Millions on the Move: How GE Film Predicted Sydney's Transport Issues
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
1 like•326 views
This document discusses the history of transportation in cities from the 1800s onward, focusing on the rise of automobiles and decline of rail. It summarizes a film from the 1950s called "GE Millions on the Move" that highlighted the problems of prioritizing cars over public transportation. The document argues that public transportation is more energy efficient, safer, and better for the environment and urban livability. It analyzes Sydney's transportation problems and mistakes in abandoning rail for cars.
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Viewers also liked
Viewers also liked (9)
Similar to Millions on the Move: How GE Film Predicted Sydney's Transport Issues
Similar to Millions on the Move: How GE Film Predicted Sydney's Transport Issues (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Millions on the Move: How GE Film Predicted Sydney's Transport Issues
- 1. Millions on the Move twitter: #SydTransit David Caldwell Monday 2nd April 2012
- 2. What this talk is about • Why rail exists/ why cities exist • The rise of the automobile age: early response • Film: GE Millions on the Move • Review + how it applied to Sydney- case study on light rail • What practical measures are being taken today from these learnings
- 4. Some reasons • Save energy • Reduce emissions • Reduce global warming • Improve energy security • Safer • Faster travel times • Enables cities that you enjoy
- 6. 1908: Model T 1855: First Ford roles off passenger steam production line train in Sydney 1804: First Tram- (Parramatta line) 1962: Last horse drawn Tram in (Britain) Sydney 1800 1850 1900 1950 2000 1898: Electric Trams in Sydney 1825: First passenger steam 1997: First 2nd gen 1926: Electric train (Britain) tram in Sydney Trains Sydney
- 7. Rolling resistance 0.016 0.014 0.012 0.01 0.008 0.006 0.004 0.002 0 car bus/truck tram/ train Source of data: wikipedia
- 8. Traffic “route” choice $ Parking $ Fare $ Operating cost Time Time Discomfort in rain $ Depreciation Unreliability Get kids on way Can read home
- 9. Modal share in Australian Capital Cities Source: Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, Information sheet 31
- 11. I think we have a problem • By mid 1950s it was becoming clear there was a problem • Heavy and light rail infrastructure was aging • People wanted freeways • “little prospect of arresting decline” • “loss of patronage suffered by the Railways”
- 14. Key points • Cars just take too much space- “Malady menacing the cause of American Cities” • New roads, wider roads, more parking make things worse • Transport is about moving people not cars • Convenience and travel time are paramount • Integrated multi-modal system • Dedicated rights of way (trams/ RT/ buses)
- 15. A different perspective • It’s about how public transport benefits the individual and the economy • It’s about the day-to-day pain-points of most people not macro stuff • Were the predictions right? • Did the message work?
- 23. Photo: Bren Barnes via Wikipedia
- 31. Traveller safety: Accidents/ Deaths 1977 Granville disaster 1999 Glenbrook disaster 2003 Waterfall disaster Australians in Afghanistan war (as at 31/12/11) 2011 NSW roads 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
- 33. In conclusion • The promoters of transit were right • Cities depend on rail to exist • Sydney made mistakes like many other world cities • Irrespective of the energy source of cars, the key problems remain • Exclusive rights-of-way are needed to fix transit
- 34. Change requires an agent • That can be free choice now • Or forced by economics (energy crisis/ environmental crisis) when it’s too late and painful • A supportive mandate and Government • But it needs the knowledge and skills of engineers to start overcoming the inertia of the old course
Editor's Notes
- 0:30Twitter
- Progressive reveal1:001. This is a presentation about why passenger rail exists, and why it should continue to exist and flourish.2. I’m going to take a look at how the automobile age affected cities, and how governments, the public transport sector, and particularly rail, responded to the challenges of changing economics and values.3. I’ll show you a 20 minutes film from General Electric, made in 1958 at the height of the US freeway explosion to promote rail4. Finally I’ll look at some examples of what happened in Sydney5. And conclude on some of the lessons we can take from that
- 2:00What is a railway or tramwayWhy do we have themWhy do we make new onesWhy build a railway and not a freeway?(Photos: Clockwise from top left: M4, The Telegraph – Epping-Chatswood, NSW Govt – ANZAC Pde 1958, JR Caldwell – Sydney Light Rail
- 2:30All of these are solid reasons for building and using good transit systems.I think though, outside the transport profession, there’s a tendency to see public transport as something that is positive for the environment in some way, but the specifics of why or how aren’t clear.These brush over what I think is the most fundamental reality: cities as we know them, cities like Sydney, London, Tokyo, and rail transit systems are interdependent for their very existence.This was certainly not clear in the 1950s, and I think it is still not clear to many people today.
- 3:00Let’s just quickly look at the historic reason why transit came into being, why we have jobs.Everyone needs to socialise, work, shop, engage with other peopleSo anything that enables that, anything that makes it easier or cheaper to meet more people, choose from more good or services, that is a good thing. And the economies of scale of transit enabled just that.It started with coaches, but made it’s big break in 1804with the invention of the passenger tram.
- 3:30So we can see here some of the key moments in urban transit, and enablement of modern cities(talk through each step)The first mass produced car, the Model T Ford was a momentous step forward, but its negative impact was not really envisaged. The upside was really clear and apparent but the downside has taken a long time to understand, and I’ll be coming back to this.But why did transit start out on rails, why is it still on rails?So we’re just going to zoom in for a moment onto a key low-level technical fact that answers this:
- 4:45There are two key reasons.The first is rolling resistance. As you can see here, the rolling resistance of a steel wheel on a steel rail is approximately 1/10th of that of a pnumatic-tyred car, and about 1/5th of that of a pnumatic-tyred bus. And though not shown here, about 1/100th of a wooden wagon wheel on a dirt road. So, particularly at low speed, many more people can be carried for the power of one horse, one engine or one motor.The other advantage is that rails are a conductor, and can be used to to return electric traction current, and detect trains for signaling control.Despite this fundamental physical advantage, the tide started to turn against urban passenger rail after the Second World War. The economics of travel started to shift dramatically
- 5:45Here we see a weigh-up of some common driving costs –vs- public transport costsThis is the economics of traveller route choice.The result is expressed in Nash equilibirumWhich effectively mean drivers will take the fastest route, or in more general terms before mode choice, travellers will take a route of lowest Genralised Cost.Each of these elements are part of the break-down of Generalised Cost, and have some economic value to the traveller.I’m sure most people here have experienced traffic equilibrium first hand. The day you decide it is too hard or too expensive to park at the station, and instead walk or catch a bus, that is you weighing up generalised costs, maintaining equilibrium.What was happening in the 50’s though is these costs: operating cost and depreciation (cost of a car) were falling dramatically.This is also coupled with a “tragedy of the commons” positive feedback loop, where the economy of the “commons” (in this case free roads) incentivises exploitation at the expense of other, less demanding uses (e.g. trams, bus or bicycle).So car costs were falling dramatically, and simultaneously bus and tram travel time and unreliability were increasing dramatically.
- 6:45The outcome is as expected.This is a graph of Modal share in Australian cities from 1948 to 2008, and projected to 2017. It was compiled by the Department of Infrastructure, Transport and Local Government.The Blue line is car share of passenger kilomertres, the grey line rail is rail share of passenger kilometres.It starkly illustrates the transition in 1951, when the proportion of passenger kilometres undertaken by rail fell below automobiles. And it never looked back. We can see from the 40s a steep decline in rail that continued until the fuel crisis of the late 1970s.Rail has been bumping along at about 8% of Australian metropolitan passenger kilometres since.Information sheet 31 URL: http://www.bitre.gov.au/publications/2009/files/is_031.pdf
- 7:15This is in San Francisco in 1960, 20 years after the closure of the east bay railway which had used the lower deck of the bridge.This is quite a jam for the time, but is reflective of what was starting to happen the world over.Building more freeways, and creating more parking seemed to be the answer. Even London City, now often seen as an example of a transit-oriented city, mandated that parking be built for employees in new City buidings during the post-war 1950s reconstruction. It seemed to be the future.San Francisco- Bay Bridge From Oakland looking towards Goat Island/ 1960 (source General Electric file photo)
- 8:15Rail was clearly in decline. This is captured well by the views of transport leaders in Sydney, I’ll read you two quotes:“Since the last war, due to the influence of the motor car, there has been a steady decline in patronage on public transport in almost every country in the world and it is evident that there is little prospect of arresting the decline or satisfactorily reducing the operating costs if fixed rail transport with its limitations and unavoidable delays is to be retained” WL Carter, Chief Traffic Manager, Department of Govt Transport NSW (5/12/1958) – “Report on Plan Submitted by Mr R Caldwell For the Provision of a Rapid Transit System in the Eastern & South Eastern Suburbs “There has been over a number of years a loss of patronage suffered by the Railways which has been gained by other forms of transport. Any trend of this nature must be arrested and, if possible, reversed if an economic balance of transport functions in the community is to be achieved”- NSWGR, Present and Future Peak Period Rail Travellers (1964)Both of these quotes reflect a dire outlook for rail in sydney, but the second at least suggests something needs to be done. There was dissent from the prevailing utopian view of the motor age.Decline both in heavy rail and trams, but trams were hit hardest. Population in inner Sydney declined from 884k to 793k between 1947 and 1961 [1] as people chased the ¼ acre dream.1964 -> 1976 Total barrier counts for Sydney’s City Circle declined from 379k to 321k [2][1] NSWGR – Present and Future Peak Period Rail Travellers (1964)[2] NSWGR – City Circle Barrier Counts 1964, 1966, 1969, 1973 and NSWPTC City Circle Barrier Counts 1976 Summary Report State Planning and Environmental Commission
- 8:45No where was this dissent stronger than in the UITP. This is the cover of a UITP promotion following the Naples Congress in 1955. At this conference, the Chief Engineer of the Copenhagen Tramways gave the dire prediction that motor car congestion was going to render street transit unworkable.Many cities had shut down their tram systems, curtailed rail systems, and were starting to experience the impact of a car-centric transport approach.The pioneering innovator in Transit technology, General Electric, like the UITP wanted to make clear why car-centric cities would not work
- A story which represents a largely unknown view of the 1950sA first person narrative which appeals to an audience leaving transit for cars.This film was brought to Australia by my late father in 1962, and was subsequently used by the Melbourne Tramways as part of their effort to provide a defense to Melbourne City Councilors who wanted the trams shut down.It runs for 20 minutes, I’ve cut 7mins off the original.
- So they knew cities were heading for a massive problem
- We know about global warming and the environmental aspect today, but as compelling as it is (and I’ll return to it), it is not a physical impediment to our every day lives, as bad transport is. Were the fears of car-based transportation justified?And did the message work?
- It turned out they were right, but it also turned out that in the United States, at the time few people cared. This is downtown LA in 1964.The upside of the car was so great, that the loss of many cities didn’t matter by comparison. But it was very much a case of lobster being slowly brought to the boil.Things initially seemed more comfortable than ever before, and only by imperceptibly small increments did cities like Los Angeles and Detroit slowly get destroyed over a 40 year period. Only in the last 10 years has the cost become clear; cities like detroit suffering advanced urban decayAerial view of downtown Los Angeles c~1964 courtesy of General Electric
- On the ground we can see the impact of sprawling freeways on cities themselves. Collapsed land value and urban decay.Detroit Central station , the Lee Plaza HotelCentral Cincinnati, Ohio- boarded up windows, vacant lots. On a little aside- of all the stuff covered so far, is it fixed if we have zero emissions cars? Electric cars alone are clearly not the answer. Energy source has nothing to do with these problems. Had cars been electric, the outcome would be the same.
- So that’s what happened with transport in the States. What happened in Sydney?
- these are Sydney trams in the 1950s: We were slower to follow the US trendsI’m going to use trams as an example, because although heavy rail was in stasis (in absolute passenger number terms)Light rail patronage was in sharp decline.Increasing automobile traffic was clagging up the streets as people left tams for their shiny new cars.Sydney, like most American and many European cities, decided to remove its tram system, even in the South Eastern suburbs where much of it was in dedicated corridors.I just want to briefly visualise and clarify why that was a mistakeAnd ask, what has be learnt?
- Here wee can seeMedium-to high density housingA transit centre mallElectric traction, steel wheel on steel railAnd a dedicated right of way with few crossings- essential to cutting travel timea single driver commanding a capacity of 160 seats (compared with 40 in a modern bus)This was Sydney, ANZAC Parade in the 1950sThis photo contains many of the features of “new-urbanism”, 40 years before new-urbanism was invented.When my late father, a transport planner, returned from Ohio in 1962 with the film we just saw, and armed with the experiences of the United States first hand (which was very unusual at the time), he was not greeted with this scene
- But rather this, or the ashes of it.Probably not the best Government PR ever, this is the trams we just saw, being burned by the Department of Transport at Randwick in 1961.And as a rail engineer it is difficult not to feel some sense of pathos:It really is a confronting and bizarre moment in Sydney’s history. Confronting but not tragic.
- Ladies and gentlemen, this is the tragedy. Again ANZAC pde in 2012. This was proposed by NSW Transport in 1958 as “greater convenience than is practicable with fixed rail transport”.We see a bus stuck in traffic, and cars parked on the former tram lines. Where 160 seated passengers once passed every 5 minutes, there are now 8 parked, empty cars.50 years in technological advancement, and about double the travel time to the CBD.I think it is clear that this was not the right move.Our precious time, space, energy, resources all squandered for, as the film put it, “a solution which is no solution at all”Who here would say that this obvious?I think it is obvious. Cities like Shanghai and Singapore know its obvious.Fortunately the electorate and the new NSW Government agrees. This does need to change right across Sydney.So lesson learned right, it’s obvious we need to allocate relatively modest space or land to support efficient transport
- And that has happened, a little bit.Here we see what the 1989 Sydney Regional Environmental Plan gazetted as transit corridors in Sydney’s west. And these are a great step forward.But closer to the CBD, and since 1989 there have been problems.
- This is a report in the Sydney Morning Herald of a protest in 1992 against ongoing sale of Sydney’s transit corridors.But hey, even that was 20 years ago. We’ve moved on right?
- Back to ANZAC pde again, about 2km south of the Sydney CBD.The blue lines are former tram corridors, presumably earmarked for the new Government’s proposal.And yet, as we sit here, the red area, formerly a marshaling area, is being prepared for new high density residential buildings.State Transit sold it, and Randwick Council approved its redevelopment only last year.Even as our new Government steers the ship to a new course, momentum is still resulting in physical actions that run directly contrary to that new course.Now this is probably manifest in many ways- councils providing new parking permits on corridors, new intersections or roads civil works on the corridors, etc. I don’t know where all the inertia is but this is an egregious example. There is a lot of work to be done.
- I want to pause for a moment to reflect. All of the content presented so far is purely about the enablement of cities-About 3 units of parking spaces for ever 1 unit of actual commerce or doing stuffAbout 1,200 in autos versus 40,000 in rapid transit in a single laneThe need for transit spaceBut of course there are a plethora of other compelling reasons why an 8% metropolitan rail mode share is not good enough and I’ll quickly skim through them.
- Energy security. OPEC is maxed out, and as soon as there is a whiff of trouble- in this case suspected oil pipe attach in Saudi- prices jump. Markets are volatile and demand is increasing.It is hard to imagine what would happen if there were a similar or worse supply disruption of fuel to that experienced in the 70s
- These are scenes in the US from the 73 and 79 fuel crises. We know it’s possible because it has happened before.
- Air pollutionEconomics pushing oil harvesting harder:Fracking in Pennsylvania contaminating ground waterTar sands mining in Alberta CanadaThis is all business as usual in the car-dependent worldSources:Fracking in Pensylvania, US from: The Guardian, Dec 2011 Fracking may cause ground water pollutionSource: Peter Essick- National Geographic, March 2009
- And then we have environmental disastersThere are a lot of these conveniently ignored threats which I can’t go into hereBut here is a particularly interesting one that gets forgotten.
- The human cost. We can see hereThe 1977 Granville rail disasterThe Glenbrook disasterThe Waterfall disasterAustralian deaths in the Afghanistan war This comparison is not entirely fair because it is not norrmalised, but what I am trying to emphasize is the emotional, political and media response.It is particularly interesting that though events like fatal rail accidents enter the public conscience as disasters- which they areRoad deaths somehow escape this stigma. We don’t consider the over 1,000 people who died on Australian roads last year a disaster, when I think in fact it is.Why is this? Why are we so keen to soften and make excuses for the damage to cities, society, the environment and ourselves?I think this question was answered in seminal 1963 UK report “Traffic in Towns”, I’ll just read you part of the closing paragraph of Sir Geoffrey Crowther’s foreword:“We are nourishing at immense cost a monster of great potential destructiveness. And yet we love him dearly. Regarded in its collective aspect as “the traffic problem” the motor car is clearly a menace which can spoil our civilisation. But translated into terms of the particular vehicle that stands in our garage…, we regard it as one of our most treasured possessions or dearest ambitions, an immense convenience, an expander of the dimensions of life, an instrument of emancipation, a symbol of the modern age.”What extraordinarily evocative words for a Government reportDespite the congestion, the economic cost, the environmental cost, the human cost, we still love carsRoad death stats: http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/roadsafety/downloads/crashstats2010.pdf
- No where is this clearer than in popular culture.Can you imagine any of these movies based around trains or tram instead of cars?There is a certain natural X-factor in the private car, which makes it all the more important to clearly articulate the case for transit.
- Read through conclusionHere we all have an understanding of why rail is important, and it is in the transport engineering profession where the technical knowledge resides to enable what I’ve been talking about. But outside this building there are all manner of politics, vested interests, and simple unawareness.
- Sydney is now heading in the right direction and the onus is on the people who understand the need for rail (that’s us) to articulate that need to a general audience, and to build a long-term and bipartisan resolve to improve transportation.I hope I’ve provided you with some useful history and experiences that help drive a call to action.