Peak Oil, Petrol Prices and Climate Change: Preparing Victoria for the Future 27 th July 2007

www.monash.edu.au Institute of Transport Studies

Peak Oil, Petrol Prices and Climate Change: Preparing Victoria for the Future27th July 2007

‘Forced’ Car Ownership – Links to Transit and AccessibilityZed Senbergs and Graham CurrieInstitute of Transport Studies, Monash University

2Institute of Transport Studies

Agenda

1. Background

2. Approach

3. FCO and Travel

4. Links to Transit and Accessibility


This project examines ‘forced’ car ownership in Outer Melbourne

• Aims to understand if ‘forced’ car ownership is occurring in Melbourne

• Examined travel behaviour and links to public transport/accessibility

Full Findings Being Presented at:– Currie, G. and Z. Senbergs (2007). Exploring Forced Car Ownership in

Metropolitan Melbourne. Australasian Transport Research Forum. Melbourne Australia.


Australian research has identified ‘transport poverty’ as a critical issue

“Transport poverty occurs when a household is forced to consume more travel costs than it can reasonably afford, especially costs relating to motor car ownership and usage”

(Gleeson and Randolph 2002)


UK Research calls this ‘forced’ car ownership and identifies critical features

“’Voluntary’ car ownership means that there are adequate substitutes for gaining access to facilities, and that the car is not a necessity. Conversely, ‘forced’ car ownership means that there are no alternatives. In rural areas, there is clear evidence of ‘forced’ car ownership, since cars are owned at lower-income levels and are seen to be one of the items of household expenditure that cannot be foregone”

(Banister 1994)Key Features:

• low income, high car ownership, lack of alternative transport options, need to travel


Agenda

1. Background

2. Approach

3. FCO and Travel



‘New’ cars cost over $130/week each to run

• The NRMA (2006) define the following average weekly running costs for a new car:– Light car average: $133.52– Small car average: $164.43– Medium car average: $209.86– Large car average: $258.04.

• Less than this for cars without depreciation/ renewal included


FCO Households definition – income <$500/week and running 2+ cars in Outer Melbourne

• Rationale for Criteria:– Low Income <$500/week

– Running 2+ cars - transport costs can represent as high as 50% of income

– Outer Melbourne – Low/Zero public transport, long distances to activity centres/ work


Over 20,000 FCO HH were identified, 27% more than Zero car HH’s

Source: Currie, G. and Z. Senbergs (2007). Exploring Forced Car Ownership in Metropolitan Melbourne. Australasian Transport Research Forum. Melbourne Australia.


FCO represents 23% of all Outer Melbourne low income households

Percentage of Low Income HH with 2+ Cars

Sections of Melbourne

Per

cent

age

of L

ow In

com

e H

H W

ith 2

+ C

ars

7.3%

16.4%

22.6%

17.7%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

Inner Middle Outer AllMelbourne

Source: ABS 2001 Census

Number of Low Income HH with 2+ Cars

Sections of Melbourne

Num

ber

of L

ow In

com

e H

H W

ith 2

+ C

ars

1,701

26,793

20,831

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

Inner Middle Outer



Agenda

1. Background

2. Approach

3. FCO and Travel



FCO households are dominated by car and travel 45% more than Middle/Inner low income groups

Key Findings - FCOKey Findings - FCO

Trips• 80% trips by car• PT share V. small• Ratio Car pax to driver trips

is 63% - much less for higher income groups

• Walking a significant share (14%)

Vkms• Ratio of car driver to car

pax Vkms is 0.54 for low income

• Its 0.44 for high income

Implication• FCO HH make 45% more

travel by car than Middle Melbourne low income households

Trips• 80% trips by car• PT share V. small• Ratio Car pax to driver trips

is 63% - much less for higher income groups

• Walking a significant share (14%)

Vkms• Ratio of car driver to car

pax Vkms is 0.54 for low income

• Its 0.44 for high income

Implication• FCO HH make 45% more

travel by car than Middle Melbourne low income households

Average Trips per Day

5.97

7.87.3

3.82 4.2 4.0

0.20 0.3 0.2

1.74 2.1 2.0

0.44 0.6 0.5

12.22

14.914.0

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

16.00

Low Middle and High All

Income Group

Avg

Nyu

mb

er T

rip

s/D

ay 1Car Driver

2Car Pass

3Other

4Walk

5PT

Total

TravelMode



Agenda

1. Background

2. Approach

3. FCO and Travel



Share of FCO HH are much higher in Fringe locations



FCO Distribution


FCO Distribution – and Rail/PT Supply


Modelling showed a viable link between transit service level and share of FCO

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

- 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000

PT Supply

Sh

are

of

Lo

w I

nco

me

FC

O H

H

Outer

Middle

Inner

Zero

VeryLow Low

BelowAverage

AboveAverage

High VeryHigh


FCO Distribution – and Activity Centres


FCO Distribution


Walk accessibility to activity centres also acts to reduce FCO…

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Distance to Business Activity Centre

Sh

are

of

Lo

w In

co

me

FC

O H

H

Outer

Middle

Inner

Documents

Peak Oil, Petrol Prices and Climate Change: Preparing Victoria for the Future 27 th July 2007