 | The Bullroarer - Thursday 15 November 2007 | TOD: Australia/New Zealand | The Bullroarer - Saturday 17th November 2007 |  |
A Public Transport And Green City Manifesto For The Federal Election
Posted by Big Gav on November 15, 2007 - 7:00pm in TOD: Australia/New Zealand
Topic: Policy/Politics
Tags: australia, policy, public transportation [list all tags]
This is a guest post by Garry Glazebrook. Garry is a senior lecturer in Urban Planning at the University of Technology, Sydney, and has 30 years' experience in transport and urban planning consulting, and in government policy. He gets occasionally obesessed about peak oil, climate change, and sustainable transport (but then dont we all?). He is a member of ASPO Sydney and UITP (International Union of Public Transport). Professor Peter Newman heads Murdoch University's Institute for Sustainability and Technology Policy and is an internationally known expert on transport and sustainability in cities.
Public Transport, Peak Oil and Global Warming
Public transport is a big issue in Australia. As a result of rising oil and petrol prices and rapidly rising road congestion, patronage has risen 20% on Melbourne's trains, 18% on Brisbane's buses, and 12% in Perth in the last two years.
Sydney's rail and bus systems are now overcrowded, as are those in Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth. Adelaide is now facing a major decision about whether to electrify and extend its rail system. The quality, reliability and availability of public transport affects millions of citizens on a daily basis – as evidenced by headlines such as the Sun Herald front page in Melbourne on Monday 18 June.
Continuing population growth and a trend back to urban living make public transport vital for our future. But the likelihood of world oil production peaking makes this an issue for the present. The recent International Energy Agency Medium – Term Oil Market Report (July 2007) warned of increasing tightness in oil markets beyond 2010, as a result of strengthening demand and weakening oil supply.
Roger Bezdek, an expert on peak oil, highlighted in his recent Australian tour the need to take oil seriously in the planning of cities and regions. His key message is that there is likely to be increasing competition for oil and gasoline from China just at the time when global oil production reaches its maximum. There will also be a problem with peaking of gas production in the near future, while options like coal to liquids are not likely to be viable because of CO2 emissions.
Carbon trading is just a few years away. This will have to be extended to all fossil fuels – oil included – and will further add to oil and petrol prices. Those countries and cities without strong public transport systems will face an uncertain future.
A National Approach Needed
Why should our Federal Government get involved in public transport? There are many reasons:
* Australia is one of the most urbanised countries on earth, and our cities are amongst the most car-dependent. State governments are trying to address the issue, but strong backing from the national government is needed.
* Providing better public transport will reduce oil consumption and the trade deficit, road congestion, greenhouse gas emissions, motor vehicle accidents, air pollution and the expense and space required for urban motorways. It will also have health benefits by encouraging more exercise – walking to and from the train or bus every day means an average of 2 km walking – 20% of our daily exercise needs.
Most other OECD countries recognise the role of the Federal Government in supporting public transport. The US has been doing it for a decade and a half, through the ISTEA (Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act) and subsequent legislation. Other Federal governments such as in Canada and Germany fund part of the cost of urban public transport, as do national governments in the UK, Japan, France and indeed most other OECD countries.
In contrast, the Australian government has so far refused to include urban public transport within AUSLINK, yet it funds urban motorways – such as the M7 in Sydney, the Eastern Arterial in Melbourne, and most recently the promise of $2.3 billion for the Ipswich bypass. This one-sided approach encourages more traffic and makes our cities more vulnerable to global warming and peak oil. A University of California Berkerley study covering thirty California counties between 1973 and 1990 found that for every 10% increase in roadway capacity, traffic increased 9% within four years’ time.
Funding more roads and ignoring public transport is a recipe for unsustainability.
What are State Governments Doing?
Our State and Local Government all recognise the need to accelerate the provision of better public transport, and have major projects underway or on the drawing boards. But lack of funding is the major constraint:
* In Sydney the $1.5 billion Clearways program is already partly finished, and the Epping - Chatswood rail line is due to open next year. Planning and land acquisition has started for the $8 billion NW-SW Harbour link line and the first stage is due to be completed by 2011. But urgent extensions such as the NW rail link have been delayed for years because of lack of funding. Additional metro lines are now under consideration, but again will need financial support, as would light rail in the inner suburbs as proposed by the City of Sydney.
* In Melbourne, various heavy rail and tram extensions are planned including duplication on the Clifton Hill line and triplication on the Dandenong line, as well as a number of “Smart Bus” projects.
* In Queensland, several major infrastructure projects are under construction or being planned (eg Gold Coast heavy rail duplication, Springfield line, North Coast line, Gold Coast light rail/busway, Northern and Eastern busways, and light rail for inner Brisbane.
* In Perth, the SW rail line to Mandurah is nearly finished, due to open at end of this year with extensions planned for each line and a light rail line joining Curtin University and UWA is under consideration.
* In Adelaide, the Glenelg tram is being extended and there are plans to electrify and extend the heavy rail lines as the diesel fleet is aging as is the O-Bahn.
All of our major cities could significantly increase the capacity and quality of their public transport infrastructure over the next few years and into the future if given funding to support their plans.
A Modest Proposal for Commonwealth Assistance
How can the Commonwealth help? Much could be achieved within three years, given the momentum already building at State level. Five initiatives are suggested:
(a) Fund all urban rail systems to move to 100% greenpower.
For an estimated cost of $10m in 2007/8, $25m in 2008/9 and $50m in 2009/10, all of Australia’s electrified urban rail systems could be converted to 100% greenpower. This will reduce greenhouse gas emissions and trigger investment in additional wind or other renewable power. It will also provide millions of Australians a choice to make some of their trips with no CO2 emissions and encourage greater use of public transport. The total cost for the Federal Government is very modest, and the cost beyond 2009/10 may disappear as carbon trading/taxes are brought in which will make coal fired power as expensive as greenpower in any event.
(b) Fund expansion of rail and bus fleets.
As mentioned, State Governments are struggling to get the money to expand their bus and train fleets. But much rolling-stock is on order, and additional rolling-stock could be added to the orders. For example:
* Perth and Brisbane are both buying new narrow-gauge electric trains for their systems. These are being built in Maryborough, Queensland. Additional follow on orders could further expand rail capacity in both of these cities significantly.
* Sydney has 122 Outer suburban rail cars currently being delivered, also largely built in Australia (NSW). A follow on order for additional rollingstock to the same design could accelerate the expansion of Cityrail's fleet prior to the commencement of the planned 658 cars which have been ordered under the PPP (Public Private Partnership).
* Melbourne has 10 additional trains on order by 2010, but more sets are needed urgently, and could be based on the same design. Melbourne's tram operator is also buying new trams at present and additional funds could enable this order to be expanded.
* Adelaide is facing a huge increase in expenditure as it moves to replace its aging diesel trains and O-Bahn buses; it appears to be the tipping point for moving to electric rail and extending it to all corridors – if they can find the capital.
* Many cities are buying new buses. These include lower emission Euro5 diesel buses, as well as CNG buses. New buses are all low-floor accessible, air conditioned etc. Additional funds could expand the size of urban bus fleets and improve the quality of the fleets, making public transport more attractive.
These orders could take advantage of the new infrastructure already under construction and due to be completed in the next few years, such as Clearways and the Epping-Chatswood line in Sydney, the New MetroRail project in Perth, and the Gold Coast line duplication and Inner Northern Busway in Brisbane.
(c) Fund an integrated smart card ticketing system for Australia
Perth, Brisbane, Sydney, Adelaide and Melbourne are all at various stages of introducing smart card ticketing systems. An Australia-wide approach could result in reduced costs, greater marketing benefits and greater ease of use for the public.
(d) Create a Sustainable Cities program for Integrated projects.
This would channel Commonwealth’s Housing and other urban infrastructure funding to encourage development which will support integrated development and improved sustainability for our cities. It will also support the individual plans of State Governments in key centres and corridors and major new greenfields developments. This is a central conclusion of the House of Representatives Environment Committee Report on Sustainable Cities. This fund can give substance to the need for climate sensitive development and innovations in green building as well as innovative public transport at its base. These demonstrations can lead to world first opportunities that can enable Australia to hold its head up high in the global arena as well as attracting global capital for such innovation.
(e) New Requirements for Federal Transport Funding
The Commonwealth should change its funding arrangements under AUSLINK to ensure that no Federal funds are allocated in the transport sector unless they can demonstrate that they will save greenhouse gases and have been part of a community-based planning system that enabled all transport options to be considered.
The Australian transport funding system is one of the last in the world to develop a more transparent and democratic approach to its funding. The US system is a model for how ours can be changed and it also shows how significant is the role of the Federal Government in seeding transport initiatives in the nation’s cities.
What will this achieve?
It depends of course on how much money can be allocated. The Sustainable Cities Fund could be as large as the former Better Cities Fund and would attract a multiplier of around 5 to 1 from state, local and private capital. If the Commonwealth were able to allocate $2.2 billion over three years to just the public transport initiatives, it could:
* Make all urban electric trains and trams in Australia 100% green by 2010 (estimated total cost by 2009/10 $85m)
* Add approximately 300 rail cars / trams and 1200 buses to our urban transport fleets. These increases could be accommodated within the infrastructure capacity of our systems as they are upgraded and expanded over the next three years. This would add approximately 10% to our urban public transport capacity. Estimated cost by 2009/10 would be $2.1 billion.
* Fund the research required for a national integrated public transport fare payment system. ($15m)
A likely funding profile could be $50m in 2007/8, $300m in 2008/9, $750m in 2009/10 and $1.1 billion in 2009/10, because of the time to deliver additional rollingstock. A significant part of the expenditure would be on buses and trains assembled in Australia, generating multiplier benefits and jobs in the local Australian economy.
The sums of money indicated are relatively modest compared, for example, to the current AUSLINK budget (eg it is less than that promised on just one road project, the Ipswich bypass) or to the capital spending just announced on defence projects. However it would benefit millions of Australians in our capital cities and major regional centres as well, which would benefit from bus enhancements and other initiatives.
Should the impact of peak oil hit more severely in that timeframe, the program would be up and running and could be further expanded relatively quickly. The issue here is to build on existing designs. New rail rolling-stock for example, takes several years to get from the drawing board to commercial service.
Looking to the Future
The proposed initiatives will start the process of making our citizens, cities and the country more sustainable, and more able to counter the risks from peak oil and global waring. It will allow our cities to get on with planning the next major round of infrastructure enhancements, and provide a greater role for our citizens in planning their future.
For example in Sydney, this could include new metro lines. In Brisbane, the rail system needs to be expanded at its periphery but also to have a new underground line built under the city with new stations better located to the major office and retail concentrations. Adelaide’s suburban rail system needs to be upgraded and electrified, and possibly converted to light rail on some routes. In all cities, additional cross-regional and circumferential bus links are needed as well as better interchanges, to provide a more integrated system capable of handling a wider variety of trips.
Getting to the next level will take time but will be greatly facilitated by Commonwealth involvement. It is crucial to the survival of our cities and way of life.
Good stuff, Garry. I would just note that I'm not in favour of the smartcard sort of system. Anything technological will annoy some of the users and confuse tourists. It's also much more expensive than conductors.
Here in Melbourne we have 500 trams and 200 train stations, so we'd need about 1,400 staff as conductors and ticket sellers for all of them (not all trams run all day, and stations are only open 2/3 of each day). But we already have 600 ticket inspectors harassing people, so after retraining them to be nice to people we'd only need 800 extra staff. Allowing a generous $60,000 each for salary and super, that's $48 million we'd need.
Connex and Yarra Trams tell us that fare evasion loses them $50 million a year. I travelled on trams in the days when we had conductors, and I can assure you there was a lot less fare evasion - those conductors would push through the densest crowd to find you and get your fare. Optimistically we'd have zero fare evasion, a net $2 million gain on today; pessimistically we'd have half the fare evasion, leaving us $23 million still to find.
Well, the Smartcard we're introducing here is projected to cost $494 million over ten years. That's $49 million a year. With conductors, we could scrap that entirely, and thus be $26 million better off than now. Perhaps we could add a few services with that, or tidy up some of the old stations a bit.
As well, conductors will make things more pleasant and friendly, increasing patronage and thus profits. Also much better with tourists, since tourists will as I said be confused by technology, and can be given directions and so on by the conductor, rather than distracting the driver as they do nowadays.
Technology is a good thing, but it's not always the best thing.
Conductors can also help with safety on the train. Smartcard won't call anyone if there's a crime.
And skipping the tech solution in favor of conductors will also give a lot of people good jobs.
Well, the tech solution gives people jobs, too. Presumably all those machines don't spontaneously form themselves from broken toasters and old photocopiers sitting in landfill.
But I prefer solutions which solve several problems at once. "Smartcard" only solves the "we need jobs" problem, whereas "conductors" solves the "we need jobs" problem, and the "how do we get good service to attract patrons?" problem, and the "how do we stop fare evasion?" problem, and so on.
I have 24 years of experience in public transit in the USA. I learned that money from the taxpayers for buses, buildings, and other capital equipment was readily available but money for operations (wages, fuel, spare parts, etc) was like getting blood from a stone. The other thing I learned was from a taxpayer's perspective the most expensive piece of equipment on the bus was the farebox. Operating costs per passenger would drop significantly if bus fares were eliminated. In the situation we had in Grand Rapids, Michigan it would of required only a 50 cent per week increase per person in our service area to eliminate fares. The evidence was there in front of us that every time fares went up ridership went down. If the goal is to draw people away from using their cars then eliminating transit fares is the way to go.
Pre-K, the Riverfront Streetcar Line in New Orleans was operating at 95% to 103% of operating costs from the farebox + ad revenue (on the sides of the streetcars).
St. Charles (with 1923/24 rolling stock) was about 80%, and Canal was about 100% (data was not fully available for a complete year, but that was the trend when Katrina drowned many records).
The best buses were in the mid to high 40% recovery. New Orleans could operate a streetcar for less/hour than a bus.
Best Hopes for Streetcars (trams)
Alan
Thanks Garry Glazebrook, an excellent case made for what could be done with relatively modest sums.
Does anyone have a good argument against conductors? Their demise might only be due to neoliberal prejudice against what was a well-unionised workforce, eg. Maggie Thatchers pogroms in the UK coal industry, Howards replumbing of tertiary sector in Aus.. Biggest problem i can see with bringing conductors back here in Melbourne is fitting them onto the peakhour trains.
Free-fares i don't support, as it messes with peoples ethics to give even the illusion of something for nothing. Instead maybe a combination of a compulsory regional levy (via rates or other local taxes) + a personally purchased subscription of modest but not inconsequential amount (?$20-50), giving you a 3-12month all zones ticket.
"I'm not in favour of the smartcard sort of system"
Have you seen the Oyster card system in London? It automatically gives the user the cheapest fare facilitating pay as you go, e.g. my first journey in the morning is 90p, the second is 90 again, then the next one is about 50p, then 30p, and every other bus journey is free. So it caps the amount you pay overall and pay as you go is a fabulous incentive for people to use public transport if they do not commute everyday. You can't do that with any other payment method. It also has similar benefits for season ticket holders because it even gives you money back automatically to your bank account if you don't use public transport for a week on travelcards (now that's pretty neat, eh?)
Oyster eliminates ques at stations, people board buses about 10x faster by not paying in small change, so routes become significantly faster, and is perfect for an integrated transport system, you can top up your balance on-line. The fact that only about 1 in 20 people pay for bus by change now means that you don't need a conductor.
The database of where you've travelled provides usage modelling that you couldn't buy for love nor money. You can map out demand at different times of the day and alter timetables and routes accordingly, so that the network is truly customer friendly and so that you can do better business modelling for investment in new infrastructure.
Technology does work in this instance m8y, just ask your friends who've lived in London.
We can build a Physical-Internet, automate highly repetitive travel. The savings are huge.
Apply the concepts of distributed collaborative networks to our energy and transportation networks. The internet does this in our communications networks. The Germans are doing it in their energy network with their solar lifeboat policy
In transportation networks, remove the Parasitic Mass, congestion, power with solar collectors and apply networks. They become more durable against the postulates of Olduvai. A distributed collaborative network does not collapse as our current monolithic centralized system. We can no longer avoid pain but we can survive.
Besides these networks provide a 65% cost and 96% energy cost savings. Exploiting a cost savings is something people can accept event if they cannot accept Peak Oil, climate change and Olduvai.
The basic mechanics were recommended by US DOT in 1975 (PB-244854) as a way to permanently prevent future oil embargoes.
Morgantown was built in response to that oil embargo. It has since delivered 110 million injury-free passenger miles.
Cabinetaxi was also built. Unfortunately neither system was ever taken to the next iterations of distributed collaborative computer networks. Such networks and micro computers did not exist at that time.
They exist now and are expanding. ULTra is building at Heathrow. MISTER building in Poland. Vectus is building in Sweden. PodCars is raising a $1 billion fund in Sweden/California. JPods will open March 1, 2008 at the Mall of America.
Acceptance and action on Peak Oil will only happen when people see they can do something about it. There is hope.
"Morgantown" and "Cabinetaxi" link to theoildrum.com. Aside from that, as I am a Dial-Up Drongo, I don't youtube it, so have no idea what you're talking about ;)
At dial-up speed you can see what we are doing to deploy solar powered mobility networks at www.jpods.com
Essentially, if we stop moving a ton to move a person and strive to move just the person, we do not have to have an energy crisis. It takes 104 watt-hours to travel a km. Solar collectors 2 meters wide over that km of rail collect enough power for 12,500 vehicles to travel that km.
According to the latest research by the German based Energy Watch Group
EWG Outlook 2007
http://www.energywatchgroup.org/fileadmin/global/pdf/EWG_Oilreport_10-20...
oil production will be down by 30% in 2020 - which is in line with Bakhtiari's estimates. Since there are many essential uses for oil for which there is no alternative, we can expect that urban motorists will be asked to reduce their fuel consumption to a much higher degree, e.g. by car pooling and using public transport. In any event, car traffic volumes will be reduced - despite population growth - due to physical fuel shortages. That's why we will not need all the car lanes currently in use.
We can therefore confidently REPLACE car lanes with light rail tracks as shown on this image (courtesy Mortimer Q'Becks)
In Germany, the funding for such projects - according to a priority list in 10 year plans - is as follows:
10% Local Government or Mass Transit Authority
30% State Government
60% Federal Government
This ensures that every stakeholder involved coordinates transport planning with other parties. Since there is competition for funds available at higher Government levels it cannot happen that rail projects are simply cancelled like the Epping to Parramatta rail link by NSW Minister Costa.
Why the support for fossil fuel buses ?
I have developed plans, most recently in collaboration with the Millennium Institute, for creating a Non-Oil Transportation system for the USA.
In my plans FF buses are a necessary evil that should be minimized wherever possible. Their primary use should be as feeders to Urban Rail.
FF Buses are rarely more energy efficient/oil efficient than the most economical cars (or the delta is quite small).
Buses create no TOD, and the indirect energy savings of TOD typically exceed the large direct energy savings of electrified rail. So Buses are doubly as inefficient.
Electric Trolley buses are better than FF buses, but they use roughly 3 times as much electricity as streetcars. (Sometimes only x2)
Maximize streetcars instead.
Best Hopes for TOD,
Alan
BTW, was John Renne a student of yours ?
Hi Alan
Not sure if you know this but Garry is very much a light rail kind of guy. If you Google his name and light rail you get this.
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=garry+glazebrook+%26+light+rail&...
Here is one of his studies for light rail in Sydney
http://www.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Pages/Downloads.aspx/12/22/Gary%20Glaz...
The State govt is against light rail. Buses preferrred solution.
From one of the articles in Herald
The Minister for Transport, John Watkins, said yesterday that the light rail solution was simplistic in tackling Sydney's congestion. "I'm not convinced that whacking light rail tracks down one or two of our major city streets is the answer to congestion in Sydney because it means you would have to ban motor vehicles from those streets," he said.
Garry was being pragmatic and trying to work with what will be available.
Mind you he would love to see light rail return to the streets.
Best hope for changes in State govt thinking.
Dave B
Wow, Watkins is a real idiot.
"But if you have trams, you'll have far less cars on the street. You are aware that trams are bigger and can carry more people than cars, Minister?"
I just googled this quote from Watkins. It is here:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/the-future-of-bus-city--clogged-stre...
From January 10th, 2006. I doubt that - 20 months later - he has understood that peak oil is knocking at the door and that we'll have no other choice than light rail because that's the fastest high capacity system you can build up quickly and in a diesel shortage environment. Watkins is now dreaming of a Maroubra - Ryde metro, much too late.
A street car will add way more capacity than adding another lane for cars, because you can fit so many people in them, so those who still drive should find their journey faster with less lanes available. The principle is that you can't built your way out of congestion by building roads, because they simply fill up with insatiable demand that is stimulated by more road capacity. But can build your way out by building high capacity public transport. Copenhagen realised long ago that the only way to reduce congestion was to cut the number and width of roads and reduce parking spaces (slowly, progressively over time, combined with commensurate public transport investment).
Bus travel consumes less gasoline than heavy rail over long distance, intercity coach travel is the lowest consumer of gas. Streetcars are a great way forward but their cost is significant so they aren't suitable for every situation and bus will be a strong part of any transition to ff free economy and an intercity coach network can be set up for next to no investment, so I wouldn't discount it. Beware of the vested interests of those funding your research m8y.
Your comparism of buses and cars just doesn't stack up and no doubt you are comparing the best hybrids with old Diesel buses. If so that is an unfair comparism. If you compared the best new buses with the best cars, they couldn't compare, how the HELL could a double decker bus with 30-100 people in be less efficient use of fuel than a hybrid with 1.5 person average occupancy! Let alone the fact that a bus service provides a similar people carrier capacity increase for a road as adding a new lane. Did you compare it against the new fleet of hydrogen powered buses being brought right now by London Transport? Didn't think so. Aaargh!!
Trolly cars, as still found in places like Czech Republic will only operate in high density areas with a consistent demand and frankly will be unviable for many Aussie places because of the low density of suburbs. In such places you'll HAVE to make do with buses until plot subdivision and concentration of residential/commercial in accessible nodes and transport corridors supports, and even then you'll need buses to ensure that the trams and trolly buses are not stopping everywhere and benefit from their higher speed and distance potential by having less stops, with buses as feeders and for local travel retained if you have an area dense enough to support trolly buses. Buses will also always be needed for the different economics of night time travel after about midnight on many routes, when, given lower traffic, they are often as quick, but often cheaper to run.
I am unsure about Oz, but double decker buses are not usable in many US cities due to overhead clearance issues.
As for hydrogen buses, I consider them a gimmick. Straeto was VERY unhappy with their 3 hydrogen fuel cell buses, but at least their hydrogen came from renewable electricity (Iceland). Where will London Transit get their hydrogen from ?
Any route that can average "30 to 100" people should be operated as a streetcar or light rail if physically possible.
Alan
OK, well in principle that's ok, but it costs about 250000 Aus Dollars to set up a bus route, but millions, if not tens of millions to set up street car, sometimes billions to set up a tram. So, in the long run fine, but it simply won't happen overnight so bus will HAVE to take up a lot of slack for a long time yet, there really is no choice, adaptation will be post peak oil so there won't be much money to achieve it, too late if your not onto the game at this stage I'm afraid, it'll be like waiting 50-100yrs to adapt a city to tram and trolly bus, so patience and pragmatism is required. And don't be pedantic about capacity with double deckers, because you can fit 60+ on a single decker bus.
This is a common misconception, that the inner-city is more densely populated that the outer suburbs. In fact it's not true.
The inner city has more buildings per area, but less people live in each building compared to the outer suburbs, leading to the same population densities.
For example,
Kings Park (20km from city center), 239ha, 9,949 people, 2,721 dwellings. This gives 3.7 people per dwelling, 11.4 dwellings per hectare, and 41.6 people per hectare.
Fitzroy (3km from city center), 219ha, 9,159 people, 4,497 dwellings. This gives 2.0 people per dwelling, 20.5 dwellings per hectare, and 41.8 people per hectare.
When you travel through the inner city, you don't get to look inside the houses and count how many people live there, you just see lots of houses pushed together, so you assume that there must be a lot of people, too. But in fact there are only about half as many people in each house in the inner city as the outer suburbs, so even though the inner city has more dwellings, it ends up with about the same population density as the outer suburbs.
North Fitzory has three train stations within 2km (inclduing Parliament station, on the central city loop - so you can get anywhere from there), two tram lines with three services on them, and several bus lines.
Kings Park has a few buses.
The proximity of the central city with many workplaces explains why 13.2% of Fitzroy-dweller's trips to work are by foot or cycle, compared to only 1% of Kings Park residents. However, we need some other explanation for 27.6% of Fitzroy trips to work being on public transport compared to only 16.1% of Kings Park.
That explanation is not population density, but simply availability of services. You can't use a service that isn't there.
You have to get pretty far out of an Aussie city before the population density really drops. Basically when you see farmland, the density has dropped. Anywhere before that it's 20-40 people per hectare, simply because if you have a big family, you move to the outer suburbs and a larger house; if you're dual-income no kids, or single person, you choose a smaller place in the inner city.
If low population density is your only argument against trams, then I'm afraid the only place we won't see trams is zooming by farms. And I don't think anyone's ever suggested those are a good place for them.
You can't possibly suggest that Aussie suburbs are high density with their acre plots of land! That's the funniest thing I've heard all day! What you have infact revealed with your stats is that your inner cities are almost as bad. No private company in their right mind would invest the millions required for a tram system in 20 dwellings/hectare.
In the UK, the MINIMUM density for new developments is 30 dwellings/hectare and london manages close to 50 on average. More on that later in this post.
Fact: Sydney is the size of LOS ANGELES, with just 3.5million people. YOUR largest city is the most spread out, least dense, least sustainable in the ENTIRE WORLD. You guys consume more oil and emit more CO2 than anybody else, including the Yanks.
http://comunities.gov.uk/index.asp?id=1146812
This government circular (above) shows what's been happening in the UK since the early 2000's, it shows that we've moved from Australian style densities to something far more sustainable in the space of a few years with strong planning laws:
Here's the headline stats from the circular (which forms government policy and council's have the power to abide by when making planning decisions:
Objective stated in policy: Local planning authorities are expected to give priority re-using previously-developed land within urban areas, bringing empty homes back into use and converting existing buildings, in preference to the development of greenfield sites. The presumption is that new development will use land efficiently and be well designed. To avoid the profligate use of land and encourage sustainable environments, PPG3 requires local planning authorities to examine critically the standards applied to new residential development, particularly with regard to roads, layouts and car parking. They are expected to avoid housing developments which make inefficient use of land (those of less than 30 dwellings per hectare net); encourage developments which make more efficient use of land (between 30 and 50 dwellings per hectare net) and seek greater intensity of development at places with good public transport accessibility.
The result of that? Astounding, and it CAN be repeated in AUS with political will:
In 2001 the overall density of residential development in England was 25 dwellings per hectare1. This had remained unchanged since 1996. Over the period 1997 to 2001,
more than half of the land used for housing was built at densities of less than 20 dwellings per hectare and over three quarters at less than 30 dwellings per hectare.
Since the Direction came into effect, provisional estimates for the average density of new developments in England for 2003 indicate that the overall density of residential development has increased to 33 dwellings per hectare.
In particular, the average densities of new development in London and the South East have increased from 55 and 26 dwellings per hectare respectively in 2002 to provisional
estimates of 71 and 33 dwellings per hectare in 2003.
Now, a little history lesson, when we relied on railways and walking, densities were far higher, in suburbs which are some of the most expensive in the world in London and around the Europe.
OK, the historic densities are shown well on page 12 of the London Plans Supplementary Planning Guidance for Housing:
http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/strategies/sds/spg_housing.jsp
Dwellings/hectare:
If 10mins walk from town centre:
240 – 435 central inner city London
50 - 275 general urban areas
50 - 120 suburban
If sited along a transport corridor or close to town centre
50 - 100 urban
30 - 80 suburban
If currently remote sites
30 - 50
Earl's Court, where all the Aussies go when they visit London is close to 500 dwellings/hectare and you can't buy a house there for less than a million quid. So you can't say they ain't popular, hell, Elle Mcferson, you're own bod of the year lives there!
So, when a council is releasing sites for development, they focus on the guidance, allocate a rolling 5yr supply, or whatever and prioritise sites where high density can be provided. Its really as simple as giving local government the power to achieve this and the policy guidance from central government to ensure that they aren't open to legal costs from developers for doing so.
One more thing, if you want to see progressive planning policy take a look at this:
http://www.cabe.org.uk/default.aspx?contentitemid=1334
Get your free copy of the Urban Design Compendium from English Partnerships, a UK Government agency that facilitates development and offers best practice advice for developers :
http://www.communities.gov.uk/planningandbuilding/planning/planningpolicyguidance/
Of course, for really sustainable stuff, you'll need to look towards Germany, Denmark and the like.
Regards.
[double post]
I didn't say Australian suburbs were "high-density". I said that the outer suburbs were about the same population density as the inner suburbs. That's population density I was talking about, not dwelling density.
The number of dwellings per hectare is entirely irrelevant to the viability of public transport, only people per hectare are relevant. That's because dwellings don't take the bus, people do.
Toronto and Vancouver have bus systems with 2-10 minute frequencies compared to our 60 minute, and they are broadly similar cities in terms of population densities and concentration of jobs in the inner city. A detailed analysis can be found here, but it suffice to say here that when calculating the population density required, several studies have found that for a 10 minute bus service to be viable, a density of around 12.5 people per hectare is needed. Pretty low, really.
Again, it's people per hectare that matters, not dwellings per hectare.
Undoubtedly higher densities make it more viable still. But the population density required is surprisingly low, once you actually calculate it, and recognise the difference between dwellings/ha and population density.
Mass transit is unattractive to private investors because it has a high capital cost with relatively low returns. It's always gong to need public money. But that doesn't bother me - roads, power stations, universities and hospitals all need public money, too.
No doubt you can run a bus, but not a tram at that density, and you may well get A BUS, but not a complex bus network like you get in a European City.
When looking at research, please try to delineate between that funded by vested interests and that which is actually worthwhile, you haven't stated the source of your info and I highly doubt its reliability. No doubt 20dwellings/hect is the minimum for a bus service, but it is the damn minimum, and services at that level will be so poor that you will never get more than about 10% of people out of their cars, and for sure, you can put in a tram, but ridership will be so low that subsidies will be extremely high. Canadian examples will be good relative to American examples, but torrid compared to European. You should be looking towards the latter for inspiration. There is no doubt that your low population densities (in cities) contributes to Australians driving more per capta than even the Yanks. Also, Canada and yourselves have been duped by the oil industry because you both produce heavier grade oils and are dependent on dwindling imports for sweeter grades for petrol.
Check out the bus densities here, look at the pdf's and ask if anything close to London could ever be achieved in 20dph Sydney. Again, its not a case of 1 bus route for each area, most suburbs have 10 or more, plus underground and heavy rail. This is typical for most European cities.
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/gettingaround/maps/buses/
You are cutting hairs with your argument about dwelling vs person densities, because there's no way you can get the people/hectare up significantly without increasing density of dwellings, and the differences between the two that you mention are so slight to be immaterial to the issue in question. You need not increase density everywhere, just at nodes with good public transport (and put more services and commercial there also) places inbetween will benefit from infrastructure that goes in and out of the nodes. But also, you should avoid new development in poorly served areas until infrastructure is brought in. That's what we do here and it is working.
Protect and stand up for the Aussie way of life bloody minded and you'll loose it as soon as petrol is $20, $50 a litre. It'll happen, and the cities will erode as soon as businesses leave the CBD's as people can't drive to work. Alternatively, you could become a nation of smallholders with each family using their 1/4 acre plots, filling in their swimming pools and driveways to make way for vegetable gardens. Knock down the extension to make way for more turnips.
I certainly did link the source of my info, it's not my fault if you didn't look at it.
The common figure reached by several studies as the minimum population density (again, number of dwellings is irrelevant) to sustain a bus service every 10 minutes is 12.5/ha. 12.5 per hectare in the 1965 Brisbane Transportation Study; 12 per hectare by Thompson in Great Cities and Their Traffic (1977); 15 per hectare by Pushkarev and Zupen in Public Transportation and Land Use Policy (1977); and 14 per hectare by Mees in A Very Public Solution (2000).
That's a service every 10 minutes. "Services at that level will be so poor" - you say - well, perhaps where you're from a bus every 10 minutes is crappy, but here it'd be bloody marvellous.
For the population density required for a viable tram or train service, I don't know of studies. However, here in Australia buses are - I speak as a regular public transport user who doesn't own a car - the least popular of the three. If people can take a train or tram instead, they will. That's because buses are not given any special treatment on the roads, and so get blocked or slowed by cars; trams and trains have their own space and so zip along happily.
The trams we have vary in capacity, some more and some less than the buses, so simply in terms of customs, trams would be as viable as buses. Of course trams and their lines have a higher capital cost than buses, but trams can be powered by renewable energy, since they run on electricity anyway, while buses burn fuel. So the trams are a better long-term prospect.
You have a strange view of cities, that we have first the transport lines, and build the cities around them. In fact in Australia the city boundaries and zones are mostly made already, so it's much less trouble to put the transport lines there. We have for example many new suburbs built, the "McMansions", as they're called - these are sadly without any PT excepting a crappy bus every hour or so. It would be strange to knock all those houses down and rebuild them, rather than simply running a train or tram line out to them.
Sadly, the infrastructure built is simply big bloody roads. Historically, it wasn't necessary to prevent or encourage development anywhere - they just built the train lines, and that's where the new suburbs sprang up.
I'm not sure what you imagine "the Aussie way of life" to be. There are dual-income no kids couples living in tiny flats in Fitzroy owning no car taking the tram to their CBD accountacy firm every day, tradesmen owning utes with wives and several children living in 250m2 homes on 300m2 blocks in Dandenong, rich financiers living in small but very expensive flats in Toorak and driving SUVs three blocks to the shops, immigrant families with no cars living 6 people to 2 bedrooms in units in Coburg... which of these is "Australian"? I have the feeling you imagine we all live like in Neighbours.
Bus travel consumes less gasoline than heavy rail over long distance
Not electrified heavy rail. Which I strongly support.
Alan
Not true. For example, a journey from London to Manchester, you produce approx 36.6kg carbon by car, 5.2 by train, 4.3 by coach. (Source, Heat by George Monbiot)
From the same source, a train going at 350kph between London and Edinburgh would consume about 22litres of fuel per seat (Airbus consumes about 20). Of course air has about 3x more impact on climate change. Train would go down to 14litres if you keep the train to 250kph. Consumption rises rapidly after 200kph. Of course, if the electric comes from renewables you are on a winner, but until capacity gets to a decent level that will be just displacing demand for renewables from other sectors, but we'll have to get there eventually.
These figures are for electric, using litres as an equivalent measure. So, it depends on how fast you go, but coaches invariably consume less. I'm afraid that your figures are totally wrong. Based on assumptions not research. Things aren't always as they seem!
1) I have come out against high speed trains in the USA for that reason and support the CSX proposal for Washington DC To Miami (and would like to duplicate it for 11,000 or miles - 17,500 km).
To wit, 2 freight and 2 passenger tracks from DC to Richmond, VA and 2 freight and 1 passenger track from Richmond to Miami.
1,200 miles of grade separated rail. Freight would operate at up to 70 mph (112 kph) and passengers at a top speed of 110 mph (176 kph) and average speed (with stops) of 86 mph (137 kph). The market served would be mainly shorter trips of up to 500 miles (800 km) or so.
2) I wonder about the electrical source used in that calculation. Combined cycle natural gas has a thermal efficiency approaching 60%. More carbon intense coal has a thermal efficiency of about 33%. A massive difference in carbon. And nuclear is also non-GHG electricity.
And is regenerative braking included ?
In any case, diesel is very rarely used to generate grid electricity. And that is what we shall have trouble sourcing soon.
Alan
Completely right, the fuel source is paramount. I have wondered if dotting an entire line with wind turbines and solar would help! Especially with electric rail/cables that will be along the line aready. An extra 500 quid or so per pylon for a micro turbine? Could that small cost duplicated along a rail line that long compensate? The balance of wind along the stretch would give a decent spread of wind. Hell, you could even upgrade the electric along a track to be capable of serving high capacity wind farms along the way, considering that the electrics will have to be installed in anycase, opening wide swathes of land for renewables. So maybe this problem can be offset? And its not a fair comparism between air and rail, because air emissions are abut 3x worse for global warming and can't reasonably be replaced with bio-fuels (even hydrogen from renewables up there will produce dangerous contrails).
The full high speed option is fine I guess so long as train firms invest in the additi