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%.

Earlier this week the Sydney Morning Herald reported on the State Government’s imminent plans to extend clearways on Sydney’s most congested roads to include weekends.

The report tells us that there are up to 200,000 more cars on Sydney’s roads on Saturday mornings when compared with weekday mornings, and less people are using public transport. This has led to traffic chaos across the weekend on some of Sydney’s key arterials such as Victoria Rd, Parramatta Rd, Military Rd and Bondi Rd, to name a few.

The proposal to remove on-street parking will anger local businesses that insist their customers need a place to leave their cars while they shop. Pre-empting this backlash, the Roads Minister Duncan Gay has already slated plans to construct parking facilities using a combination of tax payer revenue, parking levies and contributions from the local businesses; an approach that is sure to enflame tensions with the local provedores.

Predictably, Opposition Leader John Robertson has criticized the strategy, suggesting that it is a ‘half-baked’ plan. He pointed to the desperate need to improve NSW transport network.

The NSW Coalition will have thought long and hard about this potentially unpopular, but ultimately necessary parking ban. Their Victorian colleagues reversed a similar decision taken by that state’s previous government to extend clearway conditions to weekends. In a 2010 media release, the new government described their decision to reverse the weekend ban as much needed relief from “onerous and damaging clearway restrictions”.

We have personally experienced the improvements to the trip from the Spit Bridge up to Mosman on weekend afternoons in the summer months when clearways apply!

Time will tell.

Toronto’s transport authority Metrolinx has big plans to solve their city’s congestion troubles, but the question remains, how are they going to pay for an ambitious list of proposed investments?

To better engage the community and help inform policy decisions, the authority has released an online interactive simulation where the public can select the projects they would like built and decide what revenue tools to pay for them. It’s called The Big Move. The revenue raising options include increased road, fuel and sales taxes, an increase in transit fares and a car parking levy.

However, according to The Toronto Star, City Mayor Rob Ford has dismissed a report delivered this week recommending that Council support the various tax hikes, saying that his constituents simply can’t afford it. Mr Ford believes the revenue can be achieved through cost cutting and bureaucratic efficiencies.

City Councillor and Toronto Transit Commission Chair Karen Stintz said that whilst she didn’t agree with all of the recommendations, she conceded the projects needed to be funded. However, Cr Stintz cautioned against using the parking levy as a tool, remarking that the impact on commercial centres and small businesses may not be not fully understood and could be detrimental to economic growth.

Metrolinx will release its final recommendations for funding tools on May 27. It says the region needs $2 billion annually to fund transit expansion.

Namibia’s capital Windhoek is close to finalising a futuristic transport master plan, focusing on safety, aesthetic and environmental concerns, as well as traffic efficiency by integrating the road network of the capital, including surrounding regions and the international airport.

The Sustainable Urban Transport Master Plan is a collaborative effort between the City of Windhoek and the Namibian Government, and is being conducted with the assistance of the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development.

The plan is expected to produce a clear and realistic vision for the development of a sustainable urban transport system for the next 20 years. According to the city's website, within twenty years Windhoek would have to cater for the mobility needs of close to one million people.

A key condition of the plan is to ensure developers wishing to set up businesses in the CBD would need to make provision for parking spaces for both employees and the general public.

The master plan has been sent to the city's management for consideration, and it is expected that a final draft plan would be ready by the end of May.

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.