Action for Public Transport (NSW)

P.O. Box K 606, Haymarket NSW 1240

www.aptnsw.org.au

24th June 2003

Dr Thomas Parry

Ministerial Inquiry into Public Passenger Transport

C/- Transport Co-ordination Authority

GPO Box 1620

Sydney NSW 2000

inquiry@transport.nsw.gov.au

9268 2825

Dear Dr Parry,

We welcome this opportunity to comment on the processes for evaluating, funding and delivering public transport services by the government in New South Wales.

APT is concerned about both the lack of spending on public transport and the imbalance of spending between public transport and roads. Very little of what we say here will be new. We and others have said it all before, and we wonder what the point is of saying it yet again. Indeed, we wonder why the Minister is asking.

Many of the ideas in this submission have been taken from publications and from web sites the world over and these are acknowledged in Appendix E. There are no doubt hundreds of other similar sites hosted by transport authorities, research bureaus and commuter groups. We recommend them to the Inquiry.

I acknowledge the assistance of members of APT and of other organisations in preparing this submission, and also the co-operation of authors and web site owners in allowing their work to be quoted.

If you have any queries, please contact me by telephone on 9516 1906 or by email at allanmiles@hotmail.com

Yours faithfully

Allan Miles

Secretary

Action for Public Transport (NSW)

Introduction

Summary of This Submission

Terms of Reference

Terms of Omission

What is Action for Public Transport?

The Public Transport Task

1. Likely Future Needs

2. Funding Options

3. Options for Enhancing Use

4. Incentive Mechanisms for Linking Fares and Service Standards

5. Options for Targeting Funding and Delivery

Taxation Reforms

The TravelSmart Project

What’s Next?

Conclusion

ATTACHMENT "A" - Local Councils and Public Transport - "The Thirty-nine Steps"

ATTACHMENT "B" - Aspects to Consider when Evaluating Public Transport Services

ATTACHMENT "C" - Ridership Growth Strategy: Toronto. A City That Has a Strategy

ATTACHMENT "D" - Triple-Bottom-Line Tax Reform

ATTACHMENT "E" - References

There is ample evidence, all of it readily available, that a substantial upgrading and simultaneous expansion of Sydney's public transport network is essential if the community really wants to overcome the dominance of the motor car.

Simply considering how to fund CityRail’s current capital works program would be a waste of everybody's time. The Christie Report on rail network improvements supports this premise. The cost reduction strategies of the various rail maintenance authorities have backfired, resulting in much exhausted infrastructure like the Menangle Rail Bridge. The bus and ferry funding problems may not be so dire, because lead times for planning, construction and purchasing are much shorter than those for rail.

The fifty years of roads expansion by the Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA) has only made matters worse. The present government recognised this in its 1999 "Action for Transport 2010" plan, but in the meantime has gone weak-kneed and succumbed to pressure from the roads lobby.

A strategic approach to improving public transport and increasing passenger numbers requires a clear, consistent, long-term funding arrangement that realistically reflects ongoing operating costs, state-of-good repair capital needs, and the funding requirements of system and fleet expansion.

The main points that APT has made in this submission are:

1. There are serious omissions from the Terms of Reference
2. The government should not need a public inquiry to ascertain the funding requirements of the transport authorities.
3. Without trying very hard, we, a voluntary group, have found at least 18 methods of funding capital and operational needs. The professionals can find many more.
4. Similarly, we have nominated over a hundred ways in which public transport can be improved. None of them are new, or rocket science.
5. We have highlighted the absence of a passenger growth strategy for Sydney, and compared this to the comprehensive document prepared in Toronto.
6. Almost everything that we have said here has been said many times before by us and by others. The remedies are well documented and well known. What is lacking is the political will.

We repeat here the Terms of Reference for the Inquiry, and will try to relate our comments to them.

1. The likely future needs of CityRail and STA Bus and Ferry operations, with regard to efficient operating and capital costs;
2. Funding options to meet these revenue needs, as well as funding options for any future expansion of the public passenger transport system;
3. Options for enhancing the optimum use of public passenger transport relative to other transport modes;
4. Possible arrangements for incentive mechanisms which better link fares and service standards, including safety; and
5. Options for better targeting the funding and delivery of transport services to meet the needs of different groups in the metropolitan and non-metropolitan communities, including rural community and health transport needs.

We have not said much about Term 1, leaving that to the government agencies, nor about Term 5, leaving that to people who have more experience than we have in regional and community transport.

We consider that any outcome of the Inquiry will be fundamentally flawed if the following items, omitted from or unclear in the official Terms of Reference, are not considered:

1. Funding requirements and funding options for privately owned (but government licensed) public transport.
2. The fundamental problem with the Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA) which plans, evaluates, approves and implements its own projects independently of other transport needs.
3. Methods of evaluating transport projects to ensure that financial, social and environmental considerations are included.
4. Methods for prioritising transport proposals alongside road proposals so that those with the highest cost/benefit outcomes are funded first.
5. The huge imbalance in funding between roads and public transport.
6. The perception that public transport "runs at a loss" and needs to be fixed, whereas "roads" do not.
7. A transport policy that is increasingly being driven by the infrastructure investment industry.
8. The failures of the transport authorities to protect passenger interests in revenue-earning contracts, such as those for advertising and rentals.
9. Federal taxation policies, especially the Fringe Benefits Tax (FBT) and Goods and Services tax (GST), which both favour private car transport and penalise public transport.

Action for Public Transport (NSW) is variously described as a community-based watchdog group on transport issues, a public transport consumer group guarding passengers’ interests, and an environmental group advocating ecologically sustainable transport systems.

We are concerned about, and opposed to, government transport policies that are driven by vested interests instead of the public interest, particularly the unsustainable use of private motor vehicles in urban areas, and the unacceptable level of long-distance freight on our roads.

The group began as the "Save Public Transport Committee" in October 1975, when the transport unions campaigned to stop the downgrading of public transport by the then NSW government. When the government changed at the next elections, the union movement lost interest in the association, and left it in the hands of the public transport activists.

APT is not a "front" for any union, or for any political party, or for the government, or for the industry. We are a front for the public transport users. Our funds derive solely from subscriptions and donations by members. Further details about APT can be obtained from our web site: http://www.aptnsw.org.au

Sydney is a city of just over four million people. The CBD is about eight km inland from the coast on the southern shore of Sydney Harbour. The main suburban area extends east to the coast and north, west and south about 30 or 40 km in each direction. These suburbs are connected to the CBD by frequent train, bus or ferry services. In the outer suburbs, the buses, for the most part, run to railway stations to connect with trains. In the inner areas, buses run direct to the city and there are many cross-suburban buses that do not go into the city. There is only one cross-suburban rail line, but a second is under construction.

Beyond the suburban area are the commuter areas – the Central Coast to the north, the Blue Mountains to the west, Campbelltown to the south-west, and the Illawarra district to the south. These areas are joined to Sydney by fast inter-urban trains.

All the railways and nearly all of the ferries are government owned. The buses in the more densely populated inner region are government owned, and those in the outer areas are privately owned (but government regulated). Some private companies run express buses into the CBD along motorways and freeways.

A monorail circles the CBD and Darling Harbour, passing near many new apartment buildings. It is patronised by tourists and residents. A new tramway from Central Railway Station passes through Chinatown, the Darling Harbour entertainment area and the Casino, then serves a suburban area along an abandoned railway line.

The city of Newcastle, 160 km north of Sydney, is served by a small network of trains, buses and ferries run by CityRail, State Transit and private bus companies. The rest of the state is served only by privately owned buses.

Some figures will be useful in gauging the size of the tasks involved.

State Transit (from 2001-02 annual report)

• 1,935 buses (Sydney and Newcastle)
• 32 Sydney ferries
• 2 Newcastle ferries
• 212 million passengers per year
• 15,000 services every day
• $495 million turnover
• 4,800 employees
• 300 routes in Sydney and 29 in Newcastle
• 77 million km run by Sydney Buses per year
• 1 million km run by Sydney Ferries
• 8 million km run by Newcastle services
• 95,000 route services a week run by Sydney Buses
• 2,000 route services a week run by Sydney Ferries
• 7,000 route services a week run by Newcastle services

Sydney Buses (from State Transit 2003 IPART submission)

• serves 600,000 customers per week day
• provides 16,000 services per week day
• costs $1.5 million per day
• provides 25% of trips to the CBD by all modes
• provides free trips for 150,000 school children per day
• provides 145,000 subsidised trips per day for concession card holders

CityRail (from the SRA Annual Report 2001/02)

• 276.4 million passenger journeys
• 306 stations – 302 plus 4 on the Airport line
• 2,080 km of track
• !,459 electric carriages
• 30 endeavour carriages
• 7 rail motors (620 class)
• 7 rail motors(720 class)
• Passenger revenue $518.9 million
• Social Program Funding $634.1 million
• Total Revenue excluding Government Funding $680.2 million
• Operating Expenses $1,875.7 million
• Capital Program (Including capital grant to RIC) $274.5 million
• Costs per passenger journey $6.19
• Staff as at 30/06/02 9,121

Bus and Coach Association (from the BCA web site)

The private bus industry is a major provider of public transport in New South Wales; 1,000 members carry approximately 650,000 school children to and from school each day and passenger journeys in Wollongong, Blue Mountains, Central Coast and the Greater Sydney Metropolitan area total more than 100 million per annum. In addition, the Association also represents the owners of the New South Wales coach fleet. The members of BCA (NSW) operate some 6,000 buses and have approximately 10,000 employees.

The authorities are in a much better position than we are to present this information. They must have dozens of reports that recommend what is needed and how much it will cost.

These "likely future needs" should be more than just a list of what the authorities hope will be funded in the next annual budget. It should be a catalogue of all desired projects, whether capital or maintenance, with priorities and cost/benefit ratios.

Funding Options can mean many things – sources of funding, types of funding (repayable or not repayable), timing of funding, frequency of funding, conditions attached to funding, uses of funding, and so on.

Some funding sources are listed below. They have not been separated into capital and operational needs. Funds from some sources could be used for either current or capital costs or both, and a mixture of sources would most likely be used.

1. Federal Government through Auslink, where it is proposed that all transport projects will be submitted, assessed, prioritised and funded accordingly. This presupposes a sufficiently large amount of money being placed in the pool in the first place. It may be that a re-allocation needs to be made at a higher level between Transport and other departments.
2. State Government through a re-allocation of funds away from other departments, particularly the road-building ones.

The Premier, Mr Carr, was initially elected on a platform of the de-Los-Angelisation of Sydney. Prior to the 1995 election, an ALP policy statement said "Labor will end the Los Angeles style road expansion mentality operating in the RTA. The power to make road-building decisions will be taken away from the RTA and given to the Department of Transport & Planning". ("Putting the Public Back Into Public Transport", February 1995, page 3.)

The irony is that Los Angeles has stopped building freeways (Sydney Morning Herald 22/08/01) but Mr Carr builds more of them and at ever-increasing prices.


The government has also failed to remove the transport planning function (and budget) from the RTA.

3. Relief from GST. Reduction in GST payable, or refund of GST paid, on capital items and consumables by transport providers.
4. Beneficiaries Pay (developers, retailers, employers, etc). It might be argued that Woolworths at Town Hall, for example, should pay for the benefit of being adjacent to a busy railway station and bus stop. On the other hand it could be said that Woolworths are already paying through inflated rent or rates for being in that prime location. Or the argument could be completely reversed so that the railways should pay Woolworths for bringing custom to their Town Hall station.

Note that developers come in more than one colour. There are the land developers in the outer suburbs, and it has been argued that the cost of land would be more prohibitive than it already is if more levies were added to the price. People are also reluctant to pay these levies because there is no guarantee that they will ever see a bus or a train near their house. There are also the city and inner suburban property developers of old factory sites or air rights over railway stations. They build retail, office or residential blocks where buses and trains already run. The developments around Green Square and Wolli Creek stations would not have happened without the new railway. These developers, purchasers and lessees should help pay for the transport.

5. Local Government. Following from the above, it could be argued that local councils, who receive the increased revenue from rates on favourably located properties, should share the revenue with the transport providers.
6. Employers. The presence of public transport nodes enables employers to locate workplaces in areas such as the CBD, Parramatta, Burwood and Chatswood. Without the trains, buses and ferries, the employers would have to provide large expensive car parks, or risk being unable to attract staff. Again, it could be argued that the rent, and ultimately the rates paid on these properties reflects the benefit of the good public transport, and that the local councils should share the revenue with the transport providers.
7. Other road users. They also benefit from not having to share the road with the people in the trains and ferries, and not having to share so much of the road with people in the buses.
8. All citizens through a special levy. This rather off-beat approach to fare setting was described in an article in the "The Age", Melbourne, on 2nd August 2002. This proposed replacing fares with a city-wide public transport levy. This has particular application to Melbourne where fare evasion is rampant, and the fares collected do little more than cover the cost of collecting them. Nevertheless, it could be considered for Sydney. Residents currently pay specific levies, rather than actual costs or general taxes, for Medicare, water reticulation, council garbage services, etc. We pay the same whether our garbage bin is full or empty, big or small. A "user pays" or "disposer pays" system for garbage is theoretically possible but quite impracticable.

Everyone benefits from public transport whether they use it or not. People who have paid the levy for public transport might tend to use it more because "I’ve already paid for it", just as they use their cars for all trips because they have already paid for them. The problem with this approach would be the brawl between the operators when the funds from the levy were distributed.

9. Privatisation. If this is to be considered, there are various models to choose from. The adventures in Melbourne and Britain ended in disasters, but a successful model could be found or devised. Note that the private companies’ lawyers and accountants are always smarter than the government’s lawyers and accountants.

1. Introduction
2. Sale of the Decade
3. Touting Privatisation
4. Government Trading Enterprises Have Been Undervalued
5. To Sell or not to Sell: Financial Implications
6. Contracting Out / Outsourcing
7. Private Sector Infrastructure Development
8. Australia’s Worst Privatisations

1. Sale and Lease-Back. The sale and leasing back of newly purchased assets can amortise the purchase price over an extended period – at a cost. The sale and leasing back of existing assets, while providing an immediate source of new funds, also creates a new annual expense which wasn’t there before, except in terms of maintenance.
2. Private Investment. Another legitimate source that comes with a warning. The first infrastructure that gets to be built seems to be the one that gives the highest return on capital – usually a particular motorway – not the one that is most needed by the community. The public interest is not served when politicians are used as marketing pawns for such projects. The Cross-City road tunnel is another classic case where the public is told that motorists will avoid twenty sets of traffic lights and will cover in two minutes distances which now take twenty minutes, and anybody who can’t see this benefit is a fool. Nobody, of course, just travels from one end of the new tunnel to the other. Everybody will use the myriad approach roads, which are already severely congested.
3. Advertising, as long as it is not intrusive and annoying to the passengers, such as the wall screen videos at railway stations, the video screens in buses and the covering of bus windows.

If such funding from non-treasury sources is to be accepted, it is inevitable that it will come with strings attached. That is, the funds will be provided under certain conditions. The degree to which any such conditions impact on the quality of service delivery must be strictly controlled.

The advertising income presently accepted by both CityRail and State Transit is a case in point. CityRail agreed to a contract with Street Vision in December 1999 to provide audio-visual programs on underground railway platforms. State Transit has a number of contracts for on-bus and in-bus advertising. There was no consultation with the passengers directly affected by the new contracts and no social or environmental impact statements issued.

Both authorities have failed to control the contractors in the interest of passengers. In fact, both have at times referred passenger complaints about the advertising, its content, volume, intrusiveness, etc, direct to the advertising contractors for action or response to the complainant passengers.

Contracts that provide revenue from non-treasury sources must be actively managed from within CityRail and State Transit.

One form of advertising is sponsorship or naming rights. We are familiar with Telstra Stadium and Aussie Stadium (even if we are not sure which is which). Why not Cadbury’s Stanmore Station, Coca-Cola Manly Wharf or the One.Tel Millennium Train?

4. Rentals. Rents from properties not required for internal use are a legitimate source of funds. However, the management of these leases sometimes sees passengers’ interests coming off second best. CityRail has for decades refused to control retail lessees who obstruct public passageways with their stock.
5. Promoters of Special Events. They pay for the police. Let them pay for the buses and trains too.
6. Loans. Loans require regular payment of interest to investors and eventual repayment of capital.
7. Bond Issues. Bonds require regular payment of interest to investors and eventual repayment of capital.
8. Reduced fare evasion.
9. Fares.

The timing and frequency of funding is also important. Operators would prefer that capital funds be allocated as long-term commitments, not something that might be altered in the next budget. The same applies to revenue for fares.

It may be worth considering a less-frequent review of fares by IPART, perhaps every three years instead of annually. This does not mean that fares would change only once every three years. Rather, the triennial determination would say how fares are to change (or not change) in each of the next three years, thereby enabling the operators to plan more effectively.

In its simplest terms, this boils down to making one mode more attractive and the other less attractive. Lists of options for both outcomes are given below.

Very few of these ideas are new or revolutionary. Most of them have been in practice in one or more places for decades – even the supposedly "hi-tech" ones – and all are recorded in the government’s departmental libraries. It is not the options that are in short supply, but the political will to overcome the obstacles.

See also The TravelSmart Project under "Other Comments".

1. Making Public Transport More Attractive

 

Additional routes

Expanded coverage

Increased service frequency

Longer hours of operation

Bus lanes

Bus priority traffic signals

Reallocation of road space

Comfort improvements on board

Comfort improvements at stops

Lower and more convenient fares

Convenient fare payment systems

Some no-cash ticket-only buses

Improved passenger information

Bike and public transport integration

Bicycle parking at transport nodes

Vehicles designed for special needs

Stops designed for special needs

"Park & Ride" facilities *

"Kiss & Ride" facilities *

Improved security on vehicles

Improved security at waiting places

Target particular travel needs

Provide special events transport

Provide for express commuters

Shuttle services

Improved timetable information

Memory timetables

More convenient transfers

Reduce GST on public transport

Commuter financial incentives

Journeys faster than alternative modes

Reduce freight traffic

Segregate freight and passenger rail

Improve tracks shared with freight rail

Make users proud of their system

* There is debate about whether an abundance of these facilities is desirable, because they reduce the viability of other forms of transport (usually buses) serving the tram or train station, the bus interchange or the ferry wharf.

 

2. Making Public Transport More Cost Effective

Single ownership of all operators

Single ticket and fare system

Simple ticket and fare system

Attract more passengers

Modify the contract area restrictions

3. Making Private Transport Less Attractive

 

Transport demand management

Congestion reduction strategies

Energy conservation strategies

Parking strategies

Transportation affordability

Congestion pricing

Road pricing

Distance-based pricing

Increase fuel taxes

Parking prices

Pay-as-you-drive vehicle insurance

Road space reallocation

Speed reduction

Street reclaiming

Vehicle use restrictions

Traffic calming

Car-free districts

Pedestrianised streets

Regulatory reform

Access management

Tourist transport management

Increase liability for GST on cars

Reduction of subsidies to motorists

Education on costs of motoring

Increase taxes to pre-GST levels Increase FBT on cars and parking

Make unnecessary road users guilty

 

Transit subsidies tend to be relatively higher per passenger-mile but relatively lower per passenger year because transit users tend to travel fewer miles per year than car drivers. As a result, transit dependent people tend to receive less subsidy per capita than motorists.

 

 

 

4. Making Private Transport More Resource Efficient

Emission reduction strategies

Ridesharing

Park and ride

Shuttle services

Chauffeuring

Promoting taxis

Taxi service improvements

High Occupancy Vehicle priority

HOV lanes

 

5. How To Make These Changes

Clustered land use

Agglomeration economics

Land use evaluation

Land use objectives

Land value impacts

Location efficient development

Transit oriented development

Parking management

Shared parking

Planning and policy reforms

Information on costs of driving

Comprehensive market reforms

Marketing programs

Encouragement programs

Institutional reforms

Least cost planning

Prioritising planning

Legislation

Campus transport management

Pricing methods

Safety strategies

Non-motorised planning

Health and fitness promotion

Telework, telecommuting

Tele-shopping

Distance learning

Compete for funds with road plans

Remove cars from salary packages

Employee loans for season tickets

Teach children to be car-independent

 

6. Benefits

Congestion reductions

Road cost savings

Parking facility cost savings

User cost savings

Efficient land use

Environmental protection

Improved community livability

More resilient transportation system

Increased property values

Increased economic development

Greater accessibility

Improved health and fitness

Economies of scale in transit

Improved transport choice

Provides basic mobility

Provides affordable mobility

Pedestrian improvements

Cycling improvements

Improved safety, security and health

Improved equity

Overall energy savings

 

7. Obstacles to Overcome

Automobile dependency

The car culture

Vested interests

The Road Lobby

RTA

NRMA

AAA

Road builders

Manufacturers

Oil refiners

Retailers

Motor vehicle service providers

Parking station owners

Insurance industry

Tourist industry

Drivers’ prestige and pleasure

Institutional inertia

Regulatory inertia

Politicians’ fear of losing office

Policy inertia

APT has mainly devoted its attention to mass public transport in the metropolitan area of Sydney and does not have a lot of experience with transport in other communities or for special needs. However, we venture to offer a few thoughts.

1. Some Questions

We start with the old check-list – who, what, when, where, why and how? And, of course, how much? Some suggestions are:

Who should or who can do it?

• Federal government
• State government
• Local government
• Other quangos
• Citizen’s groups
• Neighbourhood associations
• Specially formed associations
• Developers
• Consultants or professional managers
• Business associations
• Institutions (universities, hospitals)
• Special event venues

What should they do?

• Accept ownership
• Ascertain the needs
• Submit a proposal
• Evaluate
• Set criteria for success
• Prioritise
• Approve
• Deliver
• Manage
• Monitor and report
• Audit
• Be accountable

When should they do it?

• Once only
• Annually
• When more funding required

Where?

Why?

How?

While local communities might have ideas about what is best for them, care should be taken before handing out funds for stand-alone projects. The whole process needs to be co-ordinated at a higher level. East Dingleby might want funds for a project that would be incompatible with a West Dingleby project. A regional planner might negotiate a single project acceptable to both communities.

1. Thinking Practically – Acting Locally"

In January 2000 the Ageing and Disability Department of the NSW state government issued a booklet entitled "Transport Innovations: Transport Demonstration Projects for Older People and People with Disabilities". These projects were a series of local public transport services funded and administered through the Department, which is now called the Department of Ageing, Disability and Home Care.

The broad aims of the projects were:

• to encourage the development of on-going public transport services that will benefit older people and people with disabilities, but may also assist other community members, and
• to demonstrate how to develop these services elsewhere and to identify the planing, administrative, regulatory and legislative arrangements that may be needed to facilitate service development.

See http://www.dadhc.nsw.gov.au

1. The Role of Local Government

Funding should also be provided for local councils so that they can assist with public transport. Councils can do many things to reduce car usage and increase public transport usage, rather than merely lobbying State and Commonwealth governments.

Councils can promote what transport already exists, and can improve conditions for bus, ferry and train passengers. For bus users, this can include the ride, the stops, the waiting and the information, while for ferry and rail users, the options are similar but more limited. Council requirements for parking spaces in new developments can also be geared to encourage public transport use. Taxis are an important form of public transport and the needs of taxi users must also be considered.

Our list of "Thirty-Nine Steps" for local councils is given at Attachment "A".

The Port Phillip Council, in the St Kilda area of Melbourne, has some progressive policies and strategies on promoting public transport use and rewarding developers who reduce the requirements for car parking in their projects.

The role of local government will be important in the near future when the Broadway brewery site in Sydney becomes available for redevelopment. Hundreds of apartments will be built there and it should not be necessary for each one to have a car parking space. The site has about fifteen bus routes at the front door and is only a few hundred metres from Central Station. The requirements for on-site car parking should reflect this situation.

The following is an extract from "It’s Time To Move", a book produced in 2002 by our sister organisation in Melbourne, the P.T.U.A. (Public Transport Users Association).

The full text of this section is reproduced in our Appendix D. However, the whole book is recommended to the Inquiry. While there are many specific references to Melbourne and Victoria, much of the contents are applicable anywhere.

The following is copied directly from the website htttp://www.travelsmart.gov.au

In many large cities throughout the world, residents and administrators are realising that our reliance on cars, particularly for single person journeys, is becoming unsustainable.

Traffic congestion and delays, the extremely high cost of advanced road systems, air and noise pollution and our increasing dependence on non-renewable fuels are some of the more readily recognised reasons that people are concerned. In addition, studies are now showing that there are serious personal health and social consequences of high levels of car travel. There is further concern that Australians may be 'building in' car dependency into our children, making our problems much worse in the future.

TravelSmart Australia brings together the many community and government based programs that are asking Australians to use alternatives to travelling in their private car.

TravelSmart programs by Commonwealth, State and Territory Governments ask people to make voluntary changes in their travel choices, encouraging people to use other ways of getting about rather than driving alone in a car. For example - using buses, trains and ferries, carpooling or by cycling or walking, or by tele-working.

TravelSmart asks you to think about your travel needs.

• Use alternative transport to the car, for example using public transport, cycling or walking.
• Reduce the negative impacts of the car on traffic congestion and air pollution.
• Recognise the health benefits of incidental exercise such as walking or cycling.
• Choose shops and facilities that are near you to reduce the need to travel and to support your local businesses.

Below are some of the reasons why you should think seriously about making better choices for your travelling needs.

• Greenhouse emissions
• Your health
• Education
• Polluting your environments
• The infrastructure barrier

TravelSmart is essentially a voluntary program that aims to inform and motivate people for changing their travelling behaviour through personal choice. It does not involve any form of regulations, fees or taxes directed at compelling changes in travel behaviour.

When the Inquiry was announced on 24 May 2003, the press advertisements gave assurances that "stakeholders and interested parties will play an important role". The details of how that role was to be played were not spelt out. The Inquiry is to report finally to the Minister for Transport Services by December 2003.

It is in the public interest for the public to remain involved in the Inquiry up to that date. The process for ongoing public participation in the Inquiry until December, and in the governmental deliberations that follow, needs to be made known soon, and included in the Inquiry's August 2003 interim report to the Minister. It is also important that the submissions be made public.

Finally, after the Minister receives the report, it is essential that the recommendations be approved, prioritised, agreed with the Premier, Treasurer and Cabinet, and implemented. It would be most unsatisfactory in the public's mind if the findings of this Inquiry were to "gather dust", as has so often happened with previous similar inquiries.

Despite our initial cynicism, we do retain optimism and confidence that this inquiry may be a genuine effort to find and attack the root causes of the problems in our public transport systems.

We trust that this paper, along with papers submitted by other parties, will give the Minister the information and the support that he needs to take some bold steps forward.

There have been encouraging signs over recent years that the public is increasingly aware of the need for an effective public transport system for a city the size of Sydney.

It remains to be seen whether that awareness translates into a government consciousness which allows a significant increase in public transport spending, safe in the knowledge that it is electorally appealing - that is, a vote winner.

In the end, every government puts re-election first.

END

Councils must actually do something themselves to reduce car usage and increase public transport usage, rather than just lobbying State and Commonwealth authorities to do it.

Councils must actively promote what transport already exists, and do what they can to improve the conditions for bus, ferry and train passengers. For bus users, this can include the ride, the stops, the waiting and the information, while for ferry and rail users, the options are similar but more limited. The needs of taxi users must also be considered - taxis are an important alternative form of public transport.

Some things that Councils can do (in no particular order) are:

1. Include public transport information when advertising the Council’s own facilities or events (swimming pools, libraries, parks, social clubs, street fairs, carnivals);
2. Encourage businesses, clubs, schools, sporting and social organisers, etc, to advertise (and not just parking arrangements) in their publicity:
3. Locate bus stops where it suits the buses and bus passengers, not just where they will cause the least inconvenience for motorists. (Move the traffic to suit the bus stop, rather than move the bus stop to suit the traffic.);
4. Provide better lighting, seating, shelter, space, etc at bus stops and ferry terminals;
5. Provide better lighting and signs at entrances to railway stations. Some station entrances and even the stations themselves are invisible from a distance;
6. Provide bus timetable information at major bus stops (not just an empty display case, but organise the display and regular maintenance of the actual timetable);
7. Arrange for timetable leaflets to be available at street carnivals, festivals, etc;
8. Provide safer crossings for pedestrians to railway stations and bus stops;
9. Print a cut-out route map or timetable for a different bus, ferry or train route in each issue of council newsletters;
10. Reward shoppers who come by public transport (competition prize, fare refund, purchase discount, lucky passenger, etc);
11. Don’t offer a chance of winning a car to people who pay their rates early. Instead offer ten or twenty prizes of yearly TravelPass tickets (or anything except a car);
12. Don’t allow existing bus shelters to be removed by previous advertising contractors before the next contractor has the new shelters ready;
13. Encourage private bus operators to match the generally higher standards provided by State Transit Authority buses;
14. Print a pocket-sized Council Guide to Public Transport (with maps). Advertisers could help pay for it. Get two or three councils to make a combined one.
15. Mail out a transport guide with the rate notices;
16. Sell TravelPass, TravelTen, BusTripper and DayTripper tickets at Council offices and libraries;
17. Stock bus, ferry and train timetable leaflets at Council offices and libraries;
18. Reward council employees who travel by public transport and for whom the council doesn’t have to provide an expensive car parking space;
19. Arrange for the Council to buy yearly tickets for the staff and allow the staff to repay by way of regular salary deductions;
20. Let the mayor, councillors, manager and staff travel and be seen to travel on public transport both during their job and on their way to and from work;
21. Don’t include cars as part of employees’ packages, but give some other benefit if one is necessary;
22. Ensure that directional notices are adequately displayed when buses are diverted during temporary street closures. Some councils charge fees for such closures, which should help cover the cost of putting up notices at bus stops;
23. Support the transport authorities when residents object to extensions of bus routes down "their" streets;
24. Provide more pleasant waiting areas for bus passengers at major bus stops where it is not appropriate to construct shelters;
25. Give rate rebates or discounts to residents who don’t own a car;
26. Co-operate with transport authorities in their efforts to give priority to buses (traffic lights, lanes, turns, kerbside space, pulling out from stops, etc) or even have the Council initiate the moves;
27. Oppose moves to terminate suburban buses at the CBD perimeter, thereby forcing passengers to change into some other transport for the trip to the city centre;
28. Penalise hard and regularly all motorists who park in bus stops. They not only disrupt the bus drivers and passengers, but delay other motorists who are held up behind the "double-parked" bus;
29. Draft building regulations to reduce the car parking requirements in locations where there is good public transport nearby. Don’t apply the same standards across all areas of the municipality;
30. Limit the number of parking spaces required in new residential developments near good public transport to encourage occupation by people who don’t have cars, or who have only one;
31. Limit the number of car parking spaces required in commercial developments near major transport hubs or spines to encourage staff and clients to use public transport;
32. Monitor the condition of bus stops and quickly replace broken or missing items;
33. Locate any new council facilities near established public transport routes;
34. Encourage the development of higher population densities close to shopping centres and public transport;
35. Reduce parking availability in large commercial centres, and introduce parking regulations with maximum limits for new development applications;
36. Include accessibility to public transport and basic services in the approval process for new residential developments;
37. Establish a network of safe and pleasant walking routes through the municipality, linking shops, schools, residents, recreational areas and public transport services;
38. Improve pedestrian priority at traffic lights, and introduce automatic walk signals;
39. Ensure that future public transport corridors, above and below ground, are protected against development that would make the transport route unviable or impossible.

1. Frequency of services (over-serviced, sufficient, inadequate)
2. Capacity (buses crowded or lightly loaded)

High frequency doesn’t necessarily mean a good service. In the morning peak hour, buses leave Bondi Beach at a rate of better than one every two minutes, but they soon become so crowded that passengers waiting further along the way still can’t get on them.)

3. Memory time-table (or are buses run at odd intervals to suit drivers’ shifts)
4. Hours of operation (early morning, peak hours, off peak, late night, weekends,

school holidays, public holidays)

5. Express buses, limited stops and all-stops services
6. Reliability of service (cancellations, late running, early running)

CityRail’s definition of "on-time " only covers arrivals at Central at peak hours five days a week. It doesn’t cover arrivals at other places and at other times.

Some trade-off would also have to be allowed between on-time running and passenger inconvenience. For instance, every train from Bondi Junction could be ten minutes late but nobody would notice because the trains run every ten minutes.

7. Connections with other transport (buses, trains, ferries, waiting for late trains)
8. Interchanges with other transport (buses, trains, ferries, taxis, car parks)
9. Facilities at interchanges (walking distance, shelter, seats, security, lighting,

information, signs, bicycle racks, telephones)

10. Bus stops (location, identification, shelter, seats, security, lighting, information,

view of oncoming buses)

11. Coverage of area (how many people live beyond walking distance)
12. Destinations served (buses go where the people want to go)
13. Circuitous routes or direct routes
14. Street layouts, width, roundabouts, etc affecting efficient bus services
15. Bus priority measures (bus lights, transit lanes, bus lanes, bus only lanes)
16. Buses delayed in traffic
17. Fares (level of fares, off peak discounts, pre-purchase discounts, children,

pensioners, transfers)

18. Tickets (returns, weekly, periodical, pre-paid, off-bus purchase, all-day tickets,

transfers, families)

19. Standard of buses (age, reliability, seats, capacity, grab rails or straps, lighting,

destination signs, route numbers, air conditioning, cleanliness, number of doors, radio or phone to base)

20. Personal safety while travelling
21. Announcements by staff on-board or at stations, stops and wharves
22. Accessibility for wheelchairs
23. Accessibility for the disabled and elderly (information, stops/stations, vehicles)
24. Accessibility for children (children under 17 can’t drive, no matter how rich)
25. Accessibility for shopping trolleys, baby strollers
26. Obtaining information (phone number, operating hours of enquiry line, web site)
27. Printed timetable leaflets (availability, clarity, maps, phone number, other

information)

28. Advertising the service (aggressive marketing? Or "everybody knows about us"?)
29. Multi-lingual information
30. Alternatives (private car, taxi, bicycle, walking, going elsewhere, staying home)
31. Customer surveys (to see what the passengers and potential passengers want)
32. Driver training and courtesy
33. Efficiency in handling complaints
34. Supervision or monitoring by the regulatory authority
35. Compliance with service standards (below, average, above and beyond)
36. Ease of cancelling the contract for non-compliance with service standards

• Care for Children
• Frequency of Service
• Reliability
• Accessibility
• Capacity
• Customer Information
• Cleanliness of Vehicles and Premises
• Journey Comfort
• Value for Money
• Telephone Enquiries
• Lost Property
• Customer Contact Staff
• Customers (that is, the obligations of passengers)
• Customer Suggestions, Complaints and Compliments
• Consulting You.

Sydney and Toronto are similar in some respects. Each has a total urbanised area of about 1,500 sq km and a total population of about 4 million. They have large, diverse, and generally well patronised public transport systems, but grossly under-funded in both cities.

There are big differences, too. Toronto has snow at Christmas, a flat landscape, long straight roads and it sits lakeside instead of straddling a harbour. Toronto has one municipal council covering the central 630 sq km of the urbanised area (roughly a 20 km radius semi-circle from the CBD). Toronto has only one main transit provider, the TTC, which carries 90 percent of all local trips in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA).

And Toronto has a Ridership Growth Strategy.

First, to set the scene, here are a few statistics on the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC), which comes under the jurisdiction of the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto. These figures are roughly comparable to Sydney. CityRail and State Transit figures are inserted in italics where appropriate (but private bus figures are excluded).

http://www.insidetoronto.ca/to/features/transport/

• Average daily trips: 1.3 million rides
• Total passenger trips: 419.9 million (STA 212 m and CityRail 276 m)
• 1,480 buses (State Transit 1,935 buses)
• 133 bus routes (300 routes in Sydney)
• 4,083.9 route miles (bus)
• 248 streetcars
• 11 streetcar routes
• 190.0 route miles (streetcar)
• 692 subway cars (CityRail 1,459 electric carriages)
• 3 subway lines
• 35.1 route miles (subway)
• 28 Scarborough RT cars
• 4.0 route miles (RT)
• Number of TTC employees: 10,185 (STA 4,800 and CityRail 9,121)
  
  2001 RIDERSHIP TRENDS
  
• 90 per cent of all local transit trips in the GTA are carried by the TTC;
• 76 per cent of the Toronto population use the TTC at least once per month;
• 89 per cent of the Toronto population use the TTC at least once per year;
• 92 per cent of Toronto residents who have used the TTC in the past year have used the subway;
• 94 per cent of Toronto residents who have used the TTC in the past year have used surface vehicles/routes
  

In March 2003 the TTC presented its Ridership Growth Strategy to the municipal and provincial government. As far as we know, nothing like this strategy exists in the files of any transport provider in Sydney. There may be fragmented and unco-ordinated attempts to increase patronage on this bus route or that rail line, but no overall long-term strategy. In fact, it is obvious to any casual observer that Sydney’s rail and bus system, and roads, couldn’t handle any more riders at peak hours.

APT thinks that this is such an extraordinary and courageous document that we have reproduced here the Executive Summary, and recommend that readers view the whole 85 pages at

Just change the names and it could apply almost untouched to Sydney.

TORONTO TRANSIT COMMISSION

Ridership Growth Strategy - March 2003

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 INTRODUCTION

1. Background

2 HOW TO INCREASE RIDERSHIP

2.1 Why people choose to use transit.

2.2 Improving Surface Transit Speed and Reliability

2.3 Cost of Travel and the Relationship between Service and Fares

2.4 Summary

3 THE NEED FOR TTC AND CITY COMMITMENT TO IMPROVE THE

QUALITY OF TRANSIT

3.1 The Importance of Passenger Focus in TTC Service Delivery

3.2 City Actions Required to Improve Transit Service

4 WITHOUT STABLE FUNDING, THE TTC CANNOT DO ITS JOB

4.1 Funding Transit Expansion Through Development Charges

5 PROPOSALS TO INCREASE RIDERSHIP

5.1 Service Proposals

5.1.1 Increase Service on Existing Routes

5.1.2 Commuter Parking Expansion

5.1.3 Expanded Traffic Signal Priority Program

5.1.4 Constructing Bus and Streetcar Rapid Transit

5.1.5 Increase the Capacity of the Scarborough RT

5.1.6 Continuous Program of Subway Expansion

5.2 Fare proposals

5.2.1 Options Which Maintain the Existing Fare System

5.2.2 Changes to the Existing Fare System

5.3 Innovative Technologies

6 EVALUATION OF OPTIONS AND ALTERNATIVE INVESTMENT STRATEGIES

6.1 Evaluation of Options

6.2 Alternative Investment Strategies

6.3 Summary

6.4 Implementation Staging and Short­Term Budget Implications

7 RECOMMENDATIONS

Appendix A ­ Summary of directions and requests received from the

Commission and City Council

Appendix B ­ TTC Market Research

Appendix C ­ Automobile Versus Transit Cost

Appendix D ­ Evaluation and Screening of Surface Rapid Transit Proposals

Appendix E ­ Fare Proposals To Increase Ridership

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

There is a growing expectation that transit in general, and the TTC in particular, must take on an increased role in providing travel for people in Toronto if the City is to grow and thrive economically and in an environmentally-sustainable way. Each level of government has recently announced plans and policy initiatives, that highlight the need for greater use of transit in urban areas - the City with its Official Plan, the Province of Ontario with its "Smart Growth Council" and "Gridlock Subcommittee", and the Government of Canada with its approval of the Kyoto Accord. Achieving these policy objectives will require a fundamental shift in transit's role in Toronto and the relative importance of automobile travel.

Unfortunately, these initiatives follow on the heels of a consistent lack of government support for the TTC in the past decade. Provincial funding was reduced a number of times in the mid-1990's and is only now being partly restored. The TTC’s ridership and market share has fallen significantly during this period, to a large extent because of lack of government support.

While there is no simple "magic answer" that will reverse this trend, government support for the TTC must be real and pronounced if the current widespread public and government expectations for improved transit are to be met.

The TTC's mandate is to operate and maintain transit services that provide safe, fast, reliable, convenient, and comfortable travel in a cost-effective way. The TTC's highest priorities are to our current passengers, and to maintain the existing system in a state-of-good-repair. The TTC needs a substantial, ongoing, funding commitment to meet these basic priorities and fulfil its role of providing transportation services to a large proportion of Toronto's population. Once these needs are met, the TTC could attract more people out of their automobiles and onto transit with a stable source of increased funding and a commitment on the part of the City to implement policies that support efficient transit operations and transit-oriented development in Toronto.

This report outlines a Ridership Growth Strategy for the TTC which will allow the TTC to contribute significantly to achieving the objectives of the City’s Official Plan and help create truly "smart" re-urbanisation in Toronto. Increasing transit ridership in a substantial way, however, will require action on the part of the TTC, the City of Toronto, and senior levels of government.

In the preparation of its Official Plan, the City of Toronto identified a range of policy, regulatory, and enforcement actions that it could take to improve transit operations and encourage ridership growth. These are described in the background report entitled Transportation Building Blocks for Official Plan and include:

# extending the hours when parking is prohibited on major arterial roads to better reflect the realities of the extended hours of traffic congestion on the roads;

# introducing additional bans on left-turning vehicles on major transit routes;

# establishing a dedicated team of personnel to continuously enforce parking and turn restrictions and designated transit lanes on roads;

# constructing right-turn "queue jump" lanes for transit vehicles when major roads are being rebuilt in Toronto; and,

# requiring developers to minimise the amount of parking they provide close to rapid transit lines and "higher-order transit corridors".

These actions do not have major financial implications for the City and can be implemented quickly if there is political will. Strong support from City staff and politicians will also be necessary to implement surface rapid transit on the higher-order transit corridors identified in the Official Plan. There will be negative impacts for some users of these corridors but introducing higher-order surface transit services provides large benefits for transit users and is central to achieving "smart" city-building. Introducing surface rapid transit improvements must be supported if transit is to become a more-attractive travel alternative in Toronto.

The TTC’s experience over the past decade dramatically illustrates the damage that is caused to transit use when government funding is in a continual state of flux. The TTC’s funding arrangements have been changed annually, typically with final approvals for any one year being received well into the year when the expenditures are already underway. This should be completely unacceptable for a $1.3 billion-a-year business that requires investment decisions for vehicles with 18- and 30-year lives, and facilities that last 40 years or more. This funding environment prevents the establishment of any longer-term strategic business perspective on investing in the future of transit in Toronto.

Some funding for transit expansion can be provided through development charges, and the City is currently updating its Development Charges Bylaw. There is, however, a limit to what is realistic for the City to charge in the way of development fees. It is unlikely that development charges, even if applied in an aggressive way, will ever provide more than a small proportion of the TTC's capital needs for growth as outlined in this strategy.

In the current situation, short-term actions to increase transit ridership at the TTC will not be effective in creating ongoing patterns of increased ridership if there is no long-term funding arrangement established to allow higher ridership levels to be sustained. A strategic approach to increasing transit ridership requires a clear, consistent, long-term funding arrangement that realistically reflects ongoing operating costs, state-of-good repair capital needs, and the funding requirements of system and fleet expansion.

This strategy presents a comprehensive, staged, approach to transit service improvements, fare initiatives, and the construction of new facilities at the TTC to increase ridership. The overall approach is summarised in Exhibit E1. It is based on extensive research and factual data relating to how and why passengers use transit, and what has been effective in the past, and elsewhere, in attracting new riders to transit.

Exhibit E1

Ten Year Ridership Growth Strategy - Funding Priorities

Order of funding priorities

1. Meet current system needs (2003)

­ Operating requirements

­ State of good repair

2. Increase Service Capacity

­ Increase fleet and level of service

­ Surface "right of ways" to improve service reliability

­ SRT capacity increase

3. Fare Initiatives

­ Reduce price of passes

­ New passes

­ Overall fare adjustment

4. Subway Expansion

­ Five kilometre extension of Sheppard or Spadina

There is a substantial amount of population and employment growth forecast for the GTA in the next decade and, while only a quarter of the growth is forecast to occur in

Toronto, the opportunities for increased transit ridership are much greater in Toronto than in the low-density areas outside the City over the next ten years. Unlike many recent proposals for transit improvements in the GTA, the TTC’s Ridership Growth Strategy is based on a systematic cost-benefit analysis of options to determine where the greatest benefits can be achieved from scarce taxpayers dollars. The strategy minimises risks by allocating funding first to the programs that have already been proven to provide the greatest benefit at the lowest cost. Funding can then be progressively increased as the success of the overall program is demonstrated.

The TTC's Ridership Growth Strategy recommends making the following transit investments:

# a 10% increase in peak period service on busy routes. This requires that the bus fleet be expanded by 100 vehicles, over and above the current forecast needs, and an advancement in the timing of construction of a new bus garage. Improved service in the afternoon peak period can be implemented in 2004 and 2005; improvements in the morning peak period can be implemented when the additional vehicles are available, likely in 2006;

# increasing off-peak service on major routes in 2004, with ongoing additional increases between 2005 and 2008;

# a staged program of construction of surface rapid transit rights-of-way on major corridors beginning in 2004;

# construction of additional commuter parking in at-grade surface lots;

# the installation of additional transit signal priority equipment on an ongoing basis beginning in 2004;

# proceeding with the Volume Incentive Program (VIP) Green Pass fare discount, conditional on the current test being successful, along with a set of modest fare incentives targeted at increasing student and senior ridership starting in 2004 and 2005;

# a reduction in the cost of Metropasses by $5.00 in 2005, and the introduction of a weekly pass in 2006;

# increasing the carrying capacity of the Scarborough RT to accommodate ridership growth;

and, # a reduction in fares, in real terms, in 2006/2007.

When introduced, these initiatives will provide immediate benefits to TTC users and will attract new passengers to the TTC system in conjunction with planned re-urbanisation in Toronto as envisioned in the City’s Official Plan. Significant increases in transit ridership, however, will take many years to develop. The recommended strategy is expected to increase system-wide ridership by 10 %, or 40 million additional passengers on the system annually, once fully implemented. Coupled with the expected growth in travel from the population and employment growth forecasts from the City’s Official Plan, TTC ridership could reach 500 million riders by 2011.

The strategy features a substantial reinvestment in increased service levels on existing routes. This will increase service reliability, reduce passenger waiting times, decrease crowding, and allow some additional passengers to get a seat. Service improvements at off-peak times can be implemented over a six-to-twelve-month period, which allows time to hire and train operators, but service improvements at peak times would require the purchase of additional vehicles, so these would require a two-to-three-year lead time for implementation.

Transit operating in mixed traffic cannot realistically be expected to provide a quality of service that is attractive enough to convince large numbers of people to shift over from the automobile. On a number of major transit routes in Toronto, passenger volumes require services that are at, or close to, a frequency and capacity of operation that cannot reliably be operated in mixed traffic. This situation is expected to become more widespread as ridership grows on the system and traffic congestion worsens. For ridership to grow on these routes, additional priority must be given to transit on the road network.

For this reason, the strategy also features a continuous program of upgrading major surface transit routes by converting them to surface rapid transit rights-of-way. Streetcar rights-of-way, such as those on Spadina Avenue, or an equivalent bus operation, were reviewed for every "Avenue" and "Higher-Order Transit Corridor" identified in the City’s Official Plan. Many of these corridors already have high transit ridership – often with transit vehicles carrying more people than automobiles these road sections. These corridors are also targeted for additional transit-oriented growth in the City's Official Plan. As illustrated in Exhibit E2, a total of 13 roadways were identified as practical, cost-effective, candidates for such treatment.

Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) is being used successfully in Richmond B.C., Boston, Los Angeles, and a number of other locations world-wide. In the Toronto context, it is envisioned that bus rapid transit rights-of-way could be constructed in the centre lanes of major arterial roads allowing buses to operate at speeds approaching those of the subway. This would result in a dramatic improvement in the quality of transit services provided in these corridors and attract new riders to transit. It would also strongly support transit-oriented re-development in these corridors over time. The proposed strategy will allow nine of these projects to proceed over the next decade at an average annual cost of $45 million per year.

Typically, in the older parts of Toronto, where road rights-of-way are 30 metres or less on major roads, and buildings are often right at the edge of the right-of-way, there is no opportunity for road widening. In these situations, the establishment of surface rapid transit rights-of-way would require taking an existing traffic or parking lane – an option that may not be feasible in many cases. In these locations, the importance of much-more stringent regulations, and stricter enforcement of those regulations, will be essential to give greater priority to transit vehicles.

The situation with the Scarborough RT is unique. The line is currently operating at capacity at peak times, and cannot absorb any significant ridership growth. Because of this capacity constraint, ridership growth on the line has now been suppressed for a number of years. The line was originally constructed to accommodate the small, 40-foot vehicle currently in use and, at a minimum, will require major reconfiguration or reconstruction before 2015 when the current vehicles reach the end of their useful life. However, in order to accommodate the demand not currently being met, and to achieve the objectives of the Official Plan in Scarborough, a substantial increase in the capacity of the Scarborough RT will be required over the next ten-to-fifteen years. An acceleration of this program has been included in the Ridership Growth Strategy.

In establishing the strategy, careful consideration has been given to the relationship between fares and service. Transit fares, and price sensitivity, are rarely the reasons why people do not choose transit over other modes. For transit to compete effectively with the automobile, it must provide an attractive level of convenience, comfort, speed, and reliability compared to the equivalent automobile trip, and this is the first priority in this strategy. The fare initiatives focus on encouraging increased pass usage. Pass users are the most-committed and most-frequent users of transit. Providing this market with additional flexibility in terms of both cost and convenience is a cost-effective way of increasing ridership. However, introducing fare discounts, without first addressing service issues, would have little chance of attracting significant numbers of new riders. A strategy to increase ridership at the TTC should, therefore, initially involve service improvements, followed by fare incentives once additional capacity is available on the system.

The potential benefits of introducing fare-by-distance or fare-by-time-of-day pricing schemes have been considered. The TTC does not currently have the complex fare equipment that is required to implement fare-by-distance without substantially inconveniencing existing riders who enjoy a simple fare system with easy transfers between connecting services. While there are a small number of examples of transit operators who have special peak-period fares, a number of major operators have recently abandoned this pricing regime, including Chicago, Cleveland, Ottawa, and Edmonton. At this point in time, there is not a business case for implementing such pricing arrangements at the TTC, primarily because of the high costs and risks involved in introducing the new technology required. TTC staff will continue to monitor the research and trial implementations of these systems that are occurring in other cities.

The Ridership Growth Strategy provides a consistent, long-term, staged program of providing priorities for, and investing in, existing transit services using proven technologies and operating strategies. This offers the greatest likelihood of achieving sustained increases in transit ridership. It will, however, require additional capital and operating funding for the TTC; annual operating subsidies would need to be increased by $80 million per year in constant 2003 dollars. This would result in the TTC's revenue/cost ratio falling to approximately 72% - an operating ratio that is still far above most other major transit properties in North America. The TTC's Capital Budget would need to be increased by $59 million per year initially and by a further $40 million per year over the three-year period when the Scarborough RT is being reconstructed. These capital costs are over and above the TTC's current basic capital needs which are expected to average $375 million per year over the next decade. It is absolutely essential, however, that the TTC's state-of-good-repair capital needs be met before expansion programs are undertaken. Exhibit E3 illustrates that the proposed Ridership Growth Strategy represents a small proportion of the TTC forecast capital needs over the next decade.

Further work is required to establish when extensions to the subway system are warranted, based on the City's need for subway-oriented developable land, and the rate at which the City wants to achieve development in subway corridors. When a program of subway expansion is initiated, the continuous program outlined in this report will increase capital needs at the TTC by a further $175 million per year on a long-term basis.

The Ridership Growth Strategy presented here provides a realistic program of expansion at the TTC to put in place a transit system that will attract new riders, and support the City's Official Plan vision for a transit-oriented re-urbanisation in Toronto. The strategy is modest compared to the mega-projects being proposed elsewhere in the GTA, and has a much higher probability of success in terms of actually attracting new riders to transit in the next decade. Its success is not contingent on large-scale re-development in particular locations or corridors – modest re-development on many corridors is both more practical and more likely to actually occur – and the program is flexible enough to respond to changing conditions compared to a single major initiative.

This Ridership Growth Strategy is the TTC's response to all levels of government that are advocating increased transit use through the cost-effective use of tax dollars. For this to occur, these governments will, collectively, have to commit to adequate, stable, funding for the TTC over the coming decade and beyond, and to take those actions necessary to make transit a truly effective alternative to the automobile in Toronto.

The whole document can be viewed at

END

The following is an extract from "It’s Time To Move", a document produced in 2002 by our sister organisation in Melbourne, the Public Transport Users Association.

Project 10. Triple-Bottom-Line Tax Reform

The most immediately beneficial improvements to public transport are those that make real changes "on the ground". However, in the longer term attention must be given to the deeper structural impediments to public transport use. Among the most important are the Australian tax rules, which contain a number of provisions favouring car use and discouraging public transport use.

The most commonly "packaged" item is a car. This can be attractive no matter what your salary. For a start, cars and car parking are subject to a discounted rate of FBT (fringe benefits tax). For example, using the statutory formula method to calculate the taxable value of the car, the FBT rate depends on how far you travel each year. It ranges from 26 per cent for less than 15,000 kilometres to 7 per cent for more than 40,00 kilometres per year. So the further you travel, the lower the rate.

This is only the most egregious example of the tax system providing a positive incentive to drive as much as possible. Anecdotally, there are plenty of cases of company-car owners going on gratuitous driving expeditions in order to "clock up" enough kilometres to claim their tax break. By contrast, salary-packaging of public transport tickets incurs the full FBT rate, equivalent to about 95% of the ticket price. This helps explain why company and government cars comprise 40% of peak hour traffic and 20% of all traffic, despite comprising only 16.5% of car sales.

A tax system based on triple-bottom-line principles would work so as to discourage activities with a negative environmental or social impact, and encourage (via tax concessions) alternatives that lack these negative impacts. At the very least, the tax system should not unfairly penalise taxpayers for choosing a transport mode other than the car.

Specific proposals for tax reform include:

• Developing salary-packaging arrangements that are neutral with respect to employee choice of transport, as recommended under Federal Government greenhouse reduction strategies. Specifically, remove FBT arrangements that reward additional car travel, and allow employees to "cash in" parking entitlements without suffering a tax penalty.

• Abolishing the 10% GST on public transport fares, by zero-rating them as is already done with food. The cost to revenue is not great and would be offset by economic savings from increased public transport use.

• Reinstating the automatic CPI indexation of fuel excise. Motorists cannot consider themselves exempt from inflation while public transport users face regular CPI-related increases in fares.

• Imposing "luxury taxes" for new cars (other than for farm use) on the basis of weight and engine power, rather than purchase price.

• Adopting a weight-based vehicle registration system (with appropriate concessions for farmers).

• Adopting a scale of petrol taxes that reduces with increasing distance from capital cities.

The FBT subsidy to company cars has been estimated at $750 million Australia wide of which at least 20% is attributable to Victoria. On the other hand, the revenue raised by the GST on public transport fares is estimated as $120 million Australia-wide and $40 million from Melbourne. So even if reform were limited to abolishing the company car subsidy and removing GST on public transport, the net revenue generated would be substantial, and could be used for public transport funding or for tax cuts elsewhere.

Action for Public Transport (NSW)

http://www.aptnsw.org.au

Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal of NSW (IPART)

http://www.ipart.nsw.gov.au

AARRB Transport research

http://www.aarrb.org.au

Australasian Railway Association

http://www.ara.net.au

Institute for Sustainable Futures, University of Technology, Sydney

http://www.isf.uts.edu.au/

Institute of Transport Studies – University of Sydney

http://www.its.usyd.edu.au

Sustainability Centre Pty Ltd (Mark Diesendorf papers)

http://www.sustainabilitycentre.com.au/publics.html

Buslines Group (for a Customer Charter)

Bus and Coach Association

http://www.bcansw.com.au

The TravelSmart Project

htttp://www.travelsmart.gov.au

This site contains numerous references and links to other useful sites.

Port Phillip Council, Melbourne,

Department of Transport and Regional Services (DOTARS)

Transport and Infrastructure Policy - AusLink

http://www.dotars.gov.au/transinfra/auslink.htm

NSW Department of Ageing, Disability and Home Care.

http://www.add.nsw.gov.au

Commission for Integrated Transport (UK) (CFIT)

http://www.cfit.gov.uk

C.F.I.T. Congestion Charging Website

http://www.cfit.gov.uk/congestioncharging/index.htm

Toolbox for Mobility Management Measures in Companies

http://www.mobilitymanagement.be/index.htm

The Toronto Transit Commission, Canada

The Victoria Transport Policy Institute (VTPI), Victoria, BC, Canada.

This site is especially recommended as it contains a mini-encyclopaedia of transport

terms and ideas.

Inside Toronto

http://www.insidetoronto.ca/to/features/transport/

Rides, California

http://www.rides.org

Public Transport Users Association, "It’s Time to Move", PTUA, Melbourne 2002.

http://www.ptua.org.au

Walker, B. and Walker, B.C. "Privatisation: Sell off or sell out? – The Australian Experience", Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Sydney, 2001.