# Why is public transportation in Australia bad?



## cornucopian (7 June 2014)

I live in the U.S and I have always thought Australia has good public transportation.

I was reading on Wikipedia that Australians are highly dependent on their cars for transportation.

From Wikipedia(transport in Australia):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transport_in_Australia

_Australia has the second highest level of car ownership in the world. It has three to four times more road per capita than Europe and seven to nine times more than Asia. Australia also has the third highest per capita rate of fuel consumption in the world. Melbourne is the most car-dependent city in Australia, as of a data survey in the 2010s. Having over 110,000 more cars driving to and from the city each day than Sydney. Perth, Adelaide and Brisbane are rated as being close behind. All these capital cictes are rated among the highest in this category in the world (car dependency).[1] Furthermore, the distance travelled by car (or similar vehicle) in Australia is among the highest in the world, being exceeded by USA and Canada_.

With high fuel prices, how are people able to afford and drive one? Finally, will public transportation improve in the coming years?

I am trying to invest in countries that are less dependent on oil and energy in general.


----------



## bellenuit (7 June 2014)

cornucopian said:


> I live in the U.S and I have always thought Australia has good public transportation.
> 
> I was reading on Wikipedia that Australians are highly dependent on their cars for transportation.
> 
> ...




In a sentence: because we have low density populations and vast intercity distances.

For instance, I believe the physical size of greater Perth (taking in all adjoining suburbs and towns) is bigger than London and not far off that of Tokyo, but has a population 5 to 8 times less respectively. There is no way you could run a public transport system that is on a par with London and Tokyo in Perth, particularly to the outer suburbs. The density of people is not sufficient to warrant services of equivalent frequency and penetration. This in turn makes public transport less attractive to those outer suburb residences, so they ignore the services they have.

It will gradually change over time, as the cost of fuel forces people on to public transport. Also, cities will tend to infill rather than continually expand, increasing the population density and making it more viable to build transport infrastructure.

The 2nd point is the distance between main population centres. Perth again is a prime example. The nearest city to Perth with a population over 1M is Adelaide and the distance between them is on a par with that between London and Moscow. Running frequent high speed trains between such distant and comparatively small population centres is not feasible. The only exception may be the Melbourne - Canberra - Sydney - Brisbane route, but probably not anywhere else. In contrast, look at a map of England or Japan and you will see lots of 1M+ population centres in relatively close proximity to each other.


----------



## Smurf1976 (7 June 2014)

Population density is a key factor but there's also another issue relating to the political and management approach.

In general terms, city public transport systems in Australia are unprofitable and subsidised (from general taxation revenue) since they are deemed a necessary public service to provide. Either government directly runs the system and incurs a financial loss doing so, or the system is privately run but provided with a subsidy by government.

If you have a high population density city and can make a profit then running good public transport is relatively easy. Not so when you lose money every time a bus leaves the depot, in that case the natural tendency is to provide only the bare minimum of services deemed necessary for social reasons and leave everyone else to drive a car.

That said, public transport in the cities is good enough to get from A to B in most cases. It's a workable option, but not as convenient for most as driving.


----------



## cornucopian (7 June 2014)

My main worry is that we might have an oil crisis in the near future which will cause a worldwide recession.

I didn't realize cities in Australia have such low population densities. 

Do you think New Zealand might fare better? Personally, I have been looking at Scandanavian stocks. The population there seems to be happy to use public transportation and cars are very expensive due to taxation.

Japan has excellent public transportation, but it is deep in debt. Sadly, there seems to be no place to hide...


----------



## SirRumpole (7 June 2014)

cornucopian said:


> My main worry is that we might have an oil crisis in the near future which will cause a worldwide recession.
> 
> I didn't realize cities in Australia have such low population densities.
> 
> ...




The US apparently has "endless" supplies of shale oil. It will get harder to extract and more expensive but I don't think there is going to be an oil crisis in the near future.


----------



## cornucopian (7 June 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> The US apparently has "endless" supplies of shale oil. It will get harder to extract and more expensive but I don't think there is going to be an oil crisis in the near future.




I agree. The problem is can consumers pay for it? As long as we have carbon and hydrogen, we can create/manufacture endless amounts of oil. Most people are struggling to pay $4 here. Imagine if prices hit $5? We are looking at a depression.


----------



## McLovin (7 June 2014)

Smurf1976 said:


> Population density is a key factor but there's also another issue relating to the political and management approach.
> 
> In general terms, city public transport systems in Australia are unprofitable and subsidised (from general taxation revenue) since they are deemed a necessary public service to provide. Either government directly runs the system and incurs a financial loss doing so, or the system is privately run but provided with a subsidy by government.
> 
> ...




Isn't there also a chicken and egg problem? Most cities with high densities became dense because of things like metros. In Australia governments seem to be waiting for everyone to live on top of each other in perpetual gridlock before they will actually do anything. Sydney and Melbourne could easily sustain a real metro. I'm no town planner but how stupid is it that if someone wants to go to Newtown (10 mins from the CBD) they are put on the same train as someone wanting to go to Campbelltown (1h10m from the CBD)...


----------



## SirRumpole (7 June 2014)

cornucopian said:


> I agree. The problem is can consumers pay for it? As long as we have carbon and hydrogen, we can create/manufacture endless amounts of oil. Most people are struggling to pay $4 here. Imagine if prices hit $5? We are looking at a depression.




Is that $4 a gallon ?

Luxury.

We pay ~ $1.60 per litre -> $6 per gallon. There is no depression here, yet, but given enough time I'm sure our government can make one.


----------



## pinkboy (7 June 2014)

Public transport???  ...ewwwwww!

Nothing else screams 'cool' like a hotted up metallic chameleon Hyundai with chrome mags, sunburned right elbow, with 50 cent bashing your eardrums, ciggie hanging from the lips!

The bus just ain't cool bro!


pinkboy


----------



## cornucopian (7 June 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Is that $4 a gallon ?
> 
> Luxury.
> 
> We pay ~ $1.60 per litre -> $6 per gallon. There is no depression here, yet, but given enough time I'm sure our government can make one.




Yes. $ 4 a gallon. The U.S is more car dependent than Australia. Public transportation is almost non existent for most people.  American cars/trucks  are also less fuel efficient because they tend to be heavier and larger in size. I think gasoline prices here a much bigger impact than the rest of the world. 

Goods also travel much longer distances here. Most of the fruits and vegetables I ate today, came from California which is about 4789 km from where I live.

I can see people carpooling and making changes but there are limits. The average American is loaded with debt and even a small  increase in gas prices will make it hard to pay the bills.


----------



## sptrawler (7 June 2014)

cornucopian said:


> Yes. $ 4 a gallon. The U.S is more car dependent than Australia. Public transportation is almost non existent for most people.  American cars/trucks  are also less fuel efficient because they tend to be heavier and larger in size. I think gasoline prices here a much bigger impact than the rest of the world.
> 
> Goods also travel much longer distances here. Most of the fruits and vegetables I ate today, came from California which is about 4789 km from where I live.
> 
> I can see people carpooling and making changes but there are limits. The average American is loaded with debt and even a small  increase in gas prices will make it hard to pay the bills.




Don't worry too much about what SirRumpole said, he will blame it on Tony Abbott, the Australian Prime Minister, apparently he is to blame for the worlds problems.lol

Just joking cornucopian, the U.S has been through a huge economic upheaval, but from the information we are hearing things seem to be improving.

The U.S model of having most services supplied by the private sector, seems to be riddled with problems. 
Not the least being lack of funding to those services that aren't returning a profit. Which leads to an ever decreasing service.


----------



## Smurf1976 (7 June 2014)

If you are looking for a country to invest in based on oil then the one that stands out above all the rest is Canada.

Canada has the third largest reserves of any country, exceeded only by Saudi Arabia and Venezuela, and is a "friendly" country in which to invest when compared to most other oil-rich nations.

Whilst most of Canada's oil is in the form of oil sands which are economically marginal at present, if the oil price goes up sufficiently then that makes this oil source a lot more viable economically. So a rise in price and a rise in physical production would be likely also - both of which are good news for the broader economy there.

Energy in Canada:

Oil - Production is about double the rate of domestic consumption. Third largest reserve holder in the world. 

Gas - Canada is a net exporter of gas (to the US).

Coal - Production is slightly higher than consumption, they are basically self sufficient in coal.

Uranium - 18% of world production (second place behind Kazakhstan) and 9% of world reserves (third place behind Australia and Kazakhstan).

Electricity - Almost entirely from domestic resources with hydro (64%), nuclear (15%), coal (13%), gas (6%) as the major sources and minor amounts from wind, wood and oil. 

So for the OP living in the US and concerned about the impact of oil on investments, Canada seems the obvious place to look. Certainly they'd have some issues at the consumer level with rising fuel prices as would most countries, but as a whole they are either self-sufficient or a net exporter of every energy source so should do better in a crisis situation than countries relying on imports. 

As for Australia, well we're the 4th largest coal producer in the world and have the 5th largest reserves with most production being exported. Australia also exports significant amounts of gas (as LNG). We have 31% of the world's uranium and account for 11% of production (all of which is exported, there being no nuclear power industry in Australia). Australian electricity is almost entirely from domestic resources, with coal (around 75%) being dominant and most of the rest from gas, hydro and wind in that order.

Australia's big energy weakness however is oil. Demand is rising, production is falling and much of what we use is imported as refined products. So whilst Australia exports energy overall (as coal, gas and uranium) we are very much an importer so far as oil is concerned, and the scale of imports is rising quite rapidly.


----------



## prawn_86 (8 June 2014)

sptrawler said:


> The U.S model of having most services supplied by the private sector, seems to be riddled with problems.
> Not the least being lack of funding to those services that aren't returning a profit. Which leads to an ever decreasing service.




I have been living in the US for nearly a year now and for a so called 'super power' there is so much wrong with many of their services and systems.

Unfortunately Australia continues to go down the same route privatising and selling off everything. Just because the US is big doesnt mean it is successful (any more) yet other Western governments dont seem to notice that


----------



## SirRumpole (8 June 2014)

prawn_86 said:


> I have been living in the US for nearly a year now and for a so called 'super power' there is so much wrong with many of their services and systems.
> 
> Unfortunately Australia continues to go down the same route privatising and selling off everything. Just because the US is big doesnt mean it is successful (any more) yet other Western governments dont seem to notice that




The continual trade off between quality and cheapness.

What do we really want ?


----------



## Smurf1976 (8 June 2014)

So far as people using public transport in Australian cities is concerned, it largely comes down to convenience.

If you're a city office worker in Sydney or Melbourne then commuting by train, tram or bus is an option that many people do choose, simply because it's easy (no need to worry about traffic and driving), you don't have the hassle or cost of having to park a car all day (and parking isn't cheap) and overall it's not much different in terms of time from home to work and back.

But if you're not working right in the city center, well then actually getting to work via public transport will for most people involve changing services. Get one train or bus, get off and wait for another one. So it's a lot more hassle. Add in that parking tends to be much more easily available outside the center of a city, often at no cost, and driving becomes attractive since it's considerably quicker (due to the need to change services) and there's not much of a financial issue with it either.

For the smaller cities, and that's basically anywhere that isn't Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth or Adelaide then traffic and parking just isn't that much of a hassle. In Hobart (population 0.2 million for the OP) I can drive from home to work in 10 minutes if I get a good run, make that 20 minutes if it's raining and I get stopped at red lights and so on. The bus that runs not far from me, it's about a 5 minute walk to the bus stop, just can't compete with that time. Walking to and from it alone takes longer than driving, and then there's the multiple stops the bus makes along the way, and of course the time spent moving is the same as a car anyway. So the bus is far slower and not much cheaper in a small city where there's no real need to pay for parking (and it's cheap even if you did want to park right in the CBD).

But public transport does work as such in Australian cities, it's just not as convenient for most (exception of city office workers in the larger cities) as driving. I never bother renting a car if I'm in one of the 5 larger Australian cities since there's plenty of trains, trams, ferries and/or buses to get me where I need to go. But that said, as a visitor I'm not generally in a hurry, it just doesn't bother me that the tram or train takes twice as long as it would take to drive (and of course I'd be relying on the GPS to tell me where to go anyway).

But if I was living in one of the bigger cities and doing the same trip every day then there's an incentive to find the fastest and most economical way of doing it. If it's into the city center then driving is costly (due to parking) but for other locations that's not usually such a problem. And driving is, in most cases, faster than public transport. Hence people choosing to drive.


----------



## Junior (8 June 2014)

Agree with Smurf's summation.

I live and work inner east Melbourne, so catch PT a lot and it works well for me.  As Smurf said, as soon as you're not in or near the CBD driving wins.

The size of Melbourne supports significantly expanded underground rail IMO.  Obviously it is a costly exercise and would run at a loss for some time, but long term would be heavily utilised and reduce reliance on cars.  Wherever a new station is built could support high density housing in that immediate area, reducing the never-ending urban sprawl and reducing reliance on cars & roads.  Expand bike lanes and aim to reduce the number of cars in and near CBD, improve air quality and quality of life!


----------



## Smurf1976 (8 June 2014)

For the info of the OP and anyone else not living in Australia, public transport systems in Australian state and territory capital cities. Population rounded to the nearest 0.1 million.

Note - Trains in Australian cities are electric on suburban routes except Adelaide (diesel but they are converting some to electric). Trains for longer distances are, in general, diesel. Buses generally have diesel engines, although a significant number of natural gas powered buses are in use in Australian cities also.

Sydney (population 4.7 million) - train, bus, ferry are the main means. Plus there's a small light rail (tram) system near the city center.

Melbourne (population 4.3 million) - train, tram are the main means, plus buses in areas not near a train or tram line (eg catch bus to train station, then take train to city). Trams are a well known and somewhat iconic feature of Melbourne - tourists tend to take photos of them and go for a ride for the sake of it. Melbourne's tram network is the largest in the world at present.

Brisbane (population 2.2 million) - train, bus and ferry.

Perth (population 1.9 million) - train, bus.

Adelaide (population 1.3 million) - bus, train and there's a single tram line (extended a few years ago) which is fairly heavily used especially within the city center area. Adelaide also has a somewhat unusual bus "track" - the O-Bahn. It's basically a concrete track-like road that buses (with minor modifications to make them compatible) run on, then the same bus continues on ordinary roads right into the city center. It has stations along the track in a similar manner as you have stations with a train system. Video of it is here (not the most exciting video but shows how it works). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPhhbF0Ms7g

Canberra (population 0.4 million) - bus. Notable point about Canberra is that it basically doesn't have traffic congestion, at least not to any significant extent.

Hobart (population 0.2 million) - bus is the main means and there's a very minor privately owned ferry service (it's a very small operation though). Hobart has relatively minor traffic congestion during peak periods, though not to the point that most would consider it a problem - worst case it adds a few minutes to your trip.

Darwin (population 0.1 million) - bus.


----------



## sptrawler (8 June 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> The continual trade off between quality and cheapness.
> 
> What do we really want ?



That really is the question Rumpole.

The problem with public transport is, it is very similar to the problem with the electricity grid, they have to carry excess capacity for peak periods.
This is why smurph and others say, some things should remain public utilities. 
They provide an essential service, that due to consumer demand is required to be over serviced, therefore are not financially viable.
To put them in private hands, has to end up with a reduced service or an increased cost.


----------



## DB008 (8 June 2014)

Simple answer - Population density

I was in South Korea a few years ago. WOW. Their metro/tube system (not including buses) is out of this world. Even better than Hong Kong and London...


----------



## SirRumpole (8 June 2014)

sptrawler said:


> That really is the question Rumpole.
> 
> The problem with public transport is, it is very similar to the problem with the electricity grid, they have to carry excess capacity for peak periods.
> This is why smurph and others say, some things should remain public utilities.
> ...




I agree that some utilities eg power and water should remain in government hands as private enterprise in Australia can't supply sufficient competition to keep multiple supplies in the market. Also refer to the two airline policy which operated for many years when it was obvious that the market could not sustain more competition.

As for public transport in our cities, it was always assumed that people lived in the suburbs and worked in the CBD, so you had a "spoke to hub" type arrangement of public transport  connection systems between the suburbs and the CBD, with little spoke to spoke connection. As the CBD filled up and the cost of office space rose, businesses increasingly  moved to some of the suburbs that had previously been residential only. In Sydney, suburbs like Parramatta , Chatswood, North Sydney and recently Castle Hill got turned into mixed residential & business, but the public transport links with them and other suburbs were not present, so pressure was put on the roads.

That is why there is increasing demand for PT infrastructure like the Epping/Chatswood rail line to accommodate the changing demographics and the shift of business away from CBD's.


----------



## Smurf1976 (8 June 2014)

sptrawler said:


> This is why smurph and others say, some things should remain public utilities.
> 
> To put them in private hands, has to end up with a reduced service or an increased cost.




A real example that used to happen here in Hobart with most of the city having a public (government run) bus service whilst part of it was served by a privately owned company.

As a teenager I lived in an area served by the private company. Bottom line - doing night school (TAFE) I caught the public (government) bus that went closest to where I lived then walked the last 6km. Private buses stopped at 7:30pm, government ones kept running until close to midnight.

There's no money to be made running buses after the peak commuting times, hence the private company didn't do so. In contrast a publicly owned service has a broader objective that doesn't involve making a profit, it exists to provide transport to those who need it, so they run a lot more services.

The downside to providing an extensive service is, of course, cost. It's no secret that Metro (government owned) loses a lot of money in order to provide bus services. But to be fair, that loss is largely because 80% of the people riding on buses aren't paying full fare, they are students, pensioners, unemployed and so on eligible for a concession.

So it basically comes down to welfare provision. Commuter services for city workers make a profit since just about everyone on board would be paying full fare and the buses would normally be quite full. But other services are either running late at night with very few people on board or are primarily used by those who don't pay full fare. As such they lose money. But from a broader social perspective, I'd argue that there's a need to provide services of an evening, weekends and so on even if they aren't profitable. Hence public ownership rather than private makes sense given that making a profit is not the intent.


----------



## SirRumpole (9 June 2014)

sptrawler said:


> This is why smurph and others say, some things should remain public utilities.
> They provide an essential service, that due to consumer demand is required to be over serviced, therefore are not financially viable.
> To put them in private hands, has to end up with a reduced service or an increased cost.




The classic case now is Australia Post.

If it was privatised, services in rural areas where I live would deteriorate markedly. Thankfully the govt has decided not to sell it, at the moment at least. Their parcel delivery service has saved it from the reduction in demand for letter delivery.


----------



## sptrawler (9 June 2014)

Smurf1976 said:


> The downside to providing an extensive service is, of course, cost. It's no secret that Metro (government owned) loses a lot of money in order to provide bus services. But to be fair, that loss is largely because 80% of the people riding on buses aren't paying full fare, they are students, pensioners, unemployed and so on eligible for a concession.
> 
> So it basically comes down to welfare provision. Commuter services for city workers make a profit since just about everyone on board would be paying full fare and the buses would normally be quite full. But other services are either running late at night with very few people on board or are primarily used by those who don't pay full fare. As such they lose money. But from a broader social perspective, I'd argue that there's a need to provide services of an evening, weekends and so on even if they aren't profitable. Hence public ownership rather than private makes sense given that making a profit is not the intent.




This is why we are at the impasse structurally, we all want services, but trying to make them sustainable is difficult. The ones who use it, don't want to pay any more for it. Therefore you have to tax the ones who don't use it, in order to supply it.

Buses services are a perfect example, you have to keep lifting the non concession charges. 
Which discourages full paying passengers from using the service. 
I know in my case, if both my wife and I are going somewhere it is cheaper to take the car, be that into the city, 60k's to Mandurah or 600K's to Kalgoorlie. 

We are definitely at a point fiscally in Australia, where our taxes are going to have to go a lot higher, to supply our current level of welfare. 
The problem with that is it just puts the price of something else up.


----------



## sydboy007 (9 June 2014)

Shinjuku Station in Tokyo had 3.64 million passengers a day back in 2007.  Not much off the population of Sydney for back then.  In 2010 the total trips taken on the Sydney network was just 522 million; the breakdown by mode was as follows: 
State Transit (buses)	 205,000,000
City Rail (commuter trains)	303,000,000
Sydney Ferries	 14,000,000

Sydney Trains & NSW Trains, for example, operates 1,650 train cars on 1,595 km of track serving 307 stations. State Transit operates 2,163 buses on 284 routes in Sydney and a further 26 routes in Newcastle, a city of 540,000.  Those figures are higher than most countries, yet is funded by a relatively small population.

Wages are in some ways higher for staff here compared to say the USA or Asia - though I wouldn't say they're particularity generous when you compare to the cost of living here.

You then need to compare to a lot of other countries to see we're not too badly off.  I won't say the public transport in Sydney is great, but it's reasonably reliable, though fairly expensive if you are only doing short trips.  There needs to be better intermodal fares, similar to say Singapore, so that passengers are forced to take one type of transport because to change to a more convenient option will increase the cost.

Our overpriced land in cities also makes providing new public transport options very expensive as well.


----------



## sydboy007 (9 June 2014)

Smurf1976 said:


> So it basically comes down to welfare provision. Commuter services for city workers make a profit since just about everyone on board would be paying full fare and the buses would normally be quite full. But other services are either running late at night with very few people on board or are primarily used by those who don't pay full fare. As such they lose money. But from a broader social perspective, I'd argue that there's a need to provide services of an evening, weekends and so on even if they aren't profitable. Hence public ownership rather than private makes sense given that making a profit is not the intent.




Only have to look at the pensioner discount fares in NSW:

In NSW, pensioners have access to various entitlements but some fare products are restricted to those from particular States and Territories, and to certain services:

Half fare concessions on NSW TrainLink Regional services and Great Southern Rail services.
The $2.50 Country Pensioner Excursion (CPE) fare on booked NSW TrainLink Regional services provided entirely outside of the MyZone ticketing system area bounded by Dungog/Scone, Bomaderry (Nowra), Goulburn and Lithgow (only available to NSW/ACT/VIC card holders).
Free travel:  NSW/ACT Pensioner Concession Card holders entitled to a combined total of four single or two return free journeys on NSW TrainLink Regional services or Great Southern Rail services within NSW each calendar year (booking fees apply with NSW Trains for First Class Travel).  Card holders from other Australian states and territories are entitled to a half fare.
Certain free travel entitlements provided under arrangements with the Victorian and Queensland Governments.

While it does encourage the elderly to get out and about, the cost is being supported by fewer taxpayers, similar to the issues around the pension.

I think the new Opal ticketing system here is going to see a massive boom in revenue for public transport though, since they're getting rid of all the long dated tickets which provided very good value if you could afford the initial high upfront price.  Now travellers are faced with buying weekly paper tickets that end up roughly 30% more expensive than a similar quarterly ticket, or move to Opal but face increased costs unless they're a high user of public transport, and wont be able to change mode of transport unless they're willing to accept paying more as well.  It will become a significant issue around the next election because by then pretty much everyone who used the long dated tickets will have finally been forced onto a far more expensive option.


----------



## CanOz (3 July 2016)

Had the pleasure of taking Brisbanes river cat ferries today from Hawthorne to southland and back again....what an awesome experience. It's like, less than $10 for two people one way. A nice 30 minute cruise. Spotlessly clean and fast, these things are the way to go. The whole time on southbank I'm thinking this is the best place in the world!

Middle of winter, 21c and bright blue sky's.....I love Queensland!


----------

