Lessons for

<html><body>
Unlike <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/news/lessons-for-fishermans-bend-zurich">Zürich</a>, which has (quite understandably) put all of its sustainable transport eggs in the public transport basket, Munich is quite a bit more of a bike friendly city, with an extensive network of cycling facilities. Of course, a huge number of people get around on the public transport network, which is comprised of the S-Bahn (suburban/commuter rail), U-Bahn (subway/metro), buses and a number of tram routes.

My impression of travelling around Munich on public transport was that its strengths lay in a relatively dense network with good frequencies and decent opportunities for interchange. The system wasn’t perfect, however - especially compared with that in Zürich. One key problem in Munich is that its S-Bahn lines all run through a single tunnel in the inner city, requiring travel into the centre to reach many destinations and creating the potential for incidents to affect a large number of lines (sound familiar, Melbourne?).

The U-Bahn network, though, provided more opportunities for tangential travel, supported by the bus and tram lines. However, a key barrier to such interchange was the inconsistent quality of information and legibility at public transport stops, making such travel difficult for occasional travellers. Some recently redeveloped stations, such as Munchner Freihart (below), however, demonstrated an excellent standard of intermodal interchange.

<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/DSC_0170.jpg" rel="gallery-all"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" src="/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/DSC_0170.jpg?itok=gS1i87Af"></a>

The role of cycling was much larger in Munich than in Zürich (and of course Melbourne!), with a mode share of almost 15%. Munich has a rather impressive network of cycling infrastructure, much of which is comprised of off-road paths between the footpath and cars (parking or traffic lanes).

The result is not only a high proportion of cyclists but a good diversity of gender, age, fitness, etc. A downside to these paths, however, is that space was taken away from pedestrians - this is a relic of the planning mindset of the 80s, a city planner explained - as well as the fact that these types of facilities are perhaps less suitable for longer distance commuter riders.

Design of places like train stations played quite a large role in the success of both public transport and cycling. A good example of this is Munchner Freihart, which is mentioned above. Some of the S-Bahn stations (e.g. Pasing and Laim) had huge provisions for high quality bicycle storage, as well as including bicycle lanes in station underpasses (below), allowing for through movement and reducing the barrier posed by major rail corridors.

These stations had significant numbers of cyclists and pedestrians moving through or interchanging with a range of public transport.

<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/DSC_0813.jpg" rel="gallery-all"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" src="/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/DSC_0813.jpg?itok=sLyxDPDW"></a>

I visited Messestadt Riem, a recent redevelopment area discussed in the first article in this series, to observe the relationship between what was intended to be achieved and what actually occurred. The area was intended as a pilot for “car free living” projects but these were largely unsuccessful, despite the timely provision of public transport (the U-Bahn extension servicing the area opened the same year as the first residents moved in).

In contrast to more inner areas, there was a high provision of on-street car parking, and commuter cyclists tended to be a less diverse bunch (i.e. confident men riding quickly on expensive bicycles) - although there was a greater diversity in people using bicycles to interchange with the U-Bahn. One quite positive element was the shared paths in the open space, which were safe, attractive, and utilised by a broad range of people.

Once again, the question is what we can learn from this city for Melbourne. An important point to note is that we can learn from shortcomings as much as successes. For example, the (very useful) 1980s-era off-road cycle paths would not today be created by taking space from pedestrians. Thus, infrastructure in Fishermans Bend should be delivered correctly from the beginning, rather than creating the challenge of retrofitting in the future.

In a similar vein, creating this type of infrastructure and catering for anybody other than the “avid cyclist” group has great potential for increasing cycle mode share by targeting the significant proportion of non-cyclists who are open-minded but cautious. Movement networks (pedestrian and cycling) through open space could also play a major role for these groups; open space and its design must not be neglected in planning for Fishermans Bend.

Munich’s public transport demonstrated the importance of interchange, tangential movement and ease of use; the success of its public transport in various points in the city appeared largely to hinge on these three factors. These user-oriented elements need to be instrumental in the planning of the public transport supply in Fishermans Bend - whether this is the Melbourne Rail Link, a new tram route or bus services. Another useful lesson was the provision of heavy rail to Messestadt Riem (below) from the beginning of residential occupation, which established sustainable transport habits and reduced car ownership.

If the Melbourne Rail Link cannot be provided in time to service Fishermans Bend’s first residents, alternative public transport must be supplied to avoid new residents and workers turning to the car from the beginning. This must actually connect people to where they need to go - something that will require network-wide planning, rather than merely building a new station in isolation.

<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/DSC_0085.jpg" rel="gallery-all"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" src="/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/DSC_0085.jpg?itok=xcAL-Syg"></a>

Lastly, something to aim for in Melbourne is a cultural change towards a “transportation discussion culture” (as one city planner put it), with public awareness of issues such as limited space, the inefficiency of private car travel and the environmental impacts of transport. It is very difficult to transplant cultural factors such a greater acceptance of bicycles or the need for compact settlement around public transport infrastructure.

Nevertheless, what the government can do in planning for Fishermans Bend is engage in open dialogue about transport system priorities and trade-offs with its constituency (including the Cities of Melbourne and Port Phillip) in order to generate community buy-in and increase the likelihood of successful implementation of sustainable transport ideas.
</body></html>

apsheko

Lessons for Fishermans Bend: Munich

<html><body>
It’s difficult to explain exactly how (or even if!) Zürich’s transport successes, such as its excellent public transport systems, could be carried over to Melbourne and specific areas such as Fishermans Bend. There’s a number of key differences - such as Zürich’s highly compact urban form and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_in_Switzerland">system of direct democracy (through citizen referenda)</a> that have played a large role in its transport network. Zürich is unequivocally a public transport city. There are a number of reasons why public transport is so good there, such as the high supply of services, reliability and almost seamless interchange between services (and modes). Good station design and quality of customer information also play a role in making the services easy and convenient to easy, thereby ensuring high patronage.

For a city of about 380,000 in a metropolitan region of 1.8 million (think Canberra and Perth, respectively), <a href="http://www.zvv.ch/en/routes-and-zones/city-zurich">Zürich has an impressive network of trams, trains and buses</a>, with a very high rate of service kilometres per capita. This is perhaps due to Zürich’s wealth, but also largely thanks to a comprehensive development programme from the 1970s since a referendum rejected the building of a subway and prioritisation of cars on surface roads to focus instead on a high-quality and reliable tram network. Service reliability is also very impressive, due to a high rate of bus lanes, exclusive tram lanes and signal priority for these modes at intersections. The public transport operator, VBZ, has a war-room-like control centre communicating with its vehicles, able to send out “Troubleshooter” squads to deal with problems, re-route services to keep the network running and provide information to passengers.

<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/DSC_0440.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="Bus interchange at Winterthur, a city 30km from Zurich"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" src="/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/DSC_0440.jpg?itok=3hiFub3k" title="Bus interchange at Winterthur, a city 30km from Zürich"></a>

Importantly, services are networked for maximum efficiency, facilitating convenient interchange by running on <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clock-face_scheduling">a coordinated timetable based on factors of 60 minute frequencies (i.e. 60, 30, 15, 7.5)</a>, with the S-Bahn trains as a backbone. The result is that, at many points in the network, services arrive within minutes of each other, allowing convenient interchange and travel in all directions. Good station design means trains are integrated with nearby tram or bus stops and bicycle parking (above), and information screens show which connections are possible at the next stop, making this easy, even for occasional travelers or tourists.

On the other hand, Zürich “isn’t much” of a bike city, by its planners’ accounts, no doubt compared to European bike havens, with bicycle mode share at 6%. By comparison, that for the combined municipalities of Melbourne, Yarra, Port Phillip and Stonnington (with a similar area and population to the city of Zürich) is 4.5%, and 2% across greater Melbourne. Zürich’s transport planners and officials attributed this largely to the success of the public transport system - many people who might ride bikes find it more convenient to take the tram. However, <a href="http://pro-velo.ch/en">Dave Dumer of Pro Velo, a cycling advocacy group</a>, told me he believed cycling would play a larger role in the future, as public transport neared capacity and technologies such as e-bikes encouraged more people to cycle (and overcome the Swiss topography). Bikes already play a large role in allowing access to stations, with 15% of all trips being made by combination of public transport and bicycle, and huge amounts of bicycle parking provided at stations (below).

<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/DSC_0149.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="Secure bike storage near Zurich Hauptbahnhof (main station), including repair services"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" src="/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/DSC_0149.jpg?itok=3hiFub3k" title="Secure bike storage near Zürich Hauptbahnhof (main station), including repair services"></a>

Of course, like in inner Melbourne, walking plays a huge role in the city’s transport needs, there being encouraged by generous provision of pedestrian priority (e.g. many zebra crossings, short traffic light phases favouring pedestrians). Also contributing to a good pedestrian environment were the many 30km/h streets, including shared spaces, which discouraged unnecessary through-traffic and giving pedestrian priority and amenity while not restricting car use completely.

The key question is how to apply good ideas from Zürich to Melbourne, keeping in mind how the cities are different. A good first step is recognising how different modes of transport can play in relation to each other. Compared to Zürich, where public transport is very good, cycling is likely to have a larger role to play in areas like Fishermans Bend. Future articles in this series on Munich and Amsterdam will address this issue further.

Working within the context of a single train station at Montague, a good start would be using the Swiss idea of coordinated timetables, to maximise interchange, particularly with feeder services. Given most of Fishermans Bend will be outside walking distance of this station, such coordination would be vital to reducing the need for local residents and workers to turn to the car and clog up inner city roads. Station design would be very important, and should start with the principle of allowing interchange directly outside the station exit, without the need to cross roads or potentially getting lost. A good example of this from Zürich is Stadelhofen (below), an inner city S-Bahn station which fronts onto a shared space with large amounts of bike parking and a tram interchange. Unfortunately, seamless interchange between public transport services and interface to the street and retail is compromised by our requirement for ticket barriers, but this should be achieved as many as possible in our local context.

<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/DSC_0248.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="Platform at Stadelhofen station opening onto tram stop and shared space"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" src="/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/DSC_0248.jpg?itok=NCJqaHwZ" title="Platform at Stadelhofen station opening onto tram stop and shared space"></a>

Another key principle should be prioritising pedestrian movement and encouraging short trips within the local area for shops and services. Fine-grain retail contributing to a true mixed use environment, along with pedestrian permeability and priority and a limited number of major roads favouring cars, would go towards achieving this goal. What we need in a new, inner-city area is an urban form which makes short trips on foot or bike possible, and using measures such as 30km/h zones or shared spaces to limit unnecessary car traffic while allowing local traffic and deliveries.

That’s all from Zürich (or at least as much as will fit in this space!). Next in this series is what we can learn from <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/news/lessons-for-fishermans-bend-munich">Munich</a>, a self-proclaimed Radlhauptstadt (bicycle capital city). Auf wiedersehen!
</body></html>

Lessons for Fishermans Bend: Zürich

<html><body>
Fishermans Bend has attracted a lot of interest in recent days, particularly in forums such as Urban.com.au. A recent announcement by the Victorian Government has seen the previous alignment of the <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/news/a-closer-look-at-the-latest-round-of-melbourne-metro-station-designs">Melbourne Rail Link</a> changed in order to bring a train station to the urban renewal area, apparently with construction starting in 2017. But planning for such a huge redevelopment area, particularly with regards to transport, is a mammoth task.

How can its proximity to the CBD and potential to house thousands of people be used to maximum advantage so that it is a suburb of pedestrians, cyclists and public transport users, rather than adding more cars onto inner Melbourne's already busy roads? How can transport infrastructure be staged so that it is ready to use as the first residents and workers move in? How can the planning of the area help by reducing the need for residents to travel outside it for their everyday needs, and by making walking and cycling attractive alternatives to the car?

As part of a University of Melbourne research project, I will be travelling over the next weeks to Zurich and Munich. I'll be looking at how urban renewal or redevelopment areas have been planned to get the transport right from the start, and to avoid car dependency as we've seen in too many of Melbourne's growth areas.

This post is the first in a short series on Urban.com.au about how the planning of transport for Fishermans Bend could be informed by ideas from other cities. While the research project above is focusing on Zurich and Munich, I'll also be travelling to Amsterdam and London, and will share my observations and experiences of those cities and how we can learn from them.

<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/Screen%20Shot%202014-05-24%20at%208.13.01%20am.jpg" rel="gallery-all"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" src="/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/Screen%20Shot%202014-05-24%20at%208.13.01%20am.jpg?itok=vLPPqhjf"></a>

So what kinds of ideas might we use? My preliminary research has looked at Munich, and a redevelopment of the city's old airport in particular - an area called Messestadt Riem. From what I've gathered so far, Munich seems to have quite a few planning ideas in common with us here in Melbourne (I say here, but I'm writing this from Zurich Airport). The concept of the polycentric city is one we share, but one that appears to have been implemented more successfully in Munich (above). In addition, while Munich has grown outwards over the decades, this has largely been contained along the existing S-Bahn (commuter rail) lines and with green belts separating non-contiguous areas of development, meaning that public transport is more easily able to be delivered to new residential areas.

Messestadt Riem also functions as a decent comparison to Fishermans Bend - they are both around the same size, both close to the central city (Riem is about 7km from the city centre, somewhat further than Fishermans Bend) and both large brownfield redevelopment areas intended to house a large number of residents and jobs. The planning for Messestadt Riem's redevelopment was already underway when the airport that used to occupy it closed in 1992. A private consortium was selected by tender to develop the area, including things like community infrastructure, and an U-Bahn (subway) line was extended to the area in 1999, the same year the first residents moved in.

<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/Screen%20Shot%202014-05-24%20at%208.13.28%20am.png" rel="gallery-all"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" src="/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/Screen%20Shot%202014-05-24%20at%208.13.28%20am.png?itok=nyGiX4sl"></a>

About half of the area is green open space, with dwellings (apartment buildings of about five storeys) located in a contained area close to the train line. With two stations servicing the area, no dwelling is more than a 10 minute walk from a station, and there is even a feeder bus which services the area (above). There are a number of factors encouraging cycling and walking, such as 30km/h speed limits in residential areas, and shared paths and bike lanes (below). There are a large number of jobs within the area, as well as schools, childcare, shops and other services, meaning there is less need to travel far for these everyday needs.

<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/Screen%20Shot%202014-05-24%20at%208.13.39%20am.png" rel="gallery-all"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" src="/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/Screen%20Shot%202014-05-24%20at%208.13.39%20am.png?itok=ZbEScp4U"></a>

Messestadt Riem seems to be ticking the boxes, and apparently an example we can use to inform the planning of Fishermans Bend so we get important things like transport right from the beginning. But it's difficult to tell exactly how much of a success it is from across the world, and difficult to determine actual outcomes from documents written by governments or developers.

Over the next four weeks, I will be travelling in <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/news/lessons-for-fishermans-bend-zurich">Zürich</a>, <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/news/lessons-for-fishermans-bend-munich">Munich</a>, Amsterdam and London, observing the integrated planning of land use and transport, and trying to figure out how ideas from these cities could be applied to the planning of Fishermans Bend. Stay tuned on Urban.com.au to see what I find!
</body></html>

Lessons for

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Lessons for

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News