The residential transformation of St Kilda Road is set to continue into with more new apartment plans for the sought-after boulevard.

Wing Tai Asia has lodged plans for a major residential tower at 464-466 St Kilda Road, replacing the former VACC House with an 18-storey mixed-use development designed around a retained heritage podium and a sculpted contemporary tower.

The proposal, prepared under Victoria’s Significant Residential Development with Affordable Housing pathway, would deliver 325 apartments and ground-floor retail across the prominent 4,653 sqm boulevard site in Melbourne’s St Kilda Road North Precinct.

The project centres on the adaptive reuse of the site’s heritage-listed VACC Building, an eight-storey office designed by Bernard Evans that has occupied the address for decades. Planning documents state the development would involve “carefully dismantling and conserving off-site the original metal fabric of the podium visible from St Kilda Road,” before reinstating it as the defining frontage of the new scheme.

Above the restored podium, Wing Tai is proposing a curvilinear residential tower. The scheme includes 172 one-bedroom apartments, 63 two-bedroom apartments, 66 three-bedroom apartments, and 24 four-bedroom apartments, alongside two ground-floor food and beverage tenancies fronting St Kilda Road.

The tower has been designed with substantial articulation and variable setbacks to minimise perceived bulk and maintain view corridors along the boulevard. Urbis, which prepared the planning report, said the design “has been significantly articulated through a curvilinear design” with “an interplay with materials, façade expression and depth” to create visual separation and visual interest.

The proposal also includes 254 basement car spaces, landscaped pedestrian links connecting St Kilda Road and Queens Lane, and a biophilic landscape strategy featuring canopy trees, raised planters, cascading greenery and a glass oculus pool overlooking the eastern frontage.

Planning documents confirm the $270.1 million development will contribute 3 per cent of project costs to the Social Housing Growth Fund as part of the application process.

Wing Tai acquired the St Kilda Road property in 2018 alongside Abacus Property Group for $95.38 million, before later consolidating ownership of the site. The property previously served as the Victorian Automobile Chamber of Commerce headquarters for around 60 years.

The transformation of the St Kilda Rd boulevard is already beginning to materialise, with a number of high-profile projects recently completed, launched, or approaching launch as developers continue to back the long-term appeal of the precinct.

Among the most notable recent completions is Louise by Samuel Property Group, just off the strip on Queens Lane, the same pocket Hirsch &amp; Faigen recently launched The Queensbury. Mirvac is too on the same street with The Albertine, which is approaching completion.

Dexus recently secured approval for its slice of St Kilda Road, while Gurner also has approved plans for the precinct.

Joel Robinson

Wing Tai unveils 325-apartment St Kilda Road tower on former VACC House site

Malaysian developer <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developers/s-p-setia">SP Setia</a> is the latest to jump into St Leonards booming Transport Oriented Development precinct.

The developer, which has previously delivered Sapphire by the Gardens apartment development in Melbourne, identified the Atchison Street site in 2023. It filed a Scoping Report around 12 months ago, and now has revealed the designs for the new&nbsp;40-storey mixed-use tower.

The State Significant Development Application covers <a href="https://next-portal.urban.com.au/projects/14650/summary">20-22 Atchison Street</a>, a 1,374 sqm site positioned between St Leonards Station and the new Crows Nest Metro station.

Designed by <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/architects/cox-architecture">COX Architecture</a>, the project would deliver 181 apartments, above a four-storey commercial podium, five basement levels, and new public domain works along Mitchell Street. The apartment mix comprises 35 one-bedroom apartments, 39 one-bedroom-plus-study apartments, 85 two-bedroom apartments, and 22 three-bedroom residences.

The proposal has been lodged as a shop-top housing development under the NSW Government’s TOD planning pathway, which allows increased density around key transport infrastructure. The site sits within the recently rezoned Crows Nest Accelerated TOD Precinct.

<img alt="First look: SP Setia targets St Leonards skyline with 40-storey TOD tower" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="b799673d-48e2-46b0-801a-0e33a9330100" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/atchinson%20site.png?VersionId=dPh0UfwfaHpbFL1R7H1cbZNbIW0CHbCC" />

SP Setia acquired the Atchison Street site as part of its continued expansion into the Australian apartment market. In comments made to City &amp; Country (The Edge Malaysia) in 2023, SP Setia President and CEO Datuk Choong Kai Wai described the acquisition as “a strategic move” aligned with the group’s post-pandemic market recovery strategy.

“Our target for this exceptional development is local and overseas buyers, including first-home buyers, downsizers and investors,” Choong said.

The tower has been designed as a slender vertical form rising from a mixed-use podium, with COX Architecture positioning the development as a response to the evolving St Leonards and Crows Nest skyline.

“The purpose of the project is to facilitate the delivery of high-quality housing at a strategically located site and deliver a built tower outcome that is consistent with the desired future character of St Leonards and aligns with the TOD controls,” the design report stated.

<img alt="First look: SP Setia targets St Leonards skyline with 40-storey TOD tower" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="b1a85eee-76f7-436c-a6da-73ba827b9b13" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/atchinson%20entry.png?VersionId=dA9jHGPMcm.dDbwk4QfxqWiY5bfh3UVt" />

The podium would incorporate retail uses fronting Atchison Street, commercial tenancies, landscaped communal areas, and pedestrian improvements along Mitchell Street. Vehicle access and loading would be consolidated via Atchison Lane.

Residents would have access to more than 665 sqm of communal indoor and outdoor spaces, while the development proposes 96 parking spaces across five basement levels.

The proposal also includes a commitment for 10 per cent of residential floor space to be allocated toward affordable housing through a monetary contribution.

COX said the tower form responds directly to the emerging high-density character of the precinct while seeking to maximise solar access, cross ventilation, and outlook from apartments.

<img alt="First look: SP Setia targets St Leonards skyline with 40-storey TOD tower" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="2163f85c-f63b-4be3-aafa-f8763976cec5" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/Article%20Feature%20Image%20%28Grid%29_5.png?VersionId=WiAmtIKJ6.ZQ41EtYEQ1fol7AeorKBlL" />

“The building is orientated towards north,” the Apartment Design Guide compliance report noted, adding that the tower’s slim form was driven by the constrained inner-urban site dimensions.

The design also incorporates landscaped setbacks and communal open space at podium level, intended to soften the interface with surrounding streets and improve pedestrian amenity.

The project adds to a growing wave of redevelopment proposals reshaping St Leonards and Crows Nest following the opening of the Sydney Metro City line and the NSW Government’s push for higher-density housing around major transport nodes.

Last week Stockland filed plans just down the road. They want to build a <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/601-pacific-highway-st-leonards-nsw-2065">52-storey tower on Pacific Highway</a>.

Read more:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/news/nsw/first-look-stockland-plans-52-storey-538-apartment-st-leonards-tower">First look: Stockland plans 52-storey, 538-apartment St Leonards tower&nbsp;</a>

First look: SP Setia targets St Leonards skyline with 40-storey TOD tower

<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developers/urban-property-group">Urban Property Group</a> has revealed plans for a new mixed-use tower at 10 Dangar Street, Wickham, advancing a proposal that would reshape the southern gateway to Newcastle’s city centre with one of the city’s tallest residential buildings.

The State Significant Development proposal, now on exhibition, seeks approval for a <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/bowline-10-dangar-street-wickham-nsw-2293">43-storey tower</a> immediately adjacent to the Newcastle Interchange. The project would deliver around 200 apartments, including 42 affordable housing dwellings, alongside 99 co-living units, a 171-room hotel, retail space, and new public domain integrated through the site.

The scheme marks a significant escalation of plans previously approved for the site. Urban Property Group took over the prominent 2,904 sqm parcel, where excavation and demolition had already commenced under an earlier consent for a 14-storey mixed-use development.

<img alt="First look: Urban Property Group unveils Newcastle’s next supertower at Wickham interchange" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="58a96dd9-407f-4d20-86b4-94e4bfeef74b" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/wickham%20podium.png?VersionId=LGlf08pdFGAZDzvx_CXC4XakHNZRuEE0" />

Designed by <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/architects/sjb-architects">SJB</a>, the tower has been conceived as a landmark transit-oriented development anchored to the Newcastle Interchange precinct. The proposal includes 245 build-to-sell apartments across a mix of one, two, and three-bedroom residences, as well as two penthouses. Fifteen apartments and one operational unit are earmarked for NDIS housing. The co-living component would add a further 99 units, while the podium would accommodate retail uses and hotel facilities.

SJB said the site presents “a valuable opportunity to anchor the precinct by setting the standard for design, active ground planes and character at the key southern gateway.”

The architecture responds directly to the site’s position beside major transport infrastructure and within one of Newcastle’s fastest-evolving urban renewal precincts. The tower form sits above a sculpted podium designed to frame new public spaces, including a through-site pedestrian link connecting Station Street to Hannell Street, landscaped plazas, and activated retail edges.

<img alt="First look: Urban Property Group unveils Newcastle’s next supertower at Wickham interchange" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="a7bd6ff0-f7db-4ce8-a6dc-ea56e72c6149" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/wickham%20lanne.png?VersionId=xzf39VADyhj7zBQY2I9fx9vI62u2tuSb" />

The design report describes the project as part of the broader transition of Wickham into “a vibrant, high-quality mixed-use urban precinct” that leverages proximity to the station, open space, and regional connectivity.

A detailed public art strategy has also been prepared for the development. The strategy positions the project as “a transit-oriented development of state significance at the gateway to Newcastle’s city centre” and outlines a series of integrated artworks responding to Newcastle’s industrial and transport heritage.

Creative Road’s curatorial framework for the project, titled Unveil, draws on “stratified surfaces, carved volumes, and light-filled apertures” while referencing Newcastle’s transformation from an industrial city into a contemporary education and technology hub.

<img alt="First look: Urban Property Group unveils Newcastle’s next supertower at Wickham interchange" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="77a882bb-14b1-4d28-99ff-9438e39508c0" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/wickham%20site.png?VersionId=cevgo_vN0eKPK78P8YcEu3mKPLkpFqE7" />

The proposal is being advanced through the NSW Housing Delivery Authority pathway after being declared State Significant Development in June 2025. The accompanying scoping report states the development aims to “maximise the site’s proximity to the Newcastle Interchange by delivering transit-oriented development” while increasing housing supply and affordable housing provision within the Newcastle LGA.

Urban Property Group’s plans align with the long-term strategic vision established under the Wickham Master Plan, which identified the interchange precinct as suitable for substantial uplift in height and density. The current proposal would significantly intensify that vision, positioning the tower among the tallest developments proposed for Newcastle.

The site sits immediately north of the Newcastle Interchange, bounded by Dangar Street, Hannell Street, and Charles Street. It is surrounded by a rapidly growing cluster of residential towers and mixed-use projects that have emerged following the completion of the light rail and transport interchange.

First look: Urban Property Group unveils Newcastle’s latest tower at Wickham interchange

Bottega House has completed settlement of a landmark riverfront site in Macquarie Street, St Lucia, representing its first major Brisbane development.&nbsp;

Positioned on the banks of the Brisbane River, the <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/180-macquarie-street-st-lucia-qld-4067">premium site at 180 Macquarie Street</a> features uninterrupted river frontage in one of Brisbane’s most tightly held residential precincts.&nbsp;

The proposed development, currently under assessment with Brisbane City Council, has been designed by <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/architects/plus-studio">Plus Studio</a> with interiors by <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/interior-designers/mim-design">Mim Design</a> and will deliver a boutique collection of premium residences positioned specifically for owner occupiers and downsizers.&nbsp;

The residences are set to redefine luxury apartment living in the area, with a focus on architectural quality, refined finishes, landscape integration and elevated amenities including curated wellness facilities, resort-style pools and recreation spaces rarely seen in the local market.&nbsp;

Exclusive sales for the project will be led by Keenan &amp; Byrne, ahead of an anticipated launch later this year.&nbsp;

Bottega House Managing Director Nick Malloch said the project reflects the group’s ambition to deliver a highly curated residential offering within one of Brisbane’s most tightly held precincts.&nbsp;

“This is an incredibly rare riverfront opportunity and one we have approached with a long-term perspective,” Malloch said.&nbsp;

“Our vision from the outset was to create a boutique collection of residences that feel more like private homes than traditional apartments, with generous proportions, refined finishes and exceptional amenity throughout."

Malloch says there is a&nbsp;lack of premium owner-occupier stock of this quality in the market, particularly for downsizers wanting space, privacy and a true lifestyle offering without compromise.&nbsp;

"Demand is expected to be strong given the scarcity of premium riverfront opportunities of this nature within Brisbane’s inner-west."&nbsp;

Bottega House secures landmark riverfront site in St Lucia 

<section data-scroll-anchor="false" data-testid="conversation-turn-6" data-turn="assistant" data-turn-id="request-WEB:84a2af5e-d7cf-4ddf-922a-f4d44d6c6caa-2" data-turn-id-container="request-WEB:84a2af5e-d7cf-4ddf-922a-f4d44d6c6caa-2" dir="auto">
<section data-scroll-anchor="false" data-testid="conversation-turn-2" data-turn="assistant" data-turn-id="request-WEB:5a5ab36c-8dd3-454c-b456-c501f22f0eb4-0" data-turn-id-container="request-WEB:5a5ab36c-8dd3-454c-b456-c501f22f0eb4-0" dir="auto">
The arrival of the first piling rig officially marks the commencement of construction at SIERA’s new beachside apartment development, Exhale, in Northcliffe.

<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/exhale-surfers-paradise-8-enderley-avenue-surfers-paradise-qld-4217">Exhale</a>, a glass-encased tower featuring 54 large-scale apartments at 8 Enderley Avenue, is SIERA’s third Gold Coast development. It follows the recently completed PIPIS Bilinga beachfront project, which achieved suburb-record prices, and the soon-to-be-completed Chevron Island development, Tapestry.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=112661 project_image_fid=359603]

<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developers/siera">SIERA</a> Founder and Managing Director Brent Thompson said the arrival of the piling rig represented a significant milestone for the development, which is scheduled for completion in late 2028.

Over the next month, around 260 piles are expected to be installed as work progresses on the basement structure. The building is anticipated to rise above ground level early next year, before unveiling its sculptural glass curtain wall, developed in collaboration with specialist façade engineers.

“The façade was designed to maximise panoramic coastal views while creating a distinctive architectural identity,” Thompson said.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=112661 project_image_fid=355935]

Designed by BDA Architecture, Exhale will comprise just 54 two- and three-bedroom residences across 26 levels, a level of low-density living rarely delivered in this beachside pocket between Surfers Paradise and Broadbeach.

The project has been conceived as a resident-only building, with no short-stay accommodation permitted. SIERA says the model is intended to appeal to long-term owner-occupiers rather than transient holiday demand.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=112661 project_image_fid=361052]

Residences have been designed with large-format layouts and expansive glazing, with most apartments featuring more than 30 metres of glass frontage to maximise natural light and ocean views.

The amenity offering spans two levels and centres on wellness and lifestyle, including a heated magnesium pool, sauna, yoga and Pilates studio, gymnasium, private dining facilities, cinema lounge, and dedicated surfcraft storage.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=112661 project_image_fid=359607]

More than half of the apartments have already sold. SIERA has also opened a sales gallery for Exhale at its Chevron Island commercial premises, near its Tapestry tower and the site of its second Chevron Island apartment development, which is slated to launch in early 2027.
</section>
</section>

[smartcode_project_cta:default project_id=112661]

SIERA kicks off construction at Northcliffe tower Exhale

Public Transport

<html><body>
Lendlease have announced it had been selected as preferred bidder for a major redevelopment of London’s Euston station.
<div class="page" title="Page 1">
<div class="section">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
Subject to the finalisation of contracts, Lendlease will work with the Greater London Authority and London Borough of Camden to develop a masterplan for, and subsequently deliver, a 54-hectare site above and around the new station. 
Currently catering for around 42 million passengers a year, Euston will be redeveloped to house new high-speed rail services (known as HS2) connecting the Midlands and north of the UK to London, and is due to start operating in 2026. 
The project comprises more than 400,000 square meters of commercial, retail, hotel and leisure spaces, and will also deliver a significant number of new homes. 
Lendlease Chief Executive Officer International Operations Dan Labbad says the redevelopment of Euston stands to be a real gamechanger for commuters across London and the UK.
“Euston will be much more than a transport hub – and we’ll work closely with project partners to provide benefits to local people, foster business growth and deliver new homes. 
“Today’s announcement is consistent with our stated strategy to grow our development pipeline in gateway cities and increasingly reallocate capital to our international operations.” 
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body></html>

jrobinson-rf4aSBido9

Lendlease preferred bidder for London’s Euston station redevelopment

<html><body>
<h1>Riding in cars with dogs: millions of trips a week tell us transport policy needs to change</h1>
Having a pet dog turns out to be a highly car-dependent affair. Author provided <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/jennifer-kent-13822" target="_blank">Jennifer Kent</a>, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-sydney-841" target="_blank">University of Sydney</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/corinne-mulley-106" target="_blank">Corinne Mulley</a>, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-sydney-841" target="_blank">University of Sydney</a>
Dog owners depend very heavily on their cars to transport and care for their pets. Our recently published <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0965856417302161">study</a> estimates that dog owners make about 2.4 million dog-related trips a week in Sydney. We also found pet owners overwhelmingly want to be able to travel on public transport with their pets. So why are they still excluded?
<hr>
Further reading: <a href="https://theconversation.com/we-need-a-better-understanding-of-how-we-manage-dogs-to-help-them-become-better-urban-citizens-64749" target="_blank">We need a better understanding of how we manage dogs to help them become better urban citizens</a>
<hr>
Our study, involving more than 1,250 Sydney dog owners, looked at popular activities owners do with their dogs and how often these require a trip by car. Typical activities include:
<ul>
<li>walking</li>
<li>visiting the park or other recreational areas</li>
<li>dog training</li>
<li>going to cafés, bars or shops</li>
<li>visiting family, friends or the vet.</li>
</ul>
On average, we found people walk their dog twice or more a week. While this confirms <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0091743507003775" target="_blank">existing research</a>, we found that one in four dog walks actually began with a drive in a car. Of the more than 75% of dog owners who go to a recreational area twice or more a week, 45% get there by car. And of the two-thirds of people who go to the dog park three times a week, more than half travel by car.
This demonstrates a surprisingly high reliance on private cars for dog ownership. The table below clearly shows this.
<img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/194753/original/file-20171115-19841-1c1ibfb.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt="">
Activities undertaken by dog owners and the number of dog-related car trips each week.
The survey also found that, on average, people visit a vet three times a year. They use a car for 86% of those trips.
However, 14% said lack of transport had prevented them from taking their dog to a vet. People who did not own a car were more likely to fall into this category.
<h2>So, why does this matter?</h2>
Our results indicate that enjoying and caring for a dog in Australian cities – which has <a href="https://theconversation.com/our-pets-strengthen-neighbourhood-ties-79755" target="_blank">proven health and social benefits</a> – is a relatively car-dependent affair. And car dependency is something urban <a href="https://theconversation.com/stuck-in-traffic-we-need-a-smarter-approach-to-congestion-than-building-more-roads-84774" target="_blank">planners want us to leave behind</a> for many reasons, including sustainability, health and <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/healthy-liveable-cities-44685%20in%20our%20cities" target="_blank">liveability</a>.
If we are trying to reduce car use, understanding activities that lead to car dependence is important. We are particularly interested in the unintentional, often negative, consequences for individuals who, by choice or circumstance, do not have access to a car. A compromised ability to enjoy and care for a dog is one such consequence.
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/197467/original/file-20171203-5392-1lre7jv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/197467/original/file-20171203-5392-1lre7jv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt=""></a>
All European cities allow dogs on public transport but most cities in the US and Australia do not. <a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/chihuahua-arms-travels-public-transport-615671681?irgwc=1&amp;utm_medium=Affiliate&amp;utm_campaign=TinEye&amp;utm_source=77643&amp;utm_term=" target="_blank">TIF Fotos/Shutterstock</a>
A policy solution would be to allow dogs on public transport in Australian cities. Unsurprisingly, our survey of dog owners found an overwhelming 95% support this.
More than half indicated they would do more activities with their hound if this were allowed. And 20% said they would even consider getting by without one of their cars if they could take their dog on public transport.
<hr>
Further reading: <a href="https://theconversation.com/is-there-a-place-for-dogs-in-public-space-or-must-they-make-do-with-dog-parks-56147" target="_blank">Is there a place for dogs in public space, or must they make do with ‘dog parks’?</a>
<hr>
<h2>What are the rules in other countries?</h2>
With these findings in mind, we investigated public transport policies on pets in 30 cities across Europe, the United States and Australia. We found all European cities allowed dogs on public transport. Most cities in the US and <a href="https://transportnsw.info/travel-info/using-public-transport/travelling-with-animals-pets">Australia</a> did not.
The policies allowing dogs vary. Some apply limits on where on the train, tram or bus a dog may travel, on travel during peak hours, and on the size of dog. In cities such as Paris, dogs must pass a “basket test” for riding in a carrier or small bag.
Most cities charge a fare for dogs at a concession or child price. Zurich has gone a step further by offering an <a href="https://www.sbb.ch/en/travelcards-and-tickets/tickets-for-switzerland/dogs" target="_blank">annual travel card</a> for dogs.
<hr>
Further reading: <a href="https://theconversation.com/johnny-depps-dogs-show-evolving-ideas-of-animal-citizenship-41968" target="_blank">Johnny Depp’s dogs show evolving ideas of animal ‘citizenship’</a>
<hr>
It is interesting that in cultures where private cars are dominant – such as Australia and the US – dogs are restricted from riding on public transport. In Europe, where car ownership and use are less common and public transport use is more the norm, dogs are welcome on trains and buses.
This perhaps says something about how we see public transport in Australia: it is for predictable and “clean” trips, such as the journey to work.
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/87094/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">In reality, our lives are made up of messy trips, and to reduce car dependence we need to plan for this mess. This might include measures such as changes to timetables, making the interior of trains and buses more suitable for people carrying groceries, or allowing people to use the train to take their dog on an outing or to the vet. If public transport is for travel for all citizens and dogs are an important part of so many people’s lives, why should dogs be excluded from public transport?
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/jennifer-kent-13822" target="_blank">Jennifer Kent</a>, Research Fellow, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-sydney-841" target="_blank">University of Sydney</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/corinne-mulley-106" target="_blank">Corinne Mulley</a>, Professor; Chair in Public Transport, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-sydney-841" target="_blank">University of Sydney</a>
This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/riding-in-cars-with-dogs-millions-of-trips-a-week-tell-us-transport-policy-needs-to-change-87094" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

j.ballantyne1990-6AQqhLzZaK

Riding in cars with dogs: Public transport policy needs to change

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
The announcement by Transport Minister, Andrew Constance, of the preferred route for Parramatta’s light rail must be complemented by increased density along the route.
The two stages for the Parramatta light rail are well located to stimulate significant development along the routes.
The connections to the Westmead Hospital precinct, to Carlingford and the second stage through Melrose Park and across the Parramatta River to Sydney Olympic Park can stimulate significant development particularly on the north side of the river.
The Urban Taskforce believes that when transport infrastructure projects are announced there should be a related announcement about the number of new homes to be developed.
Communities often complain about the lack of infrastructure related to new development so when the government is committing to new infrastructure local communities must understand that increased development density will come with this.
Along with the proposed Metro West rail link between Parramatta and the Sydney CBD the light rail now gives a very significant public transport network for this important part of metropolitan Sydney.
Sydney’s early development linked Parramatta and Sydney Cove closely with the first toll road.
There was a Government House in both cities symbolising their equal importance.
The public transport commitments by the NSW Government two hundred years after the first public transport links between the two cities carries on the importance of this region for development.
The possible alternative through Camellia could be a boost to development in this precinct although this needs to be balanced with the potential for a station on the Metro West line.
With the Parramatta light rail now substantially determined, the NSW Government needs to decide the locations for the Metro West stations so there can be good connections between the two transport modes.
Chris Johnson is CEO of Urban Taskforce.
</body></html>

Parramatta light rail to stimulate development along the route: Urban Taskforce's Chris Johnson

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
Large health inequalities exist in Australia. Car ownership and its costs add to the health inequalities between low-income and high-income households. The physical characteristics of neighbourhoods influence our transport use and, in turn, make health inequalities better or worse.
Rising housing prices have forced many low-income families to live on the fringes of Australian capital cities. Residents of these sprawling outer suburbs often have worse access to public transport, employment, shops and services. They need one or more motor vehicles simply to get to work and take children to school.
Buying and maintaining vehicles in Australia is expensive. These costs have a large impact on household budgets. Household finances then affect health in two main ways:
<ul>
<li>
through the ability to access health-related resources, such as healthy foods, health care and high-quality living conditions (like heating and cooling)
</li>
<li>
through stress caused by financial difficulties, insecure incomes and exposure to poorer environments such as crowding, crime and noise pollution.
</li>
</ul>
Living in the car-dependent urban fringes also often dooms residents to long sedentary commutes.
<h2>Four scenarios of transport costs</h2>
The following four hypothetical households demonstrate the costs of varying levels of car ownership and transport behaviours.
Scenario 1: A household with two cars that are 15,000km and 10,000km, respectively, per year. The car that is driven 15,000km is assumed to be less than three years old, bought new and financed with a loan. The other car is assumed to be 10 years old and owned outright. This household aligns with estimates by the Australian Automobile Association.
Scenario 2: Scenario one, minus the used car and substituting five return public transport trips a week to the Melbourne central business district from the outer suburbs.
Scenario 3: No cars, substituting 10 return trips to the CBD from the outer suburbs.
Scenario 4: No cars, substituting three return trips to the CBD (i.e. occasional public transport use), with walking and cycling as the main forms of transport.
Table 1 shows how reducing household car ownership, even after adding the cost of public transport, can improve household finances.
<img src="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/c_scale,w_580,q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/po.images/2017/10/21/4.jpg" alt="">
Moving from a two-car household to a one-car household cuts weekly costs by as much as A$41, even after increased public transport use adds a A$41-a-week cost.
Moving from a two-car household to having no cars can improve weekly finances by as much as A$237, after adding 10 return trips to the CBD.
The fourth scenario, emphasising walking and cycling, shows the greatest improvement in household finances. These families are $294 per week better off.
The impacts on households of each of these car ownership and transport scenarios differ depending on their incomes. To illustrate this, we’ve taken the median disposable household income from the lowest, middle and highest quintiles from the ABS in 2015-16.
<img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/190506/original/file-20171016-22304-10xttga.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt="">Figure 1. Proportion of disposable household income remaining after transport costs for four scenarios of car ownership.
Although becoming car-free will increase disposable household income after paying for transport, the largest proportional differences are for the lowest-income households. This means these households will benefit most from reducing car ownership and switching to more active and affordable forms of transport.
<h2>Urban design can boost household health and wealth</h2>
So how do we help households make the transition from private car ownership? The answer lies in the environments we live in.
The evidence from research suggests several strategies to improve uptake of active and affordable transport, while reducing car dependence and related health inequities. These include local urban design features such as:
<ul>
<li>connected and safe street networks (including pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure) that reduce exposure to traffic</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>
residential areas mixed with commercial, public service and recreational opportunities
</li>
<li>
public transport that is convenient, affordable, frequent, safe and comfortable
</li>
<li>
higher residential density with different types of housing (including affordable housing) to support the viability of local businesses and high-frequency public transport services
</li>
<li>
cycling education and promotion
</li>
<li>
car-free pedestrian zones, traffic calming measures, signage and accessibility for all (including wheelchair and pram access).
</li>
</ul>
Australia has yet to fully realise the potential of promoting active transport and reducing car dependency as a way to reduce health inequities.
For example, the Victorian government recently announced 17 new low-density suburbs for Melbourne’s outer fringes (up to 50 kilometres from the CBD). It did so with a goal of creating more affordable housing. But urban planning experts have criticised these plans for increasing car dependence and commute times – due to the lack of nearby destinations and amenities – which have been shown to be bad for health.
In another case, the Planning Institute of Australia described the proposed A$5.5 billion West Gate Tunnel as a “retrograde solution”. The institute expressed concern about “entrenched inequality for those in the outer suburbs”.
Changes to city transport environments can take years or even decades, and funding is often limited. Phased interventions that target lower-income neighbourhoods should be considered first as these are likely to produce the greatest gains in health equity.
This approach does have some caveats. Urban renewal projects carry a risk of gentrification, whereby higher and middle-income households displace those on lower incomes. Place-based government investment, such as improvements to public transport, has been shown to increase local housing prices. That could force lower-income households to relocate, often to car-dependent neighbourhoods on the urban fringes.
In these scenarios, a lack of government policies that safeguard against displacement of low-income residents can make health inequities worse.
Jerome N Rachele, Research Fellow in Social Epidemiology, Institute for Health and Ageing, Australian Catholic University; Aislinn Healy, PhD Candidate, Institute for Health and Ageing, Australian Catholic University; Jim Sallis, Professorial Fellow, Institute for Health and Ageing, Australian Catholic University, and Emeritus Professor, Department of Family Medicine and Public Health, University of California, San Diego, and Takemi Sugiyama, Professor of Built Environment, Institute for Health &amp; Ageing, Australian Catholic University.
This article was originally published on <a href="https://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/designing-suburbs-to-cut-car-use-closes-gaps-in-health-and-wealth-83961" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

Designing suburbs to cut car use

<html><body>
<h1> </h1>
GUEST OBSERVER
 
Trials of autonomous cars and buses have <a href="https://intellibus.rac.com.au/" target="_blank">begun on the streets of Australian cities</a>. Communications companies are moving to <a href="https://themelbourneengineer.eng.unimelb.edu.au/2017/01/melbourne-launches-world-first-connected-living-transport-lab/" target="_blank">deploy</a> the lasers, cameras and centimetre-perfect GPS that will <a href="https://theconversation.com/city-streets-become-a-living-lab-that-could-transform-your-daily-travel-71272" target="_blank">enable a vehicle to navigate the streets</a> of your town or city without a driver.
Most research and commentary is telling us how the new machines will work, but not how they might shape our cities. The talk is of the <a href="https://2015.internationaltransportforum.org/shared-economy" target="_blank">benefits of new shared transport economies</a>, but these new technologies will shape our built environment in ways that are <a href="https://theconversation.com/smart-cities-does-this-mean-more-transport-disruptions-63638" target="_blank">not yet fully understood</a>. There’s every chance that, if mismanaged, driverless technologies will entrench the ills of car dependency.
As with <a href="https://theconversation.com/taxi-driver-compensation-for-uber-is-unfair-and-poorly-implemented-64354" target="_blank">Uber and the taxi industry</a>, public sector planners and regulators will be forced to respond to the anger of those displaced by the new products the IT and automobile industries will bring to the market. But can we afford to wait?
<h2>Three competing interests</h2>
Three distinct groups are giving form to the idea of driverless vehicles. Each has its own corporate proponents and target markets, and its own, often competing, demands on citizens, regulators and planners. Each will make its own demands on our streets and public spaces.
First, the traditional car makers are adding “driverless” features to their existing products. They have no compelling interest in changing the current individual ownership model. Their target consumer is someone who values private vehicle ownership and enjoys driving.
These carmakers’ challenge is to win over drivers sceptical about “their” car doing things they can’t control, whether that is behaving differently in traffic or performing unescorted journeys. But, if successful, these new cars will make driving easier and so encourage more travel and ever-expanding suburbs.
Second, cashed-up IT disruptors like Google and Uber see new types of vehicles and new patterns of ownership as the basis for new transport economies. They want lightweight, utilitarian “robo-taxis” owned by a corporation and rented by the trip. Travellers will use phone apps or their next-generation successors to do this. This, in the jargon, is “<a href="https://dupress.deloitte.com/dup-us-en/deloitte-review/issue-20/smart-transportation-technology-mobility-as-a-service" target="_blank">mobility as a service</a>”.
These companies’ ambition is to carve out a large niche in competition with private cars, taxis, conventional public transport and even non-motorised transport. Fleets of shared vehicles in constant circulation can reduce the number of individually owned cars and, in particular, the <a href="https://theconversation.com/disruption-ahead-personal-mobility-is-breaking-down-old-transport-divides-70338" target="_blank">need for parking</a>.
In some circumstances, this may support more compact urban forms. But while sustainability or social objectives might be part of the pitch, the profit motive remains dominant.
Third, public transport operators can see opportunities and challenges in driverless technologies. Already, Vancouver reaps the benefits of lower operating costs for its driverless elevated-rail system.
<iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/XtCyiSleO1g?wmode=transparent&amp;start=0" frameborder="0" width="440" height="260"></iframe> In Vancouver, the train pulls into a station with no driver on board.
Savvy operators understand that new vehicle technology is only valuable if it is integrated with traditional public transport services and with cycling and walking. This means central coordination. Vitally, it also requires control of the information platforms needed to provide multimodal mobility.
Such levels of planning and regulation conflict with Google’s “disruptive” free-market ambitions. European operators, who are in a more powerful position in economic and social life than their Australian counterparts, are already <a href="https://www.uitp.org/autonomous-vehicles" target="_blank">mobilising for this contest</a>.
<h2>Whatever the technology, transport needs space</h2>
Many claims for the benefits of driverless technologies rely on the complete transformation of the existing vehicle fleet. But the transition will not be smooth or uniform. Autonomous vehicles will face a significant period of mixed operation with traditional vehicles.
Freeways are likely to be the first roads on which the new vehicles will be able to operate. Promoters of these vehicles might join forces with the conventional car lobby to demand extra lanes. This would dash the hopes of many that driverless cars will <a href="https://www.inverse.com/article/12082-the-future-of-driverless-cars-where-we-re-going-we-ll-need-more-roads" target="_blank">lead to reduced space</a> for mass movement of cars.
After the freeways, the next objective will be to bring driverless cars, trucks and buses onto city streets. This will require complex systems of sensors and cameras.
The ambition is to allow all users to share road space much more safely than they do today. But, if a driverless vehicle will never hit a jaywalker, what will stop every pedestrian and cyclist from simply using the street as they please? Some analysts <a href="https://news.ucsc.edu/2016/10/pedestrians-self-driving-cars" target="_blank">are predicting</a> that the new vehicles will be slower than conventional driving, partly because the current balance of fear will be upset.
Already active travellers are struggling to assert their <a href="https://theconversation.com/contested-spaces-virtuous-drivers-malicious-cyclists-mindset-gets-us-nowhere-73371" target="_blank">right to the streets</a> of Australian cities. Just imagine how much worse it would be if a dominant autonomous-vehicle fleet operator demanded widespread fencing of roadways to keep bikes and pedestrians out of the way.
The presence of driverless cars cannot alter the fact that space for urban transport is severely constrained. For travel within and between compact urban centres, we will need more and better high-capacity mass transit as well as first-class conditions for walking and cycling.
The integration of conventional public transport networks with shared autonomous vehicles, large and small, offers many opportunities for a much improved service. But that will happen only if this objective is the major focus of investment, innovation, planning and regulation.
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/75531/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">Researchers and policymakers need to move rapidly to gain a holistic and systematic understanding of the multiplicity of driverless-vehicle scenarios and the potential harm that some might contain. The technologies are not an unalloyed good, and governments will need to do more than just be “<a href="https://www.premier.sa.gov.au/stephen-mullighan-news-releases/337-sa-becomes-first-australian-jurisdiction-to-allow-on-road-driverless-car-trials" target="_blank">open for business</a>”.
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/john-stone-226753" target="_blank">John Stone</a>, Senior Lecturer in Transport Planning, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-melbourne-722" target="_blank">University of Melbourne</a>; <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/carey-curtis-96861" target="_blank">Carey Curtis</a>, Professor of City Planning and Transport, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/curtin-university-873" target="_blank">Curtin University</a>; <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/crystal-legacy-18412" target="_blank">Crystal Legacy</a>, Australian Research Council (DECRA) Fellow and Vice Chancellor's Research Fellow, Centre for Urban Research, School of Global, Urban and Social Studies, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/rmit-university-1063" target="_blank">RMIT University</a>, and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/jan-scheurer-342188" target="_blank">Jan Scheurer</a>, Senior Research Fellow, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/curtin-university-873" target="_blank">Curtin University</a>
This article was originally published on <a href="https://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/we-must-plan-the-driverless-city-to-avoid-being-hostage-to-the-technology-revolution-75531" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

rt-jypKJrGt6b

Planning the driverless city to avoid being hostage to the technology revolution

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/78527/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-advanced" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
A new report from Infrastructure Australia, Improving Public Transport: Customer Focused Franchising, and its associated technical report from Pricewaterhouse Coopers (PwC), will have state and federal treasurers salivating. The accompanying press release is clearly intended to set their fiscal juices flowing. It suggests that:
"… subjecting the operation of Australia’s government-operated bus and rail services to competitive tender processes could save Australian taxpayers up to $15.5 billion by 2040…"
This A$15.5 billion is the estimated high operational cost savings scenario, in present value terms (2016 prices; 7% real discount rate). Infrastructure Australia/PwC’s conservative savings estimate is still a very substantial A$11.6 billion.
The magic pudding is competitive tendering of a range of government-operated rail and bus public transport services, as well as Melbourne’s privately run bus services, which are not currently awarded by competitive tendering.
Just how realistic are these savings?
Rail services
Ownership and contracting of public transport services has been a major transport policy focus for 30 years. This issue has had its own two-yearly conference, the Thredbo International Conference Series, for most of that time.
The Thredbo series (named after the location of the first conference) provides a vast array of international material that sheds light on ways to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of public transport under different operating regimes. Australian federal and state government officials rarely attend.
The PwC report presents Australian and international examples of competitive tendering of rail and bus services. It concludes that first-round rail tenders will deliver operational cost savings of 15-20 percent (conservative and high estimates respectively) by the end of the first tender and 25-32 percent by the end of the second. For bus services, the report estimates savings of 15-20 percent from the first tender and 30-35 percent by the end of the third round.
International experience on rail privatisation is sparse, with the sources that PwC cites among the more well known. We are concerned, however, that contrary evidence is given no attention. This raises questions about the objectivity of the analysis.
Andrew Smith and colleagues, in a paper to the Thredbo 6 Conference, reviewed the UK rail experience. They found costs rose after privatisation.
Total passenger train operating costs (excluding infrastructure) per train-kilometre were 14 percent higher in 2006 than at privatisation ten years earlier. Between privatisation and 2008-09, real average salary costs rose much faster than in the economy as a whole.
Pedro Cantos and colleagues reviewed the European experience across 16 countries. Their study concluded that tendering regional passenger services did not have a significant effect on efficiency and productivity.
Melbourne’s early rail franchising experience also left a lot to be desired. One operator handed back its contracts – train, tram and bus – before completion.
As Public Transport Users Association president Tony Morton wrote in May 2017 to The Age:
"Victoria’s train/tram privatisation hasn’t saved taxpayers one cent. A former minister, the late Lynne Kosky, admitted as much ten years ago. We do save money relative to Sydney by not having train guards, a decision that predates privatisation."
Those labour savings were part of large reductions in Melbourne rail staff, from 18,000 to 8,400, during the 1990s. This was done in a corporatisation process that preceded privatisation.
Taking account of the sources cited above and Melbourne’s experience, as well as the sources PwC cites, an assumption that rail privatisation will deliver cost savings of 25-32% by the end of Term 2 tenders is, to say the least, heroic.
We would see even the “conservative” figure of 25% as a high estimate. Melbourne’s experience suggests many of the mooted savings might also be achievable by a thorough corporatisation process. Infrastructure Australia, by simply taking the competitive tendering pathway, does not do justice to the choices available.
Bus services
In a 2007 review of bus privatisation, one of us reported cost reductions from the first round of tenders as follows:
Great Britain 50-55%
Scandinavia most in the range 20-30% but with a range of 5-34%
USA 30-46%
Australia: Perth 22%; Adelaide 38%
New Zealand: 40% ex-public operators; about 5% private operators
Norway 10%. 
The savings for Norway are lower than elsewhere because the local bus industry had been improving its efficiency over some time, mirroring NZ experience. The Norwegian study suggested the threat of competitive tendering was important in driving savings.
One of us recently analysed the tendering of private bus services in Sydney, where private operators run some existing services. The analysis found savings of under 4% on a like-for-like basis.
These various bus findings suggest the cost savings range of 30-35% selected by PwC and reported by Infrastructure Australia might be possible, if an efficient private operator replaces an inefficient public operator. We make no comment on the efficiency of the public bus operators reviewed by PwC.
But such savings will not be achievable in Melbourne, where private operators already provide service. Cost savings of less than 5% are more realistic there.
As we argue below, achieving the latter savings does not rely on competitive tendering. Importantly, all such savings, in rail and bus, are a one-off windfall gain. Our research commonly shows evidence of significant real cost increases after the initial tender round.
What about the alternatives?
Wallis, Bray and Webster, pioneers of the Adelaide privatisation experience, recognised the tendency for costs to increase in subsequent tendering rounds. They proposed that performance-based contracts negotiated with incumbent operators should replace the city’s fourth round of bus tenders.
It is surprising that neither the Infrastructure Australia report nor PwC technical paper mention such contracts as an alternative to competitive tendering.
Our research suggests that negotiated performance-based contracts with efficient operators deliver cost outcomes in line with competitive tendering. And this approach provides two other benefits. Transaction costs are lower and it provides opportunities for closer partnering between purchaser and provider on service planning.
Importantly, given competition law in Australia, if it can be shown that the benefits of a particular contracting regime, such as competitive tendering or negotiated performance-based contracts, outweigh the costs, then the compliance case is strong.
It is surprising that Infrastructure Australia is either not aware of, or more likely has chosen for some reason to ignore, the opportunities afforded by negotiated performance-based contracts, particularly for bus services. This narrowing of the policy options put forward for public consideration risks loss of benefits from important transport reforms.
In short, we believe that Infrastructure Australia, and its advisers PwC, have overestimated the achievable cost savings from competitive tendering of publicly provided rail services. They have also ignored the potential for savings within existing publicly provided public transport services. Competitive tendering of such services will deliver cost savings, but it would be surprising if they were as big as suggested.
For Melbourne bus services, any operating cost savings from competitive tendering are likely to be much less than forecast, most likely under 5%. Such savings will be equally achievable under negotiated performance-based contracts.
Although we recognise that the first round of any competitive tendering will produce a windfall gain, this will be partly at the risk of service quality. Once we consider this, the one-off financial benefits are diluted.
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/john-stanley-115" target="_blank"></a>
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/john-stanley-115" target="_blank">John Stanley </a>is Adjunct Professor, Institute of Transport and Logistics Studies, The Business School, University of Sydney.
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/john-stanley-115" target="_blank"></a>
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/david-hensher-11295" target="_blank">David Hensher </a>is Director, Institute of Transport and Logistics Studies, University of Sydney.
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/john-stanley-115" target="_blank"></a>
Both are authors for <a href="https://theconversation.com/au" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>.
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/john-stanley-115" target="_blank"> </a>
</body></html>

jchancellor-FAypfDUnLy

Why touted public transport savings from competitive tendering are too high

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/78190/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-advanced" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">GUEST OBSERVER
The light rail project pushed up property values within 800 metres of the stations by over 30 percent from 1996 to 2016. Gains on this scale offer a potential source of finance for public transport.
Gold Coast’s light rail scheme has attracted great interest since the streets of Surfers Paradise were torn up and stations and track were built. Was it worth spending A$1.5 billion on 13km of light rail and more than $40 million a year in subsidies?
Are we right to be spending another $420 million on an extension to Helensvale in time for the Commonwealth Games? Should we be taking it all the way down to Gold Coast Airport?
Another question is whether gains in property values served by the project could be “captured” to fund such infrastructure.
Previous studies of property values in areas serviced by the light rail showed only modest gains after it opened. Our research cast a wider net back to when we first started planning the system in 1996 through to the latest data we could get in 2016.
The results were intriguing. We found that prices in the catchment areas started to increase in the earliest planning phases. The effects of the light rail were to push up property values within 800 metres of the stations by more than 30% in total from 1996 to 2016.
This is well above most previous estimates of a light rail system’s effects. This is mainly because we looked earlier for the property value gains and used a carefully designed control to make the comparison.
<h2>Impact after opening seemed modest</h2>
These findings cast a different light on the apparently modest impact of the light rail after it opened.
When the first stage from Broadbeach to our university at Parkwood opened it was well received. But the behaviour change we all hoped for was rather modest at first. After opening in 2014, patronage did not surge compared to bus ridership on the route in earlier years.
New passengers got on board, but it was an uphill climb for the new system. Fare increases of almost 50% from 2010 to 2014 pushed passengers off public transport across southeast Queensland, especially on rail.
Not all passengers enjoyed improved service for their particular journeys either. Those who used to travel through the corridor in a bus now had to break their journey at the light rail terminus and transfer, adding travel time and annoyance.
In the second year of operation, however, patronage jumped 16% and our contacts suggest third-year patronage is tracking well. Subsidies per passenger are falling. The decision to add the connection to Helensvale looks a sound one.
But, seemingly, other changes everyone expected weren’t there. The Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics analysed property values in the corridor from 2000 to 2013 using a coarse geography and didn’t find much evidence of any uplift. This gave many cause for concern.
Reassuringly, Cameron Murray used valuation data for a similar period using a different geographical scale and found a 10% increase for properties within 400 metres of the new stations. But there was still uncertainty.
Our new research backs up and expands on Murray’s findings, suggesting there was substantial positive impact.
<h2>What did our research look at?</h2>
Our research team in the Funding on the Line Australian Research Council Linkage Project took a different approach.
In a peer-reviewed paper, which will shortly be presented at the World Symposium on Transport and Land Use Research, led by Barbara Yen, we used sales data for residential properties along the corridor. Our study compared areas within 800 metres of the stations with a control area containing locations a little further away but still in the same vicinity.
We used a longitudinal methodology to see when the value uplift occurred from back in 1996, when planning of the system first started, through to the latest 2016 data. Property prices in the catchment areas started to increase very early in the planning phase. The property value uplift was highest in the locations between 100 and 400 metres from the stations.
Values went up 11.9% in these locations compared to our control areas between 1996 and the feasibility study’s announcement in 2002. They increased a further 26.3% from 2002 to 2006 over the control areas when the feasibility study was completed. Prices rose only 2.3% from 2006 to 2011 when the formal funding commitment was made and construction began, and then by another 5.4% after the line opened to the end of the study period in 2016.
<a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/images/2017/05/29/file-20170524-5749-1f04vgx.png" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="https://www.urban.com.au/images/2017/05/29/file-20170524-5749-1f04vgx.png" width="700" height="263">
The areas less than 100 metres from the stations, and between 400 and 800 metres also recorded strong increases compared to the control areas, though not quite as much.
This is to be expected. Sites closest to the stations received some nuisance from the light rail and road corridor; sites further away obtain fewer advantages in travel time savings for passengers.
<h2>What are the funding implications?</h2>
The property value gains attributable to the project from 1996 to 2016 of more than 30% are very significant. Yet it’s pretty much only the landowners who benefit.
The City of Gold Coast recoups some of its $120 million investment in the light rail through its rates and its public transport levy on urban residents. The Queensland government may end up getting a little slice via stamp duty as properties are sold. The few pieces of government-owned land likely rose in value.
But the state and federal governments generally have no other mechanisms to take a small sliver of the increased property value their investment generated to help pay for the light rail system or reinvest in public transport elsewhere. We’ve written about this previously in The Conversation and suggested ways we could change the system.
A recent federal parliamentary inquiry and moves to set up “value sharing” units in the Queensland and New South Wales governments suggest we are now getting serious about generating alternative funding for public transport.
Our study’s results only add more support to these initiatives. Get it right and we should be able to deliver more metros, busways and light rail to serve our growing population and its increasingly urban way of life.
 Matthew Burke is an Associate Professor, Cities Research Institute, Griffith University and author for The Conversation. He can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/matthew-burke-1677" target="_blank">here</a>.
 
</body></html>

Why Gold Coast light rail was worth it: Matthew Burke

<html><body><div class="page" title="Page 1">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
GUEST OBSERVER
Planning approval of the Sydney Metro from Chatswood to Sydenham is great news, however there is a lack of certainty for development around the stations and areas around the rail corridor.
The planning approval of the Sydney Metro including tunnels under the harbour demonstrates the commitment of the Baird Government to an extensive metro network across metropolitan Sydney.
Along with the Metro West line between Sydney and Parramatta the Metro network sets the framework for extensive areas of urban renewal around the new stations, which will help boost must-needed housing supply.
The Urban Taskforce is concerned, however, that planning for the urban renewal of areas around the rail corridor is taking far too long. Developers have no certainty and cannot proceed with housing projects as strategic land use planning around the metro is lagging far behind.
An example is the Sydenham – Bankstown Urban Renewal Corridor Strategy. The draft Strategy was exhibited by the Department of Planning in October 2015, however rezoning proposals for areas along the Corridor are on hold until local councils prepare detailed planning controls. 
This could take an additional 2 years, even more if the council is subjected to an amalgamation, before the local environmental plan is complete. Developers simply cannot sit on land for that long with no outcome.
Until planning around these corridors comes up to speed, the NSW Government must fast track plans around metro stations, or develop a process where land owners and developers can obtain a development approval or rezoning in significantly less than 3 years.
The Department of Planning’s Guide to Preparing Planning Proposals issued in August 2016 states that the rezoning proposals have merit ‘if they are consistent with relevant district, corridor or precinct plans applying to the site, including any draft regional, district or corridor plans released for public comment.’ It seems that the Greater Sydney Commission Planning Panels are not following this guide.
Boosting Sydney’s housing supply is absolutely critical if we are to alleviate the housing affordability crisis. It is an excellent time to fast-track planning proposals for new housing around proposed metro rail stations.
Chris Johnson is chief executive officer of property development industry group Urban Taskforce and can be contacted <a href="https://www.urbantaskforce.com.au/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=97&amp;Itemid=126#.Vdaart55dFI" target="_blank">here</a>.
</div>
</div>
</div></body></html>

Sydney Metro forging ahead but urban renewal lags behind: Chris Johnson

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/68326/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
Large transport infrastructure projects, which can cost billions of dollars, are major drivers of the economy, and political flagships.
They have significant impacts on health and wellbeing. Yet our research finds these impacts are not as well considered in the project assessment phase as they should be.
A recent Lancet series is the culmination of knowledge linking transport and health. For example, it recommends reducing reliance on private cars and enhancing opportunities for walking, cycling and public transport use. It argues this will improve health both by reducing air and noise pollution, and by promoting physical activity, community connectedness and better access to goods and services, particularly for the socio-economically disadvantaged.
Each transport project’s environmental assessment thus presents a crucial opportunity within the mandated planning process to consider health. This is also when the wider community can engage with the design of projects. The main output of this process, the environmental impact statement (EIS), is available for public scrutiny and comment prior to final project approval. 
<h2>A health check on assessments</h2>
We recently compared the inclusion of health issues in four major transport project assessments. Three involved motorways (WestConnex M4 East and NorthConnex in New South Wales and the 2010 Darlington Upgrade in South Australia) and the fourth the Sydney CBD and South East Light Rail. We did this by first applying a “health audit” to each EIS, then interviewing a range of stakeholders. 
The road assessments emphasised risks from air quality and noise, concluding these were minimal. Indeed, each project was predicted to improve air quality and, by extension, health. 
When health was assessed, human health risk assessment was the method used, which we judged to be of good quality. The 2010 Darlington upgrade was the only road project not to include health data explicitly in its calculations. 
The light rail EIS referred mainly to the connection of the project to health facilities, with some reference to noise and dust in construction. This statement’s chapter on social impacts, in which health featured strongly, reflects the tone of the recent Lancet report, albeit with less detail. It considered wider health benefits of the project, including better access to health facilities and employment opportunities, improved road safety, opportunities for walking and cycling, better air quality and enhanced social interaction. 
Of the four environmental impact statements, WestConnex M4 East had the most detailed coverage of mental health issues, mostly related to property acquisition. Despite this, there was limited detail in the health chapter when compared to other issues like air and noise risks. Mitigation measures were limited to the provision of phone counselling services. 
The EIS for each of the other projects lacked assessment of mental health impacts due to construction and operation. 
As outlined above, evidence that links transport and health advocates for access to a mix of transport options, giving people opportunities to walk, cycle and use public transport. The importance of this mix was excluded from the project and parameters set for the two NSW motorway projects. 
While the EIS for each of NorthConnex and WestConnex acknowledged the need for multi-modal transport options, their provision was described as being outside the project’s parameters. It wasn’t clear how or when this was being done elsewhere, only that it was not the proponent’s responsibility and not within the scope of the EIS.
This mix of options was minimal in the 2010 Darlington report we analysed. However, the most recent 2016 iteration of this project design appears to emphasise walking and cycling facilities, with a recent announcement of a rail link adjacent to the motorway.
<h2>Why were health impacts neglected?</h2>
Stakeholder interviews were held with project co-ordinators, consultants, the health department and affected community members for the NSW-based projects. We were unable to conduct interviews for the Darlington case due to changing and uncertain project parameters at the time of the research. 
Informants stressed the importance of the requirements issued to proponents by the state Department of Planning and Infrastructure. Health featured in these requirements, largely on the advice of the state Ministry of Health. 
These requirements focused on environmental health risks, particularly concerning air quality. This corresponded to historical community concerns about motorway impacts. 
Despite an overall consensus that health was an important issue, there was little appetite for comprehensive consideration of broader health impacts, such as those advocated by evidence-based research. Crucially, as reported in the environmental impact statements and confirmed through stakeholder interviews, the design of each project reflects prior financial and strategic decisions. The purpose of the EIS is focused on minimising these risks within those existing design parameters. 
Supporting the considerations behind the light rail, there was reference to the cost savings from the health benefits associated with public transport use. This suggests that health was part of that project’s preceding business case. For the motorway projects, however, our research suggests these early decision points failed to comprehensively consider health impacts. 
If health is to be comprehensively included in the environmental impact statement, it is clear that it needs to be considered much earlier on when the decisions are made on the parameters of the project. Our findings suggest the design of these projects – from business case to assessment – lags well behind the evidence surrounding transport and health. 
The community can be confident that these assessment processes were conducted thoroughly within their set purpose. But the bar for considering the full range of health impacts needs to be raised. This will ensure communities are aware of the long-term impacts of infrastructure provision, and that opportunities to promote and protect health through transport are maximised.
Patrick Harris is senior research fellow, University of Sydney and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/patrick-harris-102775" target="_blank">here</a>.
Emily Riley is research assistant , University of Sydney and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/emily-riley-315794" target="_blank">here</a>.
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/jennifer-kent-13822" rel="author">Jennifer Kent</a> is research fellow, University of Sydney and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/jennifer-kent-13822" target="_blank">here</a>.
All are authors for The Conversation.
</body></html>

Why transport projects aren’t as good for your health as they could be

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/66394/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
Last week Fairfax Media reported that the Parramatta Light Rail is set to cost the NSW government not A$1 billion (together with part of the proceeds of a levy on new residential developments), as budgeted, but a whopping A$3.5 billion.
People could be forgiven for thinking that the revelation of a A$3.5 billion price tag is surprising, and much higher than expected from what’s been budgeted. But as a new Grattan Institute report shows, cost overruns in public transport infrastructure are far too common.
The report is the first comprehensive Australian study of all 836 transport infrastructure projects valued at A$20 million or more and planned or built since 2001. It reveals that over the past 15 years, Australian governments have spent A$28 billion more on transport infrastructure than they told taxpayers they would spend. Much of this overspending should never have happened. 
The A$28 billion over the originally promised costs does not stem from the accumulation of small cost overruns on most projects. Rather, most projects come in reasonably close to their original announced cost, as the figure below shows. The problem is that when projects do run over, it can be spectacular: 90 percent of the cost overrun problem is explained by the 17 percent of projects that overran their cost promise by more than 50 percent.
<a href="/images/2016/10/26/image-20161023-15963-pm2um9.png" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<h4><img src="/images/2016/10/26/image-20161023-15963-pm2um9.png" alt=""></h4>
<div class="enlarge_hint"> </div>
The main culprit for this startling finding is premature announcements. Ministers and shadow ministers frequently promise to build a road, bridge or rail line for a particular cost, especially in the lead-up to an election. 
History shows that projects with costs announced before a formal budget commitment are at much more risk of a large cost overrun than those announced when they are better developed. Over the past 15 years, 74% of the total value of cost overruns is explained by the 32% of projects announced early.
The poor performance of projects with early announcements is not just a warning to mistrust politicians’ promises. Premature cost announcements continue to haunt projects throughout their lives, as the figure below shows.
<a href="/images/2016/10/26/image-20161023-15930-107f13l.png" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<h4>
<img src="/images/2016/10/26/image-20161023-15930-107f13l.png" alt=""> 
</h4>
It is not common practice to analyse projects from as far back as when they are first announced, but it should be. Once politicians have announced a project, they and the public treat that announcement as a commitment. They are right to do so: two-thirds of these projects end up being built. 
In fact, it is not common practice to analyse the cost outcomes of infrastructure projects in any systematic way. Analysts are hindered by the absence of meaningful reporting on the outcomes of these projects – by the lack of information on how well they performed against the costs and benefits, such as travel time savings, that were used to make the original investment decision.
Failing to collect and aggregate information about past projects also hampers those trying to estimate what today’s projects will cost. Without actual Australian data on past projects, cost estimators may be able to factor in the prices of equipment, material and the workforce, but they can’t factor in how to protect against unusual and unforeseeable events that can have a big impact – “unknown unknowns”.
Today’s projects suggest we are not learning from history. For every project, cost estimators forecast what they expect the project will probably cost (known as a “median” or “P50” cost estimate), and also what it could cost for the one in ten times that a project will probably go over budget – a “worst case” cost estimate (known as a “P90”). 
The experience of the past 15 years shows that the difference between the median cost estimate and the “worst case” cost estimate is 21% on average for transport infrastructure projects valued at A$20 million or more. 
But cost estimates for current projects do not reflect this experience. Instead, the difference between the median and “worst case” estimates is generally about a third to a half this size. Judging by recent history, this suggests that either the median cost estimate is too high or – more likely – the “worst case” cost estimate is too low. 
What’s wrong with this approach is that it probably won’t be one in ten projects that governments are expecting, but actually more likely one in three, that go over the “worst case” estimate. 
Our research also shows that, if history is any guide, these overruns will be bigger than expected. Some of today’s big-budget projects that have these surprisingly low “worst case” cost estimates are the Inland Rail between Brisbane and Melbourne, Sydney’s WestConnex and Melbourne’s Western Distributor.
This is not to slight the motives or the abilities of cost estimators, who deal with intrinsically uncertain costs. But without historical information to draw on, these estimates are inherently limited. The evidence is clear: over the past 15 years, cost estimators expected between 10% and 25% of projects to exceed their budget. In fact, 34% did so.
<h2>Policy changes required</h2>
The solutions are within reach. Governments should not commit to building transport infrastructure before tabling a proper evaluation and the underlying business case in parliament. And once a project is completed, governments should report to the public on how it performed against the costs and benefits behind the original decision to invest. 
Governments can also improve project assessment methodologies, collect and publish data that would enable cost estimators to learn from experience, and manage contingency funds with more discipline. 
We must start to learn from history. Our infrastructure systems should promise what is worth having, and then deliver what is promised.
Marion Terrill is transport program director, Grattan Institute and author for The Conversation. She can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/marion-terrill-169480" target="_blank">here</a>.
 
</body></html>

Public Transport

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Public Transport

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News