WASHINGTON—In a trend that is reducing the nation’s dependence on fossil fuels by curtailing the total number of cars on the road, a study released Thursday by the Transportation Department found that more Americans than ever are commuting to work splattered on the grill of a Ford F-150. “Increasingly, U.S.…
  • AJ Sadauskas@aus.social
    0·
    10 months ago

    @owen @heatofignition @mondoman712 Here’s the timetable for the Sydney Northwest Metro: https://transportnsw.info/documents/timetables/93-M-Sydney-Metro-North-West-20230929.pdf

    It has a service every four minutes during the morning and evening peak.

    I’ve attached a screenshot from Google Maps showing what’s typical 8am morning commute would look like from Rouse Hill to Macquarie University and the Macquarie Park business precinct.

    It’s typically 40 minutes by car. You have to have your hands on the wheel. You’re stuck in traffic. That’s if you pay $9.56 or $14.13 for a toll road, which is a bit quicker.

    Or you can take the Metro.

    Trains run every four minutes during the morning peak, so you can turn up and go. It’s a modern service with driverless trains and platform-screen doors.

    It takes 32 minutes — so it’s the faster option. And you can do other things during your commute.

    (I’ve attached a screenshot, please note you might need to see the original post to view it.)

    The train is the faster and more convenient option.

    Why wouldn’t you take the Metro?

    This isn’t because the state government has done anything to hobble road driving.

    It’s because the NSW State Government has invested in building a good quality, frequent Metro service to the northwestern suburbs.

    The Metro has been a catalyst for building a number of transit-oriented developments at each of the stations. For the people living in those apartments, there’s a clear winner.

    The problem is that for around 70 years after WW2, governments have zoned whole suburbs for low-density residential.

    These car-dependent suburbs, cars were the only viable option for getting to work, school, or shopping. By design.

    At best, there’s an often unreliable bus that runs every 20 minutes during the peak. And that’s it.

    At least in Australia, they tend to be on the outer fringes of the major metropolitan areas. Wealthier people with a choice tend to prefer inner-urban areas with better public transport.

    If you just hit people in these areas with taxes and fines without a compelling alternative, and you’re effectively levelling a poor tax.

    Give people access to good quality public transport — and yes it can be faster than being stuck in traffic — and they’ll choose it.

    • Owen@social.ridetrans.it
      0·
      10 months ago

      @ajsadauskas @heatofignition @mondoman712

      Everyone understands that transit is terrible in car dependent suburbs. Yes, if you leave from a station and go to another station, it might be faster than driving. Low gas prices are a direct cause of that.

      It’s a choice to focus on how high gas prices might negatively impact suburban commuters – who largely own their homes and can afford to operate a private vehicle – rather people who can’t own a car and are negatively impacted by low gas prices.

      • Owen@social.ridetrans.it
        0·
        10 months ago

        @ajsadauskas @heatofignition @mondoman712

        It also looks like the council plan for the Rouse Hills Shire indicates an 80% mode share for private vehicles. The single train station to downtown and infrequent buses are not getting people out of cars.

        https://www.thehills.nsw.gov.au/files/sharedassets/public/ecm-website-documents/page-documents/building/plans-guidelines/integrated_transport_and_land_use_strategy.pdf

        Additionally, it looks like despite transit investments the metro is predicted to still see a 67% car mode share by 2031

        https://www.infrastructureaustralia.gov.au/sites/default/files/2019-08/Transport%20Modelling%20Report%20for%20Sydney.pdf

        • Owen@social.ridetrans.it
          0·
          10 months ago

          @ajsadauskas @heatofignition @mondoman712

          And your example is using a route with a toll! That is an example of the government hobbling driving.

          I’m not saying we shouldn’t build transit. Or that it even should be a lower priority. I’m simply saying we should *also* raise the cost of driving because that impacts a lot of decisions, including the trade-off between using transit and driving as you demonstrated with your example.

        • AJ Sadauskas@aus.social
          0·
          10 months ago

          @owen @heatofignition @mondoman712 The Hills Shire document you’re looking at is from 2019.

          Notice how the Metro is referred to in the future we tense? “We anticipate…”

          Well, the NW Metro only opened in 2019: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metro_North_West_Line

          And the figures you’re quoting are from before the Metro opened.

          Which is why the train modal share is just 1%. People had to catch a bus or drive to somewhere like Epping or Parramatta to get a train. The Hills were a pretty notorious public transport blackspot before the NW Metro opened.

          I don’t see the logic in saying it hasn’t led to a shift in modal share before it opened?

          The final phases of that Metro project, called Metro City & Southwest, are opening this year and in 2025: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sydney_Metro_City_%26_Southwest

          The NW Metro will also eventually connect with another Sydney Metro line to the new Western Sydney Airport. The first phase of that line is opening in 2026: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sydney_Metro_Western_Sydney_Airport

          The second Infrastructure Australia report you linked to looks at the entire Sydney Metropolitan Area, not just northwest Sydney.

          It’s like looking at overall modal share across the Greater New York metropolitan area to judge a new line in Brooklyn.

          There are still public transport blackspots in Sydney. The Northern Beaches and the outer west are two prime examples.

            • AJ Sadauskas@aus.social
              0·
              10 months ago

              @owen @heatofignition @mondoman712
              “When do you expect transit to be sufficient to allow increasing gas prices?”

              Probably sometime during the Fraser government, back in the 1980s.

              So an important difference between Australia and the US is that the Australian Federal Government already has a national Fuel Excise Tax, as well as Goods and Services Tax on Fuel: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_taxes_in_Australia

              But going back to the main point.

              People can’t choose public transport over the car if the public transport system in the area isn’t up to scratch.

              People on higher incomes can afford any increase to the cost of driving the most.

              And they tend to live in the inner suburbs that have the best access to public transport.

              It’s the working class people in the car-dependent outer suburbs — the western suburbs of Melbourne, Sydney, and Brisbane in particular — who are the least able to afford it.

              And when you attempt to increase the cost of driving when there aren’t any good alternatives, you prompt a not-unjustified political backlash.

              That political backlash is real. It’s why — for example — Australia no longer has a price on carbon.

              And from a social policy standpoint, you effectively financially penalise people for being poor.

              The reason why I cited the Northwest Metro is because it’s a great example of a rail service that’s better than driving for many trips. And it was built in an area that previously had quite poor access to public transport.

              That means improving density along existing rail corridors, opening up new higher-density mixed-use developments along new rail corridors, and retrofitting high-frequency (every 10 minutes or greater) bus services to existing suburban areas.

              Once good alternatives are in place, that’s when you ideally should take steps to make driving less attractive.

              That can range from local interventions, such as pedestrianising streets and reducing the mandatory parking requirements in local planning codes.

              It can potentially include congestion surcharges, parking taxes, etc.

              And at a state or national level, increasing fuel excise, motor vehicles registration, stamp duty, etc.

              • Owen@social.ridetrans.it
                0·
                10 months ago

                @ajsadauskas @heatofignition @mondoman712

                “Probably sometime during the Fraser government, back in the 1980s.”

                Huh? So you are actually agreeing with me. You think Australia can increase its gas tax today?

                "So an important difference between Australia and the US is that the Australian Federal Government already has a national Fuel Excise Tax, as well as Goods and Services Tax on Fuel: "

                Also this isn’t a difference between Australia and the US. The US also has a federal gas tax.

                • AJ Sadauskas@aus.social
                  0·
                  10 months ago

                  @owen @heatofignition @mondoman712
                  “Also this isn’t a difference between Australia and the US. The US also has a federal gas tax.”

                  Okay, I stand corrected on this point.

                  But my core point remains.

                  Look at the oil price shocks of the 1970s, early 2000s, and two years ago.

                  Just increasing the price of driving alone doesn’t create sustained modal shifts, unless public transport and cycling are viable alternatives.