Transport

The Andrews Labor Government is getting on with transforming central Dandenong into a vibrant new residential, retail, and commercial hub.

Minister for Transport Infrastructure Jacinta Allan today announced the Revitali​sing Central Dandenong project has taken another step forward, with the project&rsquo;s next phase draft masterplan released by Melbourne developer Capital Alliance for community feedback, along with design renders to give locals a glimpse of what it will look like.

&ldquo;We encourage locals to have their say on the draft masterplan and will continue to work with them on progressing this project &ndash; which will transform Dandenong and create thousands of jobs at a time our community needs them most,&rdquo; said Minister Allan.

The draft masterplan showcases the proposal for Dandenong and includes creating at least 470 new dwellings, a hotel and conference centre, offices and community spaces. An urban brewery entertainment district will also be built, as well as an education facility, retail, a medical facility, a cinema and dining.

&ldquo;We&rsquo;re proud to share this draft master plan with the community to rejuvenate central Dandenong &ndash; with the project to benefit generations to come,&rdquo; said Capital Alliance Founder and Chief Executive Mohan Du.

To maintain the site&rsquo;s strong cultural identity, the project will also deliver a brand-new Little India precinct. The new Little India will provide more modern facilities and services, as well as better spaces for tenants, and will be built as part of the development&rsquo;s first stage to minimise disruptions to traders.

Construction on the development&rsquo;s first stage is expected to commence in 2023 &ndash; which also includes delivering a supermarket, food market hall and residential building. Capital Alliance will invest $600 million to develop the area next to the Dandenong transport hub &ndash; creating more than 2,600 jobs during construction and close to 5,000 ongoing positions once complete.

The project will complement the Labor Government&rsquo;s transport investments in the south-east, better connecting locals with $15 billion to upgrade the Cranbourne/Pakenham line &ndash; slashing travel times, delivering bigger trains and creating a direct link to Melbourne Airport through the Metro Tunnel.

&ldquo;We&rsquo;re not only delivering more trains, more often to Dandenong &ndash; we&rsquo;re delivering more housing, and jobs for this local area,&rdquo; Du added. &nbsp;

The Government is delivering the Revital​ising Central Dandenong project through Development Victoria, with support from Greater Dand​enong Council.

The Government is delivering the Revitalising Central Dandenong project through Development Victoria, with support from Greater Dand​enong Council.

alisonwarters@gmail.com

Central Dandenong revitalization planned

Reducing your commute by living near a train station does not only make life convenient but it may increase the value of your property.

Melbourne apartments near train stations are becoming great investments for homebuyers seeking to add a premium to their new property.

In Sydney, this premium was recorded at an average of 4.5 per cent for homes within 400 metres of a station, <a href="http://www.luticonsulting.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Sydney-Transit-and-Urban-Renewal-Value-Creation-Report.pdf" target="_blank">according to a study</a> analysing rail projects between 2000 and 2014.

Urban takes a look at seven&nbsp;brand-new, off-the-plan properties that sit within 450 metres of a train station.

1. Chelsworth, Ivanhoe 
Developer: Bensons Property Group 
92 metres from Darebin Station

[smartcode_project:default project_id=3309 project_image_fid=35646]

Chelsworth, a collection of 50 modern apartments in two-bedroom configurations is located just 92 metres from a train station.

The BG-Architecture designed development is a one-minute walk from Darebin Station. &nbsp;

Apartments at Chelsworth offer a sophisticated design, featuring smart and versatile floor plans, custom cabinetry and secure basement parking.

2. Chronicle, Armadale 
Developer: Bensons Property Group 
200 metres from Armadale Station

[smartcode_project:default project_id=2845 project_image_fid=169337]

Another Bensons Property development, Chronicle is strategically located a three-minute walk from Armadale Station.

Set on the highly sought-after High Street, the development offers excellent connectivity and is complemented by a vibrant fashion and lifestyle retail destinations.

Each three-bedroom apartment, designed by CHT Architects, presents an elegant aesthetic with a focus on detail and generous storage

3. FiftyTwo Black, Brighton 
Developer: PB&amp;Co 
290 metres from Middle Brighton Station

[smartcode_project:default project_id=106713 project_image_fid=171910]

Situated 290 metres from Middle Brighton Station, FiftyTwo Black is the peak of luxury and convenience.

Comprising only five crafted residences, furnished exclusively in Ralph Lauren Home, this property features handcrafted brass feature balustrades, marble flooring and iconic Ralph Lauren chandelier lighting.

Just a three-minute walk from the station means residents are a stroll away from Church Street, the shopping, dining and entertainment capital of Bayside.

4. Prospect Apartments, Box Hill 
Developer: R&amp;F Property 
300 metres from Box Hill Station

[smartcode_project:default project_id=3516 project_image_fid=153756]

Set to become a modern landmark of the domain, Prospect&rsquo;s location is arguably the finest in Box Hill &ndash; within arm&rsquo;s reach of a culturally rich dining scene, leading educational facilities, hospitals, shopping centres and public transport.

Residents are located nearby Box Hill Central, Coles and a range of lifestyle and entertainment offerings. 
The tower also includes a range of communal amenities, including a pool, a gymnasium, an outdoor entertainment and barbecue area, and an expansive dining room and kitchen.

5. Canvas, Brunswick 
Developer: ID_Land 
350 metres from Jewell Station

[smartcode_project:default project_id=29358 project_image_fid=85960]

Cut to fit into the mosaic of Barkly Street, Canvas&rsquo; fa&ccedil;ade pays homage to Brunswick&rsquo;s industrial past.

These spacious apartments are located just 350-metres from Jewell Station, a quick five-minute walk away.

The apartments also boast no gas connection, making them 100 per cent fossil fuel free, while communal gardens, rooftop rain water and solar PV offsetting makes sustainable living easy.

6. Ballarat Street, Brunswick 
Developer: Assemble 
350 metres from Brunswick Station

[smartcode_project:default project_id=94542 project_image_fid=160730]

The current factory site at 4 Ballarat Street, Brunswick will be converted by architecture firm Fieldwork to home 171 studio, one, two and three-bedroom apartments.

Assemble&rsquo;s rent-with-the-option-to-buy apartment development is located four minutes from Brunswick Station and boasts a range of convenient resident amenities.

These include a multi-purpose workshop, crafts space, communal laundry, barbeque area and rooftop pavilion.

7. Omnia, Moorabbin 
Developer: Shenfield Property 
450 metres from Moorabbin Station

[smartcode_project:default project_id=29048 project_image_fid=80698]

Designed by Roger Brayshaw Architects and delivered by Shenfield Property, this collection of brand-new residences defines modern comfort.

Located in the thriving community of Moorabbin, convenient transport options are abound, placing you into the Melbourne CBD within 25 minutes.

Moorabbin Station is just a six-minute walk away, while park frontage, inspired design and a diversity of layouts makes Omnia one not to miss.

Urban takes a look at seven brand-new, off-the-plan properties that sit within 450 metres of a train station

max.kwok_55688

Seven brand-new Melbourne apartments and townhomes within 450m from a train station

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/57114/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
As an urban rail activist, academic and commentator, including a spell on Infrastructure Australia, I can say from the start I was delighted that we have a consortium prepared to have a go at high-speed rail using value capture.
Consolidated Land and Rail Australia (CLARA) is the first group in Australia to suggest that a major rail option can be funded without government capital. This fits with what we have been saying for a number of years (for example, the entrepreneur rail model).
It is not just a way of bringing financing groups like superannuation funds into such major infrastructure projects where governments have no hope of finding the cash, but it is also a better way: it inherently integrates with land development opportunities to make less car-dependent cities.
High-speed rail is needed. We are the last major developed area without it.
It is now a well-established technology that can simultaneously reduce car use and plane use. It is a way to reduce our oil dependence and to help us meet our greenhouse emissions, as have Japan, China and Europe in recent decades.
<h2>Key issues to be overcome</h2>
However, some issues need to be resolved for this proposal and, indeed, the other three consortia that I have heard are also keen to build high-speed rail in Australia.
First, it’s not a project that should be an unsolicited bid with all its high commercial-in-confidence process. Such a project will have huge public significance and demands that we address the full implications – A$200 billion over 40 years is a lot of money for infrastructure and land development.
If this project goes ahead, many other infrastructure projects and land developments will not happen in the competitive marketplace of our cities and rural areas. This project will need to show great public benefit as well as enabling the private sector to take the risk and do the investing.
Second, what are we looking for from infrastructure like this? Surely we want it to build up our cities and the regional towns in between to have a more sustainable, productive and liveable future.
This project is very light on detail, understandably, about how it would come into the cities (it seems to just go from airport to airport on the urban fringes). It completely misses all the major regional centres like Canberra, Wagga Wagga and Albury-Wodonga in order to go much faster and cheaper through farmland.
The Canberra Times reported a CLARA spokesperson saying:
"The project would be privately funded on a value-uplift model. This needs new city development where maximum uplift in land values is available, which is not available in existing cities like Canberra, with elevated real estate prices. ‘They must be greenfield.’"
Value capture worldwide and in our model is done to facilitate urban regeneration, not to create new car-dependent greenfield suburbs. CLARA’s model is seeking cheap, easily obtainable land on the urban fringe and in rural areas rather than helping our cities and country towns. Not only is the value of this to Australia very debatable, it is not likely to be as successful in raising land values to achieve their goals.
There is a limit to how many wealthy, long-commute exurbs or retirement villages could be induced to invest in such places in the countryside. The strong economic demand is for urban regeneration inside the old parts of our cities and towns. This has been an important part of the rationale for high-speed rail in other places.
The CLARA model is an extension of the failed idea of building new towns in greenfield areas. It has failed in Australia and in the UK and US because urban development needs to be more organic, building on the historic processes, local communities and multiple services of the cities and towns built up over hundreds of years. The modernist new towns have all struggled as they are designed from the top down.
It may be appealing to take a fresh sheet and drop it from on high, and very messy to have to deal with so many land owners and local governments in the old cities and towns, but it should not be beyond us.
<h2>Principles to guide a successful project</h2>
To make high-speed rail and urban development happen in a way that benefits Australian cities and towns, I suggest we should try to follow the principles below.
<ol>
<li>
It is important to attract private capital for combined land development and transport, but this should be led by locational strategies where redevelopment is most needed, not by transport engineering simplicity.
</li>
<li>
Benefit-cost assessments should include long-term urban and sustainability goals.
</li>
<li>
Public-private partnerships (PPPs) should include core commitments to community engagement, integrated public transport delivery, equitable and time-of-travel-dependent fare structures, safety, consumer and environmental protection, and urban design quality.
</li>
<li>
The projects should not just be innovative in financing and PPP delivery but be agile enough to include disruptive innovations such as solar PV-based electric rail, new carbon fibre and other materials, very smart systems for control at high speed, and effective noise management.
</li>
</ol>
High-speed rail has been a long time coming for Australia. It’s a very big and beautiful opportunity, so let’s get it right.
Peter Newman is professor of sustainability, Curtin University and author for The Conversation. He can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/peter-newman-1858" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

jchancellor-FAypfDUnLy

High-speed rail? At $200 billion we’d better get it right

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/63638/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
A plethora of new and personalised ways of getting around cities are emerging – electric bikes, motorised scooters, electric vehicles, car sharing and re-interpretations of the taxi by Uber.
How might we realise the potential of these transport disruptions? How does the combination of culture, regulation and technology shape sustainable transport futures? The extent to which technologies align with social, political and policy norms is a critical factor in their uptake and success.
Technology is politically, socially and culturally mediated. Its success relies on how it relates to existing lifestyles and aspirations. Technologies need to be accommodated in the ways we want to move around cities. The most amazing technological intervention will quickly atrophy if it is disconnected from daily needs and desires.
Regulatory settings can impede or foster new technologies. We can make space for different ways of moving around – such as cycleways, footpaths and roads. We can prohibit or encourage disruptive forces, as so starkly evident with Uber. We can set tax and other pricing mechanisms, as incentives or disincentives for modes of transport.
Some argue that new technologies are so disruptive because they have no predecessor to show us the way. But examples are emerging that show us where society, regulation and technology have or have not aligned, underpinning their success or failure.
<h2>Car sharing – an obedient disruption</h2>
Car sharing in Australia’s inner cities has been phenomenally successful. There are an estimated 50,000 car sharers across the country.
The disruptions of car sharing are mild: it draws on technologies and skills shared with other aspects of social life. The concept of sharing is disruptive but easily accommodated; regulation adapted quickly to the subtle shifts required. It is an obedient disruption, and this obedience is one of the pillars of its success.
Car sharing is technologically disruptive as it relies on smart technologies to function. It is booked online, unlocked by a smart card, automatically paid by credit card and invisibly monitored via GPS.
It is socially disruptive. Car sharing relies on people deferring or giving up car ownership. Importantly, it asks us to give up the emotional and cultural attachments we have to cars. Evidence is mounting that millennials are swapping out the car for the phone as a status symbol.
Car sharing does not significantly challenge regulatory frameworks or political interests. It does rely on parking space, though, and local governments have quickly developed car-sharing policies to balance the needs of sustainable transport with access to on-street and off-street parking. While providing dedicated parking space to car-share organisations has been politically controversial, the regulatory supports were easily identified and mobilised.
Car sharing is a case where the lifestyles, values, technologies and regulation are aligned – a sustainability success story.
<h2>Personal mobility devices – a disruption in limbo</h2>
Personal mobility devices, known as PMDs, are more disruptive and a less successful sustainable transport option thus far in Australia. These are personal, battery-powered or motorised modes of transport designed for an individual to use on footpaths or shared paths. They include Segway, YikeBike or two-wheel motorised “Razor” scooters.
These devices allow the rider to travel short distances quickly without physical effort. Their small size makes them easily transferable between transport. This means they can bridge the “first and last mile” – between home and transit and work.
Despite their popularity, which is visible on city streets, PMDs are unable to be legally ridden on roads, footpaths, shared paths or cycleways in most Australian states. They do not meet vehicle standards and cannot be registered or legally used on roads.
Most of these devices are too dissimilar from bicycles, even electric bikes, to be classed as bicycles. Motorisation and wheels also rule out their classification as a pedestrian.
With the exception of some devices for tourism, PMDs remain in limbo in most Australian states. There was a move in Queensland in 2013 when a policy framework to regulate the use of PMDs was implemented. These regulations specified what a PMD is and how/where it can be used.
PMDs were defined as pedestrians to be used in pedestrian environments. Strict rules applied. Riders must:
<ul>
<li>
not exceed 12 kilometres per hour;
</li>
<li>
be 12 years or over; and
</li>
<li>
wear a helmet.
</li>
</ul>
In short, regulatory settings were modified to allow these new forms of technology, though not without debate.
How might these means of moving about the city be accommodated or become part of ordinary transport? For these devices to be used as transport, they need to get people travelling faster than walking without compromising safety.
<h2>Driverless cars – are we ready?</h2>
The stuff of science fiction 50 years ago, some technological optimists today predict driverless cars will be in our cities within five years. Indeed, autonomous cars are already here. New cars have adaptive cruise control, lane departure warnings, collision avoidance and parking assist.
Robotic vehicles are increasingly common in agriculture and mining. With researchers turning their attention to the realities of life with driverless cars, regulation and social impact are once again emerging as key issues.
A recent assessment by the National Transport Commission of Australia found that 716 provisions from two conventions, 32 acts and 21 regulations need to be addressed before autonomous vehicles become commonplace. Fundamentally, legal and insurance frameworks need to rethink a driver, and who is responsible when there is no driver.
There are also considerable privacy implications of tracking and the ubiquitous sensing and data collection that these vehicles require. While the technology is almost there, our policy frameworks are not quite there.
Research also shows that people are not quite ready for autonomous cars. Car makers are working in more sophisticated ways to ensure that autonomous cars talk to passengers, telling them when they are and are not in control and what is around them.
Businesses, on the other hand, are increasingly ready for autonomous cars, especially through shared transport. In the US, General Motors has invested significantly in ride-sharing business Lyft. General Motors expects autonomous cars to be operating within ten years.
Uber is conducting its own trials of autonomous vehicles. Increasingly, it appears that economic and social conditions are more likely to support driverless buses, at least short term.
Evidence is mounting that our cities, citizens, businesses and policymakers are getting ready for a future where transport technologies that are neither car nor public transport are commonplace. Mismatches remain between technology, social life and regulation, but their alignments, especially around shared transport, are proving successful.
Robyn Dowling is professor and associate dean Research, University of Sydney and author for The Conversation. She can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/robyn-dowling-90213" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

Smart cities: does this mean more transport disruptions?

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
Governments should open up their transport project funding decisions to greater scrutiny, including tabling an independent cost-benefit analysis in Parliament, recommends a new report from think-tank the Grattan Institute.
The report’s author, Marion Terrill, argues poor project selection is undermining economic growth in Australia. The report shows of the projects receiving Commonwealth funding since June 2012, 58 percent of that funding, or $3.7 billion, was spent on projects without a published project evaluation. This includes the controversial East-West Link, which was ultimately canned by the Victorian government.
The report argues governments should not only build transport infrastructure where the benefits outweigh the costs – they should build all such infrastructure, regardless of where it is based in Australia. This could help address the bias identified in the report towards projects in states with more swinging seats.
“I think we have the right to expect that these decisions are made in the best interests of the community at large,” said Terrill, who is the Grattan Institute’s Transport Program Director.
In the current environment state transport funding decisions are skewed by roads and rail listed on the National Land Transport Network<a href="https://investment.infrastructure.gov.au/whatis/network/">.</a>
“It’s very advantageous for the states to put forward proposals for Commonwealth funding that that are on the National Land Transport Network because 50% of the value of any funding they get for such projects from the Commonwealth is quarantined from affecting their GST share,” Terrill said.
For example, she said, the Melbourne Metro is not on that network, meaning if the Commonwealth provides funding for the project, Victoria would lose a commensurate amount of GST over the next three years. This contrasts with the East-West Link project which was on the network. This means 50% of the funding would have been quarantined and only 50% would have affected the GST the state received.
Terrill said that in the current environment there was little to stop politicians committing to projects before they were properly evaluated, particularly during election campaigns. More scrutiny, including through the public release of cost-benefit analyses undertaken by independent bodies, would help ensure funds were spent more wisely.
“Publishing business cases would be a very helpful step, so interested parties, including the general public, have the opportunity to scrutinise these projects before they’re agreed.”
With more scrutiny, the report suggests less money would be spent on highways that are not especially important to the economy, and the focus could shift back to cities, the engines of economic growth.
“When a city doubles in size it more than doubles in productivity and GDP per capita, and in innovation per capita.”
So there’s nothing bad about people increasingly choosing to live in cities, provided we don’t let congestion and overcrowding swamp the benefits."
 
Charis Palmer is deputy business editor, The Conversation sand can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/team#charis-palmer" target="_blank">here</a>.
Marion Terrill is Transport Program Director, Grattan Institute and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/marion-terrill-169480" target="_blank">here</a>.
Both are authors for The Conversation.
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/57114/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
</body></html>

Governments still choosing the wrong transport projects

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/71272/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
Integrated transport has long been the holy grail of transport engineering. Now, a project set up north of Melbourne’s CBD aims to make it a reality. 
Led by the School of Engineering at the University of Melbourne, the project will create a living laboratory for developing a highly integrated, smart, multimodal transport system. The goals are to make travel more efficient, safer, cleaner and more sustainable. 
Integrated transport aims to combine various modes of travel to provide seamless door-to-door services. Reduced delays, increased safety and better health can all be achieved by sharing information between users, operators and network managers. This will optimise mobility and minimise costs for travellers.
The National Connected Multimodal Transport Test Bed includes arterial roads and local streets in an area of 4.5 square kilometres in Carlton, Fitzroy and Collingwood.
Bounded by Alexandra Parade and Victoria, Hoddle and Lygon streets, this busy inner-suburban area is a perfect location to test a new generation of connected transport systems. Our growing cities will need these systems to manage their increasing traffic. 
<h2>How will the test bed work?</h2>
The test bed covers all modes of transport. From April, it is due to collect data on vehicles, cyclists, public transport, pedestrians and traffic infrastructure, such as signals and parking. The area will be equipped with advanced sensors (for measuring emissions and noise levels) and communications infrastructure (such as wireless devices on vehicles and signals). 
<div class="enlarge_hint"><a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/images/2017/02/23/Screen%20Shot%202017-02-23%20at%209.26.59%20AM.png" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a></div>
<div class="enlarge_hint"> </div>
<div class="enlarge_hint"><img src="https://www.urban.com.au/images/2017/02/23/Screen%20Shot%202017-02-23%20at%209.26.59%20AM.png" alt=""></div>
The test bed will collect data on all aspects of transport in the inner-suburban area covered by the project. Author provided
The aim is to use all this data to allow the transport system to be more responsive to disruption and more user-focused. 
This is a unique opportunity for key stakeholders to work together to build a range of core technologies for collecting, integrating and processing data. This data will be used to develop advanced information-based transport services.
The project has attracted strong support from government, industry and operators. 
Government will benefit by having access to information on how an integrated transport system works. This can be used to develop policies and create business models, systems and technologies for integrated mobility options. 
The test bed allows industry to create and test globally relevant solutions and products. Academics and research students at the University of Melbourne are working on cutting-edge experimental studies in collaboration with leading multinationals.
This will accelerate the deployment of this technology in the real world. It also creates enormous opportunities for participation in industry up-skilling, training and education. 
<h2>What are the likely benefits?</h2>
Urban transport systems need to become more adaptable and better integrated to enhance mobility. Current systems have long suffered from being disjointed and mode-centric. They are also highly vulnerable to disruption. Public transport terminals can fail to provide seamless transfers and co-ordination between modes. 
This project can help transport to break out of the traditional barriers between services. The knowledge gained can be used to provide users with an integrated and intelligent transport system.
It has been difficult, however, to trial new technologies in urban transport without strong involvement from key stakeholders. An environment and platform where travellers can experience the benefits in a real-world setting is needed. The test bed enables technologies to be adapted so vehicles and infrastructure can be more responsive to real-time demand and operational conditions. 
Rapid advancements in sensing and communication technologies allow for a new generation of solutions to be developed. However, artificial environments and computer simulation models lack the realism to ensure new transport technologies can be properly designed and evaluated. The living lab provides this. 
The test bed will allow governments and transport operators to share data using a common information platform. People and vehicles will be able to communicate with each other and the transport infrastructure to allow the whole system to operate more intelligently. The new active transport systems will lead to safety and health benefits.
The test bed allows impacts on safety in a connected environment to be investigated. Interactions between active transport modes such as walking and cycling with connected or autonomous vehicles can be examined to ensure safety is enhanced in complex urban environments. Researchers will study the effects of warning systems such as red light violation, pedestrian movements near crossings, and bus stops. 
Low-carbon mobility solutions will also be evaluated to improve sustainability and cut transport emissions. 
Environmental sensors combined with traffic-measurement devices will help researchers understand the effects of various types of vehicles and congestion levels. This includes the impacts of emerging disruptive technologies such as autonomous, on-demand, shared mobility systems. 
A range of indoor and outdoor sensor networks, such as Wi-Fi, will be used to trial integrated public transport services at stations and terminals. The goal is to ensure seamless transfers between modes and optimised transit operations.
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/majid-sarvi-334262" target="_blank">Majid Sarvi</a> is chair in Transport Engineering and the Professor in Transport for Smart Cities, University of Melbourne.
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/gary-liddle-334267" target="_blank">Gary Liddle</a> is enterprise professor, Transport, University of Melbourne.
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/russell-g-thompson-330541" target="_blank">Russell G. Thompson</a> is associate Professor in Transport Engineering, University of Melbourne.
All are authors for The Conversation.
</body></html>

City streets become a living lab that could transform your daily travel

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
More than half a century has passed since high-speed rail (HSR) effectively began operating, in Japan in 1964, and it has been mooted for Australia since 1984. I estimate that the cost of all HSR studies by the private and public sectors in Australia exceeds $125 million, in today’s dollars. But the federal government is now less interested in high-speed rail (now defined as electric trains operating on steel rails at maximum speeds of above 250km per hour), and instead favours “faster rail” or medium-speed rail.
The 2017 federal budget provided $20 billion over the next 10 years for rail, with more allocated in the 2018 budget. It is now time for Australia to commit to medium-speed rail (trains operating on new or existing tracks at speeds of between 160km and 250km/h).
Indeed, three states have made progress in developing trains at 160km/h, with Victoria leading the way. New South Wales has failed to keep up with these states.
What happened to high-speed rail in Australia?
The first high-speed rail system dates back to 1964 when the Tokaido Shinkansen started operating between Tokyo and Osaka. At first, it took four hours to travel 515 kilometres; now some trains take two-and-a-half hours. Japan’s system has an impeccable safety record and the network extends for over 3,000km.
<img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/218530/original/file-20180511-34006-1a32kgw.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=237&amp;fit=clip" alt="">
An image prepared in 1984 by the late Phil Belbin of what the Very Fast Train south of Canberra could look like. Courtesy of Railway Digest (ARHS/NSW) June 2004, Author provided
France was next in 1981 with its TGV trains. In 1984, high-speed rail was first proposed for Australia. This was the CSIRO’s Very Fast Train proposal to link Sydney, Canberra and Melbourne using TGV trains.
At all levels, government was not supportive. The private sector, after a series of studies, found it was viable and could work with different taxation arrangements. This was not forthcoming and work stopped in 1991.
<img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/218529/original/file-20180511-34027-1ouout.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=237&amp;fit=clip" alt="">
An image from the 1990s of a SpeedRail train at Central Station. Courtesy of Railway Digest (ARHS/NSW), Author provided
A more modest proposal, called Speedrail, to connect Sydney and Canberra was proposed in the mid-1990s. With some federal government encouragement, it was studied, with detailed design. It was costed at about $4.5 billion, with finance arranged for some $3.5 billion. The Howard government would not fund the balance and commissioned yet another HSR study.
More studies have followed. One study in 2013 put a price tag of $23 billion on a Sydney-Canberra line involving much tunnelling in Sydney. This was part of a 1,750km high-speed rail corridor linking Brisbane, Sydney, Canberra and Melbourne. The total estimated cost was A$114 billion.
Despite many studies recommending the need to identify and protect a corridor for a future high-speed rail network, government has failed to reserve any land corridors (with the exception of part of a future Melbourne outer metropolitan ring road).
What about the alternatives?
Many countries do not have high-speed rail, but have medium-speed rail (MSR) instead. These countries include Sweden, Switzerland, the United States and Canada.
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/218535/original/file-20180511-34015-vv508a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/218535/original/file-20180511-34015-vv508a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=237&amp;fit=clip" alt=""></a>
Queensland’s Tilt Train intercity service has been running for nearly 20 years. <a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:City_of_Rockhampton_train_(Sunshine_railway_station,_Brisbane).jpg">QRtrains/Wikimedia</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a>
Three Australian states have trains operating at 160km/h. These are Queensland, starting in 1998 with its Electric Tilt Train service between Brisbane and Rockhampton, Victoria, with its Regional Fast Rail project using V/Locity diesel multiple units, and Western Australia, with the Prospector train.
Victoria’s service originated in 1999 when the then Labor opposition promised a new deal for regional Victoria, which included new trains and upgraded tracks on four lines to Bendigo, Ballarat, Geelong and Gippsland. The ALP won government that year. By 2006 the track upgrades were delivered along with new trains made in Victoria.
People liked the faster trains. Patronage went up by more than 15% in each of the first three years of operation. More trains were ordered and further major track upgrades followed.
Victoria was assisted by $3 billion in federal funding for a Regional Rail Link program. This was to provide new intercity tracks in Melbourne so suburban trains did not slow down regional trains.
Due to good ongoing planning attracting more federal funding, further track upgrades are under way. The 2017 Victorian Infrastructure Plan outlines priorities and funding for projects over the next five years, with longer-term policy directions.
So what’s going on in NSW?
Questions are now being asked as to why Victoria and WA are doing do well with federal funding for passenger rail at the expense of NSW.
The rail situation in Australia’s most populated state is not good for its regions. By far the most NSW government attention and funding has gone into the Greater Sydney region.
Between the 2011 and the 2016 Censuses, Greater Sydney’s population (including Gosford) grew some 10% from 4.39 to 4.82 million. Rail patronage on the Sydney and intercity network had even stronger growth of some 15% from 2011 to 2016.
To try to cope with this increasing demand for rail a new Metro section is due to be completed in 2019. Light rail is also being introduced in Sydney, Newcastle and Parramatta.
Sydney continues to have serious road traffic problems, which are unlikely to be solved by WestConnex Stages 1 and 2 that are now under construction. The proposed Stage 3 received over 7,000 objections, including a sensible alternative proposal by the City of Sydney, but the NSW government has approved Stage 3 and even more motorways. This is despite overseas experience for cities the size of Sydney pointing to the best solution being a much-improved rail system with road congestion pricing.
Regional NSW is also growing in population, albeit not as quickly as Sydney. In spring 2017, Transport for NSW released a draft regional servicea and infrastructure plan not for the next five years, but out to 2056. However, these plans were very vague as to what may be delivered in the next five or even ten years.
The plans also omitted earlier Infrastructure NSW goals for Sydney-Gosford and Sydney-Wollongong trains to take one hours (instead of one-and-a-half) and Sydney-Newcastle trains to take two hours. In addition, there are calls for more and faster trains linking to each of Goulburn/Canberra and the Central West of NSW.
Clearly, NSW is facing major transport challenges to overcome rail infrastructure backlogs and meet the needs of a growing population.
The state government is getting new intercity electric trains and has committed to buying new regional trains. But it’s yet to commit to track upgrades to help the new trains go faster than the present slow ones.
The NSW ALP opposition is also yet to present detailed policies of how it would meet the transport challenges in Sydney and in regional NSW.
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/95854/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">The people of NSW must hope the state budget due June 19 and the opposition leader’s reply will address these issues.
Philip Laird, Honorary Principal Fellow, University of Wollongong
This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/lets-get-moving-with-the-affordable-medium-speed-alternatives-to-the-old-dream-of-high-speed-rail-95854" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

j.ballantyne1990-6AQqhLzZaK

Let's get moving with the affordable alternatives to the old dream of high-speed rail

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
Taxis have traditionally competed for kerbside space in our cities, but they now have many new competitors. <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/the-university-of-queensland-805"> </a>
In case you missed it, 2018 was designated the <a href="https://mobilitylab.org/2018/06/08/managing-the-chaos-of-the-21st-century-curb/" target="_blank">Year of the Kerb</a> by Sabrina Sussman, <a href="https://www.zipcar.com/" target="_blank">Zipcar’s</a> public partnerships manager. This is because competition for limited kerb space has been increasing over the past few years, particularly in cities.
The kerb is the place that provides “access” between the street and the footpath. The definition tends to include the lane beyond the kerb that is used for car parking, bus stops, taxi pickups and dropoffs, and loading and unloading goods.
But kerb competition is increasing from a range of new users including: car sharing, ride sharing, e-scooter share, bike share and e-bike share, food delivery, online order deliveries and, in coming years, autonomous vehicles.
And this increasing focus on the kerb is highlighted in recent reports by the <a href="https://www.ite.org/technical-resources/topics/complete-streets/curbside-management-resources/" target="_blank">Institute of Traffic Engineers</a>, the <a href="https://www.itf-oecd.org/shared-use-city-managing-curb-0" target="_blank">International Transport Forum</a> and North America’s National Association of City Transportation Officials (<a href="https://nacto.org/tsdg/curb-appeal-whitepaper">NACTO</a>).
With this range of new users, cities need to rethink how they manage this contested real estate. Without better kerb management, cities will face increased congestion on local streets from vehicles circulating to access the kerb and on footpaths from a range of shared mobility devices.
One change cities will need to make to accommodate these new users is to repurpose kerb space, which has traditionally been used for parking, to other uses. This change will most likely have a significant financial impact.
<a href="https://www.wired.com/story/city-planning-curbs/" target="_blank">One survey</a> of the 25 largest US cities found parking-related revenues totalled US$5 billion in 2016, or about US$129 per person. While repurposing kerb space will not affect all of this revenue, it will have an impact on city budgets. To minimise this impact, cities will need to think about if, and how, to charge new users of kerb space.
To manage kerbs, first identify the uses
The City of Seattle is one of the leaders in kerb management. The city categorised kerb use into six key functions:
<ol>
<li>
mobility for travel lanes, bike lanes and bus lanes
</li>
<li>
access for people using bus stops, bike parking and loading zones
</li>
<li>
access for commerce to deliver goods
</li>
<li>
activation for <a href="https://theconversation.com/people-love-parklets-and-businesses-can-help-make-them-happen-87172" target="_blank">small parks</a>, food trucks and public art
</li>
<li>
greening for plantings, rain gardens and bio-swales
</li>
<li>
storage for parking, bus layovers and construction.
</li>
</ol>
One of the first in-depth analyses of the kerb was in San Francisco. As part of <a href="https://www.fehrandpeers.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/SF_Curb_Study_2018-10-19_web-download.pdf" target="_blank">this 2018 study</a>, commissioned in 2018 by Uber Technologies, the consultants (Fehr and Peers) developed a Curb Productivity Index (CPI). The index considered three things to compare productivity of kerb use.
<ol>
<li>
number of passengers using kerb space by mode
</li>
<li>
time period the activity was observed
</li>
<li>
total space dedicated to that use.
</li>
</ol>
How to calculate kerb productivity
The CPI is a useful way of quantifying the various competing uses for the kerb.
It’s calculated by dividing the amount of activity by the amount of space used, multiplied by the unit of time. For example, the CPI for a bus stop that uses 45 metres of kerb for 250 arriving and departing passengers over four hours would be: 250 passengers/(45 metres x 4 hours), or 1.39 passengers/metre-hours.
Alternatively, the CPI for a car space that uses five metres of kerb that services two passengers over four hours would be: 2 passengers/(5 metres x 4 hours), or 0.1 passengers/metre-hours.
The CPI shows a bus stop is 13.9 times (1.39/0.1) more productive than a car park.
This analysis of usage data provides some rigour in developing a kerb management plan.
Base management on ‘measurement over myth’
As a way forward, <a href="https://www.fehrandpeers.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/SF_Curb_Study_2018-10-19_web-download.pdf" target="_blank">Fehr and Peer recommend</a> a management strategy with three components:
<ol>
<li>
relocation of existing kerb uses to other areas
</li>
<li>
conversion, which involves eliminating some current uses and replacing them with new uses
</li>
<li>
flexibility, so kerb uses change depending on the time of day.
</li>
</ol>
Trials of flexible kerb management are under way in Washington DC, San Francisco and Fort Lauderdale.
In changing how the kerb is managed, the <a href="https://nacto.org/tsdg/curb-appeal-whitepaper/" target="_blank">2018 report</a> from North America’s National Association of City Transportation Officials recommends a “measurement over myth” strategy when converting parking to other uses.
Surveys on arrival mode consistently show public transport and active travel modes deliver more customers to adjacent businesses than private motor vehicles. <a href="https://www.torontocycling.org/uploads/1/3/1/3/13138411/cycling_economies_eglinton_final.pdf" target="_blank">Before-and-after studies</a> confirm that replacing parking with public transport or bike lanes increases sales for area businesses.
To manage the conflicting needs of car and bike users for roadside space, San Jose has created kerbside bike lanes separated from the road by car parking. <a class="source" href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.flickr.com/photos/willbuckner/45885808941"> </a>
While new mobility startups are part of the reason cities need to develop kerb management plans, other startups are developing new ways to manage this increasingly contested space. Some of these new companies include:
<ul>
<li>
<a href="https://www.coord.co/post/open-curbs-the-first-open-data-multi-city-platform-to-unlock-curbs" target="_blank">Open Curbs</a> from <a href="https://www.coord.co/" target="_blank">Coord</a>, a spin-off of <a href="https://www.sidewalklabs.com/" target="_blank">Sidewalk</a>, that provides wheelchair cuts, fire hydrants, bus stops and other physical kerb assets
</li>
<li>
<a href="https://www.populus.ai/" target="_blank">Populus</a>, a San Francisco transport company that has developed a mobility manager that provides data on e-scooter and e-bike share parking data
</li>
<li>
Remix, which has developed the <a href="https://www.remix.com/new-mobility" target="_blank">New Mobility tool</a> to analyse and visualise data-streaming feeds.
</li>
</ul>
These startups have raised millions of dollars, due in part to the recognised value of the kerb.
Cities need to make the transition from parking cities to pickup/dropoff cities and to flexible cities. For this to happen, cities will need to think strategically about how to manage their kerbs with the emergence of new users and new mobility management options.
One of the first steps in this transition is for cities to ensure data standards and data-sharing arrangements are established as part of the basis for giving new users permission to access the kerb.
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/neil-sipe-346144" target="_blank">Neil Sipe</a>, Professor of Urban and Regional Planning, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/the-university-of-queensland-805" target="_blank">The University of Queensland</a>
This article is republished from <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/competition-for-the-kerb-is-rising-and-cities-are-going-to-have-to-manage-it-117410" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

Competition for kerb is rising, cities have to manage it: Neil Sipe

<html><body>
<h1> </h1>
GUEST OBSERVER
 
Trials of autonomous cars and buses have <a href="https://intellibus.rac.com.au/" target="_blank">begun on the streets of Australian cities</a>. Communications companies are moving to <a href="https://themelbourneengineer.eng.unimelb.edu.au/2017/01/melbourne-launches-world-first-connected-living-transport-lab/" target="_blank">deploy</a> the lasers, cameras and centimetre-perfect GPS that will <a href="https://theconversation.com/city-streets-become-a-living-lab-that-could-transform-your-daily-travel-71272" target="_blank">enable a vehicle to navigate the streets</a> of your town or city without a driver.
Most research and commentary is telling us how the new machines will work, but not how they might shape our cities. The talk is of the <a href="https://2015.internationaltransportforum.org/shared-economy" target="_blank">benefits of new shared transport economies</a>, but these new technologies will shape our built environment in ways that are <a href="https://theconversation.com/smart-cities-does-this-mean-more-transport-disruptions-63638" target="_blank">not yet fully understood</a>. There’s every chance that, if mismanaged, driverless technologies will entrench the ills of car dependency.
As with <a href="https://theconversation.com/taxi-driver-compensation-for-uber-is-unfair-and-poorly-implemented-64354" target="_blank">Uber and the taxi industry</a>, public sector planners and regulators will be forced to respond to the anger of those displaced by the new products the IT and automobile industries will bring to the market. But can we afford to wait?
<h2>Three competing interests</h2>
Three distinct groups are giving form to the idea of driverless vehicles. Each has its own corporate proponents and target markets, and its own, often competing, demands on citizens, regulators and planners. Each will make its own demands on our streets and public spaces.
First, the traditional car makers are adding “driverless” features to their existing products. They have no compelling interest in changing the current individual ownership model. Their target consumer is someone who values private vehicle ownership and enjoys driving.
These carmakers’ challenge is to win over drivers sceptical about “their” car doing things they can’t control, whether that is behaving differently in traffic or performing unescorted journeys. But, if successful, these new cars will make driving easier and so encourage more travel and ever-expanding suburbs.
Second, cashed-up IT disruptors like Google and Uber see new types of vehicles and new patterns of ownership as the basis for new transport economies. They want lightweight, utilitarian “robo-taxis” owned by a corporation and rented by the trip. Travellers will use phone apps or their next-generation successors to do this. This, in the jargon, is “<a href="https://dupress.deloitte.com/dup-us-en/deloitte-review/issue-20/smart-transportation-technology-mobility-as-a-service" target="_blank">mobility as a service</a>”.
These companies’ ambition is to carve out a large niche in competition with private cars, taxis, conventional public transport and even non-motorised transport. Fleets of shared vehicles in constant circulation can reduce the number of individually owned cars and, in particular, the <a href="https://theconversation.com/disruption-ahead-personal-mobility-is-breaking-down-old-transport-divides-70338" target="_blank">need for parking</a>.
In some circumstances, this may support more compact urban forms. But while sustainability or social objectives might be part of the pitch, the profit motive remains dominant.
Third, public transport operators can see opportunities and challenges in driverless technologies. Already, Vancouver reaps the benefits of lower operating costs for its driverless elevated-rail system.
<iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/XtCyiSleO1g?wmode=transparent&amp;start=0" frameborder="0" width="440" height="260"></iframe> In Vancouver, the train pulls into a station with no driver on board.
Savvy operators understand that new vehicle technology is only valuable if it is integrated with traditional public transport services and with cycling and walking. This means central coordination. Vitally, it also requires control of the information platforms needed to provide multimodal mobility.
Such levels of planning and regulation conflict with Google’s “disruptive” free-market ambitions. European operators, who are in a more powerful position in economic and social life than their Australian counterparts, are already <a href="https://www.uitp.org/autonomous-vehicles" target="_blank">mobilising for this contest</a>.
<h2>Whatever the technology, transport needs space</h2>
Many claims for the benefits of driverless technologies rely on the complete transformation of the existing vehicle fleet. But the transition will not be smooth or uniform. Autonomous vehicles will face a significant period of mixed operation with traditional vehicles.
Freeways are likely to be the first roads on which the new vehicles will be able to operate. Promoters of these vehicles might join forces with the conventional car lobby to demand extra lanes. This would dash the hopes of many that driverless cars will <a href="https://www.inverse.com/article/12082-the-future-of-driverless-cars-where-we-re-going-we-ll-need-more-roads" target="_blank">lead to reduced space</a> for mass movement of cars.
After the freeways, the next objective will be to bring driverless cars, trucks and buses onto city streets. This will require complex systems of sensors and cameras.
The ambition is to allow all users to share road space much more safely than they do today. But, if a driverless vehicle will never hit a jaywalker, what will stop every pedestrian and cyclist from simply using the street as they please? Some analysts <a href="https://news.ucsc.edu/2016/10/pedestrians-self-driving-cars" target="_blank">are predicting</a> that the new vehicles will be slower than conventional driving, partly because the current balance of fear will be upset.
Already active travellers are struggling to assert their <a href="https://theconversation.com/contested-spaces-virtuous-drivers-malicious-cyclists-mindset-gets-us-nowhere-73371" target="_blank">right to the streets</a> of Australian cities. Just imagine how much worse it would be if a dominant autonomous-vehicle fleet operator demanded widespread fencing of roadways to keep bikes and pedestrians out of the way.
The presence of driverless cars cannot alter the fact that space for urban transport is severely constrained. For travel within and between compact urban centres, we will need more and better high-capacity mass transit as well as first-class conditions for walking and cycling.
The integration of conventional public transport networks with shared autonomous vehicles, large and small, offers many opportunities for a much improved service. But that will happen only if this objective is the major focus of investment, innovation, planning and regulation.
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/75531/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">Researchers and policymakers need to move rapidly to gain a holistic and systematic understanding of the multiplicity of driverless-vehicle scenarios and the potential harm that some might contain. The technologies are not an unalloyed good, and governments will need to do more than just be “<a href="https://www.premier.sa.gov.au/stephen-mullighan-news-releases/337-sa-becomes-first-australian-jurisdiction-to-allow-on-road-driverless-car-trials" target="_blank">open for business</a>”.
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/john-stone-226753" target="_blank">John Stone</a>, Senior Lecturer in Transport Planning, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-melbourne-722" target="_blank">University of Melbourne</a>; <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/carey-curtis-96861" target="_blank">Carey Curtis</a>, Professor of City Planning and Transport, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/curtin-university-873" target="_blank">Curtin University</a>; <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/crystal-legacy-18412" target="_blank">Crystal Legacy</a>, Australian Research Council (DECRA) Fellow and Vice Chancellor's Research Fellow, Centre for Urban Research, School of Global, Urban and Social Studies, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/rmit-university-1063" target="_blank">RMIT University</a>, and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/jan-scheurer-342188" target="_blank">Jan Scheurer</a>, Senior Research Fellow, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/curtin-university-873" target="_blank">Curtin University</a>
This article was originally published on <a href="https://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/we-must-plan-the-driverless-city-to-avoid-being-hostage-to-the-technology-revolution-75531" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

rt-jypKJrGt6b

Planning the driverless city to avoid being hostage to the technology revolution

<html><body>
Sydney Metro is delivering eight new metro stations and 4,000 commuter car parking spacesto Sydney’s growing North West region. 
Trains will run every four minutes in the peak – that’s 15 trains an hour so customers won’t need a timetable, they will just turn up and go. 
The Sydney Metro Northwest project, which opens in the first half of next year, is the first stage of Sydney Metro which will be the first fully-automated railway in Australia. 
Sydney Metro Northwest will deliver a reliable public transport service to a region which has the highest car ownership levels per household in NSW. 
Over the coming decades, an extra 200,000 residents will move into Sydney’s North West, taking its population above 600,000, or twice the size of Canberra.
Savills Australia's Ben Nastasi said there will also be a number of upgrades to current stations.
“The first stage includes eight new railway stations from Cudgegong Road Station, Rouse Hill to Cherrybrook and the upgrade of five existing railway stations (Epping, Macquarie University, Macquarie Park, North Ryde and Chatswood) which will open in the first half of 2019.
“Savills NSW Retail Services team will be responsible for sourcing and delivering retail components within and around Sydney Metro Northwest stations which will incorporate a number of retail offerings of varying sizes at each location mentioned below. All retail offerings will be designed to enhance the customer experience and provide convenience for a daily, stress-free commute” he said.
Savills will manage the Expressions of Interest (EOI) campaign for retail opportunities at the following railway station locations which will have between one to four retail opportunities plus vending and ATM facilities:
Cudgegong Road, Rouse Hill, Kellyville, Bella Vista, Norwest, Hills Showground, Castle Hill, Cherrybrook, Macquarie University, Macquarie Park and North Ryde.
“Sydney Metro Northwest are planning to deliver retail offerings that are station specific and complimentary to the broader newly created station precinct and retail already on offer in the immediate area," Nastasi said.
"Local demographics and customer research feedback allows us to provide a more tailored experience for commuters at each station, reflecting the site-specific retail need with usages accommodating their respective catchments.”
An EOI leasing campaign will commence around the first half of April 2018 and will run for eight weeks. 
</body></html>

Transport

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Transport

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News