Public Transportation Sydney vs Boston

The Troubled and Disjointed Sydney Transport System Pitted Against Boston, Massachusetts.
It is apparent that public transport systems that serve every destination and origin would be prone to low occupancies, low frequencies, high costs and, worst of all, high greenhouse emissions per commuter. One of the options available for such diverse patterns of travel is to offer custom services for the various markets in the travel niche. Some of the options include providing express trains and buses for commuters that need them at peak hours, regular bus service for local based trips; with buses plying busy corridors and para-transit car transport for low demand hours and routes. There is a flip side to this approach though; the more customized public transport becomes, the more it ignores its economic and environmental advantages (Stone, 2009).
The Boston and Sydney Transport Systems
Many Australians wonder why there cannot be a public transport system of the caliber seen in such countries as Germany and other German speaking countries in Europe. Unfortunately, it appears that few researchers have made effort to respond to such concerns. Available analyzed data shows that the current levels of usage of cars are not an inevitable outcome of the cultural, physical or social patterns of cities in Australia (Mees 2010b). It is possible to offer public transport of high quality with high levels of commutership and better economic outcomes. As from the start of the 80s a number of social outfits have expressed the constraints of depending on automobiles. However, the urban governments of Australia have failed to realize public transport results that can be compared to the ones achieved in parts of Europe or such cities as Vancouver and Toronto. According to recent research, the problem is in how the cities of Australia have opted to plan, organize and offer public transport services (Mees 2010; Stone 2009).
Traffic jam issues in Sydney are becoming more complex and challenging. It has been noted that out of the 8 most congested corridors, 7 of them are in Sydney. Indeed, it takes the longest time to travel to work in Sydney, compared to other Australian cities and other cities at the international level. Although the network for public transport has improved after a long period of under investment, it is still behind many notable cities internationally. Sydney is unable to serve the needs of the residents to their satisfaction as far as public transport is concerned (Infrastructure Australia, 2015).
Comparatively, the public transport system is better organized. The traffic is relatively smooth-flowing and offers a practical way of moving about. The state can be considered as a good example of a consolidated public transport system that works to the satisfaction of the riders. The state is in charge of the main transit operator of the region, i.e. MBTA via the Department of transportation. Consolidation also offers he the benefit of making the state interested in funding the transit system in Boston. The disadvantage, though, lies in the effect of the localities being diminished. Owing to the large financial role of the state, the localities do not feel the urgency to make significant contribution to the development of the transport system; hence their role in participating in the decision making and planning is significantly clipped. There is a unified transit system that serves Boston. It is directly controlled and governed by the Massachusetts Commonwealth (TransitCenter, 2014).
Plan for Resilience
The Boston Subway is famed as the oldest continuously operational system in the US. It was opened in 1897. Boston was also among the first cities to make transportation publicly owned. The first to be made public was the Boston Elevated highway in 1918, followed by other components in 1947. The MBTA controls, funds and operates almost all public transport services in the area. The organization provides transport and transit services to 175 towns and cities. Residents of Rhode Island also use the MBTA (Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, 2011).
MBTA is remarkable because of two significant factors
· To begin with, the MBTA is an agency owned by the state. It is governed directly by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation. The transport agency also overshadows all the other transport agencies in the area. Cities that are considered smaller and located on the periphery of the Metropolitan run local bus services on weekly basis. Comparatively, Worcester, which the second largest city in the state of Massachusetts controls less than 14, 000 transit trips on week days while MBTA runs over 1.3 million trips every weekday(Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, 2014).
· The state funds MBTA in its entirety. Other states typically collect funds from local authorities and incorporate with the state funding. Thus, the MBTA is run smoothly, arguably because of the single source reliable funding from the state (TransitCenter, 2014).
· Both MassDot and MBTA are governed by 7 Directors of the board. The appointment is done by the governors. The serve for four year terms - staggered. All the members are required to have engineering, transportation or finance experience. The board has its secretary as the ex-officio director.
Transport reform should not be restricted to roads. An effective and efficient public transport system is important if productivity and the quality of life are to improve. In situations such as that of Sydney, in which the system has been franchised competitively, with Melbourne trams and the ferries, there has been a gain by the consumers because of better quality service and more investment. All public transport service providers in Sydney should be subjected to competitive bidding and vetting periodically, so as to guarantee the users improved services. When infrastructure is sustainable, it allows for better use of the networks. Effective infrastructure management also means that there will be fewer emissions, lower costs and waste. For example, if people are changed from private cars to public transport such as trains, it could cut down emissions by a significant amount (Infrastructure Australia, 2015). If the resilience plan mentioned above as is implemented as it works in Boston, Sydney is likely to bid goodbye to its Public transport problems.










References
Infrastructure Australia. (2015). Australian infrastructure audit. Retrieved from http://infrastructureaustralia.gov.au/policy-publications/publications/Australian-Infrastructure-Audit.aspx
Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority. (2011). MBTA Service Area. Title VI Report. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority website. Retrieved from http://mbta.com/uploadedfiles/ About_the_T/Fare_Proposals_2012/Map%20of%20MBTA%20 Service%20District
Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority. (2014). About the MTA— History. Retrieved from http://www.mbta.com/about_the_ mbta/history/
Mees, P. (2010). Transport for Suburbia: Beyond the automobile age. Earthscan: London.
Stone, J. (2009). Can European models of public transport governance help to save Australian cities? Institute for Social Research. Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, Victoria: Australia.
Stone, J. (2009). Contrasts in reform: how the Cain and Burke years shaped public transport in Melbourne and Perth. Urban Policy and Research, 27(4), pp. 419-434.
TransitCenter. (2014). Getting to the route of it: The role of governance in regional transit. Retrieved from http://transitcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Transit-Governance-Final-PDF-10_7_14.pdf