GST on public transport - who is providing the greater service?

An open letter to Treasurer Wayne Swan:

It's come to my attention that travel on public transport is subject to GST. Despite the fact that in our household of 3 licenced drivers we have 4 cars, I make a conscious decision each day to leave my car at home and catch the bus to work. I don't live very close to public transport - it takes me 15 minutes to walk to the nearest bus stop, and the bus only comes every 30 minutes and is often full to capacity or standing room only. Because the bus needs to frequenty stop to pick up passengers and is forced to share the road with the rest of the traffic for much of the door-to-door journey takes me about an hour by bus, but would probably take me 30 minutes if I were to drive myself (unless all the other passengers had the same idea). When the bus is too full, which happens all too often in Sydney, I have to wait 30 minutes for the next bus service to arrive - and hope that there's more space on it. Due to it's popularity, the route which I take must collect around $500,000 in fare revenue each year - but for reasons beyond my understanding, many of the buses they dispatch are literally over 30 years old and have no airconditioning. No special consideration is given to us at peak hour on hot Summer days when the temperature aproaches or exceeds 40 degrees and there are 80 hot, sweaty bodies pressed shoulder to shoulder.

Every day I join thousands of other commuters Australia wide, taking on the challenge of public transport - not because it's easy, but because it's the right thing to do. If we were to all stop catching public transport and all attempted to drive to work in our own cars the country would grind to a halt - or atleast be slowed down to the point where everyone got to work (and back home again) about half an hour later. By making our daily commute by bus we're providing a service to the wider community. This service includes:

- reduction in traffic congestion, allowing everyone else to get to their destination earlier
- reduction in pollution so that you can breath easy.
- less wear and tear on public roads, reduced need for wider motorways.
- significantly reduced risk of traffic accidents - leading to lower impact on the emergency services budget
- decrease chance that we will at some stage require the government to fund medical care due to heart condition
- being more sociable citizens

Compare this to my daily experience on public transport:

- 30 year old buses (only very occassionally will I see a car 30 years or older on my way to work)
- no airconditioning - even on extremely hot days
- overcrowded buses, often forced to leave commuters standing at bus stop, waiting for the next bus
- every 30 minutes during peak hour, hourly otherwise
- often running late
- Sydney trains often bypass scheduled stations if they're running late

And the alternative:

- Join the rest of the single-occupancy vehicles clogging up the roads and spewing out all sorts of pollution

With all this in mind, could you please explain why it is that travel on public transport is subject to GST? If the passengers are providing more of a service than the department/ministry of transport, shouldn't they be entitled to a public service tax credit - or at the very least, exemption from GST in reward for their troubles?

Public transport in Sydney should not be regarded as a "value added" service - it's a down right disgrace, and to charge GST on top of the price of the ticket is a slap in the face to those who are trying to do the right thing by the environment, society and even the economy.

Baking In The Bus

Yesterday afternoon, it was about 40 degrees - unless you were unfortunate enough to be riding the 611 bus from Macquarie to Blacktown, in which case it was about 60 degrees. Despite all that we hear about new buses being introduced throughout Sydney, some of the buses they send out for the hour-long trip are over 25 years old and have no air conditioning. On a hot Summer day, in the "world's best city" that's just not right!

I've been riding this bus for just over 2 years now, and have made my share of complaints to various staff at the Ministry of Transport and Hillsbus, yet frustratingly, nothing ever seems to happen.

The 611 is a busy service. It picks up a bus full of passengers from Macquarie Shopping Centre, and then stops at Macquarie University to pick up a bus full of university students - so we end up with 2 bus fulls of people on the same bus. Each trip must generate around $200-300 in fares, and a sum of around $500,000 each year for all 611 trips. ...That's the same figure both Hillsbus and the Ministry of Transport keep quoting to me as the cost to purchase a new bus - so please, If that's what we're shelling out in fares each year, why can't they see fit to put that money towards a new bus for us? Isn't that why we're paying (in fares and taxes) in the first place?

Most of the 611 buses are dispatched from Northmead, but for reasons unknown to me, there are a few exceptions each day which are dispatched from the Seven Hills depot which seems to be overlooked whenever new buses are added to the Hillsbus/Westbus fleet. Apparently, at some stage the Ministry of Transport passed a law requiring that bus companies ensure that no bus over 25 years old be used to service public transport routes (but they could be used on charter services). This must have rang alarm bells in some tight wad's head, and the law/policy was changed so that the average age of buses at any should not exceed 25 years. Although the Seven Hills depot has many (mostly?) buses over 25 years old, it's newest bus is 3 years old and has enough other "new" buses to bring the average age of the fleet to 16 years.

So the good news is that there's a slight chance that they'll send the 3 year old bus out for us next time it's 40 degrees (but there's also a slight chance of snow in hell), but the bad news is that Hillsbus/CDC don't need to send any new buses to the Seven Hills depot for another 9 years. It seems ironic to me that the Ministry of Transport requires Hillsbus to dispatch the newer buses to school services over commuter services, even though the school students pay nothing to ride, pay no taxes and aren't able to vote. I can understand that the primary school students may be less heat resistant (and have parents who vote and pay taxes), but why do high school students ride for free on air conditioned buses while commuters (not all of whom are "spring chickens") pay top dollar for the privilege of baking on the one hour trip home each day? It also seems ironic that this neglected bus depot is barely a stone's throw from ex-premier Nathan Rees' office? At least nobody can accuse him of playing favourites...

There are a number of questions I'd like to see answered:
1) Why does the Seven Hills depot have so many decrepit, non-airconditioned buses and no new buses in the last 3 years?
2) Why does the Seven Hills depot, which is designed and equipped to handle shorter trips have anything to do with the 611 route? (I hope that if this changes that the 7:45 "phantom" bus is not dropped)
3) Why are non-airconditioned buses dispatched to serve hour-long trips which consistently meet the maximum passenger capacity?
4) What is Nathan Rees doing about public transport in his own back yard?

I'd really like to see a representative from the MOT (preferably Minister Campbell, not just a clerk) and Hillsbus/CDC join us from Macquarie at 5:15 one afternoon. Perhaps if there were some members of the press riding with us Mr Campbell and the Hillsbus/CDC director would feel more compelled to ride with us.

Naming rights for Public Transit

I'm sure that readers of this blog will be very much aware of the benefits and long-term and indirect economic advantages of public transit. Yet politicians, obsessed with the short-term impacts and direct costs, continually seek out the cheapest stop-gap token effort. Lack of government support all to often means that the transit systems in our cities are often less than optimal - a handful of buses when what is really needed is an extensive underground metro system. Most of the state owned buses in Sydney are plastered with advertising, inside and out. However, the privately owned buses have very little advertising - go figure... Frankly, I wish there was more advertising on the bus I ride into work - it'd give me something to read and hopefully even lead to some kind of improvement in service.

I've often wondered why the governments don't approach the owners of shopping centres, large residential/vacation accomodation towers and major work places for partial sponsorship in return for routing train/metro lines and locating stations within walking distance of (or directly under) their entrances.

It occured to me, that it might even be worth their while negotiating naming rights for train lines or even the entire transit system within a city. It might be just that I'm a massive transit geek, but I'd go well out of my way (to the point that it would influence my decision to travel to Atlanta) to ride "The Coca Cola Ribbon" and would start salivating if a red and silver train turned up, carrying a couple of drink vending machines. They could even rig the ticket scanners at the gates to accept a Coca Cola barcode (scanned by a device capable of sensing the heat of the can) as an alternative to a conventional ticket/smart card. They earn over $2 Billion a year, and spend ludicrous amounts on advertising.

My dad would catch the first plane to San Francisco to be one of the first to ride the iTrain to Cupertino, especially if it connected to a train named after Google (sorry, they've got enough resources to come up with their own ingenious name).

With annual sales topping $400 billion, Walmart (or even just one of the Waltons) could easily afford to sponsor (or even build) "The Walmart Trolley" or "The Walmart Way" - deliving groceries to a station near you.

I'd love to see some of the iconic Australian brands step up and help provide some high quality public transport closer to home. RM Williams could steal the thunder from the Sydney Opera House and Uluru with "The Retro Metro" ("The RM" or "The Retro" for short). If the owners of the Q1 tower on Queensland's Gold Coast chipped in enough cash, perhaps they could name it "The Q Tube" (which could be shorted to "The Q"). I'd love to commute to work on "The Dreamworld Coaster", even if it didn't do any loops or pull high G's.

Surely if large corporations made substantial contributions towards public transit they'd be able to negotiate some carbon credits based on the number of cars they were removing from the roads. BHP - "The Big Australian" could provide (some of) the extra funding needed to complete Sydney's North West Metro (or "The Big Train"). Okay, so their annual profit is only half of the ammount that Morris Iemma had at one stage budgeted for the project, but especially given that it's looking less likely that the govenernment will cough up with any of it, even a token gesture from BHP would be appreciated.

If an oil company was interested in improving their public image could "The Crude Tube" buy them some brownie points with the greenies? Funding "The City Slicker" would represent a drop in the ocean for Exxon Mobil.

I understand that all of these big corporations need to answer to their share holders - but will the share holders be prepared to answer to our grandchildren in decades to come when our air is unbreathable and our streets packed to the point where their daily commute into work takes up most of the day? Perhaps some of their share holders will read this blog, but I'm sure that most of them find themselves cursing at the amount of traffic clogging up our roads on their way into work each day.

Is it just me? Do you think that there's a limit to the amount of advertising you could tolerate on public transit? Can you think of a catchy name that could be applied to your local transit system by a wealthy corporation (or person)?

Why Is Fare-Free Transit The Exception Rather Than The Rule?

Extracted from an article by Dave Olsen.

Transit agencies spend a lot of money to make money. In many cases,
the amount spent equals or even surpasses the amount they bring in
from fares.

Hasselt, a small city in Belgium, is one of the best examples of how
to convert existing fare-based systems, especially run-down or
underfunded systems, to Fare-Free. Not surprisingly, the decision to
convert to Fare-Free was a political one. The new mayor and council
decided that pouring more money into the endless money pit we call
roads and highways was not going to get them re-elected.

Instead of spending billions more on a third ring-road/freeway, they
commissioned a complete transportation plan that took space away from
the already congested car driver and gave it to the timid cyclist,
nature- and shopping-loving pedestrian, and eternally patient bus rider.

For a year, they expanded their transit system. They added routes
(from 3 in 1996 to 11 in 2007), buses and trams, more stops, bus-only
lanes, and more frequency (from 18,000 service hours in '96 to 95,000
in 2007). Then, on July 1st, 1997, they took out the fare boxes.
Ridership jumped 783% that first day, 900% that first year, and 4
years later it was up 1223% and continues to climb. Becoming Fare-Free
got residents and visitors alike onboard, while the planned increase
in capacity kept them coming back.

Before start-up, their first executive director of a transit agency in Washington State did some comprehensive
research into the costs of collecting fares. He discovered that the
costs were similar to the projected revenues, so they decided to stay
true to their mandate: to get people onto public transit.

Why Are NSW MOT Removing Highly In-Demand Services?

After missing my 7:30 611 bus to Macquarie from Seven Hills this morning by about 1 minute, I had to wait for much longer than 30 minutes for the next 611 service and when it did not actually stop to pick me up (I think it was too full) or even tell me why it could not pick me up or how long I should expect to wait for the next bus. Furious, I marched off to Nathan Rees' office where I was treated with less respect than I'd expect from a bus tyre speeding through a puddle of mud - the puddle of mud would probably have been more assistive.

Having missed the next bus, I hiked to the Hillsbus depot around the corner to complain about the bus which failed to stop and also discussed with them the recent changes to the timetable. I was advised that the 2 unofficial head-off buses that previously ran between trip 3 and 4, and then 5 minutes after trip 4 (often with all buses at capacity) would no longer be continued, let alone added to the new timetable.

This puts me at great unrest as I've been writing, calling and dropping in to complain/campaign/enquire to the MOT, Nathan Rees, Hillbus for well over a year in the hope that somebody will listen to me (or analyse the data collected by the ticket machines) and add more services for the 611 - into Macquarie in the mornings and back to Blacktown in the afternoons. If a bus company feels compelled to add more unofficial services to meet demand, and these extra services prove to be well and truly cost-efficient, I can't see how anybody can justify removing those extra services. Surely to any rational person the opposite would seem the obvious and only way to go - add _more_ services to encourage (or just incase fuel prices and other economic circumstances force) other people to leave their cars at home and take public transport.

At "peak hour" (or for any period of time where the bus is over 50% capacity), the 611 buses should run every 10 minutes - not every 30-50 minutes. The 630 route, which seems to carry an average of 5 passengers should generally be served by a minibus which would would have an additional benefit of making it much easier for the bus company to recruit drivers.

Mr Rees is saying that he can't afford to spend any more money on public transport because the state is in debt. I don't understand how he can afford not to. I don't care if NSW is $1 or $2 billion in debt by the time of the next election, I don't care how unpopular it makes him with the majority of people who currently take to the motorways in their private single occupancy vehicles, I don't care if it means that he or his party doesn't get re-elected.

What I do care about is the future of this city, state, Australia and our planet. What does Mr Rees care about?

Free public transport in Sydney? How about sufficient public transport?!

I've just read a news report announcing Blacktown MP Paul Gibson's plans to provide free public transport throughout Sydney. While I'm a big fan of public transport, I think that the more pressing issue is the capacity, frequency and coverage of public transport. I've been campaigning for over 12 months to Hills Bus, my local MP (and premier) Nathan Rees, MPs in other electorates along the routes that I ride and the various ministers for public transport about over crowding of the 611 bus service from Blacktown to Macquarie. From what I've heard, this is not isolated to this particular route, but also other bus routes and train services throughout Sydney. On the other hand, I shudder every time I see a 630 bus which seems to carry an average of 4 passengers and run every 5 minutes. For the 630 and other less crowded services, I think it would be more economical and efficient to run a mini bus which would make it easier to find drivers and the larger buses could be reallocated to other routes which are more in demand.

I was recently invited to complete a survey to provide feedback on the new Epping-Chatswood rail line. Unfortunately the survey was so long that eventually my session timed out before I was able to complete, but the main points that I'd like to drive through to MPs is my dissappointment that the line does not extend all the way through to Parramatta as per the original plan. I ride on a bus along the M2 every day and I'm sure that you will already know that it's already at full capacity. What will free public transport do? It'll save me about $50 a week, so I shouldn't complain too much, but as it is the buses often pass me by because there's not even any room for me to stand in the stair well (as much as I enjoy doing so, travelling at high speeds down the motorway). Because of the traffic congestion on the M2 and the governments short-sightedness, the bus lane does not extend all the way to the M7/Abbot Road, so the buses run as slowly as the rest of the traffic for much of the way. Even if/when the bus lane is extended all the way, the capacity will be a maximum of 15,000 to 18,000 passengers per hour, compared to 30,000 to 50,000. If the ministry of transport actually asked people about their travel requirements, it might be revealed that a lot of the people currently driving on the M2 in single-occupancy vehicles travel to and from roughly the same locations - if such were the case it would be likely that adding a rail line to meet that demand would solve the problem of congestion on that roadway for ever, and it might not be any more expensive in the long term than widening and maintaing more motorway and/or tunnels.

I think that the government should also reconsider the North-West Metro (or even the Christie network) before a free public transport strategy - if you build it they will pay. If I were a labour MP at either federal or state level (where they don't seem to be too safe at all) I'd be extremely embarrassed and offended by people's reactions and the coverage following the announcement that the project will be canned because the labour MPs in the affected electorates consider their seats to be safe. Could the possibly be so naive? How many votes do you think they'd receive if people realised that they could be spending (say) 15 minutes on a train (reading the paper or having a snooze) each way to work instead of an hour in traffic (cursing the cars in front of them)? Norwest is a booming CBD and over the coming years you should expect to see a lot more people commuting to work in that direction - now is the time to act to ensure that the M2 does not become a 2-way car park swamped in exhaust fumes. I may not live in the Blacktown electorate or an electorate directly served by the North-West metro, but I do care enough that it will have a significant impact on who I will vote for (or campaign against) at future elections.

I'm not completely against the idea of saving $50 each week, but I think the government should first ensure that the public transport system will be able to handle an increase in patronage, and it won't mean that current "frequent flyers" will not be left behind waiting half an hour for the next bus because the bus (or train) they've been riding for the past several years is full of joy-riders.

On the positive side, I was recently reading that in some cities, the cost (and delay) of collecting fares out-weighed the revenue actually collected from fares, and that generally the direct costs of running the buses and trains etc are far out-weighed by the savings on public health, maintenance of motorways, policing, traffic accidents, productivity etc.

Green Idea Factory: Transit Pass - Best Weapon Against Climate Change?

Green Idea Factory: Transit Pass - Best Weapon Against Climate Change?