Submission on Moreland Integrated Transport StrategyThankyou for the opportunity to comment on the draft Moreland Integrated Transport Strategy (MITS). Transport planning is a neglected part of our local planning policy regime and the gap between the old MITS (1998) and this new strategy of over ten years is one that should never be repeated.
All too often transport planning is ignored or neglected when we make decisions about our local neighbourhoods. Decision makers and planners are seduced by land use, height and other planning issues and come to transport near the end of planning processes. This is not a criticism solely aimed at local processes. It can be said with some authority that the neglect of transport planning lies at the heart of most metropolitan wide planning schemes in Melbourne from the 1954 Planning Scheme right through to Melbourne 2030.
One area where the new MITS needs to be improved is a trigger for reviews of the policy. The action on presenting an annual MITS progress report could be expanded to offer a more explicit mandate to advise council of when a review and update of MITS is required.
Some of the areas that I wish to comment on are the objectives of MITS and Sydney Road.
Objectives of MITS
The draft MITS lists a wide range of key transport challenges which are worthwhile, yet the most important challenge is missing.
MITS ignores the role that transport strategies can play, especially at the local level, in combating social exclusion. Social Inclusion is a key policy priority of the Australian government which has set itself aspirational goals of (1) Reducing Disadvantage, (2) Increasing social, civil and economic participation and (3) a greater voice, combined with greater responsibility.
Scholars and policy makers in Victoria have long understood the role that transport plays in promoting social inclusion. Professor Graeme Currie of Monash University has remarked that,
Public transport provides an essential means of accessibility for people without access to a car. It is an alternative for those struggling with transport poverty. (Currie 2009)
This explicit link between disadvantage and lack of transport choice has been recognised by the Victorian Government in a recent policy statement on a new legislative framework for transport in Victoria, which included a social and economic inclusion objective.
The transport system should provide a means by which people can access social and economic opportunities to support individual and community wellbeing including:
a) minimising barriers to access so that, so far as is possible, the transport system is available to as many people as wish to use it
b) providing tailored infrastructure, services and support for people who find it difficult to use the transport system. (Department of Transport 2009)
The United Kingdom’s Social Exclusion Unit has made transport a key focus of some of its work on promoting social inclusion[1]. According to Janet Stanley…
SEU's transport study drew links between the exclusion of people who do not have access to a car and their needs for education, employment, access to health and other services, food shopping, as well as to sporting, leisure and cultural activities. Barriers to accessibility were seen as centering around:
- the availability and physical accessibility of transport;
- the cost of transport;
- services located in inaccessible places;
- safety and security—fear of crime;
- travel horizons—people on low incomes were found to be less willing to travel to access work than those on higher incomes. (Stanley 2009)
Clearly much of the work from policy makers has been around public transport access, but there is a growing body of literature around areas of transport policy activity which can aid social inclusion which is more relevant to the jurisdictional authority of local government such as:
- promoting walking and introducing walking friendly neighbourhoods
- encouraging cycling
- capital works and promotions to reduce the fear of crime on the public transport system
- local partnerships between transport providers, local government and non government organisations to trial transport projects
- developing and improving community transport services
- promoting urban design and urban form which creates neighbourhoods which promote cheaper, sustainable transport and are connected to services, education and employment opportunities
MITS currently regards climate change as the highest priority key challenge. I believe this to be a unfortunate mistake. The key challenge for Moreland’s communities, especially those most at risk of social exclusion, ought to be to ensure that MITS is part of suite of measures that seeks to promote social inclusion. It is indeed necessary that climate change is addressed as a part of our communities attack on social inclusion[2].
The implication of continuing with a climate change objective is severe. A set of objectives which are focussed on environmental goals as the first order priority leads inevitably to a preference for investment in projects and initiatives which deliver large environmental and economic ‘payoffs’. These investments and projects tend to be in already transport advantaged areas. A social inclusion preference leads to project investments in ‘transport poor’ communities. Ultimately, in the long run, this leads to better environmental outcomes that come from an active and engaged communities.
Moreland should nail its colours to the mast and argue explicitly in favour of social inclusion above all else.
Sydney Road
The greatest failure of MITS is to articulate an agenda for Sydney Road. Sydney Road is the key to transportation in our community. Successive councils and governments have comprehensively failed to grasp the need to make decisions about the purpose of Sydney Road.
Ask any resident and they will tell you Sydney Road does not work. The way forward is for governments of all levels to be clear about what it wants Sydney Road to do. This necessitates choices. As a community we need to decide whether Sydney Road is:
At the moment Sydney Road tries to meet all these functions and fails to serve any of these functions adequately. The time to start making choices has long since past.
- an priority public transport (tram) route
- an arterial through road
- an local road for short local trips
- an location for opportunistic short term parking
- an freight route
- an sustainable transport (cycling/walking) destination and route
As a community we look to council to lead us towards a way forward in dealing with multiple levels of government and numerous actors with an interest in Sydney Road. We could start with a level of agreement that:
Sydney Road is a major public transport route, and that should be the first priority. Sydney Road serves the local community and its amenity (for the community, not necessary economic interests) should be protected.
The majority of Sydney Road motorised trips are local, and local solutions are possible.
Building on that we need a model of engagement that seeks to involve all actors in a mature appreciation that for any sensible reform of Sydney Road the primacy of trams must be protected. This naturally leads us towards reforms to give trams absolute priority in terms of sharing road space. Eventually this must lead to consideration to tram right of way (tram only lanes like on Royal Parade).
Following from this we need a flexible approach to the remaining road space. There will be areas on Sydney Road where consideration of removing parking (where there are abundant off street alternatives) will be necessary. This needs to be grasped and acknowledged.
Understanding these challenges and expressing a willingness to lead, rather then to simply seek the path of least resistance is needed.
Thankyou for the opportunity to comment on the MITS. I look forward to a continuation of the process towards a completed strategy.
[2] See http://www.bsl.org.au/main.asp?PageId=4732 for some commentary on the link between social justice and climate change
No comments:
Post a Comment