Melbourne Public Transport (Part II)

[SydneyCity]

Originally Posted by Planks & Sticks

The problem is that you see this happen in Metros too...

This video proves that...this is the A train in New York. Heaps of people running for the train, when the next one is likely a couple of minutes behind.

[MelbourneOnTheRise]

In light of the recent fare increases I found this cost comparison of driving vs. catching the train to work quite interesting.

http://melbourneurbanist.wordpress.c...tch-the-train/
Posted: December 10, 2011 | Author: Alan Davies


The Public Transport Users Association (PTUA) is keen to make the case that it costs more to travel by public transport in Melbourne than it does by car. The PTUA says above-inflation fare rises over the last decade mean public transport now costs much more than “petrol in the car” for many trips.

The PTUA might take some moral support from this op-ed in The Age this week by journalist Gabriella Costa (the paper calls it an ‘Analysis’). Like the PTUA, she also argues that commuting by car is cheaper. She says the 9% fare increase announced this week by the Government will make driving a better option. Her contention is that, “even loosely, the maths just don’t add up” for rail:

And it’s a simple equation. A Metro daily ticket from a zone 2 station into the city? $11.90 from January 1. Petrol from home to work and back? two to three litres. Parking: less than $10 a day on the city’s edge.

Ms Costa doesn’t actually do the maths, so I have. Unless she gets her petrol for free, even on those numbers it still costs less to take the train to the city than drive! Petrol at $1.35 per litre is $4.00 a day, plus $10 for parking. Even loosely, that adds up in favour of the train! But as we all know, there’s more to the financial cost of driving than just petrol and parking, so I’ll try to do a tighter estimate.

Ms Costa’s example is based on her own circumstances. I know from her article that she lives in St Albans, near Giniver station in Zone 2. By her estimate, she’s 17 km by road from where she works in the city (presumably at The Age HQ in Spencer St). I’ll assume she commutes 220 days a year after taking rec leave, public holidays, sick leave, the odd day off, a bit of work-related travel and weekends into account. If she drove to work on every one of these 220 days she’d therefore travel 7,480 km in a year.

I’ll assume she drives the cheapest vehicle you can buy new in the small car class, a Hyundai i30. According to the RACV, operating costs of this vehicle for fuel, tyres and servicing, are 16.6 cents per kilometre, giving her an annual commuting cost of $1,224. That’s conservative because the fuel component is based on a city-country average – commuting in busy traffic is thirstier work.

Add to that parking at $10 per day for 220 days and her all up cost for a year of commuting by car to the CBD totals $3,444. That’s still quite a bit more than the cost of catching the train from St Albans, even under the new fare structure that takes effect from 1 January.

St Albans is in Zone 2, so Ms Costa could buy a myki Yearly Pass in 2012 for $2,021. That would save her $1480 compared to driving. Even if she travelled every day on a myki Daily Cap it would cost $2,438 over the course of a year, still putting her ahead by $1,000 compared to driving.

And if she lived any further out the cost of train travel would stay the same but driving would cost considerably more. If, for example, she lived in Pakenham (since she mentions it in her article) her annual expenditure on driving would increase to $6,371 p.a. because it’s 57 km from her workplace. But the cost of the train would be the same as it is from St Albans, since both stations are in Zone 2.

It’s important to note that I’ve only considered variable costs, specifically parking, fuel, tyres and servicing – I’ve taken no account of the cost of owning the car. But it makes no sense to ignore standing costs, because if she doesn’t actually have a car she can’t drive to work! The RACV says the annual standing cost of a Hyundai i30 is $5,668, made up primarily of depreciation, interest, insurance and registration.

If I assume commuting accounts for half of her total annual travel by car (i.e. she drives 7,480 km to work each year as well as doing a further 7,480 km p.a. in non-work travel), then the standing costs that should be attributed to her journey to work come to $2,834.

Add that $2,834 to the $3,444 she pays for parking, fuel, tyres and servicing and Ms Costa is up for an annual total of $6,278 for the privilege of driving to work from St Albans. Remember, a myki Yearly Pass will cost much less, just $2,021, and even a myki Daily Cap will cost her $2,438 for the year.

However judging from her article, Ms Costa would likely take the view that since she (apparently) already owns a car, none of the standing costs should be attributed to commuting. That’s a common perception. If people already own a car, they tend to see the standing costs as sunk, since they don’t have to shell out more on things like rego and insurance in order to make the marginal trip.

For example, consider this letter to the Herald-Sun cited approvingly by the PTUA. A Mr Kelly-Grimshaw writes:

….if you take into account the cost of registration, insurance, maintenance and the total cost of the car then public transport would be much cheaper (than driving). But you would need to pay these costs regardless, as the car still exists for use on the weekends.

There’s some perceptual bias in the “reptilian” part of our brains (what psychologist and Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman calls System 1) that’s quite happy to load the entire standing costs of car ownership on to some travel (in this case “weekends”), but not all of it.

Even so, putting an extra 7,480 km of commuting on the clock each year would certainly have a significant impact on the resale value of Ms Costa’s car (it would be an additional 25,000 km p.a. if she lived in Pakenham!). Depreciation is the single biggest item in the RACV’s estimate of standing costs, amounting to $2,677 p.a. for the Hyundai i30.

So I think it would be hard to ignore depreciation, at least when it was explained. In fact, it’s arguably a flaw in the RACV’s methodology that mileage-related depreciation isn’t treated as a variable cost.

Here are some options for Ms Costa. On the assumptions I’ve used above, her total transport cost for all purposes will be $12,556 per year if she drives to work. If instead she leaves the car at home and commutes by train using a myki Yearly Pass, her total annual transport costs will be $8,933 ($9,350 with a myki Daily Cap).

However if she could manage to live without a car in St Albans she’d save some serious money. After spending $2,021 for a myki Yearly Pass, she’d have a lot of money “left over” for taxis, walking shoes and perhaps bicycle maintenance.

The main situation where driving really gets competitive with the train in terms of financial costs is if the traveller gets free or heavily subsidised all-day parking. That’s evidently not the case for Ms Costa or for the great majority of CBD workers.

However many suburban workers (and most jobs in Melbourne are located in the suburbs) do get free parking. But in their case the time and convenience advantages of cars over public transport are generally so great that the price of fares, much less a 5% real increase, is not the key issue.

As an aside, I think the fact that commuters can readily find parking on the edge of the CBD for $10 a day, as Ms Costa reports, is an important issue. That’s worth discussing another time.

P.S. I was right about the PTUA taking support from Ms Costa’s article – see letter to The Age on behalf of the PTUA from Tony Morton.

[jarf]

Two or three litres of petrol to drive from St Albans to the CBD and back? Dream on...

[Dark_matter]

Its $5 just to go from Coburg to Airport west return - 2 suburbs. The city is $10 and Geelong is $30.

[John_Proctor]

but noone would do that on the train anyway... as per the article:

The main situation where driving really gets competitive with the train in terms of financial costs is if the traveller gets free or heavily subsidised all-day parking. That’s evidently not the case for Ms Costa or for the great majority of CBD workers.

However many suburban workers (and most jobs in Melbourne are located in the suburbs) do get free parking. But in their case the time and convenience advantages of cars over public transport are generally so great that the price of fares, much less a 5% real increase, is not the key issue.

the article is excellent. it shows a truth that has been evident for many years about catching public transport versus driving a car with the variable costs of the day.

the big issue is free (and even cheap) parking on the city fringe. I had friends who lived in Fitzroy Street St Kilda and worked near the arts centre... they had 60 trams per hour going up St Kilda Road they could catch to work but they drove because they had free parking. how nonsensical a situation is that!!

really need to fix that problem and reduce the rate of parking provision in buildings across inner melbourne.

[NoshowwithoutPunch]

Originally Posted by John_Proctor

but noone would do that on the train anyway... as per the article:




the article is excellent. it shows a truth that has been evident for many years about catching public transport versus driving a car with the variable costs of the day.

the big issue is free (and even cheap) parking on the city fringe. I had friends who lived in Fitzroy Street St Kilda and worked near the arts centre... they had 60 trams per hour going up St Kilda Road they could catch to work but they drove because they had free parking. how nonsensical a situation is that!!

really need to fix that problem and reduce the rate of parking provision in buildings across inner melbourne.

Nah nah the article is all WRONG and Costa's judgement is poor. However as you said is excellent because it shows the sorts of misapprehensions people like her labour under.

In essence there are two decisions (At least) when you have a car. 1) to buy one in the first place, keep it ensured and registered and 2) whether to use it for a particularly journey or class of journeys, and pay the parking and petrol required.

Most of my Hong Kong friends have chosen differently the answer to question 1). This is where Australia fails. Not the question of 'should I use my car' but rather 'should I have a car'

A PT advocate can't stop the first car per household because of the way our cities are fucked up. But we might be able to deter the second, third and fourth.

Remember too, the car driver who buys a car is at least paying the capital cost of their transport (though not the current cost) and their loss in taking on all that depreciation and capital charging.

PT can't even cover its current costs let alone capital in most cases.

But if we are arguing the second question, should I use my car now, we have probably already lost the battle. Maybe only journeys to public events or sport are contestable in this way.

[Gazza2]

I've wondered if it would be possible to provide some sort of car rego option that makes it easier to pick PT.
I'm not thinking in terms of congestion charges or a unit price per km driven.

What I had in mind was say a rego, sold at a heavily discounted price, but along with it is a severe limit to the number of kms you can run up per year (Not sure of the exact figure you would set it at...2000-3000km?)
. Odo gets checked, and if you go over, you are hit with the full price of rego.

Basically, it's a voluntary means of getting people to ration their own car usage.
Still doesn't adress the cost of cars needing to be accomodated at each dwelling, but hey, those costs are borne by the owner aren't they?

[MelbourneOnTheRise]

A GPS-tracker installed on each car used to charge per-kilometre usage is the quickest way to get drivers to pay the full cost of their choice to drive. If you have status quo bias, then remember that we are paying for their choice right now by subsidizing billions in road construction and maintenance every year. Either everyone pays or the user pays.

[Grampians]

as has been alluded to here and there...the ease of parking a vehicle is ultimately one of the most positive reinforcers of car use...parking at the "flat" and then parking in the destination...we simply make it too easy/

[Gazza2]

Originally Posted by MelbourneOnTheRise

A GPS-tracker installed on each car used to charge per-kilometre usage is the quickest way to get drivers to pay the full cost of their choice to drive. If you have status quo bias, then remember that we are paying for their choice right now by subsidizing billions in road construction and maintenance every year. Either everyone pays or the user pays.

Would be easy. Public acceptance of GPS devices is another matter.

Would an odo check achieve the same thing, if all we care about is the distance?

[Tyson]

Surely the easiest way to discourage car use is to raise the price of fuel.

[Gazza2]

^In general, that would inflate the costs of goods and services though.

[Tyson]

Commercial users could have a card to claim rebates or something.

[Grampians]

Originally Posted by Gazza2

Would be easy. Public acceptance of GPS devices is another matter.

Would an odo check achieve the same thing, if all we care about is the distance?

don't the poor punters over in NZ have to pay a usage tax based on audited mileage readings per year?

[jonas jade]

From http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/bai...-1226220315933

The important part of the article:

The Herald Sun believes Metlink's report to the Government calls for an upgrade to the NightRider service.

It examined late-night transport options, including all-night trains and trams, and all-night buses were the preferred option.

Metlink spokesman Donna Watson said NightRider buses were busier.But the Government has not acted.

Public Transport Minister Terry Mulder has instead asked his officials to look at extending train services in future.

From personal experience, having taken a Nightrider a couple of times this year, I can say that they are almost always having standing room only on the Dandenong / Frankston ones and could definitely support 15 or 20 minute frequencies for the busiest hours (maybe through until 3 or 4 then half hourly until first tram/train?) throughout most of the year. They almost always are late departing the CBD, up to 10 minutes, because of the time taken to load.

The current government haven't really been doing anything for bus services, perhaps this will change with the new Authority coming in next year?

[John_Proctor]

the new authority will still be funded by the state so I wouldn't expect much to change to be honest.

the best the new authority will provide (which is a start) is a single point of contact for public transport issues instead of buck passing between DOT, Yarra Trams, Metro, Metlink, VicTrack et al.

hopefully the authority and the new governments supposed focus on getting the 'basics' right will also lead to better use of existing resources through better bus routes and timetabling.

[weeny25]

Well I have had high hopes for this PTDA. However in the legislation it is still beholden to the Minister for transport, and it can't publish anything without his approval. I'm sure it is likely it will still nominate the most worthy projectts to the minister, but the direction and its operation is fully under the minister's control. It does seem that PT planning would still be influenced by the politicians rather than by real transport planners.
The opposition tried to introduce an amendment that made it more transparent and independent, but it did not get passed.

You can read some of the debate about it here.

[jonas jade]

Thanks for that link, I've been having a good read there.

Interesting that legislation has quietly passed to allow the government to provide compensation in the form of land to people who have had their property resumed.

[John_Proctor]

that was discussed in teh papers a couple of weeks ago and the government has had that right for many years... it has always been in the LACA (land acquisition and compensation act). all the new legislation does is provide that the PTDA could use that existing piece of legislation... nothing new here!

the intention of bringing that option into the LACA, was, I imagine that particularly when rural highways are constructed a land swap might be a good solution for farmers whereby they may be able to be handed over another piece of adjoining land that is owned by government or the balance of another block of land purchased for the proejct that abuts their farm (similarly in the inner city their might be occasions where the acquired party is a property developer and they are willing to accept another commercially viable block of land instead of the cash). To my knowledge its never been used and would be very unlikely to be used in the case of a resident having their house acquired and be forced to take another piece of land.

[jonas jade]

AIUI, the new bit is that the government doesn't have to give them an option, it can force them to accept land without any money. (From reading hansard, but I'm not familiar with property legislation so maybe that was always in that act as well).

And apparently it has never been used.