The case for metros and tiering

Train systems in Australia often come as one product to serve a whole metropolitan area, which I think is best described as a suburban railway. This means that governments only have to maintain one rail-based product, saving resources, but this can cause problems as cities grow and public transport use grows faster than population.
To make trains attractive to suburban passengers, railway lines often skimp on stop spacing in inner areas to get passengers from the suburbs to the CBD quicker. This does not serve inner city areas adequately, even of there is already a railway line in the area. For example, the Mandurah line does not make any stops between the city and Canning Bridge, despite passing through dense or significant areas like South Perth or Como.

To deal with overcrowding capacity can be increased by measures that make use of existing rolling stock such as replacing seating with space for standees, such as longitudinal seating (along the sides rather than in pairs). However, this is unpopular with long distance commuters from suburban areas to the CBD who may be forced to stand for long periods of time. This seating is already common on A series trains, which do not serve far destinations except for the Armadale Line, but this modification is present at the ends of B-series trains, and is being rolled out on other parts of those sets, which are used on the 70 km Mandurah Line as well as the 30 km Joondalup Line, which is constantly extended to follow suburbia.
The solution here is to split the suburban railway into two rail modes; the metro for inner areas, and the commuter railway for outer areas. Metros will have close stop spacing to serve inner suburbs thoroughly. Their use will be higher and service will be more frequent (TUAG) because inner areas are more conducive to public transport use, being built when cars were not available or not widely used. The trains may be driverless, or operated automatically by computer, to provide this service cheaply, and will feature full longitudinal seating, because average trip length will be shorter.
On the other hand, commuter rail will have much wider stop spacing, for quick journeys from the outer suburbs to the city centre. Their frequency will be dictated by levels of use, which likely aren't as high as further in. But, of course, users of commuter rail will usually get a comfy seat.
Perth is part-way there, with the two tiers operating on the Armadale corridor (commuter to Armadale, metro to Thornlie) Monday to Saturday 6am to 12am, and supplemented on Sundays by an all stops service to Armadale. However, the rollingstock is still the same on both lines, the metro section (at least) should be grade separated, and of course the tiering should be full time, with the Thornlie line a bit more frequent.
The Midland and Fremantle lines are probably short enough to be metros, despite the express running in the peak, but again, grade separation is needed, and frequency could be better.
The Clarkson and Mandurah lines have inner tiers to Whitfords and Cockburn Central operating on the peak shoulder (formerly off-peak and the height of the peak before service cuts and fleet expansion respectively). This is completely grade separated but the stations are in freeway medians, and so are widely spaced and pedestrian/bike-unfriendly, the tier is part-time only and frequency needs a boost.

Second thoughts on Park n' Rides

Previously I said that Park n' Rides, or car parks at stations were a bad idea, but the reality is we need them now and in the near future. People use them. My family uses them. Most of them are at freeway stations that are hard to walk to and offer little redevelopment opportunity anyway. But they can be improved.
For one, the concept of partly free parking and partly paid parking is a good one. However the paid bays are at the back, so those who paid are further inconvenienced by walking further, while those who got free parking also get parking close to the station, so the only way to get convenient parking is, well, to arrive early. Or at least this is the set up at Stirling train station; I haven't seen the other stations but I suspect the situation is the same. It would be better to have paid parking at the front and free parking at the back, so people can pay for the convenience of parking near the station.

The case for good off-peak public transport

Public transport is often used as an alternative to peak-hour traffic, but it should be embraced just as much during off-peak times.

Getting more passengers on off peak and weekend services gets the most out of capital investments already spent, such as railway lines, bus stops and vehicles. A bus has already been purchased so there is no extra cost to run it during off-peak times except for the driver and fuel, but the trip will earn money from fares.

Good off-peak services also gives peace of mind to peak hour commuters that should they need to come to work earlier or later, go home early, stay behind or do an errand that services are available for them at that time.

It also offers an alternative to driving to the city because while traffic isn’t bad, it will become an issue in the future, and parking is still a problem. The city is easy to serve well by public transport.

Trains run every 15 minutes all day everyday and some trips are standing room only, but most buses only run every hour during off-peak and so are unattractive to travellers with cars. Even major bus routes have a long way to go on weekends with only services along Beaufort St and on the Circleroute between Fremantle and Southlands running every 15 min on weekends.

In conclusion, off-peak public transport is a good use of infrastructure and fleets that have already been bought, and although Perth is doing well on this matter with its trains, we could improve, especially on buses.

Why widening and building more roads is not the answer

The usual ‘solution’ to a congested road network is to widen roads or build more freeways. However, it has been proven that building more road space does not relieve congestion in the long term. It just encourages longer or extra trips, with demand for even more roads, or induced demand. Building lots of roads makes cities bland and alienating, and difficult to walk, bike or take PT in, unfair to people who can’t or don’t drive. Also, the amount of roads needed to satisfy every possible travel need is impractical, consuming large amounts of land, and, unbelievably expensive

On the other hand investment in public transport or active transport (walking and biking) are cheaper and carry more passengers than road investments. They also take up less land and are future-proof; they not only can cater for population growth but will stay useful with global warming and peak oil.

In conclusion, building lots of roads will not solve congestion problems, which reminds me of a good quote by Orlando, Florida traffic engineer Walter Kulash, “Widening roads to solve traffic congestion is like loosening your belt to cure obesity”. If drivers want more roads then at the very least they should pay for them.

The case for public transport if global warming isn’t true

While public transport is a good way to fight global warming, this is by no means the only reason to use it. Firstly, even if global warming isn’t a problem, the pollution causing it certainly is. PT uses less fuel than cars, so it also deals with peak oil.

Public transport can also move more people than cars, so they can reduce congestion and parking problems. By extension of their efficiency, PT takes up less space and requires less subsidy/is more profitable than cars, while still being cheaper, providing mobility to those who can’t or don’t drive. Many people just find it more convenient and less stressful than driving. (ABS Public Transport Use for Work and Study)

In conclusion, to say that global warming isn’t true is no reason to drive everywhere and ignore public transport.

Why free public transport isn't the answer

An idea often suggested in light of rising fares and inadequate public transport is to make it free. This is thought to increase public transport usage and make it better, fighting problems such as global warming.

While free public transport will certainly increase public transport, this will only make it more crowded, and with no revenue from it, public transport will become very expensive for the government. It is also claimed that fare collection costs a large percentage of fare revenue, so by doing away with fares we wouldn’t lose much money. However as I said before, free public transport means that more people will use it increasing costs.

Also, since free travel is not valued, some of these trips may be unnecessary and not taking cars off the road. Night services may become rolling homeless shelters, discouraging use by drivers.

In the end, the only reason why public transport needs to be free to compete with cars is because cars are heavily subsidised and our cities are optimised for them. By raising the cost of travel by car to cost-recovery, public transport-friendly suburbs will develop, allowing high-quality public transport that breaks even or even makes a profit.
However, free public transport in selected areas may be useful, as in Perth with our Free Transit Zone and CAT buses. In following with the second paragraph, the CAT buses are very useful but they can also get quite crowded, and are run from City of Perth's parking money.

The case for road pricing

Congestion charges, congestion taxes, tolls, road pricing – whatever you call it, it’s often a no-go zone for politicians – see the PublicTransport For Perth in 2031 FAQ -  even, if not especially, Liberals. You may be asking, What? Liberals? You expect them to support another tax?, but there is logic behind that statement, and road pricing is needed.

The government has been subsidising the construction of our road network for decades (rego and excise don’t even come close to paying the full costs), so we need to charge properly for the use of roads. We need to charge market rates for roads, more for congested roads and times, and less for quieter roads and times, so that roads are uncongested, benefiting people who need to be on the road, like tradies and emergency services (road-based businesses should be able to get exemptions) If it makes lots of money, so be it. We can use it for essential services, like health, education and police, or cut income tax to offset the extra cost, or even both.

We would have to make sure alternatives like public transport can take the extra load, and if need be we could make it so that half the road lanes are priced and half free, so the toll lanes can be considered express lanes.

Where does this go back to the Liberal statement? Well cutting subsidies and embracing the free market is in line with the Liberal Party’s conservative foundations.