Summary of the event – Transport: Visions for a sustainable future
Professor William Mitchell – Director MIT Design Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Wants to “democratize” public transport. Judging by later comments I think he was getting at “transport equality”, where everyone, everywhere should have equal access to public transport.
Focus on urban personal mobility. In this case, mainly battery-electric ultralight foldable vehicles (2 seats), although other light vehicles (eg scooters, pushbikes) also figured in his vision. The vehicles were about the length of a Smart car (2.7m) while driving and half that folded for storage.
Banks of vehicles, basically the same as the successful Velib bicycle system in Paris, which for those unfamiliar operates by having racks of bikes around 4-500m apart around Paris. You pay (free for 20 min, then sliding scale) and borrow the bike, credit card used as security. You drop off at another Velib bike rack close to your destination and pay (electronically) any applicable charges. In the ultralight vehicle instance, the vehicle bay also serves as a charging station (inductive charging). They’d probably operate much like the current “car-share” schemes but look like they’d really only carry passengers (no golf clubs, bulky goods).
Proposed fix to the “last kilometre” problem, ie work in conjunction with existing public transport infrastructure. However, Mitchell also proposed these vehicles work in the outer suburbs more like a “last 5 kilometre” solution, operating as feeder services to train stations and the like. My take is that the inner-city scenario, with many cross-town, random direction trips would keep the vehicles evenly distributed, but that in the outer suburbs you essentially end up with a “park and ride” situation in which the vehicles only get used twice to get to/from the station to the charging bay nearest your house/estate, and that feeder buses (minibuses?) might be a better solution.
Suggested that the batteries could be used to store intermittent energy (ie renewables) and sell back to the grid when required. However, he had previously indicated that the batteries on these ultralights were small in view of their intended usage to save weight and in light of this, depleting the batteries to balance the grid might detract from their primary function – I’d probably call this one “greenwash” right now.
====
Professor Rob Adams – Director, Design & Urban Environment, City of Melbourne
Adams indicated 80-90% of the infrastructure required by 2020 is already in place, such that we shouldn’t be expecting to build ourselves out of congestion/transport problems.
Suggested that viable PT requires a minimum density of 100-150 persons per hectare (pph), and cited Barcelona as a good example. Barcelona has around 7 storeys in built areas, but 40% open space and a density of 200 pph. This to me contrasts with Moreland in Melbourne, which is increasing substantially in density but has one of the lowest parkland/open space levels in the city, which will have long-term consequences for liveability.
Adams cites early planning failures for our “sprawl” but contends that growth along major transport corridors can help preserve the suburban block (which would be “green” – water tanks, solar panels etc). This would mean around 10% of the city would become high density (4-8 storeys) and the other 90% (current suburbia) let alone. This approach would permit an additional 2 million residents without any further subdivision (by which I think he meant land release…?)
High density housing proposed not just on train lines (as Melb 2030) but also tram and bus routes (eg Johnston St, especially east end). Indicated the investment had been made in the transport infrastructure and suboptimal outcomes were being achieved where they ran next to low density zones. He provided examples (the “wild west” – single dwellings on garden blocks) on tram lines within view of the city (eg 96 terminus, Route 70 Riversdale Rd east, etc). In my view it’s not surprising some of these are low density, as the time to CBD (assuming that remains the primary destination) is much the same as a train line more than twice the distance (these tram routes also have less opportunity than some for heavy rail interchange, meaning more one-seat trips and less passenger “recycling”).
Provided Curitiba as an example of what he would like to see – dedicated bus lanes, bus/tram combinations (ie extend buses past tram termini, but have them run on the tram route once they encountered it, alternating with the tram service. Wanted more buses pronto, thought heavy rail had too long a lead time to be useful right away.
Wanted no “big ticket” PT items – things you could take a photo from 4km away. Preferred distributed improvement.
=====
Dr Jago Dodson – Senior Research Fellow, Urban Research Program, Griffith University, Brisbane
Approached transport/ planning from the energy (read: petroleum) security perspective. Used VIPER (Vulnerability Index for Petrol Expense Rise) and VAMPIRE (Vulnerability Assessment for Mortgage,Petrol and Inflation Risks and Expenditure) assessments to gauge geographical vulnerability to fuel price rises.
High vulnerability in both cases were essentially areas with poor PT, low socio-economic status, and outer metropolitan / growth areas. Low risk were the inverse – old “rail” suburbs, inner Melbourne, PT-rich areas.
The high-risk areas were also indicated (through budgetary and planning constraints) as having the least capacity to switch to non-car modes of transport (ie walking, cycling, PT).
Dodson described the current urban structure as regressive and socially inequitable. Most 2030 “nodes” are planned for the inner PT rich suburbs, already low-risk on the VAMPIRE index. Asked the question of what to do in the outer suburbs, which are essentially being let be rather than integrating into a non-radial network of PT (many linked nodes – “network effect“).
He also noted that any gains from increased PT ridership/mode switch from cars through higher density housing could easily be offset by efficiency losses in that housing mode – current high density housing is built to very low standards (3 star, maybe 4 star efficient) and no legislative requirement exists to do any better (despite negligible cost difference to 7 stars).
Dodson suggested improved PT network planning could solve many urban transport problems but currently the focus is too much on infrastructure (built out of the problem) rather than planning.
=====
Professor Nicholas Low – Director, Australasian Centre for Governance and Management of Urban Transport, University of Melbourne.
He reviewed the proposed Brumby Transport Plan (ostensibly leaked) indicating a South Morang rail extension, 100 new buses, DART upgrade, Melbourne Central loop changes as proposed by Mees, Tarneit line, increase in Smart buses, and (medium term) Melton electrification.
He then contrasted these incremental improvements to the road projects expected to be announced – Frankston Bypass, Eddington road tunnel, Ring Road “Missing Link” via Heidelberg/Banyule Flats.
He quoted David Metz, a former UK transport planner who presided over massive roadbuilding during his tenure but now believes roads are not the answer. Bottleneck removal (used to justify most road building) can simply move the bottleneck somewhere else, and Metz believes bottlenecks in fact can play in important role in regulating congestion, and sometimes moving it can make things worse.
Australian data indicates despite massive road projects in the period 1991-2006, typical commute times have rises slightly for men (71 to 74 mins) and substantially for women (54 to 74 mins). $29bn of federal funds (our money!) was spent under the Auslink roads program under Howard, without any going to PT projects.
He believed greater Melbourne should have a Mayor – a metropolitan group that covered Melbourne proper, not just the limited Melbourne Council or State Govt (which presumably sees Melbourne as individual electorates rather than a cohesive whole). He talked about the utility of the political process – we elect Governments, not policy, and if the alternative Govt has the same policy we have no choice.
Since a dollar spent can’t be spent again he also orated on the need for proper consultation with the community on where it would like the money spent (ie on roads vs PT or whatever – a large road could provide a lot of supported childcare, for instance).
Low also discussed the costs of 2nd/3rd car ownership vs yearly PT - $6,400 (small car) to $16,000 p.a. (SUV) versus $1722.00 (Zone 1 and 2, 10% cheaper through PTUA!). He asked if the $6bn car industry assistance package would instead be better spent on more PT, giving people a choice between the more expensive car or cheaper PT ticket. However, Low did not discuss the ongoing cost of subsidy to PT required for this but clearly this begins to fall in the “PT as welfare” realm.
=====
Cath Smith - CEO, Victorian Council of Social Service, Melbourne
Indicated VCOSS is interested in the 15% of the population who don’t drive at all, and for whom roads can be considered mostly useless. Also costs of travel and “locationally disadvantaged drivers” (e.g. high-risk VAMPIRES).
Considered PT as an “essential service” along the lines of hospitals and schools. Claimed the current DDA compliance pace was “glacial”. While able-bodied myself I have seen a lot of improvement in this area and wonder if Smith is making ambit claims here.
She expressed a wish for improved co-ordination of door-to-door / community based transport (I assume mainly minibuses). I think she was getting towards the fact at the moment most of these are council or community group run and there is no overarching control to extract maximum efficiency from these operations (nor provide funding to do so). She also discussed the anomaly of school buses bypassing TAFE students, and although I can think of some reasons this occurs discriminatory PT does seem a contradiction in terms.
Advocates 7 day / ½ hourly bus services with emphasis on connections (trains), and mentions that many bus routes follow historical paths with little regard for current traffic movements, reducing their utility. Mentions as Peter Parker noticed recently that NightRiders now run more frequently than day buses in some locations.
Smith tried talking about speed vs modal connections, and again I think she was getting toward true end-to-end journey time here. With a ½ hourly bus service I’m not sure this is going to happen though…
With regard to climate change, she indicated that only 1.3% of carbon reduction is anticipated to come from modal shift (car to PT) and that this is going to need to be much higher for a decent emissions reduction.
Smith also believes that the current housing affordability debate should become an “affordable living” debate in which housing and transport costs are taken into consideration. In this context urban planning providing employment opportunities close to housing for a reduced commute is required.
=====
Respondents:
Robin Batterham (former Chief Scientist)
Believed common elements of the talks to be to provide mobility on demand in an equitable way, with emissions reduction.
Increase in population density required, increase spending on network to “fill gaps”.
Traditional PT is not the only way to provide mobility on demand. One of the other speakers earlier discussed Malcom Turnbull, who pushed legslative change that permitted him to use taxis and PT instead of a Govt car (19k p.a.).
Batterham mentioned we don’t just move people but also goods, but that more efficient people-moving usually leads to better goods movement. Wanted an increase in bike tracks.
Believed cars have their place but noted that Australia’s average fuel performance is the equal worst in the world; Europe’s is half ours. He noted legislative change could quickly remedy that.
David Eddershank (Kensington resident)
I’ve only a few notes from this one but noted that Eddershank discussed that when left to itself the private market does not necessarily deliver what’s best for livability or efficient use of space/resources. Highlighted the dichotomy of “Cranbourne Man” (apparently an ALP construct) whose #1 issue is roads (Cranbourne woman’s is services, but that doesn’t seem to rate) versus the inner-city “chattering classes” desire for more PT.
I’ve noticed that Peter Parker has posted a similar summary over at his blog while I’ve been writing this that covers the questions well so direct you there for them (although I’ve included some of their question responses into the speaker summary). Also Peter might have a few points I’ve missed and vice versa.
Dave
Re the Golf Cart idea, we would need to look at the way roads are designed.
Yours truly has just come back from 5 wonderful days on the shores of Ha Long Bay, in a resort that had golf carts for getting around.
At the risk of sounding obvious:
-the roads were basically concreted driveways, comfortable for pedestrians, sufficient for Golf Carts and adequate for the odd delivery heavy vehicle that needed to use them (at slow speeds)
-they are a good solution to the “last km” when it is acknowledged that people are going to walk within the ped shed, but those with infirmities, heavy luggage or who just want to get out of the rain, might be better served on an electric golf cart
-speeds must be incredibly low for ordinary vehicles (no more than 20kms) implying they would be using other roads
-obviously the PT would need to fully support this model, otherwise people will go and buy cars
-in a world that tolerates inequality very badly, I wonder how the take up of a transport option that is drawn from what the rich can afford, is going to go down among both the poor and the so-called ‘aspirationals’
Does anyone here have any experience at living within resorts for longer than a holiday?
I don’t mean to offend, but did this really need to take the ‘headline’ position over from the commuter rail article? It is just a report on a talk which is already been discussed in another post.
(Waits for the flames to start going in my direction..)
No, but I might move it under the other post if that is OK with the author
No probs. I think Phin moved it up, ask him : )
I agree re: the “golf carts” being a solution for the rich. I can’t see someone in Cranbourne buying one, even though Mitchell indicated they’d be “much cheaper than a car”. However, I guess the model would not be to buy, but ‘rent’ briefly and frequently.
Back to how it was
Admittedly, I to am a bit sceptical of the golf cart (and similar) ideas. If the private sector wants to invest in them for private transport, that’s ok, but my greatest concern is that it will get public money as public transport. The reality is that golf carts won’t be able to move large numbers of people point, and I wonder whether the money would be better spent on conventional solutions.
To my mind, the ‘golf cart’ raises similar questions to those raised by ‘car share’ schemes such as flexicar and GoGet.
Car share enables people to either get rid of their car, or to avoid buying a second car IF they live in areas where they are either well served by public transport, or if they can walk/bike to work (I don’t think they’re aimed at students because of the costs involved). They aren’t in themselves a viable travel solution without other ‘alternative transport’ options. As such, they do not shift people from cars to PT, bikes or foot.
There is an argument that if people don’t own a car they will be less inclined to use it, and thus the share cars might coax people to use cars less than they otherwise would. I’m not sold on this argument. I have recently moved into an area very well served by PT within 20 mins walk of the CBD and I use the car less than once a week. I’m getting rid of it, and will probably sign up to a car share, but the car share won’t encourage me to use PT/bike/foot. Rather, I’m already using PT/bike/foot because it is more convenient than driving.
So I think the ‘golf cart’ will present some people (those who are physically and legally able to drive) with greater mobility at reduced cost, but it won’t in and of itself solve transport barriers faced by those in middle and outer suburbs.
Mitchell intimated that we shouldn’t underestimate the power of “disruptive” technologies, and I think he believed the ultralights to potentially be one of these. As with most contributors so far, I hold some skepticism; the ultralights seem little more than very small cars, so perhaps you could increase traffic density slightly but their utility, when one has a “normal” car for goods, and good quality convential PT available, is relatively limited in my opinion.
I’m also uncertain on the idea of medium density on all public transport routes, but on the current higher capacity routes I think it’s a goer. However, as was noted, good quality housing stock and affordable/public housing would be required to prevent low SES groups from being marginalized. Medium density still costs and thus only tends to be built in higher-value areas to begin with (if private sector is building, not govt – which we’re not likely to see anytime soon).
Summary of Q&A – approx 20 mins.
My notes were a bit rough so apologies in advance for any misrepresentations. Hope this helps.
Q1. Question from Steve from http://www.goingsolar.com.au querying comment around developers wanting to cut costs so they reduce the energy efficiency of buildings. Suggested savings can be made by reducing the number of car parks built.
Jago – it costs as much to build a . Also expectations to low…don’t celebrate 4 star buildings but rather need to aim for the stars (6 or 7 stars).
Cath added – shouldn’t be aiming for affordable housing, but rather affordable living.
MC added – Going solar has a great newsletter he reads. sign up link http://www.goingsolar.com.au/php/div_transport.php
Q2. Question started as by highlighting the fact that there was federal money available here (not limiting thinking to what Victoria can do on its own.) Question ended with rant about Tasmanian ferries as third Victoria highway link. (See my response here http://transporttextbook.com/?p=288#comments)
Jago – highlighted that out of Auslink finance that has spent $29billion on roads.
Nick also commented – I didn’t understand his response.
Q3. Question about bottle necks leading to even more overcrowding, especially in the light of Rob’s increased density concept that would add 2million people to the city centre.
Nick – Definitely will need more trains plus good investigation of the constraints.
Rob – need more train paths, not trains. Also running out of time, take Bogata example, no road was built for 3 years which lead to 75% reduction of crime. Real stakes are that citizens will become disenfranchised with the whole transport planning talk if no action seen.
Nick – we live in a city blessed with railways. Trains move 800 people / 1 driver. Simply going for buses would require 100 drivers to move the same number of people.
I wasn’t sure of his maths / point here. 800 people / 100 bus = 8 people per bus.
Q4. Question about level crossings in Glen Eira, some issues with with service constraints due to Vicroads not wanting the boom gates down for so long.
Jago provided comment.
Interesting to note that in the 1969 transport plan money for 80 grade separations was included in the ROAD budget, not the RAIL budget. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1969_Melbourne_Transportation_Plan#Road
Q5. Question by Ken Park? of Vicroads about why not build a new type of network (eg a light weight one for bikes). This solves a immediate impediment of safety.
Rob – pointed to research (based on Copenhagen experience) that suggested that the safest setup is a on road, a bike lane separated from moving traffic by a parked car. This avoids being wiped out by an open car door pushing cyclist into traffic lane. To actually build an entire network would end up replicated the entirety of the road network as cyclists want exactly the same choices as motorist. Rob noted he cycles to work each day.
Cath also provided comment.
Q6. Question about bike sharing scheme that has been successful elsewhere.
Bill Mitchell – Info Technology barriers are probably the hardest things to overcome. Mentioned that Public transport was initially Blaise Pascal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blaise_Pascal and there are all kinds of options out there.
Nick – Impediments … compulsory bike helmet laws and no Mayor of Melbourne to set direction for whole of Melbourne. Also finished with a great line…”substitution of a technology within existing thinking never works”.
very different report to Nick Low’s transport plan here today http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24683181-2862,00.html
Cameron
Great discussion people.
LS, I think we are in agreement. I don’t think suburbs are ‘evil’ and as you pointed out (and as I pointed out in my Separate Development of Commuter Rail post) it is possible that the ‘white flight’ or the ‘flight from riff raff’ probably happened here ahead of other parts of the world, and did so during a time when rail transport was still in favour.
I do agree with Dave though – people who move into low density expect the same level of service as older areas. Developer contributions (just as with road taxes) send the wrong message to people, which is that they believe they HAVE paid the cost of providing services, when they haven’t paid anywhere near it.
We neglect to realise that older areas have capitalised their improved service level in house prices. If you had Henry George and his land taxes you could even this effect out, but without it we will need to accept that some people have ‘prepaid’ their high level of services, and other haven’t, and hence miss out.
And Adam’s point is also useful – it’s not like an medium or high density units are sitting there empty, they are taken up when offered. We can’t be sure whether people really do ’suffer’ for their housing choices or lack of them. We don’t really know whether they are in Pakenham courtesy Devine Homes out of duress, or equally in Docklands NewQuay courtesy Mirvac also out of duress.
I’m not sure what element of the Australian settlement low density housing was supposed to play, and why ‘national ideologies’ are tolerated anywhere.
I understood the Australian settlement to be the Harvester Judgement and the founding of the ALP – that in return for fair protection for industry workers would receive adequate pay. That settlement has now reached the end of the road.
And national ideologies have no place in a diverse society.
If people want low density housing they need to pay the full cost. Because they don’t, transport (both road and rail) is very inadequately provided in Australia and as you know this has been one of my hobbyhorses.
I live in a suburban house in a traditional area so I’m alright Jack, as they say. I had the choice of an apartment or an outer suburban house as well. It would be rich of me to say my choice was better than anyone else’s. What I can say safely though, is that people won’t want to be subsidising my choices, and I don’t want to be subsidising theirs.
The only subsidies that should be paid are welfare, to those who need it and have few choices.
And the sad reality is that while trains behave in a linear fashion, so to speak, along rail lines, accelerating and decelerating much the same way whether in Richmond or Officer, the performance of the transport system is non-linear, deteriorating as you go further out. The service we provide in Officer can never be as good as in Richmond, yet representative democracy is forcing politicians to attempt the impossible. Something which even the good old free market is incapable of.
The Herald Sun have finally reported something about Nick Low’s comments today.
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24695449-661,00.html
I’m surprised, that given the “speculative” nature of Nick Low’s comments, that we haven’t seen this reported earlier, especially compared to supposedly “newsworthy” stories that get reported in the herald sun (celebrity breakups for eg).
[...] plan for tackling Melbourne’s transport woes. Professor Nicholas Low of Melbourne University let the cat out of the bag when he revealed that the rail tunnel wouldn’t be built, with the Tarneit line now the [...]