The term 'active transport' wasn't really a thing years ago. But past plans have dealt with walking and cycling. For example 2010's Pedestrian Access Strategy that I reviewed here. And a cycling strategy before that.
The Transport Integration Act 2010 requires that the State Government prepare and periodically revise the transport plan for Victoria. The Auditor-General investigated this in 2021, finding that there was no overall integrated transport plan. When challenged the state government is generally nonchalant, typically (i) defining its agenda of "Big Build" projects as its plan, and (ii) pointing out its series of smaller plans (like for buses, trams and this one for active transport) that it deems as sufficient.
You can read this latest plan here on the Transport Victoria website: https://transport.vic.gov.au/road-and-active-transport/active-transport/victorias-active-transport-plan . Its presentation is about as deadpan as it can be - there's no text or video summary for example. This shows the varying emphasis given on communications and public engagement across the transport portfolio, with a summary below.
Even in the policy and administration space DTP seem to lag others in government. For instance the Auditor General has video summaries of all their reports, such as this recent one on Myki modernisation. As I've said before there are A and B teams in the transport portfolio, with the "Big Build" projects getting all the razzamatazz and resourcing.
So much for communications and profile. Now to content. Following are a few points I found interesting though it is not a detailed analysis.
1. accessibility and inclusion,
2. places and neighbourhoods,
3. integrated transport and safe street improvements,
4. health and wellbeing and
5. climate response
The first few pages give examples of walking and cycling improvements. The executive summary describes how active transport features were embedded in major projects like level crossing removals and the Suburban Rail Loop.
Public transport planners will be interested to know that 400 metres is given as a maximum walking distance to a local bus or tram with 800 metres to a train or express bus (p39).
Page 41 has a strategic cycling corridor map. This is an advance on the Bus and Tram plans that did not have significant map content.
Responses are as follows:
1. Embed active transport as a core component in the planning and delivery of thriving and liveable suburbs and towns.
2a. Consistently adopt the implementation principles of attractive, safe and connected active transport networks to increase the number, diversity and frequency of people using active transport to meet their daily needs.
2b. Neighbourhood active transport networks must be attractive, safe and connected to address key barriers to participation and enable more people to choose walking and riding for daily activities.
3. Prioritise investment by targeting locations across Victoria with the greatest uplift potential to achieve our 25 per cent mode share commitments.
4. We’ll address barriers to active transport through a whole-of-system response that aligns with the five pillars and supports behaviour change
So it's more of an approach with page 67 giving a series of (not quantified) KPIs to measure success towards the 25% by 2030 active transport mode share target. And it's much longer than 2021's 17-page Victoria's Bus Plan. The latter shunted the main detail off to a Bus Reform Implementation Plan that did get prepared but was ultimately rejected by Cabinet in late 2023. What ultimately proved more important for buses was not its modal plan but funding found through processes such as GAIC and the State Budget.
What do stakeholder groups and others think? Two mode-specific stakeholders get mentioned in the plan. Bicycle Network welcomed the plan but urged the government to clarify specific priorities and any timetables for delivery. Victoria Walks said on Facebook that it’s great to see walking recognised as a key part of how we get around. Other opinions on r/MelbourneCycling (Reddit).
Comments from practitioners in the field (such as seen on LinkedIn) saw Victoria's Active Transport Plan as advancing their work and setting down good principles.
Whether its measures get translated into widespread implementation remain to be seen.
Your thoughts are appreciated and can be left below.
3 comments:
Looking at the map of Strategic Cycling Corridors, I can't help but imagine: what if Melbourne's road network was such that the only paved roads were those shown, and all other roads were rutty gravel tracks. How would that shape our desire and ability to drive? Clearly some still would, especially those with off-roading experience or equipment. And others with the wrong vehicle but the right confidence would still paddock bash their way to where they need to go. But it would also be dangerous, and most people would reject driving and seek alternatives.
The Network Effect is so important to travel patterns. No mode has a better network than private road travel, with smooth, paved, direct roads and managed intersections to almost every inch of this state. Meanwhile the best we can do for cycling is a patchy network of maybe one dedicated trail per suburb?
Of course cycling is still seen as inaccessible and scary for the majority of people! Even on these Primary Corridors, the pathways are akin to a single traffic lane to carry bi-directional bike & shared pedestrian traffic. I do think more people are likely to use something like the Yarra Main Trail for a jog than as a commuting route; and so are terrified by bikes continually whipping past at 20-30km/h. They therefore think that cycling is dangerous, and by extension, even walking is dangerous. That's even before we get to the new scapegoats of E-bikes/Scooters!
In terms of implementation, the best approach would be mandating all future road projects (greenfield or reconditioning) must consider active transport and cycling in their designs. They must either adopt and include best-practice cycle lanes for the given carriageway, or justify why the effort is not needed (such as an existing high-quality route on a nearby parallel road). rejecting inclusion for local streets and feeders would not be allowed, and Arterial routes would require higher standards still. Accompany this with a set of standard designs for all road types and carriageway widths and bake it in to a Technical Note in AustRoads to save designers the challenge of understanding best-practice and needing bespoke designs for every 100m of road.
Roads get refreshed every 5-15 years and so within a decade we would have most of the city covered in dedicated infrastructure. The network effects of this would be extremely multiplicative.
Peter I think the Bus Plan was released in 2021 and not 2011 lol :)
Thanks. Fixed.
Post a Comment