This is the third annual snapshot of Australia’s eighteen major cities with populations above 100,000 and Albanese says it is a unique document and that he believes no other nation has anything quite like it.
The first two reports have been collectively downloaded two million times.
Minister Albanese said the report shows that our cities have to be more productive and highlights rail as a key factor in achieving that outcome
“The industrial structure of our cities is changing and In terms of economic functions, our cities are shrinking in on themselves,” he said.
“The forces driving the spread of our cities since the war, predominantly manufacturing, are being replaced by knowledge industries – the banking, legal, insurance and myriad of other business services.
“Yet, whereas manufacturing plants were traditionally located on the city fringe or in industrial zones, the job-rich knowledge industries tend to concentrate in the heart of our cities.
“Chapter Tree (of the report) tells us that national productivity growth is slowing and that efficient transport is the key to arrest this decline."
As the State of Australian Cities reports, this trend is seeing more and more workers commuting into our city centres, yet at the same time housing growth continues to creep outwards, making the journey to these jobs increasingly difficult.
Narrowing the distance between where people live and where they work needs to be at the forefront of urban planning in coming years,” Albanese said.
Looking at public transport usage the report found that morning travel peak has increased and sharpened in the last 30 years, greatly increasing the pressure on transport networks. This appears to be driven in part by an increase in discretionary travel in the morning peak period.
The high morning peak load has significant implications for the capacity of urban transport infrastructure. If it was possible to spread this peak it would enable much more efficient use of transport infrastructure, which during other parts of the day operates at well below capacity. This could also remove or delay costly augmentation to transport infrastructure.
The transport mode doing the heavy lifting for high agglomeration industries is rail. The report says our rail networks are largely legacy systems that were built with substantial extra capacity and have been in the past capable of absorbing significant increases in loading without major additional capital costs.
It is now clear, especially in Sydney and Melbourne that much of this surplus capacity has been taken up in recent years with population growth and mode switching. This indicates that productivity rates in cities will be increasingly constrained by the capacity of mass transit systems, particularly rail.
The report makes significant mention on the issue of farebox cost recovery saying that in Australian urban mass transit systems this is already well below international best practice and continues to decline. This raises questions about the sustainability of their current financial structures and the scope for further investment in mass transport infrastructure and services.
Asian rail operators generally capture the value of the rail line through property development in the same manner as the pioneering British and American rail did. Even by comparison with low-density cities such as Washington DC and San Francisco, Australian operational cost recovery is low.
The current financial model also means that the economic benefits of concentrating jobs in city centres comes at a significant cost to the rest of the economy through the subsidization from state and territory revenue of the mass transit system servicing it.
It is also evident that capitalising public transport subsidies into the land value surrounding mass transit systems can cause increasing social inequity. Higher land costs mean that those on lower incomes must live further away from public transport while those on higher incomes can afford to live within a convenient distance and can also benefit from highly subsidised fares.
Using Sydney’s public transit system as an example shows that the proportion of operating costs recovered in fares has been declining across all modes. The shortfall in the 2010/11 year exceeded $3bn in operating costs alone.
A preliminary analysis by BITRE of cities indicates that Sydney’s mass transit system recovers 24% of its operating costs through the fare box and Melbourne does better at 31%, while Perth does best of all at 38%. For Canberra’s bus only system, however, users pay only 17% of operating costs.
The report concludes that urban mass transit systems must become more sustainable by better cost recovery through the fare box and/or the capital value of the surrounding land. If not, the flow on effects to national productivity could be considerable.
Albanese says, “The changing industrial structure of our cities means our transport networks are increasingly being called upon to carry large numbers of people into concentrated city centres within a very limited time period.
“The only mode capable of doing this is rail because of the numbers it can carry. One single rail line operating at peak efficiency carries the same number of people as a ten lane freeway.
“We must address capacity on our rail systems, particularly for trains heading into our urban centres. This means being smarter about the way we capture the value of land created by public transport corridors, and use that to drive further investment,” he said.
The full report can be downloaded from the Department of Infrastructure and Transport web site
 
“