<html><body>
<p>New York City is doing amazing things for bicycles and Melbourne could learn a thing or two. New York offers a good example for Melbourne of a city that, against the odds, is taking bicycles seriously as a transport mode.</p>

<p>Since the early 2000’s the boroughs of Manhattan and Brooklyn have laid down infrastructure signalling the arrival of the humble bike as a serious transport option for New Yorkers. In a city famous for its traffic, planners have managed to carve out a well designed and connected network that provides safe and attractive options for travel by bike.</p>

<h2>Protected bicycle routes</h2>

<p>Separated, <a href="http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/nyc-protected-bike-lanes.pdf">parking-protected</a> and off-road routes have been laid out with deliberate intent to provide safe, connected routes to travellers wishing to make trips to myriad origins and destinations – just like the transport network offered to cars. In Manhattan, many of these routes take advantage of the grid pattern of the street network. Almost any trip can be made using only a handful of turns.</p>

<p>Planners took the view that not every route needed to be a protected route, but that the protected routes form a kind of ‘bicycle highway’ network with unprotected painted and shared-space routes connecting the first and last kilometre. Even famously bike friendly <a href="https://www.google.com.au/maps/@52.3698282,4.8980569,14.56z/data=!5m1!1e3?hl=en">Amsterdam</a> has a lot more shared space infrastructure than one might expect.</p>

<p>Since the start of the 2000’s, there has been a <a href="http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/nyc-cycling-risk.pdf">significant decrease</a> in real risk of serious injury or death on New York streets for bicycle riders. The cause of this decrease is most likely related to higher cycling rates (the ‘safety in numbers’ effect) hand-in-hand with the rollout of safer bicycle infrastructure.</p>

<h2>Unique design</h2>

<p>The design of the protected lanes in New York are also relatively unique – but they seem to work. Unlike the style of <a href="http://www.google.com.au/maps/@-37.8093015,144.9646709,3a,75y,302.13h,57.23t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1swVtOCL9wpQi4eqhg0yFLlA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e3?hl=en">protected lanes favoured in Melbourne</a>, New York style lanes utilise paint much more than concrete. Concrete islands are constructed near intersections to demark the start of a section of protected bike lane, but from then on paint, space, and parked cars do most of the separation. Added bonuses of the islands are that they provide a narrowing of pedestrian crossing distances, and provide locations for essential tree planting.</p>

<p>Key criticisms some detractors make of Melbourne’s Latrobe Street ‘Copenhagen lanes’ are that they reduce parking, but that they also can be difficult for motorists with disabilities due to the concrete barrier making entering/exiting a vehicle with a wheelchair difficult. New York Style lanes may offer a design solution to these perceived problems for new protected routes. How transferable this design would be may is up for debate.</p>

<p>Many of these routes are placed on roads that are wide and one-way. Would a New York style lane work on St Kilda Road and would it offer a cheaper and easier solution to implement?</p>

<figure><a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/ny_style.png" rel="gallery-all" title="New York style protected lanes. Image: James Ramsey"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="439" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/ny_style.png?itok=YYCK4bHG" title="New York style protected lanes. Image: James Ramsey" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>New York style protected lanes. Image: James Ramsey</figcaption></figure><h2>Trial and trial again</h2>

<p>New York’s planners are not afraid of testing ideas, and if they don’t work – changing them or trying them somewhere else.</p>

<p>Bicycle advocates, urbanists, and road safety experts love protected bike lanes but they are often loathed by some who see a perceived disadvantage to cars (e.g. in Sydney). They can be <a href="http://www.brooklynpaper.com/stories/34/52/all_year_bikelane_2011_12_30_bk">politically explosive</a> but New York’s planners have shown that the way to demonstrate that they work, that they improve transport efficiency and that they do not impact motor traffic is to build up evidence by testing and trialing, and collecting data to show that negative impacts do not eventuate.</p>

<p>New York planners test out new interventions by using temporary measures like movable planter boxes and paint and study how traffic is impacted over trial periods. There are numerous examples in New York of trials of new pieces of infrastructure to see if they work and to build up community acceptance.</p>

<p>The most famous example is the pedestrianisation of large parts of Times Square – including creating a protected bike lane through the previously chaotic junction.</p>

<p>This is starting to happen in Melbourne, the <a href="http://www.connectstonnington.vic.gov.au/grevilleandking">City of Stonnington’s pop-up trials</a> on Greville, King and Porter Streets showed that testing ideas on our streets can be done. The City of Yarra has also had success with its trial of a plaza in <a href="http://www.yoursayyarra.com.au/jonas-street-pop-up-plaza-trial">Jonas Street.</a> If you look back Melbourne does have a history of trying these sorts of things (Swanston Street got a <a href="https://www.killyourdarlings.com.au/2016/09/imagine-a-city-swanston-st-party/">makeover</a> for a weekend in the 1982!).</p>

<p>Testing out new protected bike routes in Melbourne using temporary measures like planter boxes could help determine the best place to construct new protected bicycle routes missing from the current network. An example could be a bi-directional route along Flinders Street from Docklands to Fitzroy Gardens, which if successful, could be implemented as tested or could prove the demand is there to provide permanent single-direction protected lanes on both sides of the road.</p>

<p>Another example would be the use of temporary measures like planter boxes and street tables and chairs to trial a pedestrianisation of Elizabeth Street from Flinders Street to Flinders Lane.</p>

<h2>Data and statistics</h2>

<p>NYC Department of Transportation collects a <a href="http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/bicyclists/bikestats.shtml">lot of data</a>. Winning the war of words using data was a crucial way planners in New York brought about the huge array of positive changes to streets since the year 2000.</p>

<p>In Infrastructure Victoria’s 30 Year Strategy (released last week), improving and standarising data capture and analysis on walking and cycling was a prominent recommendation to “enable the development of high-quality investment proposals and better promotion of walking and cycling, including by providing information on route choice” (See the <a href="http://yoursay.infrastructurevictoria.com.au/30-year-strategy/">30 Year Strategy</a>, page 124).</p>

<p>This is a critical and overdue step and will hopefully be one of the key roles of the newly established <a href="http://economicdevelopment.vic.gov.au/transport/cycling-and-walking/active-transport-victoria">Active Transport Victoria.</a></p>

<figure><a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/prospect_park_lane.png" rel="gallery-all" title="Prospect Park bike lane, Brooklyn. Two way tracks like this are common in New York (and on London's cycle superhighways as well). Image: James Ramsey"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="433" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/prospect_park_lane.png?itok=GoqPEI48" title="Prospect Park bike lane, Brooklyn. Two way tracks like this are common in New York (and on London's cycle superhighways as well). Image: James Ramsey" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>Prospect Park bike lane, Brooklyn. Two way tracks like this are common in New York (and on London's cycle superhighways as well). Image: James Ramsey</figcaption></figure><h2>Conclusion</h2>

<p>New York, that city renowned for traffic problems and <a href="https://youtu.be/c412hqucHKw?t=15">this</a>, is taking bicycles seriously as a transport mode. Melbourne needs to start doing the same.</p>

<p>Like London with its bicycle super-highways, New York is laying down a network of protected lanes with its own local flavour. The city is not afraid to trial changes with temporary measures, build evidence for interventions and to prove the worth of new projects and street designs.</p>

<p>Admittedly, New York’s network of safe cycling infrastructure is still developing, and there are frequently gaps and areas where it’s not perfect. But New York is making huge strides in the direction of becoming a seriously bicycle friendly city.</p>

<p>Melbourne should look to New York’s example as a city once known for infamously forbidding streets now making its roads safer for bikes. If they can do it there, they can do it anywhere.</p>

<p><em><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/james-ramsey-8ab58649">James Ramsey</a> is a transport planning consultant based in Melbourne at global engineering and professional services consultancy <a href="http://www.jacobs.com">Jacobs</a>.</em></p>
</body></html>

jramsey

Melbhattan: Bicycles are on the rise in New York and Melbourne should take note

<html><body>
<p>Melbourne’s tram network may hold the key to providing the dense network of high frequency rapid transport that would provide world class connectivity in the inner-city and CBD.</p>

<p>Melbourne and New York are very different cities. Drawing too close a parallel between any two cities can be a folly; however New York and Melbourne share some near similarities where it counts. One of the key similarities is that both cities share a principal dense inner central business district which is served by primarily radial public transport. Around this CBD are some relatively dense inner suburbs, and further out are large expanses of suburban sprawl.</p>

<p>This post will look at some comparisons between New York and Melbourne’s public transport and it will make the case for the continued consolidation and success of Melbourne’s CBD and inner areas -championing a kind of ‘Melbhattan’ with upgraded tram routes functioning as its rapid transport system.</p>

<h2>Density</h2>

<p>As you’d expect New York is way denser than inner Melbourne. Melbourne and New York’s four densest suburbs are shown in the table below. Melbourne’s CBD is almost a <em>fifth</em> less dense than Yorkville, New York’s most dense neighbourhood. In fact, all of the top densest suburbs in Melbourne are pretty close to <em>one fifth</em> less dense than their New York counterparts.</p>

<p>Not listed is the Manhattan average population density which is around 28,000 residents per km<sup>2</sup>, which is a slightly fairer comparison to Melbourne’s CBD, although Manhattan is around 10 times the size as the CBD of Melbourne.</p>

<table cellpadding="7" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<caption align="bottom">Sources: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_city_districts_by_population_density">New York</a>, <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/3218.02012-13?OpenDocument">Melbourne</a>.</caption>
	<colgroup>
<col>
<col>
<col>
<col>
</colgroup>
<thead><tr>
<th height="5">New York</th>
			<th>Residents per km<sup>2</sup>
</th>
			<th>Melbourne</th>
			<th>Residents per km<sup>2</sup>
</th>
		</tr></thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td height="6">Yorkville (Manhattan)</td>
			<td align="center">60,349</td>
			<td>Melbourne</td>
			<td>12,379</td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td height="6">Manhattan Community Board 8</td>
			<td align="center">42,312</td>
			<td>Carlton</td>
			<td>8,973</td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td height="6">Manhattan Community Board 7</td>
			<td align="center">37,970</td>
			<td>Fitzroy</td>
			<td>7,859</td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td height="5">Manhattan Community Board 3</td>
			<td align="center">36,054</td>
			<td>St Kilda East</td>
			<td>7,024</td>
		</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p>When we compare job density between Manhattan - which accounts for around two thirds of all jobs in New York City - and job density in Melbourne’s CBD (assumed to be SA2 areas: Melbourne, Docklands, and Southbank), <em>Melbourne is denser</em> with around 31,000 jobs km<sup>2</sup> compared to Manhattan’s 26,500. This is an interesting result. Higher job density in Melbourne’s CBD might explain its lower resident population as commercial space competes with and crowds out residential land uses. Traditionally this has been the norm. Melbourne’s CBD has historically been a centre of business with low populations up until changes in policy around the late 1980s.</p>

<figure><a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/ny_from_midtown.png" rel="gallery-all" title="Manhattan is super-dense and super-sized compared to Melbourne's CBD. Image: James Ramsey"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="351" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/ny_from_midtown.png?itok=lF7Ra_hO" title="Manhattan is super-dense and super-sized compared to Melbourne's CBD. Image: James Ramsey" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>Manhattan is super-dense and super-sized compared to Melbourne's CBD. Image: James Ramsey</figcaption></figure><h2>Heavy rail compared</h2>

<p>Melbourne compares relatively strongly with New York when you compare built rail infrastructure. Manhattan has 17 subway lines connecting the island to the rest of New York City. It has a further six regional rail lines connecting it to New Jersey, Long Island, and beyond. In comparison, Melbourne’s CBD has a converging network of 10 metropolitan rail lines and five regional V/line routes. Whilst currently lower capacity than the subway in New York, Melbourne’s metropolitan rail network has the potential to benefit significantly with the rollout of high capacity signalling, permitting subway-like frequencies.</p>

<p>Melbourne’s rail network is not a ‘subway style’ network. Manhattan’s subway is a rapid transit system, facilitating high capacity transport not only into Manhattan, but within the island. Melbourne’s metropolitan train network does not function this way. Melbourne’s rail network is a radial suburban rail network. The Melbourne Metro tunnel (once completed), the City Loop underground stations, and future changes to the operational function of the network will make the metropolitan rail network more like a ‘metro’ in the CBD area, but its function outside of the CBD will not change significantly.</p>

<h2>Melbourne’s trams could be its own version of rapid transit</h2>

<p>Melbourne’s tram network could function like the subway does in New York. Unlike New York (anymore), Melbourne has trams. Currently Melbourne’s tram network operates almost exclusively as a streetcar network. In other words, trams share road space with other vehicles on the street, i.e. private cars. The tram route 96 is being upgraded to light-rail standard and will be the first end to end light rail in Melbourne. Upgrading Melbourne’s trams to light rail provides an opportunity to provide a high frequency light rail based ‘metro’, in the same way Manhattan’s subway provides a high level of connectivity through high frequencies, and segregated right-of-way. This network would be characterised by faster trams, higher frequencies, and fewer stops (stops could instead be mini ‘stations’, like the subway). The key to achieving this network is in providing the priority to trams on the road and at stop lights. That means, fully segregated tram rights-of-way and full call-ahead traffic light green waves.  </p>

<figure><a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/mel_nyc_tram_subway.png" rel="gallery-all" title="New York's subway &amp; Melbourne's tram networks side-by-side. Source: Google Maps"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="222" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/mel_nyc_tram_subway.png?itok=EdI7fMKW" title="New York's subway &amp; Melbourne's tram networks side-by-side. Source: Google Maps" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>New York's subway &amp; Melbourne's tram networks side-by-side. Source: Google Maps</figcaption></figure><p>Should all of Melbourne’s tram routes be upgraded to function this way? Having a fully light-rail based network would provide a significant boost to the capacity and connectivity of the tram network. It would transform its operation from a slow, streetcar system to something approaching a rapid transit network. But not all routes would necessarily need to be upgraded. If only a subset of routes were fully upgraded, say, routes 11, 16, 19, 55, 57, 75, 96, and 109 – a sub-network of high frequency routes would be created – facilitating a kind of separate, ‘mini-metro’. Working out the sharing of sections of route with slower trams would however be a challenge and may require shifting some routes to other streets.</p>

<p>There is a case for keeping some tram routes as streetcars. Trams are great street activators, activating retail and hospitality precincts through providing the density of passenger traffic and slowing car traffic down to make a street more walkable. Unlike underground rail, trams can activate an entire strip, rather than just a station precinct. In areas where this is a priority – say, strip shopping streets like Bridge Road in Richmond – a ‘metro’ style tram route could be made to run at slower speeds, with more traditional stopping patterns. But outside of these areas where activation opportunities are lower, faster speeds and more station-style stops would be essential to ensure the speed and reliability of service of a ‘metro’ style light rail.</p>

<p><span style="font-size:14px;"><strong>Go on a journey/read more</strong>: <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/news/melbournes-development-by-tram-the-59">Melbourne's development by tram</a>.</span></p>

<p>The kind of connectivity that could result from a light-rail based ‘metro’ would be like the connectivity of Manhattan’s subway network. Manhattan’s subway is one of the reasons that the New York is a successful, vibrant, and dynamic place. Only with the subway are the densities of jobs and population possible in Manhattan that have allowed this success. Melbourne’s CBD and inner suburbs are successful in spite of relatively poorer connectivity – but its success is undoubtedly due to what connectivity it does have via the rail and tram networks.</p>

<h2>A future Melbhattan</h2>

<p>This article is really only talking about inner Melbourne. Melbourne is a sprawling metropolis. The middle and outer suburbs have a different problem that cannot be addressed the same way. In fact, the car-dependent middle and outer suburbs will never be the domain of high public transport usage – except where fast reliable bus services enable connectivity to the rail network for trips to the inner suburbs.</p>

<p>Melbourne should look at its current advantages, that being it has a strong inner core which is extremely well connected via public transport – like Manhattan – which will define its success in the 21<sup>st</sup> century much more than its suburbs will. Consolidation of densities in the CBD and the inner and middle rings of the city is vital to improving accessibility to jobs and services.</p>

<p>The polycentric city concept followed by places like Sydney is a folly. Australian cities developed outwards, and Sydney’s CBD is better connected to the rest of the city via public transport than anywhere else. Artificially creating mini CBDs in the suburbs which are meant to compete with the main CBD is a mistake. Sydney’s CBD still commands the best real estate, holds the best location, and offers the best agglomeration benefits than the satellite CBDs of North Sydney and Chatswood. Parramatta could be different, as it effectively is the CBD of another city altogether – western Sydney.</p>

<p>Melbourne shouldn’t be afraid of a future Melbhattan. It should celebrate its success, and look to places like New York to build the city that that New York built around this time last century. </p>

<p><em><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/james-ramsey-8ab58649">James Ramsey</a> is a transport planning consultant based in Melbourne at global engineering and professional services consultancy <a href="http://www.jacobs.com">Jacobs</a>   Stay tuned for more on 'Melbhattan', a look at the cycling infrastructure in New York is up next.</em></p>

<p><span style="font-size:10px;">Lead image credit: <a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/fearless_craig/3454448873/in/photolist-6gfXik-gxWWZE-p5sn4C-8KqUJf-67zdYb-2KV1-p4Kp53-68AWHZ-q1EZq5-cht7nf-pZ9WA7-q1n4xD-qeJEiM-pJa7xH-c5BgL7-fyfbk-p4MDx6-2KVa-NSzre-5qpJGU-7S4q7X-2KUL-99aaa3-oG2LEu-93LLjs-hGtfcF-8QEinp-di53Be-q2VDHr-prxghL-fgcV24-d1VoMA-6roqdF-9MxUd5-jQkWUK-4s51xe-EyNys-q2f66a-9egWiE-89es27-3omfu3-dz5Az6-di52W9-5VL85Y-di59km-hvt25A-pJUvTN-pm69xK-EyN6Z-7fict3">flickr</a></span></p>
</body></html>

James Ramsey

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News