Page 2456 - Week 06 - Thursday, 24 June 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
I will address the issue of cost today as on many occasions we have heard complaints about the costs of maintaining the ACTION network. It is important to canvass the issue of costs, but to do so from the perspective of the Canberrans who choose to use the service.
Cost in this case is not simply a monetary consideration. The study of the economics of transport shows us that time as well as financial burden dictates the choice of transport mode. Contrary to what one may think, however, not all time has equal value. Studies demonstrate that we can instinctively understand that time at the wheel of a car, particularly on a congested road, is more expensive than time on a bus. This is simple to understand: bus travel is both more productive and more relaxing than being stuck in traffic on Northbourne or Canberra Avenue.
Within the public transport framework, however, there are variabilities in time costs, depending on what part of the public transport process an individual is engaged in. Waiting for the bus at the stop is universally regarded to be the most expensive form of time expenditure. It is to this end that we have sought to reduce waiting times through the implementation of frequent services. Additionally, we can reduce time costs by implementing limited stop services and building bus priority measures. These increase the effective speed of the service and prevent buses from contributing to road congestion. The Redex service is something the ACT Greens are very proud of being a part of; it is services like this that will build the rapid transit network of the future.
I choose the words “rapid transit network” carefully, however, as there is a series of very clear and important distinctions between a bus system and a rapid transit network. A bus system operates primarily within the road network. It is subject to congestion on the roads, is relatively infrequent, stops very frequently and provides basic services only. Time is infrequently a consideration. I will contest that most of our network fulfils this definition. The coverage services that ACTION currently provides are often circuitous. In some cases, it can take over 20 minutes before they can connect with intertown or other frequent services.
We understand why this is the case and we recognise the limitations of the fleet as it currently stands, but there still needs to be a definitive plan for change. Canberra, as we all know, is largely built upon an axis of major roads connecting a few major concentrated employment hubs surrounded by suburbs. These employment hubs provide definable endpoints for bus services and are often co-located with existing bus interchanges. Where they are not, we understand that the Transport for Canberra plan will be constructing major stops at those locations. This allows for the design of a genuinely rapid service that connects locations and that can run frequently, reliably and quickly.
Public transport—in Canberra’s case, buses—plays a significant role in reducing congestion and pollution. Roads are inherently congestible; that is, they get slower as more people use them. Cars do take up more space and, particularly when people are travelling with one person per car, numbers decrease the timeliness for everyone. Compare this to public transport. Buses do have a maximum capacity, and an increase in the number of users does not lower the time it takes for the service to run. As such, more people can use it without having to invest in substantial new infrastructure, particularly where there are bus routes with limited and defined stops.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video