What is public transport?
- Share
Changes in design ideology 1980s to 2000s by Massimo Vignelli (click to see the 1960s and 1970s)
The draft report of Alan Fel’s Taxi Industry Inquiry released last week, Customers First, has a section (p64) discussing whether or not taxis are regarded as public transport. That might sound like it’s only of academic interest, but it has important policy implications.
The Inquiry concludes they aren’t:
The inquiry considers that taxis are not public transport. Taxis are a mode of private commercial transport that plays two key roles in the transport system: they are a complement to public transport and also an alternative to public transport.
By ‘complement’, the inquiry means taxis provide transport in situations such as the early hours when public transport has stopped operating. By ‘alternative’, it means taxis are often the only option for those with handicaps who can’t access trains or buses.
The Inquiry is only interested in taxis, but I think it’s an interesting exercise to think about what distinguishes public from private transport. Scheduled trains and plane services might seem obvious, but then there’re charter flights and buses, taxis, hire cars, car-share, bicycles, bike-share and so on. Are they public or private transport?
There’s a popular view that public transport means those modes that are owned and/or operated by government. That’s not a satisfactory definition because all modes have many examples of both private and public ownership. There are also examples where all modes operate without direct subsidy.
Another popular view is that public transport means the more sustainable modes. That’s not really satisfactory either. Public transport in Melbourne, for example, is no more sustainable than car travel because of all those lightly patronised off-peak services. Nor is there anything especially “public” about cycling and walking.
It’s worth thinking seriously for a moment about how the difference between modes might be defined. Doubtless there are other ways to approach the task but it strikes me, at least at first glance, that a plausible way is to think in terms of a continuum of control along three key dimensions – control over access; control over privacy; and control over time.
Drivers control who has access to their cars – admission is solely by invitation. The same holds for motor cycle and bicycle riders. Charters are also often restricted to a limited set of travellers. However trains, buses and planes are open to everyone. So are taxis, car-share and bike-share.
The second dimension – privacy – is about sharing or not sharing. As noted, drivers decide who will travel with them in their car and many choose to travel alone. Scheduled services like trains and planes however are at the other end of the continuum – they’re the least private mode.
Passengers on scheduled services are strangers. Moreover they often sit or stand in very close proximity. The levels of crowding, security and shared norms about appropriate behaviour are important factors determining the quality of travel.
There can be differences of degree though. For example, first class passengers on international flights have considerably greater privacy than those in cattle class – ticket prices are a formidable barrier to entry. I suspect too that iPods provide many city travellers with a modicum of virtual privacy.
Taxis are somewhere in between. They’re open to everyone but, like those who travel in cars, taxi passengers travel alone or decide who travels with them. They’ve got a high degree of privacy except they have to share with the driver, who may or may not be a pleasant travelling companion.
A charter service, typically a plane or a bus, is further along the continuum, since the passengers usually have something in common or have agreed to a common manager. They might, for example, be members of the same club or school.
The third factor is control over time. The key ideas here are availability and travel time.
Drivers and cyclists have maximum flexibility to choose when to start a journey, what route to take, and whether or not to stop mid-journey. Taxis are also on-demand and take a direct route, but aren’t as fast because they involve a wait after booking or while looking for one to hail on the street.
Scheduled services like city trains are again at the other end of the continuum because they’re tied to a timetable and a span of operating hours (although charter services are arguably the most inflexible because if you miss the service there’s no next one to wait for).
They take a reasonably direct route but often involve at least some stops to pick-up and let down passengers. Some involve connecting with other services or modes. Local bus services are invariably the slowest due to circuitous routes and closely-spaced stops.
I think the first two dimensions in my schema – access and sharing – are the most important ones. It seems to me they capture most of the essence of what we mean by “public” transport. That’s an important point because it helps counter the implicit preconception that public transport must be government owned and operated. Some modes in some circumstances should be operated by government, but I don’t think that’s true in all cases.
I can see why the Inquiry concluded taxis aren’t public transport – in some ways they’re just a chauffered car. But since they’re available for anyone to use, just like trains and buses, I think there’s good reason to think of them as “public” transport. If it’s 3 am and you’re in the city on a freezing night, you can’t take my car, but you can take a cab home (that’s if you can find one of course!).
Please login below to comment, OR simply register here :
Thank you for registering, we have just sent you a confirmation email, which includes your new password to be entered below.
At the same time the definition of PT is being refined, the question of who is responsible for the various categories of PT needs to also be clearly defined. The above thought provoking article has to lead to addressing for which values and aspirations of the community the Government needs to set PT performance indicators and regulations. Expectations such as Melbourne having fully functional integrated ticketing and timetabling is a necessary first step to any modern PT system for a world class City in which Government has a role.
Parker Alan • OAM
The intermodal public transport market for bicycles, taxis and shared cars have been ignored in Australia by the public transport planners and Vic Roads.
Bicycles and electric bicycles enlarge public transport catchment areas, making cross suburban travel easier across radiating rail and express bus routes. Australia needs to better integrate these alternative transport modes they do in Europe and Japan. Europe and Japan have greatly reduced car use and reduced household car ownership because of their need to be less reliant on fuel price increases and future fuel shortages.
The price of Australia’s imported oil will inevitably double in a few years. Outer suburban households are going to need bicycle networks , shared car and taxi
services that connect with new stations and new trunk express bus routes. The
Netherlands, Germany, Denmark and Japan are also promoting bicycle access to stations and other transport stops/hubs which is an effective, practical way of increasing the catchment area of each station.
Riding a bicycle uses the ergonomic ‘mechanical advantage’ of pedalling over walking to go at least 3.5 times as far, for the same physicaleffort. Cycling rather than walking increases the number of homes with access to stations by around a factor of 10.The electric bicycle increases the number of homes with access to public transport by at least a factor of 20 over walking . The limitation of radiating rail lines for commuting is largely eliminated by the pedelec.
This is why Australian modal interchanges and rail stations need to become a highly visible focal point of surrounding bike networks and become the objective of land use development and urban renewal. The use of pedelecs could become the main means of local transport and to access rail stations or express and trunk bus routes, providing that secure parking is available.
Our capital cities have sprawled In the hilly parts of Australia and 250 watt electric bicycle would enable able-bodied people to cycle much more than they do now which is an important safety consideration because of the need to ride up hills without weaving. It reduces the speed differential with motor vehicles when riding in the kerb lane or a bike lane. This why the Australian cycling organisations recommend a 250 watt power output for electric bicycles .
Electric bicycles could be used to enhance personal mobility in hilly areas much the same way as bicycles do in flat cities. In Japan , housewives and elderly cyclists start to give up cycling when it becomes too strenuous but with 250 watt power assistance they will use them. In the last five years 600,000 cyclists in the Netherlands have bought 250 watt electric Bicycles.
A strategic transport planning perspective of investing in urban bikeway networks and reducing the demand for coal fired electricity which is the most sustainable way of all to reduce GHG emissions. At night electric bicycles could be charged with off peak mains electricity or from “backup batteries” in ‘car parking spaces ‘at places of work, study, shop or play, The “back up batteries” could be charged from roof top solar cells during the day. This are the best way to provide for the cross suburban travel patterns of motorists.
Are you sure about those public transport not more sustainable than cars claim?
http://www.ptua.org.au/myths/energy.shtml
Tom: From no better source than the lips of Victoria’s (then) Commissioner for Environmental Sustainability, in this 2007 report, Creating a city that works (p 9). The exact quote is:
Note the Commissioner is looking at (a) actual performance, and (b) whole of system performance. Much as I like the PTUA, I’m always very wary of the way advocacy groups select and present information. Everyone’s guilty of it but advocacy generates even greater creativity! AD
Alan
I like your definitions and I think this is a well reasoned piece that many public transport policy makers would do well to read. I have seen similar misunderstandings of the nature of “public goods” in a Federal department, where at least one policy maker clearly believed that “public” in this context related to ownership, not function. I think Mr Fell’s reasoning reflects what many assume public transport is now, but not what it ought to be.
I think Fells’ view also implies a significant (unconscious?) class-element in transport thinking. Many in government seem to look at public transport as a form of social security, focused on vaguely defined notions of social inclusion, rather than as a form of mass transport for the majority. We tend to plan public transport for the minority, assuming (hoping?) that the majority will keep driving cars. The excessive focus on the needs of disabled groups, who make up a tiny fraction of public transport users, demonstrates the point. Taxis aren’t for those without a car, so they can’t be public transport.
While in principle I support better provision of both public transport and cycle infrastructure, I disagree that we should have a fixed view on the environmental impacts of public transport. It depends on the location, mode, and energy source. Public transport means large heavy vehciles that use a lot of energy. Unless they are at least half full, it is often more energy efficient in outer suburban areas to have the same people in four cylinder cars.
Maybe members of the Inquiry were being guided by the Wikipedia definition: ‘Public transport (also public transportation or public transit) is a shared passenger transportation service which is available for use by the general public, as distinct from modes such as taxicab, car pooling or hired buses which are not shared by strangers without private arrangement.’ I would side with those who argue that, for the reasons you cite, this is incorrect and that taxi services should be included in any analysis and planning of a city’s ‘public transport’ mix.
Parker Alan • OAM
Comments assume that lobbying for intermodal access did not place by bicyclists organisations when its obvious from the references below. Indeed bicycle theft and vandalised bicycles was always a serious problem at railway stations. In Melbourne thousands of cyclists are now choosing to drive because bicycle theft is such a serious problem for 30 years at many staffed stations and at most unstaffed stations . More Commonwealth and State funding was always needed for secure bike parking, and what happened was 30,000 more car parks especially at outer suburban stations and new stations in the new suburbs.
Bike parking costs ten times less than car spaces; half the people who park their cars at stations live within an easy bike ride and are depriving people who drive a long way to the station of a place to park.
As the official representative of Victoria,s largest bicycle user group Bicycle Victoria
and the Town and Country Planning Association my lobbying for intermodal access to public transport is below and the unsustainable transports I documented has taken place.
These papers are on my website in date order. Website http://alanparker-pest.org/
Parker, A. A .(1989), The future of non-Motorised Pasenger Transport in Australian Capital Cities. The 1989 National Transport Conference;Transport for the users. Melbourne 23-25 May. Institution of Engineers.
Parker, A. A. (1992 A). “The Green City; How to marry bicycles and rail.” Journal of the Bicycle Federation of Australia; Cyclist, June /July 1992.
Parker. A, A. (1994 B).“Locker-bike disaster.” Journal of the Bicycle Federation of Australia. Cyclist, June/July 1994.
Parker,A.A. May (1998 A), “Cycling, trains and sustainable cities”. Journal of the Bicycle Federation of Australia. “Australian Cyclist” December -January 1998 p 56 to 58.
Parker,A.A. (1999 C) “Is your bike safe at the station? “Abridged version of the second BFA submission to the Productivity Commission Inquiry into rail reform. Journal of the Bicycle Federation of Australia. “Australian Cyclist” August/Sept 1999, p 55.
Parker, A.A. (2002 A) “A case study of bicycle parking at selected Brisbane rail stations” 25th Australasian Transport Research Forum, incorporating the Bureau of Transport and Regional Economics’ Transport Colloquium, Canberra 2002.
Parker, A.A. (2003 A) “Unsustainable transport trends for the journey to work in major Australasian cities 1976 to 2001” 26th Australasian Transport Research Forum, Wellington New Zealand 1-3 October 2003.
Parker, A.A. (2005 E ) “Unsustainable transport trends in Census Data for the journey to work in Australasian cities: Peak oil and the energy conservation role of the bicycle”. 3rd New Zealand National Cycling Conference 2005, Hutt city, New Zealand 14-15t October
Website http://alanparker-pest.org/PARKER, Alan A. (2009 A) “PEST submission to the Senate Inquiry into Public Passenger Transport 2009 “ SenateInquiry09.pdf
Alan, another way to think about what people mean by ‘public transport’ is to consider the purpose of defining ‘public transport’ as a category in the first place.
If one thinks about why we have ‘public transport’ at all, one finds a couple of major themes: it exists in order to (a) move large numbers of people around efficiently without gridlocking the road system, and (b) avoid social exclusion on the part of the half of the population without cars. Theme (a) suggests that ‘public transport’ has something to do with high vehicle occupancies (at least as a planning goal) and (b) that it’s to do with low-cost access and economies of scale.
If you focus on the attributes of vehicle occupancy and cost, this leads to the opposite conclusion: taxis are not public transport because they’re used by one to three people at a time and are relatively costly. It would also exclude other related services like rental cars and car-share schemes, which like taxis provide access to anyone who pays and are shared among multiple users.
So you see, whether taxis count as ‘public transport’ or not depends on what technical attributes of public transport you wish to emphasise. You emphasise access and shared use, which leads to the idea that taxis are included (though so are car-hire firms); I emphasise vehicle occupancy and cost, which leads me to the idea that taxis are excluded.
It all comes down to the purpose for which you want to emphasise certain technical attributes. I prefer to emphasise occupancy and cost because these are the factors that support public transport as a ‘public good’ that warrants supportive policy. That is, there are social benefits resulting from public transport use that exceed the private benefits accruing to the users. But the benefits of taxi use accrue entirely to the user; there are no flow-on benefits in taking cars off the road, reducing the energy inputs to the transport system or (special programmes aside) providing access to the socially disadvantaged.
The Kennett Government in the 1990s popularised the idea of taxis as public transport, I suspect because it suited them to de-emphasise the ‘collective’ aspect of public transport use, and perhaps because it was still possible to believe that public transport as we know it would soon vanish except as a residual social service for the poor, the disabled and school children. They instead saw the issue as one of creating and sustaining a market for travel for middle-class people who found themselves temporarily without a car.
On the efficiency angle, meanwhile: there is no shortage of learned reports from the last decade that claim trains and trams are energy-intensive by hand-waving in the direction of data from the 1990s obtained using undocumented methodology. The PTUA may have their own agenda but they do at least argue from primary sources.
Strewth: I think you’re asking a somewhat different question to me, but a fair one nevertheless. You start with an apriori conception of what public transport should be, whereas I start with the idea of what a mode is. I think your approach is suited to addressing questions like whether or not PT should be subsidised (though your (a) and (b) though should include a (c) about environmental externalities).
But please stop pushing the furphy that public transport is a public good. It plainly isn’t, not even close. What you seem to mean is public transport provides equity benefits and low negative externalities compared to cars (that justify special support e.g. public subsidy). The term public good has a different and widely understood technical definition and shouldn’t be invoked willy nilly.
The PTUA presents some interesting issues in terms of its role and strategy – I’ve been planning to write something about it for a while. I’ll do it soon. AD
Socrates – Citations please? I was always under the impression buses needed to be at about 20% occupancy to be more efficient than the average car (remembering average car occupancy is about 1.5 people). Trains and trams, in Victoria at least would need to be slightly more occupied because of our horrible energy source, but still no where near 50%.
To confuse the matter even further:
http://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/Travel-and-transport/Taxis/Taxi-safety-initiatives/Nightlink-flatfare.aspx
Perhaps the essential definition is that “public transport” is a mode where the vehicles concerned are not owned by the user. Thus trains, trams, buses, taxis, hire cars, charter vehicles are public tramsport. Motor cars, motor bikes, bicycles, scooters and roller blades are not public transport.
And re “Strewth’s comment re ‘public goods’, yes, public goods are goods (which includes services) which if provided to one are automatically available to all – others cannot be excluded from the benefits (or disbenefits) of the ‘public good’. This includes defence, quarantine, and should include certain aspects of public health and justice. Unfortunately the latter is not always true, but that is another kettle of fish.
Slightly (perhaps rather) off topic is this:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2171124/Paris-commuter-train-carriages-transformed-resemble-rooms-Palace-Versailles.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
But what would this do for Public Transport in Melbourne? And what murals could one use there? Or in Sydney?
Please login below to comment, OR simply register here :
Thank you for registering, we have just sent you a confirmation email, which includes your new password to be entered below.