If Manhattan's Central Park was in Brisbane...... Click to move it elsewhere

Assorted links from around the traps:

• If Manhattan’s Central Park were in Brisbane, this is how much of Beautiful Brisbane it would occupy. Dwarfs New Farm Park and the Botanical Gardens but Brisbane has some very big parks just a little further out e.g. Mt Cootha. Here’s how much of Sydney’s inner west it would take up and here’s Perth, Melbourne and Adelaide (which all stand up well). And quick off the mark, here’s Canberra from reader Henry Sherrell. Stuart Sinclair shows Newcastle.

• A ‘ghost bike’ in Brisbane in memory of Richard Pollett who was run over and killed by a cement truck while riding on Moggill Rd. Warning: the comments on that article could induce depression.

• If only all streets looked like these. 15 really charming side streets from across the world. Unfortunately, amplified sound is the mortal enemy of intimate living (and natural ventilation) and the ally of double glazing.

• 26 everyday occurences in Australia. Public transport gets a (dishonourable) mention.

• Getting it right from the start with good planning. Famous authors’ handwritten outlines, plans and mindmaps for their masterworks.

• The geography of hate  – interactive map of the incidence of homophobic and racist terms in tweets by US county. Here’s how mentions of  ’fag’ is distributed.

• OECD data on income, poverty and inequality for all member states. Here’s an interactive graphic for looking at each country, and here’s the data itself.

• Urbis says Melbourne’s CBD parking tax hasn’t reduced traffic congestion and harms CBD businesses and retailers. I reckon it’s way too low to reduce demand – it’s real purpose is to recoup some of the negative externalities of driving in the CBD.

• World’s top ten beach cities. Barcelona’s No. 1 but Sydney only No. 8? And the ten most ‘redneck’ cities in the US. Atlanta is No. 1. They’re predominantly from the south but there’s a California city on the list.

• Great short video explaining why Americans are driving less. The New York Times says young Americans are leading the trend to less driving. At Gawker, Leah Beckman says millennials are all: Fu*k driving.

• Wilkinson Eyre Architects design chosen for Crown’s proposed hotel and casino at Barangaroo. Nice design Mr Packer but please reserve the ‘icon’ references for the Opera House. Oh, and the government hasn’t decided if you can have a casino yet. Phillip Cox says, “It’s just bullshit to me”.

• Google has released time-lapse satellite photos of Australia showing the expansion of urban development in Sydney, Canberra and Melbourne over 1984-2012.

• What is the typical Australian’s income in 2013? ”83% of people think they’re in the middle four deciles of the income distribution, when of course only 40% are in the middle.”

• The Greens Greg Barber used FOI to get access to a bundle of e-mails between consultants and government agencies working on the East-West Link. There’s more redaction than substance. I reckon the Linking Melbourne Authority should now be called the Linking Melbourne Redactory.

• Cyclists aren’t special and they shouldn’t play by their own rules says Sarah Goodyear. Oliver Burkeman at The Guardian agrees – he says Bikes are mainstream now. It’s time to start stopping at red lights.

• The Washington Post asks why aren’t Americans moving anymore? (referring to interstate moves). Matt Yglesias says it’s an ongoing mystery but there’d be less unemployment if people moved more.

• Architectural Record is soliciting votes for the ten buildings that most shaped US culture. PBS has made a documentary on the subject and released its list of the buildings “that have changed the way Americans live, work and play”. Robie House is No. 4, Seagram building No. 7, and Disney Concert Hall No. 10.

• Let’s stop calling people NIMBYs.

• VicRoad’s proposed design for Chapel St bike lane in Melbourne. I don’t think so. What were they thinking?

• Map: more than half of humanity lives inside this circle.

• The day the music didn’t die. Planning for live music in Brisbane.

• Some of my best friends are germs. The “interior wilderness” of our bodies.

• There’s a backlash in NYC against the new bikeshare scheme from residents and business owners objecting to the siting of stations. Tom Vanderbilt isn’t worried – he reckons it’s a good thing.

East-West Link Stage 1 overview animation

I’ve written a few articles critical of the decision by the Victorian government and Tony Abbott to preference the East-West Link freeway over the Melbourne Metro rail tunnel (e.g. see here, here and here).

There’re doubts about the benefits of the road and it’s still at an early stage in Infrastructure Australia’s evaluation process.

But in this front page splash in yesterday’s paper, Warning on high tunnel toll: East-West link investors must charge $10.50 a trip to make a profit, The Age identifes a new worry.

The paper reports that according to an international study, tolls will “have to be three times the current cost of an average trip on CityLink for the project’s investors to make a profit”. It goes on:

The international study, led by University College London, has analysed numerous transport “mega-projects”, including Australian road and rail projects, and found that for investors to get a return on the east-west tunnel, motorists would have to be charged a minimum $10.50 to use it.

That all sounds pretty damning – international experts have looked at the East-West tunnel, compared it to similar projects worldwide, and found it wanting.

A minimum $10.50 toll for what is a relatively short section of freeway would likely be a strong deterrent to users and consequently undermine the economic case for the project.

I have to say though that I’m sceptical about this proposition. I suspect this is one of those cases where politics has gotten the better of objectivity.

The first thing to note is that the “international study” by “University College London” cited in the story didn’t examine the proposed East-West Link as The Age’s report seems to imply.

It looked at existing tollways around the world (including Melbourne’s CityLink and Sydney’s Cross City Tunnel).

The provenance of the “minimum $10.50″ toll isn’t a comprehensive international study, but something far more modest.

It comes from an opinion piece, East-West tunnel plan looms as a road to ruin, that also appeared in The Age yesterday in the Comment section. It’s written by two Melbourne University academics, Sophie Sturup and Nicholas Low.

I’m more worried though about the methodology used in the opinion piece. Here in the authors’ own words is how they arrived at the $10.50 figure:

At a projected construction cost of just under three times the cost of CityLink, the tolls for the tunnel will need to be at least three times the cost of an average trip on CityLink if investors are to make a similar return. If an average trip on CityLink costs $3.50 (half the trip cap cost), then assuming similar traffic volumes for the new tunnel, tolls will need to start at $10.50 for a car trip of a couple of kilometres.

So if the new road costs three times what City Link cost to build, the toll will be three times City Link’s current toll, right? That seems a simplistic approach for an opinion piece, let alone a sound basis for a front page story.

For starters, it can’t just be taken for granted that the average toll in revenue terms is the same thing as the mid-price point of the tariff regime.

The obvious flaw though is the unrealistic – and unreasonable – assumption that the East-West Link would be fully funded by the private sector.

Following disappointing patronage outcomes on a number of recent projects like Brisbane’s Clem 7 and Airport Link tunnels, it’s now clear that investors are no longer prepared to carry all the risk on road projects.

Governments know they will have to put in a large proportion of the funding for future urban freeways. That’s common knowledge – indeed, Tony Abbott has already promised $1.5 billion in Commonwealth funding for the East-West Link if the Coalition is elected in September (e.g. see here, here and here)!

The Napthine government will have to put in at least as much and possibly considerably more, depending on the final cost.

The toll regime for the East-West Link will be shaped primarily by what drivers are prepared to pay and by the proportion of the required funding the private sector can be induced to invest in the project.

The rest of the funding will be have to be met almost entirely by government, either directly or by availability payments (CityLink and EastLink might be required to make a contribution too, to reflect benefits to them from the new road).

The East-West Link looks like a questionable project on the information that’s available, but elevating dubious arguments to front page status looks more like propoganda than real news.

The Age should be promoting well-informed debate on the merits (or lack thereof) of the East-West Link.

: Potential connections to bridge gaps in the Sydney motorway network by 2031. Source: WestConnex - Sydney's next motorway priority

The government was criticised by some talking heads last night for not taking the opportunity in the budget to give greater emphasis to the differences between Labor values and Coalition values.

One area, though, where there’s now a clear distinction between the two contenders is public transport. The budget surprised with funding for three rail projects:

• $0.71 billion for the Brisbane Cross River Rail.
• $3.0 billion for the Melbourne Metro.
• $0.5 billion for Perth Light Rail (or construction of a new rail link to the city’s airport).

This creates a strong contrast with the Coalition. Tony Abbott has already made it very clear he thinks the Commonwealth’s role in cities should be limited to funding roads, not public transport.

He’s promised $1.5 billion for Melbourne’s proposed East-West Link road tunnel and another $1.5 billion for Sydney’s proposed WestConnex freeway, but he says there’s no historical basis for Commonwealth involvement in funding urban rail lines.

The promises on both sides smack loudly of political strategy, not good public policy.

The East-West Link and WestConnex are both at an early stage in Infrastructure Australia’s four stage priority list. Their Benefit Cost Ratios are uncertain and in the case of the former is thought by many observers to be negative.

The Melbourne Metro and Cross River Rail projects look a lot more responsible. They are both in Infrastructure Australia’s final Ready to Proceed category and both have positive Benefit Cost Ratios (1.3).

However the status of the two alternative Perth projects is unclear – neither of them is on Infrastructure Australia’s priority list. The fact that Commonwealth funding is provided on an ‘either/or’ basis for two entirely separate projects suggests to my jaded eyes that politics is the main driver of the decision.

The Government’s funding for the rail projects is on a matching basis with the States and is spread over a number of years. It’s unlikely much of the funding would be paid down by 2016-17, so it’s not clear that it’s even budgeted in the practical sense. It looks like smoke and mirrors.

The private sector is also assumed to be a major contributor of capital. Budget Paper No 1 has a lot to say about the importance of private sector involvement in infrastructure provision, e.g.

The Government is also looking to utilise new funding and financing arrangements to help attract private sector involvement in the Melbourne Metro and Brisbane Cross River Rail ‘mega projects’.

Investors would most likely be involved via “availability payments”. This approach minimises government borrowings but also minimises the risk borne by investors.

The result is taxpayers pay more – probably much more – than they would if governments borrowed directly. It appears the Commonwealth is prepared to fund half the availability payments, effectively boosting it’s offer in the case of Melbourne Metro to half the total $9 billion cost.

The promised funding presents the Premiers with some interesting choices.

For example, Dennis Napthine says both the $6-$8 billion East-West Link and the $9 billion Melbourne Metro are the State’s highest transport infrastructure priorities.

He’s already committed State funding to the East-West Link from next year’s budget but only provided a mere $10 million for more planning work on Melbourne Metro. He says the 9 km rail line isn’t ready to proceed yet because the business case hasn’t been finalised.

That’s a doubtful assertion that might be tested by the Commonwealth’s offer. As well as $3 billion in Commonwealth funding and $3 billion from private investors, the Metro would require Mr Napthine to find $3 billion from State sources.

Last night’s budget also provides funding for major urban road projects:

• $0.72 billion to upgrade and widen Brisbane’s Gateway North Motorway
• $0.52 billion to complete the widening of Melbourne’s M80 Ring Road.
• $1.8 billion for WestConnex.
• $0.4 billion to build a tunnel linking the F3 with the M2.
• $0.45 billion to upgrade South Road, Adelaide.

There’s nothing for the East-West Link though, presumably sharpening the choice for Melburnians between Labor (rail) and the Coalition (road).

The triumph of politics over policy is stark. None of the new road projects are in Infrastructure Australia’s Ready to Proceed category, or even the preceding Threshold category.

So far as Infrastructure Australia is concerned they still require finalisation of a detailed business case i.e. it hasn’t yet been established that they’re sensible projects.

The government’s offer for WestConnex is bigger than Mr Abbott’s $1.5 billion promise, but comes with the same undesirable condition that it connects to the CBD.

It also requires that “new tolls are not imposed on existing un‑tolled roads”. That’s unfortunate because it reduces funding options and makes the introduction of road pricing down the track harder.

Of course this might all be academic. The general consensus of the talking heads on TV and radio last night was that come 14 September the Gillard government will be gone for all money.

I don’t know what the Premiers of Victoria and Qld can do between now and September to lock in Commonwealth funding for rail projects and it must be tempting to haggle over the size of the Commonwealth contribution.

But I expect they’d each put their state’s interest ahead of federal politicking. They have an opportunity to pursue funding for these projects with both Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott. An opportunity like this isn’t likely to come round again any time soon.

Brisbane’s Cross River Rail and Melbourne’s Metro are good projects and warrant funding, but they look like a lucky break and there’s the suspicion the funding is an apparition. Spending on transport infrastructure in the budget is driven more by smart politics than good policy.

Given that the budget required some hard decisions, I’d dared to hope that indexation of the petrol excise might’ve been reinstated. It’s been stuck at 38.1 cents since John Howard abolished indexation in 2001. It would otherwise be around 50 cents now and bringing in more revenue. No such luck.

I didn’t have the luxury of participating in yesterday’s budget lock-up, so I’ll have a closer look at the budget papers over the next day or two to see what else there might be that’s of direct relevance to urban policy.

Update: More budget detail:

Nation-building infrastructure

Projects announced in 2013-14 budget

U.S. national average accessibility to jobs over time (1990-2010). Note that only a small % of commutes are longer than 60 minutes. Source: Center for Transportation Studies, Uni of Minnesota

Measures of traffic congestion in US cities typically focus on travel delay. Big dense cities like New York, San Francisco and Los Angeles invariably score poorly.

A new study by the University of Minnesota’s Center for Transportation Studies looks instead at accessibility, which measures “the ease of reaching desired destinations”.

Accessibility recognises that how close origins and destinations are to each other is at least as important for journey times as the speed of travel between them.

Lead researcher, Professor David Levinson, says:

There are two ways for cities to improve accessibility—by making transportation faster and more direct or increasing the density of activities, such as locating jobs closer together and closer to workers

Professor Levinson counted the number of jobs that could be reached within a range of driving times by the average worker resident in the 51 largest US metropolitan areas (see first exhibit).

He established an overall ranking of the 51 metro areas based on giving closer jobs a higher weight than more distant jobs. The most accessible metropolitan areas in order are (see second exhibit):

Los Angeles, San Francisco, New York, Chicago, Minneapolis, San Jose, Washington, Boston, Dallas, and Houston.

The average Angeleno can only reach 4.9% of metro jobs within 10 minutes driving time, but that very quick trip nevertheless provides access to a massive 237,203 jobs. This is only bettered by San Jose (237,929) and San Francisco (283,549).

In contrast, the average commuter in New Orleans can reach 32.8% of metropolitan jobs within a 10 minute drive. However that provides access to considerably fewer jobs (146,521).

With a longer 30 minute commute, the average Angeleno can drive to a mind-boggling 2,458,111 jobs. That’s more than five times the number (446,087) that the average New Orleanean can get to within the same driving time.

Although Los Angeles has high levels of traffic congestion (the TTI ranks it second behind Washington DC), workers can get to a large number of jobs within a reasonable time frame because both residential and employment densities are relatively high.

Indeed, Los Angeles has the second highest average population density of any metropolitan area in the US. And it’s also the second densest when measured by weighted density (New York is the densest US metro on both metrics).

While Los Angeles doesn’t have the high peak density of the centres of metros like New York and San Francisco, it doesn’t have as many residents living in very low density suburbs either. Activities are “spread out” at relatively high densities and connected by freeways.

Professor Levinson’s study also found that while the average American living in the top 51 cities could reach fewer jobs in 2011 than in 1990 in the same time, he or she could reach more today than in 2000 (see first exhibit). Average commute speeds were also faster in 2011 than in 2000 and about the same as they were in 1990.

Perhaps the most important takeaway from the study is that high levels of accessibility to jobs by car can be achieved in both dense and dispersed urban forms.

Six of the top ten most accessible cities are also among the top ten densest cities in the US. Moreover, seven are in the top ten for traffic congestion, as measured by the TTI’s Urban Mobility Report 2012.

In terms of the policy implications of his work, Prof Levinson concludes:

There are many ways to make transportation faster, some more viable than others. Adding capacity at bottlenecks, managing traffic flow effectively, and implementing peak road-user fees all would tend to increase road speeds. Adding connections in the transportation network would reduce the distances travellers must cover to reach their destinations.

On the land-use side, adding density depends on both market forces and public policy. In some cases market forces are constrained in the density they would provide, either due to zoning restrictions (height restrictions, maximum floor-area ratios, and so on) or minimum parking requirements. Similarly, the market responds to incentives. The tax code, which taxes buildings and land at equal rates, discourages construction

The Center hasn’t published data on other modes, or at least not yet. Since cars account for well over 90% of all motorised commutes in the US that’s not surprising.

Click - Rank of the accessibility to jobs by automobile for 51 U.S. metropolitan areas in 2010. Source: Center for Transportation Studies, Uni of Minnesota

One of three designs for proposed Crown hotel/casino in Barangaroo - this one by AS+GG

Crown Limited released the three competing architectural proposals for its proposed hotel and casino complex in Sydney’s former dockyards, Barangaroo, at the beginning of the month.

The company has grand ambitions for its hotel on “the world’s most famous harbour”. Its overriding objective “is to introduce a landmark waterfront building to Sydney that is timeless and iconic in nature”.

The Executive Chairman of Crown, James Packer, says the designs show the hotel will be “the most iconic building constructed in this city since the Opera House”.

Paul Keating, the former Chair of the Design excellence review panel, has previously argued the building needs to be “a diva on the stage of Barangaroo”.

Crown initially sought expressions of interest from eight international architects (none are Australian). This was reduced to four although one, Renzo Piano, withdrew.

The remaining three contenders (click through to see their detailed proposals) are Adrian Smith and Gordon Gill Architecture (AS+GG), Kohn Pedersen Fox Associates (KOPF), and Wilkinson Eyre Architect (WEA).

Barangaroo has a fraught history as Phillip Vivian, a director of Australian architects Bates Smart, explains in Barangaroo: the towers and the fury. These latest proposals have stimulated controversy too.

In a letter published in the Sydney Morning Herald on May 6, the President of the NSW Chapter of the Australian Institute of Architects, Joe Agius, neatly summarises many of the key worries about the way Barangaroo has been managed.

He notes that the Crown plan is one of two unsolicited proposals for hotel/casino developments in Sydney (the other is from the current casino operator, Echo Entertainment).

He charges successive governments with allowing private interests to gain control of the planning of Barangaroo rather than protecting the public interest.

This is occurring again: encroachment on areas previously public, renegotiation of heights, questionable uses, disregard for previous master plans, no public consultation, and proposals so unconscious of their context they may as well be in Dubai.

He goes on to say that James Packer’s comparison of the three designs “with the Sydney Opera House – a public cultural building that is highly responsive to its context – is both ludicrous and offensive”.

There’s a lot going on in this debate. For the moment, I want to make three points about the idea that an internationally “iconic” building is an achievable and worthwhile objective for Barangaroo.

My first point is that none of these proposals actually is iconic. They’re certainly quite different to anything else on Sydney’s skyline, but in international terms they’re run-of-the mill.

A look at cities like Dubai and Shanghai, or the growing number of cities with buildings by the likes of Zaha Hadid and other “starchitects”, reveals that these three simply aren’t attention-grabbers.

You might love them or hate them but there’s no doubting they don’t stand out in the international context like the Sydney Opera House or the Guggenheim Bilbao did in their day.

This leads to my second point, which is that the chances of deliberately creating an international architectural icon are microscopic.

There seems to be a popular view that given an enthusiastic client, all that’s required to manufacture an icon is the right site, the right architect and some degree of freedom from regulatory and financial constraints.

But winning iconic status is very hard to come by. There are now literally hundreds of visually arresting, unconventional, stand-out, left-field, zany, over-the-top, etc, buildings across the world.

Frank Gehry alone has already completed 65 buildings and has another 20 in progress (including one in Sydney), virtually all of them relatively unconventional in appearance.

And even if a building is truly spectacular and fabulous, translating an astonishing visual presence into iconic status is by no means assured.

What makes a building iconic is a mysterious and highly uncertain process that’s hard to unpick in hindsight. It’s much, much harder to create apriori.

Eero Sarineen’s design for the TWA terminal at JFK airport pre-dated the Sydney Opera House, yet it hasn’t garnered anything like the same popular attention. The odds of deliberately creating an icon are likely much longer than the odds of winning lotto.

The third point is that Sydney has in any event defied the odds and already has arguably the world’s most impressive architectural icon in the Sydney Opera House. New iconic buildings often come with compromises, so it’s pertinent to acknowledge that Sydney doesn’t need another one to put itself on the world map.

This is a very important and prominent site, but an international architectural icon is unnecessary and almost certainly unattainable.

What Sydney needs on a site like this is an architecturally outstanding building. It doesn’t follow that it has to try and be in-your-face. Some qualities that I’d see characterising the design would be “elegance”, “lightness”, “sympathy” and “gracefulness”.

I don’t agree though with Phillip Agius’s inference that none of these buildings fit their context whereas the Opera House is “highly responsive” to its context. I think describing Packer’s attempt to draw a parallel with the Opera House as  ”offensive” and “ludicrous” is excessive, at least in relation to the AS+GG proposal.

The firm’s design might look like an aeroplane wing or an H.R. Giger monster to some, but it also looks a lot like a sail too (as with any building, that’ll depend on the angle).

That was always the claim made for the Opera House – that it fit its context because the shells evoked sailing boats on the harbour.

I think Utzon’s original design owes a lot more to Saarinen’s work than it does to harbour sail boats – I suspect there was a bit of smart marketing there.

One of three proposed designs for Crown hotel/casino in Barangaroo - this one by WEA

Cyclists from above, Utrecht The Netherlands. Source: NL Cycling

The winners of the two copies of Where to Ride provided by Bicycling Australia for the current competition are Sian Dart and Jane Lodge.

They answered the question – How many bicycles in the one household is just too bloody many?

They didn’t win because of their answers (as sensible as they are) but because the random number generator at random.org picked them out for the prizes.

If you’re looking for an answer to this challenging and important question, go the comments on the competition page. Sian reckons one per cyclist in the household plus a spare. Jane says she’s already got seven but it’s not enough!

Martin Mankowski responded by asking his own question: “how long is a piece of string”? Martin actually knows the answer – it’s at least 17 bicycles:

You need:

• A commuter for work
• 2 for road cycling (one training bike, 1 race bike)
• A touring bike for long distances
• A time trial bike for triathlons
• A mountain bike for any off road stuff
• A fixie for when you ride to any hipster areas to have a latte or cider
• A penny farthing for any novelty events
• A unicycle in case you join the circus
• A tandem bike to ride with your partner (whilst humming the obligatory ‘Pushbike Song’ by the mixtures!)
• A BMX so you can give your mates a ‘dink’
• An old bike with no chain you can leave in the front yard to rust and have the grass grow over
• A bike with spokie dokies and a flag pole you can ride to school for bike ed
• A $15,000 super light weight carbon bike you never ride cause you’re too scared you’ll crash it
• One of those push bikes with a little motor that have a top speed of walking pace, for when you cant be bothered pushing into that 60km/h head wind.
• The bike with the dodgy seat and slow leak tyre that you give to friends to ride when they stupidly come over without their bike.
• The bike that weighs a tonne and so you never use, but keep just because you like the colour!

I’m sure i’ve missed a few here. I’ll just go and check my garage…

Sian and Jane will each receive a copy of Where to Ride for the Australian city of their choice courtesy of the publisher, Cycling Australia.

I’d like to know how many bicycles the Dutch think is enough (see exhibit). I suspect they see them like most of us see cars – as an unexciting but necessary commodity to get you from A to B.

A lot of cyclists in Australia see it as something special – it’s racing, it’s exercise, it’s ‘cycle chic’, it’s advocacy, it’s identity – but it’s not often hum-drum transport.

We’re cycling enthusiasts. We’re a little bit analogous to, dare I say it, “rev heads”, aren’t we? (“cad heads”, “cad lads”?)

Women in the windows, Manhattan, 1960

Last chance! My competition to win one of two copies of ‘Where to Ride’ closes tonight (May 10) at midnight. C’mon, the odds of winning are ridiculously good. Click here!

• Safe Cycling Australia is sponsoring a Minimum Safe Passing Distance e-petition to the Qld Parliament.

• Ormond Gigli’s best photograph – women in the windows in Manhattan, 1960

• Marge Simpson nixes Gehry.

• Cities that live behind walls.

• Life in the city is essentially one giant math problem.

• Robin Hansen thinks we’ll run out of big things to discover.

• High levels of home ownership can lead to high unemployment.

• “Cyclists from above”, Utrecht NL.  22,000 cyclists pass through this intersection on a weekday.

• As the UN’s Global Road Safety Week ends, it’s National Train Day in the US tomorrow.

• Free helmets for Melbourne Bike Share but traffic is the big turn-off.

• David Brooks on detached observers of politics/policy versus engaged observers. “I would still urge you to slide over toward the detached side of the scale.”

• Short film of Melbourne in 1910 BC (Before Cars).

• New report from Grattan Institute’s Cities Program, Productive Cities: opportunity in a changing economy.

• Doubts about traffic forecasts are already undermining Brisbane’s latest toll road project (Legacy Way).

• What Boston might look like in a couple of centuries (where are the boats?).

• How stats fool juries.

• Grids are for squares: Three reasons to consider alternatives to rectilinear street networks.

What's driving the demand for freeways? Source: @AdamJohnRussell

The Victorian government’s decision to provide $6-$8 billion in Tuesday’s budget for Stage 1 of the East-West Link freeway but virtually nothing for the Melbourne Metro rail line is a major disappointment for public transport advocates.

The government however says it remains committed to building both. The explanation offered by the Premier, Dennis Napthine, is that the freeway is ready to proceed but the rail line isn’t. He says the business case for the Metro isn’t finished yet.

Follow this link to enter the competition to win one of two copies of ‘Where to Ride‘ – closes tomorrow night!

Many observers doubt the sincerity of that explanation and are pessimistic about the chances of the Metro being built. They question the wisdom of prioritising the freeway over the rail line given that:

• Infrastructure Australia lists the Metro in its fourth and final ‘Ready to proceed’ category, whereas the East-West Link is only at the second stage ‘Real Potential’ category.
• The Metro has a positive Benefit-Cost ratio (1.3) whereas the ratio for the freeway hasn’t been released publicly. Work done for the 2008 Eddington Inquiry suggests it’s negative.
• Recent experience in Brisbane and Sydney indicates it can be difficult for toll roads to attract patronage at the levels required to make them commercially viable.
• Most observers think public transport was a decisive issue at the 2010 election when voters removed the Brumby government. Roads and traffic congestion however were barely mentioned.

The relative virtues of investing in roads or rail have been debated for years in many forums. I’m not going to re-visit that debate here nor argue the relative merits of the two projects (see here and here for previous discussions).

Rather, I think it’s important for ongoing policy to try and understand why the government has prioritised the East-West Link over the Metro.

Here are some possible explanations that might’ve figured in the government’s decision-making processes (bearing in mind these projects are competing for limited funding but they’re not substitutes for each other i.e. they have largely different functions and markets):

• The Premier said yesterday the business case for Stage 1 of the freeway is positive. However he won’t release the business case publicly, he says, because that could adversely affect the price the government would have to offer potential private sector participants.
• Voters make many more car trips than public transport trips. Circa 90% of all motorised travel in the Melbourne metropolitan area is by car. Only around 10% is by public transport. An ABS survey found 62% of Melburnians hadn’t used public transport in the preceding four weeks.
• A significant proportion of the risk-bearing funding for the freeway is expected to be sourced from the private sector, helping the government to preserve its AAA credit rating. All of the funding for the rail line would need to come from government.
• Tony Abbott says he’ll provide $1.5 billion for the freeway if he’s elected Prime Minister in September. He’s explicitly said he won’t fund urban public transport. Julia Gillard hasn’t promised funding for either project (although she’s promised $1.5 billion for a new freeway in Sydney).
• New urban public transport investments incur high ongoing subsidies since farebox revenue only recovers about a third of operating costs. Toll roads recover all their operating costs.
• The advantages of rail over roads are mostly in economic costs i.e. externalities. Many of these costs are diffuse and don’t affect the state budget directly, or if they do it’s often well into the future when “it’s somebody else’s problem”.
• The freeway attracts a wide range of interest groups e.g. it will be used for intra-metropolitan freight and non CBD business-to-business trips. These aren’t served as well by rail.
• Although new freeways start to congest in peak periods after a relatively short period due to induced demand, they provide much faster trips in off-peak periods. That benefit is usually sustained for many years.
• The freeway does double-duty – it provides political cover for the government to delay committing to a rail line to Doncaster.
• The cleverly-named East West Link will fill in a “missing link” in the freeway network. Politicians know that emphasising the network effect is an appealing argument.
• There’s opposition to Melbourne Metro from within the ranks of public transport advocates.

There are doubtless other possible explanations. I think the important lesson this list suggests is that there are underlying or ‘structural’ reasons why state governments from both sides of politics are likely to tend to favour investing in new freeways ahead of new rail.

Significantly increasing and sustaining the level of investment in rail relative to freeways in the long-term requires more than the conventional road vs rail arguments, many of which focus on environmental issues that governments seem happy to ignore.

It requires policy to focus on other pressure points, including on land use changes; on achieving a higher level of cost recovery; and on making driving more expensive relative to rail.

Moggill Rd Kenmore in the vicinity of the fatal collision between a cement truck and a cyclist (click)

Cyclists in Qld are calling for the road rules to be changed so that motorists are required to maintain a minimum safe passing distance when they overtake riders (e.g. see here and here).

Their call follows the death of cyclist Richard Pollett in 2011 in Kenmore, in Brisbane’s western suburbs. Mr Pollett was killed when he was struck by the rear wheel of a cement truck driven by Luke Michael Stevens.

According to the report in the Courier Mail this week, Mr Stevens attempted to overtake Mr Pollett in the left-hand lane of Moggill Rd and was effectively “boxed in” by other cars as he approached the cyclist.

Follow this link to enter the competition to win one of two copies of ‘Where to Ride‘ – closes Friday

The transcript of the proceedings isn’t available yet but fortunately the Courier Mail on-line provides a surprising amount of detail in its reports on the trial (here and here).

During the hearing, the Crown prosecutor told the jury a heavy vehicle could be more difficult and take longer to manoeuvre. He said Mr Stevens therefore should’ve “put his foot on the brake” as he approached the cyclist:

The accused should have had an appreciation for how vulnerable Mr Pollett was and insight into how unsettling his vehicle could be.

The defence barrister said Mr Stevens wasn’t driving erratically or speeding and was under “the honest and reasonable belief” there was enough room to overtake Mr Pollett safely. He said there were “any number of reasons” why Mr Pollett might’ve fallen off his bicycle.

Responding to news of the jury’s decision, Paul French from the Brisbane CBD Bicycle User Group, said it now seems drivers can pass as close as they like to cyclists:

It’s difficult to imagine another situation in which a driver needs to exercise greater care and wait for a safe opportunity to pass – a truck weighing at least 20 tonnes, and apparently boxed in by other vehicles so the driver couldn’t change lanes, bearing down from behind on a cyclist riding along a narrow, winding road. Yet under the law it now appears motorists can treat a cyclist with the same disregard as they would a witch’s hat and leave no margin for error by passing as close as they like.

Mr French said motorists have a ‘duty of care’ toward cyclists and can’t treat them as “mere obstacles”. He called on the State government to legislate a minimum one metre overtaking distance:

How many more innocent people who just want to ride their bikes while going about their daily lives will be mown down before the government acts on this pressing safety issue? The State Government’s continuing out-of-hand rejection of the ‘one metre rule’ is sending the wrong message to irresponsible motorists – that when wanting to drive from Point A to B in the shortest possible time bike riders can be treated as mere obstacles.

It’s important to bear in mind that, as the defence barrister told the court, there’s no evidence Mr Steven’s truck caused Mr Pollett to come off his bike. The jury found Mr Stevens not guilty of the charge of dangerous driving causing death.

Provided there’s no deliberate contact, it seems it’s lawful in Qld for a truck to overtake a bicycle within the confines of a single lane even if, as in this case, it varies in width between 3.1 to 3.6 metres (VicRoads recommended width for busy off-road bicycle paths is 3.0 to 3.5 metres).

The exhibit above shows Moggill Rd just after the intersection with Blacon St, close to where the collision – in the left hand lane – reportedly occurred (click to look around in Google Streetview).

This isn’t just a Qld problem though. Drivers elsewhere aren’t legally required to leave a ‘safety buffer’ in case the cyclist, for whatever reason, unexpectedly falls or steers into their path either.

Close proximity might lead to a minor scrape or touch where two vehicles are concerned, but where one is a cyclist it’s likely to have severe consequences.

The underlying issue is most motorists don’t view cyclists as legitimate road users. The slower speed and greater vulnerability of riders isn’t acknowledged, accepted or duly allowed for by drivers.

I suspect the jury’s decision reflects that widespread perception. Nevertheless, the law says cyclists are in fact legitimate road users.

In my view, the law needs to change to require motorists to ‘fit-in’ with the characteristics – including limitations – of bicycles, most especially where there’s a risk of death or serious injury.

Motorist almost universally assume they’re entitled to travel at the speed limit at all times. Our cities would be better places if instead there was a culture of driving according to prevailing conditions.

They would be more liveable if the driving culture also included consideration for the welfare of all other road users, and of those who live along or use adjoining land uses.

As I’ve said many times before, cars will be with us for decades yet. It’s therefore all the more important to ‘re-position’ driving as a highly conditional privilege not a presumed right.

In the particular case of the issue highlighted by this trial, greater safety for cyclists might be achieved by way of a ‘one metre rule’ or possibly even a requirement that motorists have to change lanes to overtake cyclists.

It might initially apply only to large vehicles since they’re over-represented in serious cycling collisions. There’s very likely a place for better education and training too.

I know the law is a complex beast, but I hope a student of the contemporary relevance of the jury system looks at this case and shares their thoughts.

Update: “24 year old Australian violinist Richard Pollett performing the second movement of Samuel Barber’s Violin Concerto Op 14 in the Grand Final of the 2010 ABC Symphony Australia Young Performers Awards with the Queensland Symphony Orchestra”.

Late night commuters challenge abusive and racist passenger on Melbourne train

There seem to be never-ending problems with cities, like late trains, traffic congestion, unaffordable housing, destruction of heritage, and much more.

There’re also problems with living so close to  so many people such as neighbours and other drivers. Some of the most problematic times seem to be when we share space, like streets and carriages, with complete strangers, often in very close proximity.

Sometimes though, it’s revitalising to stop and consider what’s good about cities. I’ve sought to do this before with my city (e.g. see here) as it’s too easy to lose sight of the many positive things about urban living.

Follow this link to enter the competition to win one of two copies of ‘Where to Ride‘ – closes Friday

This story in the Herald Sun last month, Late night commuters unite against hateful and racist rant on Melbourne train, shows bad things happen on trains. But it also shows another side – the paper reports that other commuters came to the defence of a man being racially abused.

The best stories though are those of pure kindness. Transport for London is working with artist Michael Landy via its Art on the Underground program to celebrate everyday acts of generosity and compassion on the tube.

Mr Landy runs a project called Acts of kindness. He invites passengers and railway staff to send him stories of kindnesses they’ve seen or been part of on the system.

Here’s a selection of the stories gathered via the project (one per para):