Geoff Davies' Home Page

Keeping the Dream Alive

With a bit more planning we could create cities that are a lot more people-centred.

The Canberra Times, 23 November 2000

Perhaps we Canberrans don't have to have Gungahlin commuters pitted against O'Connor Ridge NIMBYs, green space defenders against global warming experts, and neighbourhood defenders against developers, politicians and bureaucrats. Perhaps some lateral thinking and a search for good ideas would reveal that we can have a pleasant, green, compact city with efficient transport and safe neighbourhoods.

In other words, perhaps most Canberrans can have most of what we want, if only we can be a little more creative. I'm no town planning expert but I can read, and I've discovered that some exciting ways of putting a city together already exist in the world out there.

Consider this scenario. You live in a pleasant, leafy neighbourhood in which you are within easy walking distance of shops, a primary school, public transport, local health and community services and a modest range of local employment. So far this sounds a bit like Canberra was supposed to be, except many local shops have closed, some schools have been closed, local services and employment are mininal and public transport is very infrequent. But let's continue with the scenario.

The front of your house faces onto a "pedestrian pocket" with a foot path and a cycle path connecting it with other pockets and with the shops and other services. The pedestrian ways and the vehicular access are interfingered within the neighbourhood, so that they don't cross each other. Instead of blank double-garage doors, the front of your house features a porch, with a rocking chair. There are people passing by often and people on some of the porches. Children can play in this space, safe from traffic and weirdos.

The back of your house opens onto a "street", but this street is not a two-lane thoroughfare engineered for 60 kph traffic and double kerb parking regardless of how little traffic it carries. Instead your back street is just wide enough to take a fire truck, it is shaded, and it has some spaces for visitor parking. Besides being cheaper and less alienating, the narrow, shaded lane reduces the absorption and re-radiation of heat in the summer, and this reduces the temperature within your house by six to eight degrees centigrade.

Your car spends a lot of the week in the garage because your spouse works in a nearby professional office unit and you find the buses convenient and economical for getting to your work thirty minutes away. You never have to wait more than fifteen minutes for a bus, even in the middle of the day, and it's cheaper than running a car.

Your house has only a small private yard, but you don't need a big yard because the pedestrian pocket is pleasant and green. Some of your neighbours have vegie plots in a designated area in the middle of the "pocket". They have taken the initiative to spot some fruit trees around too. You not only know almost all of the neighbours in your pocket by name, you see some families often and consider them friends.

Thus although your neighbourhood would be considered to be medium-density townhouse style, you don't think of it that way because it provides you with all you had in your old suburban tract plus quite a lot of convenience, community and safety you didn't have.

This scenario is not just a fantasy. It is a modest amalgam of places that already exist, and it by no means exhausts the potential for better urban living.

For example, the Village Homes development in Davis, California was designed much along these lines. Initially regarded as weird and risky by real estate agents, houses there now fetch premium prices, though the turnover is low. The cost of servicing the blocks was reduced by the higher housing density and smaller paved areas, trading off against the cost of neighbourhood and public amenities. Crime rates are low. Energy bills and greenhouse gas emissions are reduced.

One of the best examples of large-scale urban integration is in the regional Brazilian city of Curitiba. An integrated urban plan was developed in the 1970s, featuring residential and commercial development carefully coordinated with a comprehensive public transport system using buses. The bus system features dedicated roadways, articulated buses and enclosed "tube-stations" that function like train stations - you pay as you enter the station, so that unloading and loading are quick.

Bus ridership is impressively high - about 75% of the city's travelling poplation uses the bus system every day. The careful coordination of building and transport is a crucial reason for this success, and there are many supporting policies. Fares are low, about 60 cents equivalent, and cover costs. Express bus lanes carry peak loads of 20,000 passengers per hour, equivalent to a subway, but the capital cost was about one-hundredth of the subway system built in Sao Paolo, and about one-tenth of a surface rail system. The city provides the infrastructure and the buses are run by private contractors, who are paid per kilometer of route served, rather than per passsenger carried. People choose the buses: Curitiba has the highest car ownership in Brazil, but the lowest drivership, 30% lower petrol consumption per capita and the cleanest air.

The secret of Curitiba's success, which extends to many aspects of the city beyond public transport, is synergy. The secret is to look at how all the city's parts interact and to design the city so that the different functions support each other rather than fighting each other.

Policy can be part of the synergy too. Just as an example, one innovative idea is for employers to charge their employees the full cost of providing parking but to return that charge to employees as a bonus. Employees who don't bring a car to work are not charged for parking, but they can keep the bonus. This creates a financial incentive for employees to use public transport and it saves employers the cost of providing parking. If as well the city were to modestly subsidise the scheme, then it would be investing in higher ridership of public transport, which ultimately is cheaper (for the community as a whole) than the costs of more roads and cars. Markets will work powerfully for us if the incentives are right.

There are many other examples around the world. Portland, Oregon, has created an alive downtown in which people live, work and shop and which combines high densities and pleasant public spaces. Chattanooga, Tennessee is reviving from depression and industrial degradation. Active anti-sprawl movements are mushrooming in the U.S. Other kinds of innovations are happening in Europe. Not all examples are specifically relevant to Canberra of course, but they all show how creative thinking can open up new possibilities.

Instead of just bickering, we Canberrans could search out the best people who can show us how to create a city better than we thought possible, a city so well integrated that it will give us pleasant, safe neighbourhoods, short commutes, efficient transportation when we need it, low noise pollution, air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, a thriving private sector, harmonious citizens' committees and respected politicians.

Well, I suppose I might have got a bit carried away towards the end there.


	Keeping the Dream Alive With a bit more planning we could create cities that are a lot more people-centred. The Canberra Times, 23 November 2000 Perhaps we Canberrans don't have to have Gungahlin commuters pitted against O'Connor Ridge NIMBYs, green space defenders against global warming experts, and neighbourhood defenders against developers, politicians and bureaucrats. Perhaps some lateral thinking and a search for good ideas would reveal that we can have a pleasant, green, compact city with efficient transport and safe neighbourhoods. In other words, perhaps most Canberrans can have most of what we want, if only we can be a little more creative. I'm no town planning expert but I can read, and I've discovered that some exciting ways of putting a city together already exist in the world out there. Consider this scenario. You live in a pleasant, leafy neighbourhood in which you are within easy walking distance of shops, a primary school, public transport, local health and community services and a modest range of local employment. So far this sounds a bit like Canberra was supposed to be, except many local shops have closed, some schools have been closed, local services and employment are mininal and public transport is very infrequent. But let's continue with the scenario. The front of your house faces onto a "pedestrian pocket" with a foot path and a cycle path connecting it with other pockets and with the shops and other services. The pedestrian ways and the vehicular access are interfingered within the neighbourhood, so that they don't cross each other. Instead of blank double-garage doors, the front of your house features a porch, with a rocking chair. There are people passing by often and people on some of the porches. Children can play in this space, safe from traffic and weirdos. The back of your house opens onto a "street", but this street is not a two-lane thoroughfare engineered for 60 kph traffic and double kerb parking regardless of how little traffic it carries. Instead your back street is just wide enough to take a fire truck, it is shaded, and it has some spaces for visitor parking. Besides being cheaper and less alienating, the narrow, shaded lane reduces the absorption and re-radiation of heat in the summer, and this reduces the temperature within your house by six to eight degrees centigrade. Your car spends a lot of the week in the garage because your spouse works in a nearby professional office unit and you find the buses convenient and economical for getting to your work thirty minutes away. You never have to wait more than fifteen minutes for a bus, even in the middle of the day, and it's cheaper than running a car. Your house has only a small private yard, but you don't need a big yard because the pedestrian pocket is pleasant and green. Some of your neighbours have vegie plots in a designated area in the middle of the "pocket". They have taken the initiative to spot some fruit trees around too. You not only know almost all of the neighbours in your pocket by name, you see some families often and consider them friends. Thus although your neighbourhood would be considered to be medium-density townhouse style, you don't think of it that way because it provides you with all you had in your old suburban tract plus quite a lot of convenience, community and safety you didn't have. This scenario is not just a fantasy. It is a modest amalgam of places that already exist, and it by no means exhausts the potential for better urban living. For example, the Village Homes development in Davis, California was designed much along these lines. Initially regarded as weird and risky by real estate agents, houses there now fetch premium prices, though the turnover is low. The cost of servicing the blocks was reduced by the higher housing density and smaller paved areas, trading off against the cost of neighbourhood and public amenities. Crime rates are low. Energy bills and greenhouse gas emissions are reduced. One of the best examples of large-scale urban integration is in the regional Brazilian city of Curitiba. An integrated urban plan was developed in the 1970s, featuring residential and commercial development carefully coordinated with a comprehensive public transport system using buses. The bus system features dedicated roadways, articulated buses and enclosed "tube-stations" that function like train stations - you pay as you enter the station, so that unloading and loading are quick. Bus ridership is impressively high - about 75% of the city's travelling poplation uses the bus system every day. The careful coordination of building and transport is a crucial reason for this success, and there are many supporting policies. Fares are low, about 60 cents equivalent, and cover costs. Express bus lanes carry peak loads of 20,000 passengers per hour, equivalent to a subway, but the capital cost was about one-hundredth of the subway system built in Sao Paolo, and about one-tenth of a surface rail system. The city provides the infrastructure and the buses are run by private contractors, who are paid per kilometer of route served, rather than per passsenger carried. People choose the buses: Curitiba has the highest car ownership in Brazil, but the lowest drivership, 30% lower petrol consumption per capita and the cleanest air. The secret of Curitiba's success, which extends to many aspects of the city beyond public transport, is synergy. The secret is to look at how all the city's parts interact and to design the city so that the different functions support each other rather than fighting each other. Policy can be part of the synergy too. Just as an example, one innovative idea is for employers to charge their employees the full cost of providing parking but to return that charge to employees as a bonus. Employees who don't bring a car to work are not charged for parking, but they can keep the bonus. This creates a financial incentive for employees to use public transport and it saves employers the cost of providing parking. If as well the city were to modestly subsidise the scheme, then it would be investing in higher ridership of public transport, which ultimately is cheaper (for the community as a whole) than the costs of more roads and cars. Markets will work powerfully for us if the incentives are right. There are many other examples around the world. Portland, Oregon, has created an alive downtown in which people live, work and shop and which combines high densities and pleasant public spaces. Chattanooga, Tennessee is reviving from depression and industrial degradation. Active anti-sprawl movements are mushrooming in the U.S. Other kinds of innovations are happening in Europe. Not all examples are specifically relevant to Canberra of course, but they all show how creative thinking can open up new possibilities. Instead of just bickering, we Canberrans could search out the best people who can show us how to create a city better than we thought possible, a city so well integrated that it will give us pleasant, safe neighbourhoods, short commutes, efficient transportation when we need it, low noise pollution, air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, a thriving private sector, harmonious citizens' committees and respected politicians. Well, I suppose I might have got a bit carried away towards the end there.