 | The Bullroarer - Thursday 15 November 2007 | TOD: Australia/New Zealand | The Bullroarer - Saturday 17th November 2007 |  |
72 comments on A Public Transport And Green City Manifesto For The Federal Election
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
User login
Contact
- anz at theoildrum dot com
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
Archives
GAIA Host Collective
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 additional renewables capacity. Considering that they would make profit on that investment, it is not as far fetched as it may sound.