That's an issue because older people snaffled homes in many of the choice suburbs years ago (when they were cheaper relative to incomes) and are tending to remain in place. That leaves only limited choices, often only a CBD area apartment or a less accessible outer suburb, for younger people just starting out and those on average incomes or less, including the key workers needed to keep Melbourne going.
Maximising service to the many
I have been particularly interested in the relationship between housing and public transport access.
It has been repeatedly shown and mapped that Melbourne has done poorly at bringing people, jobs and high-quality (ie frequent 7 day) public transport together despite (unusually) retaining both its legacy train and tram networks. Doubly so for people on low incomes, where Melbourne ties with Brisbane for the wooden spoon of the large Australian capitals. For evidence, see reports and maps prepared by (1) Climate Council, (2) Philip Mallis and (3) my own interactive network frequency maps.
To fix this we need to
(a) bring frequent all-week public transport nearer more people and jobs, or
(b) bring more people and jobs near all-week frequent public transport
Doing both at once would speed progress. Especially since all-week frequent public transport is extraordinarily scarce in Melbourne, with under 5% of Melburnians having it. This is because the current government has built transport infrastructure but done much less with service, with metropolitan public transport service per capita actually falling on our busiest modes.
Transport near the people
This sidelining of service has left Melbourne with 30 to 40 minute gaps on much of our rail, bus and even tram networks at times many are still travelling, while Sydney is powering ahead with more 15, 10 or even 5 minute frequencies across more areas. There's also implications for transit-convenient development since outside the CBD and surrounds almost no suburban site (not even a big one like Box Hill) features true all week frequent service on even one line.
(a) bring frequent all-week public transport nearer more people and jobs, or
(b) bring more people and jobs near all-week frequent public transport
Doing both at once would speed progress. Especially since all-week frequent public transport is extraordinarily scarce in Melbourne, with under 5% of Melburnians having it. This is because the current government has built transport infrastructure but done much less with service, with metropolitan public transport service per capita actually falling on our busiest modes.
Transport near the people
This sidelining of service has left Melbourne with 30 to 40 minute gaps on much of our rail, bus and even tram networks at times many are still travelling, while Sydney is powering ahead with more 15, 10 or even 5 minute frequencies across more areas. There's also implications for transit-convenient development since outside the CBD and surrounds almost no suburban site (not even a big one like Box Hill) features true all week frequent service on even one line.
People near the transport
The other element is clustering jobs and housing around the transit infrastructure and service. A bit like the 20-year old Melbourne 2030 plan but with more emphasis on housing affordability this time around.
Higher density needs all week frequent public transport in multiple directions so that redeveloped precincts are as accessible as they can be and that space-inefficient car use becomes an option rather than a necessity. I discussed cost-effective network needs for six proposed social housing priority areas in 2020 and ten housing priority areas in 2023.
Could there be more established areas earmarked for denser housing? At least as far as planning goes the answer is yes, and I'll get on to today's announcement from the premier later. First a bit about current activity centre planning.
Material on specific and already announced activity centres is on the VPA's website. There's also activity centre policy guidance on planning.vic.gov.au .
When the government puts planning and transport matters out for public consultation they will often use the engage.vic.gov.au site. Like they did for the housing activity centres.
Submissions for the Activity Centres Program closed on September 29, 2024. It's after then but they will often leave some information up. That's worth reading this to understand how they select the housing precincts.
As explained on the current Engage Activity Centres Program page, it's a three step process. The first step is used to determine a 'density index' for each centre which is like an overarching target. The next two steps are more to do with the internal structure of each centre (what they call 'precinct typologies'). For broad network planning we are only interested in Step One.
Probably of greatest interest are the factors considered when determining density. There is a matrix comprising two main factors: These are (a) access to jobs and (b) access to fixed route public transport (ie trains or trams). Precincts near a lot of both get earmarked for high density, as does anywhere within 2.5km of the CBD, provided it has at least one tram line.
The matrix is reproduced below (click for improved clarity):
Mapping to density is mostly on a 1 to 10 scale with a dense major activity centre rating off the scale. It is tempting to surmise that the 1 to 10 rating is roughly the number of building storeys but this is not stated.
What aspects of public transport aren't considered? Service frequency is one. Being on an infrequent train line rates higher (up to 6) than the highest scenario for buses (4). You can justify this on the basis of trains' superior capacity, speed and isolation from traffic delays. However a single tram route (5) ranks higher than multiple frequent bus routes (4). Although there's only a handful of the latter corridors in Melbourne so this is relatively unimportant.
This work confirms the low status in which the Principal Public Transport Network (PPTN) is held as a planning tool. This is possibly wise as I think the existing PPTN has problems with what is in and what is out.
However I do think that our densest centres need fast and frequent transport in multiple directions, not just one. A factor considering this would be good. Failure to consider this may result in excessive density being built in near-CBD but mostly inaccessible precincts like Fishermans Bend and parts of Docklands. A look at SNAMUTS maps shows how much accessibility falls on the CBD fringes with somewhere like Waterfront City having terrible connectivity despite having a tram route due to bad geometry (which is expensive to overcome).
As Jarrett Walker says, 'be on the way'. You really can't (or shouldn't) built much at Fishermans Bend without Metro 2 to the west. A stub tram route won't do much more than the current frequent Route 235 bus. If you don't want to build Metro 2 yet then defer Fishermans Bend in favour of 'on the way' precincts like Arden, Footscray, Sunshine and Caulfield which will be on Metro 1.
What would an activity centre density allocation look like in practice using the PT infrastructure/jobs matrix set out? The currently available Engage link shows it for the first announced centres.
Higher density needs all week frequent public transport in multiple directions so that redeveloped precincts are as accessible as they can be and that space-inefficient car use becomes an option rather than a necessity. I discussed cost-effective network needs for six proposed social housing priority areas in 2020 and ten housing priority areas in 2023.
Could there be more established areas earmarked for denser housing? At least as far as planning goes the answer is yes, and I'll get on to today's announcement from the premier later. First a bit about current activity centre planning.
Material on specific and already announced activity centres is on the VPA's website. There's also activity centre policy guidance on planning.vic.gov.au .
When the government puts planning and transport matters out for public consultation they will often use the engage.vic.gov.au site. Like they did for the housing activity centres.
Submissions for the Activity Centres Program closed on September 29, 2024. It's after then but they will often leave some information up. That's worth reading this to understand how they select the housing precincts.
As explained on the current Engage Activity Centres Program page, it's a three step process. The first step is used to determine a 'density index' for each centre which is like an overarching target. The next two steps are more to do with the internal structure of each centre (what they call 'precinct typologies'). For broad network planning we are only interested in Step One.
Probably of greatest interest are the factors considered when determining density. There is a matrix comprising two main factors: These are (a) access to jobs and (b) access to fixed route public transport (ie trains or trams). Precincts near a lot of both get earmarked for high density, as does anywhere within 2.5km of the CBD, provided it has at least one tram line.
The matrix is reproduced below (click for improved clarity):
What aspects of public transport aren't considered? Service frequency is one. Being on an infrequent train line rates higher (up to 6) than the highest scenario for buses (4). You can justify this on the basis of trains' superior capacity, speed and isolation from traffic delays. However a single tram route (5) ranks higher than multiple frequent bus routes (4). Although there's only a handful of the latter corridors in Melbourne so this is relatively unimportant.
This work confirms the low status in which the Principal Public Transport Network (PPTN) is held as a planning tool. This is possibly wise as I think the existing PPTN has problems with what is in and what is out.
However I do think that our densest centres need fast and frequent transport in multiple directions, not just one. A factor considering this would be good. Failure to consider this may result in excessive density being built in near-CBD but mostly inaccessible precincts like Fishermans Bend and parts of Docklands. A look at SNAMUTS maps shows how much accessibility falls on the CBD fringes with somewhere like Waterfront City having terrible connectivity despite having a tram route due to bad geometry (which is expensive to overcome).
As Jarrett Walker says, 'be on the way'. You really can't (or shouldn't) built much at Fishermans Bend without Metro 2 to the west. A stub tram route won't do much more than the current frequent Route 235 bus. If you don't want to build Metro 2 yet then defer Fishermans Bend in favour of 'on the way' precincts like Arden, Footscray, Sunshine and Caulfield which will be on Metro 1.
What would an activity centre density allocation look like in practice using the PT infrastructure/jobs matrix set out? The currently available Engage link shows it for the first announced centres.
Broadmeadows, Epping, Ringwood and Frankston ranks as Metropolitan Activity Centres, so are earmarked for the highest densities. All are rail-based centres. However the first two (Craigieburn and Mernda lines) lack frequent trains outside peak hours. Ringwood and Frankston do have 7 day frequent train service during most daylight hours, with weekend mornings being the main exception. However, as with even the best served public transport in Melbourne, evening service drops to every 20 - 30 minutes. This lags Sydney and is not consistent with Metropolitan Activity Centres growing as food, arts and entertainment hubs, especially when bus services from the surrounds are also considered.
The next tier down, scoring 6 or 7 (storeys?) is occupied by Preston (High St), Camberwell Junction and Moorabbin. All are at least somewhat near to rail with Camberwell also being a tram hub. The abovementioned service frequency issues apply for these centres as well.
Finally there is a lower cluster (scoring between 3 and 4) for North Essendon, Niddrie-Keilor Road and Chadstone. The first two have trams while Chadstone (scoring 4) has buses only. While the 4 score might reflect existing activity and the large number of bus routes, it's a case of quantity over quality; not a single bus route in Chadstone runs much after 9pm Sunday nor has gaps of less than 30 minutes on weekends. Doncaster, which has much better bus services, oddly is not in this first crop of centres.
Finally there is a lower cluster (scoring between 3 and 4) for North Essendon, Niddrie-Keilor Road and Chadstone. The first two have trams while Chadstone (scoring 4) has buses only. While the 4 score might reflect existing activity and the large number of bus routes, it's a case of quantity over quality; not a single bus route in Chadstone runs much after 9pm Sunday nor has gaps of less than 30 minutes on weekends. Doncaster, which has much better bus services, oddly is not in this first crop of centres.
Today's announcement
This morning the premier announced (via Facebook) that they were 'helping build more homes' close to 50 train stations and tram stops in Melbourne.
The Age today said that 50 areas were being rezoned to allow higher densities.
25 centres, mostly in the east and south-east, were named today. By line these are:
Sandringham: North Brighton, Middle Brighton, Hampton, Sandringham
Frankston: Toorak, Hawksburn, Armadale, Malvern
Pakenham/Cranbourne: Carnegie, Murrumbeena, Hughesdale, Oakleigh
Glen Waverley: Tooronga, Gardiner, Darling
Belgrave/Lilydale: Hawthorn, Glenferrie, Auburn, Blackburn, Nunawading, Mitcham
Sunbury: Middle Footscray, West Footscray, Tottenham
Route 58 tram: Toorak Village
If you prefer maps to lists, The Age published the Rail Corridor Activity Centres map here.
Overall there is a skew towards inner and south-eastern suburbs, ie those with some of Melbourne's highest property prices, access to jobs and best public transport connectivity. The first 25 also appears to be a subset of the Major Activity Centre list. Part of a long-term plan up to 2051.
All locations are near a weekday off-peak service every 15 minutes or better (either existing or likely post Metro Tunnel). Furthermore, 9 listed locations have a 10 minute 7 day service. That could double provided Metro Tunnel delivers the goods re frequency on (a) Sunbury line, (b) Sandringham/cross-city line and there is (c) a revised greenfields Belgrave/Lilydale timetable implemented shortly afterwards.
In short the location choices are about as good as possible when it comes to locating near frequent rail transport. Explicitly linking land use with service frequency, as stated in the premier and minister's media release, is excellent. Hopefully there will be more attention to cross-suburban transport, notably bus operating hours and frequencies to make car-free living both possible and convenient at many of these locations.
The article says the government has promised to consult councils and residents on height limits. This August 30 2024 archived version of the Activity Centre Density Allocation map may give some indication on recent thinking regarding potential relative development intensity at some centres.
As a caution, it's worth noting that a government plan for zoning density doesn't automatically make new homes appear. It also has to be an economic proposition for developers to build and buyers (or tenants) to move in to. The relatively subdued prices of established homes in Melbourne at the moment might make some think twice about developing. Factors like interest rates, economic sentiment, taxation policy, immigration and more are also important in shaping what gets built where.
25 centres, mostly in the east and south-east, were named today. By line these are:
Sandringham: North Brighton, Middle Brighton, Hampton, Sandringham
Frankston: Toorak, Hawksburn, Armadale, Malvern
Pakenham/Cranbourne: Carnegie, Murrumbeena, Hughesdale, Oakleigh
Glen Waverley: Tooronga, Gardiner, Darling
Belgrave/Lilydale: Hawthorn, Glenferrie, Auburn, Blackburn, Nunawading, Mitcham
Sunbury: Middle Footscray, West Footscray, Tottenham
Route 58 tram: Toorak Village
If you prefer maps to lists, The Age published the Rail Corridor Activity Centres map here.
Overall there is a skew towards inner and south-eastern suburbs, ie those with some of Melbourne's highest property prices, access to jobs and best public transport connectivity. The first 25 also appears to be a subset of the Major Activity Centre list. Part of a long-term plan up to 2051.
All locations are near a weekday off-peak service every 15 minutes or better (either existing or likely post Metro Tunnel). Furthermore, 9 listed locations have a 10 minute 7 day service. That could double provided Metro Tunnel delivers the goods re frequency on (a) Sunbury line, (b) Sandringham/cross-city line and there is (c) a revised greenfields Belgrave/Lilydale timetable implemented shortly afterwards.
In short the location choices are about as good as possible when it comes to locating near frequent rail transport. Explicitly linking land use with service frequency, as stated in the premier and minister's media release, is excellent. Hopefully there will be more attention to cross-suburban transport, notably bus operating hours and frequencies to make car-free living both possible and convenient at many of these locations.
The article says the government has promised to consult councils and residents on height limits. This August 30 2024 archived version of the Activity Centre Density Allocation map may give some indication on recent thinking regarding potential relative development intensity at some centres.
As a caution, it's worth noting that a government plan for zoning density doesn't automatically make new homes appear. It also has to be an economic proposition for developers to build and buyers (or tenants) to move in to. The relatively subdued prices of established homes in Melbourne at the moment might make some think twice about developing. Factors like interest rates, economic sentiment, taxation policy, immigration and more are also important in shaping what gets built where.
We'll know where the remaining 25 activity centres will be later this year according to the article.
No comments:
Post a Comment