 | The Bullroarer - Thursday 15 November 2007 | The Oil Drum: 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 The Oil Drum: Australia/New Zealand
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.
Contact
- anz at theoildrum dot com
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
Archives
- November 2010 (2)
- October 2010 (5)
- September 2010 (4)
- August 2010 (8)
- July 2010 (2)
- June 2010 (2)
- May 2010 (6)
- April 2010 (7)
- March 2010 (12)
- February 2010 (11)
- January 2010 (7)
- December 2009 (10)
- November 2009 (6)
- October 2009 (7)
- September 2009 (10)
- August 2009 (10)
- July 2009 (3)
- June 2009 (14)
- May 2009 (10)
- April 2009 (15)
- March 2009 (16)
- February 2009 (16)
- January 2009 (15)
- December 2008 (15)
- November 2008 (23)
- October 2008 (25)
- September 2008 (24)
- August 2008 (30)
- July 2008 (44)
- June 2008 (38)
- May 2008 (48)
- April 2008 (43)
- March 2008 (29)
- February 2008 (32)
- January 2008 (30)
- December 2007 (26)
- November 2007 (32)
- October 2007 (11)
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 additional renewables capacity. Considering that they would make profit on that investment, it is not as far fetched as it may sound.
I posted this in the Elections in the Land of Oz thread but no replies or reactions, so, like a child seeking attention, I'll post again! Because I'm really keen to see what you guys in OZ feel about the planning control element of energy and transport given that techno fixes are generally well known. My point is, that techno fixes, buses and trains will only work if houses, retail and employment are controlled so that they are in locations and at suitable densities to facilitate enough use of public transport to make it viable.
Cheers.
-----
Living in London, I have many mates from Australia. They love England because they don't need a car and because they can walk down a high street. They complain that in Australia you are beyond the economy, your friends, society if you don't have a car. Goodness only knows what kids do to amuse themselves before they are old enough to drive.
Your lax planning system puts houses at low densities in random places that do not connect with public transport and you allow shopping malls with no thought about traditional shopping centres. Once there was the chance of a high speed rail link between Melbourne and Sydney but the money was embezzled or something like that so you have to fly or drive between these two great cities. Its a real shame, because, when a city is designed spatially in a way that does not support local services and public transport, its extremely expensive and requires subsidy to be retrofitted. Hopefully the Aussie developers charter approach can be changed, but I doubt it. Unfortunately New Zealand appears to have a similar approach.
As a sub-note, the independence of individual States on planning is a problem. You need a Federal direction on environmental issues, as is the case with Planning Policy Guidance and Statements in the UK, or in the case of Environmental Impact Statements and Strategic Environmental Impact Statements from European law. That is how national elections could be relevant. If the Federal Government took the issue to task and put a legal obligation on states to ensure that their planning systems and policies cover these issues within a defined deadline, with Federal planning inspectors having the final say on development plans. It would probably be unconstitutional and cause outrage, but nothing will happen otherwise, IMHO.
This weakness of the federal system is also a reason why American planning is so distorted towards vested interests, why Los Angeles was allowed to dismantle its public transport, why suburbs can be built without pedestrian connections to the city or even sidewalks. Going a step further, solving the Australian planning system would be a model for solving the American planning system.
You have heaps of planners with European experience now, particularly in the UK, use it!!
"Nobody needs to go anywhere else. We are all, if we only knew it, already there." (Aldous Huxley "Island" 1962, p38)
Phil
Here's some attention :-)
You have to understand the Great Australian Dream has been to live in the suburbs, with a white picket fence and a car. Yes its sick but this has been the dream since WWII.
Federal govt does not see its role in planning and coneveniently leaves it to the states. Canberra does not see its role to fund city infratstructure apart from motorways.
Australia has followed US. Sydney ripped its trams up and built freeways and installed buses as a replacement.
http://www.railpage.org.au/tram/sydhist.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trams_in_Sydney
The road lobby is very powerful and has made sure public transport is relegated in planning terms to the car.
There is also some good news that Gen Y aspires to own/rent a unit near action in dense parts of the city. Something that developers are finding to their cost.
Having a mortgage on the outskirts of city with Long commutes is something they do not aspire to.
Most new development in Sydney 90% is in the older areas and only 10% on fringes. City is slowly more dense.
The smart developers are building around rail stations and public transport and existing city centres.
The good news is that it is starting to occur. Lots of work to do.
Hope this helps Phil.
Certainly if you plan everything centrally, then things can get done. But what if that central government does the wrong thing? Or what if it does nothing at all?
That's the strength of having local, state and federal governments - it's another "balance of power" thing, like having both lower and upper houses of parliament, judiciary separate from the executive, and so on.
Federal governments have the advantage of commanding large resources, but the disadvantage of distance - both physical and psychological - from day-to-day troubles and concerns. Local governments don't command much in the way of resources but are rather more in touch. So you need that back-and-forth between them to not only get things done, but get the right thing done.
Here in Australia the federal government for 20 years has denied climate change and peak oil, happily exporting coal and uranium, opposing public transport and supporting more roads. The state and local governments have been different.
Well, the foundations can be found in European planning policies. I agree, the Aussie system is totally against such things, but being anti-progressive isn't limited to planning, I've heard bad stories about what the current government is doing about Labour laws.
But there is no risk in Federal control on planning, because if they are liberal they leave it up to the states, and if they become progressive they take more control, so if you are into sustainability, there is no risk in having more central control. The strength of the car lobby is such that only central goverment has power to override it with legislation.
In actual fact, the only way this can be changed is via counter lobbying from organisations such as yourself and the only way that can work is if the various interest groups co-ordinate their efforts, peakists, environmentalists, etc. and European amenity groups would with experience in this, such as CPRE and RTPI would most definitely offer useful support, the RTPI in particular because no doubt they would want to extend their influence and membership. Remember that the UK planning system was dreamed up during the 1930's from scratch after people realised things were out of control, so you guys could do the same, but you already have a system that just needs a bit of tinkering and the templates already exist in Europe, some good stuff in the UK and heaps of amazing stuff in Denmark and Germany, no need to re-invent the wheel and the lobbying you guys need has been done before so call on your friends and get workin!
You forget that in most countries, federal law overrides state law, and state overrides local. So the higher power can actually prevent things from happening. And in fact that's what we see here in Australia. If the state governments invest in roads, the federal government matches spending; if they invest in rail or public transport, they receive no (as in, actually not one dollar) of matching funding. Federal money is tied to particular projects.
So what happens is that the federal government offers them money for roads, and if the state government says, "we'd rather have rail", then they're on their own. Then the federal government turns around and says, "look, dear people, your state government doesn't care for you like we do. Oh dear you'd better give up state powers to the federal government."
The thing is that in political affairs you get positive feedback loops, a cause creating an effect which in turn becomes a cause, and so on. For example,
- Aussies like their cars
- Because they like their cars, the roads are crowded
- Because the roads are crowded, they demand more funding on roads
- Because there's more funding on roads, there's less available for public transport
- because there's less money for public transport, the service becomes worse, or doesn't cover some suburb, and people say "geez, I better use the car instead, PT sucks, cars rock!"
- return to the start
Now, it's entirely possible to have a positive feedback loop in favour of public transport, but we don't have that here at the moment.
Once you're in one loop it's hard to change to the other. But the secret is not to grant all power to some grand central power. On the contrary, the best means of breaking out of any such loop is to have a diversity of approaches being tried. So the council of Bogtown may say public transport can't work and doesn't try it, while the council of Johnstown says, "we'll give it a go." Then if Johnston makes it work, the people of Bogtown become curious...
If you have a grand central power deciding everything, you can't have a diversity of approaches. It's like saying that our science would be heaps better if all the country's scientists were in one big university, or our companies would work better if they were all one big company. No. Diversity of ideas and approaches is needed for successes, and that requires diversity in powers.
Aussies are dependent on their cars because cities aren't designed for walking and public transport. I see it all the time, Aussies move the the UK and have a longing for cars yet a couple of months into being here they are more than happy to walk and take buses and wouldn't dream of buying a car half of the time. Its an addiction, which, like any other can change.
The thing about federal law is that in Australia you simply need to have a lobbying group that can counter the car industry. The government don't have the knowledge to solve peak oil so they will seek knowledgeable pressure groups to provide them solutions which they will trumpet as their own. So, get together with the australian planning institute, get advice from the royal (english) town planning institute, get greenpeace and friends of the earth on-board, lobby, provide solutions, and soon enough government will start to have to choose between two options. When they see that business as usual is a vote looser, when aussies are paying double, triple for their drive to work, when suburban land values fall, then they will seek you. So don't be so damn defeatist, you guys often have a go at us Brits for being whinging Poms, but its you Aussies who are the real whingers, like the last post, so damn defeatist, no fight left within ya,
and its nonsense about the big organisation thing given that the European Union is the body that forces countries like the UK to do environmental impact assessments and makes it illegal to destroy sites of natural or scientific interest, it just depends on the strength of the civil organisations beneath (lobby, community and grass roots organisations) who lobby and keep the government into account, countering the corporations), and has something to do with the strength of the system. If states want more control, maybe they should be able to appoint people to the second chamber as part of the voting system to ensure a bottom up system, and maybe more devolved powers for the states on funding issues, so voting and constitutional reform could be part of the solution. Either way, things need to change and change fast if the Aussie way of life is to be any good when peak oil hits, so don't look for problems only, look for solutions and get organised. If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.
Australian cities may not be designed for walking and public transport, however they are well-suited for it.
All but a very few industrial areas have pavements for walkers. The roads are made broad for the sake of traffic. Two lane roads, which we have every 2km in the middle and outer suburbs of Melbourne, could easily have a light rail taking up the middle lanes. Three lane highways (every 5km or so) could have a heavy rail down them.
The only cities where it's hard to have public transport are cities built before the car, with very narrow and winding streets. The only cities where it's hard to be a pedestrian are those where they're deliberately excluded, with no walking pavements.
Australia has no such cities at all. We lack the will, not the space or design.
We don't have lobby groups specifically to to counter the car industry, however we do have a Public Transport User's Association. They're fairly effective, as such groups go. The problem is that it's not simply a matter of "lobby groups" against each-other - the will and culture of the people matter a lot. Australia has a car-driving and worshipping culture.
It's possible to overcome that, but it takes time.
Granted, your roads could easily be retrofitted. But, its the density of development, its location and the permeability of the street pattern (cul-de-sacs can't be walked easily, you go round and around, whilst grids are great for getting access to things like bus stops) and its location relative to existing public transport infrastructure.
In the UK, we have minimum density requirements for new developments and location is determined by sustainability. You can refuse a development if it will be car-dependent and get away with it without any recourse for the developer. You simply aren't allowed to build if the public transport accessibility is not good enough. We don't allow development in open countryside, except where it tags onto an existing settlement where it can be integrated into its transport network, mainly for that reason. Where you get fresh residential areas (usually as what we call a sustainable urban extension) the developer has to pay for bus services. Usually only £100,000 per bus service to get one up and running for a whole 5yrs. So its cheap for the developer. The problem is, that if development isn't along a bus route at a suitable density, the route cannot sustain itself from ticket sales alone because the buses/trains or whatever will be half full. The same is true for local services, corner shops, doctors surgeries, surf clubs!, schools, which cannot be provided locally without a suitable density. Clearly there's a compromise to be had between the bungalows that Aussies prefer with other forms. But note, most Aussies who come to london fall in love with Edwardian terraces which are well built, with all their mates walking or public transport distance (more sociable) and with gardens big enough for BBQ's, and those terraces are way more dense than is required, at between 200 and 400 dwellings/hectare.
What I would advise is, that if you want to get involved with lobbying, that you work with existing strong organisations such as the Public Transport User's Association. Many movements dissapear from proliferation and proliferation is the antithesis to the car industry. The existing organisation can evolve and diversify to represent other issues, even re-brand if necessary, plus you'll be tapping onto an existing pool of supporters. YES, it takes time, but so will oil prices, you need to position yourself for the point in time when politicians WILL sit back and ask themselves what needs to be done to solve these problems and win votes. The next decade is that period where consolidation is required. All these things have been solved tecnically before and in some places the politics have been won, so more opportunities to link up with other groups throughout the world to provide technical and political support.
Also, don't fall into the trap of thinking that Aussies are special for their love of cars. All people from all countries love their cars, my folks live in rural england where public transport is shite, they love and would not ever get rid of their car, speak to any Chinese, Australia is not special and the solutions that apply elsewhere will work in Aus.
The culture will only change when people are forced to change their behaviour (from prices and economic decline) or from different policies and new urban planning and investment in infrastructure, and that can only come from effective lobbying, because the government doesn't have the solutions, it identifies an issue and goes to its people, its up to you guys to be its people that it can rely on for that. The lack of will is not with the people who are simply dealing as best as they can with what they have. Joe six-pack's desire to have a car has nothing to do with whether the government supports new rail or road.
One other thing I read in one of the posts is the false argument that public transport is bad because it requires subsidy. Roads are paid for wholly by the state, the oil industry is subsidised heavily, road tax doesn't go close to paying for it, private companies will put in capital to own and run a railroad, rail is actually cheaper than motorways and the capacity of a high speed rail can be 3x greater than a three lane motorway. Just look at Eurostar, 20 carraige trains running at a decent frequency at I think 180miles/hour, 2hrs 15mins from London to Paris. So its faster, cheaper, more economically sustainable than car, you would need an 18 lane motorway to provide that capacity, and even then it would take 3x longer. Only airplanes are cheaper at present, but that's only because they are subsidised heavily too. One of the big subsidies is that the price of carbon emissions is not factored in. So, the fact that private companies don't generally build roads, but will build and operate trains goes to show that the subsidy thing is a lie, roads get more subsidy than public transport.
Another new thing that shows what planning can do when engaged, we in the UK require 10% on-site renewable energy provision now for major developments in many boroughs. This actually incentivises energy efficiency creating a virtuous cycle given that the cost of providing renewables is significantly greater than the cost of building in efficiency. So developers get into horse trading where they offer water saving (you can calculate a kilowatt hour per 100 litres of water used for example), they can offer combined heat and power, offer naturally ventillated offices, higher insulation values, materials with low embedded energy. All this is used to negotiate less wind turbines and less solar within the development and the efficiency savings and renewable capacity are inbuilt with a legal agreement. So you can ratchet up the provision as the developers get used to it. The new London Plan is proposing a 20% provision.
"Nobody needs to go anywhere else. We are all, if we only knew it, already there." (Aldous Huxley "Island" 1962, p38)
I have a small question.
All these projects require funding. And so far as I can see: they require funding from the government.
To me that means: They are not profit making.
Because if they were, a train operator could just go to the stock exchange, get the money and build the lot.
This means: We think it is necessary to raise taxes to fund all these projects.
I would say: Why don't you raise the gas tax, and lower the income tax. Then all this would be profitable and the market would take care. probably much quicker than the government and certainly much cheaper.
How about that?
Richard
Most passenger railways in Australia are all owned by State govt. Federal govt spends billions on new roads and has recorded a AUD$10 billion suplus this year and has ran surpluses for now 10 years. Most roads do not make profits nor do we have tolls on federal highways. They have plans for even more if re-elected.
Plenty of capacity. Australia is enjoying a massive minerals boom. We are supplying China with Iron ore, coal, LNG you name it.
However we are running trade deficts due to oil. Despite record export volumes and highest terms of trade in 40 years.
Federal govt used to have indexation of taxes on gasoline, but stoopped this. Now excise declines in real terms and gives income tax to spend more.
Hope this helps.
Well, there are a couple of things here.
The first is that lots of large projects wouldn't happen without public funding. That's not just public transport, it's highways and coal-fired power stations, too.
The second is that the reason for these things needing public funding is that the profits are small and long-term, while the stock market is all about big profits and short-term. Compare:
"Lend me $1,000, and in a day I'll give you it back, with $1,000 on top of it."
"Lend me $1,000, and I'll give you $100 a year forever."
Stock markets favour the first, and the public as a whole favours the second (though obviously as private individuals they often favour the first). Investing in rail and the like are much more the second kind of investment.
The third thing is that rail and roads often never turn a profit by themselves. But they enable other profit-making enterprises. The railway from Mining Town to Port may never make a profit, but the company hiring the railway cars to transport the ore will then be able to get its ore out, and make a big profit; without the railway to take them, Mining Town would be useless. But with Mining Town doing well, it pays taxes by which the railway indirectly makes a profit. Okay, you spend $100 million on the railway and only get $2 million revenue from it, but it enables Mining Town to exist, and from them you get $10 million in revenue.
But private investment doesn't really work that way - they want direct profits, not indirect profits. Government, representing as it should the public interest, can afford to take a wider view of things.
This is the biggest myth of them all. Train & bus operators DO go to the stock exchange and obtain lots of private money for investment, even at a time when driving is at historically cheap levels relative to public transport.
Yes, public transport recieves subsidy, BUT, roads are WHOLLY subsidised, since when did you see a private company owning and operating roads? Some important bridges and toll motorways are the exception. Not only that, but driving is also cheap because the oil industry is heavily subsidised, both are subsidised indirectly for not paying for their carbon emissions.
The new rail link from Alice Springs to Darwin cost, I believe less than 2billion AUS Dollars (sorry if I got that wrong,. but You couldn't build a motorway a 5th of the distance at the final price anyway, and the price tag included the running costs not covered by tickets sold, freight contracts procured. And remember, a high speed rail link has up to 3x the capacity of a 3 lane motorway, which, by the way, would cost a hell of a lot more to build and maintain. Also, putting freight onto roads is one of the main reasons why we have to pay so much to replace tarmac, because those road trains really tear up the surfaces something chronic, but the truckers don't pay for that, YOU DO from your general taxes.
The reason why public transport can cause hicups is because it is expected to pay its way through charges to customers, so if revenue is lower than expected extra subsidy is required and the vested interests pounce on it with big media releases, whilst roads are always wholly underwritten so financial planning for them is more prudent and nobody notices that fuel and road tax covers a rediculously small percentage of the total cost because we take it for granted that a road will not pay its way.
The reality is, that, spend a few hundred billion on roads and a political party will get a few million from oil and car companies, put tens of billions into a world class railway and you get bugger all. That is the real economics, the real issue, as in America is to decouple party funding from corporate interests.
"Nobody needs to go anywhere else. We are all, if we only knew it, already there." (Aldous Huxley "Island" 1962, p38)
Hallelujah, a blog that smart people contribute too. For so long I have been searching for real debate about public transport in Australia.
Planning in many cities has been poor over the last few decades with our population opting for the "great Australian dream" as mentioned here before, especially in Sydney. The NSW govt has been the worst offender for a lack of vision in public transport planning in the 80's and 90's.
It is incredible how the rest of society with globalisation has sought to increase profits with mass efficiencies and yet the one area we could all improve our life with more efficient strategies is the way we commute and travel. I guess it is a by-product of our egocentric lifestyle.
It is too late to bitch and whinge about our politicians inadequacies of the past but it isn't yet too late for us to make good with some smart decisions now.
The original article is excellent in the way it addresses a broad range of practical and "relatively" cheap ideas to address public transport strategies. I wish I were James Packer or Frank Lowy right now, I guarantee you I'd be spending a couple of billion dollars of my own piggy bank on key public transport strategies at this very moment. When the oil dries up, you would be looking at a trebling of your investment alone and that would be in just the next decade or so.
There is no golden goose answer. I am a native West Australian that lives (suffers) in Sydney. I love Perth's public tranport model of buses feeding key train line hubs. Unfortunately in Sydney this wouldn't work in the short term as a solution and would draw great fire from the public who expect a (selfish) one service delivers all model. Sydney has a desire for a one line - no change mentality to the city. I remember living in London and changing 3 tube lines to get to work and it was the best model for everyone. You had choices of which lines you could take to a certain point of town.
I think we have to look at oil as form of energy only and not a necessity. From there we could tax each energy source on the amount of pollutants it produces. All of a sudden, public tranport will become a lot more attractive, even diesel buses (they are still a very important and flexible form of mass transit).
I totally agree that AUSLINK has been biased towards roads funding only and it is very sad that our federal politicians haven't had vision for more than a decade now. Unfortunately a war "on terror", immigration and interest rate fears back in early 2000 have distracted the general population for a good 5 years, dragging us off the real issues of society. Maybe with climate change fear it will be public transports time this next decade.
We need a gutsy federal government, one that is not afraid to lose an election after one term, to implement strategies to fix our public transport and fix our lifestyles with it. We also need urban planners to compliment any transport strategies and vice versa, and build eco-cities that do not rely so heavily on the automobile. These developments do exist but they need much greater encouragement and incentives. These are the true initiatives that will drive better mass transit systems. UK, France and Germany don't have 24 hour bus services for suburbs full of quarter acre blocks.
The reality is while we all dream and have the best intentions, we need legislation in urban planning and transport modeling to push us in the right direction. While we all mean well to save the planet, we are all jealous and annoyed when the bloke next door doesn't do the right thing and cheats the system. That is what our governments are for, making the big decisions for the good of the people.
I have lost faith in our government in this very present day but I think we also need to lobby the rich powerful multi-national organisations to see what they're doing about making their employees change, especially big companies that have large amounts of workers all over Australia like Coles Group or Commonwealth Bank. Companies have to also start playing a role in the footprint their employees leave when going about their work.
I hope you can all contribute any ideas that could help no matter how remotely far fetched they seem. You never know one day a Kevin Rudd or John Howard may read this forum and actually wake up to themselves. Unlikely but slightly possible.
I agree that governments are totally skewed at present to the corporate vested interests, but, corporations know where the bread is buttered and know and suppress the good news all the time, so it would be wasted resources lobbying them. It is however worthwhile lobbying their customers (the general public), who are also voters, at the same time as providing expertise and solutions to government, being constructive as lobbyers, because, governments will need to deal with these issues and will be scratching their heads scrambling for votes at some point soon after peak oil, they will know that if they support your policies they get the vote of your supporters, so once there is a critical mass it the corporate angle can fall like a pack of cards. Theres less than 10yrs to skill up for that lobbying game but its worthwile giving it a go. It is important to work alongside existing organisations tho, don't start up a new movement because that will just dissipate the message. Its all about reinforcing each other's actions and partnership. That's how the corporations manage it!
We aren't going to run out of sodium and sulfur for sodium sulfur batteries. They aren't exactly practical for a Honda Civic, but they'll run a bus just fine.
Take half the roads downtown away from cars and give them to trucks and buses and taxicabs. Tune the lights so that they get right of way over cars. You will see a fall in demand for imported gasoline, diesel, and cars.
Light rail is just a bus that runs on rails. It's separating the grades that makes it fast, and if you separate the grades for buses, that makes them fast, too.
You can run smaller buses frequently. You can use the cell phone system to find out where the bus is now and when it is going to arrive at which stop. That reduces the most important cost of buses, which is waiting for them.
Some of these are beginning to occur in Sydney
There is already red paint bus lanes going down all over Sydney and this article tells of more to come and the elimination of parking spaces in downtown sydney.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/parked-cars-turning-buses-into-snail...
The council would like light rail and cycling. State govt say buses to solve problem but bus lanes required.
Sydney buses are beginning to be fitted with GPS to help let them get bus priority over cars at the traffic lights
http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/communications/soa/Sydney-s-GPS-equipped-bu...
There are also more prepaid buses (ie buy a ticket before you ride). Personally there needs to be more to reduce travel times.
http://www.sydneybuses.info/prepay/index.php
Here is a prepay articulated bus over the Harbour bridge bus lane. In times long gone past it was where the trams from the nth side of the Harbour ran.
http://www.75.sta.nsw.gov.au/index.php?page=image-gallery&img=5
Light rail is just a bus that runs on rails
Noy even close !!
All otehr factors being equal, a tram will get 4090% higher ridership than a bus in the USA.
A week ago, streetcar service restarted on St. Charles Avenue in New Orleans (40% of it anyway) to great enthusiasm, replacing buses that had served the route since Katrina. Many anti-bus placards along the way. Bus = Bad was my favorite !
Best Hopes for fewer buses and more streetcars/trams/Light Rail !
Alan
Alan
Having ridden the light rail that does exist in Sydney compared to buses its a much better way to travel. Lot smoother and better urban amenity. Sydney CBD is already bulging with buses
As Garry's studies indicate there are areas ripe for reintroduction of light rail in Sydney.
Here is some more from the past on Garry's proposals.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/arts/the-cure-for-blocked-arteries/2006/01/20...
Here is some more info on current system
http://www.metromonorail.com.au/Technical/LightRailTechSheet.pdf
Yes best hopes for common sense in transport planning and more light rail and buses in the right places.
A typo above.
It should read 40% to 90% higher ridership on rail than bus, all factors being equal.
Best Hopes,
Alan
Its not as simple as wishing for rail over bus. Each have a use which is contingent on the situation. Rail is high capacity and has a greater catchment area. It is suitable in locations where you have large numbers of people. Bus is suitable for places with less dense population, mini-buses and shared taxi's are suitable for rural locations (This is what happens in Africa and is why you can get from any settlement to any other via public transport regardless of the size of place). Also, the dynamics change when you try different technology, a tram run by a flywheel for example, which charges at each stop will be much cheaper (albeit slower), but becomes more viable for smaller towns or ones with a density that does not support high capacity tram with electric pickups. A guided bus service is a similar compromise. So the answer should be that it depends.
Rail and bus also work hand in hand. Bus is cheaper and coaches are preferred by pensioners, unemployed and young people who can't afford trains, hense in London buses and rail travel the same routes and have lower socio-groups going long distances or local people popping down to local shops etc. They are less disruptive running at nightime and work well with the lower ridership at nightime, so buses generally take over after 1am.
The different formats are compliment each other, an integrated tram system can reduce the need for so many stops on intercity rail lines, reducing the number of slow stopping services, making them faster, improving their capacity and making them more suitable for freight services (road trucks are the most prolific users of gasoline out of all road transport modes relative to rail). Bus does the same for trams and rail because buses stop at more stops so are suitable for local travel. Here in London, I take a bus to my local shops, for journeys up to 10mins, but rail for travelling across town and I use bus at nightime to get home after going to the pub. So, any place where you find trams you should find buses and anyplace where you find heavy rail metro services you should see tram and bus.
"Nobody needs to go anywhere else. We are all, if we only knew it, already there." (Aldous Huxley "Island" 1962, p38)
I went and spoke to my local MP (Liberal) last week about a number of things to do with the Health System and child development (my area), but also Solar Power, Environmental protection and "Ecotoxicology". He was attentive and knew a few things, though I was surprised to hear he still believed the myth that Solar cannot provide baseload power (desert based CST plants like the ones commissioned recently in California will provide overnight power).
I also raised the topic of Peak Oil - he looked blank. He'd never heard the term!! He is a backbencher but with a Uni degree and known to be highly intelligent. Clearly the term could never have been significantly raised by the government he is a member of in any meeting or correspondance. I explained Peak Oil to him - and that there was a range of views - his eyes widened and he looked shocked.
That is the leadership we have in 2007.
Peak Oil will kick Australia's economy in the guts - mining, tourism and transport. We need to start investing in a Solar-Electric near future.
ruckrover
You may like to begin sending him some stuff and begin educating him. Then we will at least have better informed pollies.
Its a slow process but well worth it.
Please review my article and see if, in your judgment, it might be a suitable educational tool.
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3140#comments
Best Hopes for Peak Oil Outreach,
Alan
There's a lot of good ideas in this thread, but the rehashed misperceptions, false assumptions made reading it a bit embarracing. I think a lot of you guys need to do a bit more in depth reading and travel and experience these things operating in other countries before getting organised. Less assumptions more facts, because the corporations will trash you guys unless you are squeaky clean and comments and ideas fully researched and referenced.
As I noted above, you have your own misconceptions, too, Phil. You assumed something wrong (lower population density in outer Australian suburbs). It's a fair assumption to make - you walk past and see fewer houses, so the population density must be smaller, yeah? - but when you go and check the facts, it's not true. So in fact it's a "misperception", if there is such a word.
So we all of us sometimes make assumptions which seem reasonable but turn out to be wrong. Would you like a hand down from your high horse? I fell off pretty hard myself, perhaps I can help you to a softer landing.
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.
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.
This government circular 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:
http://comunities.gov.uk/index.asp?id=1146812
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.
I'm afraid its comments like suggesting that 20dwellings/hectare that reveals just how behind Australia is, hell you guys drive further, consume more oil and produce more cabon per capita than any country in the world, including the Yanks, so apologies for being crude in the post you replied to, but you guys are the worst in the world and the only country in the world who stood side by side with America on Kyoto, they may well have signed up had they been isolated. Sorry, truth hurts and we've got less than 10yrs to save the planet, so niceties should wait for later.
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.englishpartnerships.co.uk/urbandesign.htm
Have a look at the planning policy statements (PPS's) and Planning Policy Guidance (PPG's) that inform planning in the UK and are doing positive things. They aren't perfect, are probably two decades ahead of australian planning policy.
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.
Okay, I can see that you'd rather fall from the high horse than be helped down. It's okay, you do heal up, I know I did. It just hurts for a bit.
You said that the outer suburbs of Aussie cities had a lower population density than the inner suburbs. You were wrong. You confused dwelling density with population density. Do you acknowledge that?
I never said Aussie cities were high density, I spoke only of the relative density of different parts of the cities. Do you acknowledge that?
The distinction between dwelling and population density may not seem important to you, but it's important to speak with precision about matters affecting the lives of millions of people and involving the spending of billions of dollars. It's also important if you want to be able to create and run a successful mass transit system. If you'd rather bollocks it up like it's usually bollocksed up, then of course you can speak in a confused manner not properly understanding the issues, like the planning minister quoted earlier.
I replied to the substance of this the first time you posted it, above.
Awww, you are annoyed that I've revealed that the Aussie way of life is UNSUSTAINABLE, go hug your SUV if it makes you feel better. Don't worry yourself, I'm sure that peak oil is only an aberation and that Aussies won't be reduced to subsistence existence, turning over their swimming pools into vegetable gardens. It must be a bad dream, afterall the corporations and politicians said it would all be ok. );
I'm happy to achnowledge that your suburbs are lower densities than your inner cities, but frankly you should be embaraced that that is the case, and the tiny variations in densities you describe just show how much Aussie planning conforms to the (second law?) of thermodynamics rather than sustainable planning.
Again, I'll repeat, Australians produce more CO2 and drive more than ANY country in the entire WORLD, maybe there's a planet somewhere made of oil which is covered entirely by 1/4 acre plots, but it'll be a few light years away and you won't make it in time.
P.S. I'm trying to stir you up on purpose, because I know full well that the fantastic positivity of Aussies blinds you guys to how your society is actually rotten to the core when it comes to sustainability. I'd rather influence a few people now and see some changes happen than your country become like a third world nation, and I am convinced that if AUS solved its problem, that it would be a model for solving the American problem. If you can't then they certainly won't because they have the same problems multiplied by 100.
Its also fun arguing with you and a good example for the thread because you sum up all that is bad about Australia and all that your country must ditch to survive the 21st century.
Oh, I'm quite certain that the Aussie way of life is unsustainable. The idea that I'd ever have an SUV is amusing. If you read what I've actually written, you'll find that it doesn't match the idea of buzzing around in SUVs.
What you're doing here is what I'm accustomed to hearing from yanks, not from poms. It's the Leap to Extremes.
"I'm against capital punishment."
"What, so we should just let them all go?!"
"I'm in favour of capital punishment."
"What, so we should execute people for jaywalking?!"
You're assuming that because I say that public transport is viable at relatively low population densities, I must love SUVs. A moment's reflection, and a few moments' reading of what I've written would show that this is obviously bollocks. A man who liked SUVs would not be saying that buses can be kept going with a very short frequency of use, or supporting Garry's article promoting more public transport, bringing back conductors, and so on.
I'm simply speaking to the actual facts. If you have a look here, you can see the population densities of various parts of Melbourne. The average is 16.03 people per hectare, with a high of 55.85. I live in #31, which has 18.77, it has a train service (splits in two from the city a couple of stations up), and there are well over 100 buses that depart from near the train station every day. Knowing the local system as I do, I see that once you get below about 15, you get just a train and maybe one bus service. Below 10 there's just the bus.
Apart from population densities, I'm not sure what else you want sources for. The viability of services in various areas can only be found out for certain by trying them out, but it can be guessed by comparing similar services in similar cities. This I did already, mentioning Vancouver and Toronto.
Again, I'm no particular supporter of low-density housing. I simply say that it's irrelevant to the viability of a public transport route through that area, which depends on population density.
It's completely true that Australians produce more CO2 equivalent emissions per capita than any other country in the world. However, a good chunk of those come from mining stuff which we export - so in effect we're having the emissions for other countries. Taking those away, we're still left with obscene amounts of emissions which we should reduce. You'll find lots of discussion of that at my blog.
Again, it's amusing to be an example of what's bad about Australia in terms of lack of sustainability. A look at my blog may correct that misconception. I'll wager you a tenner my household CO2 emissions and ecological footprint are less than yours. And yes, they need to be reduced further.
You'll have to try harder to stir me up. Simple obliviousness to logic and precision in what you say won't do it; I have after all been speaking to Americans online for years.
What exactly will channeling people into public transport achieve?
Taking Sydney as an example, the average petrol car in 2006 produced 188 gm of CO2 equivalent per passenger kilometer while the National Average Fuel Consumption Target for the year 2010 is 112 gm.
Meanwhile CityRail produces 105 gm of CO2 per passenger kilometer and the average bus produces 120 gm of this greenhouse gas.
The Toyota Prius currently produces 75 gm CO2. It seems the surprisingly small advantage of public transport could soon be eroded away by technology. So why do some people so vigorously advocate spending billions on public transport which produces little benefit from an energy point of view and which is unsuitable for the vast majority of journeys people undertake?
See http://sosnsw.blogspot.com/ and http://www.demographia.com/db-australghg.pdf.
This is the funniest post I've ever seen in my life! I won't insult the readers of this post by explaining why it is completely rediculous! Maybe you should join the oilbullmarket.com or join a pro-automobile organisation. You'll make yourself feel much better.
For such figures, you must give a source, or else we get to say, "bollocks". The linked pdf gives no specifics for the figures. The linked blog mentions a 30 year old study, but gives no link to it or its data, so we can't judge its methods.
Links, references, and details are needed because figures for such things are very easy to cherry-pick. I could for example compare a Abrams tank (gets 0.33mpg) with six people in it to a 30-car diesel train with one person in it, and then say, "Abrams tanks are better than diesel trains." But if I didn't say anything else, you'd never know that my comparison was an unfair one.
There are two fair ways of comparing different modes of transport. One is to compare how that method is actually used with how the other is, and the other way is to compare the theoretical use of each with the other.
For example, we could say that a passenger car could carry five people, and would then produce X emissions per passenger-kilometre, but we could then only fairly compare it to a train filled to capacity (say, 1,200), it'd be unfair to compare it to a train filled just averagely; and vice versa. Likewise, it's unfair to compare the best modern car with the worst old train, or vice versa. It's most fair to compare like with like. Below I do that, comparing actual emissions per passenger kilometre, achieved across a wide variety of vehicle types across Australia.
Of course, you mightn't know how the figures were arrived at - that's fair enough, not everyone studies this stuff. But then you have to tell us where you got the figures from, so we can go and find out for ourselves.
Naturally, you mightn't give a shit where the figures came from, or if we believe them - but then don't be upset when we say, "bollocks."
In general, public transport is better simply because it can carry more people in proportion to the weight of the vehicle. With any vehicle, the bulk of the energy expended in moving the thing is spent just in moving the vehicle, the passengers and cargo are (usually) only a small fraction of this.
Just as it's more efficient to have four people in a car than one, so too it's more efficient to have 100 people in a train instead of 100 or even 25 cars. That stands to reason.
As for actual data, the AGO Factors and Methods Workbook, which you can look at here, tells us all about some greenhouse gas emissions figures. Go check it out.
Now we can go to , and download the small (180k) pdf "Transport". That gives a lot of good figures.
In 1999, we see that (just considering urban areas),
- cars had 1.59 people on average, with 0.210kg CO2e per passenger-kilometre
- buses had 7.75 people, with 0.114kg CO2e/ps-km
- light rail (trams) give you 0.178kg CO2e/ps-km
- trains give out 0.162kg CO2e/ps-km (higher than TR's unsourced figure)
So, in terms of greenhouse gas emissions, buses look the best, and cars are out-and-out the worst. But - buses are not very popular. They're slow, and in Melbourne they don't have dedicated lanes or transport priority, so if there's a traffic jam they stop too. Whereas trams and trains have their own lines and can zoom on through regardless. So they're much more popular.
The other thing is that a bus basically has to burn stuff to go, whereas trams and trains, powered as they are by electricity, could be run renewably, from wind, solar, geothermal and so on. That's a very important point if you believe in the central tenet of this website, that one day the oil's going to run out. It's also very important in terms of greenhouse gas emissions. Trams and trains powered by renewable energy could have extremely low greenhouse gas emissions.
You speak of technology, mentioning the Prius. This first went on sale in 1997 in Japan, and in 2001 worldwide. It's now reached a million cumulative sales worldwide; the others make up about another 1.5 million. These 2.5 million hybrids in 10 years represent a rather small percentage of the over 400 million passenger cars produced worldwide in that time - just 1%, in fact.
So I think we can see that new technology is rather slow to spread. And even if not, what "could soon be eroded away by technology" does not interest me. I'm only interested in viable technology we have today. I'm still waiting for my flying cars and fusion power, so I've learned to believe something's possible when I see it up for sale, and not a moment earlier.
And of course, hybrids use petrol, which is going to run short. Using even half as much won't be possible. So public transport which can be powered by renewable energy starts looking quite nice.
As to public transport being "unsuitable for the vast majority of journeys people undertake", you'll have to tell us what you mean by that. If you mean that public transport does not go where you want to and when, that's not a problem with the basic idea of public transport, but with poor service. It's like saying electricity is no good because I can't get it in the Kimberley. I'd agree that PT service should be vastly improved. Otherwise, I've no idea what you mean.
I forgot to reply to,
"What exactly will channeling people into public transport achieve?"
Many good and useful things. In no particular order,
- less congested roads (16 people on a tram take up less space than 10 cars would)
- thus, lower road and fuel taxes for maintenance, new roads, widened roads, and so on.
- lower greenhouse gas emissions for the same amount of travel
- if using trams and trains with electricity from renewable sources, extremely low greenhouse gas emissions
- less dependance on imported oil, which means that politically we could tell the whole middle east to bugger off, instead of having to suck up to barbaric despots
- lower cost of public transport; since the capital cost of PT is large, and the cost of service from A to B doesn't vary much whether that service has 0 passengers or 100, the more people on it the cheaper it can be.
- more pleasant cities, with less roaring machines, less concrete and tarmac, and more meeting people face-to-face
- less deaths on the roads; there were 1,600 or so in Australia last year, and 1.2 million road deaths annually worldwide, more than four times as many as were killed in wars.
PhilRidley, this TonyRecsei is the pro-large-suburban blocks fellow you should be screaming at if you care about such things, not me. He's the President of Save Our Suburbs, a lobby group and (as yet unelected) political party whose policies he is better-placed to explain than me. Suffice to say he's utterly against the kind of high-density dwelling levels you're so fond of.
I'm indifferent to population or dwelling density. I'm in favour of public transport which is reliable, frequent, and powered by renewably-sourced electricity. I'm in favour of our reducing our greenhouse gas emissions to levels as recommended by Monbiot in Heat, and I really hate cars. Recsei's your ideological enemy, Ridley, not me. I'm indifferent to the matters you speak of. Ideally, I'd live in a Carfree city.
Facts are facts. Check the references which were supplied which provided the figures I quote, namely:
http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/transport/env_strategy.html (2003)
http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/transport/publications/pubs/lightvehicles.pdf
http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/transport/publications/lifecycle.html
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/subscriber.nsf/log?openagent&9210055001_2...
Data Cubes&23411B1DED1A8EB0CA25737F00169A09&0&01 Nov 2005 to 31 Oct 2006&26.10.2007& Latest
These are recent and in the main government publications.
The 30 year old study Kiashu refers to provides information on the additional energy required for ancillary services such as station lighting and maintenance which I did not include. If I had, the City Rail figure would increase from the 105 gm CO2 per passenger km I quoted to some 148 gm.
Kiashu please note that for the calculations, car occupancy is assumed at 1.4 (Sydney average) so don’t concern yourself about Abrams tanks holding six people.
With regard to the question why public transport is "unsuitable for the vast majority of journeys people undertake" the most basic reason is that public transport routes are linear whereas people wish to travel in 2 spatial dimensions. That is to say public transport does not provide a point to point service. As a result multi-mode journeys become necessary. Also, the times when public transport is available do not necessarily correspond with the times people wish to travel. The result of all this is that for most journeys public transport is just incredibly time-wasting and people’s productivity would plummet. There are also many other problems such as the difficulty of transporting anything heavy like weekly shopping.
In the Australian situation public transport is only good for transport to a central location such as a CBD. As cities are decentralising the utility of public transport is decreasing.
This is not to say that public transport does not have a place in the transport mix. It is however futile to rely on it to make any significant impact on reducing energy used.
In the Australian situation public transport is only good for transport to a central location such as a CBD. As cities are decentralising the utility of public transport is decreasing.
This is not to say that public transport does not have a place in the transport mix. It is however futile to rely on it to make any significant impact on reducing energy used
I am guilty of extrapolating from the USA, but your assumptions are based upon a pre-Peak Oil reality, which has driven development for over a half century.
The same can, and should, happen in reverse post-Peak Oil.
Progressively stiffer restrictions on liquids fuel availability (rationed by price. coupons or both) will result in dramatic changes in urban form. What new home buyers see as desirable will change, with access to Urban Rail and walkable neighborhoods becoming a priority.
And as old residents are not replaced by new home owners for the most remote areas of Suburbia, high long term vacancies lead to deteriorating neighborhoods and a spiral downward. Then repeated in another area.
If the ideal of what a good neighborhood changes, then much of Suburbia is surely doomed.
Best Hopes for Massive Swathes of Grazing Land and Orchards on former Suburbs,
Alan
Where can we see the Shangri-La of "access to urban rail and walkable neighbourhoods"? Only at Hong Kong densities does public transport use substantially exceed that of private transport. But to attain that we would need a density equivalent of packing the whole of for example Sydney’s 4 million people within 5 km of Central Station. Is this how we should live?
The energy usage figures I previously quoted show that public transport is not a solution to the energy crisis. Neither is high-density. Comparing people with equivalent incomes, per capita energy consumption in high-density areas is more than in low-density areas.
We need to protest against the phony solutions that are continually being foisted upon an unsuspecting public.
Where can we see the Shangri-La of "access to urban rail and walkable neighbourhoods"?
My neighborhood, the Lower Garden District of New Orleans. An Urban Delight of mixed 1 to 3 story buildings with, as the name suggests, ample greenery.
Pre-Katrina, 28% of households (all the city) did not have an automobile and New Orleans was tied with New York City for fewest miles driven by residents (in both cases Suburbanites driving in were excluded). Of the five apartments in my building (cut out of an 1890 residence), I was the only one that owned a car. And I burn about 5 gallons/month in my 1982 M-B 240D (87,8xx miles).
28' (8.5 m) wide one-way streets with parking on both sides (a bit of off-street parking here and there but uncommon), so most of the area is devoted to people and not the car.
In order to make groceries, I usually go to Zara's (2.5 blocks away), but I can go to Williams (4 blocks), Magazine (3 blocks) and Stein's Deli (5 blocks) (all family owned). I could also go to Robert's 6 blocks away (local chain closed post-K) Wal-Mart (7 blocks) or for 24 hour necessities, WalGreen's (4.5 blocks).
Two world-class restaurants within walking distance (dozens of just good ones) and MANY more via the streetcar.
My tailor is 4 blocks away, insurance agent was 4 blocks away (closed after Katrina), a barber is 3 blocks away but I use the streetcar to go to another one Uptown. Magazine Street is 5 miles of small shops (hell to drive & park, great to walk) and passes 2.5 blocks away from me.
A link to a recent post "24 Hours in a Walkable City"
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3255#comment-265390
Yesterday, I meet a fellow TODer for lunch on Magazine (I walked, he bicycled I think) then walked up to get my repaired shoes and then walked home. Extremely pleasant walking through the Garden District.
For dinner, I took the streetcar down to the French Quarter and Bacco's for their annual truffle festival. Five superb courses with either white or black truffles for $80 (I chose the uptick to 5 small glasses of wine for $100 :-)
Quail egg, Smoked Sea Scallop, Gnocchi with some interesting extras, Veal Scalloppine with wild mushrooms and lump crabmeat and Chestnut Crepe.
Walk Score has some faults, but it is still useful to compare. Check out the 1300 block of St. Andrew, New Orleans 70130 at
http://www.walkscore.com
Note that you can click on each store type of the left margin (Bars or Libraries for example) and get a selection of several, ranked by distance.
Best Hopes for Transit Orientated Development,
Alan
You addressed none of my points. I include them again for the benefit of the discussion-impaired such as politicians.
Including station lighting in the emissions of trains is like including traffic lights in the emissions of cars. You can do it, but be sure to compare like with like, as I said above. Don't include one but omit the other, that's dishonest.
The places where public transport can take you, and the times it can take you, you're showing a poor familiarity with actually using public transport. It's more flexible and useful than you think. But in any case, even if true this would simply reflect a poor service. A poor service is not an argument for no service, it's an argument for better service.
There is nothing innate in the physical nature of buses, trams and trains that means they must travel only from the outer suburbs to the CBD like spokes on a wheel, nor is there anything in the things themselves preventing their being run every 2 minutes 24 hours a day.
Nor has it ever been explained what there is particular about Australia which makes PT "only good for transport to a central location such as a CBD." It's simply asserted as a fact.
The limits are simply the limits of our ability to organise them. It's been shown that PT is like any other business - when you provide a reliable, frequent and pleasant service, people use it. If you provide an unreliable, infrequent and unpleasant service, people don't use it.
Public transport takes up way more in road capacity. A full coach on an interstate highway can hoover up about 1km worth of cars at 60mph.
About density, its not about changing lifestyles. I think you guys have enough large plots, some of which are fine. What you need to do is identify nodes where public transport networks meet, where you have train stations, etc. Policies for higher densities and focus of development there (particularly mixed use with employment and traditional shopping streets) that people can access without cars. But also higher density flats so commuters can choose to live close to town. The higher densities at these nodes will allow you to enhance public transport throughout the region, as each node can take on more capacity. Look at my post above about densities in London and you see that there is a contingent approach, with some places having relatively low densities, but they feed from public transport going into the high density places.
Secondly, density is not all about loosing amenity, a traditional victorian or georgian style terrace approach with a grid can provide each house more garden space than bungalows. I've seen arial shots of some Aussie towns with suburbs with huge single storey houses, wide roads and tiny gardens. So, some urban designs are more efficient with space so that you can have bigger houses, bigger gardens and higher densities by being clever with space, building upwards a bit more (its much better to have bedrooms upstairs anyway, more segregation between living and sleep. Commercial places when at high density become exciting, look at places like Paris, Prague, etc. You have town centres with flats for young professionals who want to walk to work, hotels for visitors, heaps to do at day and night, and trains that go out to the suburbs where you can live at lower densities once you want to settle down. Or, look at a typical French village (Look down when flying over), you'll see densely packed places easily walkable with lots of local shops, etc, but because they are dense you are often no more than a minutes walk from open countryside. Rural villages like this act as transport nodes also, and are serviceable by buses. We in the UK draw lines around villages and say you can't just spread out, so you sacrifice a bit of amenity for each individual house sometimes with smaller plots, but the countryside around is left intact and the place is often always walkable and capable of being connected to larger settlements by bus.
European examples are paramount because most towns were established way before 1900, and way before private transport was available, so most are designed by default for public transport and walking. When dealing with peak oil, you MUST NOT only look to the future looking for a techical fix, because we have only lived with private transport for a short timescale, it is key to look back and see how we survived without it.
Really, if any of you doubt any of this, you should test me out, if you haven't already, and fly over to Europe, spend a month or so travelling around and see if you can survive for the time without a car (of course car would be nice in Europe, but you just rarely need it), try only walking and public transport. I tell you this, unless you spend time in really rural places, you will easily achieve it and probably forget that you haven't driven for a while, experience the initial loss for your car then at the end look back and realise that you forgot for a while that you haven't had have a car for that time. Then go back to AUS and try to spend a day without a car and you will be climbing up the wall begging for a car and understand what I'm on about. Also, experience that the European way of life is just as much about the good life, amenity and family as the aussie one, just without quite so much reliance on cars, infact, as mentioned before, some extra density actually increases quality of life by putting more services and cultural activities as your fingertips by making them more viable, as far as I understand it, the north beaches of Sydney are dead to any music scene, this would be a direct result of no high density transport node town centres, pure and simple. Clever focus on more high density and you get more public parks, shops, jazz, dancing, fun, clubbing, whatever you want to do. So its not only about peak oil, its about lifestyle, and as mentioned before, you can keep lower density areas beyond the transport nodes (but new development really should be above 35 dwellings/hectare even in the suburbs).
Don't underestimate Australia's public transport. It's not good, but you can get by on it. What ours is to decent PT, a minimum wage job is to a job. It's not good, but it's a shitload better than nothing, and better than many people have. But we should try to make it better.
(That's Australian minimum wage, by the way, which you can in fact live on very well as a single person, keep you and a spouse on in frugal comfort, and keep a small family by watching your pennies. You'd want better, but you'd get by.)
When I read Recsei's Save Our Suburbs site I find myself thinking of a scene in Life As A House where Kevin Kline's character, with a rundown house by the beach, he's knocking it down to rebuild it, and an old retired couple come to have a nosey. He says, "The City has approved a block of low-income housing for this place." They look very alarmed and run away.
Public transport makes places accessible to lower-income people. We can't have that.