Transport Disadvantage in Sydney: Accessibility, Exclusion, and Public Transit, Lecture notes of Literature

Download Transport Disadvantage in Sydney: Accessibility, Exclusion, and Public Transit and more Lecture notes Literature in PDF only on Docsity!

UNSW B Planning Final Year Thesis

The meaning of

‘transport disadvantage’

in Sydney:

A case study of the Fairfield/Liverpool Region

Matthew Powell

i

Table of Contents

List of Figures ......................................................................................................................................... vi

vi

• Chapter 1: Introduction Abstract .................................................................................................................................................viii
• Chapter 2: Methodology
  • 2.1 Background & literature review.................................................................................................
  • 2.2 Review of policies
  • 2.3 Qualitative interviews
  • 2.4 Case study data & mapping
  • 2.5 Analysis & recommendations
• Chapter 3: Background & Review of Literature
  • 3.1 Background
    • 3.1.1 Defining transport disadvantage
    • 3.1.2 Western Sydney
  • 3.2 Review of Literature...................................................................................................................
    • 3.2.1 Introduction
    • 3.2.2 Social exclusion & transport disadvantage
    • 3.2.3 Significance of public transport
    • 3.2.4 Spatial distribution & location of public transport
    • 3.2.5 Automobile dependency.............................................................................................
    • 3.2.6 International case studies
    • 3.2.7 Australian case studies
    • 3.2.8 Solutions
    • 3.2.9 Gaps in research
    • 3.2.10 Summary
• Chapter 4: Review of Policies
  • 4.1 Introduction
  • 4.2 State Government policies.......................................................................................................
    • 3.2.1 Past urban development.............................................................................................
      • 3.2.1.1 Employment...................................................................................................
    • 3.2.2 Metropolitan planning
      • 3.2.2.1 Subregional strategies
        • 3.2.2.1.a West Central - Fairfield
        • 3.2.2.1.b South West - Liverpool
        • 3.2.2.1.c Analysis
    • 3.2.3 Trains...........................................................................................................................
      • 3.2.3.1 History
    • 3.2.3.2 Issues.............................................................................................................. ii
    • 3.2.3.3 North West Rail Link
    • 3.2.3.4 South West Rail Link
      • 3.2.3.4.a Funding
    • 3.2.3.5 Metro
  • 3.2.4 Buses
    • 3.2.4.1 Unsworth Review
      • 3.2.4.1.a Route design
      • 3.2.4.1.b Rationalisation of operators
      • 3.2.4.1.c Implications for existing users
      • 3.2.4.1.d Inter-regional connectivity
      • 3.2.4.1.e Ticketing...............................................................................
      • 3.2.4.1.f Bus stops
      • 3.2.4.1.g Analysis
    • 4.2.4.2 T-Way
      • 4.2.4.2.a Design
      • 4.2.4.2.b Benefits
      • 4.2.4.2.c Other T-Ways in western Sydney
      • 4.2.4.2.d Funding
  • 4.2.5 Car parking
  • 4.2.6 Community transport
    • 4.2.6.1 Funding
      • 4.2.6.1.a Home and Community Care
      • 4.2.6.1.b NSW Community Transport Program
    • 4.2.6.2 Case Study – South West Community Transport...........................................
    • 4.2.6.3 Users
    • 4.2.6.4 Ineligible groups.............................................................................................
    • 4.2.6.5 New policies
      • 4.2.6.5.a Local & Community Transport Branch.................................
      • 4.2.6.5.b Spare seat capacity
    • 4.2.6.6 Analysis
  • 4.2.7 Other State Government schemes
• 4.3 Local Government policies.......................................................................................................
  • 4.3.1 Case Study Region
  • 4.3.2 Footpaths & cycle networks
• 4.4 Federal Government policies
  • 4.4.1 Role in public transport provision...............................................................................
  • 4.4.2 New policies - 4.4.2.1 Building Australia Fund iii - 4.4.2.2 Regional & Local Government Infrastructure Program
  • 4.5 Other issues
    • 4.5.1 Equity
    • 4.5.2 Definitions of transport disadvantage
• Chapter 5: Case Study
  • 5.1 Overview of the case study Region..........................................................................................
    • 5.1.2 Fairfield
    • 5.1.3 Liverpool
  • 5.2 Key demographic indicators
    • 5.2.1 Population & household size
    • 5.2.2 Ethnicity
      • 5.2.2.1 Fairfield
      • 5.2.2.2 Liverpool
    • 5.2.3 English skills
    • 5.2.4 Age structure
      • 5.2.4.1 Fairfield
      • 5.2.4.2 Liverpool
    • 5.2.5 Household structure
      • 5.2.5.1 Fairfield
      • 5.2.5.2 Liverpool
    • 5.2.6 Weekly individual income
    • 5.2.7 Highest education qualification achieved...................................................................
    • 5.2.8 Employment status
    • 5.2.9 Dwelling type
      • 5.2.9.1 Fairfield
      • 5.2.9.2 Liverpool
    • 5.2.10 Socio-economic disadvantage
    • 5.2.11 Occupations
      • 5.2.11.1 Fairfield
      • 5.2.11.2 Liverpool
    • 5.2.12 Employment locations
    • 5.2.13 Method of travel to work
      • 5.2.13.1 Fairfield
      • 5.2.13.2 Liverpool
    • 5.2.14 Working within their LGA
    • 5.2.15 Car ownership
      • 5.2.15.1 Fairfield
      • 5.2.15.2 Liverpool iv
  • 5.3 Transport infrastructure
    • 5.3.1 Trains...........................................................................................................................
    • 5.3.2 Buses
      • 5.3.2.1 Non-T-Way buses
      • 5.3.2.2 T-Way buses
  • 5.4 Summary
• Chapter 6: Analysis
  • 6.1 Introduction
  • 6.2 Geographic analysis
    • 6.2.1 Overall findings
    • 6.2.2 Vulnerable groups
      • 6.2.2.1 One parent families
      • 6.2.2.2 Elderly persons...............................................................................................
      • 6.2.2.3 Young people
      • 6.2.2.4 People on low incomes
      • 6.2.2.5 Unemployed people
        • 6.2.2.5.a Cabramatta
      • 6.2.2.6 People with a disability
  • 6.3 Urban form.............................................................................................................................
  • 6.4 Mode choice
    • 6.4.1 Private vehicle
    • 6.4.2 Public transport
      • 6.4.2.1 Trains
      • 6.4.2.2 Local buses & T-Way
• Chapter 7: Conclusions & Recommendations
  • 7.1 Recommendations
    • 7.1.1 State Government.....................................................................................................
      • 7.1.1.1 Interchange facilities....................................................................................
      • 7.1.1.2 Buses
      • 7.1.1.3 Trains
      • 7.1.1.4 Parking
      • 7.1.1.5 Community transport
      • 7.1.1.6 Other modes
      • 7.1.1.7 Ticketing
      • 7.1.1.8 Miscellaneous
    • 7.1.2 Local Government – Fairfield City Council & Liverpool City Council
    • 7.1.3 Federal Government
• Figure 3.1: Distance of transport disadvantaged CD’s, Sydney urban area, List of Figures
• Figure 3.2: Disciplinary divisions in transport disadvantage research
• Figure 4.1: Revenue flow & bidding agencies in NSW
• Figure 4.2: Aerial view of Hinchinbrook
• Figure 4.3: New urban areas in Sydney
• Figure 4.4: Legend showing hierarchy of centres
• Figure 4.5: West Central Subregion structure plan
• Figure 4.6: South West Subregion structure plan
• Figure 4.7: CityRail train
• Figure 4.8: State Infrastructure Contribution changes
• Figure 4.9: Future Sydney Metro network components
• Figure 4.10: T-80 stops
• Figure 4.11: Aerial view of T-Way, Wetherill Park Industrial Area & surrounds
• Figure 4.12: View of T-Way
• Figure 4.13: Modes of transport used by community transport projects in Sydney
• Figure 4.14: Passenger trips by funding................................................................................................................
• Figure 4.15:Purpose of trips provided by community transport projects in Sydney,
• Figure 4.16: Age distribution of community transport clients in Sydney,
• Figure 5.1: Population & household size
• Figure 5.2: Country of birth (top 10), Fairfield City & Sydney SD,
• Figure 5.3: Ethnicity - Fairfield
• Figure 5.4: Change in country of birth (top 10), Fairfield City & Sydney SD,
• Figure 5.5: Ethnicity – Sydney SD total
• Figure 5.6: Country of birth (top 10), Liverpool City Council & Sydney SD,
• Figure 5.7: Ethnicity - Liverpool
• Figure 5.8: Change in country of birth (top 10), Liverpool City & Sydney SD,
• Figure 5.9: Age structure of Fairfield City & Sydney SD,
• Figure 5.10: Age structure of Liverpool City & Sydney SD,
• Figure 5.11: Household & family types, Fairfield City & the Sydney SD,
• Figure 5.12: Household & family types, Liverpool City & the Sydney SD,
• Figure 5.13: Weekly individual income, Fairfield City & Sydney SD,
• Figure 5.14: Weekly individual income, Liverpool City & Sydney SD,
• Figure 5.15: Highest qualification achieved, Fairfield City & Sydney SD,
• Figure 5.16: Highest qualification achieved, Liverpool City & Sydney SD,
• Figure 5.17: Unemployed people aged 15-24 years
• Figure 5.18: Employment & labour force status, Fairfield City & Sydney SD, vii
• Figure 5.19: Employment & labour force status, Liverpool City & Sydney SD,
• Figure 5.20: Dwelling structure, Fairfield City & Sydney SD,
• Figure 5.21: Dwelling structure, Liverpool City & Sydney SD,
• Figure 5.22: Change in dwelling structure, Fairfield City, 2001-2006
• Figure 5.23: Change in dwelling structure, Liverpool City, 2001-2006
• Figure 5.24: Employment by occupation, Fairfield City & Sydney SD,
• Figure 5.25: Employment by occupation, Liverpool City & Sydney SD,
• Figure 5.26: Employment locations of residents - Fairfield
• Figure 5.27: Employment locations of residents - Liverpool
• Figure 5.28: Employment locations of Fairfield residents,
• Figure 5.29: Employment locations of Liverpool residents,
• Figure 5.30: Top 10 LGA’s of employment for residents in Fairfield
• Figure 5.31: Top 10 LGA’s of employment for residents in Liverpool
• Figure 5.32: Mode of transport to work, Fairfield City & Sydney SD,
• Figure 5.33: Change in mode of travel to work, Fairfield City & Sydney SD,
• Figure 5.34: Mode of travel to work, Liverpool City & Sydney SD,
• Figure 5.35: Change in mode of travel to work, Liverpool City & Sydney SD,
• Figure 5.36: Mode of travel to work (working in LGA)
• Figure 5.37: Car ownership, Fairfield City & Sydney SD, 2006..............................................................................
• Figure 5.38: Change in car ownership, Fairfield City & Sydney SD,
• Figure 5.39: Car ownership, Liverpool City & Sydney SD,
• Figure 5.40: Change in car ownership, Liverpool City & Sydney SD,
• Figure 5.41: CityRail train
• Figure 5.42 T-Way bus stop
• Figure 6.1: Overall ranking of high & moderate transport disadvantage by social group
• Figure 6.2: Overall Real TDI ranking by social group
• Figure 6.3: High transport disadvantage by suburb
• Figure 6.4: High transport disadvantage by social group
• Figure 6.5: Moderate transport disadvantage by social group
• Figure 6.6: Transport disadvantage measured against total CD’s occupied by vulnerable groups
• Figure 6.7: Journey to work by housing type, Fairfield & Liverpool LGA’s,
• Figure 6.8: Households with no motor vehicle, Sydney suburbs,
• Figure 6.9: Proposed Sydney metro expansion program
• Figure 6.10: T-Way bus
• Figure 7.1: Boring machine breaking through rock in preparation for an underground metro

Chapter 1: Introduction

People living in western Sydney’s fringe suburbs are increasingly being excluded from society on the basis of transport disadvantage. Poor coverage of reliable public transport mixed with an unsustainable built form leaves residents, by default, automobile dependent. People without access to a vehicle, coupled with an absent or unreliable public transport system, are being severely hampered from fully participating in society. They find it difficult to access activities such as employment, health services, further education, social interaction and community participation. This translates to a poor quality of life for the many affected. This is especially true for vulnerable social groups such as mothers of one car families, unemployed youth, people on low incomes, elderly and people with a disability.

According to Morgan (1992), transport disadvantage refers to ‘...those people who have frequent mobility or access problems.’ The term can be used widely since it does not depend on classifying specific groups that are affected by transport disadvantage in the community. This acknowledges the more obscure transport needs of some people who may not fall into a specific group in society. However, much can be drawn from analysing the transport needs of these different groups in society.

Transport disadvantage can arise when people do not have access to a car, and includes the elderly, the infirm, school children, youth, stay at home mothers where the husband takes the one car to work. ‘The lack of affordable and convenient transport service creates a major barrier to people wishing to participate in various activities.’ (Lao 1994)

According to Glazebrook (2004), there are three ultimate objectives for urban public transport and wider transport and land use policies:

 Improved environmental quality;  Improved accessibility for all people, whether or not they own a car; and  Improved economic efficiency of our cities.

This study will incorporate the principles of Glazebrook (2004) by investigating planning mechanisms and policies that can be adopted by State, local and Federal governments to overcome transport disadvantage.

This thesis analyses transport disadvantage in the Fairfield/Liverpool Region by uncovering the extent of this disadvantage and provides a range of planning-based solutions to address the problem. Issues raised include accessibility, defining transport disadvantage, social exclusion, ‘real’ affordability, community transport, urban trip making, car dependency, spatial distribution, the value of public transport, and location and design of mass transit. Hopefully this thesis will encourage further research into why some areas are more affected by transport disadvantage than others.

2.4 Case Study Data & Mapping

GIS data modelling of the affected region and demographic data have been utilised for the purposes of understanding what transport disadvantage means for this region. Demographic data has been collected from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) to form an adequate social profile of the Liverpool/Fairfield LGA’s. All demographic data has been based on the place of usual residence. This data is found in Chapter 5.

GIS mapping has been developed for the case study region that shows concentrations of key social groups that are most vulnerable to the social exclusionary effects of transport disadvantage. This data has been represented by Census Collection Districts (CD’s) which are measured generally as a census workload area that one collector can cover in a specified period. There are approximately 225 dwellings per CD, yet there may be more in some urban CD’s, and less in rural CD’s. Further details are provided in Section 6.2.

Overlaid on maps of vulnerable social groups are bus routes, bus stops, the Liverpool to Parramatta T-Way, suburbs, railway stations and the railway line. By mapping this information, geographic analysis has been then able to expose those localities that are in need of transport provision and are thus transport disadvantaged. Since mapping of transport disadvantaged areas is achieved by proximity to public transport nodes (bus stop, train station, ferry wharf, tram stop, etc), a simple measure has been adopted to define those areas that are transport accessible:

CDs within 800 metres proximity of a transport node (bus stop or train station) and within a medium mid-peak service frequency (serviced at least every 30 minutes between 8.30am and 3.30pm. (Hurni 2006)

As stated in Chapter 5, the T-Way and suburban train line are the only high frequency public transport services in Fairfield/Liverpool that fit this definition. Consequently, transport disadvantaged locations are defined as the converse of the above definition, being those areas outside the 800m maximum average walking distance of the T-Way and suburban railway stations.

2.5 Analysis & Recommendations

Key concepts arising from the literature, case studies, mapping, quantitative and policy research have been highlighted and discussed. Planning recommendations will be made based on the analysis performed in Chapters 4 and 6. Policy review at the State, local and Federal levels relating to transport and land use planning will be recommended.

Chapter 3: Background & Review of Literature

3.1 Background

3.1.1 Defining Transport Disadvantage

Transport disadvantage can be defined as ‘...a situation where disadvantaged populations live in an area where transport and/or other facilities and services are difficult to access or unavailable.’ Inappropriate access to transport is thus a defining trait of poverty and social disadvantage. ‘The inability to access transport either because of cost, availability of services or poor physical accessibility leads to isolation from jobs, health facilities, as well as social and recreational activities.’ (Laurence et al. 2009)

The factors associated with transport disadvantage are:  Spatial – the effort to access locations increases with distance;  Supply – the supply of transport services varies between areas;  Temporal – the supply and demand for transport varies over time;  Design – there are differences in the ability to enter, travel on and exit different transport modes; and  Economic – there are differences in the cost and the ability to pay for transport services. (Morgan 1992)

Transport disadvantage and transport poverty happen when someone has little or no access to public transport and consequently has to spend an unreasonable amount of their income on transport costs. These cost may include maintaining and utilising several cars or relying on taxis. (Wettasinghe 2009)

The costs to households of owning cars are considerable and it has been estimated that a household could save $750,000 over a lifetime if a second car could be avoided. (Newman

It is in governments’ best interest to seek and adopt solutions in alleviating transport disadvantage. For example, government welfare programs often rely on frequent and reliable mass transit, such as with job seekers, who must participate in employment activities like attending interviews and job- finding programs and are required to travel 90 minutes at most. Clearly, infrequent and limited transport options mixed with long travel distances are constraints to pursuing employment and educational opportunities, thus excluding those affected from engaging in the opportunities of society. (Wettasinghe 2009)

Hurni (2006) notes that the following social groups of people are typically found in most definitions of transport disadvantaged groups:  people with a disability  people on low incomes  young people  older people

Others vulnerable to transport disadvantage are the unemployed, single parents, migrants including refugees, and Indigenous persons. (Transport Social Disadvantage and Wellbeing Conference: Key Findings 2006) However, these groups do not adequately represent the possible future of transport disadvantage in our car dependent communities. The oil vulnerability modelling in the work of Dodson and Sipe (2005) shows there is cause for significant concern over the sustainability of these transport poor locations such as in western Sydney.

3.1.2 Western Sydney

Western Sydney has very high levels of transport disadvantage, which has been documented by a number of authors (Rew 1986; Lao 1994; Western Sydney Transport Forum 1995; Fingland 2005; Randolph 2008; Laurence et. al. 2009; and Wettasinghe 2009). However, the most notable is Hurni’s (2006) study, which provides extensive GIS analysis of the problem. Figure 2.1 shows western Sydney as having a significantly higher transport disadvantaged population than the inner and eastern subregions of the Sydney Metropolitan Region. The Sutherland Shire and northern Sydney continue to have quite high levels of transport disadvantage, despite their relative social advantage. (ABS 2006)

Figure 3.1: Distribution of transport disadvantaged CD’s, Sydney urban area, 2001

(Transport and Population Data Centre cited in Hurni 2006)

Accordingly, almost two thirds of transport disadvantaged people reside in western Sydney – about 700 000 people. These people are doubly disadvantaged by the fact that those unemployed people located in Sydney’s transport disadvantaged areas are generally in western Sydney. (Wettasinghe

Sydney’s public transport network is considered to be ‘generally derided as fairly inadequate’. (Randolph 2008) The 2006 Household Travel Survey shows that 70% of trips to work in Sydney were made by the car during 2006. Up to 14% of those commuters needed the vehicle for work and 16% for other work trips. This and more data to follow will present the reality of the lack of transport choice, where the car is the easier option, out of very few or nil transport options available. The absence of reliable public transport is thus causing a huge number of people to be excluded from society. This is all the more magnified in the case study Region, Fairfield/Liverpool, where the social disadvantage is significantly more than the Sydney average. A survey investigating problems Sydneysiders face living in the big city of Sydney found that a very large number of commuters cited issues with public transport: ‘A third said that the bus or train was unavailable or inaccessible and a quarter mentioned problems with public transport’ (NSW Transport & Infrastructure (NSW T&I)

Hurni (2006), this project examines transport disadvantage in the most socially disadvantaged subregion of Sydney: Liverpool/Fairfield.

3.2: Review of Literature

3.2.1 Introduction

Policy research in the field of transport disadvantage in Australia has resurfaced in more recent times from a lull in most of the 1990’s (with the major exception of the former Prime Minister Paul Keating’s commissioning of Morgan’s 1992 research). There has been a history of research in the late 1970’s (Sullivan & Regan 1979), and 1980’s (Stone 1983; Burnley et. al 1985) that focussed on transport disadvantage and locational disadvantage. This examined the problems of urban structure and drew conclusions about certain localities not having the same benefits as others. However more recent research has gone further than this simple access-based view and analyses transport’s role in supporting social inclusion.

In countries where social exclusionary research is more developed, they have even gone as far as to incorporate its aims into government decision-making. In the UK, transport disadvantage and its links to social exclusion has been a major policy research area since the creation of the Social Exclusion Unit (SEU). (Currie et al. 2009) It has gone as far as to introduce strategies to implement accessibility planning at the local level. (Battelino 2009)

Consequently, much of the literature in this review is derived from the more established social exclusion school of thought, as well as from the resurgent transport disadvantage school of thought. Most of the authors in this review make it clear that there are multiple causes of social exclusion, and not simply poor accessibility factors. However, this is not a comprehensive review of all writing on the topic of social exclusion, but rather attempts to delve into social exclusion literature and find out what has been said about transport disadvantage.

One particular indicator of social exclusion that will arise in this review much more frequently than others is unemployment. This is not surprising since it is often the main determinant of social status and income will have flow on effects for other quality of life measures (e.g. education and health). Consequently, unemployment’s relationship to poor transport services is vital to truly understanding the meaning of transport disadvantage for those people living in south western Sydney. Social exclusion and transport disadvantage are inextricably linked, and integral to understanding the

effects of poor accessibility. In literature, the terms, social exclusion and transport disadvantage are at times used interchangeably.

Figure 2.1 represents the conceptual and research relationship between literature and transport disadvantage by showing the different disciplines which exist within transport disadvantage research. (Dodson et. al. 2004)

Figure 3.2: Disciplinary divisions in transport disadvantage research.

(Dodson et al 2004)

3.2.2 Social Exclusion & Transport Disadvantage

One of the major research and policy areas heavily intertwined with transport disadvantage is social exclusion. Dodson et al (2004) and numerous others have noted that social exclusion is very much connected to inadequate public transport services. Donaughty et al. (2005) highlight three main causes of social exclusion: ‘poor access to services; lack of hope; and polarised and fragmented communities’. (Pickup et. al. in Donaughty et. al. 2005) believe that transport policy is major contributor to these causes. The SEU has been a persistent knowledge-base for academic and government-decision making in the UK and confirms: ‘...transport is a significant barrier for many jobseekers and has been linked to low participation in post-16 education and college dropouts’. (SEU in Lucas 2006) This reveals a universal theme in the literature that there are several impacts of poor accessibility. Many academics in the social exclusion and transport disadvantage fields regard the SEU as a reliable source; so much so that there is no debate over its research claims (Horner & Scott 2005; Lucas 2006). However, such a well-respected source still needs to be scrutinised given the risk that their lobby-group status in the UK could lead to the SEU becoming overly biased at the expense of their objectivity.