD showing the greatest difference.For parties with more than one traveller, the car becomes a far more cost efficientmeans of travel. The equity issue of travel costs and subsidies in regional SouthAustralia compared to metropolitan Adelaide is dealt with in subsequent chapters.

Public Transport to Regional Centres

There are a number of bus service providers to regional centres from Adelaide; Table3.14 presents some for selected towns, along with the average weekday frequency ofservice.

29


RegionalCentre Provider Frequency

Murray Bridge Murray Bridge Passenger Service 4 per day

Victor Harbor Premier Stateliner 4 per day

Whyalla Premier Stateliner 4 per day

Mt. Gambier Premier Stateliner 2 per day

Broken Hill Buses R Us 3 per week

Table 3.14: Bus services connecting Adelaide to regional centres.

A range of bus service providers offer frequent timetabled services from most centresto Adelaide. Often the trunk services are supported by connecting services at theregional centre to travel further. The towns of Broken Hill and Mount Gambier haveless frequent services, these being the farthest from Adelaide CBD at 520km and440km respectively.

Provision for rail travel from South Australian regional centres to Adelaide is ofteninfrequent or not possible at all. The only options for the selected regional centresutilise timetabled interstate services. These exist for Murray Bridge where TheOverland provides 3 services per week and for Broken Hill and Port Augusta, whereGreat Southern Rail normally provides 2 services per week.

Ferry and Rail Services

Beyond regular bus and train services to regional centres, South Australia has dailyferry services to Kangaroo Island. The service between Wallaroo and the EyrePeninsula is currently suspended. Fares are structured for passengers alone and forcars as presented in Table 3.15

DestinationOne Way

Cost per CarOne Way Costper Passenger

Kangaroo Island $84.00 $43.00

Eyre Peninsula $130.00 $32.50

Table 3.15: Regional ferry services.

Ferry services to Kangaroo Island depart from Cape Jervis and arrive at Penneshaw.The Eyre Peninsula service, when operational, departs from Wallaroo and arrives atLucky Bay (near Cowell); the cost per car on this service is more than twice asexpensive than a bus or driven car trip, which may have contributed to itssuspension.

Air Services

Regional air services in South Australia (and to Broken Hill and Mildura) are currentlyprovided by Regional Express, Air South, Alliance Airlines and Sharp Airlines.Regional Express provides most SA regional air services with operations to locationsincluding Port Lincoln, Ceduna, Whyalla, Coober Pedy, Kingscote, Mount Gambierand Broken Hill. Air South operates from Adelaide to Kingscote, Alliance Airlinesoperates from Adelaide to Olympic Dam and Sharp Airlines offer a service to PortAugusta. Approximate one-way advanced ticket prices are given in Table 3.16.

30


Destination One Way Cost1

Coober Pedy $198.00

Ceduna $158.00

Whyalla $108.00

Pt Lincoln $106.00

Pt Augusta $147.00

Kingscote $74.00

Mt Gambier $130.00

Broken Hill (NSW) $140.00

Olympic Dam $198.00

1Note: flight costs are indicative and for advanced bookings. Costs may beconsiderably higher depending on booking and travel dates.

Table 3.16: Regional air fares from Adelaide.

Flight services are more expensive than bus or car trips to the same destination flightservices to Whyalla almost double the one-way bus fare of $55.00. The flightservices do however offer a faster alternative, especially for longer distances. As anexample, Coober Pedy by car may take up to 9 hours by car compared to 2 hoursflying time.

Regional South Australia contains a total of 19 regional airports which in 2005 wereall serviced by airlines. In 2008 however, the number of serviced airports declined tonine, these being the South Australian airports identified in the previous table.

3.4 Current SA Government plans and proposals

The SA government has a plethora of legislation, policy and plans that impact ontransport in the State. The impact of good urban planning and setting appropriatetargets is necessary to steer towards a transport future that can cope with newdemands. Issues that came before the Committee included the need to retain theUrban Growth Boundary in order to contain urban growth and maximise the use ofexisting infrastructure (transport and otherwise) This will help to minimise theecological footprint and reduce transport related greenhouse gas emissions. TheState Strategic Plan targets that the Committee felt were not reflecting stronglyenough the need to convert private car use to public transport use, were: improveAdelaide’s public transport patronage to 10% by 2018 – this should be raised to amore aspirational 25%; and the target for public transport into the Adelaide CBDshould be raised to 50% of trips by 2018.

Committee Recommendation 4The Committee recommends that the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) shouldbe retained to minimise the physical and the ecological ‘footprint’ of Adelaideand reduce greenhouse gas emissions from transport emissions.

Committee Recommendation 5The Committee recommends that the SA Strategic Plan target to improveAdelaide’s public transport patronage to 10% (passenger kilometres) by 2018should be increased to a more aspirational 25% overall.

31


Committee Recommendation 6The Committee recommends that the targets for public transport travel intothe Adelaide CBD should be raised to 50% of trips by 2018.

A range of proposed transport-related investments are currently under considerationfrom various Australian and South Australian Government bodies. The followingsections provide a general overview of the principal information.

Infrastructure Australia’s Current Deliberations

Transport proposals that are currently under consideration by Infrastructure Australiafor roads and public transport for metropolitan Adelaide are identified in the Tables3.17 and 3.18.

Project Description Capital Cost ($m)1

North-Southcorridor

Major urban road network worksassociated with the ‘Superhighway’development, including publictransport components.

$750

Northern connector

Part of the North-South corridorproject connecting to NorthernExpressway to the Port RiverExpressway and to South Road.

$2,200

Sir Donald BradmanDrive upgrade

Upgrades and improving on the linkfrom the CBD to Adelaide Airport.

$49

note 1: all monetary values are in June 2008 prices

Table 3.17: Urban road projects.

The combined total capital cost of the urban road projects in Adelaide is $2,990million which equates to $2,590 per capita. This current cost equates toapproximately 49% of the current value of existing urban road network assets.

Project Description Capital Cost($m)1

Seaford rail extensionExtension of passenger railservices from Noarlunga toSeaford.

$456

Darlington transportproject

Public transport upgrades as partof the North-South corridor project.

$750

Gawler line upgradeLine re-sleepering andelectrification (formerly Adelaide’sFuture Public Transport Network).

$2,190

note 1: all monetary values are in June 2008 prices

Table 3.18: Urban public transport projects.

The total capital cost of these three public transport projects is $3,396 million,equating to approximately $2,930 per capita. When compared to the current Adelaidepublic transport assets, this investment represents a considerable increase of 115%.

32


Planning the Adelaide We All Want – The 2030 Document

The draft document entitled “Planning the Adelaide we all want: Progressing the 30-year Plan for Greater Adelaide” produced in July 2009 by the Government of SouthAustralia document identifies targets for transport in Adelaide. Identified draft targetsinclude:

“Reduce car dependency and increase public transport to 10 percent of all transport use by 2018,

Prioritise residential and employment growth in areas wheretransport infrastructure is planned,

Upgrade stations to support higher densities around majortransport interchanges, including stations at Brighton, Noarlunga,Elizabeth, Munno Para, Port Adelaide and Glanville,

Create new, and upgrade existing, park and ride facilities tosupport access to transport interchanges,

Protect primary and secondary freight corridors that are gazettedfor use by restricted access vehicles,

Create dedicated walking and cycling corridors along majortransit corridors to improve access to activity centres, publictransport nodes and local walking and cycling routes.”

These targets recognise multiple transport modes and their role in planning forAdelaide’s future transport networks. The document also notes that the “integration oftransport and land-use planning is essential to achieve the new urban form”. The2030 document lists additional possible public transport improvements or extensionsfrom Port Adelaide to Cheltenham, along Prospect Road, from Noarlunga to Aldingaand from the City to Mount Barker.

The Cost of Public Transport in Adelaide

The following section provides a breakdown of costs associated with public transportprovision in metropolitan Adelaide.

Unit costs of carrying passengers on public transport services in Australia issummarised in Figure 3.8, developed by Bray and Wallis (1999). It depicts therelationship between trip length and combined capital and recurrent costs expressedas cost per passenger kilometre.

33


Figure 3.8: Unit cost of carrying passengers on public transport (source Bray andWallis, 1999).note 1: all monetary values are in January 1999 pricesnote 2:the curve in the figure represents to costs of bus journeys

Figure 3.8 indicates that the longest average trip length occurs for the Noarlunga andGawler train trips. On-street bus journeys have a range of average trip lengths withthe average cost of carrying passengers on the O-Bahn similar to that of street busesfor a similar trip length.

Information provided in the following discussion is based on data provided by ISST(2009) and Bray (2009) which detail economic methodologies employed to derivethese figures. In terms of total operating and capital costs for public transport, Table3.19 provides a summary of the bus and combined train/tram modes.

Bus Train and Tram TotalOperating Costs $143 m $71 m $216 mCapital Costs $48 m $182 m $230 mTOTAL Costs $193 m $253 m $446 m

Table 3.19: Public transport operating and capital costs.

In total, the current annual cost for Adelaide’s public transport network is $446million. The total fare revenue generated from the public transport modes is $73million, resulting in a net cost (i.e. subsidised cost) of operating the bus, train andtram public transport system is $373 million dollars. Table 3.20 displays the cost perpassenger of operation, in terms of boardings (not trips).

Bus Train and Tram AverageOperating costs $2.84 $5.05 $3.32Capital costs $3.79 $17.97 $6.85

Table 3.20: Cost per passenger boarding of public transport.

34


Principally because of the high net costs and the greatly increased capital worksprogram for public transport in 2009, it may cost up to $17 (at current fare levels) inincremental subsidy to attract a car driver to use public transport, particularly ifMetroticket fares were to apply to outer areas.

In its submission (40) to the ERDC the Conservation Council of South Australia(CCSA) notes that in reference to climate change and peak oil, “residents on theouter-metropolitan periphery are likely to be hardest hit and face substantialincreases in fuel and energy costs. Rural and regional dwellers will also faceparticular hardship in a carbon-constrained era and are poorly served by publictransport options.” The submission articulates support for integrated land-use andtransport planning to substantially reduce transport-related greenhouse emissions. Inaddition, CCSA state that “the State Government and Adelaide City Council shouldwork towards progressively reducing private car use in the Adelaide CBD”.

3.5 Summary

This chapter has described the current transport scene in South Australia, withparticular reference to near-metropolitan areas and country regions. Subsequentchapters analyse metropolitan public transport in detail (Chapter 4), rail passengerservices (Chapter 5), and urban public transport more generally (Chapter 6),responding to specific matters as required by the Terms of Reference.

Committee Recommendation 7The Committee recommends that State Government should continue to lobbyfor a substantial proportion of the federal Building Australia Fund to beinvested in public transport and active transport infrastructure in SouthAustralia.

35


Chapter 4.

EFFICIENCY & INTEGRATION IN METROPOLITANPUBLIC TRANSPORT SYSTEMS INTERSTATE ANDOVERSEAS

4.1 Introduction

The Committee’s Terms of Reference include: (I) the development of an efficient andintegrated public transport system incorporating all forms of public transport andnecessary infrastructure improvements; and (IV) an assessment of rail passengerservices to regions and communities within and beyond the current metropolitanarea.

This chapter addresses these two terms of reference by reviewing the efficiency andextent of integration in Adelaide with public transport in other cities in Australia andoverseas. Regional rail services to localities near to major cities are identified, but thedetailed discussion of South Australian rail is dealt with in Chapter 5.

Comparison of Adelaide’s transport with that of other cities is inevitable, given thattravel to interstate and overseas cities is commonplace. It is also important thattransport planners, operators and users have an opportunity to make suchcomparisons and learn from their counterparts in other cities.

However, much comparative commentary is unbalanced – there is a tendency tocompare the best that can be found elsewhere with the worst at home, rememberingthe positive aspects of other cities’ public transport but ignoring (or, more likely, neverexperiencing) the less attractive aspects, e.g. travellers often comment on thecomprehensive nature of London’s suburban rail, underground, LRT and busnetworks, which carry over a billion passengers per annum, but forget that fare levelsin London are very high by Australian standards, reliability is not great, and the levelof overcrowding is dreadful. In making such comparisons, allowance needs to bemade for different conditions in different cities: climate; density of population andhousing; levels of fares, concessions and subsidies; sources of capital finance, etc.Even where pairs of cities are more carefully selected for comparison, such asAdelaide with Portland, or Melbourne with Toronto or Vancouver, there is still anelement of unfairness about the debates in the media and the literature.

In the following brief commentaries on public transport in a selection of cities from anumber of countries, the objective is not to so much to draw comparisons, but toidentify levels of efficiency, the extent of integration and some aspects of the cities’public transport operations and policies that could be useful if applied in Adelaide, aswell as drawing attention to the structural, organisational and other factors that aredifferent to those prevailing in South Australia. Choosing the cities to review presentsa challenge: there are over 70 cities in the world with metros in operation, about 200with suburban rail networks, over 300 operating tram, streetcar or LRT systems, andover 300 where electric trolleybuses are still to be found. In selecting a few todescribe in detail the objective is to report cities with populations in the 800,000 – 1.5million range, together with some larger cities where necessary to describe outer

36


metropolitan and peri-urban regional rail lines and networks, or identify usefullessons in efficiency, integration and/or innovation.

A major problem in describing public transport is the poor quality of data. Forexample some organisations are able to report numbers of trips by public transport,but most report boardings – the numbers are higher, but boardings are misleading asusers might have no choice but to make two or more boardings to complete one trip.Similarly, information on revenue can be misleading, e.g. an organisation mightreport concession reimbursement as revenue, whereas it is more accurately a costthat is transferred to another source - determining the total cost to the taxpayer ofoperating public transport (including capital costs) is difficult. The geographic extentof service areas can also complicate comparisons, e.g. Melbourne, Perth andAdelaide have reasonably clearly defined metropolitan operating areas, but data forboth Brisbane and Sydney public transport operations and finance embrace that fromnearby cities such as Gold Coast and Newcastle within their respective databases.Also, continued change and development in public transport mean that anystatement or observation on, for example, population, patronage, fleet size,organisational structures or operating cost is likely to be outdated and superseded bythe time it appears in print. Thus the summary data used in this chapter should beregarded as indicative, sufficient for comparative purposes, but not definitive. Dataand commentary for Adelaide is provided first as the ‘base case’ against which othercities are considered.

Following the description of cities and regions, the final section of the chaptersummarises some of the findings in functional terms, e.g. fleet size compared topopulations served, the mix of transport modes and technology, ticketing systems,cost recovery, funding etc., and assesses the standards of Adelaide’s publictransport in relation to those found elsewhere.

4.2 Australia

Adelaide

The population served by Adelaide Metro services is about 1.11 million. 62 millionboardings are made annually (60 per capita), of which 72% are on bus services and28% on TransAdelaide’s trams and trains (Ref. Figure 4.1). The operating cost perannum is $250 million ($240 per capita); revenue, mainly from fares, is $68 million,giving an operating cost recovery of 27% (subsidy per capita $175). Revenue issupplemented by reimbursement of $34 million to compensate for concession travel.

Bus operating costs average $4.3 per veh-km, with a fleet of 832 buses, most ofthem owned by the State Government and leased to and operated mainly by privatecompanies contracted to the Government. A new round of bidding for contracts willcommence early in 2010. Rail operating costs average $17.4 per veh-km, and tramoperating costs are between those of bus and rail, with accurate data becomingavailable for the fleet of new trams. Actual operating costs of providing particularroutes and services vary depending on frequency of service and length of routes. Forexample, the O-Bahn bus services are at the lower end of the cost curve, as are thecosts of bus services on major arterial roads such as Henley Beach Road and MainNorth Road. On the rail network, the Noarlunga and Gawler lines are much morecost-effective than the Belair and Outer Harbor lines.

37


The average capital expenditure on public transport in Adelaide in recent years hasbeen about $80 million per annum, though current and future financial years will seea dramatic increase to over $400 million per annum. The cost of future plans, asreflected in South Australia’s submission to Infrastructure Australia, is $3,396 million,which equates to a doubling of the value of the existing metropolitan public transportassets.

Discussion of Adelaide’s public transport in the media and elsewhere tends toconcentrate on the negative aspects – this is to be expected, as anything that workswell is taken for granted. Overall, the Adelaide system functions satisfactorily on adaily basis, and the planned acquisition of new railcars, an extension of the O-Bahninto the city centre, and a regular supply of new buses and trams should addressmost current problems. However, the planned infrastructure improvements and newrolling stock will need to be matched by increases in the operating subsidy, otherwiseit will be a matter of robbing the bus services of funds to cover the increased cost ofrail services, as occurred when the planned improved frequency on the City Loop didnot eventuate, to help pay for the operating cost of the tram extension to City West(in addition to the savings made by elimination of the Beeline bus service). As over70% of public transport trips in Adelaide (i.e. about 4% of all passenger trips) aremade by bus, starving the system of funds to pay for new rail services would be amisallocation of resources. The Adelaide model of contracting out, developed by theformer Passenger Transport Board and refined in the second round of contracts, isrecognised to be as good as any in the world, and is even considered in somequarters to be “world’s best practice”, but less than half of the savings made in recentyears from contracting out of the bus services have been used to improve publictransport.

Committee Recommendation 8The Committee recommends that the operating budget for public transport beincreased to take into account increased operating costs incurred when newcapital projects become operational, so that savings do not have to be madeelsewhere in the system to offset the increased costs. In particular, busservices should not be reduced to finance any increased costs on the railnetwork.

Committee Recommendation 9The Committee recommends that any savings made by more efficientoperation of public transport be used to provide additional services.

The Adelaide fare system, which applies across the network and permits transferbetween services, irrespective of mode or operator, and which contains a differentialfare element to reflect the cheaper marginal cost of operation in the daytime off-peakhours, was the first in Australia. Criticisms of the fare system are mainly due to theage of the Crouzet technology, introduced in 1987, and the need to replace it with anew modern smartcard system, a project currently being developed by DTEI.

A major weakness of Adelaide’s current public transport, if drivers are to be attractedout of their cars and the Government’s targets in the State Strategic Plan are to bemet, is the poor level of service provided during evenings and at weekends. Whereasdaytime frequencies on most routes (but not all) can be regarded as acceptable,those at weekends offer no practical alternative to private car use.

38


Committee Recommendation 10The Committee recommends that the State Government and Adelaide CityCouncil should work towards progressively reducing private car use in theAdelaide CBD.

Beyond the limits of the Adelaide metropolitan area, there are no regional railservices, an issue dealt with in chapter 5 of this report. The only passenger trains incountry SA are the long distance services provided by Great Southern Rail to Perth,Melbourne, Sydney via Broken Hill, and Darwin via Alice Springs.

39


Figure 4.1: Adelaide rail and tram network. Source: www.railmaps.com.au

40


Perth

Population of metro service area: 1.55mBoardings pa 98m (69 pc/pa) (train share 44%)Operating cost pa $366m ($236 pc/pa; subsidy $192)Fare revenue $63m (+ conc. reimbursement $50m)Cost recovery (op costs) 19%Bus operating costs $4 per veh-km (1124 buses)Rail operating costs $22 per veh-kmAverage capital spend pa $580mCost of plans to IA $263m (6% of existing pt assets)

In terms of size, population densities and public transport service levels, Perth is theonly city in Australia that can be compared to Adelaide. South Australian visitors toPerth return home extolling the merits of the Perth rail system, which is superb, andcompare it to what they see at home. However, capital expenditures of up to $600million per annum were required to create the Perth public transport system, seventimes the average expenditures in Adelaide over a similar period. The SAGovernment now has a program to electrify and upgrade the Adelaide system tomodern standards such as already to be seen in Perth with expenditures in Adelaideclose to those committed in WA in earlier years.

The cost of public transport operations in Perth is 46% higher than Adelaide’s, whileserving a population some 30% higher, partly reflecting Perth’s emphasis oninvestment in rail, which carries 44% of all public transport boardings, compared to28% by tram and train in Adelaide. Note also that policy in WA has been to feedbuses to train stations, whereas in Adelaide there is a far greater number of busservices, many of them express bus services from outer suburbs, that arecompetitive to rail, in order to provide patrons with a choice of destinations within theCBD and serving destinations on the arterial roads en route to the City of Adelaide. InPerth some of the newer rail routes are within freeway medians, so that rail andexpress buses would be effectively in the same corridor.

Other than the sharp contrast in the quality of its suburban rail services, there are twoother features of transport policy in Perth that deserve consideration for application inAdelaide: the downtown free bus network, which is more extensive than that inAdelaide (the tram free fare zone, the City Loop and the City of Adelaide’s Connectorred and green routes), and the levy on parking in the CBD. Otherwise, the publictransport system in Perth delivers services that are of a similar standard to those inAdelaide, and costs are comparable. The most recent transport planning reports forPerth are listed in chapter 2.

Perth’s suburban rail services run north to Clarkson (32km), south to Armadale (30km) and east to west from Fremantle (19km) to Perth and on to Midland (16 km)(Ref. Figure 4.2). The new Mandurah line opened in 2007 runs 73 km southwardsand can be regarded as peri-urban, as can the Avon Link commuter train (inbounda.m. peak, outbound p.m. peak) from Northam to Perth. There are also two regionalrail passenger services in WA: The Australind from Perth to Bunbury (184km), whichruns twice daily, and the Prospector to Kalgoorlie (655 km), which runs to a varyingschedule approximately twice a day.

41


Figure 4.2: Perth rail network. Source: www.railmaps.com.au

42


Brisbane

Population of Translink area: 2.58m (Brisbane 1.68m)Boardings pa 182m (60 pc/pa) (train share 33%)Operating cost pa $675m ($264 pc/pa: subsidy $180)Fare revenue $214m (+conc. reimbursement $65m)Cost recovery (op costs) 31%Unit operating costs ? (2000 buses)Average capita spend pa $86mCost of plans to IA $19,470m (227% of existing pt assets!)

There is little merit in making comparisons between Brisbane’s public transport andthat of Adelaide, as the Queensland capital is a bigger city in an even biggerTranslink metropolitan public transport region that stretches from the NSW border inthe south to the Sunshine Coast communities to the north, within which there aredistinct local public transport systems, e.g. those serving Gold Coast City andIpswich. The regional area has a network of electrified rail services radiating in alldirections from Brisbane, operated by Queensland Rail under contract to the StateGovernment, and accounting for a significant proportion of the of the very highoperating cost of the total Translink system. The Brisbane urban area is served by anintense network of City Council bus services, with outer suburbs and satellitecommunities served by private bus companies’ services. Overall cost recovery ismore in line with that of the larger cities of Sydney and Melbourne, than with thelower cost recoveries characteristic of Adelaide and Perth.

One highly successful feature of Brisbane’s public transport is the growing number ofBusways that enable high quality bus service to be delivered to areas not served bythe suburban rail system, constructed to ensure fast access and egress into theCBD, a feature soon to be emulated in Adelaide by extension of the O-Bahn buswayinto the city centre. Also of note in Brisbane are the use of tolls on some highwaysand river crossings, and private investment in the construction (and initially in theoperation) of the rail line to Brisbane Airport. The most recent transport planningreports for Brisbane are listed in chapter 2.

Brisbane’s electrified suburban railway system is all included in the Translink region,and includes regular services that extend to the limits of the Translink organisation’sjurisdiction, e.g. to Caboolture (50 km), Ipswich (40 km) and Robina (85 km) (Ref.Figure 4.3). In addition, regional electric train services continue north as far asGympie (173 km), and Queensland Railways runs long distance trains from Brisbaneto Cairns, Longreach, and Charleville, and from Townsville to Mount Isa. Note alsothe Gulflander, Savannalander and Kuranda tourist trains in northern Queensland,some of which are privately operated over QR track.

43


Figure 4.3: Brisbane rail network. Source: www.railmaps.com.au

44


Melbourne

Population of metro service area: 3.81m (city 3.37m)Boardings pa 492m (140 pc/pa)

(train & tram share 80%)Operating cost pa $1,245m ($369 pc/pa)(subsidy $237)Fare revenue $445m (+conc. reimbursement $48m)Cost recovery (op costs) 36%Bus operating costs $5 per veh-km (1472 buses)Tram operating costs $13 per veh-kmTrain operating costs $31 per veh-kmAverage capital spend pa $46mCost of plans to IA $7,455m (30% of existing pt assets)

A most interesting aspect of Melbourne’s public transport is the unique mixture ofbuses, trams and trains in almost equal proportions serving the metropolitan area:rail in the corridors (214m boardings), trams (178m) the inner and middle suburbs,and buses the low density outer suburbs (100m), with many of the bus routes feedingto rail and tram routes. Despite having an excellent network, provided at a subsidyonly slightly higher per capita than that of Brisbane and Perth, it is subject to constantcriticism, with adverse comparisons being drawn with cities such as Zurich, Torontoand Vancouver. The main weakness of the Melbourne system is that it is, like allother major Australian cities, dominated by radial services to the CBD, whereas thequoted overseas cities have a greater proportion of non-radial routes based, in theCanadian cities, on rectilinear arterial and collector road networks. However, anycomparisons have to acknowledge that such methods of operation require users toaccept the need to transfer between routes and/or modes to complete their journeys.

The most recent transport planning reports for Melbourne are listed in chapter 2.Melbourne’s suburban rail, tram and bus networks are contracted out, and newfranchises were announced for the rail and tram services by the VictorianGovernment on 25 June 2009. From 1 December 2009 the suburban trains havebeen contracted to Metro Trains (previously Connex) and the tram services by Keolis(previously Yarra Trams).

In addition to Melbourne’s extensive suburban rail system (Ref. Figure 4.4), V/Lineoperates frequent service to the three large regional cities of Geelong (75 km),Ballarat (113 km) and Bendigo ( 162 km), and country trains to destinations such asSale & Bairnsdale, Seymour, Shepparton & Albury, Echuca & Swan Hill, Ararat, andWarrnambool. The annual country train deficit (including the regional city services) isapproximately $600 million.

45


Figure 4.4: Melbourne rail and tram network. Source: www.railmaps.com.au

46


Sydney

Population of service area: 4.46m (Sydney 3.64m)Boardings pa 590m (132 pc/pa) (train share 55%)Operating cost pa $2,660m ($581 pc/pa)(subsidy $389)Fare revenue $855m (+conc. reimbursement $471m)Cost recovery (op costs) $30%Bus operating costs $4.4 per veh-km (4000 buses)Train operating costs $46 per veh-kmAverage capital spend pa $1,000mCost of plans to IA $12,900m (47% of existing pt assets)

Sydney is in the ‘big league’ where public transport is concerned – its patronage,costs and system requirements are comparable to those of other large world cities.Also, Sydney’s public transport operations extend far beyond the city’s boundaries inall directions, to embrace Newcastle, Central Coast, Wollongong and the BlueMountain towns (ref. Figure 4.5).

There are several aspects of the Sydney system, though, that are of relevance toAdelaide: the importance of the downtown underground rail loop in providing accessto all parts of the CBD, the relatively high cost of providing rail services, and theconstruction of Transitways (busways) to serve the lower density western suburbs.Sydney also illustrates the significance that a congested road network (compoundedby topography) can have on the level of public transport patronage: Sydney’sridership is 50% higher than Melbourne from a population just 22% greater.Topography, together with the age and configuration of the rail network, alsocontributes to the much higher operating costs in Sydney, reflected in higher costsper capita (and subsidy per capita) needed to fund public transport in the GreaterSydney metropolitan region.

The most recent transport planning reports for Sydney are listed in chapter 2.Premier Rees announced in May 2009 that a new ‘super agency’, NSW Transport &Infrastructure’, is to take control of all transport and roads coordination, policy andplanning functions that were previously in a number of organisations including theMinistry of Transport, RTA, RailCorp and State Transit.

The Inter-city branded passenger trains to Newcastle (168 km), Wollongong (83 km),Goulburn (225 km), and the Blue Mountains (Lithgow, 156 km), plus the local trainservices in the Hunter and Illawarra regions, are all included in the CityRailoperational area, accounting for a fair proportion of the metropolitan rail budget.CountryLink runs the daily long distance intrastate trains to Armidale (995 km)/Moree(666 km) and Dubbo (462 km), the once weekly services to Griffith (680 km) andBroken Hill ((1125 km), and the interstate trains to Brisbane, Canberra andMelbourne. (GSR operates the transcontinental trains to Adelaide and Perth.) TheInter-city and CountryLink services are expensive to operate, the latter being one ofthe subjects investigated in the Ministerial Inquiry into Sustainable Transport in NSW(The Parry Report).

47


Figure 4.5: Sydney rail, LRT monorail and ferry network. Source: www.railmaps.com.au

48


4.3 New Zealand

In New Zealand the Regional Councils are responsible for public transport planning,funding is shared with the NZ Government, and operations contracted out.

Auckland (pop. 1.12 million) is in the process of upgrading the suburban rail systemsimilar to the Perth experience, including electrification (subject to funding). A newterminal has been opened (Britomart) closer to the CBD than the old city station witha long term plan to make it a through station by constructing a 3.5km tunnel to MountEden. The rail routes, currently operated by Veolia, run south to Papakura (31 km)and Pukekohoe (50 km) and north to Waitakere (31 km) (ref. Figure 4.6). The trainscarry about 7 million trips per annum. The North Shore is also served by a 6 km longbusway which carries 1.23 million trips per year, routes fanning out to serve thecommunities on the north side of the harbour.

Figure 4.6: Auckland rail map. Source: www.railmaps.com.au

In August 2009 a new Auckland Transport Agency replaced nine former bodiesresponsible for transport in the Auckland region. MAXX is the equivalent of AdelaideMetro, a brand name for marketing and information purposes covering all modes,routes, services and operators in metropolitan Auckland. There are five main busoperators in Auckland, with a total fleet of 920 buses carrying around 42 millionpassengers a year. Funding for all metro services (bus, rail and ferry) comes fromboth central and regional governments: in 2008 Land Transport New Zealand’soperating grant to the Auckland Regional Authority was $NZ85.4 million (capital grant$NZ5million) and the Regional Council’s operating grant was $NZ66.4 million (capital$NZ57.5 million).

The geography of Wellington (regional population 465,000. city 345,000) is suchthat a large proportion of commuters live in the Hutt Valley towns, on the KapitiCoast, and in the communities in the hills to the north of the city, so the Tranz Metrorail network is an important element of the region’s public transport. There are routesto Upper Hutt (32 km) and Melling (14 km) in the Hutt Valley, Paraparaumu (48 km)

49


on the Kapiti Coast, and the Johnsonville line (10 km) (Ref. Figure 4.7). TheJohnsonville line serves the inner Hills communities to the north of Wellington and issimilar to the Belair line in Adelaide in that it is mainly single track and is undergoingmajor reconstruction at the present time. A regional rail service also extends beyondUpper Hutt to Masterton (91 km), and a single commuter trip runs southbound in themorning peak from Palmerston North (136 km) to Wellington, returning north in thelate afternoon.

Figure 4.7: Wellington rail, trolleybus and ferry map. Source: www.railmaps.com.au

The Wellington city bus system is a compact network using buses and trolleybuses,the Wellington Regional Council having decided in the late 20th century to maintainthe trolley network on environmental grounds (the system includes three tunnels,including one bus-only tunnel), contracting out the maintenance of the overhead

50


wiring as well as the operation of the vehicles, the latter to Stagecoach. The CityCouncil’s Kelburn cable car is also contracted out (to Transfield), serving localresidents as well as being a tourist attraction. NZ government grants to WellingtonRegional Council in 2008 were $NZ53.3 million, with the Council raising $NZ36.7million from the targeted regional rates. $NZ64 million was spent on funding andpromoting public transport, and $NZ31 million on infrastructure, includingmaintenance of the overhead wiring. Capital expenditure on public transport in 2008was only $NZ1 million of a $NZ7 million budget, due to delays on projects andmatters relating to new equipment. Given the compact nature of most of theWellington city area served by the buses and trolleybuses, cost recovery from faresis about 50%.

4.4 Canada

Toronto and Vancouver are often cited by Australians as cities with public transportsystems that are superior to those in Australian cities. Although both cities are muchbigger than Adelaide and their climates much different, there are aspects of thepublic transport networks that are relevant to the Committee’s Terms of Reference,particularly in the way communities beyond the core cities are served.

Most Canadian public transport systems are run by public enterprises that arecreatures of municipal, regional or provincial governments. In the city of Toronto(population 2.4 million) the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) operates a network ofsubway, streetcar, LRT, ALRT and bus routes, with surrounding municipalcommunities such as Missisauga, Oakville, Brampton and Oshawa operating theirown bus systems (the population of the conurbation at the western end of LakeOntario is 6 million, more than twice that of Toronto itself).

The TTC system is a complex of services that is easy to use: a metro network of twolinked north-south lines (Yonge & Spadina), an east-west line (Bloor-Danforth), theSheppard branch and the Scarborough ALRT (Ref. Figure 4.8). The 600 or sosubway cars are fairly spartan but provide a frequent service throughout the day: 2minute headways are commonplace, and a passenger never has to wait more than 5minutes. A fleet of 1730 buses and 248 streetcars operate over arterial and collectorroads to create an intersecting network, e.g. there are more than 200 connections tothe subway from 148 surface routes, many at specially designed interchanges thatprovide easy transfer at the same time protecting passengers from the weather. 2.3million boardings a day are made onto the system, 1.17 million onto the subway,many of them transfer connections. Ticket sales indicate there are 1.49 million trips aday using the TTC’s services, which suggests that when comparing public transportdata, the ratio of boardings to trips can be as high as 3:2 in some cities.

51


Figure 4.8: Toronto subway map. Source: Toronto Transit Commission

The TTC’s success can be measured by its 66% cost recovery level from a $C3.00flat cash fare (c. $A3.25). In 2007, the TTC’s revenue from fares was $C780 million,with operating costs of $C1166 m. The Toronto City Council’s operating subsidy was$C207.9 m, supplemented by funds from the Ontario gas (petrol) tax of $C91.6m.Capital subsidies were received by the TTC from all three levels of government:Toronto $C116.4 m, Ontario $C237.9 m, and federal $C111.9m. The Ontarioprovincial government provides capital grants of up to 75% for infrastructure andequipment, and recently the federal government committed financial support of$C300m towards the new $C950 m Sheppard East LRT line. However the federalauthorities have been less responsive to a request for a contribution towards thereplacement of the fleet of over 200 streetcars (estimated cost $C1.1 billion), lest aprecedent is set which might result in other Canadian cities seeking financial help forreplacement of rolling stock. The TTC has placed an order for 204 new cars withBombardier, with an option for up to 400 more.

GO Transit is the trading name of the Ontario provincial crown corporation thatprovides commuter rail and express bus service from Toronto to other cities andtowns in the Toronto-Hamilton conurbation. The range of rail services is impressive:regular day-long services on the Lakeshore route from Oshawa (50km) in the east toBurlington (51 km) in the west, with peak hour trips extended to and from the city ofHamilton (63 km), and peak hour rail services to and from Barrie (101km), Milton (50km), Stouffville/Lincolnville (50 km), Richmond Hill (34km), and Georgetown (49 km)(Ref. Figure 4.9). Bus services supplement all routes and provide daytime off-peakservices. The size and scope of the Greater Toronto region is such that over 50million trips were made on GO Transit in 2007, (43.4 million on trains and connectingbuses, and 7.5 million on through bus services), half of them on the main lineLakeshore rail route. GO runs 155 train trips and 1878 bus trips daily, carrying over200,000 passengers in 41 train-sets and a fleet of 401 buses.

52


Figure 4.9: GO Transit rail and bus network. Source: www.gotransit.com

Cost recovery from fares is a high 83%, due to fares and service levels beingcompetitive with car travel in terms of price and travel times, peak hour commutersbeing deemed to have the ability and willingness to pay. Although the system coversmost of its operating costs, all capital expenditures are funded by governments,mainly from the Ontario Government, the owner of GO Transit, e.g. in 2007 theprovince provided $C486 million of the total capital funding of $605 million, with therest shared between municipal and federal authorities. Most GO services arecontracted out, the train operation to CN and CP (depending on the track owner),train maintenance to Bombardier, and major bus repair work to various companies. In2009, GO Transit bought the former CN line from downtown Toronto to Brampton for$C139 million, and ordered 10 new locomotives and 25 new bi-level cars as part of a$C435 million restoration project.

On May 14, 2009, GO Transit merged with and is now part of the Metrolinxorganisation, though the well-established GO Transit operating name and image islikely to remain. GO Transit began service in 1967 and has developed into a veryimpressive and efficient public transport organisation.

The Greater Vancouver regional transit system TransLink (the trading name of theSouth Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority) serves a very large areaconsisting of 21 municipalities in the Lower Mainland, including the cities ofVancouver, Burnaby, West Vancouver, Richmond and Surrey. Total populationserved is over 2 million.

Aspects of the Vancouver system that are of interest are the continued use oftrolleybuses (including express services), the Skytrain ALRT, and the West CoastExpress commuter rail service to towns in the lower Fraser Valley (Ref. Figure 4.10).The bus fleet consists of 1432 vehicles, about a quarter of them trolleybuses (which

53


carry 70% of downtown public transport trips) and is fully integrated with the Skytrainand with the SeaBus ferry to the North Shore, including fares, park& ride, freedowntown distributors, etc. The first Skybus line, the Expo route to New Westminster(20km) and Surrey, was opened in 1986.The Millennium route opened in 2002serves Burnaby and other eastern suburbs, and the Canada line, opened in 2009, isa public-private concession linking Vancouver with Richmond and the InternationalAirport. Trains are fully automatic, clean and frequent, with average operating costonly $C2.83 per v/km.

TransLink carried 179 million passengers in 2008 at an average fare of $C1.95 (c.$A2.20). Transit fare revenue was $C349m, supplemented by $C560m of taxationrevenues (mainly from a tax of 12¢ per litre on gasoline and diesel in the GreaterVancouver area). TransLink operations cost $C660m, giving an average costrecovery from fares of about 53%, but with considerable variation across differentmodes. Capital funds in 2008 were received from all three levels of government:$C111m from the province, $C96m from the federal government, $C7m from the Cityof Vancouver and $C2m from the City of Richmond, the municipal funds beingcontributions to the Canada Skytrain line. Capital was expended in recent years on34 new Skytrain railcars, 20 articulated trolleybuses, a third SeaBus ferry and 120diesel or hybrid buses. Note that much major infrastructure relating to TransLink’s railoperations remains vested in the BC Government, similar to the arrangements forrail, tram and O-Bahn infrastructure in Adelaide.

The West Coast Express, a subsidiary of TransLink, is a Monday to Friday peak houronly rail service of five inbound trains each morning from Mission City to VancouverWaterfront, returning eastwards to the Fraser Valley towns in the evening.Occasional off-peak services and weekend trips are by bus (‘TrainBus’). AtWaterfront, the WCE interchanges with SeaBus, Skytrain and local bus services. Theone-way cash fare to Mission City is $C9.25 (c. $A10), illustrating the cost ofproviding a capital intensive service to outer communities – the locomotives andtrain-sets sit at sidings near Waterfront all day, awaiting their return journeys in theevening peak, though this is more efficient than operating the trains in the daytimeoff-peak when there is insufficient demand and buses can do the job more cheaply.

West Coast Express patronage is about 10,500 trips a day, more than double the5,000 a day when the service began in the mid-1990s. Operating cost recovery in2008 was 91.4%, 85% from fares ($C15m), the rest mainly from parking fees($C1m), with total operating costs of $C17m, the subsidy required from TransLinkwas $C1.46m. Track access fees for operating over CP Rail cost $C9.95m.

BC Transit is a provincial crown agency responsible for coordinating public transportthroughout British Columbia outside metropolitan Vancouver. It does so in 57communities, with functions including planning, funding, marketing, fleetmanagement and contracting operations. There are 81 transit systems, a mixture ofregular routes, paratransit services and custom transit for people with disabilities. BCTransit’s functions are similar to those of the Office of Public Transport for regionalSA, but the BC budget is much bigger, spending almost $C200m on operations in2008/9, with 27 private operators and 14 non-profit agencies serving 47.6 millionpassengers.

54


Figure 4.10: Map of Vancouver Skytrain and West Coast Express rail lines.Source: David Arthur.

Montreal (pop. 3.3 million) also has a public transport system that integrates severalmodes and operating authorities’ services: a rubber-tyred Metro (c. 800 railcars),several suburban train services and a fleet of about 2000 buses (Ref. Figure 4.11).Unique to the region is the bus network serving the communities on the south shoreof the wide St Lawrence River that feeds into the Montreal Metro at Longueuil andBonaventure stations. Whereas Longueuil is a traditional surface bus/rail interchangewith a big parking lot and elaborate ‘kiss & ride’ pick up and set down arrangements,Bonaventure terminal for South Shore services is in the basement of a CBD buildingin Montreal, the buses reaching the city via long reversible lane bus priority systemson the Victoria and Champlain bridges across the St Lawrence. Similar feeder bussystems to Metro termini (e.g. Montmorency) and suburban rail stations (e.g. DeuxMontagnes - 29 km) serve the adjacent island city of Laval and other northern townsand suburbs.

55


Figure 4.11: Montreal Metro map. Source: Société de transport de Montréal

Smaller Canadian cities’ public transport systems are predominantly bus-based.Ottawa, the federal capital (pop. 780,000), which has 991 buses in its fleet, isnotable for its superb T-shaped busway, the Transitway, which runs 20 km fromBayshore in the western suburbs through the CBD (using priority lanes on twinnedone-way city streets) to Blair in the east, with a 8 km branch to South Keys in thesouthern suburbs. As with the Adelaide O-Bahn and the Brisbane South Busway,many routes use the Transitways, fanning out in all directions to serve destinationsincluding Kanata to the west, Orleans to the east and Ottawa Airport to the south ofthe city. There are 370,000 boardings a day on the OCTranspo network of 239routes, 240,000 of those boardings on routes that use the Transitways.

56


Figure 4.12: Ottawa Transitway and outer areas bus service map.Source: www.OCTranspo.com

OCTranspo’s revenue in 2007 (mainly from fares) was $C128 million, with acontribution from the City of Ottawa of $C152 million, supplemented by $C16.2million from the Ontario gasoline tax. Thus operating cost recovery was about 50%.

Peri-urban and nearby towns beyond the Ottawa metropolitan area, such as CarletonPlace and Winchester, are served by a number of rural bus routes, mainly peak hourservices provided by private operators, that feed to the termini of the OC Transponetwork (Ref. Figure 4.12). Ottawa also has an 8 km inter suburban rail route servingthe large Carleton University campus operated by diesel railcars and linking with theTransitway at both ends of the rail line. Hull-Gatineau, on the Quebec side of theOttawa River is served by a separate municipal bus system, with cross-river linksoperated by both operators, OCTranspo and STOutouais.

Calgary (pop. 1 million) and Edmonton (863,000) both have LRT lines providingspine routes linking the cities’ centres with suburbs, while Winnipeg (650,000) isserved by an all-bus public transport system. All three cities have about 600 buses intheir fleets, supplemented in Edmonton by 100 trolleybuses. Operating cost recoveryin the three cities is over 43%, from flat fare systems, though many riders use weeklyor monthly passes.

4.5 United States of America

The public transport systems of most cities on the US West Coast states areintegrated in various ways. Two cities, Portland and Sacramento are only slightlylarger than Adelaide; the others, e.g. Seattle, San Diego, San Francisco and LosAngeles are much larger. This section concentrates on Portland, Oregon, as it is the

57


city most often quoted for comparison with Adelaide, but highlights some interestingfeatures of the public transport networks serving the other cities.

Portland (pop. 1.58 million) is best known for its MAX LRT network and itscontribution to the revitalisation of the downtown area, but the city has several otherpublic transport features of interest, e.g. an extensive ‘fareless square’, thedowntown Portland Streetcar loop, a 22 block transit mall, and fleet of buses allequipped with bike racks. TriMet (the three-county Metropolitan TransportationDistrict of Oregon) is the main operator in the Portland region, public transport on thenorth side of the Columbia River being the responsibility of C-TRAN, the ClarkCounty (Washington) transit authority that coordinates services and fares with Tri-Met, as do other adjacent counties on the Oregon side.

There are four MAX LRT lines, plus the Westside Express (WES) commuter rail line(Ref. Figure 4.13). The Blue Line is a 55 km long east-west trunk line, the easternarm of which was opened in 1986, with the extension to the western suburbs openingin 1998. The short branches to the Airport (Red Line) and the Expo Centre (YellowLine) were opened in 2001 and 2004 respectively, and the new 12 km Green Line toClackamas opened in August 2009, together with an alternative alignment throughthe Portland CBD, to which the Yellow Line was also diverted. WES is a new (2009)25 km commuter rail peak hour service operating on an existing freight line thatconnects the LRT at Beaverton with cities to the south. It is significant to note that theUS federal government made major capital contributions to most of the Portland LRTlines’ construction costs: 83% of the $US214m cost of the Blue Line east, 73% ofBlue Line west ($US963m), 74% of the Yellow Line ($US350m). A federal grant of$US59m was also made to the start-up costs of the WES commuter service.

The MAX lines carried 35 million passengers in 2008, compared to 66 million by the631-strong bus fleet on 93 routes that are designed as an urban grid with timedtransfers at several MAX stations and Transit Centres. Service frequencies on MAXare similar to those on the Glenelg Tram in the City of Adelaide and those on busesare similar to those found on Adelaide Metro bus routes, except that in Portlandfrequent service continues until later in the evening (9.30 pm). Other similarities withAdelaide include a three zone fare system and a cost recovery level from the farebox of less than 25%. 55% of TriMet’s operating costs are covered by a local payrolltax, which together with other local taxes raised $US215m in 2008. Fare revenuewas $US81m (20% of costs), State and federal operating grants were $US60m(15%), the remaining $US38m (10%) coming from other sources. An interestingfeature of the governance of TriMet is that the seven members of the Board ofDirectors serve without fee.

58


Figure 4.13: MAX rail and LRT lines and the Portland Streetcar. Source: www.trimet.org

59


There are 59 park & ride lots in the Portland metro region, 26 of them purpose-built,the rest shared lots, e.g. church parking lots. One measure of the success of TriMetis that more people ride public transport in Portland than in several larger US cities.

The Portland Streetcar, which is operated with a fleet of 10 Skoda streetcars, ismanaged by the City of Portland’s Office of Transportation and is contracted out foroperation to Portland Streetcar Inc, a non-profit organisation. The streetcars operatearound an 8 km loop around the city, linking a major hospital and Portland StateUniversity every 12 minutes throughout the day on weekdays, and every 15 minutesat evenings and on weekends; extensions to the service are planned.

Sacramento, the State Capital of California, has a city population of 1.4 million, butthe Regional Transit System serves a population of 2.1 million in SacramentoCounty, operating 93 bus routes and two LRT lines (total length c.50 km) with a fleetof 248 buses (almost all of them CNG buses) and 76 LRVs. A 15 minute frequencyoperates on the LRT lines during most hours of service, but a curious difference,presumably reflecting demand and/or funding, is that the Blue Line operates throughto the late evening, whereas the Gold Line, which runs out to Fulsom City, shutsdown after 7 pm (Ref. Figure 4.14). Weekday LRT ridership is 31,000 on the LRTlines and 58,000 on the bus routes. The RTS operating budget in 2008 was$US147.7 m, and the capital budget $US141.7m. Fare revenue contributes about23% of operating costs, state and local taxes 58% (29% each), and federal operatingassistance 15%. Sacramento is at the northern end of the Capital Corridor regionalrail service, which is operated by Amtrak but funded by the State of California andruns south through the Bay Area (Oakland) to Silicon Valley and San Jose.

Figure 4.14: Sacramento LRT map. Source: www.sacrt.com

The larger cities of West Coast USA all have superb public transport systems.Seattle (pop. 2.7 million) has a suburban rail service, Sound Transit, linking Seattlewith cities to the south (Tacoma) and north (Everett) of the metropolitan region, plusAmtrak’s regional Cascades train and coach service which runs through the PacificNorthwest from Eugene OR to Bellingham WA and Vancouver, BC. San Diego (pop.2.7 m) has a similar combination of suburban rail, the Coaster service, which links

60


San Diego with coastal communities as far north as Oceanside (68 km), and frequentregional Amtrak rail service to and from Los Angeles (Pacific Surfliner). In addition,one of the San Diego Trolley (LRT) routes operates every 15 minutes to San Ysidro(35 km), close to the Mexican border crossing point.

The Bay Area of San Francisco is served by an array of integrated public transportservices operating all modes of transport. The City of San Francisco’s bus,trolleybus, streetcar, LRT and cable car routes are operated by MUNI, thetraditionally-named San Francisco Municipal Railway, the East Bay cities of Oakland,Berkeley, Richmond, Hayward, etc. by the AC Transit bus fleet, the southernpeninsula cities by several municipal bus authorities and the Valley Transit LRT lines(San Jose and Palo Alto), and the north shore communities by the buses and ferriesoperate by subsidiaries of the Golden Gate Bridge Authority. Express bus routesoperated by AC Transit and Golden Gate Transit to and from San Francisco utiliseexclusive lanes to access the Bay Bridge and Golden Gate Bridge respectively.

The whole Bay Area is linked by the BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit) system, whoselines fan out to the far north-eastern and south-eastern communities across the bay,such as Concord (26km) and Richmond (24km), and southwards on the peninsula toprovide direct service to San Francisco Airport (22km) (Ref. Figure 4.15). BARTservices are integrated with those of all the municipal public transit systems, asexemplified by the stations in Market Street, San Francisco, where the streetcars,trolleybuses and buses operate on-street, the MUNI LRT services to the westernsuburbs are immediately sub-surface and the BART lines run in a deeper tunnelbelow the LRT tunnel.

Figure 4.15: Bay Area Rapid Transit map. Source: www.bart.gov

61


Caltrain is a regional rail operation linking San Francisco with the peninsula towns,operating a mix of stopping and semi-fast services to San Jose (75km), with frequenttrains at peak times (a few extended to Gilroy -123km) and half-hourly servicethroughout the day. Cash fares vary with distance e.g. Palo Alto $US5.50 one-way,San Jose $US7.50 (c.A10). There are connections with BART (at Daly City), withValley Lines LRT (e.g. at Mountain View) and with local buses at most stations. Inaddition to the Capital Corridor regional train services noted above, a specialisedregional rail service, the Altamount Commuter Express, provides direct peak hourservice between Stockton and other cities and the high-tech employment areas as farsouth as San Jose (125km). Three trains run southbound in the early morning andreturn northbound in the evening peak and there is one return trip in the daytime off-peak hours; cash fares are up to $US11 one-way.

Los Angeles (pop.13.8 million) is usually characterised as a city dominated byfreeways, but this description masks the fact that Southern California has anextraordinary mixture of public transit service, much of it of the highest quality:Metrolink regional trains, the Red Line metro, the Blue, Green and Gold LRT lines,bus rapid transit lines (the El Monte busway is one of the busiest in the world), andbuses operated by several local communities to supplement those provided by theLos Angeles Metropolitan County and neighbouring Orange County to the south (Ref.Figure 4.16). An illustration of the integration of services in Los Angeles is the abilityto travel from, say, Pasadena, 40 km to the north-east of LA city centre, to theInternational Airport in the south-west or Long Beach (35km) in the south for a flatfare of $US1.25 (less than $A2), using the LRT lines, plus a free shuttle to the airport.Another example of integration is the off-airport bus terminal at LAX where local busroutes link with long-distance coaches and airport shuttle buses.

Figure 4.16: Los Angeles Metro Rapid bus, LRT and Metrolink map.Source: www.metro.net

62


These examples of public transport services, patronage and integration in west coastcities are replicated to varying degrees in cities elsewhere in USA, with the older eastcoast cities such as Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore and Washington allbeing served by large and complex systems making best use of all modes: commuterrail, metros, streetcars/LRT, buses, etc. Chicago and other mid-west and south-westcities are similar; the following points highlight some particular developments ofinterest:

New LRT systems in St Louis, Minneapolis, Houston, Dallas, Denver, etc.; New regional rail services in Texas (Trinity Railway Express), New Mexico

(Rail Runner), Tennessee (Music City Star), and Utah (Front Runner); Extensive suburban rail systems in all the big east coast cities; Modernised streetcar routes and newer busways in Pittsburgh; and Automated personalised rapid transit in Morgantown, WV.

Some metropolitan areas have transport planning and coordination organisationsseparate from the transit operations, e.g. San Francisco, Atlanta, while others haveintegrated planning and operations under one structure, e.g. Jacksonville. Innovationcan also be found in smaller cities and towns, as it is often easier to implementreforms in a more flexible planning framework and/or simpler decision-makingenvironment, e.g. the University Bus System in Davis, CA (pop. 66,000), paratransitservices in many small towns where fixed route bus services cannot be justified, andthe ticketless free travel for seniors in Tri-Cities WA (pop. 200,000), where BenFranklin Transit provides half-hourly frequencies on a number of routes within andbetween Pasco, Kennewick and Richland, with timed transfers at four TransitCentres, and on whose services anyone over 60 can travel free without a ticket andwith no restrictions on place of residence.

4.6 Europe

Although European cities have quite different form and structure than Australiancities, e.g. population densities are two or three times greater than Adelaide’s, due tohigh densities in inner cities, older suburbs and apartment complexes, and theinstitutional and financial frameworks are much different from those in Australia, thereis still much that can be learnt from public transport development in some Europeancities, particularly in the areas of service and fare integration, and organisational andfinancial arrangements.

Dublin, Ireland (population 1.23 million) is a city similar in size to Adelaide, whichhas benefitted from European Union financial support to transform its public transportservices in less than 20 years, in order to respond to fast economic growth resultingin a change from a relatively compact city to one with new housing estates on thefringe, affluent suburbs, and three ‘new towns’, all of which encouraged greater levelsof commuting and transport use. Following a number of earlier studies, the 1995 finalreport of the Dublin Transport Initiative, a comprehensive transport study,recommended a combination of quality bus services, new LRT, and improvedsuburban train services. The result is a city now served by:

Dublin Bus – a public company operating 1200 buses (almost all largecapacity double deckers) carrying 148 million passengers in 2007;

Two LUAS LRT lines opened in 2004, built by the Irish Government, throughthe Railway Procurement Agency, and operated by Veolia, Europe’s largestpassenger transport company (Ref. Figure 4.18); and

Irish Rail’s DART electrified suburban rail line which runs in an arc from northto south connecting the coastal suburbs of Dublin Bay, supplemented by four

63


diesel railcar operated commuter services, two extending beyond the DARTterminals and two serving inland towns to the north-west and south-west ofDublin (Ref. Figure 4.17).

Both Dublin Bus and DART are subsidised, but LUAS requires no operatingsubvention, though it does receive reimbursement for concession travel. LUAScarried 27.4 million passengers in 2008, slightly fewer than in the previous year, aconsequence of the economic downturn hitting the ‘Irish Tiger’ early and hard. Allpublic transport companies in Europe receive PSO payments for providing non-commercial services. In 2007 the payment to Dublin Bus was €80 million (A$133m),covering 28% of operating costs; revenue from fares was €200 million, covering 70%of operating costs.

Figure 4.17: Dublin rail lines. Source: www.dublintourist.com

64


Figure 4.18: Dublin LUAS lines. Source: www.luas.ie

An integrated smartcard ticketing system is being gradually introduced in the GreaterDublin region, commencing with cards that cover all three major operations (bus,tram and train), then LUAS tickets, followed by Dublin Bus monthly passes, 10 ridetickets, etc. and similar passes on the suburban and commuter rail services. Singleticket smartcards will be introduced by the end of 2010, after which consideration willbe given to extending the system to other private and government bus services (e.g.long-distance, Cork and Galway), with the long-term objective of an smartcard thatcan be used on any public transport service in Ireland.

In 2005 the Minister of Transport set up a team to recommend the structure of aDublin Transport Authority, to better integrate roads and public transport in DublinCity and six surrounding counties. Legislation was passed in 2008 to establish suchan Authority, and the Chief Executive post was advertised in early 2009. However,establishment of the DTA has been deferred for a review of its scope and functions,in light of the impact of the financial downturn on Ireland’s economy. Among thefunctions of the DTA, as recommended by the planning team, are strategic transportplanning, procurement of infrastructure and services, regulation of fares, research,and delivery of an integrated public transport system.

Transferring British public transport experience to Adelaide is not as straightforwardas that from North American cities or even the example of Dublin. The literature is fullof reports on the relatively new LRT lines in cities such as Nottingham, Birmingham-Wolverhampton, Sheffield, Manchester, Croydon and London’s Docklands, butperhaps the most interesting is the oldest, that serving the Tyne & Wear metropolitanarea centred on Newcastle-upon-Tyne (city population 880,000, region 1.5 million).Tyne & Wear Transport once provided or funded almost all the public transport in theregion, but with the deregulation and privatisation of bus and rail services in the1990s, the emphasis of what is now the Tyne & Wear Integrated Transport Authorityis on transport planning and finance, with operations limited to the Nexus Metro LRT,and cross-river tunnels and ferries. The LRT network is particularly relevant toAdelaide as it was created from a number of run-down diesel suburban rail services,by transferring most of the track to the regional body, electrifying an initial loop andbranch network, and constructing a new underground cross-city tunnel and cross-river bridge. Later a branch was opened to Newcastle Airport, and most recently anew line has opened to Sunderland (pop. 230,000), the second city in the

65


conurbation. For some of its length, the Sunderland extension operates on the tram-train principle (Ref. Figure 4.19), with LRT cars running every 10 minutes on rail trackinterspersed with regional diesel passenger and freight trains. The branch terminatesat South Hylton, on the south bank of the River Wear, restoring service using adisused railway right-of-way that was last used by passenger trains as long ago as1964. Fortunately, the right-of way had been preserved and used in the interveningyears as a cycle track and footpath.

66


Figure 4.19: Map of Nexus LRT network. Source: www.nexus.org.uk

67


Nexus, the company operating the LRT, is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the T&WITA,but in accordance with UK law, the LRT service has to be tendered, with Nexusbidding against other potential operators - all the UK LRT services are franchises.The revenue support from the Authority to Nexus in FY2008/9 was £64 million(c.A$150m), raised by a levy on the five councils making up the region (Newcastle,Sunderland, Gateshead, North Tyneside and South Tyneside), plus £15 million fromthe UK Department for Transport. About £38m is collected in fares from 40 millionjourneys; the total cost of services is about £125m.

Other cities in UK with populations similar to Adelaide include Glasgow (1.2 million),Liverpool (880,000) and Leeds-Bradford (1.5 million), These and other larger citiesand their surrounding metropolitan areas are served by a mixture of private buscompanies’ services and local rail networks, some of them electrified. The WestYorkshire Integrated Transport Authority, which serves Leeds, Bradford andsurrounding towns and villages, covers a total population of 2.1 million. The WestYorkshire Passenger Transport Executive subsidises non-commercial bus servicesand funds Metro train services in roughly equal proportions, paid for by a £79mrevenue grant from WYITA and a £68m rail grant from the UK Department forTransport, disbursed to operators for concession fares (£41m), subsidised busservices (£23m) and franchised local rail services (£67m). WYITA is also planning toconvert a major north-south cross-city route in Leeds from motorbus to trolleybusoperation. Note in West Yorkshire and in some other British conurbations, seniorscan travel free on both local bus and rail services, whereas in surrounding rural areasfree travel is limited to bus services.

Two developments in UK public transport in 2009 are to be found outside the bigmetropolitan regions. The newest and longest guided busway, similar to the AdelaideO-Bahn, in the County of Cambridgeshire, is 25km long, links St Ives andCambridge (pop. 137,000), and opened for service late in 2009 (Ref. Figure 4.20).Initial patronage is expected to be about 10,000 passengers a day, doubling to20,000 as the region grows. Two private bus companies operate services on thebusway, with 14 stops and two large park & ride lots. Cost of the CambridgeshireGuided Busway is £120 million (c.A$270m). There was considerable opposition tothe busway in the planning stage from the rail lobby, so good operationalperformance will be required to offset the arguments of the sceptics.

68


Figure 4.20: Cambridgeshire guided busway map. Source: Cambridgeshire County Council

69


The second development, a policy initiative in South Wales, is reminiscent of the anti-freeway debates of the 1960s and 1970s in North America and elsewhere. TheWelsh Assembly government has decided to scrap two major road projects becauseof escalating costs. The bill for a proposed 22.5km relief road around Newport (pop.139,000) has risen from £340m to £1 billion. At the same time a new access road toCardiff Airport was dropped from the Assembly’s five-year transport plan. The fundswill instead be used to improve public transport, including constructing the missinglink from the Ebbw Vale branch rail line to Newport, and improving local and long-distance bus services. This is a very courageous decision by the Welsh Assembly,acknowledging that cost estimates for many transport projects prove to have beentoo low, and the benefits exaggerated, so when faced with a project that tripled incost even before construction had begun, the Minister of Transport recommendedcancellation and convinced the Assembly Government to agree that the funds couldbe used for improvements to public transport.

All of the smaller continental European capital cities have, like Dublin, superb publictransport systems using a combination of bus, tram/LRT, metro and suburban railservices, e.g. Stockholm (pop.1.4 million), Amsterdam (1.1m), Vienna (1.5m),Helsinki (1.1m) and Prague (1.2m). Although most of these cities have populationssimilar to Adelaide, densities are at least twice those found in Australia, and accessto the city centres by car is difficult and/or expensive, e.g. it costs the equivalent ofUS$70.77 (about A$95) to park a car all day in Amsterdam, and US$56.68 in Vienna.

Copenhagen (pop.1.1 million, region 1.8m) is the only large city in Denmark, withabout a third of the nation’s population. The Greater Copenhagen Authority (HUR)contracts out all public transport services, while ensuring that the customers perceivethe system as one entity, so, for example, all buses have the same identity,irrespective of the operator. HUR has the final decision on route and servicechanges, to the extent that operators complain that the process is too rigid – it maywell be that bus companies in Adelaide have more flexibility to initiate change thantheir counterparts in Copenhagen. As well as buses, HUR also operates six smallrailways on the island of Zealand, but the Danish State Railways (DSB) still owns andoperates the main rail lines and operates the suburban S-trains (Ref. Figure 4.21).Copenhagen’s metro lines are owned by a separate state/city corporation, withoperation contracted out to INMETRO, an Italian company 51% owned by ATM, theMilan transport operator, and services coordinated by HUR. Operating cost recoveryof the total network from fares is about 74%.

70


Figure 4.21: Copenhagen public transport network.Source: Platform 5 Publishing (2007)

Zurich (city population 830,000, canton 1.5m), the largest city in Switzerland, is oftencited as having a model public transport system. However, it is a smaller city, with apopulation density three times that of Adelaide, and the city is not easy to access bycar, with average speeds and trip times by public transport competitive with those by

71


car. The City of Zurich is notable for its tram network, which carries two-thirds of thetotal public transport patronage of 310 million per annum, with 223 articulated trams(plus 94 trailers) operating over 117 route kms. The tram system is complemented by79 articulated trolleybuses and about 150 buses (Ref. Figure 4.22). Cost recovery onall services, including S-bahn suburban trains is about 50% from fares, with subsidiescoming from the City, neighbouring counties in Zurich canton, and the Swiss federalgovernment.

72


Figure 4.22: Zurich public transport network. Source: www.zvv.ch

73


The public transport systems of German cities routinely serve populations up todouble that of the central city, and as a result the metropolitan regions cooperatethrough the institutional and financial Verkehrsverbund organisations, to coordinateall public transport planning, finance and operations within the regional areas, e.g.Hamburg (city population 1.9 million, HVV 3 million), Frankfurt (2.2m, FVV 3m),Munich (1.7m, MVV 3m). The largest example is the Rhein-Ruhr Verkersverbund(VRR), which coordinates bus, express bus, tram, LRT (Stadtbahn), metro (U-bahn)and suburban (S-bahn) and regional (RE) rail services for a score of organisationsserving the cities and towns from Dusseldorf to Dortmund, including Duisburg,Mulheim, Essen, Bochum, Krefeld, Wuppertal, with a total population of over 7 millionand annual ridership of about 1 billion passenger journeys (Ref. Figure 4.23). Costrecovery from fares varies widely across the region and different modes, averaging36%, with subsidies coming from local, state (Nordrhein-Westfalen) and federalsources. An interesting feature is the allocation of fare revenue back to operators ona basis of demand, rather than on service provided, in order to discourage operationof poorly patronised services; each operator retains the fares collected on itsvehicles, and the VRR arranges compensation for transfers between services,modes and routes.

Figure 4.23: Map of the Rhein-Ruhr rail and LRT network.Source: www.vrr.com

The tram-train concept being considered for the north-west corridor in Adelaide hasits origins in the city of Karlsruhe (pop. 350,000, region 500,000), where the trams ofthe VBK local transport authority began operating over tracks of the national railway(DB) in 1992 on a 30 km route linking central Karlsruhe with Bretten-Golshausen: 6.4km of existing city tram track, 2.8. km of new LRT track, then main line as far asGrotzingen (Ref. Figure 4.24). The route to Pforzheim was converted in 1994 andother routes followed, and the concept was picked up by other cities, particularly inGermany and France.

74


Figure 4.24: Karlsruhe rail and LRT lines. Source: www.kvv.de

75


France has seen a rebirth of tram/LRT systems, with modernisation of existing tramnetworks and/or new construction in many cities, e.g. Mulhouse, Grenoble,Valenciennes, Montpellier, St Etienne, Bordeaux, Le Mans, Marseille, Nice,Strasbourg, Angers, and Toulouse. Lyon (pop. 1.34 million) is similar in populationsize to Adelaide. The public transport system is particularly interesting as it has beenrefocussed on four relatively new metro lines and four tram lines, complemented bytrolleybus and bus routes and a number of funiculars (Ref. Figure 4.25). Mostservices are operated by the Société Lyonnaise de Transport en Commun (SLTC), amember of the Keolis group (which operates in 80 cities and 50 regions of the EU)under a management contract from the city and regional councils’ transport planningagency (SYTRAL). About half of the 256 million annual boardings in Lyon are on themetro lines, with a fleet of over 1000 buses carrying most of the remainder. Costrecovery from fares is about 23% (similar to Adelaide), with subsidy income raisedfrom local taxes plus the ‘Versement Transport’, a levy on companies which financesabout 40% of the costs of public transport in France. SNCF, the French nationalrailway, continues to operate outer suburban rail services north-west of Lyon usingdiesel railcars, which interchange with the metro at Gorge du Loup station. There areplans to electrify the three suburban rail lines and connect them to the city tramnetwork by new construction – another application of the tram-train concept.

Figure 4.25: Lyon rail and tram network. Source: Platform 5 Publishing (2007)

76


4.7.Asia

There are many cities in Asia with populations of over 1 million, more than 50 inChina and about 40 in the Indian sub-continent, and population densities in thesecities are up to ten times that found in Adelaide. Car ownership is comparatively low,walking, cycling, motor-cycles and derivatives are much more common and informaltransport systems are commonplace, so there is not much Asian practice that istransferable to Australian cities, except the important fact that high levels of publictransport use encourage development and innovation, as applied to public transportoperations in Japan and Korea, and in transport planning for the growing cities of theGulf states.

All major Japanese cities draw on the full range of public transport technologies intheir systems: metros, suburban trains, trams, buses, ferries, etc., plus newertechnologies introduced in the 1960s and 1970s to improve downtown distributionand to provide feeder services to suburban stations. Sendai (pop. 1.25m) has a 700strong municipal bus fleet (carrying over 75 million passengers annually, averageoperating cost recovery 78%) and a single metro line (57m, 70%), both operated bythe Sendai City Transportation Bureau, a large private bus company (50m, 90%),and electric suburban trains operated by JR East (50m). Note in particular the highlevels of patronage: over 250 million boardings annually is four times the level inAdelaide.

Similarly, Hiroshima (pop. 1.33m) is served by:- a major bus company, Hiroden, which has a fleet of over 800 buses, carries

about 70 million passengers a year, and covers its operating costs, exceptthat it receives a subsidy to maintain service to outlying areas;

- three smaller private bus operators (40 million annual passengers);- a city tramway (18 million);- a 18.4 km elevated automated rubber-tyred guideway system; and- suburban trains operated by JR West (55 million).

Comprehensive master planning for transport, which is something of a lost art inAustralia and other western nations, can still be found in Asia in response to the rapidgrowth of cities. Current planning processes in Abu Dhabi (pop. 800,000) are similarto that in South Australia in the 1960s: a development plan for the Emirate, Plan2030, complemented by a more detailed Strategic Transport Master Plan (SMTP),covering all modes of transport, with emphasis on the Abu Dhabi metropolitan area.The forecast rate of the city’s population growth is very rapid; from 750,000 in 2008,to 1.3 million in 2013, over 2 million by 2020 and 3 million by 2030. The publictransport recommendations in the STMP report include a 131 km metro system withoperation to commence by 2020 and a tram/LRT network of up to 340 km, of whichthe first 20.1 km route is planned to open by 2013 (Ref. Figures 4.26 and 4.27). TheSTMP planning process involved extensive consultation with stakeholders before theDepartment of Transport planning team and its consultant advisors recommended aplan which emphasised public transport, while still including necessary new freewaysand other major roads in the Plan. Detailed planning studies for both the Metro andLRT projects are expected to commence early in 2010.

77


Figure 4.26: Map of proposed 2030 Abu Dhabi transport network.Source: STMP (2009)

Coincident with planning for metro, LRT (and possible suburban rail) in Abu Dhabi,the Emirate DoT introduced in 2008/9 the first nine routes of a new bus network onAbu Dhabi island. The new routes are an attempt to encourage a public transportculture in a city dominated by taxis and chauffeured travel, through cheap farescombined with high standard facilities such as air conditioned bus shelters and afocus on interchange at regional centres such as Marina Mall, Tourist Club andZayed Sport City.

78


Figure 4.27: Map of proposed Abu Dhabi tram network.Source: STMP (2009)

Dubai, the largest city in the United Arab Emirates (pop. 2 million) is currentlycompleting commissioning of a two-line 52 km metro. The Red Line opened inSeptember 2009, and the Green Line will open in 2010 (Ref. Figure 4.28). The DubaiRoad & Traffic Authority let a turnkey contract to a Japanese/British consortium, withoperations and maintenance the responsibility of Serco. Initial patronage predictions(which seem very optimistic) are for 27,000 passengers per hour, with trains every3.5 minutes in the peak and every 7 minutes off-peak. 62 five-car sets are requiredfor the Red Line and 25 three-car sets for the Green Line. However, plans for thirdand fourth metro lines and for seven LRT routes have been put on hold to assess theimpact of the economic downturn on the UAE economy and Dubai’s populationgrowth.

79


Figure 4.28: Map of proposed Dubai metro. Source: UrbanRail.net

Yerevan, the capital of Armenia (pop. 1.1 million, region 1.3m) is an example of acity with a very long history, and a population density that is very high (six times thatof Adelaide). So public transport patronage is impressive, though service can beaffected by power shortages and earthquakes:

- a bus fleet of some 350 vehicles carrying 110 million passengers annually;- a trolleybus fleet of 320 vehicles, 100 million; and- a single 13 km metro line, opened in 1981, which carries up to 250,000

passengers per day (c.50 million annually).

4.8 Other Cities

Medium-sized South American cities such as Rosario, Argentina (pop. 1.15 million),La Paz, Bolivia (1.15m) and Valparaiso, Chile (800,000), all tend to be servedpredominantly by bus-based public transport. It is not surprising, then that one of thecontinent’s larger cities, Curitiba, Brazil (pop. 2.7m), has the finest bus rapid transitsystems in the world, with large articulated buses operating on exclusive busways inthe medians of wide boulevards and freeways (Ref. Figure 4.29), with specially

80


designed enclosed stops that enable fast boarding of buses, demonstrating that highquality public transport can be delivered by buses provided they are given priority onthe road and are unencumbered by other road traffic. Santos, Brazil (city population450,000, region 1.47 million), South America’s largest port, has bus and trolleybusservices provided by the municipal authorities, with 39 trolleybuses and over 200buses carrying 84 million passengers per year, with 1200 private buses (includingmany minibuses) carrying a further 60 million, a single provincial suburban rail line(26 km, 3 million passengers), and four publicly-owned ferries. Both the municipalbus system and the many private operators cover their operating costs from fares.

Figure 4.29: Curitiba express bus network. Source: www.solutions-site.org

Most African cities, too, rely on a mixture of regular route bus services and many lessformal minibus operators. In Pretoria RSA, (pop. 1.8m), the city area is served by amunicipal bus system, but service to outer areas is operated by a large nationalcompany plus a myriad of minibus operators. A frequent regional rail service on fourroutes is provided by Metrorail, the South African Rail Commuter Corporation. A newfast train service, the Gautrain, is planned for the main rail link, that to Johannesburg(70 km).

4.9 The Relevance of Overseas Experience to Adelaide

An extensive review of public transport interstate and overseas throws up a numberof features that can be considered for application in South Australia, and providesexamples and models of practice against which Adelaide’s public transportcharacteristics and performance can be assessed. This section highlights some ofthe findings from interstate and overseas in three broad areas: efficiency andeffectiveness; integration; and service to outer areas.

81


Efficiency and Effectiveness

PatronageFor a city of 1.1 million people, 62 million trips per annum is on the low side ofAustralian and North American averages, but is reasonable when population density,car ownership, ease of access by car to the City of Adelaide and other destinations,and the perceived cost of travel by car are taken into account. Adelaide’s per capitapatronage (60 trips per year) is only slightly below that of Perth (69) and Portland,Oregon (67). There is obviously capacity to increase patronage in some parts ofAdelaide’s system at slack times of the day and week, but many routes in thenetwork already operate at capacity in the peak hours, and loading in the CBD willneed to be improved if patronage increases. Although more intensive use is made ofpublic transport in European, Asian and South American cities, it is not appropriate tocompare data from these continents with Australian cities, though the high ridershipdoes demonstrate what can be achieved if demand can justify very high servicelevels, particularly frequency and reliability, e.g. Dublin (200m/1.27m), Lyon(256m/1.3m).

Fleet sizeTaking account of the area being served, and the existence of the suburban rail andtram services, the 832 buses in Adelaide’s fleet accords with standards foundelsewhere. Auckland, which is comparable with Adelaide has 820 buses and twosuburban rail lines, while Ottawa has more buses (991) but only one rail line. Largercities tend, where possible, to make greater use of systems with exclusive rights-of-way, whether busways, light or heavy rail, e.g. Brisbane, Vancouver, with Melbourneusing bus tram and suburban rail roughly equally. The Adelaide bus fleet is usedmore effectively than it was a decade ago, with the contracting out of services havinggenerated efficiencies.

Service frequencyThe peak and off-peak frequencies on Adelaide’s bus, tram, and train services are inline with those found in other cities of similar size, however, the frequencies found atevenings and weekends are lower than those found elsewhere, e.g. in Portland 15minute headways continue until around 9 p.m., whereas in Adelaide there is amarked drop in frequency after the evening peak (6 p.m. or, at the latest 7 p.m.), andweekend service is fairly sparse. Associated problems are reliability and adherenceto timetables, some of which are inappropriate – there seems to be a reluctance tocreate timetables that more accurately reflect differing travel times throughout theday, e.g. a trip time of 20 minutes may be the standard, but travel times on a routewill vary from 15 minutes on early morning trips to 25 minutes or more on busyand/or congested peak runs. When the timetable has too generous an allowancedrivers either leave the terminus late or wait time at stops en route, while at othertimes drivers struggle to maintain the schedule! Travel times need to be adjusted toreflect the real conditions on the road. On Adelaide’s suburban rail services, theweekday mix of express, skip-stop and stopping services on the main routes isexcellent, but the weekend all-stops less frequent service is unlikely to attract newpatronage. In cities with tram/LRT systems, such as Melbourne and Toronto, morefrequent service can be found, and in cities with metro systems passengers areattracted by very frequent service (timetables are unnecessary). In Toronto in thepeak there is always a tram in sight on the routes through the city centre, and theTTC subway runs every 1 or 2 minutes in the peak and not more than 5 minutesbetween trains in the off-peak (6 minutes on the Scarborough ALRT).

82


Committee Recommendation 11The Committee recommends that the Government and the contracted buscompanies continue to refine bus timetables to ensure that travel times onbus routes (and sections of routes) reflect the prevailing traffic conditions,speeding up services where justified and extending travel times when andwhere drivers have difficulty running to time due to congestion.

Ownership and operationsPublic transport systems are owned by a wide range of public entities and privatecompanies, with municipal councils and regional, state, or provincial governmentsoperating directly, operating through an arms-length authority, contracting out orfranchising operations to one or more organisations. Maintenance and newconstruction are also subject to similarly differing arrangements. In some cities, amixture of public/private, direct operation and/or franchising can be found. InAdelaide, the bus services are competitively tendered for operation, butTransAdelaide has negotiated contracts with the State Government. Savings of up to30% were achieved through the bus tenders, but it is not clear what efficiencies aremade, if any, during intra-governmental negotiations. Federal or central governmentsare usually involved with urban transport in cities where suburban rail service isdelivered by a national rail organisation, though there is a tendency for second levelgovernments to increasingly accept responsibility for operation and/or funding ofsuch local services. Ownership does not unduly affect efficiency, except whereconstraints are placed on an operating agency by an owning government. Privatecompanies may have to generate enough revenues to cover fleet replacement,although particularly under franchising and contracting arrangements, vehicles and/orinfrastructure may be leased. Most public transport organisations struggle to coveroperating costs, so the owning governments have to provide capital for replacementsand improvements, and the level of that capital infusion will have an influence on thequality of service that can be provided, as clearly seen in the high standard railservice now provided in Perth. Ownership of infrastructure by an agency ofgovernment and operation of services by a different organisation can also raisequestions of barriers to entry by other interested parties.

Competition and regulationThe importance of integration in public transport suggests that a monopoly providershould be able to deliver services more effectively. Experience, however, suggeststhat is rarely the case in practice. The former SA State Transport Authority scoredwell in integrating services during its 18 years existence, but poorly in efficiencyterms as the management and labour together tended to capture the benefits at theexpense of users. It is not surprising, then, to find that cost savings were made andservice quality improved when the bus services were contracted out to new serviceproviders. As noted above, service levels in Adelaide can still be improved, but theyare much better than, say, 20 years ago. Some cities maintain traditionalorganisational structures for some services, e.g. both Dublin Bus and Irish Rail aresubsidiaries of CIE, the national transport company, but new contractualarrangements have been made for the provision of the LUAS LRT and the plannednew metro. In Abu Dhabi, the new bus services were contracted out, and theproposed metro and LRT lines will be tendered for construction and operation. InDubai, the new metro was built and will be operated as part of a turnkey contract.Where public transport is mainly provided by private companies, it is normal practicefor regulators to control aspects of the operation, e.g. access to routes, vehiclestandards, fares, working conditions, etc., in much the same way that country busservices are regulated in South Australia and taxis in Adelaide. Where contractedservices occur, such conditions, when required, may form part of the contract.

83


Committee Recommendation 12The Committee recommends that the government continually review thecurrent competitive process for contracting public transport services to ensurethat processes are transparent and service quality is maintained. Conditionspertaining to all contracts for public transport services should be published inthe annual report of DTEI.

Fare levels and pricing policyFare levels on public transport in Australia are low by world standards, reflecting arequirement to compete with the perceived price of travel by car, which in practice islittle more than the price of petrol. Perversely, public transport is perceived by manyto be expensive, particularly by those who are non-users – this view is usually basedon consideration of the cash fare for a single trip, currently $4.40 in Adelaide.However, the fact that 62 million annual boardings raise only $60 million in revenueclearly shows the average fare paid is about $1.00 – the $4.40 fare is the most thatanyone pays, yet nobody has to pay, because the price for the same trip using amulti-trip ticket is $2.90 ($29.00 for 10 rides), a discount of about one-third. Daytimeoff-peak fares are lower ($2.70 cash, $1.59 multi-trip), to encourage travel duringhours when there is capacity to spare and the marginal cost of travel is lower (mostcosts in public transport are incurred to accommodate peak demand). School andtertiary students, pensioners, seniors, unemployed and others are eligible to travel atconcession rates, approximately half the regular fares, and seniors travel free atcertain times, all of which accounts for the low average fare.

The pricing policy found in Adelaide is reflected elsewhere to varying degrees. Mostconcession travel is reimbursed to the operator, either on a formula basis or in actualterms on the basis of tickets issued. Flat fares are common in North America, e.g.$C2.75 in Toronto, $C3 in Ottawa, with no change given by drivers and any cashdeposited in a locked fare-box. Note fares rise sharply for any travel to places outsidethe boundary of cities with flat fare structures or where rail fares are maintained atthe same levels as bus fares as part of a uniform fare policy. Maintaining standardfares across all modes in a system is effectively a cross-subsidy between thedifferent modes, otherwise fares tend to be higher on rail systems than on bussystems, reflecting the higher costs of rail, e.g. in London, where Underground cashfares are up to twice the bus fare for an equivalent journey, and on Vancouver’s WestCoast Express.

Cost recoveryThere is an almost direct relationship between size of city and cost recovery onpublic transport in cities in Australia and North America. Smaller cities have relativelylow cost recoveries, e.g. Perth 19%, Portland 20%, Adelaide 27%; other Australiancities range from Sydney (30%) and Brisbane (31%) to Melbourne (36%), thoughthese figures all mask variations between rail, tram, bus and ferry. Rail cost recoverycan be as low as 15% and bus around 40%. Generally, cities in New Zealand,Canada and USA aim for cost recoveries over 50%, e.g. Toronto 66%, Vancouver53%, Ottawa 50%. Fare policy and cost recovery are essentially compromises as aresult of trading off a contribution from the passenger towards the cost of operatingthe service, trying to encourage greater use of public transport, and keeping an eyeon the costs of the main competitor, the private car.

84


Committee Recommendation 13The Committee recommends that regional bus service fares be reviewed witha view to reducing the fares within country towns and between Adelaide’snearby country towns. Metropolitan and country public transport fares shouldadjusted according to CPI on a regular basis and metro ticket boundaries bereviewed in light of the expanded urban area.

Funding sourcesTo cover the shortfall between fare revenue and operating cost, subsidies are usuallypaid by the municipal or regional, state or provincial government directly responsiblefor owning and/or operating a public transport system, sometimes with the aid ofparticular taxes either hypothecated to support public transport, e.g. Portland’spayroll tax, or specially targeted to the same effect, e.g. Ontario’s gasoline tax.Incidental revenue, e.g. from advertising and car parking fees, can also make a minorcontribution. National or federal authorities are generally reluctant to subsidise theoperating costs of local transport, although such support is occasionally forthcomingin special cases, e.g. in USA, and is also found where national rail systems providelocal services, e.g in UK and Europe. The French Versement Transport tax onbusinesses is an excellent and rare model of national policy underpinning a country’spublic transport.

Examples can be found where all levels of government contribute capital funds toimprove urban transport, even if that support can vary geographically and over time,as has been the case in investment on public transport in Australian cities, and withfederal assistance to projects in Canadian cities. There is a simple and directrelationship between the amount of capital funding committed to the improvement ofpublic transport, the quality of service that can be provided as a result, and the abilityto attract patronage, clearly demonstrated in Perth (suburban rail), Brisbane(busways), Vancouver (Skytrain), the Toronto region (GO Transit), Portland (MAX)and Ottawa (transitways).

InnovationPublic transport authorities in general are slow to innovate, preferring to continue tooperate tried and true technologies along traditional routes, which is understandablegiven that rail routes are well established and constrained by right-of way, trackgauge and loading gauge, and the best-performing bus routes follow the same majorroads that had tram services more than 50 years ago. It is the few, rare, exceptionsthat show what can be achieved by trying new ideas, from something as simple asthe new bus service to Adelaide Airport, to better use of existing technology (e.g.Tyne & Wear LRT, Karlsruhe tram/train, Curitiba buses), to the adoption of newsystems such as Adelaide’s O-Bahn guided busway, Vancouver’s Skytrain and theVAL automatic small metros in Lille and Toulouse. New metro lines offer theopportunity to innovate in various ways: at surface, elevated, in tunnel or, as is oftenthe case, a combination; steel wheels or rubber tyres; automatic or manually driven;on-platform screens with doors to open coincident with the train doors, etc. Giventhat a need to improve the system and/or increased demand will justify investment,innovation can be relatively inexpensive, but can make a big difference to theattractiveness of public transport, e.g. increasing frequency of service, introducing airconditioning, or providing ancillary services at stations or interchanges.

Social cohesionThe extent to which public transport supports groups in the community can go someway to justifying the subsidies paid to maintain the system, especially by creatingopportunities for travel for the young, elderly, unemployed, poor or disabled. Publictransport which provides access to schools, hospitals, shopping centres, community

85


facilities, etc. is contributing to the wellbeing of society in general and in particular tothose who do not have access to a car. Such services provide accessibility toessential services and are thus an indicator of the system’s overall effectiveness.Measured against such criteria, Adelaide’s public transport ranks as well as any othercity, except, as noted above, to the extent that service frequency falls away duringevening hours and at weekends it does not rate as well as cities that provide morefrequent and/or longer hours of service. Many cities provide all night services, usuallyby bus (as essential maintenance needs to be carried out on rail lines during thenight hours), giving an opportunity to nurses, cleaners and others who work shifts orunsocial hours to avoid having to buy a car. Adelaide has late night services atweekends, geared to the nightlife of the city, a service that can be justified on roadsafety grounds, and also scores well with other ancillary services such as AccessCabs, and community bus services.

An issue that arose during the Committee’s deliberations is that of equity in thesubsidisation of public transport services. Low cost recovery from public transport isaccepted in the metropolitan area, but bus operators and other modes servingregional SA are expected to operate commercially, although concession fares doexist and these services do benefit from publicly funded infrastructure improvementsto roads, airports, port facilities, etc. The contrast is most marked at the Metroticketboundary, where a maximum cash fare of $4.40 will take a passenger on a TA trainto Gawler, but it can cost up to $21 to a destination in the Barossa by bus.Concession fares are available on both examples, but the price differential is stillmarked. Subsidies might also bring greater stability to the companies servingregional SA. The development of the LinkSA bus and coach network and the gradualextension of the contracting approach to provision of country bus services arewelcome initiatives by the Government and BusSA member companies that shouldimprove access to public transport for people in regional SA.

Committee Recommendation 14The Committee recommends that public transport be considered to be anessential element contributing to the achievement of the community’s socialgoals, such as equity, social inclusion and the welfare of disadvantagedgroups, through the network’s geographical and temporal coverage and thequality of services provided.

Integration

Integration of servicesService coordination can occur in various ways, e.g. simply by ensuring that busstops at intersections where transfer is possible from one route to another are closeenough to enable passengers to interchange easily. In Adelaide, the standards usedto site bus stops near intersections are such that a transfer that looks easy on asystem map or timetable diagram may turn out to involve a walk of up to 70 metres.Compare, for example, the ease of transferring from a northbound City Circle bus atNorwood to an inbound bus on The Parade with the awkward walk from theequivalent outbound stop (10) on The Parade to the southbound City Circle near theClayton-Wesley church. The ideal arrangement is to have as many speciallydesigned interchanges in the network as possible, such as those at Salisbury andMawson Lakes which facilitate bus to bus, bus to rail and rail to bus transfers, or thatat Tea Tree Plaza which is a combined bus to bus and park and ride interchange.Park & ride continues to be a popular way to access public transport, whether on-street in a suburb where parking is easy and the bus, train or tram service frequencyis better than that closer to one’s home, or by driving to a park-and ride lot. Theemphasis on park & ride in Portland is notable, using local lots, particularly those at

86


churches, to supplement the specially constructed car parks. Park & ride is sopopular in UK that very few railway station parking places are free, and at somestations the parking fees are substantial, up to £8 (c.A$ 19) per day. In some UScities park and ride is so popular that shuttle buses are required to move patrons fordistant parking spaces to the station, similar to the arrangements more commonlyfound in airports. Kiss & ride is also popular and interchanges need to be designed tocope with the logistics of drop-off and (particularly) pick-up at stations. Goodexamples are found at the Longueuil station on Montreal’s south shore, and atAylesbury interchange in UK. In the Aylesbury example, the town station caters tokiss & ride and bus feeders to Chiltern Trains’ suburban rail service, but park & ridepassengers from outside the town are encouraged to use Aylesbury Vale Parkwaystation, a new, specially designed park & ride facility constructed on a green-field siteoutside the town.

There is a balance in Adelaide between the number of feeder services (bus to busand bus to rail) and the number of direct services to the City, giving a choice of modeand of destination to passengers, though some previously express bus services havebeen downgraded in recent years in favour of feeder services. There is no merit inintegration for its own sake, it is only desirable if the overall service level topassengers is improved. Integration might look good on a map, but it needs to bereplicated on the ground to be effective. One reason buses are able to compete withrail services, despite buses having to cope with congestion, is the location, designand logistics of Adelaide Railway Station; a combination of feeder bus, commutertrain, with a walk (or tram or City Loop bus) at the city end of a journey is nosubstitute for a direct bus that will drop passengers closer to their destinations,particularly if they can be sure of a seat for all or most of the journey. The rail lobbywill argue for more feeders to rail, to improve rail’s performance statistics relative tobuses, but the ability to choose should be the prerogative of the passenger, and if thepublic transport system constrains that choice, all but captive passengers may be lostto the private car.

Integration of services at interchanges requires good timekeeping so that transfersare not missed by passengers – there is nothing worse that arriving at a stop orplatform to see your connecting service depart or realise it has already departed.Where services are very frequent, say up to 10 minute headways, delay may not beserious, but if the frequency is every 15 or 20 minutes, a missed connection canmean a passenger is late for work and may lose pay as a result. Where headwaysare every 30 or 60 minutes, timed transfers with guaranteed connections are anessential element of an integrated system, and are common in smaller towns wheremore frequent service cannot be justified. One benefit of radio communicationbetween drivers and dispatchers (or train controllers) is that a driver of a feeder buscan ask a colleague to wait a few minutes for a connecting passenger, particularlywhere the connection is critical for the passenger. This technique, which is goodpublic relations as well as sound operationally, is used to good effect by drivers ofbuses on the Lefevre peninsula to contact their counterparts on servicescommencing or connecting at Port Adelaide or Arndale Kilkenny.

87


Committee Recommendation 15The Committee recommends that all staff involved in the delivery of publictransport services be encouraged to put forward ideas and plans for serviceimprovements, particularly at the ‘micro’ level, as drivers and others in directcontact with passengers are those most likely to be aware of the benefits thatmight accrue from detailed changes to services and practices. Members ofParliament and elected members of local councils should also be consultedabout planned or potential service improvements or changes.

TimetablesThe former Passenger Transport Board set a new standard for integratinginformation about public transport in Adelaide, with commonly branded papertimetables, timetables at bus stops, production of an excellent booklet of maps andother information (plus a separate map of State-wide public transport services), andthe introduction of real-time information by internet, phone and text. There has beensome slippage in standards in recent years, with timetables and maps that are easyto read, but which are not comprehensive and contain minor errors or are incomplete.The system atlas has been replaced by four regional maps, which are a poorsubstitute. With these minor qualifications, the standard of Adelaide Metro brandedinformation is as good as any found in the world. But the same cannot be said for thereal-time ‘Smart Stop’ experiment on the Henley Beach Road – Norwood group ofroutes, where too often the Smart Stop gives misleading information or may not workat all. Fortunately, regular users are familiar with the system’s weaknesses and relyon their own knowledge and/or the printed timetable, but it can be confusing for avisitor or first-time user. The real time information on a Smart Stop would be mostuseful when bus services are disrupted for some reason, such as a parade throughthe city streets, but when this occurs the Smart Stop system shuts down!

Committee Recommendation 16The Committee recommends that the Smart Stop real-time informationsystem be improved so that the information provided is more accurate than atpresent, to ensure that passengers can rely on the aural and visual data at alltimes, particularly when normal service patterns are disrupted due to delaysor diversions.

Committee Recommendation 17The Committee recommends that Smart Stop real time information systemsbe expanded to all major bus stops and all train and tram stops.

Public transport information centres are found in most cities. That at the corner ofKing William Street and Currie Street does an excellent job in a prime CBD locationdistributing timetables, selling and exchanging multi-trip tickets, and answeringqueries about routes, services and destinations. The telephone enquiry line andAdelaide Metro website provide direct access for those who require information,timetables can be downloaded from the website, and multi-trip tickets can be boughtfrom a large number of retail outlets.

Fare and ticketing integrationIntegration of fares, with a ticketing system that permits free interchange betweenservices, irrespective of mode of transport or operator of the route, is a key elementin creating a comprehensive and seamless urban transport network, one that is easyto use and understand. Adelaide was the first city in Australia to introduce a ticketingsystem that covers all modes of transport, as operated by the then State TransportAuthority and continued by the PTB and OPT under the Adelaide Metro banner. Thecurrent single zone fare structure evolved from section fares (of which only the short

88


trip two-section fare remains), to a three zone system that was more accurately twozones (inner and outer) with a zone that was transitional to both, when fares coveredtwo-sections, two-zones or three zones. The current fare structure, which has lastedfor 20 years, is relatively simple for ticketing purposes, as over 50% of passengersuse multi-trip ten-ride tickets. Zone fare structures are found in many cities, e.g.London, with flat fares more common in North American cities. In most citiespassengers are encouraged to use pre-paid multi-trip tickets or passes, which cancover any length of time, e.g. a week, month, quarter, or year. In some citiesbusinesses can buy passes in bulk and sell them to their employees at a discountand/or as part of a salary package; this approach is most popular where all or someof the cost of travel to work by public transport can be claimed as an income taxdeduction. As well as simplifying ticketing issue and fare collection, the use of pre-paid tickets and passes has the benefit of speeding up the boarding of vehicles.

Most cities are in the process of introducing or refining smartcards of various types:pre-paid, stored value, contactless, etc. Perth has a smartcard system, but bothMelbourne and Sydney have struggled to implement the technology effectively.London’s Oyster card is a contact stored-value card (or free pass for residentseniors) that can be used on suburban trains operated by several companies as wellas on Transport for London’s buses, Underground, Overground, Docklands LightRail, and Tramlink. Similar cards are in use in many cities, e.g. Hong Kong, Paris,Lyon and Amsterdam. DTEI is investigating a smartcard for Adelaide, with timing ofits introduction increasingly critical as the Crouzet ticketing technology, still in useafter 20 years, is due for replacement. Although the focus is still on a transportsmartcard, in the long term we can anticipate that multi-purpose smartcards will be inuse covering some or all of banking, utilities, retail, parking, taxis, etc., as well aspublic transport.

Committee Recommendation 18The Committee recommends that replacement of the Crouzet ticketingsystem by a new Smartcard system be accorded the highest priority by theGovernment.

Fare free zones are a feature of some cities’ public transport, e.g. in Perth andPortland, enabling people to hop on and off for short trips – it is also one way tointroduce those who otherwise would rarely or never use public transport to becomefamiliar with the system. Adelaide has its equivalent in the free city zone on theGlenelg Tram (which was a replacement for the former free Bee Line Bus), the CityLoop bus line, the City of Adelaide Connector bus loop linking the City with NorthAdelaide, and the ability of Seniors to travel free in the off-peak.

Public Transport PlanningThere are distinct and complementary levels of planning for public transport:strategic, network and operational, and all three are essential if services are to beoptimal. Strategic planning is normally undertaken by the owning or fundinggovernment (e.g. DTEI), network planning by the contracting agency in associationwith operators, and operational planning by the companies operating day-to-dayservice. Strategic planning coordinates public transport plans with those of urban andregional planning agencies, and with the economic, social and environmental needsof the city or region. Network planning sets out the routes, preferred servicefrequencies, stop spacing standards, etc. and seeks to ensure their applicationacross the system, whilst still providing flexibility to operators to adjust the standardsto fit local conditions. There is a tendency for network planners (and sometimes evenstrategic planners) to micro-manage the system to the point where operators have

89


little scope to innovate, or even to recommend changes, an undesirable trait as it isat the operational level that the need for change is most readily discernable, e.g.overcrowding or overloading, indicating a need for additional trips and/or morevehicles.

Public transport planning would be advanced if recent changes in public transportuse were understood. Anecdotally they were attributed to high cost of oil, andtherefore fuel for cars, that preceded the Global Financial Crisis. Research into thearea will give a sound basis on which to make decisions about public transportinfrastructure and services into the future. A research partnership between DTEI,local governments and local communities could undertake this and other relatedresearch. This partnership would be useful in identifying and addressing safety (fromassault and traffic) and amenity issues in the areas around stops and stations.

Committee Recommendation 19The Committee recommends further research to understand the nature ofrecent changes in public transport use and the reasons for these changes.

Committee Recommendation 20The Committee recommends that a research partnership between DTEI, localgovernments and local communities be implemented.

Integration with other modes of transportSimilarly, it is desirable for the links between public transport and other modes to beintegrated both strategically and operationally. At the detailed level this can involveresolving issues such as determining priorities for the use of kerbside stopping spaceon downtown streets, arranging for bicycles to be carried on buses (as in Portland),or on trams (San José), or parked securely at stations, and ensuring printedinformation is distributed widely and readily available. At the strategic level the mostimportant issue is the split of expenditure to be spent on roads and public transport.To date, most capital expenditure on land transport in Australia has gone to roads,which is understandable as in all cities in Australia and public transport serves only afraction of trips compared to private passenger and freight transport on the roadnetwork. However, as noted above, there is a recognition that the quality of publictransport reflects the funding allocated to subsidise operations and to improving thesystem, so funding for public transport has to increase if the proportion of trips onpublic transport is to get even close to the targets set in regional plans, such as theStrategic Plan for SA.

Park & ride has been dealt with above as an example of an increasingly popularmethod of coordinating the comfort and flexibility of the private car with the efficiencyof public transport operating frequent service along corridor routes. Patrons can bediscouraged from using this service if they feel that they or their car is not safe. TheCommittee witnessed in metropolitan Perth secure park & ride facilities that were selffunded from contribution ($2) from parkers.

Committee Recommendation 21The Committee recommends that when creating park & ride facilities that theyincorporate low cost secure parking.

Integration of taxi service into the mainstream public transport is still in its infancy andoffers scope for improvement. Taxis are sometimes called on by bus operators toprovide substitute service when a bus is not available, e.g. when a driver is late for ashift, or to get passengers to their homes when a train is stopped short of its

90


destination for technical reasons. In such situations, the public transport operatorreimburses the taxi company for the fare, while the user pays at most the publictransport fare. Taxis have a key role in public transport in providing service to thosepeople who find it difficult to use conventional modes of public transport. In SouthAustralia this role is facilitated and delivered through the SATSS taxi subsidy schemeand the Access Cabs fleet of wheelchair-equipped taxis.

The big differential between subsidised public transport fares and commercial taxirates is the reason taxis are not used more extensively as an integrated element ofpublic transport networks, though even in their present form taxis are a keycomponent in the total transport system. The potential for taxis to play a greater rolelies in situations where two or more passengers travel together, agree on a rate, andshare the fare equally, such as when four passengers arrive at a station and take ataxi to their destination(s) in a nearby suburb or country town. If the shared ride ismade under the current practice whereby each passenger pays two-thirds of ametered fare, then the differential with the public transport fare is still likely to be toogreat to attract many riders.

Integration of public transport with air services continues to grow, with improvedaccess to airports, whether by bus, suburban rail, LRT or metro. After years of relyingon taxis, hire cars and an independent minibus operator, Adelaide now has excellentregular route bus service to the airport, with frequent service seven days a week.Other examples in medium-sized cities are Portland’s Red Line LRT, Newcastle’sLRT, and Ottawa’s 97 bus route, while larger cities have a range of public transportservices to their busy airports, and some require on-airport (e.g. London) or off-airport (e.g. Los Angeles) interchanges to handle the volume of public transporttraffic. Services to airports should be provided by vehicles with seating configurationsthat have adequate space for lots of baggage.

Serving the Fringe

A clear divideThere is a very clear divide between Adelaide’s metropolitan public transport servicesand those in the adjacent regional areas, except to the south-east where Transitplusservices continue beyond Mount Barker (and even there a metro fare/country fareboundary exists). These near regional areas are served by country bus services, e.g.Premier to Victor Harbor, Barossa Valley Coaches to Angaston, JC Minibuses fromTea Tree Plaza to Mount Torrens and Mount Pleasant. Dublin is an example of anoverseas city where the boundary was similarly clearly marked until recent yearswhen diesel rail services were introduced to supplement already existing longdistance train services, to provide initially commuter trains to regional towns andvillages, e.g. to Maynooth (26 km west of Dublin), and later regular train servicethroughout the day. Similar services operate on rail routes to the south-west, south-east and north-east of Dublin, otherwise towns and villages beyond the Dublinmetropolitan area continue to be served by Bus Eireann’s inter-town and rural busroutes.

Ancillary servicesTo ‘soften’ the boundary, and lessen the contrast between metropolitan andrural/country service levels, some cities, in association with bus operators insurrounding jurisdictions (counties or equivalents), provide ancillary linking servicesto outlying areas. Examples are the services operating from the termini of someOCTranspo routes to townships in Eastern Ontario such as Perth, Arnprior andKemptville. Similar arrangements are found to serve rural towns around Hiroshima,Japan. Where populations in outlying communities are large enough to justify full

91


commuter services, such as those across the Golden Gate in Marin County,California, or on the South Shore of the St Lawrence River in Quebec, express busservices taking advantage of priority bus lanes run across the long bridges direct tothe city centres of San Francisco and Montreal respectively. Services to rural areasand townships outside of Pretoria, RSA, and many South American cities areprovided by fleets of privately-owned buses and minibuses.

Rail servicesAdelaide is the only major city in Australia which does not have regional rail servicesthat extend beyond the metropolitan boundary to adjacent satellite cities and towns.In Perth the rail line to Mandurah is new, and the services radiating from Brisbanehave been expanded gradually since the lines were electrified in the 1970s. Theregional train services in New South Wales and Victoria are long-established, toserve the populations resident in and around regional cities such as Newcastle,Wollongong, Geelong and Bendigo. In New Zealand, rail services are important inlinking Wellington with the towns of the Kapiti Coast and Hutt Valley, and in UKregional rail services have a long history of linking major cities with towns andvillages in their hinterlands.

Where newer commuter rail services have been introduced in the larger NorthAmerican cities, an operational pattern has evolved using trains in the peak hours(inbound during the morning peak and outbound in the late afternoon) and buses inthe daytime off-peak hours and at weekends. Note the fares on these services arehigher than the prevailing fares on metropolitan services, e.g. on GO Transit servicescompared to TTC services in Toronto. Only where the density of populations justifylonger service hours, do trains run throughout the day, as on the Toronto andMontreal lakeshore routes, and the Metrolink network in Los Angeles. In Europe thegradual extension of the tram/train network in Karlsruhe and the conversion ofsuburban rail lines to LRT in Manchester and Newcastle resulted in more frequentservice to be provided to regional areas and nearby towns.

4.10 Summary

A review of public transport systems interstate and overseas, with emphasis onmedium-sized cities, illustrates that while direct comparisons are of questionablevalue because of different local conditions, it is possible to identify and highlightfeatures of the operations and policies prevailing in other cities and to consider theirsuitability or otherwise for application in Adelaide and its surrounding regions.

The review demonstrates there is a relationship between demand for publictransport, the funds available for operating subsidies, concession reimbursement andinvestment in improvements to public transport, and the quantity and quality ofservice that can be provided. Many cities have spent considerable sums improvingtheir rail, tram and bus networks in recent years, and installing new LRT and rapidtransit (metro) systems. Adelaide’s suburban rail network is a candidate for majorupgrading, and the State Government has commenced a program of electrification,gauge standardisation, and acquisition of new rolling stock that should bring thenetwork up to the standards set by Perth and Brisbane in Australia and cities such asDublin and Newcastle overseas.

Examples have been identified of services to improve access to and from areasimmediately adjacent to metropolitan boundaries. These will be considered in the

92


South Australian context together with an assessment of the potential use of existingrail lines in the near country regions around Adelaide in Chapter 5.

93


Chapter 5.

OUTER METROPOLITAN AND REGIONAL RAILPASSENGER SERVICES

5.1 Introduction

The Committee’s Terms of Reference were very specific (ToR IV) in relation to thefeasibility and possibility of re-opening passenger train services on rail lines still usedby freight services, or on dormant sections of track, or former rail rights-of-way,between:

(a) Gawler and Angaston;(b) Belair and Mount Barker (and on to Victor Harbor/Murray Bridge);(c) Dry Creek, Northfield and Valley View;(d) Tonsley (or Hallett Cove) and Huntfield Heights;(e) Reynella (or Seaford) and Aldinga;(f) Adelaide and Whyalla, Mount Gambier and Broken Hill.

In this chapter these six routes or groups of routes are dealt with as follows:- The Barossa line (i.e. (a) above);- The Hills line (b);- The Southern routes (d & e);- The regional cities (f); and- The Northfield line (c).

Passenger trains did run on most of these lines until services were closed by theformer South Australian Railways during the 1950s and 1960s or by AustralianNational in the later years of the 20th century. There were occasional attempts toreopen services, such as that by AN to Port Augusta and Whyalla using refurbishedBudd railcars, but patronage never reached levels that would justify continuation ofthe services. Whilst there is strong advocacy for passenger trains it does not alwaystranslate into adequate patronage or sufficient revenue to sustain regular service.

5.2 Background

Passenger trains still operate in SA, on less than daily schedules to Murray Bridgeand Bordertown (The Overland), to Port Augusta (The Ghan and Indian-Pacific), andto Broken Hill (Indian Pacific), all of them inter-capital trains operated by GreatSouthern Rail on which intrastate passengers can be carried. The lines from DryCreek to Northfield (3.9 km), and from Hallett Cove to Willunga (33.6 km) have beenlifted, though the rights-of-way still exist; the line from Wolseley to Mount Gambier(183 km) has been ‘mothballed’, and the route from Mount Barker Junction to VictorHarbor (81 km) is managed and operated as a tourist service by the Steamrangerorganisation. Some of the remaining country rail network in SA is still broad gauge(1600 mm), including the Barossa, Victor Harbor and Mount Gambier lines, while theARTC main lines and the branch to Whyalla are standard gauge (1435 mm) (seeDTEI submission, 09, Appendix F). Thus, for some of the proposals to re-openpassenger service to become a practical proposition, standardisation may be a pre-requisite.

94


The likelihood and/or timing of some of the re-opening proposals are affected by thepossible construction of a new ‘by-pass’ railway line, possibly to the east of theMount Lofty ranges from a location just west of Murray Bridge to a point north ofAdelaide such as Two Wells. If such a line was to be constructed, capacity maybecome available for outer metropolitan and/or regional passenger train services onthe existing sharply curved and steeply-graded main line through the Adelaide Hills.The feasibility study for the by-pass line is currently underway as a joint federal/stateproject (DoITRD&LG, 2009).

On those non-metropolitan rail lines that are still extant, there is nothing to preventany existing passenger train operator, private company or entrepreneur from runninga passenger train service. Track access would need to be negotiated with themanagers of the track (e.g. GWA, ARTC, etc. – see DTEI submission, Appendix E),the necessary equipment bought or leased, and accreditation, regulatory and legalrequirements fulfilled. The costs of these processes are themselves a deterrent to apotential operator, as evidenced by the new owner’s efforts to restart the BarossaWine Train (see Mr McCulloch’s evidence to the Committee, 24 June 2009).However, the main reason that no one has come forward to offer to operatecommuter or regular country passenger train service is that it is difficult to foreseeenough fare-paying patrons to ensure the venture would be financially viable.

While the submissions to the Committee endorse the idea that many people enjoythe opportunity to travel by train, many of them also identify some of the problemsthat need to be overcome if re-opening is to be considered. In particular theydemonstrate that whilst there is a liking for trains, there is also a wish to retain theflexibility of travel by car – indeed some of the support for a return of passengertrains from the Barossa is a direct reflection of the price of petrol, as people who builta lifestyle around the car when petrol was cheaper now find their budgets stretchedto maintain that lifestyle. This is turn raises the broader issue of an understanding ofthe costs of rail travel. There is little evidence of a willingness to pay a fare that willgo some way to covering even the operating costs of new rail services, as some ofthe support for rail is based on an assumption (and the precedent set in the MountBarker area a few years ago) that Metroticket fares will be charged. Some of thesubmissions to the Committee quote existing near-country bus fares as being toohigh, though many who could use the buses would be eligible for concession fares.The regional passenger rail services in the Eastern States are also quoted in supportof the re-instatement of similar services in SA, but these trains are highly subsidised(the subsidy for Victorian regional passenger trains is more than twice the totalAdelaide metropolitan public transport subsidy) and a high proportion of passengerstravel at concession rates, including a concession in some States for pensioners totake one or more return rail trips annually (four in NSW) to an intrastate destination.

Any re-instated passenger train services will not only require direct subsidy andconcession reimbursement, but will affect the viability of the existing regional publictransport services provided by coach companies and airlines. There are existing busor coach services on all the routes subject to investigation, and regional air servicesto Whyalla, Port Augusta, Broken Hill and Mount Gambier. The provision of thesecoach and air services is important to regional South Australia, and some of theservices are so marginal that changes of ownership, operation and equipment arenot uncommon.

In terms of the economics of rail passenger service, if all the benefits of travel timesavings, emissions, safety, etc. are added together, and an allowance is made for‘wider economic benefits’, it is still unlikely that an acceptable benefit-cost ratio will be

95


determined for any of the proposed services listed above. DTEI, in its submission(09) to the Committee, has indicated a willingness to undertake a detailed feasibilitystudy for each of the proposals, including economic analysis, based on accuratecapital cost figures for improvement of track, signalling and grade crossings, and, ifappropriate, for new or refurbished rolling stock.

The Committee’s Terms of Reference IV(a), (c), (d) and (e) all refer to ‘high-speedrail services’. High speed is difficult to define, but no trains currently operating inAustralia would qualify for the accolade, as used to differentiate high speed servicesoverseas from conventional passenger trains. No existing rail lines or trackalignments on the South Australian routes that might be considered for the re-introduction of passenger trains are suitable for high speeds, and in any case if theperi-urban services were designed to maximise patronage, station spacing wouldprohibit high speeds. Aidan Stanger, in his submission (35) to the Committee,demonstrates possible alignments for high speed railways to the north of Adelaideand to Murray Bridge via a new tunnel through the Adelaide Hills. A concept plan fora rail tunnel through the Hills was prepared as part of planning for the proposed newcity at Monarto, when it was recognised that passenger trains using the existing Hillsmain line would not be competitive with cars and buses on a freeway.

The submission to the Committee from People for Public Transport (40), points outthat simply re-opening old rail lines may not be the best solution to servingcommunities, suggesting that an integrated planning solution needs to beinvestigated in each case, and that technical or second-best solutions are notnecessarily the most effective use of resources. For example, PPT highlights the factthat improved public transport in regional cities may be a higher priority for thosecommunities than re-introducing inter-city rail links.

The DTEI submission (09) outlines the status of (and improvements that have beenmade to) public transport in South Australian country areas and regionalcommunities, e.g.:

‘Substantial improvements to services to outlying areas’ such as Aldinga,Willunga, Mount Barker, etc.;

‘Regular Route Services (Country Bus Services) – these contracted servicesprovide regular inter-town services originating from Adelaide…..operatedcommercially with Government providing reimbursement for most concessionfares’, e.g. to Port Pirie/Port Augusta/ Whyalla, Angaston, Murray Bridge,Mount Gambier, Victor Harbor, etc.;

‘Community Passenger Networks’. In partnership with the Department ofFamilies & Communities, DTEI funds 11 CPNs in regional South Australia,including in Victor Harbor, Mount Barker, and Angaston;

‘Integrated Transport Services’ – linking to Regular Route Services; and ‘Special Medical-Related Services’ – providing access to Adelaide for medical

appointments, from four regions, including Southern Yorke Peninsula and theUpper North.

The DTEI submission responds directly to Term of Reference IV, providing detail onthe specific rail routes and services. The information provided to the Committee bythe Department, together with some of the issues and unknowns noted above, isassessed for each of the specific services, concluding with an attempt to prioritise theroutes in relation to the feasibility and likelihood of re-opening, regardless of timing orcosts, i.e. if there is a possibility of re-instating such rail passenger services at sometime in the future, which of them has the highest priority and/or is most likely toeventuate.

96


5.3 The Barossa line

Gennesee & Wyoming Australia (GWA) has a long lease (50 + 15 years) on theBarossa rail line as a result of the sale of the former Australian National Railwayslines, between an end-on junction with TransAdelaide at Gawler Central and the endof track at Penrice. The branch from Nuriootpa to Angaston is currently ‘mothballed’;the distance from Gawler Central to Angaston is 41 km. DTEI advises that ‘thecurrent maximum speed of the track is 50 km/h’, with some locations restricted to 15km/h (DTEI, 09). There is only one loop where trains can pass or cross one another,at Nurioopta, which is adequate for the current freight service, the daily ‘Stone Train’to and from the loader at Penrice Quarry.

There are two critical features of the Barossa line that would affect potentialpassenger train operation: there are 74 level crossings on the branch, of which onlyeight are equipped with flashing lights and/or boom gates; and the fact that the line isoccupied by GWA’s freight train during the morning peak hours. The Railways(Operations and Access) Act, 1997, administered by the Essential ServicesCommissioner of South Australia, establishes the legal framework for passengertrains to use the line (DTEI, 09).

Regular passenger trains were withdrawn from the Barossa line in December 1968.When the Minister announced closure of the service he stated ‘Average patronageon the Barossa line is 11 passengers’ and that 30 passengers were needed to coverout-of-pocket costs and 72 to meet full costs of operating a Bluebird railcar(Langridge, 10). In contrast to the number of passengers, 2000 persons signed apetition seeking retention of the service. Since 1969, excursion trains have operatedto the Barossa, notably the Bluebird Barossa Wine Train between 1997 and 2003.

The population of the Barossa DC is 22,172, with three towns on the valley line:Lyndoch (57 km from Adelaide), Tanunda (70 km) and Nuriootpa (77 km), andAngaston at the terminus of the mothballed branch. The main public transport tothese towns and nearby villages is delivered by Barossa Valley Coaches with arange of services:

A trunk route from Angaston to Adelaide, with twice daily buses on weekdays(once daily at weekends), plus a morning peak commuter run from Angastonto Gawler, which feeds to TransAdelaide’s suburban trains. Travel time isaround two hours, with the fastest schedule 1 hr 40 min (Saturday morning toAdelaide) and the slowest 2 hr 15 min (weekday mornings to Adelaide).

A dozen or so feeder and school run services which link most communities inthe Barossa with the main towns and schools. These services normallyoperate school days only.

The Barossa Valley responsive services, which run weekly or fortnightly andlink the valley towns, Williamstown, Kapunda and Freeling with Gawler andElizabeth.

The Barossa Dial-a-Ride pre-booked door-to-door service operatingweekdays between Angaston, Nuriootpa and Tanunda.

In addition, the twice daily Stateliner coach service between Adelaide and theRiverland towns via the Sturt Highway will stop at Nuriootpa on request. Travel timeis 1 hr 15 min.

In her evidence to the Committee, the Chief Executive of the Barossa & LightRegional Development Board praised the bus company for its services, but there was

97


reluctance in several submissions to acknowledge the role of BVC in serving thevalley. One reason is the fares charged (e.g. see Langridge, submission 10),alongside an assumption that any rail passenger service would charge Metroticketfares, encouraged by a TransAdelaide proposal to that effect. Even if a rail servicewas extended to the Barossa, the range of internal bus services would still berequired, and would need greater financial support if the viability of the mainAngaston-Adelaide route was impaired.

Traffic volumes on the main road through the Barossa are about 4000 vehicles perday (vpd) in both directions, of which it is estimated about 20% are commuters (seeMr Henley’s evidence to the Committee) to Gawler or south thereof. Volumes on theSturt Highway through the region are 6300 vpd. The completion of the NorthernExpressway will improve access to the Barossa from Adelaide, a fact mentioned inseveral submissions. However, as with the bus service, it is not so much the level ofservice available to travellers on the road network, but the cost of car ownership anduse, with increasing petrol prices in particular identified as having an adverse effecton existing travel habits and lifestyles.

Evidence was given to the Committee that a common feature of regular and casualtravel to Adelaide was that of driving from the Barossa Valley towns, Kapunda, Truroand beyond to Gawler, parking there and taking the train to Elizabeth, Adelaide andworkplaces in between. Problems of vandalism to, and theft from, vehicles left forlong periods in car parks was mentioned in some submissions, with a preference forpaid, supervised car parks suggested by others.

On the basis of the written submissions and evidence given to the Committee, thereare two potential markets to be served by restoring passenger trains to the Barossaline: tourists to the valley and commuters to the metropolitan area, two markets thatare quite different and require different types of service, whatever mode of transportis used. The Barossa Wine Train, packaged and marketed as a tourist experience,illustrates well how the tourist market can be attracted to use rail travel to visit thewineries, restaurants and other attractions in the Barossa. In evidence to theCommittee, a senior manager of the SATC (Mr Mark Gill) and the General Managerof Chateau Tanunda (Mr Matthew McCulloch) described how such a service could bemarketed, delivered and integrated into the existing visitor patterns to the Barossa.Provision of such a service is a commercial enterprise and the possibility of re-activating the Bluebird service as part of John Geber’s vision for a new wineries-based tourist thrust including accommodation, a Sunday day out, train charters,special events, etc. was described by Mr McCulloch. The role identified forgovernments is in assisting in the marketing of the new package nationally andinternationally, and expediting the processes involved in gaining access to the line,minimising the associated bureaucracy and costs. However, if the costs of actuallyrunning a new tourist rail service prove to be prohibitive, it will be a reflection of thecost of providing infrastructure and other below-rail facilities and will only be lessenedif other operators, government or private, provide additional services so the costs areshared by more above-rail train operators.

The commuter market is more difficult to identify. Many submissions support thereturn of passenger trains, but few are willing to attempt to forecast the level ofpatronage that might eventuate, which is not surprising as estimating futurepatronage is difficult. Transport planners and promoters of transport projects arerenowned for minimising the costs (which spiral after it is too late to stop the project!)and maximising patronage estimates. When results don’t match expectations, it iseasy to find reasons why the environment changed. In the case of re-instatingpassenger rail service, surveys can be undertaken and preferences analysed, but the

98


outcomes will only be determined by experimentation and demonstration, asoccurred when frequencies were increased on the Tonsley branch rail service a fewyears ago, which involved adding a few extra trips to a very short branch line thatwas already fit for purpose, so the only additional costs were those of a railcar anddriver. No infrastructure costs were involved as would be the case on the Barossaline, but the Tonsley example does throw some light on possible options to providingpassenger train service to the Barossa, or at least on improved opportunities forresidents of the Valley and nearby towns to access commuter rail services.

The possibility of a regular rail service on the Barossa line in the near future isremote. The State Government has stated clearly that its priorities for improvement ofpublic transport are elsewhere, and the while ‘It is not proposed to expand passengerrail service to the Barossa as part of the public transport initiative, furtherinvestigations will be carried out to quantify the costs and benefits of such anoption…’ (DTEI, 09). So what options might be considered? Mr Peter Heuzenroeder,in his submission (13), suggests a single peak trip in the morning from Angaston toAdelaide, returning in the late afternoon, or a feeder service from Angaston toGawler, either service requiring only one railcar. This proposal is in line with the earlystages of commuter rail services from peri-urban communities overseas (e.g. totowns south of Montreal), but would still require a railcar and crew to either deadheadto Angaston in the early morning and return to Gawler in the evening or the railcar tobe stabled at Angaston overnight (the crew could be taxied in and out), all of which islikely to require new infrastructure and/or security arrangements. Some trackimprovements, station upgrading and parking facilities (including DDA compliance)would be needed, even for such a simple service, and the schedule of the stone trainmight have to be altered to accommodate a passenger train in the morning peak. Soeven this ‘simple’ option does not seem likely to eventuate in the short term, but is apossibility for a trial service in the medium term future, which could also involve therailcar making a daytime off-peak trip from Adelaide or Gawler to Tanunda orAngaston during the morning, which may attract tourists.

The proposal in the 2009 Greater Metropolitan Adelaide Plan to build a large numberof new homes in the Gawler East area opens up the possibility of a short (2-3 km)extension of the existing suburban train service from Gawler Central to a station(Concordia TOD?) in Gawler East and/or a new green-field terminus at a park & ridelot towards Sandy Creek (up to 6 km from Gawler Central). Metroticket fares couldapply, with the trade-off for cheap fares being a paid and monitored parking lot, toallay the security concerns noted above. As well as being close to the main road tothe valley towns, such a new terminus would be accessible to commuters and othertravellers from Kapunda, Freeling and Williamstown.

Committee Recommendation 22The Committee recommends that any further urban expansion around Gawlerbe preceded by extensions of the rail network and new stations to cater forboth local residents and park & ride commuters from the Barossa region andto other potential urban development including Buckland Park.

A short extension to the existing line would not only be a stand-alone improvementfor the short-term but could also be seen as a first step to re-introduction of a serviceto the Barossa Valley towns in the future, subject to the patronage matching the levelof support expressed in submissions and evidence to the Committee. The ‘shortoption’, should be assessed in the context of the proposed DTEI investigation into thefuture of rail passenger service to the Barossa Valley.

99


Committee Recommendation 23The Committee recommends that the proposed DTEI investigation into thefuture of rail service in the Barossa valley be expanded to cover all aspects ofpublic transport provision and the future needs for transport in the Barossaregion.

5.4 The Hills line

The DTEI submission (09) describes the salient characteristics of the ARTC standardgauge main line through the Adelaide Hills and the adjacent TransAdelaide broadgauge branch line from Adelaide to Belair. New gauge-convertible sleepers wereplaced in the Belair track-bed during 2009, to facilitate conversion from broad tostandard gauge in the future. Access to the ARTC track is governed by anUndertaking to the ACCC; maximum track speed permitted is 110 km/h, but thecurves and grades mean that in practice speeds are restricted though the Hills, with40 km/h speed limits in some places. There are crossing/passing loops at Belair,Mount Lofty, Balhannah and Mount Barker Junction; additional loops may beconstructed and existing loops extended to increase line capacity.

The short stretch of line from Mount Barker Junction to Mount Barker station is part ofthe broad gauge branch line to Victor Harbor, which is leased by the StateGovernment to Steamranger, the organisation that runs tourist trains on the line,mainly at weekends and during school holidays. If conversion of the Belair line tostandard gauge is implemented and trains to Mount Barker become a possibility,DTEI advises that ‘a standard gauge turnout and associated signalling would need tobe installed at Mount Barker Junction’ and the rail line thence to Mount Barker stationcould be converted to standard gauge. Contemplating the alternative of extending thebroad gauge line from Belair to Mount Barker Junction would be a backward step,aside from ‘the engineering and environmental challenges that would need to beaddressed’ (DTEI, 09).

The population of Mount Barker DC is 29,000 (includes Hahndorf and Nairne), withStirling, Aldgate and Bridgewater being the southern part of the Adelaide Hills DC.The public transport to the area, provided by TransitPlus, is a mixture of frequentexpress and local bus services using modern equipment running on the South-eastFreeway to serve Crafers, Stirling, Aldgate, Bridgewater and Mount Barker, with lessfrequent routes to Piccadilly, the Onkaparinga valley towns, Nairne and Strathalbyn.The fastest travel time between Adelaide and Mount Barker is 45 minutes, with anaverage of 49 minutes, 52 minutes in peak hours, and one hour by stopping services.The road distance is 33 km, whereas the rail line in 55 km, so there is no way thatpassenger trains could compete on frequency or travel times. When the VictorHarbor train ran (until the 1970s) the fastest train was that from Adelaide on Saturdaymornings, which took 1 hour 17 minutes to reach Mount Barker. At that time thesuburban trains ran as far as Bridgewater, when the journey took one hour. TheBelair-Bridgewater section was closed in 1987 after a review by the Bureau ofTransport Economics for the State Government. Prior to closure, there were 11 trainsfrom Bridgewater to Adelaide and 12 outbound (i.e. roughly hourly), that carried 747passengers a day, an average of 33 a trip (i.e. less than a seated busload); mostboardings were park & ride passengers at Bridgewater and school students at UpperSturt and Heathfield.

Whilst rail can not compete with buses in terms of frequency or travel times, thepreference for a rail service along the Hills line is for comfort and amenity, as spelt

100


out in Ms Ruth Sands’ submission (05) to the Committee: some people aresusceptible to travel sickness by bus, trains are more spacious, road congestion isavoided, etc. Ms Sands points out that only a minimal rail service needs to beprovided, to create a travel option for residents of the Hills towns.

The problems to be overcome before local passenger service could be restored tothe line are considerable, as described in the DTEI submission (09) to theCommittee. The main problem is obviously that of the gauge differences: Adelaide-Belair broad gauge, Keswick-Belair-Mount Barker Junction standard gauge, andMount Barker Junction-Mount Barker station broad gauge. The State Governmenthas announced its intention to standardise TA’s Belair line, which is the first step insimplifying the issue of the gauges, while standardising the short (5 km) section fromthe junction with the main line to Mount Barker station would be relatively simple, andnot unduly affect Steamranger’s operations. However, a problem would remain inthat the ARTC line between Belair and Mount Barker Junction is a very busy singletrack main line, where the westbound peak time for interstate freight trains coincideswith the inbound morning peak to Adelaide and freight trains to the east occupy pathsduring the afternoon outbound peak hours. (Freight trains affected the schedulingand reliability of peak hour trains to and from Bridgewater.) The real opportunity torestore rail service to Mount Barker will arise if and when a ‘by-pass’ railway takes allor most of the freight trains off the Hills line. By then, the Belair line should have beenconverted to standard gauge and consideration can be given to the additional worksthat will be required to enable passenger trains to be restored (particularly at existingor new station sites), some of which are summarised in the DTEI submission.

In the event that a ‘by-pass’ rail line cannot be justified, much work could be done toease curves and grades on the Hills line; if this was to be undertaken, then there isthe possibility of adding additional works to enable passenger trains to return to theline. The DTEI submission states that the Government has already considered thispossibility and ‘will seek to include the examination of extending passenger servicesto Mount Barker in the scope of the Adelaide Rail Freight Movements Study’.

Committee Recommendation 24The Committee recommends that the potential to restore passenger trainservices into the Hills region be investigated as a complement to and/orimmediately on completion of the Adelaide Rail Freight Movements Study,including identification of a suitable site for a park & ride station in theBridgewater/Aldgate area.

If passenger trains were to run to Mount Barker, there will be calls for some servicesto be extended to Murray Bridge (pop 19,000) and/or Victor Harbor (13,000). The firstwould be dependent on the ability to find suitable paths on the ARTC line, and thesecond on the resolution of ownership and operation of services on what is nowSteamranger’s leased line and on conversion of the track from Mount Barker to VictorHarbor if through services were to be operated.

Both Murray Bridge and Victor Harbor are currently served by country bus services.Murray Bridge Passenger Services operates four trips daily in each direction betweenMurray Bridge and Adelaide, including peak time services for commuters, two tripseach way on Saturdays and one on Sunday evening. Travel times vary from 1hr 5minutes, to 1hr 15mins, which compares with 1hr 41mins for the fastest non-stop runby the Overland train; the distances are road 88 km, and rail 94 km. Crosses withfreight trains impact on actual rail travel times, e.g. one Overland train takes 2hr 10mins to reach Murray Bridge, an illustration that traffic congestion affects rail travel as

101


well as road, but in the case of rail it is timetabled whereas road congestion is lesspredictable.

The road distance to Victor Harbor via Highway A13 is 80 km, compared to 132 kmby rail, which follows a meandering route through the Adelaide Hills, Strathalbyn andGoolwa. The Premier Stateliner Coach Group operates the bus service betweenVictor Harbor and Adelaide, with four trips each way on weekdays, two on Saturdaysand one on Sundays – the schedules are designed to permit a day out from Adelaideat the coast or a day’s business in Adelaide for south coast residents. The fastesttravel time is 1hr 40 mins by the ‘Rapid Line’ mid-afternoon journey from Adelaide,with other trips varying from 1hr 45 mins to 2 hours, depending on the stoppingpoints en route. Premier Stateliner also operates one journey in each direction fromVictor Harbor to Adelaide the ‘long way round’ via Goolwa, Meadows and Blackwood,which takes 2hr 15 mins outbound, 2hr 27 mins inbound to the city. These traveltimes compare with the fastest Adelaide-Victor Harbor train service in the 1970s, theSaturday morning inbound train which took 2hr 48 mins.

In summary, the level of service provided by bus to both Murray Bridge and VictorHarbor suggests that consideration of restoring regular passenger train service tothese towns should follow any decision on trains to Mount Barker. In the interim theline from Mount Barker to Victor Harbor is in good hands, operated as a touristexperience by the Steamranger Heritage Railway.

Committee Recommendation 25The Committee recommends that any consideration of restoring regionalpassenger train service to Victor Harbor and/or Murray Bridge be deferreduntil a decision is made on restoring service to towns in the Hills region.

5.5 The southern routes

Terms of Reference IV (d) and (e) cover the possible future use of sections of theformer Willunga branch line in the southern suburbs, together with an extensionsouth to Aldinga and links northwards from Reynella to the Tonsley area. Theexisting suburban rail line from Adelaide to Noarlunga uses the northern half of theformer Willunga line, as far as Hallett Cove. Whereas the newer extension south toNoarlunga follows a direct route near the coast to its terminus, the old branch linefollowed a meandering route through Reynella, Seaford and McLaren Vale toWillunga, 33.6km from Hallett Cove and 54.4 km from Adelaide.(The road distanceform Adelaide to Willunga is 46 km). Passenger services to Willunga ceased in 1957,though a passenger carriage was added to freight trains, which ran until 1969, whenthe line was closed and lifted. However, the right-of-way was reserved, and most of itremains, managed by various authorities including TransAdelaide and the City ofOnkaparinga (see DTEI submission 09, Appendix B). John Drennan’s submission tothe Committee (07) gives an excellent description of the history of services on theWillunga line.

After closure of the Willunga passenger service, suburban trains continued to provideregular services to Brighton, with less frequent trains on the single line along thecoast as far as Marino and Hallett Cove. In the 1970s the line was duplicated andpassenger service extended first to Christie Downs and later a short distance to thenew Noarlunga Centre Interchange. At this time options remained to extend the line,if and when justified by urban development, across the Onkaparinga River, includingone which would have utilised the bridge on the Willunga line alignment (DTEI

102


submission, Appendix C). However, the State Government has recently decided thatthe rail extension from Noarlunga to Seaford will take a more direct route south, witha new viaduct across the Onkaparinga estuary.

As a result of decisions taken since the Terms of Reference for the Committee’sInquiry were approved, two of the proposals in ToR 4 (d) and (e) have beeneffectively rendered redundant. The decision to take a direct route across theOnkaparinga suggests that any future extension to Aldinga would logically carry onsouth from Seaford, as described in the Railway Industry Council report (DTEI,Appendix C), effectively eliminating the need to consider any alternative route toAldinga. Also any use of the section of the old Willunga line right-of-way betweenHallett Cove and Reynella for public transport to the Morphett Vale area would beinappropriate, because of its curved and anti-directional characteristics. TheNoarlunga line can serve the coastal suburbs effectively, but other solutions need tobe found to improve public transport to the eastern half of the City of Onkaparinga.

The issue that remains is whether there is a role for the former railway right-of-waybetween Reynella and Huntfield Heights (ToR IVd). Although this section may nolonger be required to serve any new development south of the Onkaparinga River inthe foreseeable future, the right-of-way could be used effectively in improving publictransport service northwards, i.e. in linking the areas around and to the east of theMain South Road with Marion and Adelaide. ToR IV (d) suggests, for example,‘…linking viable portions of the old corridor to a new line extending from Tonsley’ toprovide ‘new coverage to Flinders University, Flinders Medical Centre, Darlingtonetc’. The use of Tonsley as the focal point of such a northwards thrust is partlybecause the existing TA branch line terminates there, but more importantly becausethe triangle of land between South Road, Sturt Road and Marion Road (Laffer’sLand) has previously been identified as a location for a major public transportinterchange, whether bus/bus, bus/rail, bus/ busway, or any combination. So farnothing has eventuated, partly because of engineering, design and costconsiderations, but mainly because the major attractors in the area (FlindersUniversity, FMC and the Marion Centre) would not necessarily be well served by aninterchange which is close, but not close enough, to these facilities.

Whether or not Tonsley is a suitable location, the concept of a new transport corridor,from that area, through or close to Flinders, over the escarpment to O’Halloran Hilland linking with the Willunga railway right-of-way at Reynella deserves investigationin planning the region’s future public transport services. Mr Drennan describes itspossible use for an LRT line (submission 07) and Brian Leedham for use by a rail line(06), though Paul Aslin (34) highlights the engineering challenges that will beinvolved in the climb over the escarpment, suggesting a tunnel may be necessary.The DTEI submission (09) summarises the existing public transport services to thesouthern suburbs, particularly the improvements that have been made in the expressand feeder bus routes that have been introduced to the area south of theOnkaparinga: to Seaford, Moana, Aldinga, MacLaren Vale, Willunga and Sellick’sBeach. Major changes can be expected once the rail is extended and electrified toSeaford.

The next transport planning task that is required in the southern region is an analysisof the public transport services to, from and within the eastern suburbs of the City ofOnkaparinga, i.e. South Road, Reynella, Morphett Vale, Aberfoyle Park, etc. Such astudy would effectively be an updating of the Southern Area Study, submitted to theCommittee by DTEI as part of Appendix C (09), and could determine whether themost effective pattern of future public transport services would need to include use ofthe old Willunga line right-of-way through the area, e.g. for express buses on a

103


busway feeding to the Southern Expressway at Reynella. In the interim, the right-of-way should continue to be protected, and used for a linear park, cycleway, etc.managed by the public authorities described in Appendix B to the DTEI submission(09).

Committee Recommendation 26The Committee recommends that a transport planning study of the easternpart of the City of Onkaparinga be undertaken to determine, inter alia,whether improvement of public transport services in the area might benefitfrom use of all or part of the former railway right-of-way between Reynella andHuntfield Heights. The Committee also recommends that the railway right-ofway continue to be protected and used for recreational purposes until itspotential as a public transport route is determined.

Committee Recommendation 27The Committee recommends that the government investigate the extension ofthe Tonsley rail line and the development a TOD around Flinders MedicalCentre/Flinders University and Darlington.

Committee Recommendation 28The Committee recommends that the government adopt as a primaryprinciple that all land reserved as potential transport corridors should haveongoing protection.

5.6 The regional cities

Term of Reference IV(f) covers ‘the re-instatement of regular regional passenger railservices, including services to Murray Bridge, Victor Harbor, Whyalla, MountGambier and Broken Hill’. Murray Bridge and Victor Harbor have been dealt withabove, with the conclusion that restoration of services to Mount Barker would behigher priority, and that Murray Bridge and/or Victor Harbor should follow any newservice into the Adelaide Hills. However, Murray Bridge could benefit from anyrestoration of services to Mount Gambier or from more frequent interstate trainservice from Adelaide to Melbourne in addition to the existing thrice-weekly Overlandtrain. Should that occur, unlikely as it might seem, it may be possible to site a newpark & ride station in the Hills that could serve the communities from Stirling to MountBarker and Littlehampton, e.g. in the Aldgate/Bridgewater area.

Port Augusta and Broken Hill are both stops on the GSR interstate train services:Port Augusta is served by the Ghan and the Indian-Pacific, with a total of 2, 3 or 4trains a week in each direction, depending on the season; and Broken Hill by theIndian-Pacific, normally twice weekly. Whyalla and Mount Gambier have nopassenger train services. Whyalla is the terminus of the 76 km standard gaugebranch line from Port Augusta, while Mount Gambier is the southern end of amothballed 183 km branch line from Wolseley on the Adelaide-Melbourne main line,though the section south of Penola is currently leased to the Limestone CoastRailway, a tourist train operation.

Restoration of a passenger train to Mount Gambier is dependent on standardisationof the broad gauge track from Wolseley, which has been announced as Governmentpolicy, at least as far as Penola, conditional on the development of a pulp mill nearthat town. No commitment has been made to restore passenger trains, and at thetime of writing no work has been undertaken on the Wolseley-Penola section. Whenpassenger trains ran between Adelaide and Mount Gambier, a daily Bluebird service

104


took 8hr 40 mins for the 490 km journey, plus a thrice-weekly overnight train that tookup to 11 hours. Connections were made by the day train at Naracoorte with a localbranch train to Lucindale and Kingston.

Current public transport between Adelaide and Mount Gambier (pop. 25,000, plusGrant DC 8,500) are provided by the Premier Stateliner Coach Group and RegionalExpress (Rex) airline. Premier Stateliner took over the coach services developedover many years by the Bond family, trading as Mount Gambier Motor Service, withthe current schedule virtually unchanged: once daily in each direction (twice daily onFridays) by two routes, both with the same 6hr 15 mins travel times:

The inland service via Bordertown, Naracoorte and Penola; and The coastal service via Kingston SE, Robe and Millicent.

Regional Express has four flights in each direction between Mount Gambier andAdelaide most days of the week.

Traffic volumes on the main roads to the Upper and Lower South-east regions of SAare comparatively light in the country areas, with about 2000 vpd on both theRiddoch (inland) and Princes (coastal) highways, though heavy vehicles are a fairproportion of the total (up to 30%). In general residents of the south-east regionshave good links to the rest of the State (and to Victoria). If a passenger train servicewas ever to return to a reinstated line to Mount Gambier, it would merely supplement,or provide another option to, an existing system adequately serving the demands ofthe region. No case has been made for restoration of passenger train services in thenear future.

The twice weekly Indian-Pacific service from Adelaide to Broken Hill (pop. 20,000)takes 8hr 30 mins for the 531 km journey via Crystal Brook. Before the standardgauge link was completed, the journey took 9 hours, with a change of train necessaryat Peterborough, from a broad gauge Bluebird railcar to the Indian Pacific on thestandard gauge trans-continental main line. Today, coach service between Adelaideand Broken Hill is provided by Buses‘R’Us, thrice weekly in each direction, taking 7hr 10 mins via the Barrier Highway, but the service is not advertised in the StateGuide of SA country bus services, perhaps because it is technically an interstateservice. The Barrier Highway carries comparatively light traffic, about 550 vpd alongmost of its length. Regional Express flies twice daily between Adelaide and BrokenHill. Both air and coach services are minimal, reflecting the level of demand for publictransport, and is therefore difficult to see any justification for rail services to BrokenHill, above that provided by GSR’s excellent Indian-Pacific trains.

The population of the Iron Triangle towns (Whyalla 23,000, Port Augusta 14,500, PortPirie 18,000) supports the most intensive long distance coach service in SA. ThePremier Stateliner Coach Group operates four trips daily in each direction betweenAdelaide and Whyalla, with average travel times of 5 hr 15 mins (5 hours fastest) forthe 388 km run. As far as Port Augusta, services are integrated with those to RoxbyDowns and Ceduna, and one daily journey is extended southwards beyond Whyallato Port Lincoln. Traffic volumes on the highways to the northern towns are heavy bycountry SA standards: 1600 vpd between Whyalla and Port Augusta and over 3000vpd on the Princes Highway south of Port Augusta. Regional Express airlinesprovides air services to and from Whyalla, 3 or 4 times a day in each direction, whileSharp Airlines operates twice daily in each direction between Adelaide and PortAugusta.

Passenger train service to the Iron Triangle towns has varied considerably over theyears, partly due to the gauge differences. The best service was between Adelaideand Port Pirie on the former broad gauge line, but that disappeared with

105


standardisation, and now the Indian Pacific and Ghan trains, which do serve PortAugusta, do not stop at Coonamia, the nearest station to Port Pirie on the standardgauge main line to the north. The standard gauge branch line to Whyalla was openedin 1972 by the then Commonwealth Railways, primarily to serve the steel works.Australian National introduced a passenger train service using refurbished Buddrailcars (as it also did to Broken Hill), but the service was short-lived.

Of the possible regional city destinations listed in ToR IV(f), that to Port Augusta andWhyalla would have the greatest potential, but as long as South Australians prefer touse their private cars for country and long-distance travel, all the public transportproviders are competing for at best 5% of the total passenger traffic. So subsidisingwhat would be an uneconomic passenger rail service to compete with the existingcoach and airline operators for such a small market cannot be justified. (Note,though, that the Overland train is subsidised, despite the existence of other publictransport services between Adelaide and Melbourne, some of which are subsidised,and some that operate commercially.) The fact that the Eastern States’ governmentssubsidise regional rail passenger train services is not a reason why a more sparselypopulated state should follow suit; the regional cities still served by passenger trainsin other states are much larger than those in SA (e.g. Townsville 128,000, Bendigo76,000, Maitland 62,000, Bunbury 54,000), yet the trains still require subsidies. Theannual subsidy for country rail passengers in Queensland is $132 million for eightservices; on one route the subsidy per person trip is $1433.00 for each of 7200passengers p.a. (Heger, 2009).

5.7 The Northfield line

Train services were withdrawn from the 3.9 km Northfield branch line in 1987, andthe remnant of those services, the single car hourly stopping trains from Adelaide toDry Creek, disappeared with the rescheduling of the Gawler line train service inJanuary 2009. The right-of way has been reserved by the State Government, and theDTEI submission (09) advises there are no plans to dispose of the corridor, whichcrosses Churchill Road North, Port Wakefield Road and Main North Road, all atgrade, before terminating on the west side of Brians Road, Northfield. Anysuggestion that the line might be re-opened (see, for example, submission 06, fromBrian Leedham) would require grade separation, ‘adding substantially to costs’(DTEI, 09). The benefits to offset the high costs involved in re-opening the line aredifficult to find, given that all the north-south arterial roads that cross the line carrybus services direct to the city.

During the 1970s, it was hoped that the Northfield line could be used to attract park &ride passengers from the northern suburbs (as mentioned in ToR IVc); however, theparking lots at the stations ‘were poorly utilised because buses provided a moreconvenient service’ (DTEI, 09) and because the arterial roads were not congested tothe point where park & ride became an attractive alternative to driving to the city.Park & ride facilities are now located on the Gawler line at Mawson Lakesinterchange, with trains to the city ‘every 7.5 minutes at peak times and every 15minutes in the daytime off-peak, serving much of the area that would have been inthe potential catchment of the Northfield line’ (DTEI, 09).

Mr Leedham’s submission (06) advocates extension of the Northfield line eastwardstowards Valley View. This option was investigated by the North East Area PublicTransport Review in 1977, both as an alternative to the valley of the River Torrens(the Modbury Freeway corridor) to reach Tea Tree Plaza, and as a stand-alone

106


project terminating at either Valley View or Ingle Farm. The Northfield extension wasdisregarded as a possible route to Tea Tree Plaza because it was anti-directional,and the stand-alone options were never pursued because of the property acquisitioninvolved, though the concept of a branch to Ingle Farm had the potential to integratelocal, cross-suburban and city-bound services at the terminus.

With the Northfield corridor reserved by the State Government, the option remains forits future use for transport purposes, though the high cost of civil engineering worksinvolved mean its use in the short-term future is unlikely. In general, the re-opening ofthe Northfield line would be low on any list of priorities for action to improve publictransport in Adelaide. Nevertheless, in order to preserve the longer-term potential ofthe corridor, it is important to ensure access to the corridor at Dry Creek is notimpeded if the land held in the name of the Minister of Transport and byTransAdelaide is developed for a rail depot or other uses (see DTEI, 09, AppendixA).

Committee Recommendation 29The Committee recommends that, although re-instatement of the Northfieldrail line is not warranted at present, the right-of-way should continue to beprotected for potential use by public transport in the future.

5.8 Summary

The highest priority for improving public transport in metropolitan Adelaide is to fix upthe existing network to create a system of which the residents can be proud andhappy to use. One element is the run-down suburban rail network which needs ashot-in-the-arm to upgrade to the standard set by Perth. To do so requires over $1billion in capital funds, towards which the State Government has made a start bycommitting to the progressive electrification of the suburban lines, extension fromNoarlunga south to Seaford, possible standardisation, upgrading stations,identification of new TOD station locations, and new railcars.

Given this program of improvements to the system, the proposals in ToR IV to re-open other lines for passenger train service consequentially become lower priority,unless it is possible to justify one or more of the proposals ‘jumping the queue’ forinvestment in rail services. From the discussion above, it is not possible to make acase to vary the Government’s priorities for suburban rail, but it is possible to placethe list of metropolitan area and peri-urban proposals in priority order, as follows:

1.Extension from Gawler Central a short distance eastwards to serve the plannednew Concordia development and/or park & ride traffic from the Barossa.

2. A study of public transport in the eastern suburbs of the City of Onkaparinga andthe southern areas of the City of Marion to determine possible alternative roles forthe Willunga line right-of-way south of Reynella and the most appropriate publictransport link to the Tonsley/Flinders precinct.

3. Updating the options for rail service to Mount Barker, subject to standardisation ofthe Belair line and the results of the study of the by-pass freight railway and otherrelevant studies.

4.Determination of the costs and benefits of extending the Seaford line to Aldinga.

107


5. Review of the public transport needs of the Barossa Valley following a year ofexperience with the Gawler East extension (1 above).

6. Re-opening of the Northfield line.

Passenger train service to the regional cities is a separate issue. At the present timethere is no demand or other justification for re-introducing passenger trains to thelines serving regional locations. While GSR continues to serve Murray Bridge, PortAugusta and Broken Hill, these cities have a rail option for those passengers who, forwhatever reasons, don’t want to drive, fly, or take a coach. If regional trains were tobe introduced to the northern lines, one might envisage a thrice-weekly trains service(out one day, back the next, similar to The Overland schedule) using diesel railcars,leaving Adelaide together and dividing at Crystal Brook, with one car heading north toserve Coonamia (for Port Pirie), Port Augusta and Whyalla, the other car continuingnorth-eastwards to Gladstone, Jamestown, Peterborough and Broken Hill.

Discussion of a service to Mount Gambier must await a decision on standardisingand re-opening the line from Wolseley. The submission to the Committee from GrantDC (15) points out that a higher priority for the Mount Gambier region is a new busstation for the coach services to Adelaide and Victorian towns and for the city’s localbus services. Similarly, People for Public Transport’s submission (41) suggestsinvestment in the regional cities’ local buses may be more useful than re-instating railpassenger trains.

108


Chapter 6.

OPPORTUNITIES AND IMPEDIMENTS TOINCREASING THE USE OF PUBLIC TRANSPORT

6.1 Introduction

The Committee’s Terms of Reference include ‘III: the opportunities and impedimentsto increasing public transport patronage with a view to reducing greenhouseemissions’. Opportunities are defined in this chapter as either conditions favouringgreater use of public transport now or in the future or improvements that might bemade to public transport to encourage patronage. Impediments are defined aseconomic, social or cultural conditions that favour the continued use of private cars,that deter people from using public transport, or that constrain the potential of publictransport from capitalising on any opportunities that might arise.

6.2 Opportunities

There are several factors that together provide a warning that the present use of theprivate car for personal mobility and accessibility is unsustainable in the long term,and should cause individuals and communities to consider alternative lifestyles thatinclude greater use of more sustainable modes of transport, including publictransport. Dr Bonham’s submission (36) to the Committee listed some of thesefactors, including:

Uncertainty about the long term supply and price of oil; The contribution of transport to climate change, damage to the global

environment and damage to the local environment; Ageing of the population; and Public health and safety.

From the viewpoint of the individual, public transport has a number of attributes, e.g. It is inexpensive to the user (although not necessarily perceived to be so); It permits more productive use of time (reading, working, resting, etc), though

this may be offset by the longer time required for the trip and by the ability toaccess personal services in modern cars;

It provides an opportunity to increase personal fitness and health by walkingto the bus stop or cycling to a station; and

It removes the stress of driving, particularly in congested conditions,searching for a parking space, etc.

However, the current preference by most South Australians to use a private careither as a driver or passenger shows these very general factors alone are notenough to cause people to want to use public transport. Most of those who do usepublic transport are captive to the system for some or all of their mobility needs: theydo not hold a driver’s licence (although that would not deter a minority from driving),do not have a car available for a particular journey, or do not wish to drive forwhatever reason. This means the current public transport system in Adelaide willhave to continue to improve its performance if the Government’s target of 10% ofpassenger kilometres (not trips) on public transport by 2018 is to be achieved.

109


The Committee’s review of public transport in South Australia, interstate andoverseas has identified some opportunities for improvement to the existing systemthat could be made to increase the attractiveness of public transport to a widermarket.

Increase the frequency of services, particularly on weekends and evenings,and during the daytime inter-peak period.

Strive for greater reliability through adherence to timetables, particularly onless frequent services.

Ensure published timetables are accurate and comprehensive. Improve the performance of the Smart Stop real-time information system,

which is prone to errors of omission and announcing incorrect times. Upgrade footpaths to improve access to stops, and keep stops free of

encumbrance from street furniture, rubbish bins, etc. Trim tree growth to maintain a line of sight at bus stops for drivers. Introduce a new Smartcard ticketing system. Introduce ticket machines at busy CBD stops and interchanges. Improve the ambiance of unstaffed stations (particularly with lighting). Continue the program of installing more attractively designed shelters at bus

stops and unstaffed stations. Encourage the introduction of amenities, such as toilets, bike storage and

news-stands, at interchanges and major stations. Extend provision of park & ride facilities to more locations. Integrate the CBD free bus services and/or create a ‘fare-free square’ in the

City centre. Redesign Grenfell Street to give priority to buses. Encourage bike travel on trains and evaluate the benefits of carrying bicycles

on buses. Extend the program of introducing bus priority measures at intersections. Increase safety and security for staff and passengers (the perception that

public transport is unsafe is one which deters many potential users).

Committee Recommendation 30The Committee recommends that high priority is given to the followingprojects:a) the redesign of Grenfell Street and Pulteney Street, in collaboration with

Adelaide City Council, to give greater priority to buses;b) the creation of a fare-free zone within the City of Adelaide;c) evaluating the feasibility and benefits of carrying bicycles on buses; andd) consideration of the extension of the tram network in the CBD and beyond.

Committee Recommendation 31The Committee recommends that further investigation into the mostappropriate bike parking facilities at railway stations, including overnight atAdelaide station.

The Committee’s review also identified new or improved policies that can also createopportunities to improve public transport, including the following:

Introduce greater flexibility into the next round of bus contracts to permitinnovation by the private bus companies, and at the same time minimisemicro-managing of services by the government agency.

Competitively tender the rail and tram systems, either separately or together(including allowing TransAdelaide to submit a bid), or make the current

110


negotiated contract between the Government and TA transparent, toeliminate any real or perceived cross subsidy between the bus and railnetworks.

Consider a levy on all parking spaces, public and private, within the CBD, assuggested by Mr Ingleton in his submission (01) to the Committee, and/ordiscuss with the City Council the merits of limiting the number of parkingstations within the City.

Strengthen the work of the Public Transport Advisory Committee to include apublic consultation role, so that route changes, fare increases etc. can bedebated in the public arena before implementation.

Define the role of taxis, hire cars, carpools & vanpools, community buses, etc.as the demand responsive element of public transport, e.g. in serving lowdensity suburbs, providing feeders, covering for cancelled bus or train trips,and supplementing bus services in areas and at times of infrequent service,including in country towns and regions.

Facilitate the public’s understanding of the costs of providing public transportand the cost of driving, and of the long term implications of continuing to relyon the private car by releasing data, research reports, etc.

Develop a plan for mobility of older people, coordinating the modes oftransport that can cater to their needs: inter-peak services, communitytransport, SATSS, gophers, etc.

Continue to improve the integration of land use and transport planning, anddevelop practical demonstrations of the potential at major stations,interchanges, TODs, etc.

Increase the use of innovative funding techniques for financing publictransport, such as public-private partnerships, or use such techniques to fundnew roads, releasing public funds that can be used to improve publictransport.

Influence Federal policy, through such forums as COAG towards changesthat encourage public transport and do not encourage private car use.

Continue to encourage the use of low-emission vehicles for public transport:electric trains, and CNG, electric and biofuel buses.

Develop local (micro-level) plans to provide improved pedestrian and bicycleaccess to station and bus stops.

Committee Recommendation 32The Committee recommends that the role of the Public Transport AdvisoryCommittee be expanded to include consultation with users on route changes,and a public education role to publicise the costs of transport, (includingexternalities) and the long-term implications of relying on the private car andpetroleum-based fuels.

Committee Recommendation 33The Committee recommends that the Government investigate, incollaboration with the Adelaide City Council, a levy on all long-term parkingspaces, public and private, within the Central Business District with fundsraised used to compensate country drivers parking in the CBD and users ofpublic transport, cycling and walking in and around the CBD.

Committee Recommendation 34The Committee recommends that Transit Oriented Developments (TODs) arebased on successful examples from Portland, USA and Subiaco in WesternAustralia and they should form a central focus of an integrated approach toland use in a Transport Master Plan.

111


Committee Recommendation 35The Committee recommends that Adelaide’s TODs should aim for world’sbest practice in terms of carbon neutrality, passive solar design, energy andwater efficiency and waste management.

Senate Rural & Regional Affairs and Transport Committee

The report of the Senate Rural & Regional Affairs and Transport Committee oninvestment of funds in public passenger transport described most of its findings for‘Improving public transport’ (Chapter 4) as needs, many of which are relevant toSouth Australia, e.g.

‘Need for better services’ (frequent, reliable, congestion-free); ‘Need for a complete network’ (less focus on the CBD, convenient transfers); ‘Need for a legible network, good information…’; ‘Need to integrate cycling and walking measures with public transport’; ‘Need for better institutional arrangements’.

Some of the Senate Committee’s needs include policy measures applicable to SouthAustralia, e.g.

‘Need for a strategic transport plan’; and ‘Need to integrate transport planning and urban planning’.

The Committee was very specific in recommending planning measures (in paragraph4.47, p.43) that could ‘reduce car-dependence and make public transport workbetter…’, e.g.

‘reserving new corridors for fast public transport early in the planning ofgreenfields developments’;

‘… a street pattern that allows buses to be routed efficiently, with goodpedestrian access from bus stops’;

‘activity centres located rationally’ as a focus of transport networks; and TOD around public transport nodes, and an increase in residential density

generally.

The Senate Committee also identified the opportunities for public transport that couldarise from implementation of congestion pricing, including hypothecation of therevenues to funding public transport (paragraph 3.27); options for tax incentives forpublic transport (paragraph 5.52 and recommendation 5); and, if Commonwealthfunding was to be made available for public transport, it should be subject to strictrequirements for objective assessment of projects and the application of merit-basedcriteria (paragraph 5.44).

New technology and new transport systems have the potential to create opportunitiesto improve mobility in general and public transport in particular. Intelligent TransportSystems (ITS) is already affecting the way that transport operates, through dynamicspeed limits and accident warning systems (e.g. on the South Eastern Freeway),advanced traffic control (e.g. on the Southern Expressway), and dynamic parkingguidance (e.g.in Brisbane and Melbourne). Whilst these examples are developmentsthat apply to transport in general, there is potential for ITS to be used to improve theoperational efficiency and attractiveness of public transport. Such improvements willtend to be applied incrementally, as existing technology requires replacement, suchas replacing Crouzet ticketing with Smartcards. The Smart-Stop information systembeing piloted on the Henley Beach-Norwood group of bus routes may well prove tobe the precursor of a system-wide en route advisory system for passengers waitingat bus stops, in the same way that some metro and rail routes have been providingreal-time information on station platforms for many years. As a result of innovation in

112


control and communications technologies, automatic train and LRT systems are nowfound in many cities, and provide an opportunity to reduce operating costs. Theessential requirement for the present is to ensure that such developments intechnology are monitored and new systems evaluated, so that they can be adoptedwhen the opportunity arises, whether in the metropolitan, regional or remote areas,e.g. Canadian researchers forecast a future for new generation airships, such asSkyHook’s Heavy Lift Vehicle, in serving the remote north of the country (particularlyto oil and mining sites), which, if successful, could have potential application inserving remote areas of central Australia (www.todaystrucking.ca).

6.3 Impediments

The single most obvious impediment to greater use of public transport is mostAustralians’ attachment to the private car. This is not just an emotional attachment ora response to clever marketing, but the adoption of a mode of transport that hasbrought enormous economic and social benefits to the majority of people over aperiod of more than 50 years. The private car has been a major factor influencingmodern lifestyles. As a result, attempting to increase the use of public transportrequires a change of mindset in a generation that has grown up in which many havenever ridden on a bus or train, or used public transport to go to school, work or theshops, and whose parents have bought them a car before they have graduated fromschool or learned to assess the financial, safety or environmental implications of carownership and use. At the opposite end of the age range, it is estimated that up to50% of old people still use their cars, even when their responses may no longer befast enough to enable them to do so without endangering themselves and others.Governments are reluctant to limit the right to continue to drive (the grey vote!), andthe medical profession is faced with the difficult task of assessing and telling patientsthey are no longer medically fit enough to hold a driver’s licence, knowing the impactof withdrawal of the licence on their lifestyle and even on their health could beserious.

The fact that a car is a major investment for an individual or family, which is likely tobe bought with a loan, the repayment of which becomes a major budgetary item,results in the practice that, once acquired, the car is used as much as possible, withthe perceived cost of doing so being little more than the cost of petrol. As a result,there is little likelihood of that person or family considering public transport for a trip,unless some other factor changes the equation, such as having to pay to park thecar. Furthermore, it is estimated that about 20% of cars on the road are provided‘free’ to the user, either directly by an employer, as part of a remuneration package,or leased as part a small business. Parking may also be provided free, which furtherreduces the direct cost to the user of the car and increases the competitivedisadvantage of the public transport alternative. Fringe benefit taxation of carsprovides a further incentive to drive eligible cars more than necessary, as describedin detail in the August 2009 report of the Senate Committee on public passengertransport.

The use of parking levies and/or congestion charges to fund public transport is anelement of a wider debate on pricing for the use of roads more generally. If theperceived cost of using the private car is such an impediment to greater use of publictransport, the more accurately the cost of using the car is reflected directly incharges, whether specific charges such as tolls on particular roads or bridges, or byreplacing existing systems of revenue raising (fuel tax, registration, etc.) with pricingfor the actual use of the road, the more competitive public transport should become.

113


(However, more rational public transport pricing must also be part of any suchreforms.) Although price is not the only factor favouring the extensive use of privatecars, if prices did reflect costs, decisions on choice of transport mode would be morerationally based than they are at present.

The level of funding available to public transport can be an impediment to improvingthe system. If public transport issues are low on the list of problems facing acommunity, compared to health, education, welfare, water supply, etc., thencompeting for available funds will be difficult. Further, an unwillingness or inability ofpassengers to pay the costs of the service provided, together with the need to keepfares low enough to compete with the private car, mean only a small proportion of thefunds required can be generated internally by the system, and adds to the pressureon the funding body.

Governments often have multiple objectives, some of which may create impedimentsto public transport performance and improvements, e.g. promotion and protection ofthe car industry - the number of new cars sold is used as an indicator of economicprosperity. Objectives may conflict with one another, e.g. economic development vsenvironmental protection vs social amenity, and an objective to improve publictransport may be over-ridden by other objectives. A low priority for public transportmay be criticised as lacking vision or leadership, but in reality reflects the day-to-daymanagement of the call on scarce funds, personal, private or public, for a myriad ofcommunity needs.

One of the outstanding features of the Senate Committee’s report on publicpassenger transport is the concluding section on the Fringe Benefits Tax on privateuse of employer-provided cars (paragraphs 5.56 to 5.95 and recommendations 7, 8and 9). The FBT is a classic example of a policy without clear objectives (seeparticularly paragraph 5.64) and is an impediment to encouraging greater use ofpublic transport. The Senate Committee’s recommendations on FBT, if acted uponby the Commonwealth Government, would demonstrate support for public transportmore effectively than direct financial support; indeed, subsidising public transportwhile leaving the FBT concessions in place would be irrational.

The Senate Committee also highlights (in paragraph 4.61) the fact that investment inhigh cost projects (mostly rail) should ‘not be allowed to divert attention from theneed for continuous improvement to the total network’, a problem now facingAustralia’s road network, where a preference for new construction has left a backlogof maintenance on the existing road network (estimated at over $70 million in SA,and over $800 million in WA). Similarly, the Committee points out that if PPPs areused to fund public transport projects, they should not be at the expense of higherpriority investment needs, simply because private finance can be leveraged.

At a practical level, there are many impediments to improving public transport, sometechnical, such as accommodating the needs of other users for road space andkerbside space, others less obvious, such as the fear of using for the first time asystem that is perceived to be difficult to understand or access (even if the answer isreadily available with a phone call or on a website). The perceived difficulty ofobtaining and/or validating a ticket can deter people from using public transport, justone among many reasons why people cannot or do not use conventional publictransport:

Health problems (hence the need for community buses, SATSS, etc.); Weather (air conditioning on buses is a relatively recent improvement);

114


Walk distances (use of average walk distances to locate bus stops can maskdifficulties in accessing public transport);

Safety (public transport is perceived as unsafe at certain times); Connections which are not guaranteed and/or too many changes are

required; Frequencies are too low and wait times too long; Vehicles are uncomfortable, a passenger cannot choose his or her fellow-

travellers; Information on services may be unavailable or misleading; The difficulty of using public transport when carrying lots of shopping or

luggage; and Services may be too inflexible to accommodate personal or family routines

and lifestyles.

Some of these impediments can combine to create a situation where public transportwill have difficulty competing with the private car, e.g. if the travel time by publictransport is more than twice that by car, the choice of public transport is unlikely.Similarly, if any one of the above impediments arises in a journey ‘chain’ that involvesa number of links, the private car again will be favoured. Even where public transportmay be the mode of choice for a particular journey, if the car becomes available foranother member of a family to use, there may no benefits in terms of use of the roadnetwork. Overall, even if public transport patronage targets are achieved in Australiancities, the reduction on car use, emissions etc. are likely to be minimal: an increase ofpublic transport use of 14-20% will reduce the number of cars on the road by only 1-2%, and if fuel prices rise 50%, car use will be reduced by only 5%, at least in theshort term. Conversely, some of that 5% will put pressure on public transportcapacity in the peak, which will in turn require funding for more buses and trains.

In country areas low population densities, long distances and sparse networks allmilitate against the viability of rural and regional public transport, leaving most peoplewith no option but to use private vehicles, leaving them vulnerable to increasingcosts. Fortunately, some regional cities can justify providing local town bus systems,e.g. Mount Gambier, Whyalla, Port Pirie, Port Lincoln, but the continuation of theseservices are dependent on financial support from the local councils.

In summary there is a danger that, when budgets are constrained, improvements topublic transport in one area may be funded through savings made by reducingservice elsewhere, an example of the conundrum that while there are lots ofopportunities to improve public transport, there is a lengthy list of impediments to beovercome before those opportunities can be converted into tangible benefits forpublic transport users.

Committee Recommendation 36The Committee recommends that the State Government argue throughCOAG for reform of the fringe benefit tax system that currently encouragesprivate car use.

115


Chapter 7.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

7.1 The Importance of Public Transport

Adelaide is sometimes singled out as the most car-dominated city in Australia,though this accusation is arguable – travel in Perth and Canberra is similarly car-dominated. In Adelaide in 2006, 82.1% of journeys to work were made in privatevehicles (cars, vans or utes) compared to 9.9% by public transport (Mees et al,2008). This is not surprising, as the rectilinear network of wide arterial roads plus theroutes radiating out from the city centre make driving relatively easy and fast, despitetravel times and congestion at intersections increasing gradually. In addition, travel inmetropolitan Adelaide ‘is overwhelmingly oriented to suburban trips – only 12% of cartrips have an origin and/or destination in the City of Adelaide’, with most tripsremaining within one region, e.g. 80% of car trips made in the central region ofAdelaide start and end within the region (Bray, 2009).

However, such statistics can be misleading. At any point in time, 50% of thepopulation do not have access to a private vehicle, whether because of their age(young and old), socio-economic situation (cannot afford to run a car), or personaldisposition (do not have a driver’s licence, do not wish to drive, or a private vehicle isunavailable). Also, the use of journey to work data distorts the policy context,excluding freight trips and journeys for shopping, education, recreation, etc.

Public transport serves two markets: CBD-bound journeys (about 43% of all publictransport trips), and all of the requirements for mobility and accessibility of that largegroup of people who do not have access to a private vehicle. Adelaide’s publictransport, like the systems in most cities, developed over many years with a focus onthe city-bound market, partly because it was easier to serve, with rail and tram lines,and later trolleybus and motorbus routes, radiating out from the centre. This focus onradial corridors persists to the present day, though efforts have been made toreconfigure the network to take account of the growth of regional shopping centresand suburban major activity centres such as educational establishments, hospitals,and, most recently, Adelaide Airport. The public transport system’s inability orunwillingness to effectively serve the majority of travellers’ needs has encouraged theuse of the private car for most trips, and in turn the development of outer suburbsdesigned to accommodate the car, some of which are difficult to serve by publictransport because of the configuration of the local streets and the low density ofhousing, thus creating a self-fulfilling, ‘chicken-&-egg’ situation.

Is it possible to change the situation and increase the use of public transport?Whatever the practical and financial challenges, it is necessary to do so, as thecurrent pattern of private car use is unsustainable in the long-term. ‘If peoplecontinue to exercise their choices as they are at present and there are no significantchanges, the resulting traffic growth would have unacceptable consequences for boththe environment and the economy’ (DoE, 1994). There has been some improvementin the intervening 15 years since the concept of sustainability raised environmentalawareness internationally, but the pace of change has been too slow and muchneeds to be done if public transport is ever to become the preferred mode oftransport for the majority of Adelaide’s population.

116


7.2 Progress to Date

In the past 40 years or so, despite the private car dominating metropolitan passengertravel, successive state and local governments in SA have made considerableprogress in improving Adelaide’s public transport, e.g. extending the suburban railservices to Noarlunga and creating a southern node at the interchange there,providing bus shelters, air-conditioning buses, integrating the fare and ticketingsystems, providing the north-east suburbs with bus rapid transit (the O-Bahn),creating community bus networks, and so on. What was once a mix of separate SARsuburban trains, government (MTT) and private buses has gradually been integratedthrough establishment of the former State Transport Authority and continued by itssuccessors the Passenger Transport Board and the Public Transport Division.

However, capital funds for public transport in SA were low compared to finance madeavailable for public transport improvements in other cities, with Perth’s recentimprovements a direct reflection of funding levels many times those available inAdelaide. This situation has now changed for the better: the current StateGovernment now has a program of works to improve major elements of Adelaide’spublic transport system, as described to the Committee in the submission from DTEI(09), including the following rail infrastructure projects:

Re-sleepering the Noarlunga and Belair lines; Constructing a tramline overpass at South Road; Electrifying the Noarlunga and Outer Harbor lines; Extending the tramline to the Entertainment centre; Extending the Noarlunga line to Seaford.

For these and other projects, including replacement buses and improved access forO-Bahn buses into the city, the State Government expects to invest some $2 billionover the period 2008-2018, with some financial assistance from federal governmentprograms. The initial thrust is on rebuilding the rail and tram infrastructure, butimprovements to other services are expected to take place concurrently.

7.3 Strategic Transport Planning

The Senate Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport described a keyissue for improving transport as ‘the need for stable strategic transport plans, withgoals, actions and performance criteria detailed enough to be a basis for measuringperformance’. Given the progress summarised above, the recent publication of the2030 Plan for Greater Adelaide, and the Government’s program of major works, it istimely to package the current initiatives into a strategic transport plan. Just as the1968 MATS plan put ‘flesh on the bones’ of the 1962 Metropolitan DevelopmentPlan, so could a new Strategic Transport Plan complement the 2030 Plan.

Preparation of a strategic transport plan would not be a difficult or time-consumingtask. The Draft Transport Plan – Towards a Sustainable Transport Future, publishedin 2003, could be the template for a new plan. It has the benefit of covering all of SA,not just metropolitan Adelaide, includes all modes of transport (roads, publictransport, freight, cycling, etc.) and embraces present and future demand, andeconomic, environmental and social factors. Creating a new Strategic Transport Planwould enable the 2003 report to be updated and would set the new program of publictransport improvements, the costs involved and the budgets required, into a strategic

117


framework, provide a guideline for the medium-term future, and form a platform onwhich longer-term plans can be developed. It would demonstrate that South Australiawas ‘adopting an integrated, inter-modal, best-practice approach to transportplanning and management’ and ‘planning for long-term change’ (Senate Committee -paragraphs 4.75/4.76).

7.4 Capitalising on Opportunities

Improving public transport is only one of a number of measures that might reducelevels of car use and create a more sustainable future. ‘Multiple measures, applied ina consistent manner, are likely to be more effective at changing the volume of caruse…’ (ERC, 1996). Such measures include travel awareness information (such asTravelSmart programs), application of intelligent transport systems, parking controls,congestion charging, fuel taxes, TODs, encouraging cycling, pedestrianisation, etc.However, improvements to public transport are particularly important, as, without thealternative of good public transport services, it would be unreasonable to considerfurther financial or physical constraints on the use of private cars.

Chapter 5 described a range of desirable improvements to public transport inAdelaide. While the current initiatives and projects are commendable, it is importantfor continued efforts be made to raise the general standard of services in all of thefollowing areas if public transport is to be an attractive alternative to the private car:

Frequent services; Reliable services; Bus priority measures; Realistic operating timetables; Accurate and comprehensive public timetables; Convenient and pleasant interchanges; Convenient access to vehicles, stops, interchanges and platforms; Maintaining low fare levels; Smartcard integrated ticketing; Overall comfort and security; and Capacity for shopping, schoolbags and luggage.

The Committee identified the greatest impediment to maintaining such a program ofimprovements as the availability of finance. The capital budget has been increasedgreatly in recent years, as described above, but there has not been a correspondingincrease in the operating budget to cover the contracts between the StateGovernment, its rail and tram operating agency (TransAdelaide) and the privatecontractors providing bus services (currently Torrens Transit, Southlink andTransitplus). To the contrary, the main effort in the last decade or more has been tomaintain the operating budget or make savings. Given the expansion of the rail andtram systems, additional funds will be required to cover increased operating costs. Ifthe overall budget for service contracts is limited to current levels, then savings willhave to made elsewhere in the present system, which will negate the effectiveness ofthe capital works program. It would be folly to cut bus services to fund increased railoperating costs as the improvements to the total network are as important (perhapsmore important) as action on particular corridors. Such cross-subsidisation wouldalso be economically inefficient as the cost recovery on rail services from fares ismuch lower than that on the bus network, and buses carry far more travellers thanthe rail system.

118


7.5 Regional South Australia

Country SA is even more dependent on the private car than the metropolitan area.There are no regional passenger trains, and public transport is provided mainly by anumber of private coach lines, supported by local feeder bus services in someregions. Inter-city services are by air and coach, in all cases on routes radiating outfrom Adelaide. The public transport network is completed by ferries to KangarooIsland, across Spencer Gulf (currently suspended) and the Murray River, and byinternal bus systems in some regional cities.

The Terms of Reference required the Committee to investigate the possibility of re-opening rail services to some regional cities, including Whyalla, Mount Gambier andBroken Hill. It is clear that such services are unlikely to be reintroduced in the nearfuture, and that residents of these cities will continue to rely on the coach operators,airlines and GSR’s interstate trains (which serve Port Augusta, Broken Hill, MurrayBridge and Bordertown). Although demand fluctuates and some of the country publictransport services are only marginally profitable, the frequency of services has beenmaintained at reasonable levels for many years, e.g. four coach and four air serviceson weekdays to and from Whyalla, two coach and at least two air services to andfrom Mount Gambier, and four coach trips to and from Victor Harbor. It is important torecognise that improvement of local public transport in the regional cities and countrytowns is as important as the links to Adelaide, as pointed out in some of thesubmissions and in evidence received by the Committee.

Similarly, as described in Chapter 5, restoration of passenger rail services tolocalities on the fringe of the metropolitan area is unlikely to occur in the short-termfuture, for a number of reasons: there are physical limitations, such as the trackgauge differences through the Adelaide Hills; the Government’s priorities for rail havebeen determined for the immediate future and they do not include most routes on themetropolitan fringe; while in some cases further planning work is necessary todetermine the most effective route and/or technology. (DTEI advised the Committeeit is prepared to undertake feasibility and other studies relating to some of the lineslisted in Term of Reference IV). Taking all these factors into account the Committeedetermined what it sees as a priority order for action on the specific routes, shouldthe opportunity arise and the case for re-opening can be justified, i.e.

Priority1. A short extension of the line from Gawler Central to Concordia and/or a new

park & ride facility.2. A study of public transport in the eastern area of the City of Onkaparinga to

determine possible alternatives uses for the Willunga line right-of way andlinks to the Tonsley/Flinders area.

3. Updating options for rail passenger service to Mount Barker, pending thefindings of the current studies of freight services in and around Adelaide.

4. The possible extension of the line from Seaford to Aldinga.5. Review of the public transport needs of the Barossa, after completion of the

Concordia extension.6. Possible re-opening of the Northfield line.

In the interim, the railway rights-of way should continue to be reserved and protected,and the possibility of improving local bus services in these areas should beconsidered.

119


7.6 Conclusions

I. On the development of an efficient and integrated public transport systemincorporating all forms of public transport and necessary infrastructureimprovements.

I (i) Adelaide’s public transport has gradually been integrated over three decades.However, while the route network and ticketing system is integrated, theorganisational and management structure is not, and the integration of service to thepassengers needs to improve, with more reliable timekeeping, more realistictimetabling of services, more convenient arrangements at interchanges and otherlocations where routes intersect, and an emphasis on creating a pleasant waitingenvironment at stations, interchanges and major stops. Smartcard ticketing isurgently required to replace the ageing Crouzet ticketing technology.

I (ii) Adelaide’s public transport is operated more efficiently than heretofore, but thereare anomalies that should be addressed through more efficient and transparentcontracting arrangements, and more detailed published data on the performance andcosts of services.

I (iii) The current program of transport infrastructure improvements can be expectedto result in upgrading of services, but a system-wide perspective will be required toensure that improvements in particular corridors are matched by improvements inoverall service levels across the network.

I (iv) For the longer term, transport planners should be investigating the next round ofinfrastructure improvements, such as replacement of heavy rail in the north-westsuburbs by LRT, the possibility of LRT replacing buses on the Airport/Henley Beach-City-Norwood-Magill corridor, extension of the rail service from Seaford to Aldingaand other improvements to services in the northern and southern suburbs.

II. On the needs of metropolitan and outer metropolitan regions.

II (i) The greatest need is for more frequent and more reliable services on manyroutes in the public transport system, particularly at evenings and weekends, andalso at other times in outer suburbs. The contrast between peak-hour frequenciesand those found at other times is too great to attract other than CBD-boundcommuters, captive passengers, and those on major rail and bus routes to patronisepublic transport at other times. More frequent and more reliable services would bethe first step to creating higher quality public transport, a particular issue for ourageing society.

II (ii) The need for improved public transport should be put into context by preparationand publication of a new Strategic Transport Plan covering all modes of transportacross South Australia. A new Draft Plan could be prepared quickly and released forpublic consultation by updating the 2003 Draft Transport Plan for South Australia. Ifexisting resources cannot be spared to prepare such a plan, consideration could begiven to a future ‘Thinker-in-Residence’ being invited from interstate or overseas tocomplete the task.

III. On Opportunities and Impediments

III (i) In addition to the improvements recommended above, such as frequent andreliable service, introduction of Smartcard ticketing, and efficient, pleasant

120


interchange arrangements, there are lots of opportunities to improve public transportservices: more bus priority measures (particularly in Grenfell Street), perfecting theSmart Stop electronic information system, expanding on-line information services,accurate and comprehensive printed timetables, and provision of amenities atinterchanges and major stations. The current low fare policy and the accent on safetyfor passengers and staff should be continued as part of overall serviceimprovements.

III (ii) The greatest impediment to continued improvement of public transport is theprovision of finance to cover operating costs. The backlog in maintenance is beingtackled and provision of capital funds for new projects have been budgeted for theforeseeable future, but the impact of these initiatives will be nullified if the operatingbudget is not increased to pay for improved services. If the funds cannot be foundfrom existing resources, consideration should be given to congestion charging and/ora parking levy, all or part of the proceeds from which would be hypothecated to publictransport operations.

IV. On restoring Rail Passenger Services.

IV (i) The Committee’s research concludes that restoration of passenger trainservices to near-metropolitan areas is unlikely to occur in the immediate future, for anumber of reasons outlined earlier in the report. The Committee thereforerecommends:

Continued reservation of rail rights-of-way that are currently unused by railservices.

A short eastward extension of the Gawler line rail service to the plannedConcordia development and construction of a secure park & ride facility at thenew terminal.

Review of the potential for restoring passenger trains to Mount Barker if andwhen all or most freight trains are removed from the Adelaide Hills line tooperate via a new freight by-pass rail line.

A study to determine whether improvements to public transport services in theeastern suburbs of the City of Onkaparinga would benefit from use of theWillunga rail right-of-way through the area.

IV (ii) Although restoring regional rail passenger services to Whyalla and to BrokenHill is possible (both cities, plus Port Augusta, are on the ARTC standard gaugenetwork), such services are unlikely to be needed or justified in the near future.Consideration of re-opening passenger train service to Mount Gambier must awaitany action to standardise and re-open the currently unused broad gauge freightbranch line from Wolseley.

IV (iii) The State Government and member companies of the Bus SA organisationshould review the level of service to near-metropolitan communities and the regionalcities and develop measures to raise the quality and image of coach services, tooffset the view presented to the Committee that improved public transport can onlybe achieved by re-introducing passenger train services.

121


Bibliography

Sources used in this study of efficient and integrated transport in South Australia andelsewhere include the submissions to the ERDC Inquiry and the study reports listedin Chapter 2, public and working timetables, and Annual Reports, FinancialStatements and websites for public transport operations interstate and overseasdescribed in Chapter 4.

Examples of Annual Reports consulted are Dublin (Bus Atha Cliath, 2007), Portland(Tri-Met, 2008) and Vancouver (South Coast British Columbia TransportationAuthority, 2008); and examples of websites accessed: Zurich (www.vbz.ch), Toronto(www.ttc.ca), Sacramento (www.sacrt.com), Auckland (www.maxx.co.nz).

Australian Transport Council: National Guidelines for Transport System Managementin Australia. Canberra, 2006.

Black, A: The Chicago Area Transportation Study, A Case Study of RationalPlanning. Journal of Planning Education & Research, vol 10, 1990.

Bly PH & Oldfield RH: The effects of public transport subsidies on demand andsupply. Transportation Research Part A, vol 20 1986.

Bray DJ: Transport Strategy for Adelaide, Background Report. Transport Policy Unit,Adelaide, 1995.

Bray DJ: Urban transport policy in Australia – smoke, mirrors and failures.Presentation to the Economic Society of Australia (SA), July 2009.

Bray DJ & Wallis IP: Adelaide bus services reform: impacts, achievements andlessons. Research in Transportation Economics, vol 22, 2008.

Bray DJ & Wallis IP: Public transport costs in Adelaide: assessment and implications.Papers of the 23rd ATRF, Perth, 1999.

Dargay JM, Gately D & Sommer M: Vehicle Ownership and Income GrowthWorldwide, 1960-2030. Energy, vol 28, 2007.

Demographia World Urban Areas & Population Projections: 5th ComprehensiveEdition, 2009.

Department of the Environment: Strategy for Sustainable Development. London,1994.

Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development & Local Government:Adelaide Rail Freight Movements Study. Discussion Paper, October 2009.

Director General of Transport: North-east Area Public Transport Review, Positionpaper 3 (Transport to the City). Adelaide, 1977.

Dublin Transport Authority Establishment Team: Report to the Minister for Transport.Dublin, March 2006.

122


Economic Research Centre: Changing Daily Urban Mobility. ECMT Round Tablereport 102. Paris, 1996.

Glaister S & Lewis D: An integrated fares policy for transport in London. Journal ofPublic Economics, vol 9, 1978.

Green R: Public Transport in Kobenhavn. Today’s Railways, vol 12, No 135, 2007.

Haydock D: The Ouest Lyonnais Project. Today’s Railways, vol 12, No 142, 2007.

Heger U: Trip to Paris cheaper than to Charleville. Courier-Mail, Brisbane, 4 July2009.

Hensher DA & Wallis IP: Competitive tendering as a Contracting Mechanism forSubsidising Transport: The Bus Experience. Journal of Transport Economics &Policy, vol 39, 2005.

Hill R: The Toulouse Metro and the South Yorkshire Supertram, a cross-culturalcomparison. Transport Policy, vol 2 1995.

Industry Commission: Urban Transport (2 vols.). AGPS, Melbourne, 1994.

Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal: Government Payments for PublicTransport. Transport Interim Report No. 1, Sydney,1996.

Infrastructure Australia: A Report to the Australian Council of Governments. Sydney,2008.

Institute for Sustainable Systems and Technologies: Value of public transport assetsin major Australian cities. Draft working paper, Adelaide, 2009.

Isaacs V: Train Times. 7th Edition, Canberra, 2007.

Janes Urban Transport Systems. (www.juts.janes.com)

Kidwell H: Dubai – Building for the future. Tramways & Urban Transit, vol 82, May2009.

LEK Consulting: Cost Review of CityRail’s Regular Passenger Services. IPART,Sydney, 2008.

Mees P: Urban form and sustainable transport in Australian, Canadian and US cities.World Transport Policy & Practice, vol 15, 2009.

Mees P, O’Connell G & Stone J: Travel to Work in Australian Capital Cities, 1976-2006. Urban Policy & Research, vol 26, 2008.

National Economic Research Associates: Models of the Provision, Regulation andIntegration of Public Transport Services. London, 2001.

NSW Government: Ministerial Inquiry into Sustainable Transport in New South Wales(The Parry Report). Sydney, 2003.

R Travers Morgan Pty Ltd: The Incidence of Public Transport Subsidies in Adelaide.Director General of Transport, Adelaide, 1984.

123


Smith KA: Tales from a Railway Odyssey. Elizabeth, 2001.

Somenahali SVC & Taylor MAP: Elderly Mobility: Issues, Opinions and Analysis oftrip making in Adelaide. Papers of the 30th Australasian Transport Research Forum,2007.

The Senate Rural & Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee:Investment of Commonwealth and State funds in public passenger transportinfrastructure and services. Canberra, 2009.

Vincent GF: Railway Track & Signalling – South Australia Country. Magill, 2007.

124


Submissions

No. Organisation Author Dated1 - David Ingleton 17/4/082 - Anne Sorensen 21/7/083 - Dr Bill Gransbury 9/7/084 - Mr David H Mahlo 11/7/085 - Ruth Sard 10/7/086 - Brian Leedham 18/7/087 - John Drennan 24/6/088 - Don & Therese Peterson 9/8/089 SA Government Hon Patrick Conlon MP

Minister for Transport11/8/08

10 - Trevor & Liz Langridge 15/8/0811 - Paul Henley 26/8/0812 - Peter Hoye 7/9/0813 - Peter Heuzenroeder 5/9/0814 Lutheran Community Care Robyn Richter, Regional Manager 1/9/0815 DC Grant Russell J Peate, CEO 23/9/0816 - Rob Clack 29/9/0917 - Ken Jermy 8/10/0918 - Jill Mitchell 8/10/0919 - Kate Sankey 10/10/0920 - Shirley Clarke 12/10/0921 - James & Jodie Linke 11/10/0922 - Geraldine Morphett 8/10/0923 - Marlene & James McLennon -24 - Steve & Fay Alford 16/10/0925 - Joyce & George Hunt 18/10/0926 - Julie Close 17/10/0927 - Sandra Williams 18/10/0928 - Kevin & Ann Jones 21/10/0929 Marion Wentririo 21/10/0930 Blenkiron, Walker & Koch 11/10/0931 Dot White 23/10/0932 Les Fordham 24/10/0933 AMG Paul Smith 24/10/0834 Paul Aslin 25/10/0835 Aidan Stanger 25/10/0936 Dr Jennifer Bonham 25/10/0937 Hatton- Jones 27/10/0938 B Turner 7/11/0939 Graham Nixon -40 CCSA Jamnes Danenberg 3/11/0941 PPT Thanasis Avramis 5/11/0942 Hugh McMaster 14/12/08

125


Witnesses

Organisation Witnesses DateDepartment ofTransport, Energyand Infrastructure

Jim Hallion, Chief Executive; Rob Richards,Director, Sustainable Transport Policy andPlanning Division; Heather Webster,Executive Director, Public TransportDivision; Heather Haselgrove, DirectorCustomer Service, Public Transport Division

24/9/08

SA TourismCommission

Mark Gill, Manager Access Development 24/6/09

Barossa and LightRegionalDevelopment Board

Anne Maroney, Chief Executive 24/6/09

Barossa Wine andGrape

Sam Holmes, Chief Executive Officer 24/6/09

Barossa RailPassenger ActionGroup

Paul Henley, Brian Leedham and ElizabethLangridge

24/6/09

Australian Food andBeverage Group PtyLtd

Matthew McCulloch, General Manager 24/6/09

65 public transport - ppt public transport-1.pdf · pp 282 final report public transport sixty -...

Documents