By A/Prof Elmira Jamei, Victoria University and Al Reid, micromobility commentator and CEO of Microfleet
The recent rise in fuel prices, driven by global geopolitical tensions, has once again highlighted how vulnerable Australian cities are to transport-related shocks. In response, policy discussions often focus on reducing fuel costs. But lowering prices at the pump is both expensive and limited in impact, it does little to change our long-term dependence on private vehicles, and often benefits those who are already able to afford driving.
A more meaningful response is to support households directly, particularly low-income communities, while investing in viable alternatives such as public and active transport. This creates real choice in how people move through the city.
Victoria’s recent initiative to introduce temporary free public transport is a step in this direction. It aims to ease cost-of-living pressures while encouraging a shift away from private vehicles. But it also raises an important question, especially for communities in Melbourne’s west: can the system, as it stands, actually meet this demand?
In many parts of the western suburbs, public transport is already limited in coverage, frequency, and reliability. Increasing demand without addressing these structural issues risks placing further strain on an already stretched system. But the challenge goes beyond capacity, it is also about accessibility.
Our research in Melbourne’s west found that people’s decisions to use public transport are shaped not just by cost, but by how safe, reliable, and comfortable the system feels in everyday use. If services are infrequent, overcrowded, or perceived as unsafe, reducing fares alone is unlikely to lead to lasting change. Accessibility, in this sense, is not just about proximity to infrastructure, it is about experience, trust, and usability.
Another key barrier to public transport uptake lies in what is often called the ‘first and last mile’ of a journey. In our follow-up research with the “Public Realm Lab” in 2024, we examined whether residents could realistically walk or cycle to transport nodes. The findings were clear: disconnected pedestrian networks, limited cycling infrastructure, and poor urban design significantly reduce access to public transport. For many households, particularly in low-density areas, this effectively removes public transport as a viable option.
This points to a broader issue. Addressing fuel price shocks or transitioning to more sustainable cities is not just about moving people more efficiently. It is about ensuring people can access opportunities in ways that are safe, reliable, and inclusive. This requires a shift from a mobility-based approach to an accessibility-based one. It means integrating transport planning with urban design, investing in connected walking and cycling networks, improving service quality, and supporting emerging solutions like micromobility.
This is particularly important when considering equity. As highlighted by the United Nations, transport systems must serve people of all ages and abilities. Yet in Australia, inclusive mobility options remain limited. For example, wheelchair-accessible transport often relies on costly vehicle conversions, sometimes up to $80,000, placing additional burdens on users.
Light electric vehicles (LEVs) may offer part of the solution. They use less than 10% of the energy of cars per passenger kilometre and are well suited to the nearly 50% of urban trips that are under 5 km. When supported by safe cycling infrastructure and integrated with public transport, they can significantly improve connectivity, particularly for the first and last mile.
So, while free public transport can play an important short-term role, on its own it risks exposing existing inequalities rather than resolving them. In areas like Melbourne’s west, increased demand without parallel investment may lead to overcrowding, frustration, and reduced trust in the system.
In the longer term, reducing reliance on private vehicles will require a more integrated approach, combining high-quality public transport, active travel, micromobility, and inclusive design.
Because ultimately, this is not just about transport. It is about access to jobs, education, healthcare, and opportunity.
