Your Development

Active transport is walking, cycling and using public transport. Active transport is encouraged for economic, environmental, social and health benefits.

The potential benefits of active transport are maximised by addressing at key development stages.

This perspective ideally provides both short and long term benefits. Changes to existing values, practices and fashions will probably be required for some stakeholders. Such changes in practice will evolve as stakeholders grow their capabilities, and deploy them.

The sustainability perspective provides both reasons for change, and a framework to help comprehend the issues, relate to specific circumstances and apply to decision-making.

This Fact Sheet generally refers to 'greenfield' settings, with extra comments for ‘brownfields’ or redevelopment, settings.

What is Active Travel, and why should it be encouraged?

Active Travel is walking, cycling and using public transport for everyday trips. As well as reaching desired destinations, the physical activity involved benefits individuals health and well-being. This reduces demands on the health system, and reduced private vehicle use provides broader economic, environmental, social and health benefits.

For developers, the lower traffic expected means less space and infrastructure required for vehicles. Calmer traffic eases constraints, for example standards of curves and grades. Total area of roadway may be less, although partly offset by need to provide attractive path networks. Depending on local topography there may be opportunities to share easements and connections to local area cycleways, parks etc. This includes utility easements, overflow drainage and, where appropriate, corridors connecting areas of greenspace. The improved amenity from proficiently providing Active Travel friendly infrastructure should make these developments more attractive to buyers.

For local government, from an asset management perspective, roadway and pathway lifecycle costs are expected to be less than meeting all traffic demand by roadways. Providing bicycle parking and bus stops at nearby centres will also be more cost effective than adding another level to a car park. From a place management perspective, amenity and effectiveness of public domain should be improved with increased connectivity and fewer ‘dead zones’.

For local communities, there is reduced noise, emissions and space used by cars, with increased social contact when active travel is practised. A more inclusive, secure and vibrant community is likely. Demand for local goods and services may also improve, sometimes enough to expand the range available locally.

Active Travel is an important design element, it cannot achieve full potential by being 'tacked on', it needs to be integrated in the development process. Design consideration must be early enough, so the Active Travel approach improves, without subtracting from other aspects, the final occupied development.

Back to top

Make a comment

Integrating mobility management

More sustainable urban forms are sought to reduce consumption of resources, lessen impacts on the natural environment, development related costs need to be controlled and topographical / geographical constraints responded to.
More efficient land use results from more compact, mixed-use multimodal communities. Polices and planning practices are sometimes called location-efficient development, Smart Growth or New Urbanism (Litman 2007).

Planning Controls can inhibit, encourage or require suburb layouts facilitating Active Transport. Instruments such as transport access and mobility plans and pedestrian access and mobility plans may need to be a council requirement, as well as local environment plan and development control plan transport-focused provisions. These should provide certainty about requirements, and common basis between competing land bank purchasers.

Where a development is chosen with Active Travel as a key element, it will ideally be located where the access component of land value can be exploited effectively. Choosing potential developments to apply Active Travel approach to should be integral to site selection decisions. This argues against locating developments away from access routes, public transport and other physical and social infrastructure. This is both in place already, and services reasonably sure will be provided within active development timeframe, perhaps over five years.

Zoning and master planning processes need to address how precincts suburbs and release areas are arranged, however they may already be set before developers gain access. Ideally local destinations are positioned so the great majority of residents can readily walk, cycle or catch a bus for most of their travel. Destinations will have different times and volumes of trip generation, and include local schools, shops, child care, community centres, recreational facilities and public transport nodes. Placement and connectivity is important, so one trip can serve multiple trip purposes, for example deliver children to childcare, school and get residents to the shops or bus to work. Having legible and permeable street layouts and path networks also encourages Active Transport.

Actively co-locating utility networks, pathways and bus stops can also facilitate Active Travel, with Canberra one example and the Como bridge cycleway over water mains. Such factors encourage greater use of grid street patterns, typical of developments before World War II, and less use of the amorphous crescents and cul-de-sacs typical in the 1960’s and 1970’s.

Marketing decisions about positioning, price points and target buyers may reduce or increase the interest of developers in encouraging Active Transport in their developments.

Planning and design capabilities may require enhancing, or contracting in, to apply this approach.

On the demand side, prospective buyers and new residents will probably need to be alerted to walking and cycling opportunities, as they may not be apparent in a casual visit. The will ideally be done as part of community development initiatives by developers.

Back to top

Make a comment

Different urban forms

Redevelopment ('brownfields') developments usually have attached building forms - townhouses, flats and apartments. The area where a site is located reflects current travel options, so mobility management measures need to be location specific.

Redevelopment sites are usually much more constrained than Greenfield sites. Constraints include contamination risks, demolition, rubbish dumping, established lot boundaries, adjacent buildings, traffic, local resident values, local capacity, quality and life remaining for utilities. Transport patterns will already be established, with possible traffic capacity constraints and public transport services to a few destinations.

The most challenging adaptive reuse of structures is perhaps with former grain silos, where the concrete cylinders have been converted to residences. Examples include The Mill at Albion in Brisbane, Enmore in Sydney and Salamanca in Hobart.

Other examples include redeveloping individual buildings, such as former wool stores, and changed facility uses, for example residences at former Melbourne sale yards; and ‘The Quarter' complex on the site of the former Sydney Children’s Hospital, Camperdown. Some buildings have been converted to residences, others replaced and additional structures built. With its busy inner suburb main road location traffic generation a key issue. Part of the project was direct promotion of the frequent (3 minutes peak frequency), 7 days and evenings bus service. This included a customised printed timetable, showing the adjacent bus stop locations, ticket outlets and other nearby routes. As well as serving commuters, the bus gives ready access to local shopping centres and eat streets. Having a car here is optional with adjacent cycle routes, full footpaths and a short taxi ride from city nightlife.

Transit Oriented Development is an approach, where integration of land use and transport provides benefits to both transport patronage and the viability of adjacent developments. Active Travel is major transport behaviour in such developments. Hong Kong's Mass Transport Railway and Washington DC Metrorail provide distinct examples.

Aged housing is another specific case. These have low maintenance and accessibility design features, often near facilities with health and living support services. This higher density housing form can be in any suburb, including greenfield sites in outer areas. Supportive planning regulations and Federal Aged Care policies can make aged housing attractive for developers, especially with a care provider arranged. Transport design needs to serve people who may be using mobility aids, at risk of falls and travel slowly.

If location-efficient mortgages come to Australia, home buyers seeking public transport accessible developments will have an additional finance option. Fannie Mae (USA) and the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation offer these mortgages. They recognise interactions between property prices, accessibility and transport /housing cost interactions in family budgets.

Infill developments reduce vehicle kilometres travelled as they are generally located closer to destinations, and have mode choices in place. The TDM Encyclopaedia reports reductions in travel from 14 to 55% over the six US projects examined.

Some of these approaches have a different concept of suburbs and cities, where walking in all directions is straightforward, vehicle speeds are lower and casual social contact is higher, often refererences to earlier times or European cities.

The ‘Complete Streets’ concept is all users are recognised, at planning, design, construction, operation and maintenance stages. The aim is to produce better overall places, suitable for all users and unsuitable for none.

Back to top

Make a comment

Case Studies

Case Studies that demonstrate the above actions include:
Greenfields:

• Tullimbar, Illawarra region, NSW (www.tullimbarvillage.com.au)
• Nelsons Ridge, Western Sydney
• Forde, Gungahlin, Canberra (www.forde.com.au)

Near city precincts:

• Melbourne Docklands (www.docklands.com)
• Newington, Sydney 2000 Olympics Village
• The Mill silo conversion in Brisbane’s Albion

Back to top

Make a comment

Key Issues

Benefits

Developers

• Better business case: market positioning, attractiveness reflect in speedy sale and/or stronger price, development product differentiation for marketing plans.
• Risk management advantages as fuel prices can be very different by the time land banks are developed.
• Development industry would be better prepared to meet future and current planning system sustainability requirements and for negotiating implementation details.
• A preparation for climate change, both by reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from construction and use compared with 'conventional' suburban developments.
• Help gain 'green building' accreditation - parent companies and investors may be seeking ‘sustainability’ recognition and/or potential carbon credits to trade.

Residents

• Health and well-being benefits for individuals and communities
  Also see the Healthy Communities Fact Sheet.
• Attractive walking and cycling conditions for most local trips and improved access to public transport.
• Reduced transport costs - walking, and cycling have low ownership and operating costs, which are less than motor vehicle costs, especially if number owned is reduced.
• Sustainability benefits - social, economic and environmental benefits flow to local residents.
• If public are out and about lower crime rates are forecast.

Community

• Health benefits for communities- from increased physical activity and lower traffic speeds
  Also see the Healthy Communities Fact Sheet.
• Climate change preparation by enabling communities to do more activities with less fuel.
• Better prepared for climate change, both by reducing construction and use Greenhouse Gas Emissions compared with 'conventional' suburban development, and by the community being able to do many things with little fuel. This should encourage more vibrant and inclusive communities.
• If hard surfaced area is reduced stormwater quality and flooding risks should be improved.
• Existing urban areas are more likely to be redeveloped, in preference to distant greenfield sites with less infrastructure.
• Employers should also benefit from healthier and happier physically active staff.
• Social inclusion from casual encounters in their suburb should be higher.

Back to top

Make a comment

Risks

• Fuel prices suddenly rocket, boosting development costs, inflation and increasing purchasers' budget pressures. This would stall new Greenfield developments in outer areas.
• Interest rates may inhibit buyer affordability with developer access to development finance impeded.
• Investors, builders and authorities having different levels of sustainability feature costs. Recourse to planning appeal processes may be required.
• Optimising a single -factor (for example pipe networks, road area) may compromise achieving the “best” overall result.
• Changes in property developed may not be sufficient for sustainability benefits to occur. Additional incentives may be required. Parking space levies; or discount for car-free households, which lower demand for parking and traffic generation are examples. PAYD - Pay as You Drive insurances and registration may be required to sufficiently change attitudes for reduced driving.
• Cheaper competing developments may reduce the size of potential market.
• Up-front costs aren't connected to benefits, so regulations and/or funding mechanisms are required to connect behaviours of beneficiaries and payers of costs.
• Available public transport may not be perceived as a viable choice.
• Timing issues - ideally all options are available and offer practical choices when residents move in, however it may take a period of years for all residents to move in.
• Other changes, such as Queensland’s 2007 Local Government amalgamations, may mean stakeholders may be hard to engage.
• 'Leapfrogging’: non-sequential development means few walkable destinations and vestigial initial public transport – which tends to build in car use habits.
• Nature reserves may have more human interaction, requiring flora and fauna protection.

Back to top

Make a comment

Savings

Developers

• For developers, the lower traffic expected means less space required for roadways and parking, with calmer traffic reducing constraints, such as curves and fewer traffic controls. Streets built for heavy vehicles are only needed for major accesses and along bus routes. Total roadway area may be less, although partly offset by pathways.
• Depending on geography there may be opportunities to share easements and connect local area cycleways, parks etc. This includes utility easements, and floodway reserves.

Residents

• Household budgets have less spent on transport, even if housing cost incremented. Sydney generally has lower car ownership levels close to rail lines, and higher further away.
• Good transport access should also reduce time spent travelling – to work, at work, to education and to recreation etc.

Community

• Any reduction in constructed roadways and path network extent - lifecycle costs are expected to be less.
• Asset Management advantages for local government include cost effectiveness; with bicycle parking and bus stops more economical than dedicating land for extra car parking.
• From a Place Management perspective, the amenity and effectiveness of public domain would be improved.
• Any synergies from shared Transport and utility easements may reduce land take and improve servicing access.
• Health cost savings from cleaner air and healthier communities.
• Servicing more effective for public transport provision, local trades and businesses.
• Casual surveillance by residents should reduce security costs.

Back to top

Make a comment

Costs

Developers

• Time during design phases to integrate additional details for sustainability objectives.
• Cost of specialist expertise,
• Possible financing delays if knowledge of investors, buyers and authorities mismatched.
• Increased complexity with greater details to include in plans and standards to meet, for example effective path networks.

Residents

• Possibly greater purchase prices reflect better amenity and accessibility.
• Some buyers may consider sustainability features may not be worth paying a premium for.
• Travel time for internal driving trips probably greater - ideally by the time get car out, drive and park not that different from walking or cycling anyhow.

Community

• Change over costs for different mix of maintenance equipment. For example initial purchase of 'footpath' scale street cleaning machinery.
• There may be costs of updating planning controls, associated staff training and fresh regulation issues.
• Greater quality and facilities in public domain demanded – more park benches, park fittings, better lighting, gardens etc. Maintenance costs would also be higher.

Back to top

Make a comment

Barriers

• Developer and planning authorities may find it hard to deal with development uncertainties and changes.
• Knowledge differences – in how to integrate development realties and effective sustainability measures.
• Financier knowledge and level of comfort with sustainability may be insufficient.
• Dispersion of shopping facilities can maximise travel including circulating inside multi-story car parks.
• Public transport services tend to extend to new areas after most people have moved in - after some people have purchased another car or otherwise decided to drive for most trips. Early ‘start –up’ public transport services are needed to present an active travel option before travel habits are set.
• Institutional - land supply, rezoning and utilities access may not be available at desired time for potential development sites. Planning rules may not support providing effective infrastructure for Active Travel.
• Shape, size and topography factors make a development site marginal or unattractive for walking or cycling.
• Cultural - basic expectations within the community of earlier practices being replicated unchanged.
• Delivery - other parties may not connect pathway networks to provide access to local destinations, for example shops and schools.

Back to top

Make a comment

Benchmarks

There are a variety of benchmarks that can be used to measure sustainability of developments from transport perspective. Some are stand –alone, while others are measures across multiple sustainability aspects.

Predictive tools:

• Accessibility measures: for example 50% of residences are within 200m walk of a weekday bus service.
• Walkability score - see www.walkscore.com.au
• Bikeability score – see TravelSmart Australia
• Elements in building sustainability indices - BASIX in NSW.

Dodson & Sipe (2006) have developed the VAMPIRE indicator of ‘Vulnerability Assessment For Mortgage, Petrol And Inflation Risks And Expenditure’. Fuel expenditures reflect location, especially where driving is principal commuting mode.

Selected measures from the Transportation Research Board (TRB 2008) include:

• Travel activity - mode shares, vehicle ownership, kilometres travelled, disaggregate by trip purpose, place and demographics JTW available for metro areas, in NSW HTS.
• Traffic risk - crashes, killed and seriously injured detailed by mode, place and demographics.
• Land use impacts - land area used by transport infrastructure.
• Equity - proportion of household budget for 'adequate' transport detailed by demographics.

Other tools:

• Greenhouse Calculator - to assess overall impacts and assess reduction measures.
• Ecological Footprint Calculators

Back to top

Make a comment

Development phase actions

Feasibility

This is the initial stage, so included as a broad consideration.

Active Transport should be considered in project planning. This includes considering a number of features. These include whether the prospective sites are in locations that have suitable terrain, the degree of accessibility by all modes, to a range of facilities. These include shopping centres, medical infrastructure, the city centre and other employment centres.

Views, any local primary and secondary schools and nearby suburbs may provide an indicator of prospective market segments.

The initial project costing should take account of infrastructure required and prospective marketing advantages to integrate Active Transport concepts.

Back to top

Make a comment

Planning

Developer’s preliminary planning should consider Active Transport. This includes including when reviewing zoning, and building regulations.

The land use planning system manages types of activities permitted in different areas, public interest issues such as external impacts, nuisance, servicing arrangements, scale of buildings, and infrastructure management.

Councils should include Active Transport in their assessment of development applications. Where the development is of large scale, and/or there is major local air quality or traffic congestion a transport access and mobility plan should be prepared as part of environmental assessment process.

Formal planning applications require range of factors to be specified in and be put on public exhibition. Master plans with later development applications may be appropriate process for developers to deal with scale, and level of detail for land releases and planning system responses.

This will enable likely impacts to be assessed and mitigation measures to manage investigated. Resulting Travel demand management measures will become a legal requirement when included as condition of Development Consent.

This stage would also address locating existing utility services and arrangements for network expansion, to identify and negotiate possible shared easement synergies with utility providers.

Back to top

Make a comment

Design

The design processes involves interactions with the planning system, Architects and engineers and ideally marketing personnel. Active transport needs to be one of the tasks in the project plan.

‘Design ‘ operates at several levels. Active Transport needs met at master plan creation by centrally locating communal facilities and spatial relationships with other suburbs.
When designing street and path network layouts, accessibility needs to be measured and standards specified to ensure easy to use and maintain networks are built to provide attractive conditions for walking, cycling and public transport users.

Back to top

Make a comment

Construction

This phase involves major construction of primary road and utility infrastructure.
Major works should be constructed first, with staging to avoid plant driving over facilities designed for pedestrian/cycle use. This may involve delaying final surface paving until all trenched services underneath are laid.

Staging should be planned to avoid heavy equipment driving over cycling works.
Community facilities and parkland landscaping would be later.

Back to top

Make a comment

Lot Creation

• Public transport planning authority should be advised lot creation has commenced, with indication of when lots are expected to become available for construction.
• Directional signage to main locations and cycle route connections.
• Sales material needs to promote the development’s attractiveness for walking and cycling.
• The sequence of lot release be adjacent to should support extensions in public transport services. Lot releases should not be so large as to have long period where residents are dispersed amongst vacant lots, so no effective public transport service can be offered to many off them.

Back to top

Make a comment

Completion

• Post construction evaluation: finished to specification, including final seals, signage and line marking, and landscaping.
• Repairs and rectification to fulfil quality system and manage risks
• Handover of facilities from builders to asset managers, with plans and supporting documentation.
• Networks connected to available regional network where available.

Community development activities engaging with purchasers needs to include public transport information: service commencement, timetables, maps and ‘how to find here’ information. This should include indications of possible demand for school bus services.

By the time most lots are sold, a local public transport ticket outlet and places to access local transport information should be sought.

Back to top

Make a comment

Brunton P & Brindle R, 'The relatioship between urban form and travel behaviour', ARRB Transport Research Ltd, Research Report ARR335, 1999, ISBN 0 86910 791 7

Canadian institute Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2004, Promoting Sustainable Transportation through Site Design,  ISBN 0-935403-88-4

Dodson J & Sipe N, 'Shocking the Suburbs: Urban Location, Housing Debt and Oil Vulnerability in the Australian City', Griffith University Urban Research Program, Research Paper 8, July 2006, ISBN 1 920952 68 3.

Litman,T 2007, Pavement Busters Guide, Victoria Transport Policy Institute.

MTR Properties, Hong Kong www.mtr.com.hk/eng/properties/index

TRB Sustainable Transportation Indicators Committee, Sustainable Transportation Indicators, 2008

Victoria Transport Policy Institute, TDM Encyclopaedia www.vtpi.org/tdm

Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Joint Development Program www.wmata.com/bus2bus/jd/jointdev.cfm