Executive summary and recommendations
Chapter 1: conduct of the inquiry
Significant increases in urban public transport use in
recent years have caused complaints about overcrowding and focussed attention
on the need for improvement. Problems of urban traffic congestion have had
renewed attention since the publication of a 2007 report which projects a
greatly increased congestion cost in future under business as usual
assumptions.[1]
Rising oil prices and changing climate have also increased the demand upon and
the need for public transport.
The detrimental health effects of inactive, car-dependent
lifestyles have had increased attention in recent years as part of the
discussion of the 'obesity epidemic'.
In the committee's view these issues make the inquiry
timely.
All submissions argued, and the committee agrees, that
public transport and active transport create community benefits which justify
supporting them with public subsidies.
Key issues for improving public transport include:
-
the need for stable strategic transport plans, with goals,
actions and performance criteria detailed enough to be a basis for monitoring
performance;
-
the need for best practice institutional arrangements so that the
city's public transport service is planned and delivered as a fully integrated
network;
-
the need to properly integrate transport planning with urban
planning more generally.
Most of the discussion in the report, following the
submissions, is about public transport in cities, since that is where the
traffic congestion problems are greatest, and that is where the research on
transport disadvantage focusses. That is not intended to downplay the
significance of rural and regional transport issues. [1.8]
Chapter 2: background information on public transport in Australia
Metropolitan travel in passenger-kilometres is about 85-90
per cent by car, 10 per cent by public transport and the rest by cycling and
walking. The public transport share is much higher for trips to central
business districts, where services are best and problems of traffic congestion
and parking most favour public transport (for example, public transport handles
72 per cent of work trips to the central business district of Sydney). [2.9, 2.12]
Public transport trips as a share of all metropolitan trips
has been mostly stable since about 1980 as ridership has grown slowly in
proportion to population growth. However increases significantly above trend
have occurred in most capital cities in the last few years, leading to
complaints about overcrowding. [2.17]
Urban public transport services are mostly provided (funded)
by State governments. The operator may be a corporatised state-owned authority
or private providers under contract to government. Farebox cost recovery is
usually about 20 to 35 per cent. [2.25, 2.28]
Chapter 3: benefits of public transport
Public transport to reduce traffic
congestion
On present trends the cost of urban traffic congestion is
projected to increase significantly. The Bureau of Transport and Regional
Economics has estimated that if all metropolitan public transport, cycling and
walking trips were car trips, the cost of congestion would be about $3 billion
higher than it is. This is expected to double by 2020 [3.7, 3.9]
It is inevitable that as our cities grow public transport
must play a greater role in combating traffic congestion. [3.12]
Congestion charging can help reduce congestion by
discouraging motorists from travelling at the most congested times and places.
The economic benefits of congestion charging are well established, however it
has been politically difficult because of the perception that it is 'yet
another tax on motorists'. Better public transport is essential to make
congestion charges economically defensible and politically palatable by giving
more motorists other choices. [3.23,3.25]
Public transport to improve the
urban amenity
Car-limiting and public transport friendly planning policies
economise the amount of land needed for roads and parking, land which may be
put to more attractive uses; and they strengthen older activity centres which
are usually more accessible by public transport and have a better and safer environment
for pedestrians. [3.28]
There is strong world-wide evidence that public transport
improvements (particularly congestion-free railways or busways) improve nearby
property values. [3.29]
Public transport for environmental
goals
Public transport is more energy efficient than car
transport, and so will contribute to reducing oil dependence and reducing
greenhouse gas emissions. [3.33]
Public transport to promote public
health
More public transport use will reduce the health costs of
road crashes and atmospheric pollution, and promote active lifestyles and help
reduce obesity. [3.46ff]
Public transport to reduce
transport disadvantage and social isolation
Better public transport will reduce the transport
disadvantage and social isolation suffered by people without cars. It will
reduce the need for urban fringe dwellers to spend an excessive proportion of
their income running cars. [3.59ff]
Chapter 4: Improving public transport
Need for better services
The most prominent comment in submissions was the need for improvements
to public transport service. The most important elements of this are speed and
frequency. Bus/tram priority measures are important to make public transport
congestion-free and improve reliability, and are considered worthy of
significant investment. [4.3, 4.6, 4.7]
Need for a complete network
To encourage public transport use for trips other than
commutes to the city centre it is important to have a complete network of
sufficiently frequent routes with quality interchange facilities. With a
complete network and convenient transfers the effective reach of the network
may be greatly increased very cost effectively. [4,13, 4.15]
Need for a legible network, good
information services, multimodal ticketing
To encourage occasional users and transfer trips, it is
essential to have a legible network of routes and clear information about
timetables and ticketing, and a convenient multi-modal ticketing system that
does not discourage transfer trips. [4.17, 4.21]
Need to integrate cycling and
walking measures with public transport
Submissions noted the need to plan measures to encourage
cycling and walking in conjunction with public transport measures, as they
support each other. Cycling can greatly increase the catchment of train
stations, while almost all public transport trips have a walking component.
[4.27]
Need for better institutional
arrangements
Submissions stressed the need for good governance to make
sure that public transport services are delivered effectively and to make sure
that infrastructure investment is prioritised widely. The key element of this
was usually said to be a single regional public transport authority with the
power and responsibility to plan and deliver the city's public transport service
in an integrated way under a single brand (whether or not service provision is
contracted out). [4.37]
Need for a strategic transport plan
Submissions stressed the need for a long term strategic
transport plan for each major city and region as a whole, which has goals,
actions and performance criteria detailed enough for performance to be
monitored. [4.42]
Need to integrate transport
planning and urban planning
Submissions stressed the need to integrate transport
planning with urban planning generally. [4.45]
Increasing residential density generally is often suggested
as a way of promoting public transport use; however this is controversial. The
committee takes no position here on the urban consolidation debate, but
stresses that planning initiatives to promote walking and cycling and public
transport provision can and should be done regardless of views about the best
overall urban population density. [4.51]
Need for infrastructure investment
Most submissions argued the need for significant investment in
public transport infrastructure. However they stressed the need for orderly
cost benefit analysis and prioritisation that gives adequate attention to
external costs and matters hard to quantify, in keeping with a city-wide long
term strategic transport plan.[2]
[4.53]
The committee agrees that significant catch-up investment in
public transport infrastructure is needed, particularly in light of the current
strong growth in patronage, and the inevitability that congestion-free public
transport will be more important in future as our cities become bigger and more
congested. [4.59]
Issues for rural and regional
public transport
Many submissions raised concerns about poor public transport
in rural and regional areas. A key challenge for governments is to provide more
effective service without excessively increasing the cost in public subsidy.
However even without increasing operational budgets there is obviously room for
improvement in providing better centralised information and marketing, and
coordinating services so that the timetables are rational and riders are not
hampered by bureaucratic restrictions relating to operators' territories. [4.62,
4.66]
Special needs public transport,
community transport
Some needs which are currently met inadequately or not at
all by regular public transport may be more suitable for community transport.
Submissions noted the increasing burden that is falling on local councils who
provide transport not only for special needs groups but also to make up for the
lack of adequate regular public transport. [4.67, 4.71]
Need to plan for long term change
The aim of improving public transport is to change people’s
travel behaviour in favour of more sustainable, less car-dependent, less
congested cities. We can expect change to be slow, as it requires changing
patterns of urban development and human behaviour developed over two
generations. The important thing is to set a trend to reduce car-dependence in
the long term. [4.76]
Chapter 5: the role of the Australian Government
Past Australian Government
involvement in public transport
The Australian Government operated a Urban Public Transport
Program (1990-93) and the Better Cities program (1991-96). More recently it has
contributed to 'Travelsmart' behavioural change programs, however this funding
ceased in June 2009. Otherwise the Australian Government's policy in recent
years has been that urban public transport is the responsibility of the
states/territories. [5.2ff, 5.14]
Recommendation 1 (paragraph 5.13)
That the Commonwealth recognise the cost-effectiveness of
the 'Travelsmart' behaviour change program and consider reinstating funding for
it from an appropriate department.
However the Australian Government has recently signalled a
renewed interest in urban policy by establishing a Major Cities Unit in
Infrastructure Australia, the Government's new infrastructure advisory body.
The 2009 budget funded a number of significant urban public transport projects.
[5.15]
The Australian Government also contributes to the
Commonwealth/State Home and Community Care program, which has a transport
component. On the evidence it seems that there is potential to improve the
interface between regular public transport and community transport to ensure
the most cost-effective service to the most people. The Committee recommends
that the Department of Health and Ageing, which is accountable for the
efficient use of HACC transport funds, should be mindful of this in negotiation
of future HACC agreements. [5.16]
Recommendation 2 (paragraph 5.17)
The Commonwealth in future negotiation of HACC agreements
should be mindful of -
-
the effectiveness of present community transport services;
-
future transport needs of groups targeted by community
transport;
-
appropriate balance between community transport, regular
public transport and taxis to meet those needs; and
-
appropriate division of responsibilities, actions and funding
to meet those needs.
National leadership for best
practice transport planning
Submissions argued that there should be greater national
coordination of transport policy. The Committee notes and supports recent work
by the National Transport Commission and the Australian Transport Council in
this regard. [5.24, 5.27]
Nationally coordinated public
transport research
Submissions argued that there is a need for greater national
coordination and support of research relating to best practice public transport
planning and operations. The committee agrees that there is a need for a
national transport research agency whose remit includes detailed technical
research on public transport and active transport. Whether this should be a new
body or should be done by extending the remit of one of the existing bodies
(BITRE, Austroads or ARRB) would be a matter for further consideration. [5.33]
Recommendation 3 (paragraph 5.34)
The Australian Government in consultation with the
states/territories and other stakeholders should establish a national transport
research body suitable to be a national centre for detailed research into
world's best practice public transport and active transport.
A public transport and active
transport funding program
Submissions urged the Australian Government to establish an
ongoing funding program for public transport and active transport comparable to
its roads programs. [5.35]
The committee agrees that the demand on public transport
infrastructure will continue to rise and require an expansion of its role and
capacity in meeting the commuter task. Nevertheless, public transport has
traditionally been the responsibility of the states and a key element of
service delivery regarding which the voting public quite rightly hold their
state governments to account. Moreover, public transport involves complex urban
planning, land use and development decisions that are best carried out by the states
since they are the closest constitutional level of government to the community.
The Committee does not propose to recommend that this should change. [5.43]
Recommendation 4 (paragraph 5.44)
Commonwealth funding for public transport should only occur in
the context of overall funding for infrastructure projects that meet a strict
merit-base criteria. These include an objective assessment of the broader
community and economic benefits and the degree to which the sponsoring state
government has adopted an integrated, inter-modal, best-practice approach to
transport planning and management. The Commonwealth can only make such
decisions in the context of broader judgements regarding all competing
infrastructure projects that have national significance.
Suggested tax incentives for public
transport
Submissions suggested that there should be tax incentives to
use public transport. On the other hand, Treasury has previously argued that a
tax benefit for public transport use would seem to be contrary to the fundamental
principle of distinguishing work-related and private expenditure in the tax
system. [5.45, 5.49]
The committee is not inclined to recommend tax concessions
for public transport at present. However the committee agrees that the likely
benefits should be further investigated. [5.51]
Recommendation 5 (paragraph 5.52)
The Government should investigate options for tax incentives
for public transport including estimating their likely effects on people's
travel behaviour.
Measures that encourage 'buy-in' by employers to promoting
sustainable transport in their workforces should be encouraged. [5.53]
Recommendation 6 (paragraph 5.54)
Government support for behavioural change programs
('Travelsmart') should include measures to encourage 'buy-in' by employers in
promoting sustainable transport in their workforces.
Fringe benefits taxation of cars
Submissions argued that the concessionary tax treatment of
cars as a fringe benefit (car FBT) should be abolished. They argued that the
concession encourages the use of cars, significantly contributes to urban
traffic congestion and parking problems, and is contrary to widely held goals
to promote public transport and restrain transport greenhouse emissions. [5.56]
The statutory formula used to calculate car FBT encourages
excess driving to reach the next distance band which earns a lower tax. This
undesirable situation can easily be remedied by adjusting the statutory
formula. [5.76-7]
Recommendation 7 (paragraph 5.79)
The Government should amend the car FBT statutory formula to
remove the incentive to drive fringe benefits cars excessively to reach the
next threshold.
The statutory formula is also generally concessionary. The
committee accepts submissions that this encourages a car culture in the
workplace, contributes to traffic congestion, and hinders the take up of public
transport. [5.84]
The Committee considers that the Government should state the
purpose of concessionary FBT of cars more clearly, and investigate the likely
effects of making it less concessionary. [5.91]
Recommendation 8 (paragraph 5.92)
In relation to fringe benefits taxation of cars by the
statutory formula method -
-
the Government should state the purpose of making the tax
concessionary (noting that whether the tax should be concessionary, and whether
there should be a statutory formula for the sake of easy compliance, are
different questions);
-
the Government should investigate and report on how well the
concession is achieving its purpose; and
-
the Government should investigate and report on what the
likely effects on consumer behaviour would be if the concessionary aspect of
car FBT was reduced or removed.
Other FBT related issues
Taxi travel to and from work in certain circumstances is an
exempt benefit (no FBT is paid). Public transport fares to and from work are
not exempt. This difference is unjustified and inequitable. The scope of FBT
exemptions should be consistent between car transport and public transport.
[5.93, 5.95]
Recommendation 9 (paragraph 5.96)
The Government should change FBT rules so that the scope of
exemptions is consistent between car transport and public transport.
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page