Repositioning the perception of public transport and active mobility to counter car dependency

The most significant national health emergency of our recent lifetime and experience officially came to an end on 20 October, 2023, when the Australian government declared that COVID-19 was no longer a communicable disease of national significance.

The Human Biosecurity Emergency Declaration under the Biosecurity Act had lapsed in April of the previous year.

Victoria endured some of the longest continuous periods of “lockdown” anywhere in the world, but with those also suffered fewer deaths as a proportion of the population than most other countries.

A return to work, play and life in general has stumbled forward ever since.

In many ways the world seems to have changed forever. Some recent research has exposed a reticence to return to the levels of patronage on public transport (PT) that had been enjoyed in a time, now known, as BC – Before COVID.

Some published research by eminent scholars has exposed an inhibition among commuters to return to public transport because, so the research reveals, there remains in some quarters a fear of infection, if not by COVID-19, then by some other contagious malady.

The presence of others is a defining feature of public transport, and so mitigating the health risks of enforced propinquity is a step some former commuters are not prepared to take.

The donning of a face mask is as common a sight on public transport as wearing a hat. However, given these mitigating strategies and the official position that the pandemic is well and truly over, could there be other broader structural factors that have impacted the travel choices of once stalwart patrons of public transport? (Putting aside perhaps the obvious answer that a reduction in patronage speaks to the changing working patterns of many commuters who conduct their paid employment from home, at least at some point in the working week.)

I have long held a not uncommon opinion that we as humans are influenced and conditioned by our physical surroundings and our interactions with the objects that facilitate our lives.

“We first shape our buildings and then our buildings shape us” is attributed to Winston Churchill demonstrating the co-dependence of society and the built environment.

The design of our surroundings, whether thoughtful or otherwise, can influence and stimulate behaviours either positively or negatively.

The purchase and use of a car is for most people a more expensive and less-convenient mode of choice than active or public mobility.

We pay a hefty premium to sit in our own private tin box alone with our taste in music, settled comfortably in our adjusted seat, cocooned from the outside world. And even though we move hesitantly a few metres at a time to negotiate each highly congested intersection, we can reflect on the illusion of our freedoms unencumbered by the vagaries of bus frequency and fixed routes.

Public transport does not provide the affirmation that comes with the possession of one’s own car. This is something auto manufacturers and automotive designers have long understood, and work hard creating the right combination of alluring shiny surfaces and pertinent utility to give the illusion of freedom and status.

This is challenging for public transport to counter. So, if many former commuters fled public transport for the personal car, wooing them back again is going to be hard. But was it ever thus?

I have for many years lived without what I believe to be the inconvenience of owning a car. When colleagues, baffled by this statement, interrogated me on how I got about, I’d simply pull out of my pocket my mobile phone. With this, I would counter, I have all the transport options I need.

The eminent American sociologist Charles Horton Cooley developed a theory of transportation in which he proposed broadly that mobility was the sum of three constituent parts – vehicles, ways, and ports. To which I believe we can now add the ubiquitous connectivity of the smartphone.

The smartphone is very well-placed to provide the convenience, information and variety of mobility options that city dwellers, especially, have never had before. Up-to-the-minute vehicle movements of trams, trains and buses; journey planning apps; ticketing and contactless payments; maps and navigation; rideshare; and car hire bookings.

---

Read more: The changing face of urban mobility: The rise of electric scooters and e-bikes

---

Micromobility integration such as bike and scooter sharing. All in one’s pocket. And no accompanying parking anxiety at the end destination. The smartphone could be a significant facilitator in breaking free from car dependence.

The ease and flexibility of accessing services is all very well, but it needs to be backed up by a high-quality experience.

Monash University’s Mobility Design Lab is all about scaling the upper heights of the Customer Satisfaction Pyramid (Van Hagen and Van Oort, 2019).

The foothills hold all the expected attributes such as safety, function and cleanliness. The pinnacle contains the more difficult things to provide, such as the intangible service delighters, experiences and comfort, and to this I would add enhanced health outcomes.

An area I believe undersold in responding to the challenges facing public transport is the position of this essential utility in the health and wellbeing of a city.

Transport corridors are frequently compared to arteries and veins, and so they should carry healthy blood cells.

Public transport plays a crucial role in public health and wellbeing. Using public transport encourages physical activity. Walking or cycling to and from stops and stations helps integrate some exercise into our daily routines, reducing risks of cardiovascular disease, obesity, and other sedentary-related illnesses.

In contrast, private car use fosters inactivity and probably quite a bit of angst in congested traffic. Public transport reduces air pollution. Even without e-buses, older buses, trams and trains simply have the higher capacity and density to carry more people with fewer resources.

Private vehicles contribute significantly to urban air quality deterioration through emissions of particulate matter and nitrogen oxides, which are linked to respiratory diseases, cardiovascular conditions, and premature deaths.

Efficient public transport systems decrease overall vehicle emissions by moving, improving urban air quality and public respiratory health.

As a regular public transport user myself, access to reliable public transport enhances mental wellbeing and social cohesion.

Unlike the stress of driving in congested conditions, commuting via public transit allows time for post-work decompression, relaxation, reading, or social interaction.

Moreover, equitable transport access reduces social isolation by enabling mobility for everyone, including those who cannot drive due to age, disability, or economic constraints.

By shifting societal focus from private car ownership to well-designed public transport systems, cities can prioritise health, reduce environmental harm, and create more liveable, inclusive communities.

Public transport isn’t just about mobility – it’s part of the health sector.