The Grattan Institute has this month released a report entitled, Productive Cities: Opportunity in a changing economy offering solutions to help increase economic productivity and efficiency in Australian cities.

The report analyses housing, income and transport data in Australia’s four largest cities to show that while highly paid and qualified workers are living close to city centres, workers with trade skills and low skills, and people on low incomes, are living further from the centre.

Amongst its recommendations, the institute advocates building more homes in established areas of cities and improving urban transport. Wayfinding Forum wrote about the benefits of transport oriented developments in established urban areas last month.

However, of most interest to our subscribers, the report also recommends consideration of road-user charging to ensure that road space is preserved for the most productive uses and as a way to raise funds for public transport.

According to the report “in order to address traffic congestion, it is not enough to rely solely on building new roads without also paying attention to managing the demand for road space. A more efficient use of road space could be achieved by introducing a pricing system such as road user charges, congestion charges or time-of-day tolling.” It notes that this was a recommendation of the 2010 Henry Review into Australia’s Future Tax System.

Recent research by our PTC team relating to the time-of-day tolling introduced a couple of years ago on the Sydney Harbour Bridge and Tunnel had practically no impact on congestion and use of these roads. The reduction of vehicles between 2008 and 2009 of 1.6% was more than compensated by the increases in cars using the Ryde Bridge ( 5.2%) and Gladesville Bridge (+2.7%) with an overall result of +0.7%.

Phase two of the Federal Government’s study to construct high-speed rail (HSR) spanning from Brisbane to Melbourne via Sydney and Canberra was released this week to a lukewarm reception.

The ambitious infrastructure plan would be the largest investment of any national project, eclipsing the NBN many times over. The HSR network, comprising over 1,700 kms of track, could be completed between 2056 and 2065 at a cost of $114 billion, but it is more likely to be delivered in stages... assuming it is delivered at all. The report can be found here.

However, criticism towards the project has been leveled at the Federal Infrastructure and Transport Minister, Anthony Albanese. The Daily Telegraph says it’s too expensive and cheekily intimates the technology may be superseded ‘by flying cars’ midway through the century, while a transport reporter from The Sydney Morning Herald mocks the government suggesting they are more interested in paying for multi-million dollar reports than committing to hundred billion dollar projects.

The theory is great: Sydney to Canberra in just over an hour; Sydney to Melbourne and Brisbane in around three hours. Commuters would embark and disembark at the city centre without having to worry about airports, taxis, queues, etc. The Pacific, Hume and Federal Highways would experience a reduction in traffic. Road safety and the environment would be winners too. But is this just a pipedream that has no chance of being realised?

Whilst the federal government’s high-speed rail project caters specifically to passenger transport, it is worth noting that the conveyance of freight by road contributes significantly to congestion on our highways and greenhouse gas emissions. See this piece published by the ABC on the case for improved rail infrastructure for freight.

Should the commuter rail project proceed, it could change the way Australians think about interstate travel, where we live and where we work. 

This change in mindset may also impact how we use our cars and where we choose to park. The government will need to think more about planning for this eventuality, including improved park-and-ride facilities with access to railway stations. Perhaps another feasibility study is required?

Both the State Government and the City of Sydney agree that light rail from Circular Quay to the city’s east along George Street will be a great thing for Sydney. The vision is for an integrated transport network able to move large groups of commuters quickly and effectively around the CBD and out to major sporting and educational precincts. The good news is that it is going to happen. We blogged about the announcement on Wayfinding Forum in December.

Many see the project as an opportunity to create an environment along George Street similar to that of Times Square in New York or Paris’ Champs-Élysées, turning the thoroughfare into "one of the world's great plazas". The City and the NSW Government are aiming to finalise a development agreement by August, but the sticking point may come when deciding how much of George Street will be reserved for pedestrians and light rail exclusively.

The City of Sydney is currently exhibiting their Draft George Street Concept Design at Customs House, which involves “pedestrianising” a much larger section of the city’s spine than the 40% initially planned by the NSW Government.

Lord Mayor Clover Moore says “by slightly extending the pedestrian area to the north and south, we believe there are significant additional benefits for pedestrians and traffic management''. Renowned Danish urban designer Jan Gehl, weighed in to the debate as the City’s key consultant on the project saying he would have wanted the street's pedestrian zone ''to be as long as possible''.

However, desire and reality may be two vastly different things with NSW Transport Minister Gladys Berejiklian down-playing the suggestion, stating that the government intends to deliver the project as it was announced last year.

Whatever the result of no doubt spirited negotiations, this type of urban development is what the Sydney CBD is crying out for, and we cannot wait for the start of construction in 2015.

More on the NSW Government’s blue print for public transport expansion can be read here.

The Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) has called for free parking for electric vehicles in an attempt to encourage UK drivers to switch to the more environmentally friendly mode of travel.

An article published by the Guardian this week, explains that the concept is similar to the existing blue badge scheme for disabled drivers. But the IPPR goes further than just advocating free parking. Other incentives such as reduced (or eliminated) road and bridge tolls, permission to drive in bus lanes and parking concessions in restricted zones will also be tabled in a report to be released later this month.

However it is this last point that has raised concerns with UK motoring lobby group, the AA. Their position is that allowing parking in restricted zones could in fact increase congestion and therefore emissions from other vehicles. The group did concede that cheaper parking charges would be a good idea (we are not sure if building owners’ or car park operators’ opinions were canvassed).

Similar schemes are being trialled around the world with China set to incentivise electric car ownership. Chinese newspaper, The Economic Observer reported this week that Beijing will introduce a series of new policies designed to accelerate uptake of electric cars including a 120,000 yuan subsidy and a way around the dreaded “licence plate lottery”.

It seems that the momentum for electric car sales will continue, yet as we have commented in number of previous posts on Wayfinding Forum, the biggest challenge for a successful future will be addressing the lack of charging stations, whether in Beijing, Melbourne or Chicago.

Transit Oriented Development (TOD) is not a new concept in urban planning.

DNAinfo.com has published a story about the latest mixed development taking advantage of local public transport hubs in Chicago. The Wicker Park building contains 99 residential units but only 15 car spaces, supposedly reserved for visitors only. Whilst ratios vary around the world, a requirement of 2 car spaces per dwelling is not uncommon.

However the trend towards residential and commercial development with minimal parking is also becoming more common. Curbed Chicago lists another six examples in that city.

So, whilst TODs would appear to be helping the fight against congestion and pollution in major cities, it is also becoming clear that if executed poorly, these developments can fail spectacularly.

Australia’s Tourism & Transport Forum (TTF) lauds the benefits of TODs but warns that “coordinated planning and delivery arrangements are essential to ensure transport not only responds to past and present use patterns but is an active contributor to the shaping of the urban form.”

An example of what Kaid Benfield has called an ‘epic fail’ of urban design can be seen in his article written for The Atlantic Cities about a TOD near Miami. The author says, “there’s lots of development around, just not near the station, unless you consider parking lots and garages to be development.” He continues to emphasise his point by stating, “The station is oriented to cars, not people.” If you need another example of a TOD’s failure to orient people with the transit they require, take a look at this article written about a development in St Louis.

But how do we ensure the goals of TODs are met? TTF tells us the answer lies in a working partnership between the government and the private sector. We can only agree and hope that such cooperation becomes reality.

A new study published in the Journal of Transport Geography, by Dutch researcher Giuliano Mingardo has revealed more unintended consequences of Park-and-Ride facilities in metro areas. The result of the study confirms earlier research that it can actually generate greater traffic as a result of its implementation.

Research from the early 1990s found that park-and-ride encouraged many commuters who once travelled their entire journey by public transport, to drive part of the way due to the added convenience. It also found that people made more trips in general because the overall cost of transportation was lower.

This was supported in the latest research, however two additional elements were revealed. Mingardo found that people who had once made some or all of their commute on bicycles, now drove to the station. Furthermore, parts of the community were exploiting the parking facilities for nearby destinations (including for activities such as shopping) potentially displacing transit riders and disrupting the area parking market.

However the news wasn’t entirely bad. There was evidence that stations further away from the commercial centre captured more city commuters, earlier into their trip.

Mingardo's research also found that many travellers were willing to pay a bit more for parking, a sign that some of the unintended effects might be mitigated with proper pricing. The logical conclusion here is that cities should impose parking fees large enough to remove the incentives of free parking but not so large that people drive all the way into work.

Ever tried to squeeze into an impossible parking spot? We all have, but with the latest technology coming out of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) the impossible is becoming possible.

A BBC Business News report published this week has revealed the media lab at MIT has designed a ‘folding car’ which is being developed by a Spanish company for commercial use. The design allows for the vehicle´s length to be shrunk to a size approximately the width of a conventional car. In practical terms it will mean three folding cars will fit into a parking space designed for just one.

It´s being claimed that the highly maneuverable and sleek design will reduce traffic congestion, help cities to function better and triple car parking capacity in high-density areas. Did I mention it is an electric car, which is obviously a great result for the environment!

The concept is also being hailed as a potential success story for the burgeoning car-share industry, allowing more shared cars to be available at convenient locations, meaning greater access for customers which (it is hoped) may lead to reduced car ownership.

The question remains; are consumers ready for the technology, or more specifically a dramatic change in mindset?

A report released late last year by Austroads entitled Cycling on Higher Speed Roads will dovetail into the agency’s National Cycling Strategy 2011-2016.

Leon Patterson, National Director Infrastructure Management for the IPWEA says the report provides options for public works professionals to consider when seeking ways to accommodate bicycles on Australian roads.

The latest report is only a small component of the national strategy being implemented by the Australian Bicycle Council, proposing recommendations to double the number of Australians regularly cycling to 4 million by 2016. The framework outlines responsibilities for all levels of government, the community and industry stakeholders to encourage more people to get on their bicycles and start riding.

One of the key components of the national strategy is to promote and create safe and attractive routes to cycle. It looks to all levels of government to reduce riders’ risks and integrate cycling into relevant transport and land use planning activities.

The strategy recognises that increasing the number of people who ride a bike for transport and recreation will result in a host of benefits to individuals and society.

To view the complete strategy, please click here.

The Australian Bicycle Council’s implementation report can be found here.