This document discusses developing a state plan for sustainable transport in Victoria. It outlines high-level sustainability goals of economic competitiveness, social inclusion, environmental protection, and public engagement. Critical land transport issues are identified as economic productivity, congestion, climate change, and others. The document then examines Victoria's transport greenhouse gas emissions and options to reduce them. It argues for a long-term, integrated strategic focus on land use and transport to achieve sustainability goals.

1. Sustainable transport in Victoria: developing,
financing and implementing a state plan
Institute of Transport and Logistics Studies | Faculty of Economics and Business
Adjunct Professor John Stanley

2. High level generic sustainability goals
› Outcomes
- Economic competitiveness (e.g. support agglomeration
economies, manage congestion)
- Social inclusion (support capabilities)
- Ecological footprint (part of a process of recognizing future
generations and rights of other species)
- Process
- Giving people a genuine say in matters that impact them (up
the top end of the engagement ladder, not tokenism)
- Sustainable transport
- Is transport that makes the most cost-effective contribution to
these social goals
2

3. Critical land transport issues
›Economic productivity
›Congestion
›Climate change
›Social exclusion
›Energy security/peak oil
›Road safety
›Obesity
3

4. The future of Victoria’s transport GHG
emissions: BAV analysis in 2009
4
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
Emissions (Mt CO2e)
Business as usual
5% below 2000 by 2020 (CPRS)
80% below 2000 by 2050
Proposed initiatives and external factors

5. One way for 2020 Aust land transport GHG
emissions to be 20% < 2000 (from 2007)
5
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
2005 2010 2015 2020
Emissions (Mt CO2e)
Reduce truck emissions intensity
by 25%
Reduce freight transport energy
demand by 20%
Reduce car emissions intensity
by 23%
Increase urban car occupancy
from 1.4 to 1.5
Increase urban public transport
mode share from 9% to 20%
Shift 5% of urban car trips to
walking/cycling
Reduce urban travel by 5%

6. How are we going on GHG?
› Stabilised, helped by declining
per capita car use in our cities
› PT mode share increasing well in
Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth
› But result is well short of
requirements
› And our transport plans do not
target cutting GHG emissions
› Conclusion: neither the previous
nor current national or Victorian
Governments have been
seriously interested in cutting
land transport GHG emissions
6
http://chartingtransport.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/australia‐
transport‐emissions‐22.png

7. Sustainable transport: based on MPS
experience
› Bipartisan support vital but difficult in our highly
politicized environment
› The high level sustainability goals mean you must
start with land use
- With a vision of the kind of region (or city) you want
› Use transport infrastructure and services to help get
you there
› This needs an integrated, long term strategic focus
(25-40 years)
- Which is pursued over the long term, like in Vancouver
› Linked to short to medium term funded
implementation plans (5-10 years)
- Draft PlanMelbourne has missed this vital linkage
- Vancouver does it well
7

8. State
and
Land use/transport integration (Stopher and Stanley
2014, Fig 16.1)

9. Particularize your high level goals with spice, for
regional distinctiveness: e.g. Melbourne
› What we want to achieve (valued
outcomes)
- Principle 1: A distinctive Melbourne
- Principle 2: A globally connected and
competitive city
- Principle 3: Social and economic participation
- Principle 4: Strong communities
- Principle 5: Environmental resilience
9

10. Set land use directions first, to support these
outcomes/goals (Melbourne example)
 More compact city (e.g. Hard urban boundary)
 Slow growth on fringe and encourage more growth in
middle suburbs (inc. Precinct scale urban renewal
 Focus on Transit Oriented development
 Promoting agglomeration economies in the central city
and in a small number of selected urban nodes
 Improving accessibility for outer urban residents
 Strengthening Melbourne’s and Victoria’s competitive
advantages in freight and logistics, tourism and in trade-
exposed business
 Support strong communities/neighbourhoods
 Improving the integration between city and regions
 Better managing growth in the peri urban area
 Most of these directions will scale down to the larger
regional centres
10

11. Generic urban land transport policy
directions for sustainability
Encourage efficient settlement patterns
Land use/transport integration to support a polycentric/more compact city and reduce sprawl
Reduce the demand for travel (trip lengths rather than trips)
Land use planning (density, co-location)
Maximise walking and cycling
Mode shift to low carbon modes
Cars > Public transport, walking and cycling
Trucks > Rail
Improve vehicle utilisation
Higher car occupancy
More efficient freight movements
Improve mobility options for transport disadvantaged people
Minimum PT service levels
More compact city
Reduce vehicle emissions intensity
More efficient vehicles (the largest single contributor – mandatory fuel economy standards required)
Smaller vehicles
Alternative fuels (problematic at present)
Intelligent transport systems
Better driving practices
11

12. Place-based transport directions
(some Melbourne examples)
› Centre/inner core
- PT capacity, walk, cycle
› Middle suburbs
- Circumferential movement, esp. serving nodes/clusters
- Means good arterial road capacity, SmartBus networks,
freight corridors, NE link
› Outer areas
- Overcome backlogs
- Connect to jobs-rich areas
› Everywhere = support local accessibility for strong
neighbourhoods
- Weak in MPS
12

13. Example: JS SmartBus proposals not in
PlanMelbourne (short to medium term)
13

14. Regional issues
› Support land use directions, e.g.
- Access to jobs, education, services, friends, recreational and
cultural opportunities and the like
- Similar need for corridor/nodal approach (connect to Melbourne,
regional centres, town centres, etc)
- Support regional/local resource/tourism/other business
opportunities
› Larger focus on social inclusion and local public
transport
- Need for new delivery models
• Such as the Warrnambool social enterprise model we have helped
establish
14

15. Regional social exclusion: higher than
Melbourne
15
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
W
arrnam
bool
G
reaterDandenong
M
elbourne
G
eelong
Hobart
Canberra
Kms/pc
PT service kms comparison 2004

16. State plan development
› We need long term strategies linked to short to medium term
implementation plans
› Intergovernmental agreements required up front to set out
process and obligations
› Local government at regional level an equal partner with the
state (MPA a poor model here)
› Canberra must be engaged
› Multi-stakeholder Regional Advisory Committees to produce
Draft Plans with options, with State support (like UK LEPs)
› Draft plans debated and final regional plans prepared by RACs
› State level process for resolving conflicts and maximising value
for the State
› Keep the politicians and their advisers at arm’s length until
decision time, to increase chance of bipartisanship
16

17. Key challenges
› Power sharing between levels of government
› Empowering the community to get involved
› Establishing and empowering Regional Advisory
Committees
› Being prepared to commit to 5-10 year implementation
plans
› Taking tough decisions on funding, esp. road pricing reform
› Undertaking a genuinely integrated study
› Keeping the politicians at arm’s length until decision time
› Vancouver is a good model
- Metro Vancouver (GVRD) and Translink
17