The evolution of Canberra’s transport system since Griffin, and its future in the next hundred years

Cameron Gordon Associate Professor of Economics

University of Canberra Faculty of Business Government and Law

Senior Visiting Fellow

University of New South Wales – Canberra

Principal Investigator UTRC Region 2 (New York)

Basic Motivation l What is the critical mass of population size and density, economic activity and financial base to allow for (1) robust transit and (2) ‘mode shift’ to make transit a significantly used or even greater used mode than automobiles? l This paper examines transport provision Canberra over the past 100 years and considers what we may have learned then which can determine whether the city can achieve (1) and (2) above and how it might do it over the next hundred years.

A vision

l The Australian government sponsored an international competition for design of the new city in 1911. l The winner of that competition was an American architect named Walter Burley Griffin, a former collaborator of Frank Lloyd Wright, who came up with a design with streets organized along radial arterials and an artificial lake separating north and south sides of the city.

l  Often overlooked are Griffin’s implicit and explicit thoughts about transport. l  Unlike many urban paradigms, even those of his mentor Wright, Griffin considered how transport in the new city should evolve along with urban expansion and growth. l  The modular approach of building 'suburbs’, designed to be relatively self-sustaining, with residents supplied by a set of local 'shops' for essentials, is an extraordinary example of organic limitation of ‘trip generation’ which, in turns, controls demands for transport. l  As the city expanded, these suburbs would be connected by a tram which Griffin laid out rights-of-way and even a service yard.

A car capital from its inception? l  Griffin’s original plans were modified and

upended in many ways during Canberra’s first decades.

l  In terms of transport elements, the Great Depression marked the end of the building of the tram which Griffin had planned for.

l  The privations of the Depression, the War and the initially small scale of the city put the role of the automobile on the backburner for the first half of Canberra’s first century.

l  So where did the notion of the ACT as a car-centred burg come from and is it true?

Canberra population 1933-1961

l  Year Males Females Total l  1933 3,839 3,486 7,325 l  1947 8,121 7,035 15,156 l  1954 15,076 13,201 28,277 l  1957 18,949 16,878 35,273 l  1961 29,463 26,296 56,449

The ACT in 1961 l  56,500 people l  19,000 motor vehicles l  Much of the workforce still housed in hostels

and government housing close to workplaces. l  No tram yet but a population and workforce

clearly mostly non-car dependent. l  But rapid growth (from a small base) in the past

and anticipated rapid growth going forward. l  This is a clear crossroads for the role of the car

in the ACT (no pun intended)

Canberra: 1962

Source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/canberrahouse/2546716061/sizes/o/in/set-72157605402510546/

Cars or transit? l  It is clear that in 1961 transport planning and

investment was going to be a major issue. l  One could see two sets of transport policy choices. l  (1) How much car versus non-car (walking,

bicycling, transit) – the ‘modal split’ l  (2) For transit what kind? Bus or rail? l  The Canberra City Omnibus Service, operated by

the Federal Capital Commission, began in 1923 to transport workers building the city and later on operated four buses in ‘Inner Canberra’ (Cooper 1982). The experience local thus far was with bus not rail.

The initial winner – the auto l  The NCDC’s first plan for urban growth

projected population of 500,000, with a downtown surrounded by new towns and served by freeways.

l  To lessen traffic congestion in the centre, these freeways would bypass downtown.

l  Rail was not considered (although rights of way for it along roads were proposed) and transit would be provided by bus.

l  Other plans and studies would arise during the 1960s and the first half of the 1970s but this basic model would hold in transport thinking.

Buses: growth and decline at the same time

l  Even with this automobile bias, total number bus trips grew throughout the 1960s and 1970s.

l  However bus trips per capita fell by close to 30% between 1960 and 1973 as population growth outstripped bus provision.

l  When the ABS asked about mode of trip for Journey to Work (JTW) for the first time in 1976, Canberra was at the bottom (top) for transit (auto) share across the seven capital cities.

l  For a variety of reasons the bus transit picture improved considerably for around 15 years between 1975 and 1990.

l  Partly this was spurred by a brief pro-transit interregnum of transit subsidy and investment by the Whitlam government.

l  Partly, at the margins, investments in cycle and pedestrian ways encouraged active transport choices (probably locally facilitated by Griffin’s suburb-shops paradigm).

l  But a big reason was substantial increases in bus coverage and frequency and other service improvements in the ACT. Per capita usage doubled between 1973 and 1985 and JTW transit share rose from 8.9% to 9.9% between 1976 and 1981.

A (bus) transit renaissance 1975-90

1961-2011 bus boardings in Canberra

(source: Mees 2012)

The bus breaks down l  As the previous data show, this brief

renaissance was not to last. l  By 2011 bus boardings, both total and per

capita, were down substantially from their peaks and, in per capita usage, even from prior lows.

l  JTW shares by transit fell substantially and public subsidies for bus journeys, always growing, grew more, but for less effective service.

l  It must be noted that even the ‘renaissance’ has transit usage providing a small minority of overall trips.

l  Population –

l  urban share -

l  urban density (per ha) –

l  PT patronage (million)

l  Trips per capita

l  PT share of work trips

l  Subsidy/trip ($Au, 2011)

l  Cost-recovery

l  Canberra 1985 Canberra 2011

l  250,000 365,000

l  99% 99%

l  10.1 10.8

l  24.0 16.7

l  96 46

l  11% 7.9%

l  2.21 5.85

l  25% 17% l  (source: Mees, 2012)

Bus subsidies in the ACT 1961-2011

The next hundred years l  If we look at the last hundred years, we see a clear

inflection point around 50 years ago where a relatively small and (compared to today) compact city relied relatively little on the car had a choice about dominant travel mode and chose the car.

l  Buses were (and are) the only transit alternative but this did not automatically mean that therefore transit usage was destined for permanent decline.

l  Indeed good and frequent service made a relatively big positive difference in patterns over a relatively short period.

l  So what now?

One view: a permanent car city l  Some say that Canberra is now largely past the

point of no return in terms of automobile dependence.

l  Yes, current plans aim for large increases in transit mode share but this still leaves around 75% of JTW using automobiles twenty years from now.

l  The city is now a lot larger and its footprint is a lot bigger than back in 1961 where a transit-oriented city was much more feasible.

l  Densification and a planned light rail are hopeful augurs but not yet systematic and transit, even by bus, requires substantial public expenditure.

One alternative view: a mode shift portfolio

l  However the last hundred years also offers some clues as to how to grow into a transit-oriented city.

l  One important point: we may need that whole century. This is NOT a short-term goal and should not be treated as such.

l  Another important point: unless there is a radical technological/environmental/political/economic shift (all possible but not to be counted on), autos will remain a significant mode of travel – but hopefully not a majority mode.

But first a word about …density l In general the threshold for a viable light rail is seen as 9 dwellings per acre (equivalent to around 2223 people per square kilometre assuming 4 people per dwelling). l This is as compared to a 4 dwellings per acre (988 people per square kilometre) threshold for traditional bus service (Zhang 2009). l A key argument against heavy investment in transit is that Canberra is not now and never will be ‘dense’ enough to support anything but bus and even bus provision might be questionable. l This is not, however, as self-evident as it seems.

Density pitfalls? l  Two very important points about density. l 1. Density of what? These are population density measures but as or more important might be economic activity measures. As an extreme example, a very dense population where all leisure and work takes place at home would not generate sufficient trips to support much transit. l  2. Density of where? Often transit planning studies take existing boundaries to measure density. What is really important is density along the proposed service area. l The key concept: ridership density, not population density.

Is the ACT a good LRT candidate, for example?

l  The official population of the ACT in 2006 was 333,940. l  Its average population density at the time was 142.1 people per square kilometre? l  Does this 'stack up' for a light rail? l Using average population density, Canberra is clearly well below the minimum benchmarks for light rail or even Bus Rapid Transit (BRT).

But take a closer look l According to ABS estimates for 2006, a majority of Canberra suburbs have population densities greater than 1,000 people per square kilometre (the actual count is 58). l More than a few, such as Braddon, Turner, Page, Scullin, and Banks, have densities greater than 2,000, sometimes well above 2,000. (Kingston is just short with 1975.3). Palmerston has the highest population density in the ACT at 3038.3 (ABS 2008). l This is not an argument for or against light rail but simply a point that one must drill down into density figures before drawing firm conclusions about transit viability.

Now…back to the future! l  So what should Canberra be doing to organise itself to be transit, rather than

auto-dependent? The ‘portfolio’ of change:

l  (1) demand-driven (customer-driven) bus service – design routes based on frequent reliable service where people want to travel; amenities, stations, timetabling that make it easy for people to use.

l  (2) true ‘transit-oriented’ development – not just buildings along Northbourne but genuine transit hubs (the ‘shops’ as a Griffin precursor?)

l  (3) sensible active transport infrastructure and investment – cycle routes that don’t end suddenly and that ferry people safely and quickly to where they want to go and provide for needs at the destination, e.g. secure parking and shower facilities.

l  (4) priced parking – everywhere

l  (5) priced roads – with toll revenues plowed back into transit

l  (6) PPPs – for ‘profitable’ segments and with appropriate development packages

l  (7) transit and active transport marketing – auto manufacturers do it and so can transit operators.

l  (8) structural transit – BRT at least in corridors. But consider the cost-benefit.