Final Report Public Transport

PP 282

FINAL REPORT

PUBLIC TRANSPORT

SIXTY - FIFTH REPORT

OF THE

ENVIRONMENT, RESOURCES AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

Tabled in the House of Assembly and ordered to be published, 1 December 2009

Third Session, Fifty-first Parliament - ii -

Committee’s Foreword

The Environment, Resources and Development Committee commenced its inquiry into Public Transport on 2 April 2008. As part of the inquiry, 42 submissions were received and 11 witnesses were heard. Submissions and witnesses included key players from state and local government, industry, academics, non-government organisations and community groups, providing a cross-section of views and ideas on Public Transport in South Australia.

The Committee extends its thanks for the effort made by those involved in preparing and presenting evidence to the Committee. It provided the Committee members with a better understanding of Public Transport in South Australia, and highlighted some of the key issues facing our state.

The Committee thanks the research team; Professor Michael A P Taylor, Professor Derek Scrafton and Dr Nicholas Holyoak, Institute for Sustainable Systems and Technologies, University of South Australia whose work, research and collation of information ensures that the report will be of great value to individuals and organisations concerned with transport in SA.

Ms Lyn Breuer, MP Presiding Member

1 December 2009

Parliament of South Australia. Environment, Resources and Development Committee - iii -

Committee Summary of Findings

In an ideal world public transport would be available, affordable, safe and clean - in the carbon neutral sense. Somehow the domination of the car would not have it placed in catch up mode and being ill prepared to face the challenges raised by climate change and peak oil. In a comparison with other states and similar cities worldwide South Australia has some admirable aspects and some faults. A one sentence summary of where SA is at the moment is: SA was lagging but the planned infrastructure spending will bring us in line with other states but this will not be enough to carry the State into the future scenarios influenced by peak oil and climate change.

The reality is that in Adelaide less than 10% of people used public transport to journey to work. The private car dominates. Arguably Adelaide is the most car- dominated city in Australia, but the statistics show that Perth and Canberra are about the same. This should not be surprising; the car has been an easy, relatively inexpensive, fast way to get to where you want to be. An extensive road network is provided for car users.

Public transport is used by two groups; those going to the CBD (about 43% of all public transport trips are CBD bound journeys) and the 50% of the population who do not have access to a private vehicle. These are people who are old or young or can not afford to run a car. Public transport for many historic reasons has provided services that radiate out from Adelaide. This does not effectively serve traveller’s needs and a chicken and egg situation arises. Suburban centres that are designed to accommodate cars arise and these are difficult to serve by public transport.

It is recognised that there must be a shift to public transport as the current use of private cars is unsustainable. The environmental and economic consequences are well known.

Recent history shows successive state and local governments making considerable progress in improving Adelaide’s public transport. Integrating the fare and ticketing systems, the O-Bahn to the north-east suburbs, extending rail to Noarlunga, providing an interchange and creating community bus networks to name a few. The integration of state and private services through the establishment of the State Transport Authority, now Passenger Transport Board and Public Transport Division has been very positive.

Compared to other states funding for capital works for public transport was low. The Committee’s visit to Perth, a city comparable in size etc to Adelaide demonstrated the vast improvements that capital funding provide. This situation has now changed for the better: the current State Government now has a program of works to improve major elements of Adelaide’s public transport system, including the following rail infrastructure projects:  Re-sleepering the Noarlunga and Belair lines;  Constructing a tramline overpass at South Road;  Electrifying the Noarlunga and Outer Harbor lines;  Extending the tramline to the Entertainment centre;  Extending the Noarlunga line to Seaford. For these and other projects, including replacement buses and improved access for O-Bahn buses into the city, the State Government expects to invest some $2 billion

Parliament of South Australia. Environment, Resources and Development Committee - iv - over the period 2008-2018, with some financial assistance from federal government programs. The initial thrust is on rebuilding the rail and tram infrastructure, but improvements to other services are expected to take place concurrently.

A key recommendation of the Committee is that the government produce a Strategic Transport Plan. This would set the new program of public transport improvements, the costs involved and the budgets required, into a strategic framework, provide a guideline for the medium-term future, and form a platform on which longer-term plans can be developed. It would demonstrate that South Australia was ‘adopting an integrated, inter-modal, best-practice approach to transport planning and management’ and ‘planning for long-term change’. These were the findings of the recently published report from the Senate Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport and echoed by many others. A new Draft Plan could be prepared quickly and released for public consultation by updating the 2003 Draft Transport Plan for South Australia. If existing resources cannot be spared to prepare such a plan, consideration could be given to a future ‘Thinker-in-Residence’ being invited from interstate or overseas to complete the task.

Current plans have targets for increasing public transport patronage that are set too low. The current SA Strategic Plan target to improve Adelaide’s public transport patronage to 10% of passenger kilometres by 2018 should be increased to a more aspirational 25%. The targets for public transport travel into the Adelaide CBD should be raised to 50% of trips by 2018.

The Committee realises improved public transport is only one element of reducing private car use and moving towards a sustainable future. Planning such as Transit Orientated Development (TODs), taxes on car use, encouraging cycling and walking, and education campaigns should all be part of the approach.

It is important to raise the general standard of services in all of the following areas if public transport is to be an attractive alternative to the private car:  Frequent services;  Reliable services;  Bus priority measures;  Realistic operating timetables;  Accurate and comprehensive public timetables;  Convenient and pleasant interchanges;  Convenient access to vehicles, stops, interchanges and platforms;  Maintaining low fare levels;  Smartcard integrated ticketing;  Overall comfort and security; and  Capacity for shopping, schoolbags and luggage.

The Smart Stop real time information system needs improvement and then should be rolled out to all major bus, tram and rail stops. The Crouzet ticketing system should be replaced with a Smartcard system with a high priority.

Another key recommendation centres on funding. The Committee identified the greatest impediment to maintaining such a program of improvements as the availability of finance. The capital budget has been increased greatly in recent years, but there has not been a corresponding increase in the operating budget to cover the contracts between the State Government, its rail and tram operating agency (TransAdelaide) and the private contractors providing bus services. To the contrary, the main effort in the last decade or more has been to maintain the operating budget

Parliament of South Australia. Environment, Resources and Development Committee - v - or make savings. Given the expansion of the rail and tram systems, additional funds will be required to cover increased operating costs. If the overall budget for service contracts is limited to current levels, then savings will have to made elsewhere in the present system, which will negate the effectiveness of the capital works program. It would be folly to cut bus services to fund increased rail operating costs as the improvements to the total network are as important as action on particular corridors. Such cross-subsidisation would also be economically inefficient as the cost recovery on rail services from fares is much lower than that on the bus network, and buses carry far more travellers than the rail system.

The Terms of Reference included the consideration of restoring certain rail passenger services. The Committee is firmly of the view that the future as impacted by peak oil and climate change will include public transport to the areas reviewed. The Committee’s research concludes that restoration of passenger train services to near-metropolitan areas is unlikely to occur in the immediate future, for a number of reasons. The Committee therefore recommends:  Continued reservation of rail rights-of-way that are currently unused by rail services.  A short eastward extension of the Gawler line rail service to the planned Concordia/Buckland Park development and construction of a secure park & ride facility at the new terminal.  Extensions of rail networks and stations precede urban expansion/development.  Review of the potential for restoring passenger trains to Mount Barker if and when all or most freight trains are removed from the Adelaide Hills line to operate via a new freight by-pass rail line.  A study to determine whether improvements to public transport services in the eastern suburbs of the City of Onkaparinga would benefit from use of the Willunga rail right-of-way through the area.

Although restoring regional rail passenger services to Whyalla and to Broken Hill is possible (both cities, plus Port Augusta, are on the ARTC standard gauge network), such services are unlikely to be needed or justified in the near future. Consideration of re-opening passenger train service to Mount Gambier must await any action to standardise and re-open the currently unused broad gauge freight branch line from Wolseley.

The State Government and member companies of the Bus SA organisation should review the level of service to near-metropolitan communities and the regional cities and develop measures to raise the quality and image of coach services, to offset the view presented to the Committee that improved public transport can only be achieved by re-introducing passenger train services.

Moving forward there will need to be more consultation across the spectrum from producing a strategic plan to making changes to bus routes. The Committee has made several recommendations regarding consultation, including a research partnership between DTEI, local governments and local communities. This would be useful in identifying and addressing safety (from assault and traffic) and amenity issues in the areas around stops and stations.

It is hoped that this report will be of use to the Parliament and benefit the government in setting its policy for the future. The report contains research and analysis that will serve many of the stakeholders in public transport.

Parliament of South Australia. Environment, Resources and Development Committee - vi -

Committee Recommendations

Committee Recommendation 1 The Committee recommends that Government planning and funding for public transport in metropolitan Adelaide and regional South Australia reflect the urgent need to increase public transport’s share of the passenger transport task. This should recognise that if South Australia is to be able to cope with Peak Oil and if the transport sector is to meet its share of the legislated State Greenhouse Gas reduction target, then a massive increase in capital and operational funding will be required.

Committee Recommendation 2 The Committee recommends that the Government encourage consultation with users of public transport and other stakeholders, including members of Parliament, who have an interest in the development of services as an integral element of the planning process for service improvements in general and of the planning and design of specific projects.

Committee Recommendation 3 The Committee recommends that as a matter of urgency a draft long-term strategic transport plan for South Australia be prepared, published, discussed with all interested parties, finalised and tabled in Parliament. This Plan should be developed and integrated with the proposed Oil Vulnerability Assessment & Peak Oil Action Plan, existing State Strategic Plan and Planning Strategy and the over-arching State Government program, Tackling Climate Change.

Committee Recommendation 4 The Committee recommends that the Urban Growth Boundary should be retained to minimise the physical and the ecological ‘footprint’ of Adelaide and reduce greenhouse gas emissions from transport emissions.

Committee Recommendation 5 The Committee recommends that the SA Strategic Plan target to improve Adelaide’s public transport patronage to 10% (passenger kilometres) by 2018 should be increased to a more aspirational 25% overall.

Committee Recommendation 6 The Committee recommends that the targets for public transport travel into the Adelaide CBD should be raised to 50% of trips by 2018.

Committee Recommendation 7 The Committee recommends that State Government should continue to lobby for a substantial proportion of the federal Building Australia Fund to be invested in public transport and active transport infrastructure in South Australia.

Parliament of South Australia. Environment, Resources and Development Committee - vii -

Committee Recommendation 8 The Committee recommends that the operating budget for public transport be increased to take into account increased operating costs incurred when new capital projects become operational, so that savings do not have to be made elsewhere in the system to offset the increased costs. In particular, bus services should not be reduced to finance any increased costs on the rail network.

Committee Recommendation 9 The Committee recommends that any savings made by more efficient operation of public transport be used to provide additional services.

Committee Recommendation 10 The Committee recommends that the State Government and Adelaide City Council should work towards progressively reducing private car use in the Adelaide CBD.

Committee Recommendation 11 The Committee recommends that the Government and the contracted bus companies continue to refine bus timetables to ensure that travel times on bus routes (and sections of routes) reflect the prevailing traffic conditions, speeding up services where justified and extending travel times when and where drivers have difficulty running to time due to congestion.

Committee Recommendation 12 The Committee recommends that the government continually review the current competitive process for contracting public transport services to ensure that processes are transparent and service quality is maintained. Conditions pertaining to all contracts for public transport services should be published in the annual report of DTEI.

Committee Recommendation 13 The Committee recommends that regional bus service fares be reviewed with a view to reducing the fares within country towns and between Adelaide’s nearby country towns. Metropolitan and country public transport fares should adjusted according to CPI on a regular basis and metro ticket boundaries be reviewed in light of the expanded urban area.

Committee Recommendation 14 The Committee recommends that public transport be considered to be an essential element contributing to the achievement of the community’s social goals, such as equity, social inclusion and the welfare of disadvantaged groups, through the network’s geographical and temporal coverage and the quality of services provided.

Committee Recommendation 15 The Committee recommends that all staff involved in the delivery of public transport services be encouraged to put forward ideas and plans for service improvements, particularly at the ‘micro’ level, as drivers and others in direct contact with passengers are those most likely to be aware of the benefits that might accrue from detailed changes to services and practices. Members of Parliament and elected members of local councils should also be consulted about planned or potential service improvements or changes.

Parliament of South Australia. Environment, Resources and Development Committee - viii -

Committee Recommendation 16 The Committee recommends that the Smart Stop real-time information system be improved so that the information provided is more accurate than at present, to ensure that passengers can rely on the aural and visual data at all times, particularly when normal service patterns are disrupted due to delays or diversions.

Committee Recommendation 17 The Committee recommends that Smart Stop real time information systems be expanded to all major bus stops and all train and tram stops.

Committee Recommendation 18 The Committee recommends that replacement of the Crouzet ticketing system by a new Smartcard system be accorded the highest priority by the Government.

Committee Recommendation 19 The Committee recommends further research to understand the nature of recent changes in public transport use and the reasons for these changes.

Committee Recommendation 20 The Committee recommends that a research partnership between DTEI, local governments and local communities be implemented.

Committee Recommendation 21 The Committee recommends that when creating park & ride facilities that they incorporate low cost secure parking.

Committee Recommendation 22 The Committee recommends that any further urban expansion around Gawler be preceded by extensions of the rail network and new stations to cater for both local residents and park & ride commuters from the Barossa region and to other potential urban development including Buckland Park.

Committee Recommendation 23 The Committee recommends that the proposed DTEI investigation into the future of rail service in the Barossa valley be expanded to cover all aspects of public transport provision and the future needs for transport in the Barossa region.

Committee Recommendation 24 The Committee recommends that the potential to restore passenger train services into the Hills region be investigated as a complement to and/or immediately on completion of the Adelaide Rail Freight Movements Study, including identification of a suitable site for a park & ride station in the Bridgewater/Aldgate area.

Committee Recommendation 25 The Committee recommends that any consideration of restoring regional passenger train service to Victor Harbor and/or Murray Bridge be deferred until a decision is made on restoring service to towns in the Hills region.

Parliament of South Australia. Environment, Resources and Development Committee - ix -

Committee Recommendation 26 The Committee recommends that a transport planning study of the eastern part of the City of Onkaparinga be undertaken to determine, inter alia, whether improvement of public transport services in the area might benefit from use of all or part of the former railway right-of-way between Reynella and Huntfield Heights. The Committee also recommends that the railway right-of way continue to be protected and used for recreational purposes until its potential as a public transport route is determined.

Committee Recommendation 27 The Committee recommends that the government investigate the extension of the Tonsley rail line and the development a TOD around Flinders Medical Centre/Flinders University and Darlington.

Committee Recommendation 28 The Committee recommends that the government adopt as a primary principle that all land reserved as potential transport corridors should have ongoing protection.

Committee Recommendation 29 The Committee recommends that, although re-instatement of the Northfield rail line is not warranted at present, the right-of-way should continue to be protected for potential use by public transport in the future.

Committee Recommendation 30 The Committee recommends that high priority is given to the following projects: a) the redesign of Grenfell Street and Pulteney Street, in collaboration with Adelaide City Council, to give greater priority to buses; b) the creation of a fare-free zone within the City of Adelaide; c) evaluating the feasibility and benefits of carrying bicycles on buses; and d) consideration of the extension of the tram network in the CBD and beyond.

Committee Recommendation 31 The Committee recommends that further investigation into the most appropriate bike parking facilities at railway stations, including overnight at Adelaide station.

Committee Recommendation 32 The Committee recommends that the role of the Public Transport Advisory Committee be expanded to include consultation with users on route changes, and a public education role to publicise the costs of transport, (including externalities) and the long-term implications of relying on the private car and petroleum-based fuels.

Committee Recommendation 33 The Committee recommends that the Government investigate, in collaboration with the Adelaide City Council, a levy on all long-term parking spaces, public and private, within the Central Business District with funds raised used to compensate country drivers parking in the CBD and users of public transport, cycling and walking in and around the CBD.

Parliament of South Australia. Environment, Resources and Development Committee - x -

Committee Recommendation 34 The Committee recommends that Transit Oriented Developments (TODs) are based on successful examples from Portland, USA and Subiaco in Western Australia and they should form a central focus of an integrated approach to land use in a Transport Master Plan.

Committee Recommendation 35 The Committee recommends that Adelaide’s TODs should aim for world’s best practice in terms of carbon neutrality, passive solar design, energy and water efficiency and waste management.

Committee Recommendation 36 The Committee recommends that the State Government argue through COAG for reform of the fringe benefit tax system that currently encourages private car use.

Parliament of South Australia. Environment, Resources and Development Committee - xi -

Table of Contents

Committee’s Foreword ...... ii Committee Summary of Findings...... iii Committee Recommendations ...... vi Table of Contents...... xi The Environment, Resources and Development Committee ...... xiii The Inquiry ...... xiv Abbreviations...... xv Chapter 1...... 1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 Terms of Reference...... 1 1.2 Structure of the Report ...... 2 Chapter 2...... 4 REVIEWS ...... 4 2.1 The Submissions...... 4 2.2 Australian Metropolitan Transport Planning Studies...... 8 2.2 Summary...... 14 Chapter 3...... 16 A SNAPSHOT OF CURRENT PUBLIC TRANSPORT IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA ...... 16 3.1 Introduction...... 16 3.2 Metropolitan Adelaide...... 16 3.3 Regional Cities; Country areas; Inter-city services...... 21 3.4 Current SA Government plans and proposals...... 30 3.5 Summary...... 34 Chapter 4...... 35 EFFICIENCY & INTEGRATION IN METROPOLITAN PUBLIC TRANSPORT SYSTEMS INTERSTATE AND OVERSEAS...... 35 4.1 Introduction...... 35 4.2 Australia ...... 36 4.3 New Zealand ...... 48 4.4 Canada...... 50 4.5 United States of America...... 56 4.6 Europe...... 62 4.7.Asia ...... 76 4.8 Other Cities ...... 79 4.9 The Relevance of Overseas Experience to Adelaide ...... 80 4.10 Summary...... 91 Chapter 5...... 93 OUTER METROPOLITAN AND REGIONAL RAIL PASSENGER SERVICES ...... 93 5.1 Introduction...... 93 5.2 Background ...... 93 5.3 The Barossa line ...... 96 5.4 The Hills line...... 99 5.5 The southern routes ...... 101 5.6 The regional cities ...... 103 5.7 The Northfield line ...... 105

Parliament of South Australia. Environment, Resources and Development Committee - xii -

5.8 Summary...... 106 Chapter 6...... 108 OPPORTUNITIES AND IMPEDIMENTS TO INCREASING THE USE OF PUBLIC TRANSPORT ...... 108 6.1 Introduction...... 108 6.2 Opportunities...... 108 6.3 Impediments...... 112 Chapter 7...... 115 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ...... 115 7.1 The Importance of Public Transport ...... 115 7.2 Progress to Date ...... 116 7.3 Strategic Transport Planning...... 116 7.4 Capitalising on Opportunities...... 117 7.5 Regional South Australia...... 118 7.6 Conclusions...... 119 Bibliography...... 121 Submissions...... 124 Witnesses ...... 125

Parliament of South Australia. Environment, Resources and Development Committee - xiii -

The Environment, Resources and Development Committee

The Environment, Resources and Development Committee (the Committee) is appointed pursuant to the Parliamentary Committees Act 1991 (the Act) on 27 April 2006. Its membership during the reporting period was:

Ms Lyn Breuer MP, Presiding Member Hon Michelle Lensink MLC Hon Mark Parnell MLC Hon Dr Bob Such MP Mr Ivan Venning MP Hon Russell Wortley MLC

Executive Officer to the Committee: Mr Philip Frensham

FUNCTIONS OF THE COMMITTEE

Pursuant to section 8 of the Act, the terms of reference for the Committee are:

(a) to inquire into, consider and report on such of the following matters as are referred to it under this Act:

(i) any matter concerned with the environment or how the quality of the environment might be protected or improved; (ii) any matter concerned with the resources of the State or how they ight be better conserved or utilised; (iii) any matter concerned with planning, land use or transport; (iv) any matter concerned with the general development of the State;

(b) to perform such other functions as are imposed on the Committee under this or any other Act or by resolution of both Houses.

REFERRAL PROCESS

Pursuant to section 16(1) of the Act, any matter that is relevant to the functions of the Committee may be referred to it in the following ways:

(a) by resolution of the Committee’s appointing house or Houses, or either of the Committee’s appointing Houses; (b) by the Governor, or by notice published in the Gazette; or (c) of the Committee’s own motion.

Parliament of South Australia. Environment, Resources and Development Committee - xiv -

The Inquiry

This Inquiry was first contemplated in an environment where the state’s transport infrastructure was topical because it was considered behind the standard found in other states of Australia. Public transport was often criticised in the media and Members of Parliament were keen to discuss how the issues being raised could be resolved. The House of Assembly referred Terms of Reference to the Committee on 2 April 2008. The Legislative Council on 4 June 2008 gave the same Terms of Reference but with additional specific rail lines for consideration.

The Committee advertised its Terms of Reference in the local press in September 2008 and called for submissions. The Committee heard witness from the Department of Transport in September 2008 and from other groups in June 2009.

Initial deliberations of the Committee realised that the Inquiry could be both very broad and involve a lot of research and that the Committee would require expert assistance. The Institute for Sustainable Systems and Technologies, University of South Australia was approached to provide a research team for the Inquiry. The staff engaged was: Professor Michael A P Taylor, Professor Derek Scrafton and Dr Nicholas Holyoak.

The Terms of Reference are provided in Chapter One.

Parliament of South Australia. Environment, Resources and Development Committee - xv -

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are to be found in the report, together with standard abbreviations such as Govt, LGA, etc, and those for Australian states (e.g. NSW, WA), US states (e.g. CA, OR), and Canadian provinces (e.g. ON, BC). Organisations in brackets are translations.

ACCC Australian Competition and Consumer Commission ALRT Automated Light Rail Transit AN Australian National Railways ARTC Australian Rail Track Corporation

BART Bay Area Rapid Transit BCC Brisbane City Council BVC Barossa Valley Coaches

CBD Central Business District CCSA Conservation Council of South Australia CIE (Irish National Transport Authority) CNG Compressed Natural Gas CPN Community Passenger Network

DART Dublin Area Rapid Transit DDA Disability Discrimination Act DITRD&LG Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government DoE Department of Environment DoT Department of Transport DSB (Danish State Railways) DSTO Defence Science & Technology Organisation DTA Dublin Transport Authority DTEI Department for Transport, Energy and Infrastructure

ERC Economic Research Centre

FBT Fringe Benefits Tax FMC Flinders Medical Centre

GHG Greenhouse Gas GIS Geographic Information System GSR Great Southern Rail GWA Genesee & Wyoming Australia

HUR (Greater Copenhagen Authority)

IA Infrastructure Australia ITS Intelligent Transport Systems

LNG Liquified Natural Gas LRT Light Rail Transit LRV Light Rail Vehicle

LUAS (Dublin Light Rail System)

Parliament of South Australia. Environment, Resources and Development Committee - xvi -

MATS Metropolitan Adelaide Transportation Study MFP Multi-Function Polis MTT Municipal Tramways Trust MUNI San Francisco Municipal Railway

OPT Office of Public Transport pass/km passenger/kilometre PPP Public Private Partnership PPT People for Public Transport PTB Passenger Transport Board

QR Queensland Rail

RAA Royal Automobile Association of SA

SAR South Australian Railways SATC South Australian Tourism Commission SATSS South Australian Transport Subsidy Scheme SLTC (Lyon Public Transport Authority) SNCF (French National Railways) STMP Strategic Transport Master Plan

TA TransAdelaide T&WITA Tyne & Wear Integrated Transport Authority TOD Transit Oriented Development TTC Toronto Transit Commission

VBK (Karlsruhe Public Transport Authority) VCEC Victorian Competition & Efficiency Council veh-km vehicle/kilometre vpd vehicles per day VV Verkehrsverbund (German regional public transport authorities)

WCE West Coast Express WES Westside Express WYITA West Yorkshire Integrated Transport Authority

Parliament of South Australia. Environment, Resources and Development Committee 1

Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION

The Institute for Sustainable Systems and Technologies, University of South Australia were engaged to assist the Committee in the preparation of the report based on the Terms of Reference provided below.

1.1 Terms of Reference

Pursuant to section 16(1)(a) of the Parliamentary Committees Act 1991 the Committee is to conduct an inquiry; namely:

That the Environment, Resources and Development Committee inquire into and report into the current and future transport needs for South Australia and in particular:

I. the development of an efficient and integrated public transport system incorporating all forms of public transport and necessary infrastructure improvements; II. the needs of metropolitan and outer metropolitan regions; III. the opportunities and impediments to increasing public transport patronage with a view to reducing greenhouse emissions and other relevant matters; and IV. an assessment and report of the feasibility and cost and benefits of the following proposals (to include the benefit to car users who remain on the road network, road crash cost savings, benefits to car drivers who shift to public transport, revenue, journey time savings, emission reductions, noise reductions, avoided car ownership) - (a) the introduction of a high speed passenger train service between Adelaide and Angaston to service the Barossa tourist area, with a report on the feasibility of co-use leasing or of purchasing the current line from Gawler to Angaston from GWA to restore rail coverage to Lyndoch, Tanunda, Nuriootpa and Angaston; (b) the introduction of a passenger train service between Adelaide and Mount Barker via either the duplication of a broad gauge line from Belair to Mount Barker or conversion of the Belair metropolitan train line to standard gauge during scheduled re-sleepering works in such a way that the metropolitan line can reconnect with the standard gauge ARTC line from Mount Barker to restore rail coverage to Mount Barker, Littlehampton, Balhannah, Bridgewater, Aldgate and Stirling; (c) the re-laying of the now defunct Northfield line to include “Park and Ride” stations at Port Wakefield Road and Main North Road, and to provide high-speed passenger rail coverage to the suburbs of Gepps Cross, Pooraka, Walkley Heights, Northfield, Gilles Plains, Ingle Farm and Valley View; (d) the relaying of the now defunct southern suburbs line from Reynella to Huntfield Heights (known as the “Willunga line”), with an investigation as to the feasibility of using either the old corridor from Hallett Cove station, or of alternatively linking viable portions of the old corridor to a

Parliament of South Australia. Environment, Resources and Development Committee 2

new line extending from Tonsley station to provide high-speed rail coverage to Sheidow Park, Trott Park, Fountain Valley, Reynella, Woodcroft, Morphett Vale, Hackham, and Huntfield Heights (and provide new coverage to Flinders University and Medical Centre, Darlington, and O’Halloran Hill should the line extend from Tonsley station); (e) costs and feasibility of providing high-speed rail services from Adelaide to Aldinga via a restored Willunga rail line and the feasibility of re-using the existing but defunct Willunga line bridge over the Onkaparinga River as an alternative to a new extension and new bridge from Noarlunga to restore rail coverage to Seaford and provide new coverage to Aldinga; and (f) the re-instatement of regular regional passenger rail services, including services to Murray Bridge, Victor Harbor, Whyalla, Mt. Gambier and Broken Hill; and such report to include any other factors or recommendations that the Committee deems appropriate, along with a summary of submissions provided in response to a request for community input regarding each proposal.

1.2 Structure of the Report

The report comprises seven chapters: 1. Introduction. 2. Reviews of published and submitted materials. This chapter reviews and summarises the public submissions received for the Inquiry. It also considers information provided in Hansard, documentation from the Department for Transport, Energy and Infrastructure (and its predecessors) and other SA Government sources (e.g. the State Strategic Plan and the State Infrastructure Plan), and transport policy documentation available from other states and territories. 3. Public transport in South Australia. This chapter is a snapshot of the existing operations of public transport in the metropolitan area and regional areas of South Australia. It also considers the available inter-city public transport services. The chapter discusses the determinants of public transport patronage, implications for greenhouse gas emissions, and the relationship between the existing situation and the specific public transport-related objectives in the State Strategic Plan. It includes a summary of the SA submission to Infrastructure Australia. 4. Efficient and integrated public transport. This includes a description of the current metropolitan Adelaide public transport system and its characteristics, and information on the public transport systems of Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth. It draws on information from some cities in New Zealand, North America, Europe and elsewhere. The focus is on the integration of multi-modal, multi-operator public transport systems in medium-sized cities. 5. Re-opening SA passenger railways. This chapter considers the issues surrounding the possible restitution of passenger rail services as listed in Term of Reference IV of the inquiry, including near-Adelaide services (e.g. Barossa Valley, Mount Barker and Victor Harbor) and regional services (e.g. to Whyalla, Broken Hill and Mount Gambier).

Parliament of South Australia. Environment, Resources and Development Committee 3

6. Opportunities and impediments. This chapter provides a response to Term of Reference III, concerning the opportunities for and impediments to increasing public transport patronage with a view to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and related matters. 7. Summary and conclusions.

Parliament of South Australia. Environment, Resources and Development Committee 4

Chapter 2. REVIEWS

This chapter reviews firstly the Submissions received by the Parliament of South Australia’s Environment, Resources and Development Committee (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Committee’), together with relevant material from debates in the SA Parliament and the transcript of hearings before the Committee; and, secondly, reviews South Australian transport planning documentation over a 40 year period and summarises recent published reports on transport in Perth, Brisbane, Melbourne and Sydney.

2.1 The Submissions

Of the 42 submissions received by the Committee, only four address all or most of the Transport Inquiry’s Terms of Reference: Nos. 09 Department of Transport, Energy and Environment (DTEI); 36 Dr Jennifer Bonham; 40 Conservation Council of South Australia (CCSA); and 41 People for Public Transport (PPT). Another small group of submissions contain detailed and/or innovative suggestions concerning public transport in general (e.g. 01 David Ingleton) or aspects of rail transport (e.g. 07 John Drennan, 32 Les Fordham, 34 Paul Aslin, 35 Aidan Stanger). The majority of the submissions focus on Term of Reference IV, i.e. on specific rail lines and services, and most of them on IVa, the Barossa rail line.

Comprehensive submissions

Taken together, the four submissions that respond to Terms of Reference I, II and III present an overview of most of the issues that call for improvements to public transport in South Australia (and to transport in general) to be considered, planned and evaluated within a strategic framework:  Uncertainty about the long term supply and price of oil;  The contribution of transport to climate change;  The ageing of South Australia’s population;  The needs of persons without access to private transport;  The significance of land use planning and lifestyle on the demand for transport and on mode choice;  A willingness to acknowledge and confront the negative aspects of private car use;  Public safety, security and health; and  The significance of parking provision and price on the ability of public transport to increase patronage.

All of these factors demonstrate that present patterns of mobility and accessibility are unsustainable in the long term; together they constitute a problem that is easy to leave for future generations to solve or to cope with the consequences of being unable to do so. Unfortunately, when one of more of these factors becomes a critical problem, such as a future oil crisis, the solutions will be more difficult and/or more expensive to apply. So the current public transport system, both metropolitan and state-wide, must not only serve current demand, but be a platform on which improvements can be made to enable it to cope with increased demand in the future.

Parliament of South Australia. Environment, Resources and Development Committee 5

These four submissions, and others, put forward some recommendations that deserve consideration by government transport authorities, operators and the public, to ensure that the public transport system is capable of responding to much greater demand in the future, e.g.  Improving the performance of the existing system;  Extending networks and services;  Improving the quality and nature of information to public transport users and potential passengers; and  Understanding the factors that influence individuals’ and families’ travel habits and preferences. These and more specific recommendations are dealt with elsewhere in the Report.

The DTEI submission (09) outlines the current and proposed initiatives and projects geared to improving SA’s public transport system, placing them in the context of the State Strategic Plan, the State Infrastructure Plan and current budgets. The emphasis is on the Adelaide metropolitan region, and the submission includes an excellent summary (in Section 4.1) of peri-urban and longer distance bus and coach services, but regional air services are not considered. However, DTEI does not attempt to describe its program in a strategic transport planning framework, relying on the SA Strategic Plan, which is a series of targets that may or may not be achievable. A problem caused by the generality of the Plan is that almost any development can be justified by quoting the objectives of the State Strategic Plan.

In their appearance before the Committee, the Department’s Chief Executive, Jim Hallion, and his senior staff elaborated on aspects of the submission, including some very useful comments on specific aspects of Term of Reference IV, the rail lines.

Some specific recommendations

A number of initiatives not previously considered in any detail in previous (published) SA transport plans are put forward in some submissions. David Ingleton (01) suggests a simple form of direct levy on all (except presumably residents) who park in the City of Adelaide, effectively doubling the cost of all-day parking. Such a levy would need to apply to those who currently park at no cost to themselves, otherwise it will be ineffective. This is a thoughtful but radical proposal, one which highlights the reality that free or cheap all-day parking will always limit the potential of public transport to attract CBD-bound patronage, but which has always been resisted in the past because of its effect on the City’s ability to attract retail and other business in competition with regional centres where parking is free or relatively inexpensive.

Les Fordham (32) challenges the State Government’s plan to maintain the existing metropolitan rail system at the same time as it creates a separate light rail (LRT) network, and queries the necessity of the tram-train approach to the north-west suburban lines. Mr Fordham suggests that the rail network would be more effective if converted to LRT, but his submission also includes some specific recommendations

Parliament of South Australia. Environment, Resources and Development Committee 6 if the existing rail network is to be maintained. Mr Fordham’s views should be read with an observation in the PPT submission (41) that the existing rail corridors are not the most optimal alignments for an LRT network. Aidan Stanger (35) describes the benefits of electrification, now accepted as policy by the State Government. John Drennan (07) describes in detail the benefits that might accrue from use of the old Willunga line right-of-way for extensions to the southern suburbs, rather than the alignment chosen by DTEI running directly south from Noarlunga Centre and requiring a major crossing of the Onkaparinga estuary. In the long term, both may prove to be desirable, as noted in Brian Leedham’s submission (06). Paul Aslin’s submission (34) covers similar ground, linking the Tonsley rail line to the Willunga line right-of way.

The suggestion is put forward in the submission from the District Council of Grant (15), that an improved bus and coach terminal for Mount Gambier should be high priority for investment in transport in the regional city, notwithstanding the protracted discussion about re-opening the rail line to the South-east of SA.

Rail service to the Barossa

Although some submissions make reference to re-introducing rail service to Mount Barker, Northfield (e.g. 11 & 05), Victor Harbor (08), and regional cities (39), and to improving the rail passenger service to Melbourne (16), most of the remaining submissions relate to the Barossa Valley line. As well as supporting the re-opening of the line, some of the submissions throw light on broader issues, such as choosing to live in the Barossa but work in the metropolitan area, the impact of passenger rail on the current bus operator, and the interface between freight and passenger trains on a single track branch line.

The most comprehensive submission on the possible re-opening of the Barossa line is that from Trevor & Liz Langridge of Tanunda (10). It includes the current bus schedule and fares, and an undated TransAdelaide (TA) proposal to provide a rail service to the Barossa at Metroticket fares. If the TA proposal is taken as a guide, it is hardly surprising that many submissions seek the return of a rail passenger service, drawing a parallel with the Hills bus services, where former country bus fares were replaced by much cheaper Metroticket fares. Equally, one can understand the reluctance of government to provide what would be an expensive service (though costs are not mentioned in the TA report) if the community’s assumption is that Metroticket fares were to be charged. The DTEI submission (09) outlines the current condition of the track, station infrastructure, speed restrictions, limited passing opportunities, and the large number of level crossings, most of them unprotected.

An interesting feature of the submissions from the Barossa region (Gawler to Truro and Angaston) is the picture they present of lifestyle choices. Some describe the conditions and costs involved in commutes to Adelaide, DSTO and Gawler, others the changes required and costs incurred as children grow older. Most submissions are unsympathetic to the bus service and fail to acknowledge the gradual improvements that Barossa Valley Coaches have made to the service over the years. Extensive LinkSA Barossa private and government school bus services in the Barossa region are largely ignored in the submissions.

Some of the Barossa rail submissions acknowledge that any rail service would need to be gradually introduced and have to be justified by the patronage build-up on the initial service, which might be as basic as a single commuter trip feeding into the TA service at Gawler. Most of the submissions mention the potential significance to tourism, though the Bluebird experience demonstrates the costs and problems

Parliament of South Australia. Environment, Resources and Development Committee 7 involved in running such a service. None of the submissions discuss the capital and operating costs that might be incurred in reinstating rail services, but they do demonstrate that if extension of passenger rail services was being considered in the outer metropolitan area, then the Barossa is making its case. DTEI’s submission states that the Department will investigate the costs and benefits of options, which should include consideration of a short extension to a new park-and-ride facility in the lower Barossa, as well as reopening a service as far as Tanunda or Angaston.

A few of the submissions from the Barossa (e.g. 14 - Lutheran Community Care) draw attention the need for improved public transport more generally in the region, particularly for those who are disadvantaged by having no access to private transport and who are dependent on community services and/or the assistance of family, friends or neighbours, which raises the question of whether government funds would be more effectively used in improving public transport service throughout the Barossa rather than focussing on the rail line. A new rail service will be no use to those in the region who cannot access the stations.

The submissions relating to the Barossa rail line were supplemented by discussion at hearings at which some of the proponents of reopening passenger services appeared before the Committee. The significance of the rail line to tourism was highlighted, including the possibility of reinstating the Barossa Wine Train.

Legislative Council debate

The Terms of Reference for the Inquiry reflect the content of debate in the Legislative Council in June 2008 on a motion of Hon. DGE Hood. The debate on the motion covered some aspects of the factors influencing the use of public transport in South Australia, e.g. the development of the system, existing and possible future demand, opportunities to improve public transport, and impediments to improvement projects and programs.

Summary

The most striking feature of the submissions to the Committee is that mention of costs and prices is limited to the capital costs of projects and the perennial complaint about the price of petrol. There is discussion of the provision of regional bus services, but nothing on the operating costs incurred, or of the level of funding of concession fares by the Government. There is a list of the number of riders annually on metropolitan rail and tram services, but no breakdown of the subsidy per trip by mode and route, or their comparison with bus costs. Similarly the DTEI’s summary of major projects lists the estimated capital costs to be incurred, but there is no indication of the long-term impact of these projects on TA’s operating budget or the Department’s contractual payments to TA and private bus operators. Similarly, the TA paper on restoring rail service to the Barossa, which describes in detail the possible benefits of such a service, never mentions costs and seems to assume the funding will come from elsewhere.

The fact that a number of organisations and individuals thought it appropriate to prepare considered submissions in response to the Committee’s Terms of Reference, that several respondents put forward imaginative and radical ideas, and that a large number of Barossa residents feel strongly about their local public transport, all support the view that transport users, their representatives, and people at large should have the opportunity from time to time to contribute to the formulation of transport policy and the development of project proposals. The ability to consider transport problems and alternative approaches to their solution in a local and

Parliament of South Australia. Environment, Resources and Development Committee 8 strategic context creates an environment in which constructive transport plans can be developed and discussed. No one organisation, government or group has ‘ownership’ of the future of the State’s transport system: developing a good standard of mobility and accessibility to work, schools, shopping and services is a process in which all who are interested are entitled to participate. After all, the primary role of the system is to serve the needs of transport users, who, one way or another, have to pay for the network and services.

2.2 Australian Metropolitan Transport Planning Studies

South Australia

The following is a list and summary of documents relating to transport planning in South Australia. The baseline date chosen is 1968, when the Metropolitan Adelaide Transport Study (MATS) was published, a classical freeway-dominated comprehensive transport study, prepared by a team of consultants (with support from staff of State Government departments and agencies) following the convention that had commenced in the United States in the mid-1950s with, for example, the Chicago Area Transportation Study. The MATS report is an appropriate baseline, firstly because it was the only such comprehensive transport study of Metropolitan Adelaide, and secondly the recommendation to construct freeways in Adelaide is a topic still raised from time to time.

Some of the reports were published (P), others were freely available on request (A), and a third group were internal government documents not generally released (I). The list covers reports on metropolitan and state-wide transport, but does not include a large number (over 250) of documents relating to specific projects or policy initiatives, or planning studies relating to particular localities or a single mode of transport. It is not necessarily complete, but indicative of the strategic direction of transport planning in SA over the past 40 or so years.

1. Metropolitan Adelaide Transportation Study (MATS) 1968 (P)

A major report prepared primarily by US-based consultants (led by DeLeuw Cather), which was notable for containing detailed maps of recommended freeways, that proved to be controversial. MATS was analytically sound, and presented an integrated approach to transport planning, including express buses on freeways and an underground rail link under King William Street. The horizon year of 1986 was optimistic in terms of predicted demand, but traffic levels on some arterial roads reached the predicted densities by the end of the 20th century.

2. Royal Commission on State Transport Services 1968 (P)

An excellent report that was in some ways a state-wide equivalent of MATS; it led to reform of the South Australian Railways and the final stages of deregulation of the freight transport industry in SA.

Parliament of South Australia. Environment, Resources and Development Committee 9

3. Adelaide Transportation (The Breuning Report) 1970 (A)

Reviewed the MATS findings and recommendations, suggested an alternative approach to the freeway plans, and endorsed the adoption of an integrated approach to transport planning and to the State Government’s transport operating responsibilities.

4. Transport Policy Implementation Committee 1971 (I)

Formalised the Breuning Report, by recommending the recruitment of a Director- General of Transport and the establishment of a new Transport Policy & Research unit, along the lines of similar organisational structures in other major government portfolios such as Health and Education.

5. Public Transport in Metropolitan Adelaide 1973 (P)

A Parliamentary Paper (PP 109) tabled by the Minister of Transport which set out a program of improvements to public transport including electrification of the suburban railway, a double-track extension of the rail line to Christie Downs (later Noarlunga), and use of the Modbury Corridor for public transport (in lieu of a freeway).

6. Establishment of the State Transport Authority 1975 (I)

Report by a Government Committee which developed a structure and set out the instruments for the merger of the South Australian Railways, Municipal Tramways Trust and Transport Control Board, to create the STA. (Note the sale of the country railways to the Commonwealth Government occurred about the same time).

7. Transport Policy & Planning in South Australia 1975 (I)

A progress report, prepared by Dr Fred Affleck, which first documented the impact that financial constraints would have to limit the rate of implementation of transport plans, despite federal funds being available at the time.

8. Transport Investment in South Australia 1978 (A)

The first attempt at a ten-year investment plan for transport in South Australia, undertaken by staff of Adelaide University Economics Department (Dr John Taplin & Trevor Hastings).

9. Adelaide into the 1980s (Ecoplan International) 1980 (A)

This report, which was prepared by a Paris-based ‘thinker in residence’ emphasised the factors such as high fuel prices and technological innovation, that would influence transport development to the end of the 20th century.

10. Public Transport Subsidies in Adelaide 1984 (P)

A paper by Paul Amos & Margaret Starrs, which drew on studies of the costs of Adelaide’s metropolitan rail and bus systems, to demonstrate that not all of the subsidy to public transport can be justified on social or environmental grounds.

Parliament of South Australia. Environment, Resources and Development Committee 10

11. Issues in Metropolitan Passenger Transport 1984 (I)

An internal report for the Minister of Transport outlining problems and possible future directions, including topics such as a Southern O-Bahn, road pricing and parking controls. Note concurrent activities included the City of Adelaide Plan Review and the Multi Function Polis (MFP).

12. Adelaide Strategic Transport Planning Study 1985 (A)

Described how to investigate alternative investment strategies within a given (constrained) capital budget for the Transport portfolio, particularly allocations for roads compared to public transport

13. Public Transport in Metropolitan Adelaide (The Fielding Report) 1988 (A)

Prepared by a California-based academic working with local and overseas consultants, this report for the Minister of Transport is most notable for being the first to recommend contracting out (or franchising) of the metropolitan public transport bus, tram and suburban rail services.

14. Options for public transport in Adelaide 1990 (I)

The Minister of Transport’s 5-year plan covering finance, transport alternatives and future of the elements of the network, including the encouragement of community transport services.

15. Transport Strategy for Adelaide 1990s (I)

A series of internal reports prepared between 1995 and 1998, mainly by David Bray, consultant to the Minister of Transport, as the basis of a government transport strategy. The only published document was a brochure, released in June 1995.

16. Public Transport Costs in Adelaide 1999 (P)

A paper by Ian Wallis and David Bray, based on work for the Passenger Transport Board, to the Australasian Transport Research Forum. Includes a very useful graph showing the relative costs of on-street bus services, the O-Bahn, the Glenelg tram and individual suburban rail lines.

18. South Australia’s Draft Transport Plan 2003 (P)

A plan for metropolitan and state-wide transport, prepared following technical analysis and extensive public consultation. A very useful background document, against which subsequent transport activities can be assessed.

19. The Corridor Strategies 2006 (P)

All major Australian inter-city corridors were studied (by joint Commonwealth-State teams and consultants) to provide background data on which evaluations were based for funding under the AusLink program. Five reports, which are to be found on the AusLink website, covered the South Australian corridors, i.e. those linking Adelaide with Perth, Darwin, Sydney and Melbourne, plus the urban corridors. All modes, passenger and freight, are covered in the strategies.

Parliament of South Australia. Environment, Resources and Development Committee 11

20. New Connections 2008/9 (P)

A regular series of newsletters containing considerable detail on current transport projects and other initiatives. Together, the four newsletters published to date give an excellent picture of the progress being made towards implementation of Government transport programs.

21. Adelaide Rail Freight Movements Study 2009 (P)

A Discussion Paper outlining the options for constructing a new freight railway to the east or south of Adelaide, to improve the performance of freight trains on the main line from Melbourne to Adelaide, Perth and Darwin.

Since 2003, aside from internal reports, proposals for improvement of public transport, which have been mainly infrastructure projects, have been incorporated into broader planning documents such as the State Strategic Plan and State Infrastructure Plan. In addition, progress on infrastructure improvements have been reported in government documents, such as budget papers, the DTEI submission (09) to the Committee and the New Connections newsletters.

From time to time documents released by other State Government departments and agencies have contained recommendations on transport that have influenced the development of the State’s transport network, e.g. the 1990s State Planning Review, and the Department of Economic Development’s promotion of construction of the Alice Springs-Darwin railway line. (Note MATS simply put the technical finish to recommendations for an even more extensive network of freeways first outlined in the 1962 Metropolitan Development Plan.)

As in the example of the Corridor Strategies, some transport planning reports have been jointly prepared under the direction of more than one level of government, e.g. the MFP studies, and those on the future of Adelaide airport (that later resulted in the sale of the airport), involved all three levels of government. Currently, the funding of the extension of the railway to Seaford, and the study of a rail line to by-pass the Adelaide Hills are examples of joint federal/state cooperation. In other cases, reviews that covered, inter alia, Adelaide’s and/or SA regional transport, were undertaken by organisations with a measure of independence from government, such as the Urban Transport Inquiry by the Industry Commission (reported in 1994) and that on Progress in Rail Reform by the Productivity Commission (1999).

Reports relating to specific elements of the transport network have also been prepared from time to time by other organisations, the recommendations or outcomes from which have had a major impact on the State system, e.g. the Grain Handling Strategic Plan, the RAA of SA’s periodic reports on the State’s road system, the Adelaide Airports and Flinders Ports master plans, the investment program of the ARTC, etc. Whether governments do or do not publish strategic plans for transport, such reports by other organisations are important, and the ability to comprehend them within the overall framework of the State’s transport contributes to strategic oversight of the system and its performance.

It is interesting to note that the current emphasis on infrastructure means that planning for transport has come full circle in 40 years, but with a difference: whereas the freeway and railway proposals in MATS were set in the context of a comprehensive and government-endorsed prescriptive master plan, current projects are to seen in the broader context of the State Strategic Plan, which is a target-based

Parliament of South Australia. Environment, Resources and Development Committee 12

(aspirational) planning document. In the intervening years the emphasis has been on coordinated or integrated transport planning, in an attempt to create a ‘balanced’ and/or sustainable transport system for South Australia, but these approaches have failed in an environment dominated by the private car. For the time being, at least, the belief prevails that we can build our way out of existing transport problems. It is unlikely current projects will provide long-term solutions, but they will alleviate some current problems. A long-term strategic plan for transport is required, to determine whether, how and at what cost the current transport system can form the basis of a network that will serve the demand for accessibility in the future.

Other Australian state capital cities

The four major Australian state capital cities of Perth, Brisbane, Melbourne and Sydney are selected to illustrate recent trends for transport planning in general and for urban public transport in particular, as evidenced by studies published in the past decade or so. The cities are described in reverse order of size, because Perth is the only Australian city that, in terms of population, area, public transport system characteristics, etc., is similar to Adelaide. Transport planning in all four cities in the mid to late 20th century followed a pattern similar to that in Adelaide, commencing with publication of master plans in the 1960s, followed by a period of coordinated or integrated planning reports in the 1970s and 1980s, and the search for sustainability through strategic planning in the 1990s and early 21st century. The main difference is that for all four cities far more documents were published by the respective governments (including all those summarised below) than was the case in South Australia, although it should be noted that the findings and recommendations contained in the reports were not necessarily endorsed by the relevant State Government so their status was not much different from SA reports that may not have been published but were made freely available to interested parties.

Note although the emphasis in the following review is on urban transport in the main metropolitan regions, several of the reports that are summarised cover issues that are state-wide, and one or two contain findings and recommendations that are applicable beyond the jurisdictions that commissioned the studies.

PERTH

1995: Metropolitan Transport Strategy (Govt. of WA)

A major report, complemented by a ‘Directions’ report, which attempted to create a more balanced transport system for Perth, while acknowledging the dominance of the private car.

1998: A Ten Year Plan for Transperth (Transport WA)

Parliament of South Australia. Environment, Resources and Development Committee 13

A support document to the Transport Strategy, which identified specific markets for public transport and ways to attract them, such as greater priority for public transport vehicles and better information.

2000: Metropolitan Land Transport: Directions (Transport WA)

A ten year investment program including extension of the suburban rail network and improvements to bus services.

2003: Way Ahead: Metropolitan Transport Directions (Planning WA)

Essentially an updating and re-issue of the 1995 Directions document.

BRISBANE

1997: Integrated Regional Transport Plan for South East Queensland (Qld Govt)

The IRTP covered the region from Sunshine Coast in the north to Gold Coast and the border with NSW in the south. The horizon year is 2021 when the regional population is forecast to be 3.8 million (compared to 2 million in 1991 and approximately 2.6 million in 2005)

2001: Transport 2007 (Qld Transport)

The emphasis in this report is on short term initiatives such as travel demand management, Intelligent Transport Systems, and parking policy.

2002: Transport Plan for Brisbane (BCC)

A report published by the Brisbane City Council, describing forecast expenditures on transport within the city to be equally split between road and urban public transport.

MELBOURNE

1996: Transporting Melbourne (Dept of Infrastructure)

Described transport needs in a broad framework of land use, economic development and population growth. A ‘directions’ document providing a framework for short-term planning.

2002: Melbourne 2030: Planning for Sustainable Growth (Dept of Sustainability)

Another land use/transport report setting an urban growth boundary for Melbourne. Some emphasis on freight transport to ports.

2004: Linking Melbourne – Metropolitan Transport Plan (Vic. Govt.)

Detail on short-term transport plans to support Melbourne 2030. described major challenges to be overcome.

2006: Meeting our Transport Challenges (Vic. Govt.)

Parliament of South Australia. Environment, Resources and Development Committee 14

A state-wide transport study, which included programs and projects to support the 2004 Metropolitan Transport Plan.

2006: Managing Transport Congestion (VCEC)

A report by the Victorian Competition and Efficiency Council into the costs and effects of congestion which recommended better use of existing transport and consideration of congestion charging. Many of the findings of this report are applicable to other Australian cities.

2008: The Victorian Transport Plan (Vic. Govt.)

A major infrastructure program suitable for submission to the Building Australia Fund. Emphasis on new construction, in contrast to, and at the same time complementing, the VCEC’s recommendations to make better use of existing networks.

SYDNEY

1998: Action for Transport 2010 (NSW Govt.)

Recommended investment in new rail lines, LRT and Transitways (busways), and complemented by a series of reports on specific aspects of Sydney’s transport, e.g. vehicle emissions, cycleways.

2003: Financial Sustainability of Public Passenger Transport (NSW Govt.)

The Parry Report, which recommended major changes to bus services, country passenger trains, fares and concessions. Another report containing findings and recommendations that are relevant to issues and problems found in all states and urban areas.

2004: Reform of Bus Services in New South Wales (NSW Govt.)

The Unsworth Report, which led to major changes in the regulation and funding of bus services in NSW, the designation of bus priority corridors in Sydney, and creation of new zonal arrangements for contracting bus and coach services.

2005: Metropolitan Transport Strategy for Sydney (Dept of Planning)

Ancillary to the major City of Cities planning strategy, the transport report pointed out that trying to meet all transport demand with new infrastructure is unsustainable, and contained practical recommendations such as widening of existing freeways, and construction of more Transitways.

2.2 Summary

It will be noted that fewer reports were published in South Australia in the last decade or so than in most other states, though many of the documents released interstate were not endorsed as government policy, or at best received ‘in-principle’ recognition by governments. This is understandable if governments wish to release reports for discussion purposes and/or where the reports contain recommendations for

Parliament of South Australia. Environment, Resources and Development Committee 15 improvements for which no funding has been committed or economic justification identified.

The review of transport planning reports in South Australia and interstate shows similar trends across the nation, commencing with the publication of master plans in the 1960s, through attempts to manage demand and change modal split in later years, to a renewed recognition that transport planning and land use planning must be closely coordinated, and that full cooperation between the professionals involved is essential. Although sustainability is an overused term, variously defined in economic, environmental and social contexts, the reality that the present transport system is unsustainable in the long term is clear from the economic cost and environmental damage borne by the community as a trade-off for improved mobility.

Parliament of South Australia. Environment, Resources and Development Committee 16

Chapter 3. A SNAPSHOT OF CURRENT PUBLIC TRANSPORT IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA

3.1 Introduction

This chapter describes the transport options and current travel behaviour patterns within the Adelaide metropolitan region and services linking South Australian regional centres to Adelaide. The analysis looks at the metropolitan area as a whole and emphasises the needs of the outer North and South metropolitan regions. Regional areas include Broken Hill, Mount Gambier, Murray Bridge, Onkaparinga, Victor Harbor and Whyalla with a special focus on the Barossa and Adelaide Hills. This qualitative analysis is based on most recent available data to summarise existing situations. Where this chapter identifies specific transport issues, possible solutions to these are described in subsequent chapters.

3.2 Metropolitan Adelaide

The Adelaide metropolitan region extends 85km from Gawler in the far north to Sellicks Beach in the far south, bordered by the Mt Lofty Ranges to the East and coastline to the West. In 2006, the city had a total population of 1.15 million and an average growth rate of 0.7% per annum since 2001. There are approximately 297,000 families in Adelaide, the majority of which are couples either with children (43%) or without children (38%). The city population is dispersed to the North and South with 30% of the population each, and East and West with 20% each. The population of Adelaide’s outer metropolitan regions in the North, East and South are provided in Table 3.1.

Outer Region LGA’s Population Total Growth (2006) (since 2001) North Gawler and Playford 91,421 5% East Adelaide Hills 23,509 1% South Onkaparinga 154,586 2%

Table 3.1: Population of Adelaide’s outer metropolitan regions

The previous table shows that the outer metropolitan regions contain approximately one quarter of Adelaide’s total population with healthy growth rates, especially in the North. Some sub-regions in the Adelaide Hills such as Mt Barker are also expected to maintain strong growth rates into the future.

In terms of population density, metropolitan Adelaide’s population of 1.15 million persons is dispersed throughout the urbanised area with an estimated population density of 1400 persons per square kilometre. This is quite low when compared to other cities as shown in Figure 3.1.

Parliament of South Australia. Environment, Resources and Development Committee 17

Figure 3.1: Cities’ population densities1. note 1: figures reported here are indicative rather than definitive because of spatial definition differences and differing census dates.

The Brazilian city of Santos has the highest population density in the previous figure, followed by London, Hiroshima and Tokyo. Smaller European cities do not commonly exceed 4,000 persons per sq/km. Adelaide’s density is greater than that of Perth but one of the lowest, comparable to some North American and some European cities. In all cities, population density has implications for the transport system in terms of car dependence and public transport operations. This is especially the case when considering vehicle affordability.

Adelaide is serviced by an extensive road network based on rectilinear arterial roads that more or less criss-cross the city in North-South and East-West directions with major radial links from the CBD to the outer regions. Figure 3.2 displays strategic or major transport links in the Adelaide metro area, including rail and O-Bahn tracks.

Parliament of South Australia. Environment, Resources and Development Committee 18

Figure 3.2: Adelaide metropolitan strategic transport network.

The road network is also characterised by the presence of many signalised intersections, centrally controlled by the SCATS computer-based traffic control system. The public transport network is based heavily on bus provision and train and tram services; more detail on these services is provided in a later sections.

Car Ownership

On average, each person in Adelaide travels a total of 22 km per day. The number of registered passenger vehicles in South Australia as a whole in 2008 was 940,791 with a growth rate of 1.5% per annum since 2003. This equates to approximately 589 cars per 1000 persons. For comparative purposes, Figure 3.3 lists vehicle ownership rates in a sample of countries in 2002 (Dargay, Gately and Sommer, 2007).

Parliament of South Australia. Environment, Resources and Development Committee 19

Figure 3.3: Comparison of vehicle ownership rates.

A comparison of South Australia’s vehicle ownership rate shows that it is close to the average for Australia and European slightly lower than the USA, but significantly greater than Asian countries.

Within Adelaide car ownership averages 1.54 vehicles per household with slightly greater ownership in the outer North and outer South metro regions with 1.65 and 1.56 vehicles per household respectively. Within the inner regions the ownership is slightly lower than the metro Adelaide average at 1.52 cars per household.

Metropolitan Adelaide Public Transport Services

Public transport services in Adelaide are provided by a collection of service providers as listed in Table 3.2.

Provider Description A Government agency that provides the metropolitan train and TransAdelaide tram services. Provides bus services to the Outer North East, North West, Torrens Transit Inner North, South, East and West suburbs. Provides bus services to the Outer North and Outer South SouthLink suburbs. Provides Adelaide Metro bus services to the Hills and some Transitplus regional services. Bus SA brings together the regional bus operators as partners Bus SA in the Bus SA network to provide passenger services to regional South Australia.

Table 3.2: Bus service providers in Adelaide and South Australia

In terms of public transport service provision for the Adelaide population, some key characteristics of the Adelaide’s passenger transport system include:

Parliament of South Australia. Environment, Resources and Development Committee 20

Route No. of Mode Route Kilometres Vehicles Services Stops Bus 1,510 (12km O-Bahn) 259 Over 7,000 832 Buses Train 120 6 81 94 Trains Tram 12 1 23 22 Trams Taxi n/a n/a n/a 1019 Taxis

Table 3.3: Summary of Adelaide public transport services.

Bus services are by far the most dominant service type in metropolitan Adelaide with 92% of the service kilometres for timetabled services. There are a total of approximately 7,100 stop locations for the public to access public transport services. Taxis are included in the previous table for comparison.

Comparison of Modes

The modal proportions for journeys made by Adelaide residents reflect their travel behaviour and are important indicators of the overall modal utilisation of the population. In Table 3.4 this estimate is provided for all residents and also for the population in outer and inner regions for comparison. The reported figures only consider the motorised modes, (i.e. excluding walking or cycling trips) within Adelaide on an average weekday.

Mode All Adelaide Outer North Outer South Inner Regions Car Trips (Driver) 67.5% 62.9% 67.0% 68.3% Car Trips (Passenger) 28.0% 33.7% 29.9% 27.0% Bus Trips 3.4% 2.1% 2.3% 3.7% Rail Trips 1.1% 1.3% 0.8% 1.0%

Table 3.4: Percentage of trips by mode (excluding walking and cycling).

The previous table shows that there are higher proportions of car driver trips in inner regions whilst there are likely to be more passengers travelling in cars that begin their trip in the outer regions. Very few trips are made by rail overall, especially in the outer South. The ratio of bus to rail trips in outer Adelaide indicates higher importance of the rail mode in the outer North while inner regions have a greater proportion of journeys made by bus when compared to the outer regions.

In addition to travellers’ choice of mode, average travel distances provide further insight into modal utilisation as presented in Table 3.5. All distances are reported in kilometres and the results report on individual trips, not total daily travel.

Mode All Adelaide Outer North Outer South Inner Regions Car Trips (Driver) 7.9 8.6 9.0 7.7 Car Trips (Passenger) 6.9 7.1 8.0 6.7 Bus Trips 9.5 8.9 9.8 9.6 Rail Trips 17.8 21.7 31.3 16.0

Table 3.5: Average trip kilometres by mode (excluding walking and cycling).

On average rail trips in metropolitan Adelaide are the longest, especially those from the outer South. Car driver trips are longer than those made by car passengers, an

Parliament of South Australia. Environment, Resources and Development Committee 21 observation that may be influenced by drop-off and pick-up trips for passengers (linked trips). Bus trips are slightly longer than car trips which may be due to the bus routes taken and/or those without cars choosing to walk shorter trips. When analysing this table along with the previous table, it is apparent that although the bus and rail modes are less popular than the car mode, people who choose these modes travel longer distances.

Car Emissions

The vehicle emission calculations presented herein have adopted an aggregated or large-scale approach. It is possible to perform very detailed calculations on vehicle performance to estimate a wide range of emission types but this is not appropriate for the Adelaide-wide scale that we are describing. Carbon Dioxide equivalent (CO2e) is a quantity that describes, for a given mixture and amount of greenhouse gas, the amount of Carbon Dioxide that would have the same global warming potential. An average Australian car emits 293 grams of CO2e per kilometre or put another way, will be driven 3.4km to generate 1kg of CO2e. The amount of CO2e generated within the Adelaide regions due to car travel within metropolitan Adelaide is approximately 4,750 tonnes per day. The proportions of CO2e generation closely match the car- driver trip kilometres reported in previous tables with approximately 12% generated in the outer north, 10% the outer south and 78% from inner regions.

Congestion costs

Traffic congestion in Adelaide has an economic impact in terms of lost private time costs, lost business time costs, the cost of running vehicles for longer than necessary and extra air pollution costs. The BTRE estimates of the ‘avoidable’ cost of congestion (i.e. where the benefits to road users of some travel in congested conditions are less than the costs imposed on other road users and the wider community) for the Australian capitals (using an aggregate modelling approach) total approximately $9.4 billion per annum for 2005. Of this total, Adelaide contributed $600 million whilst other cities such as Sydney contributed $3.5 billion and Perth contributed $900 million. On a per capita basis in Adelaide, this cost equates to approximately $532 per person p.a. and when considering vehicular travel it applies a cost of 5 cents per kilometre of travel made. The possibility of imposing congestion charges is considered later in the report.

3.3 Regional Cities; Country areas; Inter-city services

Within regional South Australia there are a total of 142 country bus routes and 11 community passenger networks that service approximately 155,608 trips per month. The following analysis is structured to provide a detailed analysis on towns in the Barossa region and Adelaide Hills region supported by the regional centres in general. The possible improvement of services to these regions is dealt with in Chapter 5.

Towns in the Barossa

The Barossa Valley is a located approximately 60 km to the North of Adelaide and for the purposes of this study extends from Gawler in the West to Angaston in the East. The region includes the towns of Lyndoch, Tanunda and Nuriootpa with a combined resident population of these towns close to 26,000 as summarised in Table 3.6.

Parliament of South Australia. Environment, Resources and Development Committee 22

These locations have been chosen for analysis because of their identification in the original Terms of Reference for this inquiry.

Town Population (2006) Gawler 11,949 Lyndoch 1,827 Tanunda 4,683 Nuriootpa 5,030 Angaston 2,213

Table 3.6: Population of towns in the Barossa region.

Gawler is the dominant town in the region with more than double the population of Nuriootpa. The Barossa region as a whole has experienced significant recent population growth at a rate of 2.2% per year in the 5 years to 2006.

For residents who travel to the Adelaide CBD by car, an attractive route to take is to Gawler along the Barossa Valley Highway and connect to Main North Road for the rest of the journey. Table 3.7 summarises this travel including the travel distance, time, cost and emissions for a single average family sedan. Travel cost is based only on the fuel cost, assumed as $1.20 per litre.

Cost of fuel Distance to Travel Time used by 1 Emissions of 1 Adelaide CBD To Adelaide vehicle to vehicle to Adelaide Town (km) CBD Adelaide (kg CO2e) Gawler 41 1hr 10min $5.32 10 Lyndoch 55 1hr 20min $6.59 13 Tanunda 68 1hr 35 min $7.72 15 Nuriootpa 75 1hr 40 min $8.35 16 Angaston 81 1hr 45 min $8.89 17

Table 3.7: Summary of car travel from Barossa region to Adelaide CBD.

For a single average car, it can take up to almost 2 hours to travel from Angaston to the Adelaide CBD and cost close to $9.00. This trip will generate 17kg of carbon dioxide equivalent from a single vehicle. Travel to Gawler from the other towns ranges from 14km to 40km with up to an additional $3.57 in fuel cost and 7kg in emissions.

Gawler TransAdelaide Rail Services

The closest TransAdelaide rail link with regular timetabled services exists at Gawler Central station, 14km (10 minutes) from Lyndoch and 40km (35 minutes) from Angaston. From here it is possible to catch a train to Adelaide CBD on a regular weekday service that runs about every 30 minutes. The journey from here takes approximately 55 minutes to travel to Adelaide CBD. From the previous table, it can be noted that this is quicker than the average car journey of 1 hour and 10 minutes. A single ride with a multitrip Metroticket costs $2.90 and the service is the best patronised from all TransAdelaide rail services with an average daily patronage of 13,000 boardings in both directions (DTEI, 2008).

Parliament of South Australia. Environment, Resources and Development Committee 23

Bus Services

The Adelaide Metro bus services do not extend to Gawler as they only service as far north as Munno Para, approximately 10 kilometres South of Gawler and accessible by train. Barossa Valley Coaches operate a regular service to the towns in the Barossa region with the provision of 2 services each weekday in each direction. The fare from Angaston to Adelaide CBD is $21.00 with reductions for towns that are closer to Adelaide. The approximate travel time on the weekday morning inbound service is 2 hours and 15 minutes from Angaston. On average, this is 30 minutes longer than a car journey and 45 minutes longer than a combined car trip to Gawler and rail trip to Adelaide. In terms of environmental impact however, the bus trip generates far fewer emissions per person than a drive-alone journey from the Barossa region.

Tourist Travel

Tourism is an important industry for towns in the Barossa region with local economies depending on visitor numbers and tourist expenditure. Table 3.8 provides a summary of total tourist numbers in 2008.

Traveller Origin/Type Travellers (2008) International 14,200 Domestic – Overnight Stop 176,000 Domestic – Day Trip 707,000

Table 3.8: Tourist visitors to Barossa region.

Domestic visitors are by far the greatest number of visitors to the region with domestic day trips the most popular type. The international visitor class combines day and overnight visitors. Primary modes of travel utilised by these tourists are provided in Figure 3.4.

Figure 3.4: Barossa tourist mode choice.

All tourists to the Barossa prefer travel by a private vehicle, especially for the domestic day visitors. International tourists utilise rented or chauffeured vehicles as

Parliament of South Australia. Environment, Resources and Development Committee 24 their car mode. Bus is the next most preferred option with the train following. International visitors make the most use of the bus and train alternative modes with 6% and 3% of trips respectively. This analysis is based on current data and therefore reflects the behaviour of travellers utilising the existing transport modes.

Towns in the Adelaide Hills

The Adelaide Hills region lies immediately to the east of the metropolitan area and contains the towns of Mt. Barker, Littlehampton, Balhannah, Bridgewater, Aldgate and Stirling, as cited in the ERDC Terms of Reference. Table 3.9 summarises the 2006 Census population estimates for these towns.

Town Population (2006) Stirling 4,566 Aldgate 3,343 Bridgewater 3,469 Balhannah 1,626 Littlehampton 2,064 Mt. Barker 12,735

Table 3.9: Populations of towns in the Adelaide Hills region.

The combined population of these Adelaide Hills towns of 27,803. Some of these regions in the Adelaide Hills have been experiencing very high growth rates in the recent past with trends expected to continue. Mount Barker alone experienced population vigorous growth rate of 7.6% per annum in the 5 years to 2006.

Travel from the Adelaide Hills to the Adelaide CBD by car is most commonly achieved via the high capacity South Eastern Freeway as it provides the fastest and most direct route through the hills. Table 3.10 summarises this travel including the travel distance, time, cost and emissions for a single average family sedan. As with previous analysis, the travel cost is based only on the fuel cost, assumed as $1.20 per litre. The outer Adelaide suburb of Belair is included for comparison to the rail link as the final TransAdelaide rail station along the Belair line is at Belair.

GHG emissions of Distance to Travel Time Cost of fuel used 1 vehicle to Adelaide CBD To Adelaide by 1 vehicle to Adelaide (kg Town (km) CBD Adelaide CO2e) Belair 12 25min $1.08 2 Stirling 16 22min $1.75 3 Aldgate 18 26min $1.93 4 Bridgewater 21 26min $2.20 4 Balhannah 30 36min $3.01 6 Littlehampton 33 35min $3.29 6 Mt. Barker 33 34min $3.29 6

Table 3.10: Summary of car travel from Adelaide Hills regions to Adelaide CBD.

All of the selected Adelaide Hills locations are relatively close in travel distance and travel time to the Adelaide CBD. The settlements of Belair and Stirling are closest to the Adelaide CBD and this is reflected in the travel times. The towns of Mt Barker,

Parliament of South Australia. Environment, Resources and Development Committee 25

Littlehampton and Balhannah are close to each other and take just over 30 minutes travel time to Adelaide CBD.

Belair TransAdelaide Rail Services

Belair is the closest rail link to the Adelaide Hills towns with regular TransAdelaide services to access the region. A regular rail service to Adelaide is maintained to Belair which is 10km (7 minutes driving time) from Stirling and 28km (20 minutes) from Mt. Barker. On a regular weekday the rail service runs every 15 to 30 minutes (peak and off-peak) and takes approximately 35 minutes from Belair to travel to Adelaide CBD. A single trip made with a multitrip Metroticket costs $2.90 and the average weekday patronage is 4,500 persons in both directions (DTEI, 2008).

Bus Services

The Adelaide Hills region is serviced by regular bus services provided by Transitplus that connect Mt. Barker and other towns to the Adelaide CBD. These services operate at a frequency of between 5-20 mins in the morning peak and evening peaks, and 30 mins during the interpeak. Currently there are 4 direct services to the region with many connections to service other towns in the area from Mt Barker. The fare to Mt Barker (and all other locations as far as Nairne and Mylor) is $2.90 on a single multitrip Metroticket which is competitive with petrol costs for a single passenger vehicle. The travel time for this service is approximately 1 hour.

Tourist Travel

As with the Barossa region, tourism is an important industry for the towns in the Adelaide Hills region. A summary of total tourist numbers in 2008 is presented in Table 3.11.

Traveller Origin/Type Travellers (2008) International 5,800 Domestic – Overnight Stop 103,000 Domestic – Day Trip 721,000

Table 3.11: Tourist visitors to Adelaide Hills region.

The reported visitors numbers are not only to the selected towns but to the region as a whole and are similar in scale to the numbers of visitors to the Barossa region. Again, the domestic day visitors far outnumber all other types. The primary modes of travel utilised by these tourists are provided in Figure 3.5.

Parliament of South Australia. Environment, Resources and Development Committee 26

Figure 3.5: Adelaide Hills tourist mode choice.

Observations from the Adelaide Hills towns are similar to those made from the Barossa, with the car as the preferred mode of transport for these travellers. Again there are very few bus and train travellers.

South Australian Regional Centres

Serving the travel needs to and from other South Australian regional areas is also an important element of transport planning. A selection of regional cities along with population statistics is provided in Table 3.12.

Population Growth per annum Regional Centre (2006) since 2001 Murray Bridge 17,678 1.9% Victor Harbor 12,012 6.8% Whyalla 21,416 -1.7% Mt. Gambier 23,494 1.1% Broken Hill NSW 19,359 -1.9%

Table 3.12: Populations of South Australian regional centres.

The selected regional centres display a range of growth rates between 2001 and 2006 with the strongest observed at Victor Harbor. Negative growth is reported in the regions of Whyalla and Broken Hill.

Car versus Bus Travel Times

The following illustration compares the average car travel time to that made by a scheduled bus service (from a range of service providers) from regional centres to the Adelaide CBD.

Parliament of South Australia. Environment, Resources and Development Committee 27

Figure 3.6: Car and Bus travel times from regional centres to Adelaide CBD.

Figure 3.6 shows a range of travel times from 1 hour from Murray Bridge to around 7 hours from Broken Hill in New South Wales. Car travel time estimates here may be slightly conservative and bus travel times are estimated from timetabled services however both are dependant on prevailing traffic conditions. Estimates of car and bus times from each centre are very close and all are within a 20% difference. Overall, bus services travel at lower speeds and are slowed by stops made during the journey, extending their travel time.

The emissions made by a single car from the regional centres to Adelaide are summarised in Table 3.13.

Road Distance GHG emissions of to Adelaide CBD 1 vehicle to Regional Centre (km) Adelaide (kg CO2e) Murray Bridge 70 21 Victor Harbor 80 23 Whyalla 390 114 Mt. Gambier 440 129 Broken Hill 520 153

Table 3.13: Travel distances and emission estimates for car travel from regional cities.

The emissions generated by a journey between Adelaide and the regional cities are directly proportional to the travel distance. The Broken Hill to Adelaide car journey emits 153 kg CO2e, which may be greatly reduced (per person) by replacing this with a bus journey.

Parliament of South Australia. Environment, Resources and Development Committee 28

Car versus Bus Travel Cost

In addition to travel time, the perceived travel cost is an important factor to the traveller. Figure 3.7 compares the average car travel cost to that made by a scheduled bus service (from a range of service providers) from regional centres to the Adelaide CBD.

Figure 3.7: Perceived car costs and actual bus fares from regional cities to Adelaide CBD.

In Figure 3.7 car cost is only approximate and is based only on petrol costs ($1.20 per litre). In reality other costs relating to wear and tear, registration and so on are likely to cause a much a larger cost for the private car. Generally, the cost for a single person-journey is comparable to that of a bus journey. From Whyalla, the costs are very similar with towns closer to the Adelaide CBD showing the greatest difference. For parties with more than one traveller, the car becomes a far more cost efficient means of travel. The equity issue of travel costs and subsidies in regional South Australia compared to metropolitan Adelaide is dealt with in subsequent chapters.

Public Transport to Regional Centres

There are a number of bus service providers to regional centres from Adelaide; Table 3.14 presents some for selected towns, along with the average weekday frequency of service.

Parliament of South Australia. Environment, Resources and Development Committee 29

Regional Centre Provider Frequency Murray Bridge Murray Bridge Passenger Service 4 per day Victor Harbor Premier Stateliner 4 per day Whyalla Premier Stateliner 4 per day Mt. Gambier Premier Stateliner 2 per day Broken Hill Buses R Us 3 per week

Table 3.14: Bus services connecting Adelaide to regional centres.

A range of bus service providers offer frequent timetabled services from most centres to Adelaide. Often the trunk services are supported by connecting services at the regional centre to travel further. The towns of Broken Hill and Mount Gambier have less frequent services, these being the farthest from Adelaide CBD at 520km and 440km respectively.

Provision for rail travel from South Australian regional centres to Adelaide is often infrequent or not possible at all. The only options for the selected regional centres utilise timetabled interstate services. These exist for Murray Bridge where The Overland provides 3 services per week and for Broken Hill and Port Augusta, where Great Southern Rail normally provides 2 services per week.

Ferry and Rail Services

Beyond regular bus and train services to regional centres, South Australia has daily ferry services to Kangaroo Island. The service between Wallaroo and the Eyre Peninsula is currently suspended. Fares are structured for passengers alone and for cars as presented in Table 3.15

One Way One Way Cost Destination Cost per Car per Passenger Kangaroo Island $84.00 $43.00 Eyre Peninsula $130.00 $32.50

Table 3.15: Regional ferry services.

Ferry services to Kangaroo Island depart from Cape Jervis and arrive at Penneshaw. The Eyre Peninsula service, when operational, departs from Wallaroo and arrives at Lucky Bay (near Cowell); the cost per car on this service is more than twice as expensive than a bus or driven car trip, which may have contributed to its suspension.

Air Services

Regional air services in South Australia (and to Broken Hill and Mildura) are currently provided by Regional Express, Air South, Alliance Airlines and Sharp Airlines. Regional Express provides most SA regional air services with operations to locations including Port Lincoln, Ceduna, Whyalla, Coober Pedy, Kingscote, Mount Gambier and Broken Hill. Air South operates from Adelaide to Kingscote, Alliance Airlines operates from Adelaide to Olympic Dam and Sharp Airlines offer a service to Port Augusta. Approximate one-way advanced ticket prices are given in Table 3.16.

Parliament of South Australia. Environment, Resources and Development Committee 30

Destination One Way Cost1 Coober Pedy $198.00 Ceduna $158.00 Whyalla $108.00 Pt Lincoln $106.00 Pt Augusta $147.00 Kingscote $74.00 Mt Gambier $130.00 Broken Hill (NSW) $140.00 Olympic Dam $198.00

1Note: flight costs are indicative and for advanced bookings. Costs may be considerably higher depending on booking and travel dates.

Table 3.16: Regional air fares from Adelaide.

Flight services are more expensive than bus or car trips to the same destination flight services to Whyalla almost double the one-way bus fare of $55.00. The flight services do however offer a faster alternative, especially for longer distances. As an example, Coober Pedy by car may take up to 9 hours by car compared to 2 hours flying time.

Regional South Australia contains a total of 19 regional airports which in 2005 were all serviced by airlines. In 2008 however, the number of serviced airports declined to nine, these being the South Australian airports identified in the previous table.

3.4 Current SA Government plans and proposals

The SA government has a plethora of legislation, policy and plans that impact on transport in the State. The impact of good urban planning and setting appropriate targets is necessary to steer towards a transport future that can cope with new demands. Issues that came before the Committee included the need to retain the Urban Growth Boundary in order to contain urban growth and maximise the use of existing infrastructure (transport and otherwise) This will help to minimise the ecological footprint and reduce transport related greenhouse gas emissions. The State Strategic Plan targets that the Committee felt were not reflecting strongly enough the need to convert private car use to public transport use, were: improve Adelaide’s public transport patronage to 10% by 2018 – this should be raised to a more aspirational 25%; and the target for public transport into the Adelaide CBD should be raised to 50% of trips by 2018.

Committee Recommendation 4 The Committee recommends that the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) should be retained to minimise the physical and the ecological ‘footprint’ of Adelaide and reduce greenhouse gas emissions from transport emissions.

Parliament of South Australia. Environment, Resources and Development Committee 31

Committee Recommendation 6 The Committee recommends that the targets for public transport travel into the Adelaide CBD should be raised to 50% of trips by 2018.

A range of proposed transport-related investments are currently under consideration from various Australian and South Australian Government bodies. The following sections provide a general overview of the principal information.

Infrastructure Australia’s Current Deliberations

Transport proposals that are currently under consideration by Infrastructure Australia for roads and public transport for metropolitan Adelaide are identified in the Tables 3.17 and 3.18.

Project Description Capital Cost ($m)1 Major urban road network works North-South associated with the ‘Superhighway’ $750 corridor development, including public transport components. Part of the North-South corridor project connecting to Northern Northern connector $2,200 Expressway to the Port River Expressway and to South Road. Sir Donald Bradman Upgrades and improving on the link $49 Drive upgrade from the CBD to Adelaide Airport. note 1: all monetary values are in June 2008 prices

Table 3.17: Urban road projects.

The combined total capital cost of the urban road projects in Adelaide is $2,990 million which equates to $2,590 per capita. This current cost equates to approximately 49% of the current value of existing urban road network assets.

Project Description Capital Cost ($m)1 Extension of passenger rail Seaford rail extension services from Noarlunga to $456 Seaford. Darlington transport Public transport upgrades as part $750 project of the North-South corridor project. Line re-sleepering and Gawler line upgrade electrification (formerly Adelaide’s $2,190 Future Public Transport Network). note 1: all monetary values are in June 2008 prices

Table 3.18: Urban public transport projects.

The total capital cost of these three public transport projects is $3,396 million, equating to approximately $2,930 per capita. When compared to the current Adelaide public transport assets, this investment represents a considerable increase of 115%.

Parliament of South Australia. Environment, Resources and Development Committee 32

Planning the Adelaide We All Want – The 2030 Document

The draft document entitled “Planning the Adelaide we all want: Progressing the 30- year Plan for Greater Adelaide” produced in July 2009 by the Government of South Australia document identifies targets for transport in Adelaide. Identified draft targets include:

 “Reduce car dependency and increase public transport to 10 per cent of all transport use by 2018,  Prioritise residential and employment growth in areas where transport infrastructure is planned,  Upgrade stations to support higher densities around major transport interchanges, including stations at Brighton, Noarlunga, Elizabeth, Munno Para, Port Adelaide and Glanville,  Create new, and upgrade existing, park and ride facilities to support access to transport interchanges,  Protect primary and secondary freight corridors that are gazetted for use by restricted access vehicles,  Create dedicated walking and cycling corridors along major transit corridors to improve access to activity centres, public transport nodes and local walking and cycling routes.”

These targets recognise multiple transport modes and their role in planning for Adelaide’s future transport networks. The document also notes that the “integration of transport and land-use planning is essential to achieve the new urban form”. The 2030 document lists additional possible public transport improvements or extensions from Port Adelaide to Cheltenham, along Prospect Road, from Noarlunga to Aldinga and from the City to Mount Barker.

The Cost of Public Transport in Adelaide

The following section provides a breakdown of costs associated with public transport provision in metropolitan Adelaide.

Unit costs of carrying passengers on public transport services in Australia is summarised in Figure 3.8, developed by Bray and Wallis (1999). It depicts the relationship between trip length and combined capital and recurrent costs expressed as cost per passenger kilometre.

Parliament of South Australia. Environment, Resources and Development Committee 33

Figure 3.8: Unit cost of carrying passengers on public transport (source Bray and Wallis, 1999). note 1: all monetary values are in January 1999 prices note 2:the curve in the figure represents to costs of bus journeys

Figure 3.8 indicates that the longest average trip length occurs for the Noarlunga and Gawler train trips. On-street bus journeys have a range of average trip lengths with the average cost of carrying passengers on the O-Bahn similar to that of street buses for a similar trip length.

Information provided in the following discussion is based on data provided by ISST (2009) and Bray (2009) which detail economic methodologies employed to derive these figures. In terms of total operating and capital costs for public transport, Table 3.19 provides a summary of the bus and combined train/tram modes.

Bus Train and Tram Total Operating Costs $143 m $71 m $216 m Capital Costs $48 m $182 m $230 m TOTAL Costs $193 m $253 m $446 m

Table 3.19: Public transport operating and capital costs.

In total, the current annual cost for Adelaide’s public transport network is $446 million. The total fare revenue generated from the public transport modes is $73 million, resulting in a net cost (i.e. subsidised cost) of operating the bus, train and tram public transport system is $373 million dollars. Table 3.20 displays the cost per passenger of operation, in terms of boardings (not trips).

Bus Train and Tram Average Operating costs $2.84 $5.05 $3.32 Capital costs $3.79 $17.97 $6.85

Table 3.20: Cost per passenger boarding of public transport.

Parliament of South Australia. Environment, Resources and Development Committee 34

Principally because of the high net costs and the greatly increased capital works program for public transport in 2009, it may cost up to $17 (at current fare levels) in incremental subsidy to attract a car driver to use public transport, particularly if Metroticket fares were to apply to outer areas.

In its submission (40) to the ERDC the Conservation Council of South Australia (CCSA) notes that in reference to climate change and peak oil, “residents on the outer-metropolitan periphery are likely to be hardest hit and face substantial increases in fuel and energy costs. Rural and regional dwellers will also face particular hardship in a carbon-constrained era and are poorly served by public transport options.” The submission articulates support for integrated land-use and transport planning to substantially reduce transport-related greenhouse emissions. In addition, CCSA state that “the State Government and Adelaide City Council should work towards progressively reducing private car use in the Adelaide CBD”.

3.5 Summary

This chapter has described the current transport scene in South Australia, with particular reference to near-metropolitan areas and country regions. Subsequent chapters analyse metropolitan public transport in detail (Chapter 4), rail passenger services (Chapter 5), and urban public transport more generally (Chapter 6), responding to specific matters as required by the Terms of Reference.

Parliament of South Australia. Environment, Resources and Development Committee 35

Chapter 4. EFFICIENCY & INTEGRATION IN METROPOLITAN PUBLIC TRANSPORT SYSTEMS INTERSTATE AND OVERSEAS

4.1 Introduction

The Committee’s Terms of Reference include: (I) the development of an efficient and integrated public transport system incorporating all forms of public transport and necessary infrastructure improvements; and (IV) an assessment of rail passenger services to regions and communities within and beyond the current metropolitan area.

This chapter addresses these two terms of reference by reviewing the efficiency and extent of integration in Adelaide with public transport in other cities in Australia and overseas. Regional rail services to localities near to major cities are identified, but the detailed discussion of South Australian rail is dealt with in Chapter 5.

Comparison of Adelaide’s transport with that of other cities is inevitable, given that travel to interstate and overseas cities is commonplace. It is also important that transport planners, operators and users have an opportunity to make such comparisons and learn from their counterparts in other cities.

However, much comparative commentary is unbalanced – there is a tendency to compare the best that can be found elsewhere with the worst at home, remembering the positive aspects of other cities’ public transport but ignoring (or, more likely, never experiencing) the less attractive aspects, e.g. travellers often comment on the comprehensive nature of London’s suburban rail, underground, LRT and bus networks, which carry over a billion passengers per annum, but forget that fare levels in London are very high by Australian standards, reliability is not great, and the level of overcrowding is dreadful. In making such comparisons, allowance needs to be made for different conditions in different cities: climate; density of population and housing; levels of fares, concessions and subsidies; sources of capital finance, etc. Even where pairs of cities are more carefully selected for comparison, such as Adelaide with Portland, or Melbourne with Toronto or Vancouver, there is still an element of unfairness about the debates in the media and the literature.

In the following brief commentaries on public transport in a selection of cities from a number of countries, the objective is not to so much to draw comparisons, but to identify levels of efficiency, the extent of integration and some aspects of the cities’ public transport operations and policies that could be useful if applied in Adelaide, as well as drawing attention to the structural, organisational and other factors that are different to those prevailing in South Australia. Choosing the cities to review presents a challenge: there are over 70 cities in the world with metros in operation, about 200 with suburban rail networks, over 300 operating tram, streetcar or LRT systems, and over 300 where electric trolleybuses are still to be found. In selecting a few to describe in detail the objective is to report cities with populations in the 800,000 – 1.5 million range, together with some larger cities where necessary to describe outer

Parliament of South Australia. Environment, Resources and Development Committee 36 metropolitan and peri-urban regional rail lines and networks, or identify useful lessons in efficiency, integration and/or innovation.

A major problem in describing public transport is the poor quality of data. For example some organisations are able to report numbers of trips by public transport, but most report boardings – the numbers are higher, but boardings are misleading as users might have no choice but to make two or more boardings to complete one trip. Similarly, information on revenue can be misleading, e.g. an organisation might report concession reimbursement as revenue, whereas it is more accurately a cost that is transferred to another source - determining the total cost to the taxpayer of operating public transport (including capital costs) is difficult. The geographic extent of service areas can also complicate comparisons, e.g. Melbourne, Perth and Adelaide have reasonably clearly defined metropolitan operating areas, but data for both Brisbane and Sydney public transport operations and finance embrace that from nearby cities such as Gold Coast and Newcastle within their respective databases. Also, continued change and development in public transport mean that any statement or observation on, for example, population, patronage, fleet size, organisational structures or operating cost is likely to be outdated and superseded by the time it appears in print. Thus the summary data used in this chapter should be regarded as indicative, sufficient for comparative purposes, but not definitive. Data and commentary for Adelaide is provided first as the ‘base case’ against which other cities are considered.

Following the description of cities and regions, the final section of the chapter summarises some of the findings in functional terms, e.g. fleet size compared to populations served, the mix of transport modes and technology, ticketing systems, cost recovery, funding etc., and assesses the standards of Adelaide’s public transport in relation to those found elsewhere.

4.2 Australia

Adelaide

The population served by Adelaide Metro services is about 1.11 million. 62 million boardings are made annually (60 per capita), of which 72% are on bus services and 28% on TransAdelaide’s trams and trains (Ref. Figure 4.1). The operating cost per annum is $250 million ($240 per capita); revenue, mainly from fares, is $68 million, giving an operating cost recovery of 27% (subsidy per capita $175). Revenue is supplemented by reimbursement of $34 million to compensate for concession travel.

Bus operating costs average $4.3 per veh-km, with a fleet of 832 buses, most of them owned by the State Government and leased to and operated mainly by private companies contracted to the Government. A new round of bidding for contracts will commence early in 2010. Rail operating costs average $17.4 per veh-km, and tram operating costs are between those of bus and rail, with accurate data becoming available for the fleet of new trams. Actual operating costs of providing particular routes and services vary depending on frequency of service and length of routes. For example, the O-Bahn bus services are at the lower end of the cost curve, as are the costs of bus services on major arterial roads such as Henley Beach Road and Main North Road. On the rail network, the Noarlunga and Gawler lines are much more cost-effective than the Belair and Outer Harbor lines.

Parliament of South Australia. Environment, Resources and Development Committee 37

The average capital expenditure on public transport in Adelaide in recent years has been about $80 million per annum, though current and future financial years will see a dramatic increase to over $400 million per annum. The cost of future plans, as reflected in South Australia’s submission to Infrastructure Australia, is $3,396 million, which equates to a doubling of the value of the existing metropolitan public transport assets.

Discussion of Adelaide’s public transport in the media and elsewhere tends to concentrate on the negative aspects – this is to be expected, as anything that works well is taken for granted. Overall, the Adelaide system functions satisfactorily on a daily basis, and the planned acquisition of new railcars, an extension of the O-Bahn into the city centre, and a regular supply of new buses and trams should address most current problems. However, the planned infrastructure improvements and new rolling stock will need to be matched by increases in the operating subsidy, otherwise it will be a matter of robbing the bus services of funds to cover the increased cost of rail services, as occurred when the planned improved frequency on the City Loop did not eventuate, to help pay for the operating cost of the tram extension to City West (in addition to the savings made by elimination of the Beeline bus service). As over 70% of public transport trips in Adelaide (i.e. about 4% of all passenger trips) are made by bus, starving the system of funds to pay for new rail services would be a misallocation of resources. The Adelaide model of contracting out, developed by the former Passenger Transport Board and refined in the second round of contracts, is recognised to be as good as any in the world, and is even considered in some quarters to be “world’s best practice”, but less than half of the savings made in recent years from contracting out of the bus services have been used to improve public transport.

Committee Recommendation 9 The Committee recommends that any savings made by more efficient operation of public transport be used to provide additional services.

The Adelaide fare system, which applies across the network and permits transfer between services, irrespective of mode or operator, and which contains a differential fare element to reflect the cheaper marginal cost of operation in the daytime off-peak hours, was the first in Australia. Criticisms of the fare system are mainly due to the age of the Crouzet technology, introduced in 1987, and the need to replace it with a new modern smartcard system, a project currently being developed by DTEI.

A major weakness of Adelaide’s current public transport, if drivers are to be attracted out of their cars and the Government’s targets in the State Strategic Plan are to be met, is the poor level of service provided during evenings and at weekends. Whereas daytime frequencies on most routes (but not all) can be regarded as acceptable, those at weekends offer no practical alternative to private car use.

Parliament of South Australia. Environment, Resources and Development Committee 38

Committee Recommendation 10 The Committee recommends that the State Government and Adelaide City Council should work towards progressively reducing private car use in the Adelaide CBD.

Beyond the limits of the Adelaide metropolitan area, there are no regional rail services, an issue dealt with in chapter 5 of this report. The only passenger trains in country SA are the long distance services provided by Great Southern Rail to Perth, Melbourne, Sydney via Broken Hill, and Darwin via Alice Springs.

Parliament of South Australia. Environment, Resources and Development Committee 39

Figure 4.1: Adelaide rail and tram network. Source: www.railmaps.com.au

Parliament of South Australia. Environment, Resources and Development Committee 40

Perth

Population of metro service area: 1.55m Boardings pa 98m (69 pc/pa) (train share 44%) Operating cost pa $366m ($236 pc/pa; subsidy $192) Fare revenue $63m (+ conc. reimbursement $50m) Cost recovery (op costs) 19% Bus operating costs $4 per veh-km (1124 buses) Rail operating costs $22 per veh-km Average capital spend pa $580m Cost of plans to IA $263m (6% of existing pt assets)

In terms of size, population densities and public transport service levels, Perth is the only city in Australia that can be compared to Adelaide. South Australian visitors to Perth return home extolling the merits of the Perth rail system, which is superb, and compare it to what they see at home. However, capital expenditures of up to $600 million per annum were required to create the Perth public transport system, seven times the average expenditures in Adelaide over a similar period. The SA Government now has a program to electrify and upgrade the Adelaide system to modern standards such as already to be seen in Perth with expenditures in Adelaide close to those committed in WA in earlier years.

The cost of public transport operations in Perth is 46% higher than Adelaide’s, while serving a population some 30% higher, partly reflecting Perth’s emphasis on investment in rail, which carries 44% of all public transport boardings, compared to 28% by tram and train in Adelaide. Note also that policy in WA has been to feed buses to train stations, whereas in Adelaide there is a far greater number of bus services, many of them express bus services from outer suburbs, that are competitive to rail, in order to provide patrons with a choice of destinations within the CBD and serving destinations on the arterial roads en route to the City of Adelaide. In Perth some of the newer rail routes are within freeway medians, so that rail and express buses would be effectively in the same corridor.

Other than the sharp contrast in the quality of its suburban rail services, there are two other features of transport policy in Perth that deserve consideration for application in Adelaide: the downtown free bus network, which is more extensive than that in Adelaide (the tram free fare zone, the City Loop and the City of Adelaide’s Connector red and green routes), and the levy on parking in the CBD. Otherwise, the public transport system in Perth delivers services that are of a similar standard to those in Adelaide, and costs are comparable. The most recent transport planning reports for Perth are listed in chapter 2.

Perth’s suburban rail services run north to Clarkson (32km), south to Armadale (30 km) and east to west from Fremantle (19km) to Perth and on to Midland (16 km) (Ref. Figure 4.2). The new Mandurah line opened in 2007 runs 73 km southwards and can be regarded as peri-urban, as can the Avon Link commuter train (inbound a.m. peak, outbound p.m. peak) from Northam to Perth. There are also two regional rail passenger services in WA: The Australind from Perth to Bunbury (184km), which runs twice daily, and the Prospector to Kalgoorlie (655 km), which runs to a varying schedule approximately twice a day.

Parliament of South Australia. Environment, Resources and Development Committee 41

Figure 4.2: Perth rail network. Source: www.railmaps.com.au

Parliament of South Australia. Environment, Resources and Development Committee 42

Brisbane

Population of Translink area: 2.58m (Brisbane 1.68m) Boardings pa 182m (60 pc/pa) (train share 33%) Operating cost pa $675m ($264 pc/pa: subsidy $180) Fare revenue $214m (+conc. reimbursement $65m) Cost recovery (op costs) 31% Unit operating costs ? (2000 buses) Average capita spend pa $86m Cost of plans to IA $19,470m (227% of existing pt assets!)

There is little merit in making comparisons between Brisbane’s public transport and that of Adelaide, as the Queensland capital is a bigger city in an even bigger Translink metropolitan public transport region that stretches from the NSW border in the south to the Sunshine Coast communities to the north, within which there are distinct local public transport systems, e.g. those serving Gold Coast City and Ipswich. The regional area has a network of electrified rail services radiating in all directions from Brisbane, operated by Queensland Rail under contract to the State Government, and accounting for a significant proportion of the of the very high operating cost of the total Translink system. The Brisbane urban area is served by an intense network of City Council bus services, with outer suburbs and satellite communities served by private bus companies’ services. Overall cost recovery is more in line with that of the larger cities of Sydney and Melbourne, than with the lower cost recoveries characteristic of Adelaide and Perth.

One highly successful feature of Brisbane’s public transport is the growing number of Busways that enable high quality bus service to be delivered to areas not served by the suburban rail system, constructed to ensure fast access and egress into the CBD, a feature soon to be emulated in Adelaide by extension of the O-Bahn busway into the city centre. Also of note in Brisbane are the use of tolls on some highways and river crossings, and private investment in the construction (and initially in the operation) of the rail line to Brisbane Airport. The most recent transport planning reports for Brisbane are listed in chapter 2.

Brisbane’s electrified suburban railway system is all included in the Translink region, and includes regular services that extend to the limits of the Translink organisation’s jurisdiction, e.g. to Caboolture (50 km), Ipswich (40 km) and Robina (85 km) (Ref. Figure 4.3). In addition, regional electric train services continue north as far as Gympie (173 km), and Queensland Railways runs long distance trains from Brisbane to Cairns, Longreach, and Charleville, and from Townsville to Mount Isa. Note also the Gulflander, Savannalander and Kuranda tourist trains in northern Queensland, some of which are privately operated over QR track.

Parliament of South Australia. Environment, Resources and Development Committee 43

Figure 4.3: Brisbane rail network. Source: www.railmaps.com.au

Parliament of South Australia. Environment, Resources and Development Committee 44

Melbourne

Population of metro service area: 3.81m (city 3.37m) Boardings pa 492m (140 pc/pa) (train & tram share 80%) Operating cost pa $1,245m ($369 pc/pa)(subsidy $237) Fare revenue $445m (+conc. reimbursement $48m) Cost recovery (op costs) 36% Bus operating costs $5 per veh-km (1472 buses) Tram operating costs $13 per veh-km Train operating costs $31 per veh-km Average capital spend pa $46m Cost of plans to IA $7,455m (30% of existing pt assets)

A most interesting aspect of Melbourne’s public transport is the unique mixture of buses, trams and trains in almost equal proportions serving the metropolitan area: rail in the corridors (214m boardings), trams (178m) the inner and middle suburbs, and buses the low density outer suburbs (100m), with many of the bus routes feeding to rail and tram routes. Despite having an excellent network, provided at a subsidy only slightly higher per capita than that of Brisbane and Perth, it is subject to constant criticism, with adverse comparisons being drawn with cities such as Zurich, Toronto and Vancouver. The main weakness of the Melbourne system is that it is, like all other major Australian cities, dominated by radial services to the CBD, whereas the quoted overseas cities have a greater proportion of non-radial routes based, in the Canadian cities, on rectilinear arterial and collector road networks. However, any comparisons have to acknowledge that such methods of operation require users to accept the need to transfer between routes and/or modes to complete their journeys.

The most recent transport planning reports for Melbourne are listed in chapter 2. Melbourne’s suburban rail, tram and bus networks are contracted out, and new franchises were announced for the rail and tram services by the Victorian Government on 25 June 2009. From 1 December 2009 the suburban trains have been contracted to Metro Trains (previously Connex) and the tram services by Keolis (previously Yarra Trams).

In addition to Melbourne’s extensive suburban rail system (Ref. Figure 4.4), V/Line operates frequent service to the three large regional cities of Geelong (75 km), Ballarat (113 km) and Bendigo ( 162 km), and country trains to destinations such as Sale & Bairnsdale, Seymour, Shepparton & Albury, Echuca & Swan Hill, Ararat, and Warrnambool. The annual country train deficit (including the regional city services) is approximately $600 million.

Parliament of South Australia. Environment, Resources and Development Committee 45

Figure 4.4: Melbourne rail and tram network. Source: www.railmaps.com.au Parliament of South Australia. Environment, Resources and Development Committee 46

Sydney

Population of service area: 4.46m (Sydney 3.64m) Boardings pa 590m (132 pc/pa) (train share 55%) Operating cost pa $2,660m ($581 pc/pa)(subsidy $389) Fare revenue $855m (+conc. reimbursement $471m) Cost recovery (op costs) $30% Bus operating costs $4.4 per veh-km (4000 buses) Train operating costs $46 per veh-km Average capital spend pa $1,000m Cost of plans to IA $12,900m (47% of existing pt assets)

Sydney is in the ‘big league’ where public transport is concerned – its patronage, costs and system requirements are comparable to those of other large world cities. Also, Sydney’s public transport operations extend far beyond the city’s boundaries in all directions, to embrace Newcastle, Central Coast, Wollongong and the Blue Mountain towns (ref. Figure 4.5).

There are several aspects of the Sydney system, though, that are of relevance to Adelaide: the importance of the downtown underground rail loop in providing access to all parts of the CBD, the relatively high cost of providing rail services, and the construction of Transitways (busways) to serve the lower density western suburbs. Sydney also illustrates the significance that a congested road network (compounded by topography) can have on the level of public transport patronage: Sydney’s ridership is 50% higher than Melbourne from a population just 22% greater. Topography, together with the age and configuration of the rail network, also contributes to the much higher operating costs in Sydney, reflected in higher costs per capita (and subsidy per capita) needed to fund public transport in the Greater Sydney metropolitan region.

The most recent transport planning reports for Sydney are listed in chapter 2. Premier Rees announced in May 2009 that a new ‘super agency’, NSW Transport & Infrastructure’, is to take control of all transport and roads coordination, policy and planning functions that were previously in a number of organisations including the Ministry of Transport, RTA, RailCorp and State Transit.

The Inter-city branded passenger trains to Newcastle (168 km), Wollongong (83 km), Goulburn (225 km), and the Blue Mountains (Lithgow, 156 km), plus the local train services in the Hunter and Illawarra regions, are all included in the CityRail operational area, accounting for a fair proportion of the metropolitan rail budget. CountryLink runs the daily long distance intrastate trains to Armidale (995 km)/Moree (666 km) and Dubbo (462 km), the once weekly services to Griffith (680 km) and Broken Hill ((1125 km), and the interstate trains to Brisbane, Canberra and Melbourne. (GSR operates the transcontinental trains to Adelaide and Perth.) The Inter-city and CountryLink services are expensive to operate, the latter being one of the subjects investigated in the Ministerial Inquiry into Sustainable Transport in NSW (The Parry Report).

Parliament of South Australia. Environment, Resources and Development Committee 47

Figure 4.5: Sydney rail, LRT monorail and ferry network. Source: www.railmaps.com.au Parliament of South Australia. Environment, Resources and Development Committee 48

4.3 New Zealand

In New Zealand the Regional Councils are responsible for public transport planning, funding is shared with the NZ Government, and operations contracted out.

Auckland (pop. 1.12 million) is in the process of upgrading the suburban rail system similar to the Perth experience, including electrification (subject to funding). A new terminal has been opened (Britomart) closer to the CBD than the old city station with a long term plan to make it a through station by constructing a 3.5km tunnel to Mount Eden. The rail routes, currently operated by Veolia, run south to Papakura (31 km) and Pukekohoe (50 km) and north to Waitakere (31 km) (ref. Figure 4.6). The trains carry about 7 million trips per annum. The North Shore is also served by a 6 km long busway which carries 1.23 million trips per year, routes fanning out to serve the communities on the north side of the harbour.

Figure 4.6: Auckland rail map. Source: www.railmaps.com.au

In August 2009 a new Auckland Transport Agency replaced nine former bodies responsible for transport in the Auckland region. MAXX is the equivalent of Adelaide Metro, a brand name for marketing and information purposes covering all modes, routes, services and operators in metropolitan Auckland. There are five main bus operators in Auckland, with a total fleet of 920 buses carrying around 42 million passengers a year. Funding for all metro services (bus, rail and ferry) comes from both central and regional governments: in 2008 Land Transport New Zealand’s operating grant to the Auckland Regional Authority was $NZ85.4 million (capital grant $NZ5million) and the Regional Council’s operating grant was $NZ66.4 million (capital $NZ57.5 million).

The geography of Wellington (regional population 465,000. city 345,000) is such that a large proportion of commuters live in the Hutt Valley towns, on the Kapiti Coast, and in the communities in the hills to the north of the city, so the Tranz Metro rail network is an important element of the region’s public transport. There are routes to Upper Hutt (32 km) and Melling (14 km) in the Hutt Valley, Paraparaumu (48 km)

Parliament of South Australia. Environment, Resources and Development Committee 49 on the Kapiti Coast, and the Johnsonville line (10 km) (Ref. Figure 4.7). The Johnsonville line serves the inner Hills communities to the north of Wellington and is similar to the Belair line in Adelaide in that it is mainly single track and is undergoing major reconstruction at the present time. A regional rail service also extends beyond Upper Hutt to Masterton (91 km), and a single commuter trip runs southbound in the morning peak from Palmerston North (136 km) to Wellington, returning north in the late afternoon.

Figure 4.7: Wellington rail, trolleybus and ferry map. Source: www.railmaps.com.au

The Wellington city bus system is a compact network using buses and trolleybuses, the Wellington Regional Council having decided in the late 20th century to maintain the trolley network on environmental grounds (the system includes three tunnels, including one bus-only tunnel), contracting out the maintenance of the overhead

Parliament of South Australia. Environment, Resources and Development Committee 50 wiring as well as the operation of the vehicles, the latter to Stagecoach. The City Council’s Kelburn cable car is also contracted out (to Transfield), serving local residents as well as being a tourist attraction. NZ government grants to Wellington Regional Council in 2008 were $NZ53.3 million, with the Council raising $NZ36.7 million from the targeted regional rates. $NZ64 million was spent on funding and promoting public transport, and $NZ31 million on infrastructure, including maintenance of the overhead wiring. Capital expenditure on public transport in 2008 was only $NZ1 million of a $NZ7 million budget, due to delays on projects and matters relating to new equipment. Given the compact nature of most of the Wellington city area served by the buses and trolleybuses, cost recovery from fares is about 50%.

4.4 Canada

Toronto and Vancouver are often cited by Australians as cities with public transport systems that are superior to those in Australian cities. Although both cities are much bigger than Adelaide and their climates much different, there are aspects of the public transport networks that are relevant to the Committee’s Terms of Reference, particularly in the way communities beyond the core cities are served.

Most Canadian public transport systems are run by public enterprises that are creatures of municipal, regional or provincial governments. In the city of Toronto (population 2.4 million) the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) operates a network of subway, streetcar, LRT, ALRT and bus routes, with surrounding municipal communities such as Missisauga, Oakville, Brampton and Oshawa operating their own bus systems (the population of the conurbation at the western end of Lake Ontario is 6 million, more than twice that of Toronto itself).

The TTC system is a complex of services that is easy to use: a metro network of two linked north-south lines (Yonge & Spadina), an east-west line (Bloor-Danforth), the Sheppard branch and the Scarborough ALRT (Ref. Figure 4.8). The 600 or so subway cars are fairly spartan but provide a frequent service throughout the day: 2 minute headways are commonplace, and a passenger never has to wait more than 5 minutes. A fleet of 1730 buses and 248 streetcars operate over arterial and collector roads to create an intersecting network, e.g. there are more than 200 connections to the subway from 148 surface routes, many at specially designed interchanges that provide easy transfer at the same time protecting passengers from the weather. 2.3 million boardings a day are made onto the system, 1.17 million onto the subway, many of them transfer connections. Ticket sales indicate there are 1.49 million trips a day using the TTC’s services, which suggests that when comparing public transport data, the ratio of boardings to trips can be as high as 3:2 in some cities.

Parliament of South Australia. Environment, Resources and Development Committee 51

Figure 4.8: Toronto subway map. Source: Toronto Transit Commission

The TTC’s success can be measured by its 66% cost recovery level from a $C3.00 flat cash fare (c. $A3.25). In 2007, the TTC’s revenue from fares was $C780 million, with operating costs of $C1166 m. The Toronto City Council’s operating subsidy was $C207.9 m, supplemented by funds from the Ontario gas (petrol) tax of $C91.6m. Capital subsidies were received by the TTC from all three levels of government: Toronto $C116.4 m, Ontario $C237.9 m, and federal $C111.9m. The Ontario provincial government provides capital grants of up to 75% for infrastructure and equipment, and recently the federal government committed financial support of $C300m towards the new $C950 m Sheppard East LRT line. However the federal authorities have been less responsive to a request for a contribution towards the replacement of the fleet of over 200 streetcars (estimated cost $C1.1 billion), lest a precedent is set which might result in other Canadian cities seeking financial help for replacement of rolling stock. The TTC has placed an order for 204 new cars with Bombardier, with an option for up to 400 more.

GO Transit is the trading name of the Ontario provincial crown corporation that provides commuter rail and express bus service from Toronto to other cities and towns in the Toronto-Hamilton conurbation. The range of rail services is impressive: regular day-long services on the Lakeshore route from Oshawa (50km) in the east to Burlington (51 km) in the west, with peak hour trips extended to and from the city of Hamilton (63 km), and peak hour rail services to and from Barrie (101km), Milton (50 km), Stouffville/Lincolnville (50 km), Richmond Hill (34km), and Georgetown (49 km) (Ref. Figure 4.9). Bus services supplement all routes and provide daytime off-peak services. The size and scope of the Greater Toronto region is such that over 50 million trips were made on GO Transit in 2007, (43.4 million on trains and connecting buses, and 7.5 million on through bus services), half of them on the main line Lakeshore rail route. GO runs 155 train trips and 1878 bus trips daily, carrying over 200,000 passengers in 41 train-sets and a fleet of 401 buses.

Parliament of South Australia. Environment, Resources and Development Committee 52

Figure 4.9: GO Transit rail and bus network. Source: www.gotransit.com

Cost recovery from fares is a high 83%, due to fares and service levels being competitive with car travel in terms of price and travel times, peak hour commuters being deemed to have the ability and willingness to pay. Although the system covers most of its operating costs, all capital expenditures are funded by governments, mainly from the Ontario Government, the owner of GO Transit, e.g. in 2007 the province provided $C486 million of the total capital funding of $605 million, with the rest shared between municipal and federal authorities. Most GO services are contracted out, the train operation to CN and CP (depending on the track owner), train maintenance to Bombardier, and major bus repair work to various companies. In 2009, GO Transit bought the former CN line from downtown Toronto to Brampton for $C139 million, and ordered 10 new locomotives and 25 new bi-level cars as part of a $C435 million restoration project.

On May 14, 2009, GO Transit merged with and is now part of the Metrolinx organisation, though the well-established GO Transit operating name and image is likely to remain. GO Transit began service in 1967 and has developed into a very impressive and efficient public transport organisation.

The Greater Vancouver regional transit system TransLink (the trading name of the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority) serves a very large area consisting of 21 municipalities in the Lower Mainland, including the cities of Vancouver, Burnaby, West Vancouver, Richmond and Surrey. Total population served is over 2 million.

Aspects of the Vancouver system that are of interest are the continued use of trolleybuses (including express services), the Skytrain ALRT, and the West Coast Express commuter rail service to towns in the lower Fraser Valley (Ref. Figure 4.10). The bus fleet consists of 1432 vehicles, about a quarter of them trolleybuses (which

Parliament of South Australia. Environment, Resources and Development Committee 53 carry 70% of downtown public transport trips) and is fully integrated with the Skytrain and with the SeaBus ferry to the North Shore, including fares, park& ride, free downtown distributors, etc. The first Skybus line, the Expo route to New Westminster (20km) and Surrey, was opened in 1986.The Millennium route opened in 2002 serves Burnaby and other eastern suburbs, and the Canada line, opened in 2009, is a public-private concession linking Vancouver with Richmond and the International Airport. Trains are fully automatic, clean and frequent, with average operating cost only $C2.83 per v/km.

TransLink carried 179 million passengers in 2008 at an average fare of $C1.95 (c.$A 2.20). Transit fare revenue was $C349m, supplemented by $C560m of taxation revenues (mainly from a tax of 12¢ per litre on gasoline and diesel in the Greater Vancouver area). TransLink operations cost $C660m, giving an average cost recovery from fares of about 53%, but with considerable variation across different modes. Capital funds in 2008 were received from all three levels of government: $C111m from the province, $C96m from the federal government, $C7m from the City of Vancouver and $C2m from the City of Richmond, the municipal funds being contributions to the Canada Skytrain line. Capital was expended in recent years on 34 new Skytrain railcars, 20 articulated trolleybuses, a third SeaBus ferry and 120 diesel or hybrid buses. Note that much major infrastructure relating to TransLink’s rail operations remains vested in the BC Government, similar to the arrangements for rail, tram and O-Bahn infrastructure in Adelaide.

The West Coast Express, a subsidiary of TransLink, is a Monday to Friday peak hour only rail service of five inbound trains each morning from Mission City to Vancouver Waterfront, returning eastwards to the Fraser Valley towns in the evening. Occasional off-peak services and weekend trips are by bus (‘TrainBus’). At Waterfront, the WCE interchanges with SeaBus, Skytrain and local bus services. The one-way cash fare to Mission City is $C9.25 (c. $A10), illustrating the cost of providing a capital intensive service to outer communities – the locomotives and train-sets sit at sidings near Waterfront all day, awaiting their return journeys in the evening peak, though this is more efficient than operating the trains in the daytime off-peak when there is insufficient demand and buses can do the job more cheaply.

West Coast Express patronage is about 10,500 trips a day, more than double the 5,000 a day when the service began in the mid-1990s. Operating cost recovery in 2008 was 91.4%, 85% from fares ($C15m), the rest mainly from parking fees ($C1m), with total operating costs of $C17m, the subsidy required from TransLink was $C1.46m. Track access fees for operating over CP Rail cost $C9.95m.

BC Transit is a provincial crown agency responsible for coordinating public transport throughout British Columbia outside metropolitan Vancouver. It does so in 57 communities, with functions including planning, funding, marketing, fleet management and contracting operations. There are 81 transit systems, a mixture of regular routes, paratransit services and custom transit for people with disabilities. BC Transit’s functions are similar to those of the Office of Public Transport for regional SA, but the BC budget is much bigger, spending almost $C200m on operations in 2008/9, with 27 private operators and 14 non-profit agencies serving 47.6 million passengers.

Parliament of South Australia. Environment, Resources and Development Committee 54

Figure 4.10: Map of Vancouver Skytrain and West Coast Express rail lines. Source: David Arthur.

Montreal (pop. 3.3 million) also has a public transport system that integrates several modes and operating authorities’ services: a rubber-tyred Metro (c. 800 railcars), several suburban train services and a fleet of about 2000 buses (Ref. Figure 4.11). Unique to the region is the bus network serving the communities on the south shore of the wide St Lawrence River that feeds into the Montreal Metro at Longueuil and Bonaventure stations. Whereas Longueuil is a traditional surface bus/rail interchange with a big parking lot and elaborate ‘kiss & ride’ pick up and set down arrangements, Bonaventure terminal for South Shore services is in the basement of a CBD building in Montreal, the buses reaching the city via long reversible lane bus priority systems on the Victoria and Champlain bridges across the St Lawrence. Similar feeder bus systems to Metro termini (e.g. Montmorency) and suburban rail stations (e.g. Deux Montagnes - 29 km) serve the adjacent island city of Laval and other northern towns and suburbs.

Parliament of South Australia. Environment, Resources and Development Committee 55

Figure 4.11: Montreal Metro map. Source: Société de transport de Montréal

Smaller Canadian cities’ public transport systems are predominantly bus-based. Ottawa, the federal capital (pop. 780,000), which has 991 buses in its fleet, is notable for its superb T-shaped busway, the Transitway, which runs 20 km from Bayshore in the western suburbs through the CBD (using priority lanes on twinned one-way city streets) to Blair in the east, with a 8 km branch to South Keys in the southern suburbs. As with the Adelaide O-Bahn and the Brisbane South Busway, many routes use the Transitways, fanning out in all directions to serve destinations including Kanata to the west, Orleans to the east and Ottawa Airport to the south of the city. There are 370,000 boardings a day on the OCTranspo network of 239 routes, 240,000 of those boardings on routes that use the Transitways.

Parliament of South Australia. Environment, Resources and Development Committee 56

Figure 4.12: Ottawa Transitway and outer areas bus service map. Source: www.OCTranspo.com

OCTranspo’s revenue in 2007 (mainly from fares) was $C128 million, with a contribution from the City of Ottawa of $C152 million, supplemented by $C16.2 million from the Ontario gasoline tax. Thus operating cost recovery was about 50%.

Peri-urban and nearby towns beyond the Ottawa metropolitan area, such as Carleton Place and Winchester, are served by a number of rural bus routes, mainly peak hour services provided by private operators, that feed to the termini of the OC Transpo network (Ref. Figure 4.12). Ottawa also has an 8 km inter suburban rail route serving the large Carleton University campus operated by diesel railcars and linking with the Transitway at both ends of the rail line. Hull-Gatineau, on the Quebec side of the Ottawa River is served by a separate municipal bus system, with cross-river links operated by both operators, OCTranspo and STOutouais.

Calgary (pop. 1 million) and Edmonton (863,000) both have LRT lines providing spine routes linking the cities’ centres with suburbs, while Winnipeg (650,000) is served by an all-bus public transport system. All three cities have about 600 buses in their fleets, supplemented in Edmonton by 100 trolleybuses. Operating cost recovery in the three cities is over 43%, from flat fare systems, though many riders use weekly or monthly passes.

4.5 United States of America

The public transport systems of most cities on the US West Coast states are integrated in various ways. Two cities, Portland and Sacramento are only slightly larger than Adelaide; the others, e.g. Seattle, San Diego, San Francisco and Los Angeles are much larger. This section concentrates on Portland, Oregon, as it is the

Parliament of South Australia. Environment, Resources and Development Committee 57 city most often quoted for comparison with Adelaide, but highlights some interesting features of the public transport networks serving the other cities.

Portland (pop. 1.58 million) is best known for its MAX LRT network and its contribution to the revitalisation of the downtown area, but the city has several other public transport features of interest, e.g. an extensive ‘fareless square’, the downtown Portland Streetcar loop, a 22 block transit mall, and fleet of buses all equipped with bike racks. TriMet (the three-county Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon) is the main operator in the Portland region, public transport on the north side of the Columbia River being the responsibility of C-TRAN, the Clark County (Washington) transit authority that coordinates services and fares with Tri- Met, as do other adjacent counties on the Oregon side.

There are four MAX LRT lines, plus the Westside Express (WES) commuter rail line (Ref. Figure 4.13). The Blue Line is a 55 km long east-west trunk line, the eastern arm of which was opened in 1986, with the extension to the western suburbs opening in 1998. The short branches to the Airport (Red Line) and the Expo Centre (Yellow Line) were opened in 2001 and 2004 respectively, and the new 12 km Green Line to Clackamas opened in August 2009, together with an alternative alignment through the Portland CBD, to which the Yellow Line was also diverted. WES is a new (2009) 25 km commuter rail peak hour service operating on an existing freight line that connects the LRT at Beaverton with cities to the south. It is significant to note that the US federal government made major capital contributions to most of the Portland LRT lines’ construction costs: 83% of the $US214m cost of the Blue Line east, 73% of Blue Line west ($US963m), 74% of the Yellow Line ($US350m). A federal grant of $US59m was also made to the start-up costs of the WES commuter service.

The MAX lines carried 35 million passengers in 2008, compared to 66 million by the 631-strong bus fleet on 93 routes that are designed as an urban grid with timed transfers at several MAX stations and Transit Centres. Service frequencies on MAX are similar to those on the Glenelg Tram in the City of Adelaide and those on buses are similar to those found on Adelaide Metro bus routes, except that in Portland frequent service continues until later in the evening (9.30 pm). Other similarities with Adelaide include a three zone fare system and a cost recovery level from the fare box of less than 25%. 55% of TriMet’s operating costs are covered by a local payroll tax, which together with other local taxes raised $US215m in 2008. Fare revenue was $US81m (20% of costs), State and federal operating grants were $US60m (15%), the remaining $US38m (10%) coming from other sources. An interesting feature of the governance of TriMet is that the seven members of the Board of Directors serve without fee.

Parliament of South Australia. Environment, Resources and Development Committee 58

Figure 4.13: MAX rail and LRT lines and the Portland Streetcar. Source: www.trimet.org

Parliament of South Australia. Environment, Resources and Development Committee 59

There are 59 park & ride lots in the Portland metro region, 26 of them purpose-built, the rest shared lots, e.g. church parking lots. One measure of the success of TriMet is that more people ride public transport in Portland than in several larger US cities.

The Portland Streetcar, which is operated with a fleet of 10 Skoda streetcars, is managed by the City of Portland’s Office of Transportation and is contracted out for operation to Portland Streetcar Inc, a non-profit organisation. The streetcars operate around an 8 km loop around the city, linking a major hospital and Portland State University every 12 minutes throughout the day on weekdays, and every 15 minutes at evenings and on weekends; extensions to the service are planned.

Sacramento, the State Capital of California, has a city population of 1.4 million, but the Regional Transit System serves a population of 2.1 million in Sacramento County, operating 93 bus routes and two LRT lines (total length c.50 km) with a fleet of 248 buses (almost all of them CNG buses) and 76 LRVs. A 15 minute frequency operates on the LRT lines during most hours of service, but a curious difference, presumably reflecting demand and/or funding, is that the Blue Line operates through to the late evening, whereas the Gold Line, which runs out to Fulsom City, shuts down after 7 pm (Ref. Figure 4.14). Weekday LRT ridership is 31,000 on the LRT lines and 58,000 on the bus routes. The RTS operating budget in 2008 was $US147.7 m, and the capital budget $US141.7m. Fare revenue contributes about 23% of operating costs, state and local taxes 58% (29% each), and federal operating assistance 15%. Sacramento is at the northern end of the Capital Corridor regional rail service, which is operated by Amtrak but funded by the State of California and runs south through the Bay Area (Oakland) to Silicon Valley and San Jose.

Figure 4.14: Sacramento LRT map. Source: www.sacrt.com

The larger cities of West Coast USA all have superb public transport systems. Seattle (pop. 2.7 million) has a suburban rail service, Sound Transit, linking Seattle with cities to the south (Tacoma) and north (Everett) of the metropolitan region, plus Amtrak’s regional Cascades train and coach service which runs through the Pacific Northwest from Eugene OR to Bellingham WA and Vancouver, BC. San Diego (pop. 2.7 m) has a similar combination of suburban rail, the Coaster service, which links

Parliament of South Australia. Environment, Resources and Development Committee 60

San Diego with coastal communities as far north as Oceanside (68 km), and frequent regional Amtrak rail service to and from Los Angeles (Pacific Surfliner). In addition, one of the San Diego Trolley (LRT) routes operates every 15 minutes to San Ysidro (35 km), close to the Mexican border crossing point.

The Bay Area of San Francisco is served by an array of integrated public transport services operating all modes of transport. The City of San Francisco’s bus, trolleybus, streetcar, LRT and cable car routes are operated by MUNI, the traditionally-named San Francisco Municipal Railway, the East Bay cities of Oakland, Berkeley, Richmond, Hayward, etc. by the AC Transit bus fleet, the southern peninsula cities by several municipal bus authorities and the Valley Transit LRT lines (San Jose and Palo Alto), and the north shore communities by the buses and ferries operate by subsidiaries of the Golden Gate Bridge Authority. Express bus routes operated by AC Transit and Golden Gate Transit to and from San Francisco utilise exclusive lanes to access the Bay Bridge and Golden Gate Bridge respectively.

The whole Bay Area is linked by the BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit) system, whose lines fan out to the far north-eastern and south-eastern communities across the bay, such as Concord (26km) and Richmond (24km), and southwards on the peninsula to provide direct service to San Francisco Airport (22km) (Ref. Figure 4.15). BART services are integrated with those of all the municipal public transit systems, as exemplified by the stations in Market Street, San Francisco, where the streetcars, trolleybuses and buses operate on-street, the MUNI LRT services to the western suburbs are immediately sub-surface and the BART lines run in a deeper tunnel below the LRT tunnel.

Figure 4.15: Bay Area Rapid Transit map. Source: www.bart.gov

Parliament of South Australia. Environment, Resources and Development Committee 61

Caltrain is a regional rail operation linking San Francisco with the peninsula towns, operating a mix of stopping and semi-fast services to San Jose (75km), with frequent trains at peak times (a few extended to Gilroy -123km) and half-hourly service throughout the day. Cash fares vary with distance e.g. Palo Alto $US5.50 one-way, San Jose $US7.50 (c.A10). There are connections with BART (at Daly City), with Valley Lines LRT (e.g. at Mountain View) and with local buses at most stations. In addition to the Capital Corridor regional train services noted above, a specialised regional rail service, the Altamount Commuter Express, provides direct peak hour service between Stockton and other cities and the high-tech employment areas as far south as San Jose (125km). Three trains run southbound in the early morning and return northbound in the evening peak and there is one return trip in the daytime off- peak hours; cash fares are up to $US11 one-way.

Los Angeles (pop.13.8 million) is usually characterised as a city dominated by freeways, but this description masks the fact that Southern California has an extraordinary mixture of public transit service, much of it of the highest quality: Metrolink regional trains, the Red Line metro, the Blue, Green and Gold LRT lines, bus rapid transit lines (the El Monte busway is one of the busiest in the world), and buses operated by several local communities to supplement those provided by the Los Angeles Metropolitan County and neighbouring Orange County to the south (Ref. Figure 4.16). An illustration of the integration of services in Los Angeles is the ability to travel from, say, Pasadena, 40 km to the north-east of LA city centre, to the International Airport in the south-west or Long Beach (35km) in the south for a flat fare of $US1.25 (less than $A2), using the LRT lines, plus a free shuttle to the airport. Another example of integration is the off-airport bus terminal at LAX where local bus routes link with long-distance coaches and airport shuttle buses.

Figure 4.16: Los Angeles Metro Rapid bus, LRT and Metrolink map. Source: www.metro.net

Parliament of South Australia. Environment, Resources and Development Committee 62

These examples of public transport services, patronage and integration in west coast cities are replicated to varying degrees in cities elsewhere in USA, with the older east coast cities such as Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore and Washington all being served by large and complex systems making best use of all modes: commuter rail, metros, streetcars/LRT, buses, etc. Chicago and other mid-west and south-west cities are similar; the following points highlight some particular developments of interest:  New LRT systems in St Louis, Minneapolis, Houston, Dallas, Denver, etc.;  New regional rail services in Texas (Trinity Railway Express), New Mexico (Rail Runner), Tennessee (Music City Star), and Utah (Front Runner);  Extensive suburban rail systems in all the big east coast cities;  Modernised streetcar routes and newer busways in Pittsburgh; and  Automated personalised rapid transit in Morgantown, WV.

Some metropolitan areas have transport planning and coordination organisations separate from the transit operations, e.g. San Francisco, Atlanta, while others have integrated planning and operations under one structure, e.g. Jacksonville. Innovation can also be found in smaller cities and towns, as it is often easier to implement reforms in a more flexible planning framework and/or simpler decision-making environment, e.g. the University Bus System in Davis, CA (pop. 66,000), paratransit services in many small towns where fixed route bus services cannot be justified, and the ticketless free travel for seniors in Tri-Cities WA (pop. 200,000), where Ben Franklin Transit provides half-hourly frequencies on a number of routes within and between Pasco, Kennewick and Richland, with timed transfers at four Transit Centres, and on whose services anyone over 60 can travel free without a ticket and with no restrictions on place of residence.

4.6 Europe

Although European cities have quite different form and structure than Australian cities, e.g. population densities are two or three times greater than Adelaide’s, due to high densities in inner cities, older suburbs and apartment complexes, and the institutional and financial frameworks are much different from those in Australia, there is still much that can be learnt from public transport development in some European cities, particularly in the areas of service and fare integration, and organisational and financial arrangements.

Dublin, Ireland (population 1.23 million) is a city similar in size to Adelaide, which has benefitted from European Union financial support to transform its public transport services in less than 20 years, in order to respond to fast economic growth resulting in a change from a relatively compact city to one with new housing estates on the fringe, affluent suburbs, and three ‘new towns’, all of which encouraged greater levels of commuting and transport use. Following a number of earlier studies, the 1995 final report of the Dublin Transport Initiative, a comprehensive transport study, recommended a combination of quality bus services, new LRT, and improved suburban train services. The result is a city now served by:  Dublin Bus – a public company operating 1200 buses (almost all large capacity double deckers) carrying 148 million passengers in 2007;  Two LUAS LRT lines opened in 2004, built by the Irish Government, through the Railway Procurement Agency, and operated by Veolia, Europe’s largest passenger transport company (Ref. Figure 4.18); and  Irish Rail’s DART electrified suburban rail line which runs in an arc from north to south connecting the coastal suburbs of Dublin Bay, supplemented by four

Parliament of South Australia. Environment, Resources and Development Committee 63

diesel railcar operated commuter services, two extending beyond the DART terminals and two serving inland towns to the north-west and south-west of Dublin (Ref. Figure 4.17).

Both Dublin Bus and DART are subsidised, but LUAS requires no operating subvention, though it does receive reimbursement for concession travel. LUAS carried 27.4 million passengers in 2008, slightly fewer than in the previous year, a consequence of the economic downturn hitting the ‘Irish Tiger’ early and hard. All public transport companies in Europe receive PSO payments for providing non- commercial services. In 2007 the payment to Dublin Bus was €80 million (A$133m), covering 28% of operating costs; revenue from fares was €200 million, covering 70% of operating costs.

Figure 4.17: Dublin rail lines. Source: www.dublintourist.com

Parliament of South Australia. Environment, Resources and Development Committee 64

Figure 4.18: Dublin LUAS lines. Source: www.luas.ie

An integrated smartcard ticketing system is being gradually introduced in the Greater Dublin region, commencing with cards that cover all three major operations (bus, tram and train), then LUAS tickets, followed by Dublin Bus monthly passes, 10 ride tickets, etc. and similar passes on the suburban and commuter rail services. Single ticket smartcards will be introduced by the end of 2010, after which consideration will be given to extending the system to other private and government bus services (e.g. long-distance, Cork and Galway), with the long-term objective of an smartcard that can be used on any public transport service in Ireland.

In 2005 the Minister of Transport set up a team to recommend the structure of a Dublin Transport Authority, to better integrate roads and public transport in Dublin City and six surrounding counties. Legislation was passed in 2008 to establish such an Authority, and the Chief Executive post was advertised in early 2009. However, establishment of the DTA has been deferred for a review of its scope and functions, in light of the impact of the financial downturn on Ireland’s economy. Among the functions of the DTA, as recommended by the planning team, are strategic transport planning, procurement of infrastructure and services, regulation of fares, research, and delivery of an integrated public transport system.

Transferring British public transport experience to Adelaide is not as straightforward as that from North American cities or even the example of Dublin. The literature is full of reports on the relatively new LRT lines in cities such as Nottingham, Birmingham- Wolverhampton, Sheffield, Manchester, Croydon and London’s Docklands, but perhaps the most interesting is the oldest, that serving the Tyne & Wear metropolitan area centred on Newcastle-upon-Tyne (city population 880,000, region 1.5 million). Tyne & Wear Transport once provided or funded almost all the public transport in the region, but with the deregulation and privatisation of bus and rail services in the 1990s, the emphasis of what is now the Tyne & Wear Integrated Transport Authority is on transport planning and finance, with operations limited to the Nexus Metro LRT, and cross-river tunnels and ferries. The LRT network is particularly relevant to Adelaide as it was created from a number of run-down diesel suburban rail services, by transferring most of the track to the regional body, electrifying an initial loop and branch network, and constructing a new underground cross-city tunnel and cross- river bridge. Later a branch was opened to Newcastle Airport, and most recently a new line has opened to Sunderland (pop. 230,000), the second city in the

Parliament of South Australia. Environment, Resources and Development Committee 65 conurbation. For some of its length, the Sunderland extension operates on the tram- train principle (Ref. Figure 4.19), with LRT cars running every 10 minutes on rail track interspersed with regional diesel passenger and freight trains. The branch terminates at South Hylton, on the south bank of the River Wear, restoring service using a disused railway right-of-way that was last used by passenger trains as long ago as 1964. Fortunately, the right-of way had been preserved and used in the intervening years as a cycle track and footpath.

Parliament of South Australia. Environment, Resources and Development Committee 66

Figure 4.19: Map of Nexus LRT network. Source: www.nexus.org.uk

Parliament of South Australia. Environment, Resources and Development Committee 67

Nexus, the company operating the LRT, is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the T&WITA, but in accordance with UK law, the LRT service has to be tendered, with Nexus bidding against other potential operators - all the UK LRT services are franchises. The revenue support from the Authority to Nexus in FY2008/9 was £64 million (c.A$150m), raised by a levy on the five councils making up the region (Newcastle, Sunderland, Gateshead, North Tyneside and South Tyneside), plus £15 million from the UK Department for Transport. About £38m is collected in fares from 40 million journeys; the total cost of services is about £125m.

Other cities in UK with populations similar to Adelaide include Glasgow (1.2 million), Liverpool (880,000) and Leeds-Bradford (1.5 million), These and other larger cities and their surrounding metropolitan areas are served by a mixture of private bus companies’ services and local rail networks, some of them electrified. The West Yorkshire Integrated Transport Authority, which serves Leeds, Bradford and surrounding towns and villages, covers a total population of 2.1 million. The West Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive subsidises non-commercial bus services and funds Metro train services in roughly equal proportions, paid for by a £79m revenue grant from WYITA and a £68m rail grant from the UK Department for Transport, disbursed to operators for concession fares (£41m), subsidised bus services (£23m) and franchised local rail services (£67m). WYITA is also planning to convert a major north-south cross-city route in Leeds from motorbus to trolleybus operation. Note in West Yorkshire and in some other British conurbations, seniors can travel free on both local bus and rail services, whereas in surrounding rural areas free travel is limited to bus services.

Two developments in UK public transport in 2009 are to be found outside the big metropolitan regions. The newest and longest guided busway, similar to the Adelaide O-Bahn, in the County of Cambridgeshire, is 25km long, links St Ives and Cambridge (pop. 137,000), and opened for service late in 2009 (Ref. Figure 4.20). Initial patronage is expected to be about 10,000 passengers a day, doubling to 20,000 as the region grows. Two private bus companies operate services on the busway, with 14 stops and two large park & ride lots. Cost of the Cambridgeshire Guided Busway is £120 million (c.A$270m). There was considerable opposition to the busway in the planning stage from the rail lobby, so good operational performance will be required to offset the arguments of the sceptics.

Parliament of South Australia. Environment, Resources and Development Committee 68

Figure 4.20: Cambridgeshire guided busway map. Source: Cambridgeshire County Council

Parliament of South Australia. Environment, Resources and Development Committee 69

The second development, a policy initiative in South Wales, is reminiscent of the anti- freeway debates of the 1960s and 1970s in North America and elsewhere. The Welsh Assembly government has decided to scrap two major road projects because of escalating costs. The bill for a proposed 22.5km relief road around Newport (pop. 139,000) has risen from £340m to £1 billion. At the same time a new access road to Cardiff Airport was dropped from the Assembly’s five-year transport plan. The funds will instead be used to improve public transport, including constructing the missing link from the Ebbw Vale branch rail line to Newport, and improving local and long- distance bus services. This is a very courageous decision by the Welsh Assembly, acknowledging that cost estimates for many transport projects prove to have been too low, and the benefits exaggerated, so when faced with a project that tripled in cost even before construction had begun, the Minister of Transport recommended cancellation and convinced the Assembly Government to agree that the funds could be used for improvements to public transport.

All of the smaller continental European capital cities have, like Dublin, superb public transport systems using a combination of bus, tram/LRT, metro and suburban rail services, e.g. Stockholm (pop.1.4 million), Amsterdam (1.1m), Vienna (1.5m), Helsinki (1.1m) and Prague (1.2m). Although most of these cities have populations similar to Adelaide, densities are at least twice those found in Australia, and access to the city centres by car is difficult and/or expensive, e.g. it costs the equivalent of US$70.77 (about A$95) to park a car all day in Amsterdam, and US$56.68 in Vienna.

Copenhagen (pop.1.1 million, region 1.8m) is the only large city in Denmark, with about a third of the nation’s population. The Greater Copenhagen Authority (HUR) contracts out all public transport services, while ensuring that the customers perceive the system as one entity, so, for example, all buses have the same identity, irrespective of the operator. HUR has the final decision on route and service changes, to the extent that operators complain that the process is too rigid – it may well be that bus companies in Adelaide have more flexibility to initiate change than their counterparts in Copenhagen. As well as buses, HUR also operates six small railways on the island of Zealand, but the Danish State Railways (DSB) still owns and operates the main rail lines and operates the suburban S-trains (Ref. Figure 4.21). Copenhagen’s metro lines are owned by a separate state/city corporation, with operation contracted out to INMETRO, an Italian company 51% owned by ATM, the Milan transport operator, and services coordinated by HUR. Operating cost recovery of the total network from fares is about 74%.

Parliament of South Australia. Environment, Resources and Development Committee 70

Figure 4.21: Copenhagen public transport network. Source: Platform 5 Publishing (2007)

Zurich (city population 830,000, canton 1.5m), the largest city in Switzerland, is often cited as having a model public transport system. However, it is a smaller city, with a population density three times that of Adelaide, and the city is not easy to access by car, with average speeds and trip times by public transport competitive with those by

Parliament of South Australia. Environment, Resources and Development Committee 71 car. The City of Zurich is notable for its tram network, which carries two-thirds of the total public transport patronage of 310 million per annum, with 223 articulated trams (plus 94 trailers) operating over 117 route kms. The tram system is complemented by 79 articulated trolleybuses and about 150 buses (Ref. Figure 4.22). Cost recovery on all services, including S-bahn suburban trains is about 50% from fares, with subsidies coming from the City, neighbouring counties in Zurich canton, and the Swiss federal government.

Parliament of South Australia. Environment, Resources and Development Committee 72

Figure 4.22: Zurich public transport network. Source: www.zvv.ch

Parliament of South Australia. Environment, Resources and Development Committee 73

The public transport systems of German cities routinely serve populations up to double that of the central city, and as a result the metropolitan regions cooperate through the institutional and financial Verkehrsverbund organisations, to coordinate all public transport planning, finance and operations within the regional areas, e.g. Hamburg (city population 1.9 million, HVV 3 million), Frankfurt (2.2m, FVV 3m), Munich (1.7m, MVV 3m). The largest example is the Rhein-Ruhr Verkersverbund (VRR), which coordinates bus, express bus, tram, LRT (Stadtbahn), metro (U-bahn) and suburban (S-bahn) and regional (RE) rail services for a score of organisations serving the cities and towns from Dusseldorf to Dortmund, including Duisburg, Mulheim, Essen, Bochum, Krefeld, Wuppertal, with a total population of over 7 million and annual ridership of about 1 billion passenger journeys (Ref. Figure 4.23). Cost recovery from fares varies widely across the region and different modes, averaging 36%, with subsidies coming from local, state (Nordrhein-Westfalen) and federal sources. An interesting feature is the allocation of fare revenue back to operators on a basis of demand, rather than on service provided, in order to discourage operation of poorly patronised services; each operator retains the fares collected on its vehicles, and the VRR arranges compensation for transfers between services, modes and routes.

Figure 4.23: Map of the Rhein-Ruhr rail and LRT network. Source: www.vrr.com

The tram-train concept being considered for the north-west corridor in Adelaide has its origins in the city of Karlsruhe (pop. 350,000, region 500,000), where the trams of the VBK local transport authority began operating over tracks of the national railway (DB) in 1992 on a 30 km route linking central Karlsruhe with Bretten-Golshausen: 6.4 km of existing city tram track, 2.8. km of new LRT track, then main line as far as Grotzingen (Ref. Figure 4.24). The route to Pforzheim was converted in 1994 and other routes followed, and the concept was picked up by other cities, particularly in Germany and France.

Parliament of South Australia. Environment, Resources and Development Committee 74

Figure 4.24: Karlsruhe rail and LRT lines. Source: www.kvv.de

Parliament of South Australia. Environment, Resources and Development Committee 75

France has seen a rebirth of tram/LRT systems, with modernisation of existing tram networks and/or new construction in many cities, e.g. Mulhouse, Grenoble, Valenciennes, Montpellier, St Etienne, Bordeaux, Le Mans, Marseille, Nice, Strasbourg, Angers, and Toulouse. Lyon (pop. 1.34 million) is similar in population size to Adelaide. The public transport system is particularly interesting as it has been refocussed on four relatively new metro lines and four tram lines, complemented by trolleybus and bus routes and a number of funiculars (Ref. Figure 4.25). Most services are operated by the Société Lyonnaise de Transport en Commun (SLTC), a member of the Keolis group (which operates in 80 cities and 50 regions of the EU) under a management contract from the city and regional councils’ transport planning agency (SYTRAL). About half of the 256 million annual boardings in Lyon are on the metro lines, with a fleet of over 1000 buses carrying most of the remainder. Cost recovery from fares is about 23% (similar to Adelaide), with subsidy income raised from local taxes plus the ‘Versement Transport’, a levy on companies which finances about 40% of the costs of public transport in France. SNCF, the French national railway, continues to operate outer suburban rail services north-west of Lyon using diesel railcars, which interchange with the metro at Gorge du Loup station. There are plans to electrify the three suburban rail lines and connect them to the city tram network by new construction – another application of the tram-train concept.

Figure 4.25: Lyon rail and tram network. Source: Platform 5 Publishing (2007)

Parliament of South Australia. Environment, Resources and Development Committee 76

4.7.Asia

There are many cities in Asia with populations of over 1 million, more than 50 in China and about 40 in the Indian sub-continent, and population densities in these cities are up to ten times that found in Adelaide. Car ownership is comparatively low, walking, cycling, motor-cycles and derivatives are much more common and informal transport systems are commonplace, so there is not much Asian practice that is transferable to Australian cities, except the important fact that high levels of public transport use encourage development and innovation, as applied to public transport operations in Japan and Korea, and in transport planning for the growing cities of the Gulf states.

All major Japanese cities draw on the full range of public transport technologies in their systems: metros, suburban trains, trams, buses, ferries, etc., plus newer technologies introduced in the 1960s and 1970s to improve downtown distribution and to provide feeder services to suburban stations. Sendai (pop. 1.25m) has a 700 strong municipal bus fleet (carrying over 75 million passengers annually, average operating cost recovery 78%) and a single metro line (57m, 70%), both operated by the Sendai City Transportation Bureau, a large private bus company (50m, 90%), and electric suburban trains operated by JR East (50m). Note in particular the high levels of patronage: over 250 million boardings annually is four times the level in Adelaide.

Similarly, Hiroshima (pop. 1.33m) is served by: - a major bus company, Hiroden, which has a fleet of over 800 buses, carries about 70 million passengers a year, and covers its operating costs, except that it receives a subsidy to maintain service to outlying areas; - three smaller private bus operators (40 million annual passengers); - a city tramway (18 million); - a 18.4 km elevated automated rubber-tyred guideway system; and - suburban trains operated by JR West (55 million).

Comprehensive master planning for transport, which is something of a lost art in Australia and other western nations, can still be found in Asia in response to the rapid growth of cities. Current planning processes in Abu Dhabi (pop. 800,000) are similar to that in South Australia in the 1960s: a development plan for the Emirate, Plan 2030, complemented by a more detailed Strategic Transport Master Plan (SMTP), covering all modes of transport, with emphasis on the Abu Dhabi metropolitan area. The forecast rate of the city’s population growth is very rapid; from 750,000 in 2008, to 1.3 million in 2013, over 2 million by 2020 and 3 million by 2030. The public transport recommendations in the STMP report include a 131 km metro system with operation to commence by 2020 and a tram/LRT network of up to 340 km, of which the first 20.1 km route is planned to open by 2013 (Ref. Figures 4.26 and 4.27). The STMP planning process involved extensive consultation with stakeholders before the Department of Transport planning team and its consultant advisors recommended a plan which emphasised public transport, while still including necessary new freeways and other major roads in the Plan. Detailed planning studies for both the Metro and LRT projects are expected to commence early in 2010.

Parliament of South Australia. Environment, Resources and Development Committee 77

Figure 4.26: Map of proposed 2030 Abu Dhabi transport network. Source: STMP (2009)

Coincident with planning for metro, LRT (and possible suburban rail) in Abu Dhabi, the Emirate DoT introduced in 2008/9 the first nine routes of a new bus network on Abu Dhabi island. The new routes are an attempt to encourage a public transport culture in a city dominated by taxis and chauffeured travel, through cheap fares combined with high standard facilities such as air conditioned bus shelters and a focus on interchange at regional centres such as Marina Mall, Tourist Club and Zayed Sport City.

Parliament of South Australia. Environment, Resources and Development Committee 78

Figure 4.27: Map of proposed Abu Dhabi tram network. Source: STMP (2009)

Dubai, the largest city in the United Arab Emirates (pop. 2 million) is currently completing commissioning of a two-line 52 km metro. The Red Line opened in September 2009, and the Green Line will open in 2010 (Ref. Figure 4.28). The Dubai Road & Traffic Authority let a turnkey contract to a Japanese/British consortium, with operations and maintenance the responsibility of Serco. Initial patronage predictions (which seem very optimistic) are for 27,000 passengers per hour, with trains every 3.5 minutes in the peak and every 7 minutes off-peak. 62 five-car sets are required for the Red Line and 25 three-car sets for the Green Line. However, plans for third and fourth metro lines and for seven LRT routes have been put on hold to assess the impact of the economic downturn on the UAE economy and Dubai’s population growth.

Parliament of South Australia. Environment, Resources and Development Committee 79

Figure 4.28: Map of proposed Dubai metro. Source: UrbanRail.net

Yerevan, the capital of Armenia (pop. 1.1 million, region 1.3m) is an example of a city with a very long history, and a population density that is very high (six times that of Adelaide). So public transport patronage is impressive, though service can be affected by power shortages and earthquakes: - a bus fleet of some 350 vehicles carrying 110 million passengers annually; - a trolleybus fleet of 320 vehicles, 100 million; and - a single 13 km metro line, opened in 1981, which carries up to 250,000 passengers per day (c.50 million annually).

4.8 Other Cities

Medium-sized South American cities such as Rosario, Argentina (pop. 1.15 million), La Paz, Bolivia (1.15m) and Valparaiso, Chile (800,000), all tend to be served predominantly by bus-based public transport. It is not surprising, then that one of the continent’s larger cities, Curitiba, Brazil (pop. 2.7m), has the finest bus rapid transit systems in the world, with large articulated buses operating on exclusive busways in the medians of wide boulevards and freeways (Ref. Figure 4.29), with specially

Parliament of South Australia. Environment, Resources and Development Committee 80 designed enclosed stops that enable fast boarding of buses, demonstrating that high quality public transport can be delivered by buses provided they are given priority on the road and are unencumbered by other road traffic. Santos, Brazil (city population 450,000, region 1.47 million), South America’s largest port, has bus and trolleybus services provided by the municipal authorities, with 39 trolleybuses and over 200 buses carrying 84 million passengers per year, with 1200 private buses (including many minibuses) carrying a further 60 million, a single provincial suburban rail line (26 km, 3 million passengers), and four publicly-owned ferries. Both the municipal bus system and the many private operators cover their operating costs from fares.

Figure 4.29: Curitiba express bus network. Source: www.solutions-site.org

Most African cities, too, rely on a mixture of regular route bus services and many less formal minibus operators. In Pretoria RSA, (pop. 1.8m), the city area is served by a municipal bus system, but service to outer areas is operated by a large national company plus a myriad of minibus operators. A frequent regional rail service on four routes is provided by Metrorail, the South African Rail Commuter Corporation. A new fast train service, the Gautrain, is planned for the main rail link, that to Johannesburg (70 km).

4.9 The Relevance of Overseas Experience to Adelaide

An extensive review of public transport interstate and overseas throws up a number of features that can be considered for application in South Australia, and provides examples and models of practice against which Adelaide’s public transport characteristics and performance can be assessed. This section highlights some of the findings from interstate and overseas in three broad areas: efficiency and effectiveness; integration; and service to outer areas.

Parliament of South Australia. Environment, Resources and Development Committee 81

Efficiency and Effectiveness

Patronage For a city of 1.1 million people, 62 million trips per annum is on the low side of Australian and North American averages, but is reasonable when population density, car ownership, ease of access by car to the City of Adelaide and other destinations, and the perceived cost of travel by car are taken into account. Adelaide’s per capita patronage (60 trips per year) is only slightly below that of Perth (69) and Portland, Oregon (67). There is obviously capacity to increase patronage in some parts of Adelaide’s system at slack times of the day and week, but many routes in the network already operate at capacity in the peak hours, and loading in the CBD will need to be improved if patronage increases. Although more intensive use is made of public transport in European, Asian and South American cities, it is not appropriate to compare data from these continents with Australian cities, though the high ridership does demonstrate what can be achieved if demand can justify very high service levels, particularly frequency and reliability, e.g. Dublin (200m/1.27m), Lyon (256m/1.3m).

Fleet size Taking account of the area being served, and the existence of the suburban rail and tram services, the 832 buses in Adelaide’s fleet accords with standards found elsewhere. Auckland, which is comparable with Adelaide has 820 buses and two suburban rail lines, while Ottawa has more buses (991) but only one rail line. Larger cities tend, where possible, to make greater use of systems with exclusive rights-of- way, whether busways, light or heavy rail, e.g. Brisbane, Vancouver, with Melbourne using bus tram and suburban rail roughly equally. The Adelaide bus fleet is used more effectively than it was a decade ago, with the contracting out of services having generated efficiencies.

Service frequency The peak and off-peak frequencies on Adelaide’s bus, tram, and train services are in line with those found in other cities of similar size, however, the frequencies found at evenings and weekends are lower than those found elsewhere, e.g. in Portland 15 minute headways continue until around 9 p.m., whereas in Adelaide there is a marked drop in frequency after the evening peak (6 p.m. or, at the latest 7 p.m.), and weekend service is fairly sparse. Associated problems are reliability and adherence to timetables, some of which are inappropriate – there seems to be a reluctance to create timetables that more accurately reflect differing travel times throughout the day, e.g. a trip time of 20 minutes may be the standard, but travel times on a route will vary from 15 minutes on early morning trips to 25 minutes or more on busy and/or congested peak runs. When the timetable has too generous an allowance drivers either leave the terminus late or wait time at stops en route, while at other times drivers struggle to maintain the schedule! Travel times need to be adjusted to reflect the real conditions on the road. On Adelaide’s suburban rail services, the weekday mix of express, skip-stop and stopping services on the main routes is excellent, but the weekend all-stops less frequent service is unlikely to attract new patronage. In cities with tram/LRT systems, such as Melbourne and Toronto, more frequent service can be found, and in cities with metro systems passengers are attracted by very frequent service (timetables are unnecessary). In Toronto in the peak there is always a tram in sight on the routes through the city centre, and the TTC subway runs every 1 or 2 minutes in the peak and not more than 5 minutes between trains in the off-peak (6 minutes on the Scarborough ALRT).

Parliament of South Australia. Environment, Resources and Development Committee 82

Ownership and operations Public transport systems are owned by a wide range of public entities and private companies, with municipal councils and regional, state, or provincial governments operating directly, operating through an arms-length authority, contracting out or franchising operations to one or more organisations. Maintenance and new construction are also subject to similarly differing arrangements. In some cities, a mixture of public/private, direct operation and/or franchising can be found. In Adelaide, the bus services are competitively tendered for operation, but TransAdelaide has negotiated contracts with the State Government. Savings of up to 30% were achieved through the bus tenders, but it is not clear what efficiencies are made, if any, during intra-governmental negotiations. Federal or central governments are usually involved with urban transport in cities where suburban rail service is delivered by a national rail organisation, though there is a tendency for second level governments to increasingly accept responsibility for operation and/or funding of such local services. Ownership does not unduly affect efficiency, except where constraints are placed on an operating agency by an owning government. Private companies may have to generate enough revenues to cover fleet replacement, although particularly under franchising and contracting arrangements, vehicles and/or infrastructure may be leased. Most public transport organisations struggle to cover operating costs, so the owning governments have to provide capital for replacements and improvements, and the level of that capital infusion will have an influence on the quality of service that can be provided, as clearly seen in the high standard rail service now provided in Perth. Ownership of infrastructure by an agency of government and operation of services by a different organisation can also raise questions of barriers to entry by other interested parties.

Competition and regulation The importance of integration in public transport suggests that a monopoly provider should be able to deliver services more effectively. Experience, however, suggests that is rarely the case in practice. The former SA State Transport Authority scored well in integrating services during its 18 years existence, but poorly in efficiency terms as the management and labour together tended to capture the benefits at the expense of users. It is not surprising, then, to find that cost savings were made and service quality improved when the bus services were contracted out to new service providers. As noted above, service levels in Adelaide can still be improved, but they are much better than, say, 20 years ago. Some cities maintain traditional organisational structures for some services, e.g. both Dublin Bus and Irish Rail are subsidiaries of CIE, the national transport company, but new contractual arrangements have been made for the provision of the LUAS LRT and the planned new metro. In Abu Dhabi, the new bus services were contracted out, and the proposed metro and LRT lines will be tendered for construction and operation. In Dubai, the new metro was built and will be operated as part of a turnkey contract. Where public transport is mainly provided by private companies, it is normal practice for regulators to control aspects of the operation, e.g. access to routes, vehicle standards, fares, working conditions, etc., in much the same way that country bus services are regulated in South Australia and taxis in Adelaide. Where contracted services occur, such conditions, when required, may form part of the contract.

Parliament of South Australia. Environment, Resources and Development Committee 83

Fare levels and pricing policy Fare levels on public transport in Australia are low by world standards, reflecting a requirement to compete with the perceived price of travel by car, which in practice is little more than the price of petrol. Perversely, public transport is perceived by many to be expensive, particularly by those who are non-users – this view is usually based on consideration of the cash fare for a single trip, currently $4.40 in Adelaide. However, the fact that 62 million annual boardings raise only $60 million in revenue clearly shows the average fare paid is about $1.00 – the $4.40 fare is the most that anyone pays, yet nobody has to pay, because the price for the same trip using a multi-trip ticket is $2.90 ($29.00 for 10 rides), a discount of about one-third. Daytime off-peak fares are lower ($2.70 cash, $1.59 multi-trip), to encourage travel during hours when there is capacity to spare and the marginal cost of travel is lower (most costs in public transport are incurred to accommodate peak demand). School and tertiary students, pensioners, seniors, unemployed and others are eligible to travel at concession rates, approximately half the regular fares, and seniors travel free at certain times, all of which accounts for the low average fare.

The pricing policy found in Adelaide is reflected elsewhere to varying degrees. Most concession travel is reimbursed to the operator, either on a formula basis or in actual terms on the basis of tickets issued. Flat fares are common in North America, e.g. $C2.75 in Toronto, $C3 in Ottawa, with no change given by drivers and any cash deposited in a locked fare-box. Note fares rise sharply for any travel to places outside the boundary of cities with flat fare structures or where rail fares are maintained at the same levels as bus fares as part of a uniform fare policy. Maintaining standard fares across all modes in a system is effectively a cross-subsidy between the different modes, otherwise fares tend to be higher on rail systems than on bus systems, reflecting the higher costs of rail, e.g. in London, where Underground cash fares are up to twice the bus fare for an equivalent journey, and on Vancouver’s West Coast Express.

Cost recovery There is an almost direct relationship between size of city and cost recovery on public transport in cities in Australia and North America. Smaller cities have relatively low cost recoveries, e.g. Perth 19%, Portland 20%, Adelaide 27%; other Australian cities range from Sydney (30%) and Brisbane (31%) to Melbourne (36%), though these figures all mask variations between rail, tram, bus and ferry. Rail cost recovery can be as low as 15% and bus around 40%. Generally, cities in New Zealand, Canada and USA aim for cost recoveries over 50%, e.g. Toronto 66%, Vancouver 53%, Ottawa 50%. Fare policy and cost recovery are essentially compromises as a result of trading off a contribution from the passenger towards the cost of operating the service, trying to encourage greater use of public transport, and keeping an eye on the costs of the main competitor, the private car.

Parliament of South Australia. Environment, Resources and Development Committee 84

Funding sources To cover the shortfall between fare revenue and operating cost, subsidies are usually paid by the municipal or regional, state or provincial government directly responsible for owning and/or operating a public transport system, sometimes with the aid of particular taxes either hypothecated to support public transport, e.g. Portland’s payroll tax, or specially targeted to the same effect, e.g. Ontario’s gasoline tax. Incidental revenue, e.g. from advertising and car parking fees, can also make a minor contribution. National or federal authorities are generally reluctant to subsidise the operating costs of local transport, although such support is occasionally forthcoming in special cases, e.g. in USA, and is also found where national rail systems provide local services, e.g in UK and Europe. The French Versement Transport tax on businesses is an excellent and rare model of national policy underpinning a country’s public transport.

Examples can be found where all levels of government contribute capital funds to improve urban transport, even if that support can vary geographically and over time, as has been the case in investment on public transport in Australian cities, and with federal assistance to projects in Canadian cities. There is a simple and direct relationship between the amount of capital funding committed to the improvement of public transport, the quality of service that can be provided as a result, and the ability to attract patronage, clearly demonstrated in Perth (suburban rail), Brisbane (busways), Vancouver (Skytrain), the Toronto region (GO Transit), Portland (MAX) and Ottawa (transitways).

Innovation Public transport authorities in general are slow to innovate, preferring to continue to operate tried and true technologies along traditional routes, which is understandable given that rail routes are well established and constrained by right-of way, track gauge and loading gauge, and the best-performing bus routes follow the same major roads that had tram services more than 50 years ago. It is the few, rare, exceptions that show what can be achieved by trying new ideas, from something as simple as the new bus service to Adelaide Airport, to better use of existing technology (e.g. Tyne & Wear LRT, Karlsruhe tram/train, Curitiba buses), to the adoption of new systems such as Adelaide’s O-Bahn guided busway, Vancouver’s Skytrain and the VAL automatic small metros in Lille and Toulouse. New metro lines offer the opportunity to innovate in various ways: at surface, elevated, in tunnel or, as is often the case, a combination; steel wheels or rubber tyres; automatic or manually driven; on-platform screens with doors to open coincident with the train doors, etc. Given that a need to improve the system and/or increased demand will justify investment, innovation can be relatively inexpensive, but can make a big difference to the attractiveness of public transport, e.g. increasing frequency of service, introducing air conditioning, or providing ancillary services at stations or interchanges.

Social cohesion The extent to which public transport supports groups in the community can go some way to justifying the subsidies paid to maintain the system, especially by creating opportunities for travel for the young, elderly, unemployed, poor or disabled. Public transport which provides access to schools, hospitals, shopping centres, community

Parliament of South Australia. Environment, Resources and Development Committee 85 facilities, etc. is contributing to the wellbeing of society in general and in particular to those who do not have access to a car. Such services provide accessibility to essential services and are thus an indicator of the system’s overall effectiveness. Measured against such criteria, Adelaide’s public transport ranks as well as any other city, except, as noted above, to the extent that service frequency falls away during evening hours and at weekends it does not rate as well as cities that provide more frequent and/or longer hours of service. Many cities provide all night services, usually by bus (as essential maintenance needs to be carried out on rail lines during the night hours), giving an opportunity to nurses, cleaners and others who work shifts or unsocial hours to avoid having to buy a car. Adelaide has late night services at weekends, geared to the nightlife of the city, a service that can be justified on road safety grounds, and also scores well with other ancillary services such as Access Cabs, and community bus services.

An issue that arose during the Committee’s deliberations is that of equity in the subsidisation of public transport services. Low cost recovery from public transport is accepted in the metropolitan area, but bus operators and other modes serving regional SA are expected to operate commercially, although concession fares do exist and these services do benefit from publicly funded infrastructure improvements to roads, airports, port facilities, etc. The contrast is most marked at the Metroticket boundary, where a maximum cash fare of $4.40 will take a passenger on a TA train to Gawler, but it can cost up to $21 to a destination in the Barossa by bus. Concession fares are available on both examples, but the price differential is still marked. Subsidies might also bring greater stability to the companies serving regional SA. The development of the LinkSA bus and coach network and the gradual extension of the contracting approach to provision of country bus services are welcome initiatives by the Government and BusSA member companies that should improve access to public transport for people in regional SA.

Integration

Integration of services Service coordination can occur in various ways, e.g. simply by ensuring that bus stops at intersections where transfer is possible from one route to another are close enough to enable passengers to interchange easily. In Adelaide, the standards used to site bus stops near intersections are such that a transfer that looks easy on a system map or timetable diagram may turn out to involve a walk of up to 70 metres. Compare, for example, the ease of transferring from a northbound City Circle bus at Norwood to an inbound bus on The Parade with the awkward walk from the equivalent outbound stop (10) on The Parade to the southbound City Circle near the Clayton-Wesley church. The ideal arrangement is to have as many specially designed interchanges in the network as possible, such as those at Salisbury and Mawson Lakes which facilitate bus to bus, bus to rail and rail to bus transfers, or that at Tea Tree Plaza which is a combined bus to bus and park and ride interchange. Park & ride continues to be a popular way to access public transport, whether on- street in a suburb where parking is easy and the bus, train or tram service frequency is better than that closer to one’s home, or by driving to a park-and ride lot. The emphasis on park & ride in Portland is notable, using local lots, particularly those at

Parliament of South Australia. Environment, Resources and Development Committee 86 churches, to supplement the specially constructed car parks. Park & ride is so popular in UK that very few railway station parking places are free, and at some stations the parking fees are substantial, up to £8 (c.A$ 19) per day. In some US cities park and ride is so popular that shuttle buses are required to move patrons for distant parking spaces to the station, similar to the arrangements more commonly found in airports. Kiss & ride is also popular and interchanges need to be designed to cope with the logistics of drop-off and (particularly) pick-up at stations. Good examples are found at the Longueuil station on Montreal’s south shore, and at Aylesbury interchange in UK. In the Aylesbury example, the town station caters to kiss & ride and bus feeders to Chiltern Trains’ suburban rail service, but park & ride passengers from outside the town are encouraged to use Aylesbury Vale Parkway station, a new, specially designed park & ride facility constructed on a green-field site outside the town.

There is a balance in Adelaide between the number of feeder services (bus to bus and bus to rail) and the number of direct services to the City, giving a choice of mode and of destination to passengers, though some previously express bus services have been downgraded in recent years in favour of feeder services. There is no merit in integration for its own sake, it is only desirable if the overall service level to passengers is improved. Integration might look good on a map, but it needs to be replicated on the ground to be effective. One reason buses are able to compete with rail services, despite buses having to cope with congestion, is the location, design and logistics of Adelaide Railway Station; a combination of feeder bus, commuter train, with a walk (or tram or City Loop bus) at the city end of a journey is no substitute for a direct bus that will drop passengers closer to their destinations, particularly if they can be sure of a seat for all or most of the journey. The rail lobby will argue for more feeders to rail, to improve rail’s performance statistics relative to buses, but the ability to choose should be the prerogative of the passenger, and if the public transport system constrains that choice, all but captive passengers may be lost to the private car.

Integration of services at interchanges requires good timekeeping so that transfers are not missed by passengers – there is nothing worse that arriving at a stop or platform to see your connecting service depart or realise it has already departed. Where services are very frequent, say up to 10 minute headways, delay may not be serious, but if the frequency is every 15 or 20 minutes, a missed connection can mean a passenger is late for work and may lose pay as a result. Where headways are every 30 or 60 minutes, timed transfers with guaranteed connections are an essential element of an integrated system, and are common in smaller towns where more frequent service cannot be justified. One benefit of radio communication between drivers and dispatchers (or train controllers) is that a driver of a feeder bus can ask a colleague to wait a few minutes for a connecting passenger, particularly where the connection is critical for the passenger. This technique, which is good public relations as well as sound operationally, is used to good effect by drivers of buses on the Lefevre peninsula to contact their counterparts on services commencing or connecting at Port Adelaide or Arndale Kilkenny.

Parliament of South Australia. Environment, Resources and Development Committee 87

Timetables The former Passenger Transport Board set a new standard for integrating information about public transport in Adelaide, with commonly branded paper timetables, timetables at bus stops, production of an excellent booklet of maps and other information (plus a separate map of State-wide public transport services), and the introduction of real-time information by internet, phone and text. There has been some slippage in standards in recent years, with timetables and maps that are easy to read, but which are not comprehensive and contain minor errors or are incomplete. The system atlas has been replaced by four regional maps, which are a poor substitute. With these minor qualifications, the standard of Adelaide Metro branded information is as good as any found in the world. But the same cannot be said for the real-time ‘Smart Stop’ experiment on the Henley Beach Road – Norwood group of routes, where too often the Smart Stop gives misleading information or may not work at all. Fortunately, regular users are familiar with the system’s weaknesses and rely on their own knowledge and/or the printed timetable, but it can be confusing for a visitor or first-time user. The real time information on a Smart Stop would be most useful when bus services are disrupted for some reason, such as a parade through the city streets, but when this occurs the Smart Stop system shuts down!

Committee Recommendation 17 The Committee recommends that Smart Stop real time information systems be expanded to all major bus stops and all train and tram stops.

Public transport information centres are found in most cities. That at the corner of King William Street and Currie Street does an excellent job in a prime CBD location distributing timetables, selling and exchanging multi-trip tickets, and answering queries about routes, services and destinations. The telephone enquiry line and Adelaide Metro website provide direct access for those who require information, timetables can be downloaded from the website, and multi-trip tickets can be bought from a large number of retail outlets.

Fare and ticketing integration Integration of fares, with a ticketing system that permits free interchange between services, irrespective of mode of transport or operator of the route, is a key element in creating a comprehensive and seamless urban transport network, one that is easy to use and understand. Adelaide was the first city in Australia to introduce a ticketing system that covers all modes of transport, as operated by the then State Transport Authority and continued by the PTB and OPT under the Adelaide Metro banner. The current single zone fare structure evolved from section fares (of which only the short

Parliament of South Australia. Environment, Resources and Development Committee 88 trip two-section fare remains), to a three zone system that was more accurately two zones (inner and outer) with a zone that was transitional to both, when fares covered two-sections, two-zones or three zones. The current fare structure, which has lasted for 20 years, is relatively simple for ticketing purposes, as over 50% of passengers use multi-trip ten-ride tickets. Zone fare structures are found in many cities, e.g. London, with flat fares more common in North American cities. In most cities passengers are encouraged to use pre-paid multi-trip tickets or passes, which can cover any length of time, e.g. a week, month, quarter, or year. In some cities businesses can buy passes in bulk and sell them to their employees at a discount and/or as part of a salary package; this approach is most popular where all or some of the cost of travel to work by public transport can be claimed as an income tax deduction. As well as simplifying ticketing issue and fare collection, the use of pre- paid tickets and passes has the benefit of speeding up the boarding of vehicles.

Most cities are in the process of introducing or refining smartcards of various types: pre-paid, stored value, contactless, etc. Perth has a smartcard system, but both Melbourne and Sydney have struggled to implement the technology effectively. London’s Oyster card is a contact stored-value card (or free pass for resident seniors) that can be used on suburban trains operated by several companies as well as on Transport for London’s buses, Underground, Overground, Docklands Light Rail, and Tramlink. Similar cards are in use in many cities, e.g. Hong Kong, Paris, Lyon and Amsterdam. DTEI is investigating a smartcard for Adelaide, with timing of its introduction increasingly critical as the Crouzet ticketing technology, still in use after 20 years, is due for replacement. Although the focus is still on a transport smartcard, in the long term we can anticipate that multi-purpose smartcards will be in use covering some or all of banking, utilities, retail, parking, taxis, etc., as well as public transport.

Committee Recommendation 18 The Committee recommends that replacement of the Crouzet ticketing system by a new Smartcard system be accorded the highest priority by the Government.

Fare free zones are a feature of some cities’ public transport, e.g. in Perth and Portland, enabling people to hop on and off for short trips – it is also one way to introduce those who otherwise would rarely or never use public transport to become familiar with the system. Adelaide has its equivalent in the free city zone on the Glenelg Tram (which was a replacement for the former free Bee Line Bus), the City Loop bus line, the City of Adelaide Connector bus loop linking the City with North Adelaide, and the ability of Seniors to travel free in the off-peak.

Public Transport Planning There are distinct and complementary levels of planning for public transport: strategic, network and operational, and all three are essential if services are to be optimal. Strategic planning is normally undertaken by the owning or funding government (e.g. DTEI), network planning by the contracting agency in association with operators, and operational planning by the companies operating day-to-day service. Strategic planning coordinates public transport plans with those of urban and regional planning agencies, and with the economic, social and environmental needs of the city or region. Network planning sets out the routes, preferred service frequencies, stop spacing standards, etc. and seeks to ensure their application across the system, whilst still providing flexibility to operators to adjust the standards to fit local conditions. There is a tendency for network planners (and sometimes even strategic planners) to micro-manage the system to the point where operators have

Parliament of South Australia. Environment, Resources and Development Committee 89 little scope to innovate, or even to recommend changes, an undesirable trait as it is at the operational level that the need for change is most readily discernable, e.g. overcrowding or overloading, indicating a need for additional trips and/or more vehicles.

Public transport planning would be advanced if recent changes in public transport use were understood. Anecdotally they were attributed to high cost of oil, and therefore fuel for cars, that preceded the Global Financial Crisis. Research into the area will give a sound basis on which to make decisions about public transport infrastructure and services into the future. A research partnership between DTEI, local governments and local communities could undertake this and other related research. This partnership would be useful in identifying and addressing safety (from assault and traffic) and amenity issues in the areas around stops and stations.

Committee Recommendation 19 The Committee recommends further research to understand the nature of recent changes in public transport use and the reasons for these changes.

Committee Recommendation 20 The Committee recommends that a research partnership between DTEI, local governments and local communities be implemented.

Integration with other modes of transport Similarly, it is desirable for the links between public transport and other modes to be integrated both strategically and operationally. At the detailed level this can involve resolving issues such as determining priorities for the use of kerbside stopping space on downtown streets, arranging for bicycles to be carried on buses (as in Portland), or on trams (San José), or parked securely at stations, and ensuring printed information is distributed widely and readily available. At the strategic level the most important issue is the split of expenditure to be spent on roads and public transport. To date, most capital expenditure on land transport in Australia has gone to roads, which is understandable as in all cities in Australia and public transport serves only a fraction of trips compared to private passenger and freight transport on the road network. However, as noted above, there is a recognition that the quality of public transport reflects the funding allocated to subsidise operations and to improving the system, so funding for public transport has to increase if the proportion of trips on public transport is to get even close to the targets set in regional plans, such as the Strategic Plan for SA.

Park & ride has been dealt with above as an example of an increasingly popular method of coordinating the comfort and flexibility of the private car with the efficiency of public transport operating frequent service along corridor routes. Patrons can be discouraged from using this service if they feel that they or their car is not safe. The Committee witnessed in metropolitan Perth secure park & ride facilities that were self funded from contribution ($2) from parkers.

Committee Recommendation 21 The Committee recommends that when creating park & ride facilities that they incorporate low cost secure parking.

Integration of taxi service into the mainstream public transport is still in its infancy and offers scope for improvement. Taxis are sometimes called on by bus operators to provide substitute service when a bus is not available, e.g. when a driver is late for a shift, or to get passengers to their homes when a train is stopped short of its

Parliament of South Australia. Environment, Resources and Development Committee 90 destination for technical reasons. In such situations, the public transport operator reimburses the taxi company for the fare, while the user pays at most the public transport fare. Taxis have a key role in public transport in providing service to those people who find it difficult to use conventional modes of public transport. In South Australia this role is facilitated and delivered through the SATSS taxi subsidy scheme and the Access Cabs fleet of wheelchair-equipped taxis.

The big differential between subsidised public transport fares and commercial taxi rates is the reason taxis are not used more extensively as an integrated element of public transport networks, though even in their present form taxis are a key component in the total transport system. The potential for taxis to play a greater role lies in situations where two or more passengers travel together, agree on a rate, and share the fare equally, such as when four passengers arrive at a station and take a taxi to their destination(s) in a nearby suburb or country town. If the shared ride is made under the current practice whereby each passenger pays two-thirds of a metered fare, then the differential with the public transport fare is still likely to be too great to attract many riders.

Integration of public transport with air services continues to grow, with improved access to airports, whether by bus, suburban rail, LRT or metro. After years of relying on taxis, hire cars and an independent minibus operator, Adelaide now has excellent regular route bus service to the airport, with frequent service seven days a week. Other examples in medium-sized cities are Portland’s Red Line LRT, Newcastle’s LRT, and Ottawa’s 97 bus route, while larger cities have a range of public transport services to their busy airports, and some require on-airport (e.g. London) or off- airport (e.g. Los Angeles) interchanges to handle the volume of public transport traffic. Services to airports should be provided by vehicles with seating configurations that have adequate space for lots of baggage.

Serving the Fringe

A clear divide There is a very clear divide between Adelaide’s metropolitan public transport services and those in the adjacent regional areas, except to the south-east where Transitplus services continue beyond Mount Barker (and even there a metro fare/country fare boundary exists). These near regional areas are served by country bus services, e.g. Premier to Victor Harbor, Barossa Valley Coaches to Angaston, JC Minibuses from Tea Tree Plaza to Mount Torrens and Mount Pleasant. Dublin is an example of an overseas city where the boundary was similarly clearly marked until recent years when diesel rail services were introduced to supplement already existing long distance train services, to provide initially commuter trains to regional towns and villages, e.g. to Maynooth (26 km west of Dublin), and later regular train service throughout the day. Similar services operate on rail routes to the south-west, south- east and north-east of Dublin, otherwise towns and villages beyond the Dublin metropolitan area continue to be served by Bus Eireann’s inter-town and rural bus routes.

Ancillary services To ‘soften’ the boundary, and lessen the contrast between metropolitan and rural/country service levels, some cities, in association with bus operators in surrounding jurisdictions (counties or equivalents), provide ancillary linking services to outlying areas. Examples are the services operating from the termini of some OCTranspo routes to townships in Eastern Ontario such as Perth, Arnprior and Kemptville. Similar arrangements are found to serve rural towns around Hiroshima, Japan. Where populations in outlying communities are large enough to justify full

Parliament of South Australia. Environment, Resources and Development Committee 91 commuter services, such as those across the Golden Gate in Marin County, California, or on the South Shore of the St Lawrence River in Quebec, express bus services taking advantage of priority bus lanes run across the long bridges direct to the city centres of San Francisco and Montreal respectively. Services to rural areas and townships outside of Pretoria, RSA, and many South American cities are provided by fleets of privately-owned buses and minibuses.

Rail services Adelaide is the only major city in Australia which does not have regional rail services that extend beyond the metropolitan boundary to adjacent satellite cities and towns. In Perth the rail line to Mandurah is new, and the services radiating from Brisbane have been expanded gradually since the lines were electrified in the 1970s. The regional train services in New South Wales and Victoria are long-established, to serve the populations resident in and around regional cities such as Newcastle, Wollongong, Geelong and Bendigo. In New Zealand, rail services are important in linking Wellington with the towns of the Kapiti Coast and Hutt Valley, and in UK regional rail services have a long history of linking major cities with towns and villages in their hinterlands.

Where newer commuter rail services have been introduced in the larger North American cities, an operational pattern has evolved using trains in the peak hours (inbound during the morning peak and outbound in the late afternoon) and buses in the daytime off-peak hours and at weekends. Note the fares on these services are higher than the prevailing fares on metropolitan services, e.g. on GO Transit services compared to TTC services in Toronto. Only where the density of populations justify longer service hours, do trains run throughout the day, as on the Toronto and Montreal lakeshore routes, and the Metrolink network in Los Angeles. In Europe the gradual extension of the tram/train network in Karlsruhe and the conversion of suburban rail lines to LRT in Manchester and Newcastle resulted in more frequent service to be provided to regional areas and nearby towns.

4.10 Summary

A review of public transport systems interstate and overseas, with emphasis on medium-sized cities, illustrates that while direct comparisons are of questionable value because of different local conditions, it is possible to identify and highlight features of the operations and policies prevailing in other cities and to consider their suitability or otherwise for application in Adelaide and its surrounding regions.

The review demonstrates there is a relationship between demand for public transport, the funds available for operating subsidies, concession reimbursement and investment in improvements to public transport, and the quantity and quality of service that can be provided. Many cities have spent considerable sums improving their rail, tram and bus networks in recent years, and installing new LRT and rapid transit (metro) systems. Adelaide’s suburban rail network is a candidate for major upgrading, and the State Government has commenced a program of electrification, gauge standardisation, and acquisition of new rolling stock that should bring the network up to the standards set by Perth and Brisbane in Australia and cities such as Dublin and Newcastle overseas.

Examples have been identified of services to improve access to and from areas immediately adjacent to metropolitan boundaries. These will be considered in the

Parliament of South Australia. Environment, Resources and Development Committee 92

South Australian context together with an assessment of the potential use of existing rail lines in the near country regions around Adelaide in Chapter 5.

Parliament of South Australia. Environment, Resources and Development Committee 93

Chapter 5. OUTER METROPOLITAN AND REGIONAL RAIL PASSENGER SERVICES

5.1 Introduction

The Committee’s Terms of Reference were very specific (ToR IV) in relation to the feasibility and possibility of re-opening passenger train services on rail lines still used by freight services, or on dormant sections of track, or former rail rights-of-way, between: (a) Gawler and Angaston; (b) Belair and Mount Barker (and on to Victor Harbor/Murray Bridge); (c) Dry Creek, Northfield and Valley View; (d) Tonsley (or Hallett Cove) and Huntfield Heights; (e) Reynella (or Seaford) and Aldinga; (f) Adelaide and Whyalla, Mount Gambier and Broken Hill.

In this chapter these six routes or groups of routes are dealt with as follows: - The Barossa line (i.e. (a) above); - The Hills line (b); - The Southern routes (d & e); - The regional cities (f); and - The Northfield line (c).

Passenger trains did run on most of these lines until services were closed by the former South Australian Railways during the 1950s and 1960s or by Australian National in the later years of the 20th century. There were occasional attempts to reopen services, such as that by AN to Port Augusta and Whyalla using refurbished Budd railcars, but patronage never reached levels that would justify continuation of the services. Whilst there is strong advocacy for passenger trains it does not always translate into adequate patronage or sufficient revenue to sustain regular service.

5.2 Background

Passenger trains still operate in SA, on less than daily schedules to Murray Bridge and Bordertown (The Overland), to Port Augusta (The Ghan and Indian-Pacific), and to Broken Hill (Indian Pacific), all of them inter-capital trains operated by Great Southern Rail on which intrastate passengers can be carried. The lines from Dry Creek to Northfield (3.9 km), and from Hallett Cove to Willunga (33.6 km) have been lifted, though the rights-of-way still exist; the line from Wolseley to Mount Gambier (183 km) has been ‘mothballed’, and the route from Mount Barker Junction to Victor Harbor (81 km) is managed and operated as a tourist service by the Steamranger organisation. Some of the remaining country rail network in SA is still broad gauge (1600 mm), including the Barossa, Victor Harbor and Mount Gambier lines, while the ARTC main lines and the branch to Whyalla are standard gauge (1435 mm) (see DTEI submission, 09, Appendix F). Thus, for some of the proposals to re-open passenger service to become a practical proposition, standardisation may be a pre- requisite.

Parliament of South Australia. Environment, Resources and Development Committee 94

The likelihood and/or timing of some of the re-opening proposals are affected by the possible construction of a new ‘by-pass’ railway line, possibly to the east of the Mount Lofty ranges from a location just west of Murray Bridge to a point north of Adelaide such as Two Wells. If such a line was to be constructed, capacity may become available for outer metropolitan and/or regional passenger train services on the existing sharply curved and steeply-graded main line through the Adelaide Hills. The feasibility study for the by-pass line is currently underway as a joint federal/state project (DoITRD&LG, 2009).

On those non-metropolitan rail lines that are still extant, there is nothing to prevent any existing passenger train operator, private company or entrepreneur from running a passenger train service. Track access would need to be negotiated with the managers of the track (e.g. GWA, ARTC, etc. – see DTEI submission, Appendix E), the necessary equipment bought or leased, and accreditation, regulatory and legal requirements fulfilled. The costs of these processes are themselves a deterrent to a potential operator, as evidenced by the new owner’s efforts to restart the Barossa Wine Train (see Mr McCulloch’s evidence to the Committee, 24 June 2009). However, the main reason that no one has come forward to offer to operate commuter or regular country passenger train service is that it is difficult to foresee enough fare-paying patrons to ensure the venture would be financially viable.

While the submissions to the Committee endorse the idea that many people enjoy the opportunity to travel by train, many of them also identify some of the problems that need to be overcome if re-opening is to be considered. In particular they demonstrate that whilst there is a liking for trains, there is also a wish to retain the flexibility of travel by car – indeed some of the support for a return of passenger trains from the Barossa is a direct reflection of the price of petrol, as people who built a lifestyle around the car when petrol was cheaper now find their budgets stretched to maintain that lifestyle. This is turn raises the broader issue of an understanding of the costs of rail travel. There is little evidence of a willingness to pay a fare that will go some way to covering even the operating costs of new rail services, as some of the support for rail is based on an assumption (and the precedent set in the Mount Barker area a few years ago) that Metroticket fares will be charged. Some of the submissions to the Committee quote existing near-country bus fares as being too high, though many who could use the buses would be eligible for concession fares. The regional passenger rail services in the Eastern States are also quoted in support of the re-instatement of similar services in SA, but these trains are highly subsidised (the subsidy for Victorian regional passenger trains is more than twice the total Adelaide metropolitan public transport subsidy) and a high proportion of passengers travel at concession rates, including a concession in some States for pensioners to take one or more return rail trips annually (four in NSW) to an intrastate destination.

Any re-instated passenger train services will not only require direct subsidy and concession reimbursement, but will affect the viability of the existing regional public transport services provided by coach companies and airlines. There are existing bus or coach services on all the routes subject to investigation, and regional air services to Whyalla, Port Augusta, Broken Hill and Mount Gambier. The provision of these coach and air services is important to regional South Australia, and some of the services are so marginal that changes of ownership, operation and equipment are not uncommon.

In terms of the economics of rail passenger service, if all the benefits of travel time savings, emissions, safety, etc. are added together, and an allowance is made for ‘wider economic benefits’, it is still unlikely that an acceptable benefit-cost ratio will be

Parliament of South Australia. Environment, Resources and Development Committee 95 determined for any of the proposed services listed above. DTEI, in its submission (09) to the Committee, has indicated a willingness to undertake a detailed feasibility study for each of the proposals, including economic analysis, based on accurate capital cost figures for improvement of track, signalling and grade crossings, and, if appropriate, for new or refurbished rolling stock.

The Committee’s Terms of Reference IV(a), (c), (d) and (e) all refer to ‘high-speed rail services’. High speed is difficult to define, but no trains currently operating in Australia would qualify for the accolade, as used to differentiate high speed services overseas from conventional passenger trains. No existing rail lines or track alignments on the South Australian routes that might be considered for the re- introduction of passenger trains are suitable for high speeds, and in any case if the peri-urban services were designed to maximise patronage, station spacing would prohibit high speeds. Aidan Stanger, in his submission (35) to the Committee, demonstrates possible alignments for high speed railways to the north of Adelaide and to Murray Bridge via a new tunnel through the Adelaide Hills. A concept plan for a rail tunnel through the Hills was prepared as part of planning for the proposed new city at Monarto, when it was recognised that passenger trains using the existing Hills main line would not be competitive with cars and buses on a freeway.

The submission to the Committee from People for Public Transport (40), points out that simply re-opening old rail lines may not be the best solution to serving communities, suggesting that an integrated planning solution needs to be investigated in each case, and that technical or second-best solutions are not necessarily the most effective use of resources. For example, PPT highlights the fact that improved public transport in regional cities may be a higher priority for those communities than re-introducing inter-city rail links.

The DTEI submission (09) outlines the status of (and improvements that have been made to) public transport in South Australian country areas and regional communities, e.g.:  ‘Substantial improvements to services to outlying areas’ such as Aldinga, Willunga, Mount Barker, etc.;  ‘Regular Route Services (Country Bus Services) – these contracted services provide regular inter-town services originating from Adelaide…..operated commercially with Government providing reimbursement for most concession fares’, e.g. to Port Pirie/Port Augusta/ Whyalla, Angaston, Murray Bridge, Mount Gambier, Victor Harbor, etc.;  ‘Community Passenger Networks’. In partnership with the Department of Families & Communities, DTEI funds 11 CPNs in regional South Australia, including in Victor Harbor, Mount Barker, and Angaston;  ‘Integrated Transport Services’ – linking to Regular Route Services; and  ‘Special Medical-Related Services’ – providing access to Adelaide for medical appointments, from four regions, including Southern Yorke Peninsula and the Upper North.

The DTEI submission responds directly to Term of Reference IV, providing detail on the specific rail routes and services. The information provided to the Committee by the Department, together with some of the issues and unknowns noted above, is assessed for each of the specific services, concluding with an attempt to prioritise the routes in relation to the feasibility and likelihood of re-opening, regardless of timing or costs, i.e. if there is a possibility of re-instating such rail passenger services at some time in the future, which of them has the highest priority and/or is most likely to eventuate.

Parliament of South Australia. Environment, Resources and Development Committee 96

5.3 The Barossa line

Gennesee & Wyoming Australia (GWA) has a long lease (50 + 15 years) on the Barossa rail line as a result of the sale of the former Australian National Railways lines, between an end-on junction with TransAdelaide at Gawler Central and the end of track at Penrice. The branch from Nuriootpa to Angaston is currently ‘mothballed’; the distance from Gawler Central to Angaston is 41 km. DTEI advises that ‘the current maximum speed of the track is 50 km/h’, with some locations restricted to 15 km/h (DTEI, 09). There is only one loop where trains can pass or cross one another, at Nurioopta, which is adequate for the current freight service, the daily ‘Stone Train’ to and from the loader at Penrice Quarry.

There are two critical features of the Barossa line that would affect potential passenger train operation: there are 74 level crossings on the branch, of which only eight are equipped with flashing lights and/or boom gates; and the fact that the line is occupied by GWA’s freight train during the morning peak hours. The Railways (Operations and Access) Act, 1997, administered by the Essential Services Commissioner of South Australia, establishes the legal framework for passenger trains to use the line (DTEI, 09).

Regular passenger trains were withdrawn from the Barossa line in December 1968. When the Minister announced closure of the service he stated ‘Average patronage on the Barossa line is 11 passengers’ and that 30 passengers were needed to cover out-of-pocket costs and 72 to meet full costs of operating a Bluebird railcar (Langridge, 10). In contrast to the number of passengers, 2000 persons signed a petition seeking retention of the service. Since 1969, excursion trains have operated to the Barossa, notably the Bluebird Barossa Wine Train between 1997 and 2003.

The population of the Barossa DC is 22,172, with three towns on the valley line: Lyndoch (57 km from Adelaide), Tanunda (70 km) and Nuriootpa (77 km), and Angaston at the terminus of the mothballed branch. The main public transport to these towns and nearby villages is delivered by Barossa Valley Coaches with a range of services:  A trunk route from Angaston to Adelaide, with twice daily buses on weekdays (once daily at weekends), plus a morning peak commuter run from Angaston to Gawler, which feeds to TransAdelaide’s suburban trains. Travel time is around two hours, with the fastest schedule 1 hr 40 min (Saturday morning to Adelaide) and the slowest 2 hr 15 min (weekday mornings to Adelaide).  A dozen or so feeder and school run services which link most communities in the Barossa with the main towns and schools. These services normally operate school days only.  The Barossa Valley responsive services, which run weekly or fortnightly and link the valley towns, Williamstown, Kapunda and Freeling with Gawler and Elizabeth.  The Barossa Dial-a-Ride pre-booked door-to-door service operating weekdays between Angaston, Nuriootpa and Tanunda. In addition, the twice daily Stateliner coach service between Adelaide and the Riverland towns via the Sturt Highway will stop at Nuriootpa on request. Travel time is 1 hr 15 min.

In her evidence to the Committee, the Chief Executive of the Barossa & Light Regional Development Board praised the bus company for its services, but there was

Parliament of South Australia. Environment, Resources and Development Committee 97 reluctance in several submissions to acknowledge the role of BVC in serving the valley. One reason is the fares charged (e.g. see Langridge, submission 10), alongside an assumption that any rail passenger service would charge Metroticket fares, encouraged by a TransAdelaide proposal to that effect. Even if a rail service was extended to the Barossa, the range of internal bus services would still be required, and would need greater financial support if the viability of the main Angaston-Adelaide route was impaired.

Traffic volumes on the main road through the Barossa are about 4000 vehicles per day (vpd) in both directions, of which it is estimated about 20% are commuters (see Mr Henley’s evidence to the Committee) to Gawler or south thereof. Volumes on the Sturt Highway through the region are 6300 vpd. The completion of the Northern Expressway will improve access to the Barossa from Adelaide, a fact mentioned in several submissions. However, as with the bus service, it is not so much the level of service available to travellers on the road network, but the cost of car ownership and use, with increasing petrol prices in particular identified as having an adverse effect on existing travel habits and lifestyles.

Evidence was given to the Committee that a common feature of regular and casual travel to Adelaide was that of driving from the Barossa Valley towns, Kapunda, Truro and beyond to Gawler, parking there and taking the train to Elizabeth, Adelaide and workplaces in between. Problems of vandalism to, and theft from, vehicles left for long periods in car parks was mentioned in some submissions, with a preference for paid, supervised car parks suggested by others.

On the basis of the written submissions and evidence given to the Committee, there are two potential markets to be served by restoring passenger trains to the Barossa line: tourists to the valley and commuters to the metropolitan area, two markets that are quite different and require different types of service, whatever mode of transport is used. The Barossa Wine Train, packaged and marketed as a tourist experience, illustrates well how the tourist market can be attracted to use rail travel to visit the wineries, restaurants and other attractions in the Barossa. In evidence to the Committee, a senior manager of the SATC (Mr Mark Gill) and the General Manager of Chateau Tanunda (Mr Matthew McCulloch) described how such a service could be marketed, delivered and integrated into the existing visitor patterns to the Barossa. Provision of such a service is a commercial enterprise and the possibility of re- activating the Bluebird service as part of John Geber’s vision for a new wineries- based tourist thrust including accommodation, a Sunday day out, train charters, special events, etc. was described by Mr McCulloch. The role identified for governments is in assisting in the marketing of the new package nationally and internationally, and expediting the processes involved in gaining access to the line, minimising the associated bureaucracy and costs. However, if the costs of actually running a new tourist rail service prove to be prohibitive, it will be a reflection of the cost of providing infrastructure and other below-rail facilities and will only be lessened if other operators, government or private, provide additional services so the costs are shared by more above-rail train operators.

The commuter market is more difficult to identify. Many submissions support the return of passenger trains, but few are willing to attempt to forecast the level of patronage that might eventuate, which is not surprising as estimating future patronage is difficult. Transport planners and promoters of transport projects are renowned for minimising the costs (which spiral after it is too late to stop the project!) and maximising patronage estimates. When results don’t match expectations, it is easy to find reasons why the environment changed. In the case of re-instating passenger rail service, surveys can be undertaken and preferences analysed, but the

Parliament of South Australia. Environment, Resources and Development Committee 98 outcomes will only be determined by experimentation and demonstration, as occurred when frequencies were increased on the Tonsley branch rail service a few years ago, which involved adding a few extra trips to a very short branch line that was already fit for purpose, so the only additional costs were those of a railcar and driver. No infrastructure costs were involved as would be the case on the Barossa line, but the Tonsley example does throw some light on possible options to providing passenger train service to the Barossa, or at least on improved opportunities for residents of the Valley and nearby towns to access commuter rail services.

The possibility of a regular rail service on the Barossa line in the near future is remote. The State Government has stated clearly that its priorities for improvement of public transport are elsewhere, and the while ‘It is not proposed to expand passenger rail service to the Barossa as part of the public transport initiative, further investigations will be carried out to quantify the costs and benefits of such an option…’ (DTEI, 09). So what options might be considered? Mr Peter Heuzenroeder, in his submission (13), suggests a single peak trip in the morning from Angaston to Adelaide, returning in the late afternoon, or a feeder service from Angaston to Gawler, either service requiring only one railcar. This proposal is in line with the early stages of commuter rail services from peri-urban communities overseas (e.g. to towns south of Montreal), but would still require a railcar and crew to either deadhead to Angaston in the early morning and return to Gawler in the evening or the railcar to be stabled at Angaston overnight (the crew could be taxied in and out), all of which is likely to require new infrastructure and/or security arrangements. Some track improvements, station upgrading and parking facilities (including DDA compliance) would be needed, even for such a simple service, and the schedule of the stone train might have to be altered to accommodate a passenger train in the morning peak. So even this ‘simple’ option does not seem likely to eventuate in the short term, but is a possibility for a trial service in the medium term future, which could also involve the railcar making a daytime off-peak trip from Adelaide or Gawler to Tanunda or Angaston during the morning, which may attract tourists.

The proposal in the 2009 Greater Metropolitan Adelaide Plan to build a large number of new homes in the Gawler East area opens up the possibility of a short (2-3 km) extension of the existing suburban train service from Gawler Central to a station (Concordia TOD?) in Gawler East and/or a new green-field terminus at a park & ride lot towards Sandy Creek (up to 6 km from Gawler Central). Metroticket fares could apply, with the trade-off for cheap fares being a paid and monitored parking lot, to allay the security concerns noted above. As well as being close to the main road to the valley towns, such a new terminus would be accessible to commuters and other travellers from Kapunda, Freeling and Williamstown.

A short extension to the existing line would not only be a stand-alone improvement for the short-term but could also be seen as a first step to re-introduction of a service to the Barossa Valley towns in the future, subject to the patronage matching the level of support expressed in submissions and evidence to the Committee. The ‘short option’, should be assessed in the context of the proposed DTEI investigation into the future of rail passenger service to the Barossa Valley.

Parliament of South Australia. Environment, Resources and Development Committee 99

5.4 The Hills line

The DTEI submission (09) describes the salient characteristics of the ARTC standard gauge main line through the Adelaide Hills and the adjacent TransAdelaide broad gauge branch line from Adelaide to Belair. New gauge-convertible sleepers were placed in the Belair track-bed during 2009, to facilitate conversion from broad to standard gauge in the future. Access to the ARTC track is governed by an Undertaking to the ACCC; maximum track speed permitted is 110 km/h, but the curves and grades mean that in practice speeds are restricted though the Hills, with 40 km/h speed limits in some places. There are crossing/passing loops at Belair, Mount Lofty, Balhannah and Mount Barker Junction; additional loops may be constructed and existing loops extended to increase line capacity.

The short stretch of line from Mount Barker Junction to Mount Barker station is part of the broad gauge branch line to Victor Harbor, which is leased by the State Government to Steamranger, the organisation that runs tourist trains on the line, mainly at weekends and during school holidays. If conversion of the Belair line to standard gauge is implemented and trains to Mount Barker become a possibility, DTEI advises that ‘a standard gauge turnout and associated signalling would need to be installed at Mount Barker Junction’ and the rail line thence to Mount Barker station could be converted to standard gauge. Contemplating the alternative of extending the broad gauge line from Belair to Mount Barker Junction would be a backward step, aside from ‘the engineering and environmental challenges that would need to be addressed’ (DTEI, 09).

The population of Mount Barker DC is 29,000 (includes Hahndorf and Nairne), with Stirling, Aldgate and Bridgewater being the southern part of the Adelaide Hills DC. The public transport to the area, provided by TransitPlus, is a mixture of frequent express and local bus services using modern equipment running on the South-east Freeway to serve Crafers, Stirling, Aldgate, Bridgewater and Mount Barker, with less frequent routes to Piccadilly, the Onkaparinga valley towns, Nairne and Strathalbyn. The fastest travel time between Adelaide and Mount Barker is 45 minutes, with an average of 49 minutes, 52 minutes in peak hours, and one hour by stopping services. The road distance is 33 km, whereas the rail line in 55 km, so there is no way that passenger trains could compete on frequency or travel times. When the Victor Harbor train ran (until the 1970s) the fastest train was that from Adelaide on Saturday mornings, which took 1 hour 17 minutes to reach Mount Barker. At that time the suburban trains ran as far as Bridgewater, when the journey took one hour. The Belair-Bridgewater section was closed in 1987 after a review by the Bureau of Transport Economics for the State Government. Prior to closure, there were 11 trains from Bridgewater to Adelaide and 12 outbound (i.e. roughly hourly), that carried 747 passengers a day, an average of 33 a trip (i.e. less than a seated busload); most boardings were park & ride passengers at Bridgewater and school students at Upper Sturt and Heathfield.

Whilst rail can not compete with buses in terms of frequency or travel times, the preference for a rail service along the Hills line is for comfort and amenity, as spelt

Parliament of South Australia. Environment, Resources and Development Committee 100 out in Ms Ruth Sands’ submission (05) to the Committee: some people are susceptible to travel sickness by bus, trains are more spacious, road congestion is avoided, etc. Ms Sands points out that only a minimal rail service needs to be provided, to create a travel option for residents of the Hills towns.

The problems to be overcome before local passenger service could be restored to the line are considerable, as described in the DTEI submission (09) to the Committee. The main problem is obviously that of the gauge differences: Adelaide- Belair broad gauge, Keswick-Belair-Mount Barker Junction standard gauge, and Mount Barker Junction-Mount Barker station broad gauge. The State Government has announced its intention to standardise TA’s Belair line, which is the first step in simplifying the issue of the gauges, while standardising the short (5 km) section from the junction with the main line to Mount Barker station would be relatively simple, and not unduly affect Steamranger’s operations. However, a problem would remain in that the ARTC line between Belair and Mount Barker Junction is a very busy single track main line, where the westbound peak time for interstate freight trains coincides with the inbound morning peak to Adelaide and freight trains to the east occupy paths during the afternoon outbound peak hours. (Freight trains affected the scheduling and reliability of peak hour trains to and from Bridgewater.) The real opportunity to restore rail service to Mount Barker will arise if and when a ‘by-pass’ railway takes all or most of the freight trains off the Hills line. By then, the Belair line should have been converted to standard gauge and consideration can be given to the additional works that will be required to enable passenger trains to be restored (particularly at existing or new station sites), some of which are summarised in the DTEI submission.

In the event that a ‘by-pass’ rail line cannot be justified, much work could be done to ease curves and grades on the Hills line; if this was to be undertaken, then there is the possibility of adding additional works to enable passenger trains to return to the line. The DTEI submission states that the Government has already considered this possibility and ‘will seek to include the examination of extending passenger services to Mount Barker in the scope of the Adelaide Rail Freight Movements Study’.

If passenger trains were to run to Mount Barker, there will be calls for some services to be extended to Murray Bridge (pop 19,000) and/or Victor Harbor (13,000). The first would be dependent on the ability to find suitable paths on the ARTC line, and the second on the resolution of ownership and operation of services on what is now Steamranger’s leased line and on conversion of the track from Mount Barker to Victor Harbor if through services were to be operated.

Both Murray Bridge and Victor Harbor are currently served by country bus services. Murray Bridge Passenger Services operates four trips daily in each direction between Murray Bridge and Adelaide, including peak time services for commuters, two trips each way on Saturdays and one on Sunday evening. Travel times vary from 1hr 5 minutes, to 1hr 15mins, which compares with 1hr 41mins for the fastest non-stop run by the Overland train; the distances are road 88 km, and rail 94 km. Crosses with freight trains impact on actual rail travel times, e.g. one Overland train takes 2hr 10 mins to reach Murray Bridge, an illustration that traffic congestion affects rail travel as

Parliament of South Australia. Environment, Resources and Development Committee 101 well as road, but in the case of rail it is timetabled whereas road congestion is less predictable.

The road distance to Victor Harbor via Highway A13 is 80 km, compared to 132 km by rail, which follows a meandering route through the Adelaide Hills, Strathalbyn and Goolwa. The Premier Stateliner Coach Group operates the bus service between Victor Harbor and Adelaide, with four trips each way on weekdays, two on Saturdays and one on Sundays – the schedules are designed to permit a day out from Adelaide at the coast or a day’s business in Adelaide for south coast residents. The fastest travel time is 1hr 40 mins by the ‘Rapid Line’ mid-afternoon journey from Adelaide, with other trips varying from 1hr 45 mins to 2 hours, depending on the stopping points en route. Premier Stateliner also operates one journey in each direction from Victor Harbor to Adelaide the ‘long way round’ via Goolwa, Meadows and Blackwood, which takes 2hr 15 mins outbound, 2hr 27 mins inbound to the city. These travel times compare with the fastest Adelaide-Victor Harbor train service in the 1970s, the Saturday morning inbound train which took 2hr 48 mins.

In summary, the level of service provided by bus to both Murray Bridge and Victor Harbor suggests that consideration of restoring regular passenger train service to these towns should follow any decision on trains to Mount Barker. In the interim the line from Mount Barker to Victor Harbor is in good hands, operated as a tourist experience by the Steamranger Heritage Railway.

5.5 The southern routes

Terms of Reference IV (d) and (e) cover the possible future use of sections of the former Willunga branch line in the southern suburbs, together with an extension south to Aldinga and links northwards from Reynella to the Tonsley area. The existing suburban rail line from Adelaide to Noarlunga uses the northern half of the former Willunga line, as far as Hallett Cove. Whereas the newer extension south to Noarlunga follows a direct route near the coast to its terminus, the old branch line followed a meandering route through Reynella, Seaford and McLaren Vale to Willunga, 33.6km from Hallett Cove and 54.4 km from Adelaide.(The road distance form Adelaide to Willunga is 46 km). Passenger services to Willunga ceased in 1957, though a passenger carriage was added to freight trains, which ran until 1969, when the line was closed and lifted. However, the right-of-way was reserved, and most of it remains, managed by various authorities including TransAdelaide and the City of Onkaparinga (see DTEI submission 09, Appendix B). John Drennan’s submission to the Committee (07) gives an excellent description of the history of services on the Willunga line.

After closure of the Willunga passenger service, suburban trains continued to provide regular services to Brighton, with less frequent trains on the single line along the coast as far as Marino and Hallett Cove. In the 1970s the line was duplicated and passenger service extended first to Christie Downs and later a short distance to the new Noarlunga Centre Interchange. At this time options remained to extend the line, if and when justified by urban development, across the Onkaparinga River, including one which would have utilised the bridge on the Willunga line alignment (DTEI

Parliament of South Australia. Environment, Resources and Development Committee 102 submission, Appendix C). However, the State Government has recently decided that the rail extension from Noarlunga to Seaford will take a more direct route south, with a new viaduct across the Onkaparinga estuary.

As a result of decisions taken since the Terms of Reference for the Committee’s Inquiry were approved, two of the proposals in ToR 4 (d) and (e) have been effectively rendered redundant. The decision to take a direct route across the Onkaparinga suggests that any future extension to Aldinga would logically carry on south from Seaford, as described in the Railway Industry Council report (DTEI, Appendix C), effectively eliminating the need to consider any alternative route to Aldinga. Also any use of the section of the old Willunga line right-of-way between Hallett Cove and Reynella for public transport to the Morphett Vale area would be inappropriate, because of its curved and anti-directional characteristics. The Noarlunga line can serve the coastal suburbs effectively, but other solutions need to be found to improve public transport to the eastern half of the City of Onkaparinga.

The issue that remains is whether there is a role for the former railway right-of-way between Reynella and Huntfield Heights (ToR IVd). Although this section may no longer be required to serve any new development south of the Onkaparinga River in the foreseeable future, the right-of-way could be used effectively in improving public transport service northwards, i.e. in linking the areas around and to the east of the Main South Road with Marion and Adelaide. ToR IV (d) suggests, for example, ‘…linking viable portions of the old corridor to a new line extending from Tonsley’ to provide ‘new coverage to Flinders University, Flinders Medical Centre, Darlington etc’. The use of Tonsley as the focal point of such a northwards thrust is partly because the existing TA branch line terminates there, but more importantly because the triangle of land between South Road, Sturt Road and Marion Road (Laffer’s Land) has previously been identified as a location for a major public transport interchange, whether bus/bus, bus/rail, bus/ busway, or any combination. So far nothing has eventuated, partly because of engineering, design and cost considerations, but mainly because the major attractors in the area (Flinders University, FMC and the Marion Centre) would not necessarily be well served by an interchange which is close, but not close enough, to these facilities.

Whether or not Tonsley is a suitable location, the concept of a new transport corridor, from that area, through or close to Flinders, over the escarpment to O’Halloran Hill and linking with the Willunga railway right-of-way at Reynella deserves investigation in planning the region’s future public transport services. Mr Drennan describes its possible use for an LRT line (submission 07) and Brian Leedham for use by a rail line (06), though Paul Aslin (34) highlights the engineering challenges that will be involved in the climb over the escarpment, suggesting a tunnel may be necessary. The DTEI submission (09) summarises the existing public transport services to the southern suburbs, particularly the improvements that have been made in the express and feeder bus routes that have been introduced to the area south of the Onkaparinga: to Seaford, Moana, Aldinga, MacLaren Vale, Willunga and Sellick’s Beach. Major changes can be expected once the rail is extended and electrified to Seaford.

The next transport planning task that is required in the southern region is an analysis of the public transport services to, from and within the eastern suburbs of the City of Onkaparinga, i.e. South Road, Reynella, Morphett Vale, Aberfoyle Park, etc. Such a study would effectively be an updating of the Southern Area Study, submitted to the Committee by DTEI as part of Appendix C (09), and could determine whether the most effective pattern of future public transport services would need to include use of the old Willunga line right-of-way through the area, e.g. for express buses on a

Parliament of South Australia. Environment, Resources and Development Committee 103 busway feeding to the Southern Expressway at Reynella. In the interim, the right-of- way should continue to be protected, and used for a linear park, cycleway, etc. managed by the public authorities described in Appendix B to the DTEI submission (09).

Committee Recommendation 28 The Committee recommends that the government adopt as a primary principle that all land reserved as potential transport corridors should have ongoing protection. 5.6 The regional cities

Term of Reference IV(f) covers ‘the re-instatement of regular regional passenger rail services, including services to Murray Bridge, Victor Harbor, Whyalla, Mount Gambier and Broken Hill’. Murray Bridge and Victor Harbor have been dealt with above, with the conclusion that restoration of services to Mount Barker would be higher priority, and that Murray Bridge and/or Victor Harbor should follow any new service into the Adelaide Hills. However, Murray Bridge could benefit from any restoration of services to Mount Gambier or from more frequent interstate train service from Adelaide to Melbourne in addition to the existing thrice-weekly Overland train. Should that occur, unlikely as it might seem, it may be possible to site a new park & ride station in the Hills that could serve the communities from Stirling to Mount Barker and Littlehampton, e.g. in the Aldgate/Bridgewater area.

Port Augusta and Broken Hill are both stops on the GSR interstate train services: Port Augusta is served by the Ghan and the Indian-Pacific, with a total of 2, 3 or 4 trains a week in each direction, depending on the season; and Broken Hill by the Indian-Pacific, normally twice weekly. Whyalla and Mount Gambier have no passenger train services. Whyalla is the terminus of the 76 km standard gauge branch line from Port Augusta, while Mount Gambier is the southern end of a mothballed 183 km branch line from Wolseley on the Adelaide-Melbourne main line, though the section south of Penola is currently leased to the Limestone Coast Railway, a tourist train operation.

Restoration of a passenger train to Mount Gambier is dependent on standardisation of the broad gauge track from Wolseley, which has been announced as Government policy, at least as far as Penola, conditional on the development of a pulp mill near that town. No commitment has been made to restore passenger trains, and at the time of writing no work has been undertaken on the Wolseley-Penola section. When passenger trains ran between Adelaide and Mount Gambier, a daily Bluebird service

Parliament of South Australia. Environment, Resources and Development Committee 104 took 8hr 40 mins for the 490 km journey, plus a thrice-weekly overnight train that took up to 11 hours. Connections were made by the day train at Naracoorte with a local branch train to Lucindale and Kingston.

Current public transport between Adelaide and Mount Gambier (pop. 25,000, plus Grant DC 8,500) are provided by the Premier Stateliner Coach Group and Regional Express (Rex) airline. Premier Stateliner took over the coach services developed over many years by the Bond family, trading as Mount Gambier Motor Service, with the current schedule virtually unchanged: once daily in each direction (twice daily on Fridays) by two routes, both with the same 6hr 15 mins travel times:  The inland service via Bordertown, Naracoorte and Penola; and  The coastal service via Kingston SE, Robe and Millicent. Regional Express has four flights in each direction between Mount Gambier and Adelaide most days of the week.

Traffic volumes on the main roads to the Upper and Lower South-east regions of SA are comparatively light in the country areas, with about 2000 vpd on both the Riddoch (inland) and Princes (coastal) highways, though heavy vehicles are a fair proportion of the total (up to 30%). In general residents of the south-east regions have good links to the rest of the State (and to Victoria). If a passenger train service was ever to return to a reinstated line to Mount Gambier, it would merely supplement, or provide another option to, an existing system adequately serving the demands of the region. No case has been made for restoration of passenger train services in the near future.

The twice weekly Indian-Pacific service from Adelaide to Broken Hill (pop. 20,000) takes 8hr 30 mins for the 531 km journey via Crystal Brook. Before the standard gauge link was completed, the journey took 9 hours, with a change of train necessary at Peterborough, from a broad gauge Bluebird railcar to the Indian Pacific on the standard gauge trans-continental main line. Today, coach service between Adelaide and Broken Hill is provided by Buses‘R’Us, thrice weekly in each direction, taking 7 hr 10 mins via the Barrier Highway, but the service is not advertised in the State Guide of SA country bus services, perhaps because it is technically an interstate service. The Barrier Highway carries comparatively light traffic, about 550 vpd along most of its length. Regional Express flies twice daily between Adelaide and Broken Hill. Both air and coach services are minimal, reflecting the level of demand for public transport, and is therefore difficult to see any justification for rail services to Broken Hill, above that provided by GSR’s excellent Indian-Pacific trains.

The population of the Iron Triangle towns (Whyalla 23,000, Port Augusta 14,500, Port Pirie 18,000) supports the most intensive long distance coach service in SA. The Premier Stateliner Coach Group operates four trips daily in each direction between Adelaide and Whyalla, with average travel times of 5 hr 15 mins (5 hours fastest) for the 388 km run. As far as Port Augusta, services are integrated with those to Roxby Downs and Ceduna, and one daily journey is extended southwards beyond Whyalla to Port Lincoln. Traffic volumes on the highways to the northern towns are heavy by country SA standards: 1600 vpd between Whyalla and Port Augusta and over 3000 vpd on the Princes Highway south of Port Augusta. Regional Express airlines provides air services to and from Whyalla, 3 or 4 times a day in each direction, while Sharp Airlines operates twice daily in each direction between Adelaide and Port Augusta.

Passenger train service to the Iron Triangle towns has varied considerably over the years, partly due to the gauge differences. The best service was between Adelaide and Port Pirie on the former broad gauge line, but that disappeared with

Parliament of South Australia. Environment, Resources and Development Committee 105 standardisation, and now the Indian Pacific and Ghan trains, which do serve Port Augusta, do not stop at Coonamia, the nearest station to Port Pirie on the standard gauge main line to the north. The standard gauge branch line to Whyalla was opened in 1972 by the then Commonwealth Railways, primarily to serve the steel works. Australian National introduced a passenger train service using refurbished Budd railcars (as it also did to Broken Hill), but the service was short-lived.

Of the possible regional city destinations listed in ToR IV(f), that to Port Augusta and Whyalla would have the greatest potential, but as long as South Australians prefer to use their private cars for country and long-distance travel, all the public transport providers are competing for at best 5% of the total passenger traffic. So subsidising what would be an uneconomic passenger rail service to compete with the existing coach and airline operators for such a small market cannot be justified. (Note, though, that the Overland train is subsidised, despite the existence of other public transport services between Adelaide and Melbourne, some of which are subsidised, and some that operate commercially.) The fact that the Eastern States’ governments subsidise regional rail passenger train services is not a reason why a more sparsely populated state should follow suit; the regional cities still served by passenger trains in other states are much larger than those in SA (e.g. Townsville 128,000, Bendigo 76,000, Maitland 62,000, Bunbury 54,000), yet the trains still require subsidies. The annual subsidy for country rail passengers in Queensland is $132 million for eight services; on one route the subsidy per person trip is $1433.00 for each of 7200 passengers p.a. (Heger, 2009).

5.7 The Northfield line

Train services were withdrawn from the 3.9 km Northfield branch line in 1987, and the remnant of those services, the single car hourly stopping trains from Adelaide to Dry Creek, disappeared with the rescheduling of the Gawler line train service in January 2009. The right-of way has been reserved by the State Government, and the DTEI submission (09) advises there are no plans to dispose of the corridor, which crosses Churchill Road North, Port Wakefield Road and Main North Road, all at grade, before terminating on the west side of Brians Road, Northfield. Any suggestion that the line might be re-opened (see, for example, submission 06, from Brian Leedham) would require grade separation, ‘adding substantially to costs’ (DTEI, 09). The benefits to offset the high costs involved in re-opening the line are difficult to find, given that all the north-south arterial roads that cross the line carry bus services direct to the city.

During the 1970s, it was hoped that the Northfield line could be used to attract park & ride passengers from the northern suburbs (as mentioned in ToR IVc); however, the parking lots at the stations ‘were poorly utilised because buses provided a more convenient service’ (DTEI, 09) and because the arterial roads were not congested to the point where park & ride became an attractive alternative to driving to the city. Park & ride facilities are now located on the Gawler line at Mawson Lakes interchange, with trains to the city ‘every 7.5 minutes at peak times and every 15 minutes in the daytime off-peak, serving much of the area that would have been in the potential catchment of the Northfield line’ (DTEI, 09).

Mr Leedham’s submission (06) advocates extension of the Northfield line eastwards towards Valley View. This option was investigated by the North East Area Public Transport Review in 1977, both as an alternative to the valley of the River Torrens (the Modbury Freeway corridor) to reach Tea Tree Plaza, and as a stand-alone

Parliament of South Australia. Environment, Resources and Development Committee 106 project terminating at either Valley View or Ingle Farm. The Northfield extension was disregarded as a possible route to Tea Tree Plaza because it was anti-directional, and the stand-alone options were never pursued because of the property acquisition involved, though the concept of a branch to Ingle Farm had the potential to integrate local, cross-suburban and city-bound services at the terminus.

With the Northfield corridor reserved by the State Government, the option remains for its future use for transport purposes, though the high cost of civil engineering works involved mean its use in the short-term future is unlikely. In general, the re-opening of the Northfield line would be low on any list of priorities for action to improve public transport in Adelaide. Nevertheless, in order to preserve the longer-term potential of the corridor, it is important to ensure access to the corridor at Dry Creek is not impeded if the land held in the name of the Minister of Transport and by TransAdelaide is developed for a rail depot or other uses (see DTEI, 09, Appendix A).

5.8 Summary

The highest priority for improving public transport in metropolitan Adelaide is to fix up the existing network to create a system of which the residents can be proud and happy to use. One element is the run-down suburban rail network which needs a shot-in-the-arm to upgrade to the standard set by Perth. To do so requires over $1 billion in capital funds, towards which the State Government has made a start by committing to the progressive electrification of the suburban lines, extension from Noarlunga south to Seaford, possible standardisation, upgrading stations, identification of new TOD station locations, and new railcars.

Given this program of improvements to the system, the proposals in ToR IV to re- open other lines for passenger train service consequentially become lower priority, unless it is possible to justify one or more of the proposals ‘jumping the queue’ for investment in rail services. From the discussion above, it is not possible to make a case to vary the Government’s priorities for suburban rail, but it is possible to place the list of metropolitan area and peri-urban proposals in priority order, as follows:

1.Extension from Gawler Central a short distance eastwards to serve the planned new Concordia development and/or park & ride traffic from the Barossa.

2. A study of public transport in the eastern suburbs of the City of Onkaparinga and the southern areas of the City of Marion to determine possible alternative roles for the Willunga line right-of-way south of Reynella and the most appropriate public transport link to the Tonsley/Flinders precinct.

3. Updating the options for rail service to Mount Barker, subject to standardisation of the Belair line and the results of the study of the by-pass freight railway and other relevant studies.

4.Determination of the costs and benefits of extending the Seaford line to Aldinga.

Parliament of South Australia. Environment, Resources and Development Committee 107

5. Review of the public transport needs of the Barossa Valley following a year of experience with the Gawler East extension (1 above).

6. Re-opening of the Northfield line.

Passenger train service to the regional cities is a separate issue. At the present time there is no demand or other justification for re-introducing passenger trains to the lines serving regional locations. While GSR continues to serve Murray Bridge, Port Augusta and Broken Hill, these cities have a rail option for those passengers who, for whatever reasons, don’t want to drive, fly, or take a coach. If regional trains were to be introduced to the northern lines, one might envisage a thrice-weekly trains service (out one day, back the next, similar to The Overland schedule) using diesel railcars, leaving Adelaide together and dividing at Crystal Brook, with one car heading north to serve Coonamia (for Port Pirie), Port Augusta and Whyalla, the other car continuing north-eastwards to Gladstone, Jamestown, Peterborough and Broken Hill.

Discussion of a service to Mount Gambier must await a decision on standardising and re-opening the line from Wolseley. The submission to the Committee from Grant DC (15) points out that a higher priority for the Mount Gambier region is a new bus station for the coach services to Adelaide and Victorian towns and for the city’s local bus services. Similarly, People for Public Transport’s submission (41) suggests investment in the regional cities’ local buses may be more useful than re-instating rail passenger trains.

Parliament of South Australia. Environment, Resources and Development Committee 108

Chapter 6. OPPORTUNITIES AND IMPEDIMENTS TO INCREASING THE USE OF PUBLIC TRANSPORT

6.1 Introduction

The Committee’s Terms of Reference include ‘III: the opportunities and impediments to increasing public transport patronage with a view to reducing greenhouse emissions’. Opportunities are defined in this chapter as either conditions favouring greater use of public transport now or in the future or improvements that might be made to public transport to encourage patronage. Impediments are defined as economic, social or cultural conditions that favour the continued use of private cars, that deter people from using public transport, or that constrain the potential of public transport from capitalising on any opportunities that might arise.

6.2 Opportunities

There are several factors that together provide a warning that the present use of the private car for personal mobility and accessibility is unsustainable in the long term, and should cause individuals and communities to consider alternative lifestyles that include greater use of more sustainable modes of transport, including public transport. Dr Bonham’s submission (36) to the Committee listed some of these factors, including:  Uncertainty about the long term supply and price of oil;  The contribution of transport to climate change, damage to the global environment and damage to the local environment;  Ageing of the population; and  Public health and safety.

From the viewpoint of the individual, public transport has a number of attributes, e.g.  It is inexpensive to the user (although not necessarily perceived to be so);  It permits more productive use of time (reading, working, resting, etc), though this may be offset by the longer time required for the trip and by the ability to access personal services in modern cars;  It provides an opportunity to increase personal fitness and health by walking to the bus stop or cycling to a station; and  It removes the stress of driving, particularly in congested conditions, searching for a parking space, etc.

However, the current preference by most South Australians to use a private car either as a driver or passenger shows these very general factors alone are not enough to cause people to want to use public transport. Most of those who do use public transport are captive to the system for some or all of their mobility needs: they do not hold a driver’s licence (although that would not deter a minority from driving), do not have a car available for a particular journey, or do not wish to drive for whatever reason. This means the current public transport system in Adelaide will have to continue to improve its performance if the Government’s target of 10% of passenger kilometres (not trips) on public transport by 2018 is to be achieved.

Parliament of South Australia. Environment, Resources and Development Committee 109

The Committee’s review of public transport in South Australia, interstate and overseas has identified some opportunities for improvement to the existing system that could be made to increase the attractiveness of public transport to a wider market.

 Increase the frequency of services, particularly on weekends and evenings, and during the daytime inter-peak period.  Strive for greater reliability through adherence to timetables, particularly on less frequent services.  Ensure published timetables are accurate and comprehensive.  Improve the performance of the Smart Stop real-time information system, which is prone to errors of omission and announcing incorrect times.  Upgrade footpaths to improve access to stops, and keep stops free of encumbrance from street furniture, rubbish bins, etc.  Trim tree growth to maintain a line of sight at bus stops for drivers.  Introduce a new Smartcard ticketing system.  Introduce ticket machines at busy CBD stops and interchanges.  Improve the ambiance of unstaffed stations (particularly with lighting).  Continue the program of installing more attractively designed shelters at bus stops and unstaffed stations.  Encourage the introduction of amenities, such as toilets, bike storage and news-stands, at interchanges and major stations.  Extend provision of park & ride facilities to more locations.  Integrate the CBD free bus services and/or create a ‘fare-free square’ in the City centre.  Redesign Grenfell Street to give priority to buses.  Encourage bike travel on trains and evaluate the benefits of carrying bicycles on buses.  Extend the program of introducing bus priority measures at intersections.  Increase safety and security for staff and passengers (the perception that public transport is unsafe is one which deters many potential users).

Committee Recommendation 31 The Committee recommends that further investigation into the most appropriate bike parking facilities at railway stations, including overnight at Adelaide station.

The Committee’s review also identified new or improved policies that can also create opportunities to improve public transport, including the following:  Introduce greater flexibility into the next round of bus contracts to permit innovation by the private bus companies, and at the same time minimise micro-managing of services by the government agency.  Competitively tender the rail and tram systems, either separately or together (including allowing TransAdelaide to submit a bid), or make the current

Parliament of South Australia. Environment, Resources and Development Committee 110

negotiated contract between the Government and TA transparent, to eliminate any real or perceived cross subsidy between the bus and rail networks.  Consider a levy on all parking spaces, public and private, within the CBD, as suggested by Mr Ingleton in his submission (01) to the Committee, and/or discuss with the City Council the merits of limiting the number of parking stations within the City.  Strengthen the work of the Public Transport Advisory Committee to include a public consultation role, so that route changes, fare increases etc. can be debated in the public arena before implementation.  Define the role of taxis, hire cars, carpools & vanpools, community buses, etc. as the demand responsive element of public transport, e.g. in serving low density suburbs, providing feeders, covering for cancelled bus or train trips, and supplementing bus services in areas and at times of infrequent service, including in country towns and regions.  Facilitate the public’s understanding of the costs of providing public transport and the cost of driving, and of the long term implications of continuing to rely on the private car by releasing data, research reports, etc.  Develop a plan for mobility of older people, coordinating the modes of transport that can cater to their needs: inter-peak services, community transport, SATSS, gophers, etc.  Continue to improve the integration of land use and transport planning, and develop practical demonstrations of the potential at major stations, interchanges, TODs, etc.  Increase the use of innovative funding techniques for financing public transport, such as public-private partnerships, or use such techniques to fund new roads, releasing public funds that can be used to improve public transport.  Influence Federal policy, through such forums as COAG towards changes that encourage public transport and do not encourage private car use.  Continue to encourage the use of low-emission vehicles for public transport: electric trains, and CNG, electric and biofuel buses.  Develop local (micro-level) plans to provide improved pedestrian and bicycle access to station and bus stops.

Parliament of South Australia. Environment, Resources and Development Committee 111

Senate Rural & Regional Affairs and Transport Committee

The report of the Senate Rural & Regional Affairs and Transport Committee on investment of funds in public passenger transport described most of its findings for ‘Improving public transport’ (Chapter 4) as needs, many of which are relevant to South Australia, e.g.  ‘Need for better services’ (frequent, reliable, congestion-free);  ‘Need for a complete network’ (less focus on the CBD, convenient transfers);  ‘Need for a legible network, good information…’;  ‘Need to integrate cycling and walking measures with public transport’;  ‘Need for better institutional arrangements’. Some of the Senate Committee’s needs include policy measures applicable to South Australia, e.g.  ‘Need for a strategic transport plan’; and  ‘Need to integrate transport planning and urban planning’. The Committee was very specific in recommending planning measures (in paragraph 4.47, p.43) that could ‘reduce car-dependence and make public transport work better…’, e.g.  ‘reserving new corridors for fast public transport early in the planning of greenfields developments’;  ‘… a street pattern that allows buses to be routed efficiently, with good pedestrian access from bus stops’;  ‘activity centres located rationally’ as a focus of transport networks; and  TOD around public transport nodes, and an increase in residential density generally.

The Senate Committee also identified the opportunities for public transport that could arise from implementation of congestion pricing, including hypothecation of the revenues to funding public transport (paragraph 3.27); options for tax incentives for public transport (paragraph 5.52 and recommendation 5); and, if Commonwealth funding was to be made available for public transport, it should be subject to strict requirements for objective assessment of projects and the application of merit-based criteria (paragraph 5.44).

New technology and new transport systems have the potential to create opportunities to improve mobility in general and public transport in particular. Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS) is already affecting the way that transport operates, through dynamic speed limits and accident warning systems (e.g. on the South Eastern Freeway), advanced traffic control (e.g. on the Southern Expressway), and dynamic parking guidance (e.g.in Brisbane and Melbourne). Whilst these examples are developments that apply to transport in general, there is potential for ITS to be used to improve the operational efficiency and attractiveness of public transport. Such improvements will tend to be applied incrementally, as existing technology requires replacement, such as replacing Crouzet ticketing with Smartcards. The Smart-Stop information system being piloted on the Henley Beach-Norwood group of bus routes may well prove to be the precursor of a system-wide en route advisory system for passengers waiting at bus stops, in the same way that some metro and rail routes have been providing real-time information on station platforms for many years. As a result of innovation in

Parliament of South Australia. Environment, Resources and Development Committee 112 control and communications technologies, automatic train and LRT systems are now found in many cities, and provide an opportunity to reduce operating costs. The essential requirement for the present is to ensure that such developments in technology are monitored and new systems evaluated, so that they can be adopted when the opportunity arises, whether in the metropolitan, regional or remote areas, e.g. Canadian researchers forecast a future for new generation airships, such as SkyHook’s Heavy Lift Vehicle, in serving the remote north of the country (particularly to oil and mining sites), which, if successful, could have potential application in serving remote areas of central Australia (www.todaystrucking.ca).

6.3 Impediments

The single most obvious impediment to greater use of public transport is most Australians’ attachment to the private car. This is not just an emotional attachment or a response to clever marketing, but the adoption of a mode of transport that has brought enormous economic and social benefits to the majority of people over a period of more than 50 years. The private car has been a major factor influencing modern lifestyles. As a result, attempting to increase the use of public transport requires a change of mindset in a generation that has grown up in which many have never ridden on a bus or train, or used public transport to go to school, work or the shops, and whose parents have bought them a car before they have graduated from school or learned to assess the financial, safety or environmental implications of car ownership and use. At the opposite end of the age range, it is estimated that up to 50% of old people still use their cars, even when their responses may no longer be fast enough to enable them to do so without endangering themselves and others. Governments are reluctant to limit the right to continue to drive (the grey vote!), and the medical profession is faced with the difficult task of assessing and telling patients they are no longer medically fit enough to hold a driver’s licence, knowing the impact of withdrawal of the licence on their lifestyle and even on their health could be serious.

The fact that a car is a major investment for an individual or family, which is likely to be bought with a loan, the repayment of which becomes a major budgetary item, results in the practice that, once acquired, the car is used as much as possible, with the perceived cost of doing so being little more than the cost of petrol. As a result, there is little likelihood of that person or family considering public transport for a trip, unless some other factor changes the equation, such as having to pay to park the car. Furthermore, it is estimated that about 20% of cars on the road are provided ‘free’ to the user, either directly by an employer, as part of a remuneration package, or leased as part a small business. Parking may also be provided free, which further reduces the direct cost to the user of the car and increases the competitive disadvantage of the public transport alternative. Fringe benefit taxation of cars provides a further incentive to drive eligible cars more than necessary, as described in detail in the August 2009 report of the Senate Committee on public passenger transport.

The use of parking levies and/or congestion charges to fund public transport is an element of a wider debate on pricing for the use of roads more generally. If the perceived cost of using the private car is such an impediment to greater use of public transport, the more accurately the cost of using the car is reflected directly in charges, whether specific charges such as tolls on particular roads or bridges, or by replacing existing systems of revenue raising (fuel tax, registration, etc.) with pricing for the actual use of the road, the more competitive public transport should become.

Parliament of South Australia. Environment, Resources and Development Committee 113

(However, more rational public transport pricing must also be part of any such reforms.) Although price is not the only factor favouring the extensive use of private cars, if prices did reflect costs, decisions on choice of transport mode would be more rationally based than they are at present.

The level of funding available to public transport can be an impediment to improving the system. If public transport issues are low on the list of problems facing a community, compared to health, education, welfare, water supply, etc., then competing for available funds will be difficult. Further, an unwillingness or inability of passengers to pay the costs of the service provided, together with the need to keep fares low enough to compete with the private car, mean only a small proportion of the funds required can be generated internally by the system, and adds to the pressure on the funding body.

Governments often have multiple objectives, some of which may create impediments to public transport performance and improvements, e.g. promotion and protection of the car industry - the number of new cars sold is used as an indicator of economic prosperity. Objectives may conflict with one another, e.g. economic development vs environmental protection vs social amenity, and an objective to improve public transport may be over-ridden by other objectives. A low priority for public transport may be criticised as lacking vision or leadership, but in reality reflects the day-to-day management of the call on scarce funds, personal, private or public, for a myriad of community needs.

One of the outstanding features of the Senate Committee’s report on public passenger transport is the concluding section on the Fringe Benefits Tax on private use of employer-provided cars (paragraphs 5.56 to 5.95 and recommendations 7, 8 and 9). The FBT is a classic example of a policy without clear objectives (see particularly paragraph 5.64) and is an impediment to encouraging greater use of public transport. The Senate Committee’s recommendations on FBT, if acted upon by the Commonwealth Government, would demonstrate support for public transport more effectively than direct financial support; indeed, subsidising public transport while leaving the FBT concessions in place would be irrational.

The Senate Committee also highlights (in paragraph 4.61) the fact that investment in high cost projects (mostly rail) should ‘not be allowed to divert attention from the need for continuous improvement to the total network’, a problem now facing Australia’s road network, where a preference for new construction has left a backlog of maintenance on the existing road network (estimated at over $70 million in SA, and over $800 million in WA). Similarly, the Committee points out that if PPPs are used to fund public transport projects, they should not be at the expense of higher priority investment needs, simply because private finance can be leveraged.

At a practical level, there are many impediments to improving public transport, some technical, such as accommodating the needs of other users for road space and kerbside space, others less obvious, such as the fear of using for the first time a system that is perceived to be difficult to understand or access (even if the answer is readily available with a phone call or on a website). The perceived difficulty of obtaining and/or validating a ticket can deter people from using public transport, just one among many reasons why people cannot or do not use conventional public transport:  Health problems (hence the need for community buses, SATSS, etc.);  Weather (air conditioning on buses is a relatively recent improvement);

Parliament of South Australia. Environment, Resources and Development Committee 114

 Walk distances (use of average walk distances to locate bus stops can mask difficulties in accessing public transport);  Safety (public transport is perceived as unsafe at certain times);  Connections which are not guaranteed and/or too many changes are required;  Frequencies are too low and wait times too long;  Vehicles are uncomfortable, a passenger cannot choose his or her fellow- travellers;  Information on services may be unavailable or misleading;  The difficulty of using public transport when carrying lots of shopping or luggage; and  Services may be too inflexible to accommodate personal or family routines and lifestyles.

Some of these impediments can combine to create a situation where public transport will have difficulty competing with the private car, e.g. if the travel time by public transport is more than twice that by car, the choice of public transport is unlikely. Similarly, if any one of the above impediments arises in a journey ‘chain’ that involves a number of links, the private car again will be favoured. Even where public transport may be the mode of choice for a particular journey, if the car becomes available for another member of a family to use, there may no benefits in terms of use of the road network. Overall, even if public transport patronage targets are achieved in Australian cities, the reduction on car use, emissions etc. are likely to be minimal: an increase of public transport use of 14-20% will reduce the number of cars on the road by only 1- 2%, and if fuel prices rise 50%, car use will be reduced by only 5%, at least in the short term. Conversely, some of that 5% will put pressure on public transport capacity in the peak, which will in turn require funding for more buses and trains.

In country areas low population densities, long distances and sparse networks all militate against the viability of rural and regional public transport, leaving most people with no option but to use private vehicles, leaving them vulnerable to increasing costs. Fortunately, some regional cities can justify providing local town bus systems, e.g. Mount Gambier, Whyalla, Port Pirie, Port Lincoln, but the continuation of these services are dependent on financial support from the local councils.

In summary there is a danger that, when budgets are constrained, improvements to public transport in one area may be funded through savings made by reducing service elsewhere, an example of the conundrum that while there are lots of opportunities to improve public transport, there is a lengthy list of impediments to be overcome before those opportunities can be converted into tangible benefits for public transport users.

Committee Recommendation 36 The Committee recommends that the State Government argue through COAG for reform of the fringe benefit tax system that currently encourages private car use.

Parliament of South Australia. Environment, Resources and Development Committee 115

Chapter 7. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

7.1 The Importance of Public Transport

Adelaide is sometimes singled out as the most car-dominated city in Australia, though this accusation is arguable – travel in Perth and Canberra is similarly car- dominated. In Adelaide in 2006, 82.1% of journeys to work were made in private vehicles (cars, vans or utes) compared to 9.9% by public transport (Mees et al, 2008). This is not surprising, as the rectilinear network of wide arterial roads plus the routes radiating out from the city centre make driving relatively easy and fast, despite travel times and congestion at intersections increasing gradually. In addition, travel in metropolitan Adelaide ‘is overwhelmingly oriented to suburban trips – only 12% of car trips have an origin and/or destination in the City of Adelaide’, with most trips remaining within one region, e.g. 80% of car trips made in the central region of Adelaide start and end within the region (Bray, 2009).

However, such statistics can be misleading. At any point in time, 50% of the population do not have access to a private vehicle, whether because of their age (young and old), socio-economic situation (cannot afford to run a car), or personal disposition (do not have a driver’s licence, do not wish to drive, or a private vehicle is unavailable). Also, the use of journey to work data distorts the policy context, excluding freight trips and journeys for shopping, education, recreation, etc.

Public transport serves two markets: CBD-bound journeys (about 43% of all public transport trips), and all of the requirements for mobility and accessibility of that large group of people who do not have access to a private vehicle. Adelaide’s public transport, like the systems in most cities, developed over many years with a focus on the city-bound market, partly because it was easier to serve, with rail and tram lines, and later trolleybus and motorbus routes, radiating out from the centre. This focus on radial corridors persists to the present day, though efforts have been made to reconfigure the network to take account of the growth of regional shopping centres and suburban major activity centres such as educational establishments, hospitals, and, most recently, Adelaide Airport. The public transport system’s inability or unwillingness to effectively serve the majority of travellers’ needs has encouraged the use of the private car for most trips, and in turn the development of outer suburbs designed to accommodate the car, some of which are difficult to serve by public transport because of the configuration of the local streets and the low density of housing, thus creating a self-fulfilling, ‘chicken-&-egg’ situation.

Is it possible to change the situation and increase the use of public transport? Whatever the practical and financial challenges, it is necessary to do so, as the current pattern of private car use is unsustainable in the long-term. ‘If people continue to exercise their choices as they are at present and there are no significant changes, the resulting traffic growth would have unacceptable consequences for both the environment and the economy’ (DoE, 1994). There has been some improvement in the intervening 15 years since the concept of sustainability raised environmental awareness internationally, but the pace of change has been too slow and much needs to be done if public transport is ever to become the preferred mode of transport for the majority of Adelaide’s population.

Parliament of South Australia. Environment, Resources and Development Committee 116

7.2 Progress to Date

In the past 40 years or so, despite the private car dominating metropolitan passenger travel, successive state and local governments in SA have made considerable progress in improving Adelaide’s public transport, e.g. extending the suburban rail services to Noarlunga and creating a southern node at the interchange there, providing bus shelters, air-conditioning buses, integrating the fare and ticketing systems, providing the north-east suburbs with bus rapid transit (the O-Bahn), creating community bus networks, and so on. What was once a mix of separate SAR suburban trains, government (MTT) and private buses has gradually been integrated through establishment of the former State Transport Authority and continued by its successors the Passenger Transport Board and the Public Transport Division.

However, capital funds for public transport in SA were low compared to finance made available for public transport improvements in other cities, with Perth’s recent improvements a direct reflection of funding levels many times those available in Adelaide. This situation has now changed for the better: the current State Government now has a program of works to improve major elements of Adelaide’s public transport system, as described to the Committee in the submission from DTEI (09), including the following rail infrastructure projects:  Re-sleepering the Noarlunga and Belair lines;  Constructing a tramline overpass at South Road;  Electrifying the Noarlunga and Outer Harbor lines;  Extending the tramline to the Entertainment centre;  Extending the Noarlunga line to Seaford. For these and other projects, including replacement buses and improved access for O-Bahn buses into the city, the State Government expects to invest some $2 billion over the period 2008-2018, with some financial assistance from federal government programs. The initial thrust is on rebuilding the rail and tram infrastructure, but improvements to other services are expected to take place concurrently.

7.3 Strategic Transport Planning

The Senate Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport described a key issue for improving transport as ‘the need for stable strategic transport plans, with goals, actions and performance criteria detailed enough to be a basis for measuring performance’. Given the progress summarised above, the recent publication of the 2030 Plan for Greater Adelaide, and the Government’s program of major works, it is timely to package the current initiatives into a strategic transport plan. Just as the 1968 MATS plan put ‘flesh on the bones’ of the 1962 Metropolitan Development Plan, so could a new Strategic Transport Plan complement the 2030 Plan.

Preparation of a strategic transport plan would not be a difficult or time-consuming task. The Draft Transport Plan – Towards a Sustainable Transport Future, published in 2003, could be the template for a new plan. It has the benefit of covering all of SA, not just metropolitan Adelaide, includes all modes of transport (roads, public transport, freight, cycling, etc.) and embraces present and future demand, and economic, environmental and social factors. Creating a new Strategic Transport Plan would enable the 2003 report to be updated and would set the new program of public transport improvements, the costs involved and the budgets required, into a strategic

Parliament of South Australia. Environment, Resources and Development Committee 117 framework, provide a guideline for the medium-term future, and form a platform on which longer-term plans can be developed. It would demonstrate that South Australia was ‘adopting an integrated, inter-modal, best-practice approach to transport planning and management’ and ‘planning for long-term change’ (Senate Committee - paragraphs 4.75/4.76).

7.4 Capitalising on Opportunities

Improving public transport is only one of a number of measures that might reduce levels of car use and create a more sustainable future. ‘Multiple measures, applied in a consistent manner, are likely to be more effective at changing the volume of car use…’ (ERC, 1996). Such measures include travel awareness information (such as TravelSmart programs), application of intelligent transport systems, parking controls, congestion charging, fuel taxes, TODs, encouraging cycling, pedestrianisation, etc. However, improvements to public transport are particularly important, as, without the alternative of good public transport services, it would be unreasonable to consider further financial or physical constraints on the use of private cars.

Chapter 5 described a range of desirable improvements to public transport in Adelaide. While the current initiatives and projects are commendable, it is important for continued efforts be made to raise the general standard of services in all of the following areas if public transport is to be an attractive alternative to the private car:  Frequent services;  Reliable services;  Bus priority measures;  Realistic operating timetables;  Accurate and comprehensive public timetables;  Convenient and pleasant interchanges;  Convenient access to vehicles, stops, interchanges and platforms;  Maintaining low fare levels;  Smartcard integrated ticketing;  Overall comfort and security; and  Capacity for shopping, schoolbags and luggage.

The Committee identified the greatest impediment to maintaining such a program of improvements as the availability of finance. The capital budget has been increased greatly in recent years, as described above, but there has not been a corresponding increase in the operating budget to cover the contracts between the State Government, its rail and tram operating agency (TransAdelaide) and the private contractors providing bus services (currently Torrens Transit, Southlink and Transitplus). To the contrary, the main effort in the last decade or more has been to maintain the operating budget or make savings. Given the expansion of the rail and tram systems, additional funds will be required to cover increased operating costs. If the overall budget for service contracts is limited to current levels, then savings will have to made elsewhere in the present system, which will negate the effectiveness of the capital works program. It would be folly to cut bus services to fund increased rail operating costs as the improvements to the total network are as important (perhaps more important) as action on particular corridors. Such cross-subsidisation would also be economically inefficient as the cost recovery on rail services from fares is much lower than that on the bus network, and buses carry far more travellers than the rail system.

Parliament of South Australia. Environment, Resources and Development Committee 118

7.5 Regional South Australia

Country SA is even more dependent on the private car than the metropolitan area. There are no regional passenger trains, and public transport is provided mainly by a number of private coach lines, supported by local feeder bus services in some regions. Inter-city services are by air and coach, in all cases on routes radiating out from Adelaide. The public transport network is completed by ferries to Kangaroo Island, across Spencer Gulf (currently suspended) and the Murray River, and by internal bus systems in some regional cities.

The Terms of Reference required the Committee to investigate the possibility of re- opening rail services to some regional cities, including Whyalla, Mount Gambier and Broken Hill. It is clear that such services are unlikely to be reintroduced in the near future, and that residents of these cities will continue to rely on the coach operators, airlines and GSR’s interstate trains (which serve Port Augusta, Broken Hill, Murray Bridge and Bordertown). Although demand fluctuates and some of the country public transport services are only marginally profitable, the frequency of services has been maintained at reasonable levels for many years, e.g. four coach and four air services on weekdays to and from Whyalla, two coach and at least two air services to and from Mount Gambier, and four coach trips to and from Victor Harbor. It is important to recognise that improvement of local public transport in the regional cities and country towns is as important as the links to Adelaide, as pointed out in some of the submissions and in evidence received by the Committee.

Similarly, as described in Chapter 5, restoration of passenger rail services to localities on the fringe of the metropolitan area is unlikely to occur in the short-term future, for a number of reasons: there are physical limitations, such as the track gauge differences through the Adelaide Hills; the Government’s priorities for rail have been determined for the immediate future and they do not include most routes on the metropolitan fringe; while in some cases further planning work is necessary to determine the most effective route and/or technology. (DTEI advised the Committee it is prepared to undertake feasibility and other studies relating to some of the lines listed in Term of Reference IV). Taking all these factors into account the Committee determined what it sees as a priority order for action on the specific routes, should the opportunity arise and the case for re-opening can be justified, i.e.

Priority 1. A short extension of the line from Gawler Central to Concordia and/or a new park & ride facility. 2. A study of public transport in the eastern area of the City of Onkaparinga to determine possible alternatives uses for the Willunga line right-of way and links to the Tonsley/Flinders area. 3. Updating options for rail passenger service to Mount Barker, pending the findings of the current studies of freight services in and around Adelaide. 4. The possible extension of the line from Seaford to Aldinga. 5. Review of the public transport needs of the Barossa, after completion of the Concordia extension. 6. Possible re-opening of the Northfield line. In the interim, the railway rights-of way should continue to be reserved and protected, and the possibility of improving local bus services in these areas should be considered.

Parliament of South Australia. Environment, Resources and Development Committee 119

7.6 Conclusions

I. On the development of an efficient and integrated public transport system incorporating all forms of public transport and necessary infrastructure improvements.

I (i) Adelaide’s public transport has gradually been integrated over three decades. However, while the route network and ticketing system is integrated, the organisational and management structure is not, and the integration of service to the passengers needs to improve, with more reliable timekeeping, more realistic timetabling of services, more convenient arrangements at interchanges and other locations where routes intersect, and an emphasis on creating a pleasant waiting environment at stations, interchanges and major stops. Smartcard ticketing is urgently required to replace the ageing Crouzet ticketing technology.

I (ii) Adelaide’s public transport is operated more efficiently than heretofore, but there are anomalies that should be addressed through more efficient and transparent contracting arrangements, and more detailed published data on the performance and costs of services.

I (iii) The current program of transport infrastructure improvements can be expected to result in upgrading of services, but a system-wide perspective will be required to ensure that improvements in particular corridors are matched by improvements in overall service levels across the network.

I (iv) For the longer term, transport planners should be investigating the next round of infrastructure improvements, such as replacement of heavy rail in the north-west suburbs by LRT, the possibility of LRT replacing buses on the Airport/Henley Beach- City-Norwood-Magill corridor, extension of the rail service from Seaford to Aldinga and other improvements to services in the northern and southern suburbs.

II. On the needs of metropolitan and outer metropolitan regions.

II (i) The greatest need is for more frequent and more reliable services on many routes in the public transport system, particularly at evenings and weekends, and also at other times in outer suburbs. The contrast between peak-hour frequencies and those found at other times is too great to attract other than CBD-bound commuters, captive passengers, and those on major rail and bus routes to patronise public transport at other times. More frequent and more reliable services would be the first step to creating higher quality public transport, a particular issue for our ageing society.

II (ii) The need for improved public transport should be put into context by preparation and publication of a new Strategic Transport Plan covering all modes of transport across South Australia. A new Draft Plan could be prepared quickly and released for public consultation by updating the 2003 Draft Transport Plan for South Australia. If existing resources cannot be spared to prepare such a plan, consideration could be given to a future ‘Thinker-in-Residence’ being invited from interstate or overseas to complete the task.

III. On Opportunities and Impediments

III (i) In addition to the improvements recommended above, such as frequent and reliable service, introduction of Smartcard ticketing, and efficient, pleasant

Parliament of South Australia. Environment, Resources and Development Committee 120 interchange arrangements, there are lots of opportunities to improve public transport services: more bus priority measures (particularly in Grenfell Street), perfecting the Smart Stop electronic information system, expanding on-line information services, accurate and comprehensive printed timetables, and provision of amenities at interchanges and major stations. The current low fare policy and the accent on safety for passengers and staff should be continued as part of overall service improvements.

III (ii) The greatest impediment to continued improvement of public transport is the provision of finance to cover operating costs. The backlog in maintenance is being tackled and provision of capital funds for new projects have been budgeted for the foreseeable future, but the impact of these initiatives will be nullified if the operating budget is not increased to pay for improved services. If the funds cannot be found from existing resources, consideration should be given to congestion charging and/or a parking levy, all or part of the proceeds from which would be hypothecated to public transport operations.

IV. On restoring Rail Passenger Services.

IV (i) The Committee’s research concludes that restoration of passenger train services to near-metropolitan areas is unlikely to occur in the immediate future, for a number of reasons outlined earlier in the report. The Committee therefore recommends:  Continued reservation of rail rights-of-way that are currently unused by rail services.  A short eastward extension of the Gawler line rail service to the planned Concordia development and construction of a secure park & ride facility at the new terminal.  Review of the potential for restoring passenger trains to Mount Barker if and when all or most freight trains are removed from the Adelaide Hills line to operate via a new freight by-pass rail line.  A study to determine whether improvements to public transport services in the eastern suburbs of the City of Onkaparinga would benefit from use of the Willunga rail right-of-way through the area.

IV (ii) Although restoring regional rail passenger services to Whyalla and to Broken Hill is possible (both cities, plus Port Augusta, are on the ARTC standard gauge network), such services are unlikely to be needed or justified in the near future. Consideration of re-opening passenger train service to Mount Gambier must await any action to standardise and re-open the currently unused broad gauge freight branch line from Wolseley.

IV (iii) The State Government and member companies of the Bus SA organisation should review the level of service to near-metropolitan communities and the regional cities and develop measures to raise the quality and image of coach services, to offset the view presented to the Committee that improved public transport can only be achieved by re-introducing passenger train services.

Parliament of South Australia. Environment, Resources and Development Committee 121

Bibliography

Sources used in this study of efficient and integrated transport in South Australia and elsewhere include the submissions to the ERDC Inquiry and the study reports listed in Chapter 2, public and working timetables, and Annual Reports, Financial Statements and websites for public transport operations interstate and overseas described in Chapter 4.

Examples of Annual Reports consulted are Dublin (Bus Atha Cliath, 2007), Portland (Tri-Met, 2008) and Vancouver (South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority, 2008); and examples of websites accessed: Zurich (www.vbz.ch), Toronto (www.ttc.ca), Sacramento (www.sacrt.com), Auckland (www.maxx.co.nz).

Australian Transport Council: National Guidelines for Transport System Management in Australia. Canberra, 2006.

Black, A: The Chicago Area Transportation Study, A Case Study of Rational Planning. Journal of Planning Education & Research, vol 10, 1990.

Bly PH & Oldfield RH: The effects of public transport subsidies on demand and supply. Transportation Research Part A, vol 20 1986.

Bray DJ: Transport Strategy for Adelaide, Background Report. Transport Policy Unit, Adelaide, 1995.

Bray DJ: Urban transport policy in Australia – smoke, mirrors and failures. Presentation to the Economic Society of Australia (SA), July 2009.

Bray DJ & Wallis IP: Adelaide bus services reform: impacts, achievements and lessons. Research in Transportation Economics, vol 22, 2008.

Bray DJ & Wallis IP: Public transport costs in Adelaide: assessment and implications. Papers of the 23rd ATRF, Perth, 1999.

Dargay JM, Gately D & Sommer M: Vehicle Ownership and Income Growth Worldwide, 1960-2030. Energy, vol 28, 2007.

Demographia World Urban Areas & Population Projections: 5th Comprehensive Edition, 2009.

Department of the Environment: Strategy for Sustainable Development. London, 1994.

Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development & Local Government: Adelaide Rail Freight Movements Study. Discussion Paper, October 2009.

Director General of Transport: North-east Area Public Transport Review, Position paper 3 (Transport to the City). Adelaide, 1977.

Dublin Transport Authority Establishment Team: Report to the Minister for Transport. Dublin, March 2006.

Parliament of South Australia. Environment, Resources and Development Committee 122

Economic Research Centre: Changing Daily Urban Mobility. ECMT Round Table report 102. Paris, 1996.

Glaister S & Lewis D: An integrated fares policy for transport in London. Journal of Public Economics, vol 9, 1978.

Green R: Public Transport in Kobenhavn. Today’s Railways, vol 12, No 135, 2007.

Haydock D: The Ouest Lyonnais Project. Today’s Railways, vol 12, No 142, 2007.

Heger U: Trip to Paris cheaper than to Charleville. Courier-Mail, Brisbane, 4 July 2009.

Hensher DA & Wallis IP: Competitive tendering as a Contracting Mechanism for Subsidising Transport: The Bus Experience. Journal of Transport Economics & Policy, vol 39, 2005.

Hill R: The Toulouse Metro and the South Yorkshire Supertram, a cross-cultural comparison. Transport Policy, vol 2 1995.

Industry Commission: Urban Transport (2 vols.). AGPS, Melbourne, 1994.

Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal: Government Payments for Public Transport. Transport Interim Report No. 1, Sydney,1996.

Infrastructure Australia: A Report to the Australian Council of Governments. Sydney, 2008.

Institute for Sustainable Systems and Technologies: Value of public transport assets in major Australian cities. Draft working paper, Adelaide, 2009.

Isaacs V: Train Times. 7th Edition, Canberra, 2007.

Janes Urban Transport Systems. (www.juts.janes.com)

Kidwell H: Dubai – Building for the future. Tramways & Urban Transit, vol 82, May 2009.

LEK Consulting: Cost Review of CityRail’s Regular Passenger Services. IPART, Sydney, 2008.

Mees P: Urban form and sustainable transport in Australian, Canadian and US cities. World Transport Policy & Practice, vol 15, 2009.

Mees P, O’Connell G & Stone J: Travel to Work in Australian Capital Cities, 1976- 2006. Urban Policy & Research, vol 26, 2008.

National Economic Research Associates: Models of the Provision, Regulation and Integration of Public Transport Services. London, 2001.

NSW Government: Ministerial Inquiry into Sustainable Transport in New South Wales (The Parry Report). Sydney, 2003.

R Travers Morgan Pty Ltd: The Incidence of Public Transport Subsidies in Adelaide. Director General of Transport, Adelaide, 1984.

Parliament of South Australia. Environment, Resources and Development Committee 123

Smith KA: Tales from a Railway Odyssey. Elizabeth, 2001.

Somenahali SVC & Taylor MAP: Elderly Mobility: Issues, Opinions and Analysis of trip making in Adelaide. Papers of the 30th Australasian Transport Research Forum, 2007.

The Senate Rural & Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee: Investment of Commonwealth and State funds in public passenger transport infrastructure and services. Canberra, 2009.

Vincent GF: Railway Track & Signalling – South Australia Country. Magill, 2007.

Parliament of South Australia. Environment, Resources and Development Committee 124

Submissions

No. Organisation Author Dated 1 - David Ingleton 17/4/08 2 - Anne Sorensen 21/7/08 3 - Dr Bill Gransbury 9/7/08 4 - Mr David H Mahlo 11/7/08 5 - Ruth Sard 10/7/08 6 - Brian Leedham 18/7/08 7 - John Drennan 24/6/08 8 - Don & Therese Peterson 9/8/08 9 SA Government Hon Patrick Conlon MP 11/8/08 Minister for Transport 10 - Trevor & Liz Langridge 15/8/08 11 - Paul Henley 26/8/08 12 - Peter Hoye 7/9/08 13 - Peter Heuzenroeder 5/9/08 14 Lutheran Community Care Robyn Richter, Regional Manager 1/9/08 15 DC Grant Russell J Peate, CEO 23/9/08 16 - Rob Clack 29/9/09 17 - Ken Jermy 8/10/09 18 - Jill Mitchell 8/10/09 19 - Kate Sankey 10/10/09 20 - Shirley Clarke 12/10/09 21 - James & Jodie Linke 11/10/09 22 - Geraldine Morphett 8/10/09 23 - Marlene & James McLennon - 24 - Steve & Fay Alford 16/10/09 25 - Joyce & George Hunt 18/10/09 26 - Julie Close 17/10/09 27 - Sandra Williams 18/10/09 28 - Kevin & Ann Jones 21/10/09 29 Marion Wentririo 21/10/09 30 Blenkiron, Walker & Koch 11/10/09 31 Dot White 23/10/09 32 Les Fordham 24/10/09 33 AMG Paul Smith 24/10/08 34 Paul Aslin 25/10/08 35 Aidan Stanger 25/10/09 36 Dr Jennifer Bonham 25/10/09 37 Hatton- Jones 27/10/09 38 B Turner 7/11/09 39 Graham Nixon - 40 CCSA Jamnes Danenberg 3/11/09 41 PPT Thanasis Avramis 5/11/09 42 Hugh McMaster 14/12/08

Parliament of South Australia. Environment, Resources and Development Committee 125

Witnesses

Organisation Witnesses Date Department of Jim Hallion, Chief Executive; Rob Richards, 24/9/08 Transport, Energy Director, Sustainable Transport Policy and and Infrastructure Planning Division; Heather Webster, Executive Director, Public Transport Division; Heather Haselgrove, Director Customer Service, Public Transport Division SA Tourism Mark Gill, Manager Access Development 24/6/09 Commission Barossa and Light Anne Maroney, Chief Executive 24/6/09 Regional Development Board Barossa Wine and Sam Holmes, Chief Executive Officer 24/6/09 Grape Barossa Rail Paul Henley, Brian Leedham and Elizabeth 24/6/09 Passenger Action Langridge Group Australian Food and Matthew McCulloch, General Manager 24/6/09 Beverage Group Pty Ltd

Parliament of South Australia. Environment, Resources and Development Committee