Current posts
-
In terms:
embeddedness - Why doesn’t small business care about sustainability?
- The business of being a sustainable brand – part 1
- Can marketers contribute to sustainable development?
- Is consumer-centrism right?
- Australia’s carbon revolution: revolving or revolting?
- A clip worth sharing: The beauty of data visualisation
- A case study in green building design
- Three simple ways to engage your staff
Urban decay: the slow death of Melbourne
Brandy Munro
Posted Monday, 1 March at 2:47 pm in People
Sustainable:
- The capacity to maintain a certain process or state indefinitely.
- Meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.
- Capable of being maintained at a steady level without exhausting natural resources or causing severe ecological damage.
This is by no means a comprehensive list of definitions but it does give you the picture. ‘Sustainable’ is a word that has established itself in our vocabulary – it’s here to stay and rightly so.
The last few years have seen an extraordinary shift in our perceptions. It wasn’t so long ago that we had little understanding (or desire to understand) the impact of our lifestyle on the environment. Today, climate change is a very real problem staring us right in the face and it’s not going away. There will always be a small minority who continue to deny its existence but, in general, the masses are starting to sit up, take notice and demand action from governments and themselves. The word is spreading quickly and if you haven’t taken heed yet, it will only be a matter of time before you do.
I recently attended the Sustainable Living Festival at Federation Square in Melbourne. Now in its eleventh year, this event raises awareness about the environmental and social challenges we face as a community and offers some potential solutions. As a frequent public transport user, I was pleased to see that sustainable transport was on the agenda.
Speakers for a session hosted by the Metropolitan Transport Forum included economist, Professor Ross Garnaut; Shadow Minister for Climate Action, Environment and Water, Greg Hunt MP; and Federal member for Wills, Kelvin Thomson MP. If Professor Garnaut’s name sounds familiar it’s probably because you’ve heard of the 2008 Garnaut Climate Change Review, his independent study about the effects of climate change on the Australian economy.
There was consensus among the speakers that sustainable transport, both public and private, is critical to the functionality of any city. It affects our economy, society and liveability. It affects individuals, businesses and governments. Our transport has to meet the needs of a growing population (which in Melbourne’s case is very rapid), be economically viable and minimise environmental harm.
Professor Garnaut had several interesting points to make. He drew attention to the grim reality that Australia leads all developed countries in total greenhouse gas emissions per capita (yes, we’re even ahead of America). We use more private transport (mainly cars) than most of the developed world and all of our larger cities (Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane, Perth) are in the bottom third of developed cities when it comes to using public transport, walking or cycling.
He described how only 27% of Melbournians regularly commute to work via public transport, walking or cycling (and in doing so, lead every other Australian city) compared to 82% of Hong Kong’s population. Astonishing when you consider the fact that Hong Kong has approximately 3 million more people than Melbourne. Clearly, we have a long way to go.
And it may come as a surprise to hear that if we all changed to electric cars tomorrow, this would actually increase our greenhouse gas emissions significantly. The reason, Professor Garnaut explained, is that Melbourne (and most of Australia) still relies heavily on coal for electricity. So electric cars are good but only if they are powered by clean energy such as solar, water or wind.
He also spoke of reviewing the distribution of finance between the states and territories. Funds that could be used to improve infrastructure are often diverted away from our biggest cities, Melbourne and Sydney – the ones that need them most. This is in contrast to well-known international cities like London.
As a proud Melbournian, I feel passionately about the health of this city. I believe that moving people onto public transport is more achievable than a mass switch to electric cars and simultaneous overhaul of our electricity supply to clean energy (at least in the short term anyway). It would also combat the growing congestion on our roads. But encouraging public transport use starts with a reliable and sustainable system that can be used by all. Unfortunately this description does not currently apply.
Governments, at all levels, often overlook long-term planning for the ‘quick fix’ to impress voters. Over time, the lack of investment in Melbourne’s infrastructure has become all too apparent. For example, it’s ludicrous that rail workers may have to hose down the train tracks on hot days because they start to buckle. I only hope it isn’t drinking water they use while the rest of us observe the 155L target set by the government (that would be very ironic indeed). We have seen the subsequent train cancellations bring the city to a grinding halt on more than one occasion.
In short, on hot days our public transport becomes a game of chance and in a city where the mercury often heads north of 35°C, that’s a game we play too often. How long are we prepared to put up with a third-world public transport system?
Professor Garnaut concluded his talk by saying Melbourne must be re-designed in order to move forward. It’s a huge project that will take decades but it needs to happen. Given that our population is projected to grow a further 1.5 million by 2036, it’s clear that Melbourne needs rescuing now. Not tomorrow. Not next year. This great city just won’t cope otherwise.
Say ‘no’ to more roads and to expanding Melbourne’s urban growth boundary.
Say ‘yes’ to better public transport and a more sustainable Melbourne.
I’ve had my say. Now it’s your turn. Complete the Metropolitan Transport Forum’s public transport survey at http://www.pt4me2.org.au/. The results will be presented to the major parties in May ahead of the state elections later this year.
Brandy Munro is a Writer at WellmarkPerspexa, specialising in passionate (and sustainable) marketing communications for the B2B, healthcare and corporate sectors.
Where do you stand?
Add comment (7) | Trackback | Follow comments (RSS) | More by Brandy Munro
-
I agree!
Melbourne is a great city, but leaves a lot to be desired when it comes to PT.
Compare Melbourne’s train timetable (one train every 20-30 mins) to Singapore and London (one train every 3-4mins)! How many more people would take the train if they knew there would be a train within 5mins of arriving at the station.!
Come-on Melbourne – let’s lift our game and take a step towards becoming an even more “liveable” city. -
A well-written article although I do have to wonder at the headline.
Public transport is a big issue across Australia and an even bigger problem for some other cities (e.g. Sydney). But while it’s easy to see the problems, what are the solutions? What is “better public transport” for Melbourne? I would be interested to hear your thoughts.
Are buses best? Is the rail network upgradeable and expandable? And are trams part of the solution or part of the problem? They’re slow and impede other road traffic, and I think Melbourne would look much better without those overhead cables.
- FM
-
FM, I will admit that the headline is quite dramatic but I think it is a fair representation of the current situation, especially given the rate at which Melbourne’s population is growing. People need to understand the significance of what’s at stake here.
A few thoughts on how our public transport might be improved, which stem from my own experience:
• Expand the current public transport network, including a rail line to Doncaster and Rowville
• Increase the frequency of current services and reduce cancellations
• Improve safety
• Improve cleanliness and comfort
• Improve and maintain infrastructure, for example replace all remaining wooden sleepers with concrete ones
• Increase the number of “park ‘n’ ride” stops
• Provide easy interchange between all services
• Ensure stops are well-integrated with pedestrian and cycling networks
• Priority for public transport over private vehicles
• Provide 24-hour transport, especially on weekendsFinally to Myki… while our attempt at a streamlined ticketing system has got off to a very rocky start, is seriously over-budget and still not fully operational, we need it to work. If Myki can deliver what was promised, it will make our system much simpler to use and thereby encourage more people to switch to public transport.
You make a good point about trams being slow and impeding other road traffic. However, I think that trams are an iconic part of Melbourne and I personally would be very disappointed to see them go. They are especially useful for the central and inner city areas and are very easy to access. In keeping with my thoughts above, public transport should always get priority regardless of whether other road traffic is delayed as a result. As a regular user of trams, I feel they should be given higher priority than they currently are (trams often have to sit behind cars turning right).
We need to lift our game. No longer can we continue to hide behind the defence that our cities are too spread out and too difficult to service properly with public transport. I’m not saying there’s an easy solution. I’m just saying we need to start getting serious about this – things are not working and the situation is not going to fix itself.
Hopefully the government will listen if enough people speak up, especially in an election year.
FM (or anyone else), I’d love to hear your own views on how we can improve things.
-
Hear, hear. There are no easy solutions. PT is crucial for a city like Melbourne and has to be part of a larger overall plan, which must include lookig at limiting urban sprawl and opting for denser living. I would also support a reliable rail/light rail between the city and Tullamarine airport at least. Education for sustainable living has to start with the young(especially in primary schools) right now in order to have an impact later. Strong/brave politicians(maybe even a dictator or two[LOL]) , backed up by their “guaranteed” superannuation, with a passion/vision for Melbourne are needed. And lastly, I very reluctantly have to say that we need strong marketing(not required in dictatorship) who can “sell” the concept/implementation to the public. When do we want it? Now! Now! Now!
-
A good summary, Brandy, of the MTF event. People interested further in these issues can subscribe for the (free) Sustainable Cities and Transport Newsletter at http://www.goingsolar.com.au/transport I’ll put a link back to this website and try to include some extracts of Brandy’s article in a future addition of the Newsletter. Oh. and on trams FM, how often does a single car impede a tram full of people?
-
> FM, I will admit that the headline is quite dramatic but I think it
> is a fair representation of the current situation, especially given
> the rate at which Melbourne’s population is growing.And I may or may not agree with the sentiment, but the article could have benefited from a direct exploration of the headline theme linked with the rest of the content.
> A few thoughts on how our public transport might be improved, which
> stem from my own experience:A good list of notions, which few would not like to have (in Melbourne or other cities).
Though as you say there aren’t necessarily any easy suggestions, which implies the key issue – funding. How much are people willing to pay through taxation and direct user costs? Under realistic financial constraints, efficiency is king and suggestions must be assessed accordingly.
Some desirable things may not be affordable, while potentially unpopular concepts may receive more serious consideration when cost matters. For example, administrative approaches such as instituting more transit lanes, or regulatory approaches such as increasing the cost of private vehicle registration (which may actually generate net revenue).
Alternative approaches may not ultimately be chosen but it never hurts to think outside of the box, even if only to reconfirm why the box is shaped the way it is. And along with conventional and unconventional, consideration should include both carrot and stick. (But should not include politicians and their entourages going on “fact-finding missions” or “study tours” of public transport in other countries.)
> You make a good point about trams being slow and impeding other road
> traffic.Which again leads to the question of whether they are part of the problem. But firstly on the heritage aspect.
In my view, only the older trams are iconic. But they are obviously not part of any long-term solution with their high noise, lack of air conditioning and unsuitability for the differently abled, elderly or even just people with lots of shopping. The newer low-floor trams are user-friendly but do not have an iconic design or visual appeal, especially those covered in commercial advertising that prevents passengers and tourists looking out the windows. In all cases, the network of overhead cables is a blight on Melbourne’s aesthetic.
Stephen (whose company might hopefully develop a solar-powered tram that needs no overhead cables) asked “how often does a single car impede a tram full of people?” From personal experience catching trams for a number of years, cars generally impede trams only when required to by the layout of the roads (e.g. turning right).
The road network was designed for wheeled vehicles and trams are an inflexible afterthought on that infrastructure. It is valid to question that afterthought, whether the answer is yes or no on balance.
In my case, with no train access in my area and buses often being too crowded, trams were not an option of choice except in the CBD. A tram is a comparatively poor alternative to a bus, for individuals and for the city. Trams are slow (sometimes taking more than twice as long as a bus) and service few areas that cannot be serviced by buses. They are inflexible, offering very few options for managing capacity responsively and obviously unable to deviate their routes to service exceptional needs.
Trams have a constant impact on the road network as opposed to buses, which are normal participants in that network, and compared to trains’ relatively few crossings. Public transport should only get priority when it makes sense. Portions of road can be sealed off for exclusive use by trams but this must be questioned. Why deliberately and inflexibly reduce road capacity, increasing cost and inconvenience to other users, to support an inefficient mode of public transport when there are viable alternatives?
The tram is an interesting case, though not so interesting that I meant to or want to write much more about it. There may be a case for it on balance, but it is no surprise that few, if any, other cities around the world have a tram system of the nature and scale of Melbourne’s.
There is a heritage aspect to take into account but that cannot guarantee the tram’s place in a long-term public transport solution. Money would be better spent on some of the improvements to buses and trains that Brandy has indicated, and on alternative approaches that could be more effective and efficient, and perhaps even as iconic as trams in the long run.
Like the monorails in Ogdenville, North Haverbrook, Brockway and Springfield.
The State of Australian Cities 2010 report was released on Friday. See http://www.infrastructureaustralia.gov.au/mcu.aspx.
Mel
26 Feb 2010 at 12:19 pm
Agreed. Melbourne has a woeful public transport system and a pretty much non-existant bike path plan. Hence why I must admit I find bike riding too dangerous and the public transport too unreliable to routinely use. Scandinavian countries have the right idea with designated bike lanes, lock up areas and space to take your bike onto the trains so that you can peddle your way around the city once you get there.