2023 Melbourne Sessions

Session 4

Forgotten Freeways

Phillip Mallis (City of Port Phillip)

Session: 4

Room: Regent Room

Summary: A general transport development plan began in 1929, and implementation was halted by the great depression. Middle-class car travel was becoming more common in subsequent periods. Purposes shifted from driving for leisure to driving for transport. There was foregrounding of existing problems such as motorists being too demanding, and the wasteful use of the kerbside for car parking. The transport plan of 1969 was implemented exactly as it was designed, and many freeway projects replicated this plan. Marchetti’s constant of 30 minutes is the optimal commute time in history, going back as far as the Neolithic period. The creation of freeways extended the reach of Marchetti’s constant to a wider area, leading to moving the urban growth boundary. This initiated a vicious cycle of disinvestment. In 1971, there began to be infill between fixed rail, demonstrating the impact of freeway construction from the Transport Plan 1969. This action created a legacy of missed investment in public transport, where 70% of people are not within access to rail stations.

Politics, legitimacy, and implementation

James Reynolds

Session: 4

Room: Melbourne Room

Summary: Fundamental issue:

  • Politics, how can we actually get buses to work? VicRoads is not longer around cars (5 years ago)

Limitations:

  • Hard to get funding to redevelop intersections (requirements such as at least 3 deaths in the last years)

Things that we need to improve the situation:

  • Legitimacy & Public consent (study case: Zürich, Curitiba bus)

Pop-ups

  • The use of 'pop-ups' to show people what could be implemented. A low-risk way of trying to implement change. Implementing first, then legitimising it.

  • Yarra Trams pop-up stations for tram stops while being aware that they would go down with the new metro. There are negotiables and non-negotiables that must be clear from the start. Frameworks can be developed. There should be better integration of land and transport in terms of policies to be able to provide a legitimate and good implementation.

How do San Francisco and Seattle run their world-leading kerbside parking?

Harry Barber (PBA Transit Planning)

Session: 4

Room: Portico Room

Summary: These two cities share the same aim and principles, but have a different approach when it comes to kerbside parking.

How do they differ？

Space

  • They started with one flat fee across one big area and broke up the area into large zones

  • 300 bays 10 blocks x 10 blocks 400m x 600m 4 or 5 in the Melbourne CBD

  • Applied a different tariff to each area

  • Still the same footprint after 10 years

  • Some bigger zones have been split

  • Easier to manage, harder to match to variation in activity

Time

  • Seattle starts earlier, longer bands, finishes earlier (although allows exceptions, some areas finish later), Never on a Sunday. Has a seasonal tariff in some parklands.

  • San Francisco: later start, later finish, shorter bands. Recently went to 10 pm finish and meters on all days.

Which is better?

  • We know both systems are effective at preventing overload.