The report of Sir Rod Eddington into Melbourne's transport needs has opened up all the predictable responses from pressure groups favouring public transport modes and from cranks who loathe the Australian ''love affair with the car''.
Some do not want the city to be a big metropolis. Others favour public transport because of greenhouse gas emissions from cars, apparently unaware of the Australian Greenhouse Office data showing that Melbourne's buses emit more carbon dioxide per passenger kilometre than the average car.
The report seeks to provide guidance into transport needs for the next three decades. It recognises that all the heavy lifting has to be by road unless the city is to be throttled. But to placate the public transport lobby, it suggests an equivalent amount, $9 billion, be spent on trams and rail as on roads.
The starting point of any analysis must recognise the small and declining role of public transport. Cars account for 91% of passenger kilometres (from 89% in the mid-1970s) while public transport takes 9% (from 16% in the mid-1970s).
Not even the Government's carefully selected transport experts think these proportions will change much. There has actually been a small increase in recent years in public transport's share of the journey-to-work market. But much of this is spurred by greater parking difficulties and congestion causing longer car trips. Making the city even more unwelcome to cars would defeat the purpose since this would cause businesses to seek out more car-friendly locations, thus reversing public transport's recent gains.
The report states with pride that Melbourne's tram network is the largest in the world. Melburnians are attached to their trams but, let's face it, they are an obsolete transport mode. They probably pay less than one-third of their expenses and use a lot of road space -- that's why throughout the world they have been replaced as major people carriers. Trams account for little more than 1% of passenger miles, down from 2% in the mid-1970s.
Buses have advantages of greater flexibility over trams but their share of trips since the mid-1970s has halved to 2%. One problem is that the bus companies have feudal privileges that shelter them from competition. If people were permitted to establish bus routes without requiring a permit, the needs of consumers would be much better met. But little is changing and the Stalinist planning of the SmartBus designed to orbit the city is doomed to failure in its ability to attract patronage.
It is tempting to see the Eddington report as a sales document. It seeks to diffuse opposition by giving equally to public transport and roads. It adds sweeteners such as ruling out road ramps into the inner city to placate a vocal segment of the population. For good measure it throws in $60 million for bike paths.
One goal of this is allowing the road elements to gain early approval, especially since they will largely be toll funded. This would allow the more costly elements of the public transport proposals to be put on hold. There is hardly anywhere in the world where rail and tram lines are consumer funded and the report's ambitious suggestions would prove no exception. The Brumby Government might march off to Canberra for a handout to undertake the job.
A more likely upshot is that the Government will opt for a less expensive means of increasing public transport capacity through route extensions and better signalling and equipment.
Trains, buses and trams worked well in the days before the car when cities were compact and origins and destinations were few. A modern city has infinite origins and destinations made all the more difficult for public transport to serve by densities that are less than a quarter of what they were 50 years ago.
Mass transit such as trains can be effective in serving the dense corridors radiating from the city centre. Buses are a useful supplement on less dense routes. But only 10% of trips are to the city centre -- and far less than this in the case of the more distant suburbs. If the city is to remain a major commercial centre, planners have to accept the people's preferences for the car and adapt the city accordingly, leaving public transport with only a residual role.
ADVERTISEMENT
No comments:
Post a Comment