Action for Public Transport (N.S.W.) Inc.

Introduction

Action for Public Transport (NSW) is a transport advocacy group, which has been active in Sydney since 1974. We promote the interests of beneficiaries of public transport; both passengers, and the wider community. We make the following submission on the document O5 Economic Appraisal in the Setting of Standards, released for public consultation in February 2019.

Comments

We think that standards for public transport services should be measured in a way that relates closely to the benefits which the community enjoys from those services. For example, describing a bus route as having two services per hour between 9am and 5pm tends to suggest that there is one service every 30 minutes. However, the buses each hour might arrive only five minutes apart, with the consequence that someone missing the second service faces a 54 minute wait. Paragraph 3.4.2 discusses public transport frequency without hinting at regularity of service or maximum waiting times. Is frequency the most appropriate way to assess a public transport service?

It is reasonable to suggest that every passenger over 40 years of age (and some below that age) should have seats on all but the shortest public transport trips. Measuring the quality of a public transport service could recognise that principle. Increasing the number of seats would of course cost money. That cost could usefully be compared with a benefit to passengers.

Again, it is known that older public transport passengers are concerned to minimise the distance which they have to walk to a bus/train/tram stop. And for the young, school bus services are intended to avoid the need for long walks to school, regarded as over 1200 metres for primary and 1600 metres for secondary. So, measuring the quality of a public transport service should recognise the success or otherwise of that service at obviating long walks.

Conclusion

APTNSW thanks ATAP for the opportunity to comment on this document. We hope that over time the assessment of transport proposals will become more sensitive to critical issues overlooked in conventional cost-benefit analysis, and less biased against public transport investment.