Making public transport work in Melbourne.
McCloskey, David ; Birrell, Bob ; Yip, Rose 等
Public transport advocates argue that if higher density housing
were promoted around transport hubs or along transport corridors,
particularly those with tramlines, that this would achieve a significant
increase in public transport use. This advocacy is mistaken in the case
of Melbourne because only a small proportion of jobs is located close to
fixed rail or tram routes. This helps explain the key empirical finding
of this paper: only a tiny minority of employed persons who live within
walking distance of a train station or a tram stop in Melbourne actually
use the train or tram for journeys to work.
**********
Advocacy for a more compact Melbourne has escalated since the
Victorian Government announced a major extension of the city's
Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) in 2009. This decision alarmed those
concerned about the environmental and economic consequences of
Melbourne's low-density settlement pattern.
The context was the state government's announcement in
December 2008 that Melbourne's population was likely to increase by
1.8 million over the 30 years between 2006 and 2036 rather than by the
one million over 30 years which had been assumed when the original
Melbourne 2030 planning scheme was legislated in 2002. If the new
projection is correct, Melbourne's population will grow from 3.744
million in 2006 to 5.525 million in 2036. (1)
Following this announcement, the government issued a revision of
its planning strategy for Melbourne titled Melbourne@5 million. This
stated that an additional 600,000 households would have to be
accommodated over the next twenty years, nearly half of which would be
located in growth areas. (2) As a consequence the UGB would have to be
extended to help accommodate these extra households.
Those arguing against further expansion of the city's urban
frontier, claim that Melbourne must become more compact (meaning higher
density housing) if the city's residents are to develop a more
sustainable lifestyle. Advocates for a compact city put a high priority
on reduced dependence on the private car. They see increased use of
public transport as a key indicator of a sustainable urban life style. A
good example is the Audit Expert Group assigned to review the Melbourne
2030 planning scheme. This group, though selected for the role by the
state government, nevertheless was critical of the government's
expansion of the UGB. They advocated a compact city policy in
association with a prioritisation of public transport in the
government's transport policy. The Expert Group recommended:
'Prioritising actions to support a rapid modal shift over the next
five years from car to public transport--tram, train and/or bus--and
walking and cycling'. (3)
The underlying assumption behind this advocacy is that communities
living in high-density settings will make greater use of public
transport than those living in low-density communities. Of course, if
high-density settlements are encouraged in outer suburban areas which
are poorly served by public transport then there can be no change in
transport patterns. The answer, according to critics of expanding the
UGB, is more public investment, particularly in fixed rail facilities.
They expect that if communities are provided with public transport
options, then they will use them.
Most compact city advocates argue that public transport use will be
best facilitated if it is based on Transport Oriented Development (TOD)
principles, in which new housing is concentrated in or around transport
hubs. (4) The problem for those favouring this strategy in Melbourne is
that so far it has not worked, despite the influence of these ideas when
the original Melbourne 2030 planning scheme was legislated in 2002.
Under Melbourne 2030, developers were given the legal right to build
high density housing in over 100 major activity centres scattered across
Melbourne. All locations well served by public transport services were
included. However, very little high-density housing has been constructed
in these centres, except in a few strategic development sites, including
Docklands.
By and large, compact city advocates have had to acknowledge that
Melbourne 2030 is a failure. There is an increasingly frantic search for
a new policy intervention that will revive the compact city aspiration.
One idea that has some currency is a marriage of high density housing
with Melbourne's transport corridors. In this proposal developers
would be given the right to build high-density apartments along
Melbourne's major tram and bus corridors. This idea has generated
some interest within the Victorian government.
The most forceful advocate of the transport corridor idea is Rob
Adams, director of planning within the City of Melbourne. His idea is as
follows:
The aim should be that by 2029, the key linear transport corridors
will have developed into medium rise high density corridors that
connect all the activity centres, and provide easy access to high
quality public transport from the adjacent 'productive suburbs'.
Development of these corridors would take development pressure off
the existing suburbs, which can then develop as the new 'green lungs'
of our metropolitan areas. (5)
The report from which this quotation was drawn received front page
treatment in the Melbourne Age. This is despite the draconian measures
recommended to bring the plan to fruition. These include giving
developers 'as of right' permission to build four- to
eight-storey apartment blocks along transport corridors, except for
'all heritage building and public open spaces along these
routes'. (6)
There are a range of issues stemming from this proposal which might
stop it in its tracks. If as proposed by Adams, most of Melbourne's
anticipated population growth were located along these public transport
corridors, it would involve a sharp contraction of housing options and a
great divide between those forced to accept apartment living and those
occupying the protected 'green lungs' of Melbourne, which
would nestle behind the high density corridors. In addition, the merits
of placing so many people along noisy and polluted arteries would surely
be questioned. Practical issues like how to accelerate tram speed,
currently just 15 kilometres an hour in Melbourne, would also have to be
resolved. (7)
A more fundamental problem, which is addressed in this paper is
whether, if the corridor housing were to be built, its occupants would
make use of the adjacent tram or bus services as anticipated by
advocates of the proposal.
These are not remote academic issues. Let us assume for the moment
that the Victorian government does embrace the compact city objective,
as by limiting the expansion of the UGB, and by promoting high-density
housing within established suburbia, including along tram and bus lines.
Let us also assume that the Victorian Government gives priority to
investment in rail and other public transport facilities ahead of roads
in its transport infrastructure program.
In these circumstances, if the take up of the public transport
option is not as expected by advocates, the consequences could be
serious. They would include traffic chaos on the roads. This would be
inevitable if most of the people housed in higher density settlements
continued to use their cars for journey to work and for other trips.
ARE THE ASSUMPTIONS OF COMPACT CITY ADVOCATES ABOUT USE OF PUBLIC
TRANSPORT CORRECT?
The evidence suggests that their assumptions are not correct. The
reason is that jobs in Melbourne are highly dispersed. They are not
concentrated in one or more central hubs served by train or tram, as was
the case with central Melbourne up to the early 1950s. This is not a new
critique. There is a substantial literature in which the claims about
housing density and its alleged effects on reducing automobile usage
have been empirically tested and found them wanting. (8) Such criticism
has not deterred enthusiasts nor has it diminished the publicity they
continue to win for their cause. For this reason, we need to revisit the
issue.
The high level of job dispersal in Melbourne cannot be easily
unwound. As noted, the Victorian government, through Melbourne 2030, has
given developers the green light to build medium- to high-rise
apartments in and around transport hubs. It has also encouraged
employers to locate business activities in these hubs. Very few
developers have taken up the first option because of the high cost of
building apartments in multi-storey blocks and the limited demand for
such housing. Also, little progress has been made on the movement of
business enterprises closer to transport hubs except for inner-city
office developments. The reasons are explored below.
It follows that, even if policies are implemented which concentrate
settlement around transport hubs or along transport corridors, those
living in these high density settlements may still need to use their
private car for work trips. This is because work locations are dispersed
and, in any case, are often distant from public transport services.
By 2006, only 19 per cent of jobs within the Melbourne Statistical
Division (MSD) were located within the Melbourne Local Government Area
(LGA) which consists of the CBD, Carlton, Docklands, Southbank and the
northern section of St Kilda Road. This proportion has not changed over
the past twenty years. (9)
True, the CBD has got bigger, and has maintained its share of the
total number of jobs in Melbourne. Nevertheless, most jobs (81 per cent)
are scattered throughout the rest of the MSD.
This is partly because many of the services required by suburban
residents, including retail, health and education, have to be located
near the customer base. Private enterprises have also sought cheaper and
more land-extensive sites away from inner Melbourne in which to locate
professional services, back offices, warehouses and factories. This
pattern has been facilitated by the zoning decisions of the planning
authorities. They have usually placed these zones well away from
residential areas and from public transport hubs, in part because these
hubs are usually already taken up by other uses, including shopping
centres or strips. The favoured location for commercial and industrial
zones has been along or near to freeways and arterial roads.
The only practical means of transport for those journeying to work
for jobs located in these centres is by private car.
Given this job location pattern, how is it that there has been such
a remarkable upsurge in patronage of the public transport network in
recent years? The number of suburban train trips between mid-2005 and
December 2008 has grown by 46 per cent. (10) Most of this upsurge is
accounted for by growth in the number of train trips into inner
Melbourne. This is partly because of the increased number of jobs in the
area. But in addition, the share of journey-to-work trips via public
transport into inner Melbourne has grown significantly. This is the
outcome of modal shift, as more inner city workers switch to public
transport because of the increased cost of petrol and the worsening road
traffic congestion that they now encounter if they use their private
car.
The result for the MSD is a huge divide in the pattern of public
transport use. Inner city workers are increasingly likely to use public
transport. As Table 1 shows, by 2006, 42.6 per cent of the 285,828
persons working in inner Melbourne did so. But only a tiny minority of
just 4.4 per cent of the 1.4 million who work outside inner Melbourne
used public transport to get to work in 2006.
Table 1: Journey to work--public transport usage to inner Melbourne and
rest of Melbourne 2006
To inner All trips Melbourne
Melbourne within minus inner
Melbourne Melbourne
Public transport trips 121,771 183,469 61,698
Other trips 164,057 1,502,523 1,338,466
All trips 285,828 1,685,992 1.400,164
Share of trips by public transport 42.6 10.8 4.4
Source: CPUR customised 2006 census matrix
In order to explore this situation more closely we have used 2006
and earlier census data on journey to work to calculate the proportion
of employed persons who use the train or tram by the distance of their
home from a station or tram stop. Table 2 provides a synopsis of the
results of this research. It indicates the number of employed persons
living in the MSD who live within 500 metres and 500 to 1000 metres of a
train station or tram stop and the proportion of these employed persons
who used the train or tram to journey to work in 2006. (11)
Table 2: Proportion of employed persons who use the train or tram for
journey to work by distance of their home from a train station or tram
stop, 2006
Distance from train Number of Percentage Number of Percentage
or tram employed using the train employed using the
persons persons tram
<500 metres 176,56 16.8 300,769 11.8
500-<1000 metres 339,211 11.8 112,42 3.9
Source: Pathfinder Solutions, 2009
The number of employed persons living within 500 metres or 500 to
1000 metres of a train station or tram stop is small. There were 1.7
million employed persons who journeyed to work and who lived in the MSD
in 2006 (see Table 1). This means that in the case of the train, the
176,256 employed persons who lived within 500 metres of a station (see
Table 2) made up just 10.4 per cent of the total stock of employed
persons in the MSD who journeyed to work. Another 6.7 per cent lived
between 500 and 1000 metres of a station. For the tram, the equivalent
figures are 17.8 per cent (for the share of employed persons living
within 500 metres of a tram stop) and 6.7 per cent for those living
between 500 and 1000 metres. This dispersed residential pattern rams
home how hard it will be to challenge the hegemony of the car in
Melbourne: the overwhelming majority of employed persons do not live
close to train or tramlines.
A further challenge, brutally revealed in Table 2, is the small
proportion of those who do live within walking distance of the train or
tram and who actually use the train or tram for journeys to work. In
2006 only 16.8 per cent of employed persons who lived within 500 metres
of a train station used the train for work trips and only 11.8 per cent
of those who lived within 500 metres of a tram stop used the tram.
The disturbing conclusion, at least for the prospects of any
increase in public transport use, is that very few employed persons in
Melbourne live within 500 metres of a train station or a tram stop--just
10.4 per cent near a train station and 17.8 per cent near a tram stop.
Of this favoured minority, as our commentary on Table 2 shows, only a
tiny proportion actually use the train or tram for journeys to work.
That is why, as Table 1 shows, just 10.8 per cent of employed persons
used public transport for work trips in 2006.
In what follows we explore the factors shaping this outcome, and
what they imply for the public transport proposals currently advanced by
advocates.
PUBLIC TRANSPORT USE IN OUTER-SUBURBIA
As indicated, compact city advocates want to see more investment in
the public transport network. They want fixed rail to be extended to
poorly-served existing outer suburban areas and to accompany any further
spread of the suburban frontier. The best indication of the likely
outcome is the current record of public transport use in outer suburbia.
As the following tables show, this is very low, even where residents
live close to a suburban railway station.
The main reason for this situation is that very few outer suburban
residents work in inner Melbourne. For example, in 2006 only 6.5 per
cent of employed persons living in the City of Casey worked in inner
Melbourne. (12) This tiny minority of Casey residents were the main
users of public transport for work trips. Those who used public
transport to get to inner Melbourne made up 55 per cent of the Casey
residents who used public transport to journey to work. (13)
The great majority of outer suburban residents work locally or in
the job rich middle arc of suburbs. To the south and east of the city
these suburbs include White-horse, Monash, Dandenong, Moorabbin and
Kingston. Few of these jobs are located near railway stations. For most
of these outer suburban residents, public transport is either not
available or involves multiple changes in mode of transport. It is
usually far quicker to travel by private car. As is shown below, this
finding holds whether the outer suburban residents live close to a
railway station or not.
The following two tables indicate the percentage of those who
travel to work by train whether in combination with any other form of
travel or not and who live within five km of a suburban railway station.
Details of this use are shown in Tables 3A and 3B for residents located
near train stations on the Dandenong to Pakenham railway line in
Melbourne's south east and for residents located near train
stations between Pascoe Vale and Craigieburn to the north of Melbourne.
The data indicate the number of persons who travelled to work as
recorded at the 1991, 1996, 2001 and 2006 census dates and the
proportion of these workers who took the train as part of their journey
to work.
Table 3a: Total number of employed persons living within five
kilometres of the station listed and percentage using the train for
journey to work, Pakenham line
Station 1991 1996 2001 2006
number per number per number per number per
cent cent cent cent
Pakenham 202 6.3 232 5.2 258 4.8 370 4.7
Officer 20 3.1 24 3.6 17 2.5 52 3.1
Beaconsfield 71 5.3 102 5.4 143 4.5 350 5.3
Berwick 254 5.2 343 4.8 495 4.8 802 5.5
Narre Warren 410 5.8 702 4.9 951 4.7 1.145 5.1
Hallam 783 5.7 805 5.0 984 5.2 1.183 6.1
Dandenong 845 6.0 665 5.2 784 5.8 765 6.0
Source: Pathfinder Solutions
Table 3b: Total number of employed persons living within five
kilometres of the station listed and percentage using the train for
journey to work, Broadmeadows/Craigieburn line
Station 1991 1996 2001 2006
number per number per number per number per
cent cent cent cent
Craigieburn 351 6.8 359 5.6 446 5.8 739 6.3
Roxburgh Park 334 6.0 492 5.5 669 5.4 671 5.3
Broadmeadows 497 6.8 423 6.1 501 6.2 418 5.4
Jacana 656 6.6 577 6.4 645 7.0 668 7.7
Glenroy 587 9.6 520 9.5 564 9.7 643 10.4
Oak Park 649 8.2 531 7.6 692 8.9 757 10.0
Pascoe Vale 381 9.6 304 8.1 520 11.5 508 11.1
Source: Pathfinder Solutions
As would be expected for growing outer suburban communities, the
number of residents who journey to work has increased since 1991. But
there has been no growth in the tiny share that use the train to journey
to work. This outcome reflects the dispersal of jobs in Melbourne and
the fact that very few outer suburban residents choose to work in inner
Melbourne.
Where an outer suburban community is serviced by a rail line (as
through Berwick to Pakenham) the share of residents located within five
kilometres of a suburban railway station diminishes overtime as the
community spreads out with new developments. It could be argued that the
low share of those using the train by 2006 partly reflects this
dispersal. If so, it may be that if high-density development were
promoted around transport hubs in outer suburbia that this might lead to
increased use of public transport.
However, Table 4 indicates that distance from the station is not
influential in determining train use for work journeys for outer
suburban communities. The table indicates the share of journey-to-work
trips made using trains by employed persons living in selected major
outer suburban LGAs by distance from their closest station. It shows
that the distance of workers' homes from a station makes little
difference to their propensity to use the train to travel to work. Those
living within a kilometre of the station make little more use of the
train than do those living at a distance of one to two or two to three
kilometres from the station.
Table 4: Percentage of journey to work trips involving use of trains in
2006, selected LGAs by distance of residence from a rail station
LGA within 1 kilometre 1-2 kilometres 2-3 kilometres
Cardinia 5.6 4.9 3.8
Casey 6.0 5.6 5.4
Frankston 8.6 5.7 4.3
Greater Dandenong 11.0 7.1 5.9
Hume 7.3 6.7 6.0
Maroondah 11.6 8.0 6.9
Nillumbuk 8.1 7.9 5.8
Whittlesea 10.3 7.0 6.8
Wyndham 10.5 7.4 6.9
Source: Pathfinder Solutions
The implication is that the reason outer suburban residents live
close to a station has to do with factors other than their interest in
using public transport to get to work. For example, they may have
located in the LGA in its early years of settlement or wish to be close
to shopping or civic facilities, which are also in the vicinity of the
nearest station.
This finding implies that, given the existing pattern of job
location in Melbourne, there would be little gain in public transport
use should the housing density of outer suburban developments near
stations be increased.
HIGH DENSITY DEVELOPMENT ALONG TRAMLINES
As mentioned earlier, the idea of promoting high-density
development along tram lines has attracted state government interest. In
March 2009 the Victorian Department of Planning and Community
Development released a report by SGS Economics and Planning (SGS) which
provides a detailed study of the market feasibility and urban planning
implications of the idea. (14)
The report is a case study based on the roadside development
potential along tramlines number 96 and number 112 that traverse the
municipalities of Moreland and Darebin. SGS believes that such
development is feasible. The report also concludes that: 'the
potential to house a significant amount of new housing close to existing
transport infrastructure along tramway corridors could inform a
re-evaluation of the need to plan for new growth areas investigation
areas outside of the existing urban growth boundary'. (15) These
conclusions are consistent with those of the Rob Adams's tract on
Transforming Australian Cities discussed at the beginning of this paper.
SGS is aware of the potential difficulties in achieving this
tramway vision. The report admits that the busy arterial roads with
tramlines are usually noisy and polluted and thus not ideal for
intensive residential development. The roadside frontages may also be
best suited to commercial premises. (16) But since the underlying
rationale for the proposal is its contribution to urban consolidation,
and thus to greater use of public transport, a key issue is whether the
residents attracted to live in new high density apartments along tram
lines would actually use the tram. The report acknowledges that its
conclusions depend on the assumption that this is the case: 'that
is, it [trams] must be competitive with alternative options for a
majority of trips'. (17)
For this to be the case, the destinations of work trips as well as
shopping and leisure trips must be located on the adjacent tram route.
Melbourne's trams generally converge on inner Melbourne, just as is
the case for the suburban train network. But most people living in
middle suburbia, and even those living in the inner suburbs, do not work
in inner Melbourne. In the case of the inner north area which covers the
SGS case study location, only 21.8 per cent of employed persons use
public transport for work trips, despite the plethora of tram and train
lines servicing the area. (18)
SGS does not indicate what proportion of these residents use the
tram. We analysed two sections of tram routes 96 and 112 in order to
explore this issue. In the case of route 96, our analysis covered the
section on Nicholson Street between Brunswick Road and Arthurton Road in
Moreland. This section is just a few kilometers from the centre of
Melbourne. We found that 23.6 per cent of employed persons living within
500 metres of a tram stop in this section used the tram for journeys to
work. In the case of tram route 112, the section examined covered
several kilometers along George Street from Merri Parade to the terminus
at the intersection of Gilbert Road and Regent Street in Darebin. The
terminus is about 10 kilometres from the centre of Melbourne. Just 12.8
per cent of employed persons living within 500 metres of a tram stop
along this section of the 112 tram route used the tram for their
journeys to work.
The outcome for these two tram routes is repeated elsewhere along
tram routes in Melbourne. As noted earlier in Table 2, the proportion of
those who use the tram for work trips across Melbourne is very small,
even for those living close to a tram stop. Just 11.8 per cent of
employed persons living within 500 metres of a tram stop used the tram
for work trips. A much higher proportion of those living within this
distance of a station (16.8 per cent) used the train for work trips. The
reason for this disparity is that most of those using public transport
would be traveling to inner Melbourne. The train offers a far faster
travel alterative than the tram. Since only one out of every 10 employed
persons who lives within 500 metres of a tram uses the tram for work
trips this does not bode well for the likelihood that those who take up
high density living along the same tram routes in future will be any
more inclined to use the tram for work trips.
Table 5 shows the actual use of trams for work journeys in 2006 by
all employed persons living in the LGAs within Melbourne where trams
have a significant presence. For this table, we computed the share of
employed persons in each of the LGAs listed who used the tram for a work
trip (whether solely or in combination with one other form of
travel--such as private car or train) by the distance of their home
residence from a tram stop. The table lists the share of persons who
used the tram to go to work who lived within 250 metres, 250 to 500
metres, 500 to 750 metres and 750 to 1000 metres of a tram stop (see
endnote reference 11).
Table 5: Share of employed persons who use the tram for work trips by
distance from a tram stop by LGAs serviced by tram routes, 2006
LGA Distance of residence from tramstop
<250 metres 250-500 500-750 metres 750-1000 metres
metres
Banyule 4.1 3.6 1.7 2.0
Bayside 4.9 2.2 0.5 0.7
Boroondara 10.5 6.7 3.9 2.3
Darebin 11.4 9.0 6.5 3.6
Glen Eira 6.5 4.9 3.2 2.3
Maribymong 8.3 6.7 3.4 2.3
Melbourne 15.2 12.6 5.1 4.6
Moonee Valley 10.5 7.7 3.7 1.5
Moreland 19.0 15.9 8.2 4.9
Port Phillip 19.2 15.3 10.8 5.9
Stonnington 9.5 6.2 4.3 1.4
Whitehorse 5.6 3.7 2.2 1.2
Yarra 17.8 12.9 6.8 2.8
Total 13.7 9.1 4.9 2.6
Source: Pathfinder Solutions, 2009
As would be expected, the share of workers living close to a tram
who used it for work purposes is higher for those living relatively
close to inner Melbourne. This is because a greater share of these
residents work in inner Melbourne. The highest use shown in Table 5 is
for residents of Port Phillip, where 19.2 per cent of those living
within 250 metres and 15.3 per cent of those living within 500 metres
used the tram for work trips. At the other end of the spectrum, only a
tiny proportion of workers living in Whitehorse used the tram for work
trips (5.6 per cent) even if living within 250 metres of the tram along
the Maroondah Highway, down which the tram now travels in a service as
far as Box Hill station.
The results for Moreland and Darebin which cover the area studied
by SGS are mixed. Some 19.0 per cent of employed persons who live within
250 metres of a tram stop in Moreland use the tram for work trips. The
Nicholson Street section of the 96 tram in Moreland noted above is
indicative of the relatively high use made of the tram where it passes
through locations very close to inner Melbourne. On the other hand just
11.4 per cent of employed persons living in Darebin who lived within 250
metres of tram stop used the tram for journeys to work. This is
consistent with the finding noted above for the section of the 112 tram
which passes through Darebin.
SGS claim that their feasibility study of these two areas supports
the tramway corridor proposal. This conclusion depends on the assumption
that those who take up high density apartments built along the tramlines
will use the tram for work and other journeys. Our findings do not
support the SGS assessment. Only a small proportion of employed persons
living close to a tram stop travel to work by tram. Apart from those who
live close to inner Melbourne, the main reason is that only a minority
of employed residents actually work in inner Melbourne.
CONCLUSION
Advocates of high-density developments along tram corridors, as
well as those who believe the addition of fixed rail in outer suburbs
will promote use of public transport, look at only one side of the
equation. They assume that it is the location of homes relative to
public transport options which determines use of the public transport
system. They believe that if people live near to public transport then
they will use it.
Our data refute this assumption. In our view this is largely
because of the dispersal of jobs in Melbourne. As long as this situation
continues it is unlikely that policies based around promoting high
density housing will generate much of an increase in the proportion of
workers who use public transport for journeys to work.
There are three major conclusions that can be drawn from the
present study. The first is that establishment of public transport
services close to residents in outer suburbia will not guarantee a
significant increase in the use of public transport. This is because the
variation in the extent of public transport use for traveling to work
appears to depend more on the connectivity of the network to workplaces
than distance of residences from stations. Most of those workers who
live in middle or outer suburbia who live close to a train station or
tram stop do not use the train or tram for work journeys.
The second conclusion is that any increase in the density of
housing in close proximity to tram lines will add much more to the
number of car trips than it will to the number of trips made by tram.
The likely outcome is an increase in road congestion, a slow down in
tram journey times and thus an adverse impact on current users of the
tram network.
The third conclusion is that the priority that compact city
advocates put on the nexus between provision of transport options and
high-density housing is misplaced. This priority looks at only one side
of the equation--the origin of journeys--and not the other side--the
destination of journeys.
A sea change in thinking about the issue is required. This will
require proposals which link the location of jobs to public transport
options. Where this occurs, as with the public transport options
servicing jobs located within inner Melbourne, there is a better chance
of achieving a significant modal shift from the use of cars.
However, there is no guarantee that the establishment of train,
tram or bus links to job nodes in middle and outer suburbia will
dramatically change transport patterns. But in the absence of these
links, which is characteristic of most of the 81 per cent of jobs
located outside inner Melbourne, it is hard to see how any major change
to present transport patterns could occur.
References
(1) Melbourne 2030: A Planning Update, Factsheet, Victoria in
Future 2008--population projections
(2) Department of Planning and Community Development, Melbourne
2030: A planning update--Melbourne@5 million, December 2008, p. 18
(3) R. Moodie. D. Whitney. M. Wright and A. McAfee, Melbourne 2030:
Audit Expert Group Report, Department of Planning and Community
Development, March 2008, p. 53
(4) For example, see the thoughtful advocacy of the Commissioner
for Environmental Sustainability, Creating a City That Works, Victorian
Government, 2007, pp. 17-21.
(5) Transforming Australian Cities, City of Melbourne, July 2009,
p. 13
(6) ibid., p. 14
(7) Commissioner for Environmental Sustainability, 2007. op. cit.,
p. 32
(8) B. Birrell, K. O'Connor, V. Rapson and E. Healy, Melbourne
2030: Planning Rhetoric Versus Urban Reality, Monash University ePress,
2005, chapter 2, pp. 16-17
(9) K. O'Connor and V. Rapson. 'Employment in city and
suburban Melbourne: the changing relationship'. People and Place,
vol. 11, no. 4, 2003, p. 44
(10) Connex Melbourne Trains Australia. Our performance--past 12
months. April 2009, <http://www.connexmel-bourne.com.au>
(11) In the case of people counted as using the train all those who
used the train for work trips, either alone or in combination with up to
two other means of transport, were included. In the case of people
counted as using the tram all those using the tram alone or in
combination with any other means of transport were included. A series of
geographical concordances were constructed to allow data from earlier
census issues to be expressed using the census collection district (CCD)
boundaries defined by the Australian Bureau of Statistics for the 2006
census. The distance of each CCD centroid in the MSD from the nearest
railway station was calculated. For the analysis shown in this table,
only CCDs that had their centroid within five kilometres of a railway
station were used. Where a CCD was within five kilometres of more than
one station, the CCD was allocated to the closest station. Data on the
location of tram stops were not available to the authors of the study.
As a proxy, roads containing tramlines were identified and each road
intersection on each route was specified as a tram stop. This may
overstate the proximity to trams; although the tram line will be within
the specified proximity, there may be an additional distance to the
actual stop locations.
(12) Transport Demand Information Atlas for Victoria--Volume 1:
Melbourne, Victorian Department of Transport, 2008, p. 9
(13) ibid., p. 12
(14) SGS Economics and Planning, Residential Intensification in
Tramway Corridors, Department of Planning and Community Development,
March 2009
(15) ibid., p. ii
(16) ibid., p. 28
(17) ibid., p. 3
(18) ibid., p. 24
