Canberra Autonomous
Car Simulation

The entrenched belief that public transport could never work in low-density Canberra was thoroughly debunked by former RMIT transport planning expert, Dr Paul Mees, in his response to the ACT Government's Transport for Canberra plan of 2011-12.

In this and his comprehensive study, Fifty years of public transport planning in Canberra, Mees detailed how and why Canberra's public transport successes of the 1980s were systematically and skilfully dismantled by the vested interests advocating for large road projects (principally the NCDC) and for urban infill (principally developers).

Mees showed that between 1973 and 1985, per-capita patronage of public transport in Canberra doubled whilst it declined in other Australian cities. He demonstrated why efficient route planning, more frequent services and making transfers reliable caused patronage to soar at the same time as per-trip subsidies fell, resulting in Canberra having the lowest usage of private cars of all Australian cities.

With a proven popular and cost-effective basis for the future, Canberra's public transport fortunes seemed assured. But this success was denied and undermined by a 1991 report initiated by business and property developers, Towards a More Sustainable Canberra (Peter Newman and Jeffrey Kenworthy), which ignoring the unambiguous if inconvenient evidence of the previous decade, concluded Canberra's low density meant it was a "car city" and public transport could only be effective with the developer-sought consolidation and "urban villages" to provide sufficient demand for light rail.

Funding for public transport was progressively removed, an effective operation was dismantled, and so began Canberra's public transport decline to patronage rates of half those of 1985, very high per-trip subsidies, and "customer satisfaction" of Transport Canberra's services dropping to a new low of 62% in 2018-19 (TCCS Annual Report 2018-19, Figure 1, page 23).

As predicted by Mees, the ACT Government's 2012 Transport for Canberra plan has not improved patronage, satisfaction or operating efficiency. Public transport debates are diverted to how a tram line from Woden to Civic will be routed, constructed and funded, despite it offering a slower and less convenient service. The trimming of routes and removal of hundreds of bus stops to help fund the introduction of light rail from Gungahlin unsurprisingly resulted in yet further drops in satisfaction and patronage across much of Canberra. It seems nothing was learnt from Canberra's public transport boom of the 1980's.

Except of course, it was: the neglect of Canberra's public transport and the promotion of the "car city" myth was deliberate. The motivations were never about transport but about promotion of an urban design ideology based on increasing land values by centralising employment, removing public housing, rezoning parks and community land and building high-rise. Dismantling the effective "low-density" public transport network was a necessary first step in re-educating the community into accepting the "inevitable" need for the high-density wanted by property developers.

The high cost of running the first stage of light rail is now locked-in for 20 years, and will continue to divert funds from public transport and other community services. The COVID-induced reductions in travel during 2020 facilitated by better communications and new ways of working, connecting and being entertained will not be completely reversed as the convenience of less commuting and travelling in general are highly valued. The expansion of light rail has now been delayed several times, with the original planning being mugged by financial reality, undermined by long-term reductions in demand for travel and overtaken by technology.

One of the Sustainable Canberra authors and vocal proponents of the tram, Peter Newman, now doubts further light rail lines should be built, instead advocating far cheaper and more flexible "trackless trams".

Being highly utilised (rather spending 95% of its time parked), not needing a driver and being electric are compelling cost advantages:

1. Actual costs are based on Transport Canberra's 2018-19 expenditure and the assumption that on average 1.3 boardings on average being required to complete a one-way journey: 20.1 million boardings results in roughly 15.5 million journeys, each costing about $10.80 to provide, of which on average 70.1%, or about $7.60, is subsidised. The Actual Cost column includes the Transport Canberra subsidies averaged over all trips.
2. Based on the list of top selling cars in Australia for 2019 and RACV's running costs per model (based on 15,000 km travelled per year averaged over first 5 years of ownership, but not including parking, garaging, cleaning), the cost of driving is $0.71/km.
3. Based on default simulation parameters and including GST

• Like a private car, a shared fleet of autonomous cars provides on-demand, 24x7, door-to-to-door transport: 95% of journeys can start within 1 minute of being requested and 99% within 3 minutes.
• Unlike a private car, you don't need to spend time finding a car-park or on refuelling, repairs, cleaning.
• Unlike traditional public transport, you don't need to worry about timetables, route coverage or getting to and from stops.

Traffic congestion is dramatically decreased, particularly during peak periods on major roads. For example, the modelled average occupancy of fleet cars arriving in Civic and Parkes is 2.4 passengers, compared to about 1.1 for current private car journeys to work (see Section 3.5.7 of the GDE Extension review and also the "travel to work" stats for car as driver and as passenger from the 2017 Travel Survey). Journeys to "smaller target" destinations, such as Belconnen and ANU, still have modelled average occupancies of 2.0 and higher.

Active transport refers to physically active travel, such as walking and cycling which may be combined with traditional public transport, for example, by walking from home to a bus stop and from a bus stop to work or shops. The associated physical activity is likely to have health benefits, as well as reducing pollution, congestion, land required for car-parks, demand for new roads and public and private expenditure on transport.

The goals of active transport are very worthy. However, active transport should not be forced unilaterally on those depending on public transport. Many people have health problems and disabilities which restrict their capability to participate in active transport. While a 10km bike commute is fine for many, simply having to walk 100m on an uneven footpath can be a serious impediment to mobility for someone with poor vision, severe arthritis or hip and knee problems. A walk to the shops or doctors may be a pleasant experience on some days, but less so in 40 degree heat or driving winter rain, particularly for the elderly and infirm or a single parent wrangling the toddlers and the weekly shop. Similarly, a walk back from the bus stop may generally be delightful on a spring afternoon, or may be a harrowing experience for a nervous and vulnerable young person on a dark night.

Autonomous cars facilitate active transport by allowing the individual to add physical activity to their travel plans when and how it suits their circumstances. An aged pensioner may walk the 1.5km to the shops, but take a car home with their shopping. The visually impaired academic may walk 2km from home to a park each day and then be picked up by a car to travel to the door of their workplace to avoid negotiating crowded streets. The public servant may take a car from home to the lake and walk from there to their office (unless it is raining), and later jog home as far as they can before summoning a car.

Autonomous cars facilitate active transport by providing flexibility, opportunity and choice.

The ACT road network is generally excellent and has more than sufficient capacity for peak hour transport journeys to popular destinations are shared. It does not need to be upgraded or, as in the case of light rail, duplicated.

Land devoted to open-air car-parks and building costs for provisioning public car-parks and private garaging can be greatly reduced. Land can be reallocated to parks or more economically valuable uses, the expense of car-parking in large buildings can be greatly reduced and garages in many private homes can be re-purposed. According to the ACT Government's Transport for Canberra - Transport for a sustainable city, 2012–2031 Table 5, the land value of an on-surface car-park is $92,829 in Civic and $17,707 in a town centre, with each car park costing $489 annually to maintain

The Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development estimate the annual cost of road crashes as $1150 per person. The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare's Injury among young Australians report from 2008 identified transport accidents as the leading cause of death and injury of young Australians (aged 12-24 years) in 2005.

Additionally, the Bureau of Transport and Regional Economics estimates that pollution from all motor vehicles (not just cars) causes between 900 and 4500 cases of morbidity and between 900 and 2000 early deaths each year, with an annual economic cost of between $1.5 billion and $3.8 billion.

• is at least as flexible, reliable and convenient as the personally owned car

• is much cheaper than either car or alternative mass transit options

• comprehensively meets the city's transport-related goals as outlined in the project objectives of the Capital Metro light rail proposal:

  • Increase the use of public transport by providing a superior alternative to the private car.

  • Optimise frequency and service reliability with an on-demand door-to-door service operating 24x7, utilising a decentralised fleet of thousands of autonomous vehicles less vulnerable to a single physical system failure than a single unduplicated transport corridor.

  • Affordable capital and operational costs with a significant operating surplus at high usage levels, which allows for a significant community subsidy for transport for those in need, and leverages and better utilises Canberra's extensive road infrastructure already built and paid for rather than constructing a duplicate in the form of rail.

  • Grow a more diversified Canberra economy through greater transport efficiency, and through the development of expertise and support in the deployment and management of a transport infrastructure likely to emulated in other cities.

  • Stimulate sustainable, urban redevelopment throughout Canberra by efficiently supporting both higher population densities and the traditional "bush capital" approach as options, and by releasing land used by car-parks to more socially and economically useful purposes.

  • Increase social and economic participation through increased mobility of all citizens regardless of location, age, health, physical capabilities and income.

  • Revitalise not just the Northbourne Avenue corridor but all Canberra's main travel routes by supporting higher population densities whilst reducing traffic congestion and travel times for all Canberrans.

  • Reduce carbon and other emissions across all of Canberra by using electric vehicles with "zero tailpipe emissions" and creating a very large and predictable market for renewable electrical energy.

Providing services for an autonomous fleet of 34,000 cars would be one of Canberra's largest employers, requiring about 2,800 full-time-equivalent positions.

Furthermore, the simulation results show that these compelling advantages can be achieved in the medium term and without an upfront demand on public funds, as the model assumes the overwhelming majority of the infrastructure is purchased using money borrowed at commercial rates, and after financing and operating expenses, is cash-flow positive from the first day of operation.

A decision to transition from a well-understood technology to a better but less familiar replacement is always difficult. Whilst no-one would want to be stuck in an age of candles and telegrams, few envy those who take responsibility for introducing change.

Nonetheless, because of the benefits it brings, "progress" is both inevitable and welcomed, and it is our responsibility to plan for its arrival and extract the greatest benefits we can for our community.

In planning for a transport system based on autonomous electric vehicles, amongst the major risks that need to be evaluated and issues requiring community discussion are:

Public transport in Canberra currently fails to meet the transport needs of the community.

By failing to provide a viable alternative to private cars it entrenches the many problems associated with private car travel including congestion, safety, pollution, land-use and cost. In failing to provide convenient transport to those unable to use or afford private cars, it entrenches social disadvantage which adversely affects the entire community.

The current public transport service is also very expensive, requiring an annual subsidy from rate-payers of around $1000 per household, diverting much-needed funds from education, health and other community priorities.

It is not just the economically disadvantaged, the young and the elderly who are dependent on public transport: everyone relies on someone who relies on public transport, and hence we all rely on public transport.

Canberra did have an effective public transport system in the 1980's which was systematically defunded and has now become the transport system for people with no other option. A light rail transport "backbone" does not help: indeed, by requiring the construction of a separate infrastructure it further dilutes resources available to be applied to the problem.

However, autonomous electric vehicles are now on the cusp of offering an alternative: a 24x7, on-demand, door-to-door service, providing mobility to all with the same convenience of the private car but at a fraction of the cost. This direction supports community objectives for reducing congestion, pollution and the land-use devoted to car-parks whilst improving transport safety.

At first glance, a fleet of autonomous vehicles sounds like science fiction, or at least 20 years into the future. However, the required technology is demonstrable and rapidly approaching commercialisation.

The simulation implemented to model the financial viability of an autonomous vehicle fleet in Canberra provides strong evidence that under a wide range of car operational characteristics and journey demand levels, such a fleet can provide an extremely high level of service much cheaper than private cars and existing public transport alternatives. For example, a fleet of 34,000 autonomous sedans can service 1.1 million "on-demand" door-to-door journeys per day, with 95% of journeys starting within 1 minute of the request being received, and do so at fares much lower than undertaking the same journeys by private car, and whilst supporting about 2800 full-time-equivalent jobs and generating an annual surplus of about $125 million, enough to provide free transport for almost 100,000 journeys per day, all without requiring any rate-payer funding.

The implications for urban and transport planning are significant. Motivated by the myriad of problems caused by current transport options, the citizens of Canberra are currently considering a very large expenditure on an extension to the current single light rail route that will do nothing to address these problems (and indeed increase journey times for current bus users).

It is hoped that a wider awareness of autonomous vehicles and the results of this simulation will prompt serious consideration of an alternative that meets all of the city's transport goals much more effectively, does so at much lower cost, and presents an opportunity for Canberra to take a lead in what will be one of the most positively transformative technological and social shifts of the 21st century.