How is Brisbane’s public transport system fairing?

Many of the world’s greatest cities literally thrive on a well-run, well-used, well-integrated public transport system.  Think of Tokyo, London, New York, Paris, Amsterdam, Vancouver.

New York’s subway system is one of the oldest in the world, and the extent of its routes – spanning right across from the Bronx to Brooklyn, and over to Staten Island as well – are surely an echo of the life that it has breathed into the big apple.

According to New York’s Metropolitan Transport Authority, average use on its subway last year – serving all but two of its stations, 24/7 – was well over 5 million trips per day (millions more than half of New York City’s current population, around 8.5 million).  Brisbane’s most recent accurate figures quote public transport usage as 35% of the adult population (Australian Bureau of Statistics).

Much famed for its public transport  (especially its subway) Japan’s public transport system is another fine example of a populace thriving on infrastructure that is truly planned and executed  to benefit the wider community, with the Tokyo subway serving more than any other subway system in the world.  Operated by 2 companies, its on-time record and vast network leave little wonder as to why around half of Tokyo’s massive population (which is well over 12 million at present) uses its subway system every day.

Asia’s flourishing population has caused many of its governments to place a high level of importance on their public transport systems (an attitude apparently lacking on a wider scale in Australia).  Singapore’s urban transport system – although one of the oldest in South East Asia – can still boast a record of acclaim that makes it a widely studied model in sustainable public transport.  With beautiful landscaping and flora a feature of its entire network, it is surely a tribute to the planning and importance that has been placed upon its city’s public transportation.

Ahmedabad in India, recently won an independently critiqued and coveted  ‘sustainable transport award’  for its transport system (with organisations such as the UN’s Centre for Regional Development on the panel) which featured ‘car-free days’ to incentivise commuter use, and includes stations efficiently cooled by passive solar design (which reflects, stores, distributes or directs solar energy).  

Also featuring high quality designated pedestrian facilities, alongside well-constructed bicycle lanes, it all serves to make our new touch-in fare systems (long in use across America, Europe and Asia – where in Hong Kong, their ‘octopus’ card has been in operation since 1997, and is equipped to carry out payments for parking meters, fast food and convenience store items)  seem vastly unimpressive, at best.

And that’s not to mention the superfluously digitized, over-concreted bus and train stations across Brisbane’s network.  – Rather than actually serving any effective practical use or engaging potential users, its ‘upgrades’ appear moreso to be some lame attempt in making public transport, a truly public entity (lest it appear to simply be a token gesture of government action or progress).

Australia – Brisbane particularly -  clearly lacks an acceptable level of integration (an obvious necessity in encouraging use) – surely one of the many reasons why Brisbane’s public transport network is poorly utilized.  Without access to a motor vehicle, commuters in Brisbane may have to cycle vast distances in order to leave a bicycle at a secure facility – which are most likely to be found at train stations – meaning that if you don’t happen to live near a train line, this isn’t even an option.

Alternatively, buses can be used, but taking a bike on a bus is practically impossible, or rarely (if ever) seen.  – So you’ll be walking everywhere between connecting stops (and we’ve seen how costly it can become if you need to catch multiple buses, trains or ferries).

Brisbane's northwest - from where you would have to cycle all the way into the CBD before you can use your bicycle within the public transport system (paths in red and blue are intended for cycling. click to enlargen)

The Queensland government did attempt a push on a new system that allows you to attach your bike to a device at the front end of the bus but at its inception, you literally had to ascertain whether the bus you were going to catch had the system installed – a task that seemed to be down to luck, rather than management.  If the government was actually serious about bicycle use, they would have been on every bus, and bikelanes would have been a normal fixture on major thoroughfares.

Bike traffic is also often restricted to footpaths making any real flow of cyclists (i.e. one that would indicate – 0r be facilitated by – a well utilized system)  prohibitively disruptive and/or dangerous to the general public, and the commuters.  Furthermore, signage and space on the roadside is also scarce, meaning cooperation from motorists is scarce too.  It’s no wonder the ‘bicycle friendly buses’ so quickly disappeared out of existence.

This kind of attitude from Queensland’s government virtually ensures that an integrated public transport system doesn’t actually exist in the practical sense but rather, as an illusion of the reality that is possible.

Without a capping scheme in Queensland’s ‘gocard’ touch in ticketing system – which would set a ceiling on the costs of multiple trips, encouraging users to take multiple forms of public transport for a multitude of everyday activities (not just to and from work) – Translink might as well confess that integration isn’t even a priority.  If it is, their structuring is simply a miserable failure or its attempt, some insulting scam on the populace.

Currently, Queensland is the only state using a touchcard ticketing system that doesn’t have a capping system in operation.

Yet another fine example of the government’s lip-service to environmentally friendly infrastructure and planning is the citybike public bicycle rental system.

Based on the Parisian model (a city, it may be noted, that is virtually completely flat – in stark contrast to Brisbane, even in the CBD) Brisbane’s system has encouraging features such as prohibitive costs  – a $330 security deposit, plus a subscription fee, and around another $77 due for a full day’s riding of 5 hours or more; and draconian state laws ($100 dollar fines for not wearing a bike helmet – which aren’t supplied – meaning that if you dont carry your own helmet with you everywhere, you can’t use the bike, or risk incurring the fine) to all but guarantee that locals don’t even consider it as an option (midway through 2011, usage figures were less than 1 in 5, with the system costing ratepayers a collective total of more than a $250,000 per quarter).

The fact that the scheme is operated by outdoor advertising giant JCDecaux, is clear indication of where the scheme’s real priorities actually lie.  The same might even be suggested for much of the rest of Brisbane’s transport infrastructure, fare structure and design.

more under ‘what are the benefits of a good public transport system’