Published on: Mar 3, 2016
Transcripts - Nathan pittman
• Current system – why is it inadequate?
• How to create an integrated system
• Reduction in travel costs
• Improved labour market participation
Franchised in 1999
Poor economic and transport outcomes
Massive increase in subsidies from government to
No integrated timetabling
Many services are still inadequate
Modelled on German and Swiss transport unions
Improves cost effectiveness of service delivery by
Increases patronage by improving mobility
Improves connectivity in the city-region allowing
more destinations to be reached easily by public
Outer-suburban residents often have lower incomes
and higher transport costs
Greater proportion of Forced Car Ownership
Greater accessibility through PT integration
potentially reduces FCO levels
Increasing petrol and housing costs shifts people to
public transport – current system is inadequate
This is also a land-use issue, but transport is easier
The layout of rapid-transit systems
determines the accessibility of jobs to the
Black community. If transportation systems
in American cities could be laid out so as to
provide an opportunity for poor people to
get meaningful employment, then they
could begin to move into the mainstream of
American life. [In Atlanta] the rapid-transit
system has been laid out for the
convenience of the white upper-middle-
class suburbanites who commute to their
jobs downtown. The system has virtually no
consideration for connecting the poor
people with their jobs.
Martin Luther King, Jr (1986)
Generally better access to mobility means greater
labour market participation
Suburbanisation of entry-level, low paying jobs
creates spatial mismatch
Labour market participation is generally higher in
areas with better public transport
Transport is usually an afterthought in urban
poverty reduction policies
Redirecting public transport finances means
current funding can be better used
Detrimental economic effects of increasing
transport costs can be mitigated
There is potential to improve employment
participation, however these links need further
◦ Buehler, R., & Pucher, J. (2010). Making public transport financially sustainable. Transport Policy.
◦ Currie, G. et al. (2009). Investigating links between transport disadvantage, social exclusion and
well-being in Melbourne - Preliminary Results. Transport Policy, 16, 97-105.
◦ Loader, C., & Stanley, J. (2009). Growing bus patronage and addressing transport disadvantage -
The Melbourne experience. Transport Policy, 16, 106-114.
◦ Mees, P. (2005). Privatization of Rail and Tram Services in Melbourne: What Went Wrong?
Transport Reviews, 25(4), 433-449.
◦ Mees, P. (2010). Transport for Suburbia: Beyond the Automobile Age. London: Earthscan.
◦ O'Connor, K. (2010). Melbourne 2030: A Response. Urban Policy and Research, 21(2), 211-215.
◦ Pucher, J., & Kurth, S. (1996). Verkehrsverbund: the success of regional public transport in
Germany, Austria and Switzerland. Transport Policy, 2(4), 279-291.
◦ Sanchez, T. W. (1999). The Connection Between Public Transit and Employment: The Cases of
Portland and Atlanta. Journal of the American Planning Association, 65(3), 284-296.
◦ Sanchez, T. W. (2008). Poverty, Policy, and Public Transportation. Transportation Research Part
A: Policy and Practice, 42, 833-841.
◦ Stanley, J., & Hensher, D. A. (2008). Melbourne's Public Transport Franchising: Lessons for PPPs.
Australian Accounting Review, 14(2), 42-50.
◦ Stanley, J., & Lucas, K. (2008). Social exclusion: What can public transport offer? Research in
Transportation Economics, 22, 36-40.
◦ Wachs, M., & Taylor, B. D. (1998). Can Transportation Strategies Help Meet the Welfare
Challenge? Journal of the American Planning Association, 64(1), 15-19.