(Transport Canada)
I approach transport planning and policy from a communications and environmental background. It’s been challenging entering this subject with little knowledge or experience in the area. I expect my learning curve to be quite steep, and with transport becoming a more pressing issue as Australian cities rapidly expand, it will be increasingly relevant as I pursue future work. I think above all, however, is that like everyone else, I am a commuter - of both long distance car drives and shorter (but non lycra-clad) bike rides.
The concept of equity in transport is certainly an enduring one. Throughout time, transport planning decisions have had significant and diverse equity impacts. While I depend on my car every day and thoroughly enjoy the freedom it gives me to travel, this is certainly not the case for everyone. It was insightful to think about how car dependency or forced car ownership impacts many people's lives, particularly those who don't readily have access to private transport which limits employment opportunities and access to important services.With such vast impacts, there is certainly a greater need for transport equity analysis to anticipate and address these problems.
The nexus between land use and transport planning has been an important factor outlined in this week’s discussions and material. This is a particular challenge I see for Melbourne’s east who experience high levels of car ownership, with almost 70 percent of workers leaving the region for work each day. Dispersion and lower density residential development and commercial activity has created poor access and proximity to jobs and leisure activities, with no mode choice. Suburbs have been designed and facilities provided on the basis of households having access to a motor vehicle, reinforcing the dependency on cars (forced car ownership scenario) as the dominant means of transport. Congestion into the city is significant and these mega commutes can be anywhere between 45 minutes up to 3.5 hours. This job imbalance bares a major financial burden, particularly for vulnerable groups who live in one area, but need to conduct activities in another.
The concept of equity in transport is certainly an enduring one. Throughout time, transport planning decisions have had significant and diverse equity impacts. While I depend on my car every day and thoroughly enjoy the freedom it gives me to travel, this is certainly not the case for everyone. It was insightful to think about how car dependency or forced car ownership impacts many people's lives, particularly those who don't readily have access to private transport which limits employment opportunities and access to important services.With such vast impacts, there is certainly a greater need for transport equity analysis to anticipate and address these problems.
The nexus between land use and transport planning has been an important factor outlined in this week’s discussions and material. This is a particular challenge I see for Melbourne’s east who experience high levels of car ownership, with almost 70 percent of workers leaving the region for work each day. Dispersion and lower density residential development and commercial activity has created poor access and proximity to jobs and leisure activities, with no mode choice. Suburbs have been designed and facilities provided on the basis of households having access to a motor vehicle, reinforcing the dependency on cars (forced car ownership scenario) as the dominant means of transport. Congestion into the city is significant and these mega commutes can be anywhere between 45 minutes up to 3.5 hours. This job imbalance bares a major financial burden, particularly for vulnerable groups who live in one area, but need to conduct activities in another.
The solution of integrated transport planning (density, mix, connectivity and location of activities) by eliminating distance travelled between residential areas, services and workplaces certainly needs to be a focus of future policy decisions. The example of urban planning adopted in Curitiba was a wonderful and workable example of urban development based on a preference for public transport and accessibility designed through structural axes and an integration of mode types. Connecting districts with bus terminals and express lanes, integrating streets and bike paths, and reserving land for residences near work hubs ensures efficiency, availability and accessibility to all members of the city.
Elizabeth,
ReplyDeleteEven if you don't have an academic background in this field you certainly have very relevant life experience as a user of the transport system. The situation you describe in Melbourne's outer eastern suburbs is played out in may suburbs round the world. I was pleased to see that you drew inspiration from the Curitiba case. I think it is great to see a city from a developing country show what can be achieved with good leadership and prudent management.
You have clearly put a good deal of thought into this opening post. I look forward to seeing what insight you draw in future posts. You may care to look back over the assignment notes to include some personal reflections of your learning journey in future posts.
Geoff