Presentation on urban sustainability and transport

This afternoon I was invited to deliver a presentation exploring the linkages between urban sustainability and public transport to the 41st Annual Geography Conference organised by the Geography Teachers Association of Victoria (GTAV).

The hour-long presentation provided a synopsis on the economic, social and environmental benefits of public transport, investigated current urban policies and examined Ringwood as a case study to demonstrate the interdependence between urban sustainability and public transport.

While the State Government appears to have neglected its goal of increasing public transport modal share to 20% by the year 2020, this target is required to mitigate rising congestion. With an annual cost of $4 billion annually, congestion is currently outpacing Melbourne’s population growth. Likewise the provision of public transport will provide transport choice to the many outer suburban households that are struggling due to rising petrol prices and the fact that private transport consumes up to 20% of budgets within these households.

The lack of public transport in Melbourne’s outer suburbs can also place non-car households at a significant disadvantage and limit the ability to participate in employment, educational, community and recreational opportunities. Similarly, obesity and health issues such as diabetes, can be symptomatic of car dependent suburbs where the potential to exercise is diminished.

In regard to environmental sustainability, transport accounts for 17% of Australia’s national greenhouse emissions and is the fastest growing sector of emissions. The figures are even more stark for individual households, where due to car dependence, transport is responsible for up to 49% of greenhouse emissions and is the largest contributing source of emissions within households.

These and other costs mean that car dependence is not sustainable and that urban sustainability cannot be achieved under current practices. While it may be claimed that excessive car usage contributes to the economy, when equating the economic, social and environmental impacts of car dependence there is an annual deficit of $16.3 billion.

Melbourne 2030, the State Government’s urban planning strategy was supposed to achieve a more sustainable future for Melbourne. While the plan identified numerous activity centres, each of which are earmarked for urban development, the public transport network that was supposed to cater to these urban centres remains underdeveloped.

This is even more apparent in the purpose-built activity centres that were initially designed to showcase the integration that was to result between transport and planning. Activity centres such as South Morang, Cranbourne East and Wyndham Vale have been denied much needed rail extensions despite their location within the rapidly developing growth corridors.

The problems experienced with Melbourne’s public transport system, such as unreliable train services, infrequent and poorly connected bus services and trams that terminate short of logical destinations can be resolved, but it requires Government will. Within Australia, Perth has proven to be an example of the improvements that can result from an integration between transport and planning and a commitment to urban sustainability. As an example, Perth recently doubled the size of its rail network, including the construction of a new 70km rail line (twice the distance of the CBD to Dandenong) and new stations are built simultaneously with urban development.

The integration that has borne results in Perth needs to be implemented in Melbourne, particularly for designated transit cities such as Ringwood. The suburb of Ringwood, located 27km east of Melbourne’s CBD, has been designated an area of higher density development but the State Government has been lacklustre in its commitment to improving public transport.

Ringwood currently suffers due to a disjointed retail precinct and transport hub which requires pedestrians to cross a six lane highway. Despite the goals of creating a sustainable community, the State Government and VicRoads have currently refused requests to make it easier to cross Maroondah Highway. Coupled with poor public transport, which includes making public transport users wait up to half an hour to travel between Ringwood and Croydon, the current culture of car dependence is exacerbated and potentially jeopardises the ability to create green open space and a new heart for Ringwood. Furthermore the lack of commitment over the redevelopment of Ringwood Station has created uncertainty for major developers resulting in unnecessary delays.

Each of these issues are interrelated, since due to poor public transport there is less open space which creates a pedestrian hostile environment and investment delays as developers wait for these issues to be rectified. While 40% of land in Melbourne used for roads and carparks, a staggering 62% of land within Ringwood is used for these purposes, leaving less land available for residential, commercial and community purposes.

While new developments, such as three storey residential buildings, are occurring the investment in public transport and hence the investor confidence in larger commercial developments is not. In particular, while residents within these new developments are encouraged to use public transport, walking and cycling as a form of travel this will not be sustainable if public transport is not improved.

Poor public transport connectivity and a lack of frequent bus services along main roads, such as Maroondah Highway, Canterbury and Wonga Roads, means that public transport usage will remain limited due to the fact that these poor levels of service fail to provide a real transport choice. The State Government must deliver significant public transport improvements to demonstrate that it is committed to creating a sustainable community within Ringwood.

The provision of sustainable transport is a key component of creating a sustainable community and increasing economic, social and environmental pressures means that action is required.

Maroondah Journal: Footpath strategy on display

Maroondah’s pedestrian strategy has reached draft status and is currently available for public comment. This provides the opportunity for the to comment on the strategy and the need for footpaths and the needs of pedestrians within Maroondah.

The Maroondah Journal has reported on the draft strategy and the strong level of community support for footpath improvements in Maroondah.

Cr Alex Makin said the “strategy allows us [Maroondah] to form a funding mechanism and plug some of the gaps.”

All trips involve a form of walking and a well-developed footpath network is required to help ensure maximum mobility for Maroondah’s residents.

“I urge the community to get behind the strategy. It’s imperative that feedback is received. We need to identify the areas that are of grave concern to the community.”

The Maroondah Pedestrian Strategy is available for comment from the Maroondah City Council website at www.maroondah.vic.gov.au.

Melbourne 2030 Urban Planning Reference Group

The Melbourne 2030 Urban Planning Reference Group (formerly known as the Melbourne 2030 Councillor Reference Group) is a group consisting of Councillors and Council Officers that is developing a local government wide approach for the Melbourne 2030 audit.

Given that Melbourne 2030 has wide reaching ramifications for local councils it is imperative that the local government sector is actively involved in the audit process to provide a fair assessment of the progress of Melbourne 2030 against its stated objectives.

Currently the State Government has shifted too much of the burden onto local government, resulting in increased costs to councils, such as the time and money required to create structure plans for activity centres. The State Government must complement these activities through ensuring that it provides targeted investment for activity centres, such as funding the much needed redevelopment of Ringwood Station.

MAV Melbourne 2030 Councillor Reference Group: Discussing the Melbourne 2030 audit process

The Melbourne 2030 Councillor Reference provides a forum for councillors to discuss issues in relation to Melbourne 2030 and urban planning. Today’s meeting focused on Melbourne 2030 and the five-year review process with Halvard Dalheim, from the Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE) discussing the audit process of the strategy.

The audit, which is due to be completed by the end of 2007, will focus on the implementation of Melbourne 2030 and will compare reality with the aspirations of Melbourne 2030. In an encouraging sign, it was mentioned that policy gaps would be examined which should hopefully identify the lack of integration between transport and planning.

While it is often claimed that Melbourne 2030 provides a ‘whole of government approach’ reality has shown this to be untrue. The Department of Treasury and Finance has continually refused to sign off on the goals expressed in Melbourne 2030 and issues such as transport still fail to be viewed in a holistic manner.

The Government’s recently released Transport and Liveability Statement, known as Meeting Our Transport Challenges is a classic example of the ongoing disconnect between transport and planning. While Melbourne 2030 expressly includes the goal of increasing public transport modal share to 20% by 2020, the Government’s long-term transport statement fails to acknowledge this goal or even allow benchmarking against it.

Key reference groups for Melbourne 2030, including advisory groups hand picked by the State Government, have cited the poor integration between transport and land use planning as a key barrier to ensuring the holistic implementation of this framework for urban planning.

Melbourne 2030 will continue to flounder unless the State Government coordinates land use and planning and provides a fully funded implementation plan that extends much needed infrastructure to public transport poor suburbs. Unfortunately the recent move to split the Transport Portfolio into separate road and public transport ministerial positions provides little confidence that such integration will occur.

Through the Transport and Liveability Statement the State Government committed itself to creating the position of Coordinator General for Infrastructure “to improve whole of government coordination of transport and land use planning and policy.” (Source: Meeting Our Transport Challenges, 2006).

Unfortunately the Coordinator General has no reporting channels within the DSE (Planning) organisational chart and still needs to wade through the management structure of the DOI.

By contrast VicRoads maintains its unimpeded direct access to the Minister, the newly designated Roads and Ports Minister, Tim Pallas.

Lynne Kosky, as Minister for Public Transport is still new within the portfolio. It is yet to be seen whether she will address the shortcoming in Melbourne’s public transport planning and provision. It is also yet to be seen whether Justin Madden, the new Minister for Public Transport will rectify the lack of integration between transport and land use planning through the audit of Melbourne 2030.

The future of Melbourne depends on the actions of these two Ministers. Another seven years of rhetoric and inaction cannot be tolerated.

MAV: Melbourne 2030 and Urban Planning Discussion Forum

The Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV) is the peak representative and lobbying body for Victoria’s 79 councils and is the official voice of local government within Victoria.

Given the MAV’s status as a peak body, the State Government’s Melbourne 2030 planning framework has received considerable attention given that a five-year review of Melbourne 2030 is planned for 2007.

The discussion forum was held to provide local government with an opportunity to discuss a cohesive approach towards this review with the aim of lobbying the State Government to improve Melbourne 2030 as part of the review and implementation process.

Throughout the discussion there was a clear consensus for a detailed implementation plan to accompany Melbourne 2030, a concern that has been echoed by various organisations including the Planning Institute of Australia, Public Transport Users Association (PTUA) and Save Our Suburbs (SOS).  Additionally there was concern over the government’s failure to integrate transport and land use planning with participants strongly disapproving the State Government’s lacklustre Transport and Liveability Statement.

It is imperative that the State Government responds to the concerns raised by local government through the review of Melbourne 2030. Melbourne 2030 has added significant financial costs for councils and yet the State Government has failed to demonstrate clear leadership in areas such as integrating transport and land use planning.

Melbourne 2030 requires a fast, frequent and readily available public transport network it is clear that local government expects the State Government to deliver more than just rhetoric.

The Age: Bid to unite transport, planning

The Age recently conducted a number of features exploring the woes facing Melbourne’s public transport system.

The difficulties facing Melbourne’s public transport stem from the lack of leadership provided by the State Government in ensuring progress towards the goal of increasing public transport modal share to 20% by the year 2020. In fact public transport modal share has remained static at 9%, due to long promised rail extensions being delayed and dismal bus services that often fail to run during evenings or on weekends.

People cannot use public transport if no public transport is available. Likewise people will not use public transport while it is slow, infrequent and overtly complex. Melbourne’s bus network needs to be streamlined and the SmartBus program, which delivers frequent and readily bus services must be accelerated.

The Public Transport Users Association (PTUA) released its five year plan as did the Metropolitan Transport Forum (MTF) and the Committee for Melbourne (which includes transport operators).

It is ridiculous that major roads such as Canterbury Road or Maroondah Highway do not have bus services seven days per week from morning through to midnight. While some improvements will be provided (including the Stud Road SmartBus and Sunday bus services for Maroondah Highway) these are just the beginning.

Likewise it is hypocritical for the government to establish an urban growth boundary and speak about sustainable development when many of the outer areas of Melbourne lack fixed rail access. For example, it is invalid and contradictory to envisage high-density development in Doncaster Hill when there is little public transport available to provide travel options for residents other than already congested roads.

The reason Melbourne’s public transport is not being upgraded is due to the fact that the government has failed to successfully integrate the functions of planning and transport. This is despite Melbourne 2030 and its goal for integrated planning which envisaged transport provision being kept apace with urban growth and revitalisation.

Five years ago Perth embarked on a similar Metropolitan Strategy and revitalised its ailing public transport system through linking public transport improvements with urban revitalisation and development. In Perth it was successful but in Melbourne this strategy is failing.

The Western Australian Government (headed by Labor’s Geoff Gallop) has an integrated Infrastructure (responsible for Transport) and Planning Portfolio, in Victoria we have separate Planning and Transport portfolios and a statutory authority known as VicRoads which has direct access to the Minister. In Perth the equivalent of VicRoads was merged into a combined Transport entity ensuring that all transport decisions were decided on merit.

As The Age reports, numerous groups from different perspectives and backgrounds have called for a similar overhaul to occur in Victoria:

GROUPS as diverse as local councils, employers’ representatives and public transport users have called for an overhaul of the way Victoria manages transport and urban planning.

Victoria needs a more “holistic” approach, says Robert Dunlop, infrastructure spokesman for the Victorian Employers’ Chamber of Commerce and Industry and Macquarie Bank executive director.

Peter Newman is one of Australia’s most respected transport planners and was responsible for the revitalisation of Perth:

A similar demand was a key priority in a report by the Metropolitan Transport Forum, a transport lobby made up of a group of Melbourne councils.

Co-written by leading transport planner Professor Peter Newman, the report says Victoria needs “an accountable and integrated transport planning agency”.

Professor Newman told The Age that VicRoads was a formidable bureaucracy, with much greater access to power and funds than the public transport directorate, which is submerged within the Department of Infrastructure.

“It would be good to see them get back on a more even footing,” he said.

Ultimately the advantages VicRoads has over the Public Transport Division of the Department of Infrastructure affects the outcome of transport decisions:

Public Transport Users Association spokesman Alex Makin pointed to VicRoads’ $1 billion annual budget, saying it spent money “making plans for new roads we don’t need and then lobbying government, business groups and the media to get them built”.

Under 2030 the Government says it wants to double public transport use by 2020. But there is increasing doubt that this can be achieved without a major rethink on transport priorities.

Based on the current lack of progress towards improving public transport modal share, the goals of Melbourne 2030 will remain unachievable until transport and planning is truly integrated:

Critics point to Western Australia, where planning and transport is combined under one minister and where Perth is now celebrated for major public transport reforms and new rail lines in particular.

“The success in transforming Perth from a public transport backwater into a public transport-oriented city occurred due to the merging of the transport and planning functions,” said Mr Makin.

Unfortunately the lack of response from the current Transport Minister makes it appear that the government is once again unwilling to undertake the necessary reforms:

Last night Transport Minister Peter Batchelor did not respond directly to a question when asked whether an overhaul of transport and planning was possible.

The Bracks Government’s self appointed Infrastructure Planning Council recommended the merger of VicRoads and the Department of Infrastructure back in 2002. The lack of progress made by the Bracks Government towards improving public transport has demonstrated just how foolish it was to ignore this independent advice.

Until the government acknowledges that Melbourne 2030 is doomed to fail unless VicRoads is abolished and planning and transport integrated through the appointment and responsibility of one Minister very little will actually improve within Melbourne and Victoria.

Maroondah Leader: Group mad over axing three key bus routes

The Minister for Transport, Peter Batchelor, has continued to persist with his ill-advised refusal to include bus services along Maroondah Highway, Canterbury Road and Wonga Road as part of the Principal Public Transport Network (PPTN).

The Maroondah Leader has pursued this issue:

A TRANSPORT lobby group has lashed out at the Transport Minister for not including three key bus routes within a network earmarked for improvements.

The Principal Public Transport Network (PPTN) is a key part of Melbourne 2030 and essentially outlines which bus services will be upgraded with longer operating hours and service frequencies.

Silvan Province state Liberal MP Andrew Olexander tabled a report in parliament recently asking Transport Minister Peter Batchelor to include three key bus routes within the Principal Public Transport Network (PPTN).

Mr Batchelor rejected the appeal. His spokeswoman, Kate Leonard, said it was “not appropriate” to include the routes “as they do not provide direct links between activity centres”.

It is absolutely false to claim that bus routes along Maroondah Highway (route 670 Ringwood to Lilydale via Croydon and Chirnside Park), Canterbury Rd (route 679 Ringwood to Chirnside Park via Heathmont and Lilydale) and Wonga Rd (route 364 Ringwood to Doncaster East via Ringwood North and Warrandyte) do not provide direct links between activities. All three bus routes operate in a direct manner connecting Ringwood with surrounding activity centres, such as Croydon, Chirnside, Lilydale and Doncaster.

Ringwood Transit City Community Coalition spokesman Alex Makin said all bus routes served major roads within Maroondah and connected a number of activity centres.

Unfortunately it is becoming clear that the incompetence of the ill-advised Transport Minister, Peter Batchelor is jeopardising Maroondah and the goal of increasing public transport modal share.

“Given that Maroondah Highway, Canterbury and Wonga roads are key thoroughfares into and out of Ringwood, it is becoming increasingly doubtful that the vision of the Ringwood Transit City or even Croydon as an activity centre will be achieved,” Mr Makin said.