[Peakoil] Units not crucial for good public transport, study finds

[Alex Pollard]

http://www.smh.com.au/national/units-not-crucial-for-good-public-transport-study-finds-20110104-19f5h.html


Units not crucial for good public transport, study finds
Andrew West
January 5, 2011
 .RESIDENTS of Australia's outer suburbs do not have to wait for higher
housing densities before getting better public transport, according to
new research, which could defuse one of urban planning's biggest
controversies.

In a paper for the journal Australian Planner, Dr John Stone of the
University of Melbourne and Dr Paul Mees of Royal Melbourne Institute of
Technology say many city dwellers have been presented with a false choice:
live in apartments and enjoy good public transport or retain the house and
land and rely on cars.

''Many planners, and other commentators on urban issues, appear to believe
that getting significantly more people on public transport will not be
possible until massive changes in suburban densities are achieved,'' they
write. ''The evidence challenges this view.''

Advertisement: Story continues below Their study, part of a collection
being prepared for the Council of Australian Governments on the dangers of
relying on diminishing oil supplies, finds that cities with densities
comparable to those of Sydney and Melbourne, such as Toronto and Ottawa in
Canada, and greater New York, have better public transport than
Australia's two biggest cities.

While greater New York, not just the skyscraper-dominated Manhattan, has
20.5 people to the hectare, Sydney has 20.4 people. Melbourne, with 15.7
people, has only slightly lower density than Ottawa, with 17.2 people.

Their research compares public transport in similar North American cities,
and some European cities, such as suburban Zurich in Switzerland, and not
in the extremely dense cities of Asia, such as Hong Kong and Tokyo.

Dr Mees told the Herald that higher densities did not always mean better
mass transit. He cited the relatively low rail and bus patronage in Los
Angeles, even though it is the most densely populated city in the US.

''There is no doubt that a compact and connected urban form enhances the
potential for oil-free mobility through walking, cycling, and greater
public transport use,'' the authors write.

''Therefore, some localised intensification of residential development -
achieved through an inclusive democratic process and with appropriate
controls on the quality of design and construction - and, perhaps more
important, concentration of employment and other trip destinations, are
necessary objectives for urban planners responding to oil vulnerability.

''However, we 
 argue that it is not necessary to intensify land-use
across the whole city before significant improvement in both patronage and
economic efficiency of public transport becomes possible.''

The keys to increasing public transport use in outer suburbs are: more
frequent buses, running at least every 10-15 minutes, and not just in peak
hours; better co-ordination with rail services; more convenient transfers;
and fares that allow free transfers between modes.

The authors say most residents of Australian cities ''will continue to
live in houses and suburban subdivisions that are already built.
Alternatives to the car will need to be effective at existing urban
residential densities.''

They continue: ''The proven effectiveness of modern approaches to public
transport service design in low-density suburbs offers a way to break the
politicised stand-off between supporters of urban consolidation and
residents who choose to live in a detached house on a suburban block.''


_________

Alex
O4O4873828