Next stop…good public transportation that actually works

Non-existent or irregular public transport in suburban areas leaves millions of people with no choice but to drive to get around, prompting calls for a national standard for “turn up and go” bus and train services.

Only half of the 15 million people living in the five largest cities have access to frequent and continuous public transport, and the Climate Council warns this is contributing to Australia’s transport emissions and street congestion.

Jennifer Rayner, head of policy and advocacy at the think tank, said state and territory governments should commit to a minimum standard of frequent and continuous public transport in capital cities, similar to Gonski’s commitment to providing a quality education for every child.

“To get rid of our expensive and polluting cars, governments must centre shared and active transport in all transport and land use plans,” Dr Rayner said.

“This includes new investments that enable the adoption of shared and active transport, such as better connected trails and walkways, and improving the quality and frequency of public transport services.”

She highlighted the importance of co-benefits, with increased use of public transport helping to reduce transport-related emissions, but also leading to cleaner air and safer, less congested streets.

While electric vehicles are important for reducing transportation emissions (the country’s second-largest contributor, after energy), simply replacing gasoline-powered cars with clean alternatives wouldn’t do much to reduce traffic congestion.

Monday’s Climate Council report found Brisbane had the worst access to public transport, with about two-thirds of the city without frequent public transport throughout the day.

Sydney came out on top, but a third of residents lacked the minimum services needed to “get people out of cars”, which the council said meant buses and trains running every 15 minutes between 7am and 7pm, and within 800 metres of homes.

There was also a divide between richer and poorer areas, with the former generally being better served.

Residents in fast-growing areas of the middle and outer suburbs were also “significantly underserved” by public transport.

Riley Flanigan, Urbis associate director, said Australian cities would have better public transport infrastructure if it was planned and implemented at the earliest stages of urban development, rather than trying to fit it into an existing neighbourhood.

By starting with train lines and other key infrastructure, it costs less than buying the land retroactively and there is less community opposition to deal with.

“In more enlightened countries like Europe, they’re actually using infrastructure to drive renewal, to essentially choose where growth goes, rather than doing it more organically,” he told AAP.

Australia’s “piecemeal” approach to infrastructure delivery is largely the result of politics and “this kind of obsession with business cases and feasibility”, Mr Flanigan said.

Without existing residents to generate revenue to fund the maintenance and operation of a new train line, for example, it was difficult to make a business case, he said, becoming “a stick you could hit a politician with if you wanted to.”

Dr Rayner said it was difficult and expensive to upgrade existing suburban infrastructure, particularly the heavy rail network, which was why she supported reliable, high-frequency bus services.

She said the switch to electric buses was an opportunity to attract people to a quieter, more comfortable service compared to ageing fleets of combustion engine vehicles.