Instead of passively waiting for a bus, imagine being able to call one to you.

Here’s a shocking idea that’s started to gain credence this week: the transport system should be designed to suit the needs of its users rather than providers.

With few exceptions, South Australia’s public transport operators – taxis, buses and trains – offer a mediocre service.

Yet, in a week in which the State Government has been pushing red tape reduction through the abolition of various surplus boards, it has started legal action against five drivers and six hire car operators who dare to take bookings from an alternative to the plodding taxi system.


The driver and operators are taking bookings through an app called Uber. That is all. They are accredited drivers and operators – they’re just using a booking system that works for them and for customers. Customers like the service because the cars are clean, the drivers are competent and the app keeps them informed about the location of their car. They pay through a pre-registered credit card – part of an approach biased towards ease and convenience.

Ironically, news of the Government’s crackdown on Uber came just one day after a federal review of competition policy found that the taxi industry was long overdue for reform.

The interim report of the Harper review found that “regulation limiting the number of taxi licenses and preventing other services from competing with taxis has raised costs for consumers, including elderly and disadvantaged consumers, and hindered the emergence of innovative transport services”.

But it’s not just taxis that need competition and a shake-up – Adelaide’s public buses offer a generally poor service that aims to meet the needs of the broadest number (and sometimes even misses on that score). It’s understandable why that occurs, but it doesn’t help the individual whose needs are unique.

As with taxis, our public transport services are tailored to the needs of the providers or “the system”, rather than the requirements of you – the customer.

For most of us, there have been few alternatives – apart from using our cars.

We’ve just had to cop it on the chin – much like we did with phone services in the bad old days when Telecom ruled the telecommunications realm with all the corpulent complacency of King Henry VIII.

A credible alternative to government-funded public transport services is a long way off, but there are signs interstate and overseas that technology and boutique competitor systems could be on their way to shake up the way public transport is provided.

Putting the customer in control

The most frustrating part of waiting for a taxi or bus is not that the service is running late, but the unknown – the idea that the service might not actually exist.

Services like Uber and GoCatch are popular because they give the consumer some power – you can communicate directly with your driver and you are given updates about when your service will arrive.

The edge has been taken off customer annoyance at the unreliability of the Adelaide Metro bus system since real-time arrivals information was made available. If you haven’t used it, you should give it a try. Simply go to the Adelaide Metro website on your smartphone when you’re waiting at the stop and click on “Real time arrivals”. The app will let you know when your service is going to arrive.


But imagine if Smartphone technology gave the public transport customer even more control.

Imagine being able to “dial up” a bus – like you do with a cab – and then track its progress to your location.

It’s sounds like a crazy dream, but it might not be.

In the Finnish capital of Helsinki (with a metropolitan population about the same as Adelaide), transport planners have a vision to transform the public transport network into a point-to-point on-demand system within the next decade.

Taxis, shared cars, trains, bikes, buses – the whole system – would be joined up using technology that allows users to simply specify their location and destination and find a service to get them from A to B. The author of this piece argues that such a set-up would render car ownership essentially pointless in Helsinki.

Commuters would not only be able to order their services using technology, they would be able to pre-pay for it online – no need for ticket machines or fiddling with change. Interestingly, it’s been predicted by some commentator that such as system would require more competition and flexible rates (such as Uber’s surge pricing) to keep up with demand and ensure that one mode wasn’t overwhelmed.

This raises lots of questions for a city like Adelaide. Our concept of partially-privatised bus services is essentially rigid, with the Government having to negotiate changes with providers through the grid of contractual obligations. It’s geared towards stasis – or at least, slowly moving change – rather than fast response to consumer demand.

Some smaller level of tech-driven responsiveness might be more suited to the community transport sector, where the idea of using technology to link available transport directly with customers is already happening.

In the Blue Mountains near Sydney, for example, the SmartLink Transport Register allows community organisations to share vehicles.

Groups that own a mini-bus, for example, can register with the service which then links them to people in the community who need transport. It makes sure that community assets are utilised more fully, while providing affordable transport to those who need it.

Filling a need

Clever private service operators are seeing an opportunity in the poor customer service practices offered in the public transport system.

In Melbourne, a company called SuitJet is starting a premium commuter bus service, ferrying professionals to and from the CBD along a range of express routes.

The company will use Mercedes Benz customised coaches, with pick-up and drop-off points dictated by customer demand. The buses include air-conditioning, toilets, suit hooks and reclinable seats.

It’s being pitched as a more stylish and comfortable alternative to public transport – and a way for regular car drivers to get some more work done during the commute. It is more expensive than regular public transport – hence the “premium” pitch.

SuitJet’s success or otherwise will be watched closely.

It’s difficult to imagine private operators taking the bulk of business away from public transport operators in Adelaide, given the huge costs involved.

However, the Uber experience in the taxi sector, and evidence in numerous other sectors where complacent industries have been trampled by tech-savvy newcomers, shows that customers are ready to jump as soon as a customer-friendly alternative arrives.

Adelaide commuters who choose to use their cars instead of the poorly integrated, unreliable public transport system may well be prepared to pay a bit more for a reliable, speedy, comfortable and convenient alternative.

In the meantime, wouldn’t it be great if the Government viewed innovation in transport as an opportunity to get more people out of their cars and into alternatives, rather than a threat to vested interests?

Help our journalists uncover the facts In times like these InDaily provides valuable, local independent journalism in South Australia. As a news organisation it offers an alternative to The Advertiser, a different voice and a closer look at what is happening in our city and state for free. Any contribution to help fund our work is appreciated. Please click below to donate to InDaily. Donate here Powered by PressPatron

Share Linkedin Email