Let's talk about bus

I love how re-reading literature can get you to pay closer attention to elements you just skimmed over previous times. A goodie becoming an oldie – Walkable City by Jeff Speck – will inevitably draw your attention to the necessities of walkability, but this time section on public transport got my undivided attention. Often overlooked in walkability discussions, public transport is the key ingredient that transforms walkable neighbourhoods into walkable cities, or at least to cities that are fairly independent of personal vehicles.

Speck points out the hard truth with no filter – cities choose how they develop – cater for cars or everything else. This choice is not reflected just at state-level long-term strategies but at every local policy and every approval or rejection at a local level.

Density and urbanity are prerequisites of walkability and public transport success, which brings us to the famous chicken and egg question. What comes first, density or public transport?

In my experience across the Perth Metro area, if the public transport line is planned but not established – approvals of higher density developments with reduced parking are at best reluctant but commonly State Administrative Tribunal cases, if not assessed by Joint Development Assessment Panel (JDAP). Even if JDAP grants development approval, the applicant is often discouraged and deterred by many hurdles to obtain a building permit, as this is where public transport planning is seen as wishful thinking creating problems of “carmagedon” variety in “real life”.

Why do you say “public transport” and think “train”?

But not all public transport modes are made equal. Here we turn our attention to the most despised type of public transport – the bus. Dubbed “loser cruiser”, Speck describes it as “the mode of choice for people without a choice” painfully accurately capturing general perception of bus as stigma and a social status signifier, not as public service which ought to be readily available to everyone and used by everyone because it makes sense. Of course, it only makes sense if we want to have some level of practical walkability in our cities.

Yes, public transport is (or should be) a public service, much like hospitals and schools. Next time when the discussion starts on how trams are “cool” and buses are not, ask yourself if no one should care about the insufficient provision of GP clinics because state-of-the-art integrated clinics are way cooler, and that is what we should focus on? No – they are not mutually exclusive but part of a well-integrated network providing a service for the people, much like trains, trams, buses, share bikes/scooters etc.

No Smart Rider? Your money better jiggle jiggle, not fold (or prepare to suffer the wrath of the bus driver)

So who are the “losers” who can go functionally cruising in Perth Metro, provided they put themselves through a woefully inadequate process of obtaining Smart Rider or carry coins on their person?

Apparently, “losers” who can at least afford a house at the median housing price (~$540k); but “losers” who can afford to spend more than $750k on a house, have a really good fighting chance to use the bus as a functional transport mode.

But if, by some glitch in the matrix, you cannot afford to spend more than $500k on a property or have to opt for affordable housing… ah, well… you may as well “affordably” get a fourth-hand vehicle to get yourself to a train station or your workplace. You most certainly should not count on reducing living expenses by functionally walking, cycling or using public transport.

Sarcasm will not take us anywhere new, and the question of spatial justice is not something we should answer using euphemisms. No one should spend close to 1/3 of their annual net income on accessing gainful employment, nor should they spend the equivalent of half-working day commuting to and from work[1] .

All aboard...

As remedy for poorly performing public transport, Speck essentially recommends a thorough marketing exercise (with some infrastructure investment). Although reframing the bus as a hyper-logical convenience, not a last resort for persons of no means, sounds a touch patronising; unfortunately, it is sorely needed. But much like in the Telstra case, incessant marketing is not enough – the service needs to improve.

Four key conditions for successful and effective bus service (according to Speck) are:

• Frequency – 10 minutes should be the maximum interval for any line looking for decent patronage. If you can’t fill up a bus - run a minibus. Just run it. The longer the wait times between the buses and the more cumbersome trip planning is, the more likely travellers will opt out.

In the Perth Metro area, there are only 11 high-frequency lines (maximum 15-minute headways through the day), and of course – they run in inner central suburbs. Some lines do run at a 10-minute frequency during commuter’s peak hour only.

• Urbanity /Accessibility – bus stops should be right in the middle of the action – roll off a coffee shop seat into the bus stop.

Bus stops across Perth Metro are “in the middle of the action” only if the action is so dense that it is impossible to place the bus stop away. Otherwise, they are commonly placed at least 100m away from the nearest coffee shop, shoved against a blank wall or a fence – out of the way. God forbid you sip on your coffee in the shade while waiting for the bus…

• ?Clarity – Speck defines this as simple routes – legible and easy to follow. However, not at the expense of connectivity.

Once upon a time, all roads led to Rome, and now almost all bus routes lead to Perth CBD. If you lived in Dianella but worked in Balcatta (same local government) – a car would take 15 minutes to get you to work, if you are brave enough to cycle, you will need around 35 minutes, and public transport – the best option is 56 minutes (involves changing bus lines too)…

• ?Pleasure – I must admit this condition surprised me the most. Why is the concept of a bus as a “mobile form of public space” not considered more often, and how come very few to none of the worldwide placemaking efforts are focused here?

Here we can add an extra Perth point:

• Simplify “entry points” – the process of paying for fare is a casual customer deterrent. Ordering Smart Rider is ridiculously cumbersome, and the inability to use a debit or credit card on the bus to either pay for the fare or load your Smart Rider defies common sense. While integrating Smart Rider as a digital card to the Transperth application may sound far-fetched – it is high time for it to be considered (just check out Reddit).

While Jeff Speck does not purport to be public transport specialist, the points he raised are common sense. Public transport does not exist in a vacuum – it is there to fulfil a need, serve a purpose and to do that, it must be well integrated in the environment it is supposed to serve. To paraphrase Speck, competitive public transport must not waste people’s time and should make them happy. The key premise is straightforward and often overlooked as deceptively simple. But it is the basis of any successful product or service.?

Bonus – how to get a Smart Rider card in Perth Metro for a 13-year-old child in 2022:

Step 1: Download PDF form and fill it in.

Step 2: Print the form and take it to the school so that the school can stamp it and verify that the child attends a school (although legally – 13-year-old child should be in a schooling program). You might be lucky, and your school may already have stamped forms in the admin office.

Step 3: Put the signed and stamped form in an envelope.

Step 4: Get a $5 money order (fun fact: preparing a money order in Aust Post costs $11)

Step 5: Physically mail the envelope containing the signed and stamped form and the money order (or a $5 paper bill).

God forbid we just ordered and paid for the Smart Rider online like it was 21st century…

[1] Yes, land use distribution is a prevalent factor here as well, and this deserves its own spiel.