The Cost of Auto vs Transit Use

There is an article in an online publication that is drawing some social media snark for the bias in comparing the cost of driving with the cost of public transport. (I won’t link to it, unless the author asks). Prior to its publication I was “interviewed” in that I was emailed a set of questions, and answered them, though they didn’t make it into the article.

The author asked:

Questions: 

1) What are the benefits and weaknesses of using public transport to commute in Australia? 

2) What are the benefits and weaknesses of driving as a form of transportation? 

3) In your opinion, is Australia's current road and public transport infrastructure model a sustainable and cost-effective way of commuting from one point to another? 

4) If it isn't, what needs to be done from a State and Federal Government perspective to better improve the infrastructure to make public transport a more sustainable, efficient and cost-effective way of commuting in this current cost of living crisis? 

As I told the author, I ran those questions through ChatGPT-4, which I shared (with full disclosure), and ChatGPT said:¹

Let's explore each of your questions in the context of Australian commuting.

1) Benefits and Weaknesses of Public Transport in Australia

   - Benefits:

     - Cost-Effectiveness: Public transport often presents a more affordable option for daily commuting compared to the costs of fuel, parking, and vehicle maintenance associated with driving.

     - Reduced Congestion: By using public transport, fewer vehicles are on the road, which can reduce traffic congestion and potentially lower travel times for everyone.

     - Environmental Impact: Public transport has a lower carbon footprint per commuter than individual cars, contributing to fewer emissions and better air quality.

   - Weaknesses:

     - Service Limitations: Coverage might not be extensive in rural or suburban areas, making it less convenient for some users.

     - Schedule Inflexibility: Fixed schedules can be less convenient compared to the flexibility of leaving at one's own chosen time with a car.

     - Crowding and Comfort: During peak times, overcrowding can make public transport less comfortable.

2) Benefits and Weaknesses of Driving in Australia

   - Benefits:

     - Convenience: Driving provides door-to-door service, more storage for personal belongings, and the freedom to travel at any desired time.

     - Flexibility: Drivers can choose their own route, make stops, and adjust their schedules spontaneously.

   - Weaknesses:

     - Cost: Owning and maintaining a car can be expensive due to the cost of petrol, insurance, maintenance, and parking.

     - Traffic and Delays: Drivers can face significant delays due to traffic congestion, particularly in metropolitan areas.

     - Environmental Impact: Cars generally have a higher carbon footprint per commuter compared to public transport.

3) Sustainability of Australia's Transport Model

   - Australia’s current infrastructure model struggles with balancing growth and sustainability. The heavy reliance on road transport and the sprawling design of major cities contribute to long commute times and high per-capita vehicle emissions. However, initiatives like Sydney's emphasis on the 30-minute city concept aim to improve sustainability by enhancing access to jobs and services within a 30-minute public transport journey.

4) Improvements Needed for a More Sustainable Commuting Model

   - Investment in Public Transport: Increasing the frequency, reliability, and coverage of public transport services can make it a more viable option for more Australians.

   - Infrastructure Development: Building more dedicated bus lanes and cycling paths can encourage the use of these more sustainable modes of transport.

   - Integrated Transport Solutions: Developing policies that integrate different modes of transport (like bike-sharing systems at train stations) can enhance overall system efficiency.

   - Technological Enhancements: Investing in smart technology to optimize traffic flows and public transport can reduce delays and improve service quality.

These perspectives encapsulate the broader implications of commuting choices in the context of Australia’s current economic and environmental challenges. Integrating these insights can provide your readers with a balanced view of the complexities and necessary strategies for sustainable urban transport.

I then commented to the author:

1) What are the benefits and weaknesses of using public transport to commute in Australia? 

1) So a couple of questions arise as ChatGPT read the question differently than I did, I assume you mean benefits and weaknesses for the individual traveler, given the framing of commuters saving $, rather than benefits to society as a whole, as almost everyone benefits if everyone else uses public transport, as per the famous Onion story. 

If you mean for the individual, the benefits that apply are cost-effectiveness and feeling good about the environment (though most people don’t care much about this), but individuals using transit certainly really care about reducing travel time for car drivers. The weaknesses ChatGPT presents are valid.

2) What are the benefits and weaknesses of driving as a form of transportation? 

2) Here (re: Driving), these are mostly personal benefits and weaknesses, but the weakness of environmental impact are largely social, but I guess only a few car drivers might feel guilty about not helping the environment, and obviously not very much. 

3) In your opinion, is Australia's current road and public transport infrastructure model a sustainable and cost-effective way of commuting from one point to another? 

3) The answer ChatGPT gives is planner-speak. The answer is "No.” If you want more for the quote, the answer is “Obviously Not”.  Now, we can parse the question. Is it cost-effective? Not especially for the individual, but considering value of time and value of land and current distribution of activities, most people are selfishly rational in making decisions in alignment with their preferences. So given the choices people have, they do the best they can. But these are not the choices they should be given. E.g. in Sydney, more people want to live in the east than supply allows, so the east is more expensive than the west, and people who want more land or home for the dollar move west, and pay in terms of travel time and other quality of life outcomes. Why does supply only allow this much housing? It is very expensive to develop in the east, and current zoning regulations don’t permit more. But even where there are opportunities to develop more densely, it is not always taken advantage of. There is e.g. land in Eveleigh around Redfern station that has been vacant for decades. There are plans, but rather than providing more housing, there seems to be landbanking going on. There are books written about the dysfunctions of land markets. But the short version is if we could balance home and non-home activities better across space, we would require less travel.

The other half of the parsing is whether it is sustainable. If by that, do you mean it has net zero emissions, even more Obviously Not. CO2 emissions are continuing to rise, and even when they start falling as renewables become a more dominant source of electricity and vehicle electrification kicks in, atmospheric CO2 concentrations will still rise until emissions are zero. So it’s not sustainable until every vehicle is electrified, powered by renewables, built in a factory powered by renewable energy, on roads and rails built with electric equipment, using materials like concrete and steel that are also manufactured in a sustainable way, and so on. This will not happen soon. If instead everyone walked, rode an e-bike, or took public transport, we would have a shot at sustainability sooner. But that requires a huge change in behaviour that most people are going to be reluctant to make.

4) If it isn't, what needs to be done from a State and Federal Government perspective to better improve the infrastructure to make public transport a more sustainable, efficient and cost-effective way of commuting in this current cost of living crisis? 

4) Drivers need to pay the full cost of driving, including the cost of the environmental externalities. Speed limits need to be lowered to 30 km/h in neighbourhoods so that it is safe to walk and bike. Public transport services need to be delivered in a more intelligent way, so that new infrastructure is built where people actually are, not where planners hope they will be in 30 years. Bus services need to be frequent, convenient, and direct, not delayed by traffic, traveling in exclusive bus lanes in places where that would save time, and given priority at traffic signals.  Roads with speed limits higher than 30 need to have separated and protected bike lanes.  There’s more, but I suspect your article doesn’t have space for it.

This is probably not the answer you were looking for.

1. If most articles are going to be written and read by the AI, surely we should be checking what the AI is going to say.