Yes, in an ideal world, we would all live in walkable cities with great cycling and public transport.

But, particularly in North America, Australia, and New Zealand, we have been left with around 60 year’s worth of car dependent suburban sprawl.

In quite a few metro areas, the inner city has a great public transport network. Yet once you get out to the suburbs, you’re lucky to see a bus every half hour. Services often also start late and end early.

As a starting point, should there be more emphasis placed on upgrading suburban bus networks to a 10-minute frequency or better?

Better bus networks are less expensive upfront than large extensions to metro and heavy rail systems. And they can prove that demand exists, when it becomes available.

What are your thoughts?

  • Blume, die
    21 year ago

    @ajsadauskas @poVoq

    Also not everyone in the suburbs owns a car or is even able to drive one. So a decent public transport is required in the suburbs too.

    And from own observation: the more frequent a bus or train is offered the fuller they are. If a bus is only coming by once every hour or even less ppl will either not move there or have a car to get to work. Not because they want to but because they don’t feel like they have a choice. |2

    • Ten Pound Auspol
      21 year ago

      @wolkenblume @ajsadauskas @poVoq
      This. Induced demand cuts both ways. provide high quality, frequent public transport and people will shift their behaviour accordingly.

      When visiting Perth I dont hire a car. I ride the bus and the train together. Its well integrated, ease to use and has well planned timetables for excellent connections.

      In Sydney, if I cant get there by train, I drive, because the buses are a tangled, confusing, poorly integrated and unreliable mess.