Article: New suburbs forced to adopt car culture

[ozbob]

From the Melbourne Age click here!

New suburbs forced to adopt car culture

New suburbs forced to adopt car culture
DEBORAH GOUGH
March 21, 2010

POOR design and weak guidelines governing new suburbs in outer Melbourne are increasing car reliance, with residents forced to drive to local facilities.

A new report by the Australian Conservation Foundation, to be released this week, shows that the emphasis on low-density housing in outer suburbs means fewer people live within walking distance of facilities such as public transport, schools and shops.

And those who do are discouraged from leaving the car at home by a lack of basic infrastructure, such as bike and footpaths leading to amenities, bicycle storage facilities, bus shelters and safe road crossings.

The ACF report, obtained by The Sunday Age, reveals that residents in outer suburbs are significantly disadvantaged compared to their cousins in the transport-rich and pedestrian-friendly inner and middle suburbs.

It says that while 90 per cent of inner Melbourne residents live within walking distance (600 metres) of some form of public transport, only 10 per cent of residents in outer suburbs do.

The report examines the yet-to-be-built Toolern development near Melton, and cites Point Cook North as an example of poor planning.

While the average Melbourne resident needs to walk just 800 metres to the closest shops and 600 metres to the nearest park, only 62 per cent of Point Cook North residents live within those distances of the same facilities.

And while the average walking trip to a train station is 800 metres, only 6 per cent of Toolern residents and no Point Cook North residents at all live within that distance.

Such disadvantages increase car reliance, with the report finding 23 per cent of households in outer Melbourne have two or more cars, compared with just 7 per cent in inner Melbourne.

The ACF's sustainable transport campaigner, Gail Broadbent, said the sprawling design of the outer suburbs was compounding the disadvantages of distance.

''What all this means is that rather than being able to walk to what they need, [residents of outer suburbs] drive. It means that children can't walk to school - and we know that without walking as part of a daily routine, it increases their risk of obesity.''

Project director for the ACF report, Graham Currie, said existing planning guidelines were weak and easily ''skipped around'' by developers.

Suburb design was ''very much at the whim of the developers, who have the control'', said Mr Currie, who is also chair of public transport at Monash University.

The ACF report calls on local councils to retro-fit existing developments to promote walking and cycling, and urges the state government's Growth Area Authority to ensure the design of new suburban developments is improved.

Last year, the authority produced a set of guidelines to encourage walking and higher-density housing in the outer suburbs. But RMIT planning expert Associate Professor Michael Buxton said the guidelines were inadequate and what was needed were regulations, to which, he said, the Brumby government appeared to be ''ideologically opposed''.

''What you have to have is clear and decisive requirements, but we have a state government that is weak on that,'' he said.

But a spokeswoman for Planning Minister Justin Madden rejected the call for regulations rather than guidelines.

''A one-size-fits-all legislated approach would not work for a city as diverse as Melbourne,'' she said. ''The guidelines provide clarity in how communities should be constructed while allowing room for character and individuality.''

Associate Professor Buxton said that while some changes could be made to existing developments to encourage walking, it would be almost impossible to change housing density or to move houses and shops closer to rail lines.

[#Metro]

One one hand I agree. Any developer is not going to bear the costs it dumps on the public in terms of the need to build transport links at great distance to it. The key would be an appropriate infrastructure charge.

On the other hand, why don't some of these academics get together and commercialise their expertise to become developers along sustainable principles and put all this into practice...