Transport for Sustainable Cities

Transcription

1 Transport for Sustainable Cities by Emmerson Richardson, Sinclair Knight Merz and Professor Peter Newman, Curtin University About the Authors Emmerson Richardson is Sinclair Knight Merz s (SKM) global public transport practice leader. Prior to joining SKM in 2001, Emmerson held positions of Director of Metropolitan Strategy with the Department of Transport in Perth and Director of Engineering Services with the City of Fremantle. He has written and presented frequently on integrated and sustainable transport planning. Emmerson is a past chairman of Engineers Australia s National Committee on Transport. Peter Newman is the Professor of Sustainability at Curtin University. He has recently been appointed to the Board of Infrastructure Australia. In Peter directed the production of WA s Sustainability Strategy in the Department of the Premier and Cabinet and in 2004/5 he was a Sustainability Commissioner in Sydney advising the government on planning issues. In 2006/7 he was a Fulbright Senior Scholar at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville where he completed two new books Resilient Cities: Responding to Peak Oil and Climate Change and Cities as Sustainable Ecosystems. For 30 years since he attended Stanford University during the first oil crisis he has been warning about preparing for peak oil. Peter s book with Jeff Kenworthy 'Sustainability and Cities: Overcoming Automobile Dependence' was launched in the White House in Engineers Australia has requested the authors to provide a paper on transport for sustainable, in support of its current focus on sustainability. For the first time in our history, more than half of the world s people live in. In Australia, over 80% of the population lives in. The purpose of urban transport systems is to provide a high level of accessibility for its citizens and visitors without destroying the fabric of the city and the enjoyment and amenity of the community residents, business and visitors. Most Australian and American have transport systems that are highly dependent on cars. These systems are inefficient in terms of energy use, production of greenhouse gases and in the space and cost required for the movement and storage of vehicles. In addition, these systems are at risk, in the relatively short term, from the escalating price of oil due to limitations in supply and growing demand on a world scale. There is an urgent need to reduce dependence on and use of cars and to provide options for more sustainable travel.

2 1. Introduction Over the last 40 to 50 years, governments main response to improving urban transport systems has been to build more and bigger roads. It was argued that a high speed and high capacity road system was necessary to improve mobility, reduce congestion, improve road safety and maintain a strong economy. We now understand that this policy has not been successful in reducing congestion. Between 1960 and 1990 in particular, the expenditure on roads was accompanied by reduced investment in public transport, which in turn led to reduced levels of service and reduced use of the public transport system. This led to a spiral of decline, leading to further lowering of public transport service and use. At the same time, state and local governments supported and permitted the development of purely residential estates with no mix of uses and with indirect road systems that made public transport and walking practically impossible and cycling difficult for almost all trips. The combination of dependency on the car for travel, the longer travel distances required to meet basic accessibility needs and road networks that focussed too much traffic through too few intersections, has contributed to increased congestion despite high expenditure on roads. Many in our urban communities have experienced a reduced level of accessibility at a time when they could have expected to benefit from improving economic circumstances. Young people, in particular, have no independent means of travel to most activities, requiring to be driven by their parents or others. This has contributed both to more car travel and congestion and a society that is experiencing health and fitness problems. Currently, 25% of Australian children are overweight or obese and childhood obesity is growing by 1% per annum. In more recent years, two other issues have become critically important to the sustainability of our urban transport systems. Climate change is now a major community concern and is on the political agenda of most countries, including Australia. In Australia, transport accounts for 15% of all greenhouse gas emissions. At a time when targets are being set for reductions in greenhouse gases, greenhouse gas emissions from transport continue to rise. In Australia, greenhouse emissions from transport grew by 28.4% between 1990 and 2004 and is estimated to grow to 42% above 1990 levels by The second critical issue is peak oil. Various authors 2 have suggested that the supply of oil has either peaked or will do so within the next decade. As demand increases worldwide, particularly in the fast growing economies of India and China, the price of oil will inevitably continue to increase. The price of petrol at the bowsers in Australia has increased by about 66% in the last 5 years (2003 to 2008). This is causing severe economic hardship for some, particularly those in car dependent suburbs where walking, cycling or use of public transport is not a realistic option for most trips. Whilst price increases will dampen demand to some extent, our current transport systems are so dependent on cars, trucks and aeroplanes that some form of rationing may need to be introduced in the future. This paper provides evidence on why our current urban transport systems are not sustainable at present and outlines a number of significant changes that will need to be introduced with some degree of urgency as part of a transformation process towards more sustainable urban transport systems for Australian. 2

3 2. Sustainable Cities and Sustainable Transport In Australia, more than 80% of the population lives in. It is, therefore, critical that a means is found to develop our in a sustainable manner. The Western Australian State Sustainability Strategy 3 provides a good overview of what sustainability means. It defines sustainability as meeting the needs of current and future generations through the integration of environmental protection, social advancement and economic prosperity. If are to be sustainable in the future, they must be able to compete favourably with other in terms of the quality of life experience they provide for their citizens. This means they must provide a high level of social and environmental amenity, consistent with the ability to live a healthy lifestyle and they must be affordable. Consistent with this is the need to become more energy efficient and to limit pollutants that have a detrimental impact on health and the environment. Those with the highest transport fuel per capita will be increasingly vulnerable to fuel and car dependent diseconomies data on these and how they relate to other infrastructure and to land use are provided in the Appendix as well as being summarized below. The Centre for Sustainable Transportation 4 defines a sustainable transportation system as one that: allows the basic access needs of individuals and societies to be met safely and in a manner consistent with human and ecosystem health, and within and between generations is affordable, operates efficiently, offers choice of transport mode, and supports a vibrant economy limits emissions and waste within the planet s ability to absorb them, minimises consumption of non-renewable resources, limits consumption of renewable resources to the sustainable yield level, reuses and recycles its components, and minimises the use of land and the production of noise. It is clear that a sustainable transport system could make a major contribution to the development of a sustainable city. It is equally clear that current Australian transport systems are not sustainable and require substantial change if we are to develop sustainable in the future. There is considerable divergence on how sustainable urban transport systems are worldwide, in terms of their impact on greenhouse gases, energy consumption, affordability and other indicators. The following section outlines how Australian compare with worldwide in relation to a number of sustainability indicators. 3. The Drivers for Change The role of transport is to provide a high level of accessibility to a variety of places for work, social and other reasons, without creating or contributing to unacceptable environmental, economic or social consequences. In the past, there has been too much emphasis on accessibility by car at the expense of other modes and little attention has been given to the consequences of transport on city life. Richardson (2007) 5 has argued that reduced dependence on and use of cars in can contribute to a more sustainable transport system in the following areas: reduction in greenhouse gases reduced congestion improved health and fitness affordable urban living road safety 3

4 A summary of the findings in relation to each of these indicators is provided below. In addition, this paper discusses Australia s vulnerability to a high level of dependence on oil and how a supply deficit compared to future world demand will continue to have a negative impact on Australia s economy through increasing balance of trade deficits and increasing higher proportions of household income spent on travel. In addition to the cost pressures, the instability of supply may become a significant driver for change in the future. 3.1 Greenhouse Emissions and Climate Change Figure 1 shows that global mean temperatures are rising, global average sea level is rising and the northern hemisphere snow cover is receding. Figure 1 Changes in Temperature, Sea Level and Northern Hemisphere Snow Cover Source: IPCC, Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis Summary for Policymakers 4

5 The whole phenomenon of climate change is now widely regarded by scientists and governments as likely to result in very damaging consequences in terms of social dislocation, environmental damage and ecosystem change, resulting in significant species extinction. The Stern Review 6 on the Economics of Climate Change stated: The scientific evidence is now overwhelming: climate change presents very serious global risks and it demands an urgent global response Table 1 shows that Australia is a high emitter of greenhouse gases from transport and private cars. On a per capita basis, Australians emit nearly twice the amount of greenhouse gases from cars than do citizens of the UK. On the other hand, Americans that have a greater dependence on cars and generally drive larger cars, emit nearly twice the greenhouse gases than do Australians. Table 1 Comparison of greenhouse gas emissions per person AUSTRALIA UK USA Population 20.1 million 60.3 million million Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions (CO 2 equivalent) 565 mt/yr 656 mt/yr 7147 mt/yr Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions per person Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Transport (CO 2 equivalent) Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Transport per person Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Cars (CO 2 equivalent) 28.1 t/yr 100% 10.9 t/yr 39% 24.1 t/yr 91% 76 mt/yr mt/yr mt/yr 3.8t/yr 100% 2.1 t/yr 55% 6.75 mt/yr 187% 41.7 mt/yr 62.8 mt/yr mt/yr Greenhouse Gas from Cars per person 2.07 t/yr 100% 1.04% t/yr 49% Analysis of data supplied under UN Framework on Climate Change, t/yr 200% Table 2, which presents data from 84 global shows that the vast majority of greenhouse gas emissions is from private transport and that with more highly developed public transport systems emit significantly reduced greenhouse gases per capita. 5

6 Table 2 World Comparisons of Public and Private Transport Emissions (1995 data) Region or Country Total private transport CO 2 emissions per capita (kg/person) Total public transport CO 2 emissions per capita (kg/person) Total passenger transport CO 2 emissions per capita (kg/person) USA Cities Australian/New Zealand Cities Canadian Cities West European Cities High Income Asian Cities Source: Kenworthy, JR Transport Energy Use and Greenhouse Gases in Urban Passenger Systems: A Study of 84 Global Cities 3.2 Congestion Building more capacity into the road system can induce more traffic to use it. This is particularly so when a significant increase in capacity is introduced to a congested network. The increased car use can result in people driving further and can result in reduced use of public transport, walking and cycling. This induced traffic can result in increased congestion on adjacent sections of the road system that have not been upgraded, and over time can result in increased congestion system wide 7. Figure 2 shows that there is no overall correlation between delay per driver and the number of lanes of major roads built per head of population for the 20 biggest in the USA. Figure 2 Measure of delay America s 20 biggest Source: Urban Transportation Monitor, Data from Texas Transportation Institute Table 3 shows that with large rail systems have significantly more public transport use, less car driving and less deaths from car accidents than with bus only systems, on a per capita basis. 6

7 Table 3 Travel characteristics in America s 50 largest Increase/Decrease Compared to Bus Only System Cities Indicator Large Rail System (7 Cities) Small Rail System (16 Cities) Bus Only System (27 Cities) Public Transport Ridership (km per person) Car Driver Travel (km per person) +500% +50% 0% -20% -10% 0% Traffic Safety (Deaths per 100,000 persons) -35% -15% 0% Source: Rail Transit in America A Comprehensive Evaluation of Benefits: Litman, T (2004) The evidence suggests that improving public transport is more likely to reduce congestion in large than building more roads. Market research conducted in Perth in 1999 and in Sydney in 2001 revealed that the public favoured strategies to reduce traffic and improve public transport over strategies to build more freeways as the preferred way of reducing congestion. 3.3 Health and Fitness The Australian Society for the Study of Obesity 8 has reported: almost 60% of Australian adults are either overweight or obese (2.5 times higher than in 1980) 25% of Australian children are either overweight or obese childhood obesity is growing at 1% per annum obesity is costing the Australian Government more than $1.5 billion per annum For weight loss and general health, the US Surgeon General recommends that adults should be physically active for at least 30 minutes and children for at least 60 minutes on most days of the week. Some of this exercise can be undertaken by a daily travel routine of walking, cycling or walking to public transport. The Western Australian TravelSmart behaviour change programme has found that improving health and fitness was one of the major motivators to drive less and walk, cycle or use public transport more. 3.4 Affordable Urban Living The Western Australian TravelSmart behaviour change programme has found that the potential to save money was one of the two major motivators to drive less and to travel more by walking, cycling and public transport. The cost of running a car is high. The RACWA has estimated the annual cost of running a car in 2007, as shown in Table 4. 7

8 Table 4 Cost of running a car in WA ($ Australian) 9 Vehicle Type Average Annual Cost Light (up to 1.6 litre) $6,053 Small (1.6 to 2.0 litre) $7,725 Medium ( litre) $10,298 Large (> 3 litre) $11,260 Compact 4WD $10,477 Medium 4WD $12,947 Large 4WD $16,680 Source: RACWA (2007) These costs, which exclude parking costs, vary from 12.3% to 34% of the average Australian (2007) take home pay (after tax) of $49,000. Kenworthy and Laube (2001) have estimated the proportion by metro GDP expended on transport (refer Table 5): Table 5 International comparison of metro GDP expenditure on travel City or Region Total private passenger transport cost as a percentage of metro GDP Total public passenger transport cost as a percentage of metro GDP Total passenger transport cost as a percentage of metro GDP Australian average 12.2% 1.2% 13.4% US average 11.2% 0.6% 11.8% Canadian average 12.9% 0.9% 13.7% West European average 5.6% 1.8% 7.4% Asian average 3.6% 1.3% 4.9% Source: Kenworthy and Laube (2001) Millennium Cities, Database for Sustainable Transport This table shows that people in with high car use (Australian, US and Canadian ) spend a much higher proportion of their wealth on transport than do with good public transport systems and lower car use. 3.5 Road Safety The social and economic cost from loss of life and severe injuries from car crashes is large. The Australian Bureau of Transport Economics has estimated the annual cost in Australia to be about $15 billion or about $750 per person per annum. Table 6 compares the deaths per million people from road crashes in Australia, the USA and the UK. 8

9 Table 6 Comparison of road death rates (Australia, UK and USA) Australia (2004) UK (2003) USA (2004) Population 20.1m 59.6m 295m Road Deaths 1,636 3,201 43,443 Deaths/ Million People Source: Australian Transport Safety Bureau. Road Deaths Australia, 2005 Statistical Summary, and US Department of Transportation ( and UK National Statistics ( The death rate from road crashes in the USA is 80% higher than in Australia which, in turn, is 51% higher than the UK. Whilst there will be different factors responsible for this variation, the figures demonstrate that countries with lower car use and higher proportions of people travelling by other modes, are likely to have lower death rates from road crashes. 3.6 Peak Oil Peak oil as a theory has been around for at least fifty years after the original work of geophysicist M King Hubbert who in 1956 predicted that the US would peak in its oil production in He was castigated at the time but was shown to be precisely correct; he also predicted that world oil would peak in the early 21st century. This is now proving to be largely correct as although demand is increasing supply has plateau-ed for the last two years. Price therefore is inevitably increasing. The economics of finding more oil and creating alternatives will invariably provide some of the solution but for many analysts the need for to develop more resilience to oil is reflected in the need for a more sustainable transport and land use system (Newman, Beatley and Boyer, 2008) Implementing a Sustainable Long Term Transport Plan Most major in Australia have developed strategies and have set targets for increased mode share of public transport, walking and cycling and reduced use of cars 11. However, none of these have taken the next essential step to implement a funded plan. Sustainable and sustainable transport systems will remain a pipedream until responsible governments adopt a plan and an implementation strategy that is fully funded in budgets and forward estimates. Unfortunately, the experience to date in Australian is that the rhetoric in support of sustainable transport has not been supported through funding and implementation. The achievement of a sustainable transport system for each city requires a commitment to the development and implementation of a long term plan with the following components. 4.1 High Capacity/ High Frequency Public Transport System There is now significant evidence that increased use of public transport can be induced by improvements to service and frequency. For a summary of Australian experience, refer to Richardson and Burgess (2005) 12. In Australia and North America, there has been a resurgence of the use of public transport, particularly rail (or light rail and busway systems along dedicated rights of way). In recent years, the rate of growth of patronage has been contained because of a lack of capacity on the system during peak periods. This lack of capacity, particularly on the train system, is evident in all of Australia s major. 9

10 If we are to move towards a sustainable transport system in Australian, the existing public transport system must be developed and improved so that it has the capability to move about four times the current patronage by A failure to expand the public transport system by at least this order will expose Australian to enormous risk from increased petrol prices, potential petrol rationing and growth and capacity constraints on the road system. By 2030, key ingredients of this public transport improvement programme will need to include: a doubling to tripling of rail rolling stock on the existing system an upgrade of signalling and infrastructure to accommodate high frequency running extensions of rail lines and introduction of new metro style high frequency rail lines the reintroduction of light rail lines within the inner city growth areas not served by rail at least a doubling of the bus services linking centres, rail stations and providing feeder services to suburban locations If Australian are to be sustainable, they must be developed as transit, which are much more than with transit. Transit normally have a network of fixed route systems operating at less than 10 minute frequencies all day so that passengers can use the services without the need for a timetable and so that transfers between services can take place with minimal inconvenience and loss of time. 4.2 Mixed Use High Density Development around Transit Nodes In order to overcome car dependence we need to have transportation and land use options which are more favourable for sustainable transport modes, i.e. they need to save us time, if we use them, compared to a car. We cannot expect to overcome car dependence unless a city provides options for people that mean they can keep their travel time budget around one hour a day. This means: Transit needs to be faster than traffic down each major corridor The data in the Appendix show the relative speed of transit to traffic. Those where transit is relatively fast are those with a reasonable level of support for it. The reason is simple people can save time. This also assumes that the service levels are adequate which requires transit to be available at 10 minute intervals or less and be provided at night and in the weekends. Once this is built an immediate market is established for land use to intensify around stations giving access to such a system. More people need to live and work where they can have sustainable transportation options This means that densities in centres need to increase so that whatever mode people choose they can travel less and thus save time. Quality, high frequency transit needs densities over 35 people and jobs per hectare of urban land and for walking/cycling to be dominant requires densities over 100 people and jobs per hectare (see Box on Vancouver s reversal of car dependence). Sprawl-based car dependence means that most journeys require a car. To reverse this requires transit to be faster than traffic down main corridors, at least in peak periods, and to build TODs around the stations. Transformative urban change comes from rail systems as they provide a faster option than car, on a sustainable basis, and can help build centres. Washington DC s rail system was built in 1976 as a service for government employees. It has since grown to cover 168km of track with 86 stations and has become a key factor in shaping housing and employment patterns. This process called Transit Oriented Development is becoming a guiding philosophy for planners, politicians and developers as it not only reduces car use it saves money on infrastructure and helps create community centres

11 Centres or Transit Oriented Developments (TODs) need to be planned along every major transit system so that Transit Cities are built as an antidote to Auto Cities. In these centres - especially major regional centres - walking and cycling need to be given priority so that it is quicker to move around for short journeys by these modes. This is the Walking City and it is just as functional in today s economy as in any other period of history. Figure 3 below sets out how a combination of Transit Cities and Walking Cities can be built into an Auto City to make it more resilient. Most Australian and Canadian are being planned with this concept as well as like Portland and Denver in the US and it is the basis of the New Urbanism 14. Figure 3 - A conceptual plan for reconstructing an automobile city, based on Sydney, showing how a series of transit can be formed around Town Centres and Local Centres with a transit base 11

12 Vancouver: Transforming itself into a Walking City The population of the City of Vancouver, like many North American downtown areas, began declining in the 1970s and 80s but then began to turn around and has since grown by 135,000 people in 20 years. Strong leadership from the City Council led this return to the city as it established policies to help create quality urban spaces, good cycling and walking facilities, reliable transit (electric rail and electric trolley buses mostly) and most of all high density residential opportunities with at least 15% social housing (public and co-operative housing). So successful has this been that the transportation patterns in the city have been transformed. A survey between 1991 and 1994 showed that there was a decline in car trips in the City of Vancouver of 31,000 vehicles per day (from 50% to 46% of trips) whilst the amount of cycling and walking went up by a staggering 107,000 trips per day (from 15 % to 22%). In the central area car trips went from 35 % to 31%. Vancouver has been creating a Walking City and so successful has it been that families are moving back into the city in droves so that schools, child care centres and community centres are crowded, while the number of cars owned in the city has reduced to less than it was 5 years ago probably establishing this as a world first, especially in a city undergoing an economic boom. One of the critical policies that has helped make this work is the 5% social infrastructure policy whereby the city requires public spaces and social facilities to be provided through each development equal to 5% of the cost of the development. The walkability of the city is the main focus of this money. Vancouver also has redeveloped many of its station areas around the Sky Train with similar qualities and apart from a recent mistake has not allowed freeway development Sustainable Mobility Management of Road Traffic In many around the world there is a new movement to create Complete Streets where mobility is managed to favour public transport, walking and cycling in streets as well as traffic which is reduced in capacity somewhat, mainly through reduced speed. Many that have confronted the provision of a freeway have been global leaders in this move towards more sustainable transportation. In Copenhagen and Zurich, in Portland, Vancouver and Toronto, all had to face the cathartic experience of a controversial freeway. After a political confrontation the freeway options were dropped. They decided instead to provide other greener options and hence the building of light rail lines, cycleways, traffic calming and associated urban villages began to occur. All these had citizen groups that pushed visions for a different, less car-oriented city and a political process was worked through to achieve their innovations. Similar movements are active in Australia 16. Freeways have blighted the centres of many and today there are that are trying to remove them. San Francisco removed the Embarcadero Freeway from its blighted waterfront district in the 1990 s after the Loma Prieta earthquake. It took three ballots before consensus was reached but the freeway has been rebuilt as a much more friendly tree-lined boulevard involving pedestrian and cycle spaces. As in all cases where traffic capacity is reduced the city has not found it difficult to ensure adequate transport as most of the traffic just disappears. Regeneration of the land uses in the area has followed this change of transportation philosophy 17. Seoul in Korea has removed a large freeway from its centre that had been built over a major river. The freeway had become controversial because of its blighting impacts on the built environment as well as the river. After a mayoral contest where the vision for a different kind of city was tested politically the newly elected mayor began a five year program that saw: 12

13 The freeway dismantled The start of a rehabilitation process for the river The restoration of an historical bridge over the river Restoration and rehabilitation of the river foreshores as a public park Restoration of adjacent buildings Extension of the underground rail system to help replace the traffic The project has been very symbolic for the city as the river was a spiritual source of life for the city. Now other car saturated Asian are planning to replace their central city freeways 18. What these projects have shown is that we should as David Burwell from People for Public Spaces says think of transportation as public space. Freeways thus, from this perspective, become very unfriendly solutions as they are not good public spaces. However boulevards with space for cars, cyclists, pedestrians, a busway or LRT, all packaged in good design and with associated land uses that creates attractions for everyone these are the gathering spaces that make green good. In the UK the Demos Institute has shown how public transport helps create good public spaces that help define a city. The change of awareness amongst traffic engineers of this new paradigm for transportation planning is gathering momentum. Andy Wiley-Schwartz says that Road engineers are realising that they are in the community development business and not just in the facilities development business. He calls this the slow road movement Changing Vehicles and Fuels As well as the need to reduce dependence on travel by car, there will also be a need to address vehicle technology. The present vehicle fleet will need to change in two ways: one will be in, one outside for regional and freight movements and for agriculture. In, vehicles will need to become plug-in electric vehicles that can take advantage of the solar transition. Hybrid vehicles are a step towards this, as are plug-in hybrids, but the first all-electric plugin vehicles are now on the market. The Tesla is a sports car all-electric vehicle, which has demonstrated all the requirements of performance. As the city becomes more focussed and less car dependent, there will be increasing use of smaller electric vehicles for short local trips. The electric bike, scooter, gopher and golf cart will all take a share of this market. Electric buses will also be part of this mix for local transport all feeding into the fast electric rail for cross city travel and for inter city travel through VFTs. The advantage of these electric vehicles is that they can become part of the battery storage system for renewable power which will be fluctuating with the wind, sun, waves and tides. The large storage opportunity of electric vehicles is that they will be mostly stationary and, therefore, can feed into or receive power when not in use. This will require a Smart Grid to manage the system using clever control system technology (see Cascio, 2005) 20. The first examples of these are now appearing as demonstrations, e.g. in Boulder, Colorado (Fairly, 2008) 21. The advantage of Smart Grids and distributed power is that they are far more resilient to break down of large centralised facilities and are much more efficient, as the old centralised system requires base load power to be always much more than the peak and hence when the peak is not there, considerable power shedding has to occur through cooling towers which only heats the atmosphere. Up to 50% of power is wasted through this mechanism. Smart Grids, distributed renewable power and electric vehicles can provide a step-wise advance in power provision as well as being carbon-free. 13

14 Outside and in freight systems, the electric vehicle is less relevant. VFTs will continue to fill part of the role for inter city movements but the next step in vehicles and fuels would be natural gas which can be used in trucks, freight trains, inter city buses, fishing boats, and indeed, large ships. These have a pay-off in a few years with present fuel prices and just need infrastructure for refuelling. Most Australian settlements can be provided with CNG. This would be the first step toward the hydrogen economy where solar-derived hydrogen can be fed into the natural gas network. Air ships which use one tenth of the fuel of aircraft have potential to replace the movement of heavy loads to remote areas and can provide a slower but lower experience of air travel for up to 400 passengers looking for an eco-tourism experience. In agricultural regions, farmers can be expected to grow their own biofuel in regions. The clash with growing food requires attention, but can be avoided with cellulose-based crops and the fuel can be processed and used in the bioregion to make a feasible net energy option. The overall expectation would be of a much more localised economy where the days of cheap, easy travel are lessened but where a carbon-free transport option would become increasingly available. There is no impediment to implementation of these options and strong reasons why these and other technological solutions should be in place by Radical Restructure of the Transport Budget The biggest economic impact of cars on is the sheer space they take for roads and parking. However, the urban impacts of transport budgets are rarely part of the decision-making process. A lane of freeway carries 2,500 people/hr, a bus lane 5 to 8,000, a light rail 10 to 20,000 (also BRT) and a metro rail system up to 50,000 people/hr. It is no wonder freeways fill so quickly. Rail corridors can carry 20 times the capacity of freeways. Likewise most car dependent require 5 to 8 car park spaces for every car. All this space costs money and is simply unproductive land. Two calculations on Sydney illustrate the uneconomic space-hungry nature of car dependence. If the downtown of Sydney were to close down its rail system then the central area would be required to build another 65 lanes of freeway and 1042 floors of multi storey car park. In reality business would just scatter as in most heavily car-dominated city centres. This is also a big economic issue in the new global economy as it is in centres where a large concentration of people can meet that seem to be favoured by these new interactive kind of jobs. Another calculation shows that if the next million additional population to Sydney were located in transit-oriented development so that each household had one less car, the savings would be around US$ 18 billion in capital opportunity costs due to space saving and US$ 3-4 billion in annual driving costs. This does not include the reduced external costs due to pollution reductions or the health savings due to less obesity and depression associated with excessive car use. Sustainable transportation is a healthier economic proposition 22. The economic benefits of greening urban transportation are beginning to be seen by some parts of the normally car-oriented conservative side of politics. According to the Washington lobby group The Free Congress Foundation : Conservatives tend to assume that transit does not serve any important conservative goals. But it does. One of the most important conservative goals is economic growth. In city after city, new rail transit lines have brought higher property values, more customers for local businesses and new development. 23 Most citizens who experience car dependence or car saturation can understand how to overcome it: more sustainable transportation modes and less sprawl. They want these options provided for them. 14

15 Surveys of citizens constantly show that people want to see a higher priority for greener urban transportation options in their. In Perth, people were asked did they see a need for more transit/walking/biking over cars and 78% agreed, then they were asked would they transfer road funding to pay for these greener modes and 87% agreed. In Porto Alegre a people s budget approach asked citizens to assign their priorities, the vast majority of areas put greener modes of transportation above the need for more roads. In the Milwaukee region a survey of transportation preferences showed that bus and rail projects were all favoured by 70 to 85% of those surveyed whereas more highway capacity came in last at 59% support. A gasoline tax was the preferred way to pay for the improvements. In the Oregon region the Transportation Priorities Project showed similar sentiments about transit over freeway options 24. Mostly transportation priorities in the past have not been sought from the public, only from transport planners, who are influenced by models that take no or insufficient account of induced demand and consequently favour freeways over public transport options. In the US, a system for deciding public funding for transportation invariably involves voting on a sales tax for transportation options. In the past two elections 80% of the ballots to build new rail transit projects were successful, raising $40 billion. Now over 100 are building new rail projects. Other approaches to determining the views of the public on how they want their city to be in the future involve deliberative democracy techniques such as 21st century town meetings as occurred in New York after 9/11 and in Perth in 2003, where 1,100 people were brought together in one place to plan the city; the result was a strong endorsement for greener transport in a greener city. In the UK a foresight technique has been used to look at how can be envisioned; their three scenarios of Perpetual Motion (more of the same but faster and with clean fuels), Urban Colonies (green transport only), Tribal Trading (fuel shock leads to depression and collapse into local villages only), Good Intentions ( conflicted over priorities use only government control of transport through carbon credits slowing the economy). The greening of urban transport option has proved to be the one that the community desires most 25. As continue to evolve, the politics of more sustainable transport will demand better options for the future that are less car dependent and less car saturated. Cities need visions about how they can be transformed from car dependence to greener modes. And need political leadership to overcome the various barriers that prevent these visions from being implemented. The transport budget will need to be radically restructured, within a short timeframe, to provide more funds for the sustainable transport options. Over time, this will have major and sustainable benefits through reduced greenhouse gas emissions, reduced road congestion, improved community health and fitness, reduced public expenditure on travel through reduced use of cars and major savings from road trauma. Furthermore, that plan and budget for less dependence on and use of cars will be less at risk from the end of cheap oil. The benefits are obvious there will be social, environmental and economic benefits from developing sustainable transport systems in our and, ultimately, the cost to run these will be less. 5. Summary and Conclusions Engineers Australia (WA Division) has requested the authors to provide a paper on transport for sustainable, in support of its current focus on sustainability. This article provides a synopsis of the full paper, which is available on 15

16 For the first time in our history, more than half of the world s people live in. In Australia, over 80% of the population lives in. The purpose of urban transport systems is to provide a high level of accessibility for its citizens and visitors without destroying the fabric of the city and the enjoyment and amenity of the community residents, business and visitors. Most Australian and American have transport systems that are highly dependent on cars. These systems are inefficient in terms of energy use, production of greenhouse gases and in the space and cost required for the movement and storage of vehicles. In addition, these systems are at risk, in the relatively short term, from the escalating price of oil due to limitations in supply and growing demand on a world scale. There is an urgent need to reduce dependence on and use of cars and to provide options for more sustainable travel. Sustainable must be able to compete favourably with other in terms of the quality of life experience they provide for their citizens. This means they must provide a high level of social and environmental amenity, consistent with the ability to live a healthy lifestyle and they must be affordable. Consistent with this is the need to become more energy efficient and to limit pollutants that have a detrimental impact on health and the environment. It is clear that a sustainable transport system could make a major contribution to the development of a sustainable city. It is equally clear that current Australian transport systems are not sustainable and require substantial change if we are to develop sustainable in the future. The role of transport is to provide a high level of accessibility to a variety of places for work, social and other reasons, without creating or contributing to unacceptable environmental, economic or social consequences. In the past, there has been too much emphasis on accessibility by car at the expense of other modes and little attention has been given to the consequences of transport on city life. Drivers for Change In this context, it is argued that reduced dependence on and use of cars in can contribute to a more sustainable transport system through: reduction in greenhouse gases reduced congestion improved health and fitness affordable urban living improved road safety reduced dependence on oil, which is becoming an increasingly scarce resource Each of the above are important societal issues with potential to impact on our quality of life. As the community becomes better informed, these issues will become important drivers for change. Urban planners, decision-makers and the community recognise the importance of these issues, that are often referenced in strategic transport and land use plans for our major. However, there is a major disconnect between knowledge of what is needed at the big picture level and the development and implementation of plans to make it happen. Sustainable and sustainable transport systems will remain a pipedream until responsible governments adopt a plan and an implementation strategy that is fully funded in budgets and forward estimates. The following are of critical importance to sustainable transport systems and sustainable becoming a reality: 16

17 High Capacity/ High Frequency Public Transport The new paradigm is to develop public transport systems that are fast, frequent, well connected and, above all, have the capacity to carry the people who want to use them. In recent years, the rate of growth of patronage has been contained because of a lack of capacity during peak periods. This lack of capacity, particularly on train systems, is evident in all of Australia s major. If we are to move towards a sustainable transport system in Australian, the existing public transport system must be developed and improved so that it has the capability to move about four times the current patronage by A failure to expand the public transport system by at least this order will expose Australian to enormous risk from increased petrol prices, potential petrol rationing and growth and capacity constraints on the road system. If Australian are to be sustainable, they must be developed as transit, which are much more than with transit. Transit normally have a network of fixed route systems operating at less than 10 minute frequencies all day so that passengers can use the services without the need for a timetable and so that transfers between services can take place with minimal inconvenience and loss of time. Mixed use High Density Development around Transit Modes The imperative here is to enable large numbers of people to live within easy walking distance of fast, frequent public transport. Transit oriented development (TOD) not only provides good access to public transport, it provides an opportunity for many to walk and cycle between closely spaced residential and destination uses (jobs, entertainment, etc). It is suggested that transit needs densities of 35 people and jobs per hectare of urban land to be effective, and for walking/ cycling to be dominant, requires densities of over 100 people and jobs per hectare. Centres or transit oriented developments (TODs) need to be planned along every major transit route, so that transit are built as an antidote to auto. In these centres, especially major regional centres, walking and cycling needs to be given priority so that it is quicker to move around for short journeys by these modes. This is the walking city and it is just as functional in today s economy as in any other period of history. Sustainable Mobility Management of Road Traffic In many around the world there is a new movement to create complete streets where mobility is managed to favour public transport, walking and cycling in streets, as well as to reduce traffic, mainly through reduced speed. This picks up the concept of streets not roads, whereby the streets are used for a multiplicity of purposes, not just maximising vehicle flow. The emphasis is on achieving efficiency by maximising people movement, not car movement and on achieving a high level of amenity and safety for all street users. It also picks up on the concept of integration of transport facilities as public space. Changing Vehicles and Fuels In, it will be necessary to phase out petrol and diesel powered vehicles. Plug-in electric vehicles that take advantage of the solar transition are most likely to be effective in the short to medium term. The electric bike, scooter, gopher and golf cart will all take a share of this market. Electric buses will also be part of this mix for local transport, all feeding into fast electric rail for cross city travel and to intercity travel by very fast trains. 17

18 Radical Restructure of the Transport Budget The biggest economic impact of cars on is the sheer space they take for roads and parking. However the urban impacts of transport budgets are rarely part of the decision-making process. There is also a need for decision-makers to emphasise overall reduced transport cost by governments and users, rather than to reduce government spending alone. To achieve sustainable transport systems, the transport budgets for each city will need to be radically restructured in a short timeframe to enable implementation of the required sustainable transport options. 18

19 APPENDIX Data on Comparative Sustainable Transport in Global Cities (from Newman and Kenworthy, 1999, 2007) 26 The data on which have the highest per capita fuel consumption per person are presented below. These data are for city regions in 1995 and include all the gasoline and diesel for private passenger travel 27. Figure A1 Private Passenger Transport Energy Use per Person, 1995 Private Passenger Transport Energy Use per Person, Atlanta Houston Denver San Francisco San Diego Phoenix Los Angeles Washington Chicago New York Calgary Toronto Perth Melbourne Vancouver Brisbane Sydney Ottawa Montreal Riyadh Wellington Geneva Oslo Brussels Frankfurt Rome Hamburg Nantes Stockholm Marseille Zurich Ruhr Lyon Newcastle Munich Vienna Stuttgart Glasgow Paris Dusseldorf Copenhagen Berne Bologna Graz Tel Aviv Madrid Athens London Sapporo Milan Berlin Amsterdam Manchester Bangkok Kuala Lumpur Johannesbur Helsinki Tokyo Singapore Sao Paulo Osaka Taipei Seoul Curitiba Prague Budapest Barcelona Cape Town Harare Tehran Tunis Hong Kong Manila Cracow Jakarta Beijing Bogota Guangzhou Cairo Chennai Shanghai Mumbai Dakar Ho Chi Minh Cities These data show: 1) US dominate in their oil consumption and car use with a significant difference between Atlanta at 103 GJ/ person, Houston 75 GJ/ person and New York at 44GJ/ person. (Note: 1 GJ of fuel equals 28.8 litres of gasoline equivalent). 2) Australian, Canadian and New Zealand follow this with 30 to 40 GJ/ person. 3) All European use less than 20 GJ/ person and reach as low as 12 GJ/ person in Helsinki; Eastern European are even lower between 5 and 10 GJ/person with Cracow lowest at 2GJ/person. 4) Wealthy Asian (Sapporo, Taipei, Tokyo, Osaka, Seoul, Hong Kong and Singapore) are also extremely low with 5 to 10 GJ/ person. 5) Cities in developing countries are scattered throughout this array but apart from Riyadh and Tel Aviv are less than 8 GJ/ person and mostly are less than a few GJ/person. 19

20 6) The developing to the right of the graph (Jakarta, Beijing, Bogota, Guangzhou, Cairo, Chennai, Shanghai, Mumbai, Dakar and Ho Chi Minh City) are hardly measurable on the same scale as those to the left of the graph. Figure A2 Proportion of motorised passenger kilometres on public transport in world, 1995 Proportion of Motorised Passenger Kilometres on Public Transport, Atlanta Houston Denver San Francisco San Diego Phoenix Los Angeles Washington Chicago New York Calgary Toronto Perth Melbourne Vancouver Brisbane Sydney Ottawa Montreal Riyadh Wellington Geneva Oslo Brussels Frankfurt Rome Hamburg Nantes Stockholm Marseille Zurich Ruhr Lyon Newcastle Munich Vienna Stuttgart Glasgow Paris Dusseldorf Copenhagen Berne Bologna Graz Tel Aviv Madrid Athens London Sapporo Milan Berlin Amsterdam Manchester Bangkok Kuala Lumpur Johannesbur Helsinki Tokyo Singapore Sao Paulo Osaka Taipei Seoul Curitiba Prague Budapest Barcelona Cape Town Harare Tehran Tunis Hong Kong Manila Cracow Jakarta Beijing Bogota Guangzhou Cairo Chennai Shanghai Mumbai Dakar Ho Chi Minh Cities In contrast to this is the amount of public transportation in the 84 as shown in Figure 2 which sets out the variations in the proportion of motorised transportation on transit. These show an even greater spread across the world s : 1. The US, to the left of the graph, like Atlanta, Denver, San Diego, Houston and Phoenix have vanishingly small levels of transit at less than 1% of motorised transportation, with Washington, San Francisco and Chicago at 5% and the best US city, New York, with 9%. 2. Australian, Canadian and New Zealand are just a little better varying from 5% in Perth (though has grown dramatically in the last decade to 12% in Sydney and 14% in Toronto. 3. European mostly have around 20% transit with Barcelona and Rome at 35% though some are not so good like Glasgow, Marseille and Geneva at 10% and Lyon at 8%; Eastern European are all around 50% transit. 4. The wealthy Asian are very high in transit (apart from the new Japanese city of Sapporo at 21% and Taipei at 25%) with Singapore and Seoul at 40%, Tokyo and Osaka at around 60% and Hong Kong 73%. 5. The developing are highly scattered with Mumbai at 84% winning the transit prize, Dakar, Chennai and Shanghai at around 70%, Beijing and Tunis at around 50%, Tel Aviv 20%, Kuala Lumpur 11%, Ho Chi Minh City 8% and Riyadh at 1%. None of these patterns seem to follow per capita wealth levels. Some appear to invest in transit and others don t