Integrating Multi-Modal Transport and Sustainable Urban Design

Integrating Transport Forms for Sustainability Goals

  • The primary inquiry of the study is how the integration of various transport modes meets sustainability goals.

  • A significant barrier to student transition to sustainable transport is the identification of factors preventing cycling to school.

Walkability and the 15-Minute City Concept

  • Walkability is measured through an engager exercise using the Heart Health Australia website.

  • Procedure for determining a walkability score:

    • Identify a specific street or nearby location.

    • Select the "15 minute walk" parameter.

    • Count the number of essential services or amenities not present within that 15-minute radius.

    • Scoring: A lower walkability score is better, indicating more services are within reach. Example score provided: 5.

  • Distribution Patterns in Melbourne:

    • Highly walkable suburbs/councils typically yield scores of 0–1.

    • Car-dependent suburbs/councils typically yield scores of 6 and above.

    • Most walkable suburbs (low scores) are generally centrally located or in specific high-density clusters.

Learning Objectives and Success Criteria for Urban Design

  • Learning Objectives:

    • Understanding design principles that underpin cities and street designs conducive to walking and cycling.

    • Connecting city design to sustainability principles and the resulting benefits for human populations.

  • Success Criteria:

    • Analysis and redesign of Melbourne streets using "transport choice" design principles.

    • Evaluation of the feasibility of street redesign considering economic, cultural, and environmental challenges.

    • Presentation of original designs and supporting research.

Understanding Urban Infrastructure: Road, Street, and Stroad

  • Cities are often designed for cars rather than public transport and walkability, leading to car dependency.

  • Definitions:

    • Road: A high-speed connection between two points (e.g., a city and a town). Focus is on moving vehicles quickly.

    • Street: A place where people live, shop, and interact. Focus is on human activity and destination accessibility.

    • Stroad: A hybrid between a street and a road. They are often unsafe and inefficient because they try to be both a high-speed throughway and a destination with many entries/exits.

  • Melbourne Examples and Classifications:

    • Dandenong Rd/Princes Hwy, Carnegie: Classified as a STROAD. Characteristics include an 80 km/h80\,km/h speed limit and 3 lanes in each direction.

    • 187 Smith St, Fitzroy: Classified as a STREET. Characteristics include 1 lane in each direction, street parking, tram access, and a 40 km/h40\,km/h speed limit.

    • 362 Stephensons Rd, Mount Waverley: Classified as a STROAD. Characteristics include a 60 km/h60\,km/h speed limit and 2 lanes in each direction.

    • Eastern Freeway, Clifton Hill-Kew: Classified as a ROAD. Characteristics include 5/6 lanes in each direction and a 100 km/h100\,km/h speed limit.

Strategic Solutions for Urban Mobility

  • The problems of congestion and walkability are multifaceted and require complex combinations of solutions:

    • 15/20-Minute Cities: Ensuring all basic needs are reachable within a short walk or ride.

    • Density Management: Utilizing high/medium density housing to support local services.

    • Walkability & Cyclability: Prioritizing non-motorized transport.

    • Transport Choice: The capability to commute via car, public transport, or walking depending on specific needs, physical ability, and personal desire.

  • Aims of Sustainable Solutions:

    • Reduction of car reliance as the primary transport mode by making alternatives more appealing.

    • Bringing necessary services closer to residential areas.

    • Reducing or reversing the effects of urban sprawl.

Case Study: Amsterdam and Mixed-Use Design

  • Historical Context: Before the 1980s, Amsterdam was as car-dependent as many Western cities. They embarked on an intentional program to redesign streets and alleviate specific urban issues.

  • Conversion Strategy: Short car trips were converted to walking or biking trips by:

    • Making cycling and walking routes the most direct and convenient options.

    • Intentionally redirecting car traffic away from direct routes.

    • Integrating frequent and reliable public transport directly into the street architecture.

  • Infrastructure Features:

    • Bike Highways: Separate routes specifically for bicycles that do not compete with cars.

    • Multi-Modal Configuration: Integrated layouts featuring wide footpaths, dedicated bike lanes, tram tracks, and separate car lanes.

Critique of Melbourne Infrastructure: Glen Huntly Rd, Elsternwick

  • Existing Configuration: Features person-friendly elements like painted bike lanes and tram tracks.

  • Identified Flaws:

    1. Crossover zones where cars must enter the left lane, cutting across the bike lane.

    2. Bike lanes placed to the right of parked cars, exposing riders to the risk of being "doored."

    3. Lack of safe crossing points, forcing pedestrians to walk long distances to signalized lights.

    4. Conflict points between cars and other road users in high-density areas.

    5. Lack of infrastructure for cyclists to make safe right-hand turns.

  • Dutch-Style Reimagining: The primary change is to stop treating cars as the most important part of the road. This involves removing street parking to accommodate wider, safer cycling and walking infrastructure on a standard 20 m20\,m wide street.

Urban Design Components and Metrics

  • Mixed Use Road Dimensions:

    • Frontage/Hospitality (outdoor dining): 2.3 m2.3\,m to 3.2 m3.2\,m.

    • Walking room/Sidewalk: 1.8 m1.8\,m to 2.0 m2.0\,m.

    • Buffer zones (transit or street vending): 0.6 m0.6\,m to 0.8 m0.8\,m.

    • Cycle lanes: 2.0 m2.0\,m to 2.3 m2.3\,m.

    • Bus lanes: 3.4 m3.4\,m.

    • Median: 0.1 m0.1\,m.

    • Curb to curb vehicle space: 7.9 m7.9\,m to 10.1 m10.1\,m.

  • Bike Path Infrastructure:

    • Protected by curbs.

    • Protected by a combination of curbs and parked cars (placing the bike lane between the sidewalk and parked cars for safety).

    • Two-way bike lanes to allow for passing.

  • Walking Infrastructure:

    • Raised pedestrian crossings to force vehicle deceleration.

    • "School Streets" (e.g., Paris model) where car access is prohibited.

    • Street corner canopies (e.g., Wellington, New Zealand) for protection against wind and rain.

    • Greenery used for cooling footpaths and reducing the urban heat island effect.

  • Traffic Calming:

    • Rumble strips to make speeding uncomfortable.

    • Visual narrowing or confusing road lines (e.g., Buane, France) to force driver caution and speed reduction.

Melbourne Commuting Statistics (ABS Census 2016)

  • Walking to Work (Greater Melbourne):

    • Quintile 1 (Highest): More than 3.1%3.1\%

    • Quintile 2: 2.0–3.1%2.0\text{--}3.1\%

    • Quintile 3: 1.4–1.9%1.4\text{--}1.9\%

    • Quintile 4: 0.9–1.3%0.9\text{--}1.3\%

    • Quintile 5 (Lowest): 0.8% or less0.8\%\text{ or less}

  • Bicycling to Work:

    • Quintile 1: More than 2.6%2.6\%

    • Quintile 2: 1.1–2.5%1.1\text{--}2.5\%

    • Quintile 3: 0.5–1.0%0.5\text{--}1.0\%

    • Quintile 4: 0.3–0.4%0.3\text{--}0.4\%

    • Quintile 5: 0.2% or less0.2\%\text{ or less}

  • Driving a Car to Work:

    • Quintile 1: More than 72.0%72.0\%

    • Quintile 2: 69.1–72.0%69.1\text{--}72.0\%

    • Quintile 3: 64.1–69.0%64.1\text{--}69.0\%

    • Quintile 4: 55.1–64.0%55.1\text{--}64.0\%

    • Quintile 5: 54.0% or less54.0\%\text{ or less}

  • Taking the Train to Work:

    • Quintile 1: More than 16.4%16.4\%

    • Quintile 2: 12.3–16.4%12.3\text{--}16.4\%

    • Quintile 3: 8.8–12.2%8.8\text{--}12.2\%

    • Quintile 4: 5.9–8.7%5.9\text{--}8.7\%

    • Quintile 5: 5.8% or less5.8\%\text{ or less}

Collaborative Design Project: Melbourne Street Redesign

  • Assigned Streets for Redesign:

    • Warrigal Rd: Groups 1 & 6 (Skye, Evan, Ezra, Zlatan, Yukina; Maria, Naveen, Hui Sing, Ishmeen, Georgie).

    • Linsell Blvd: Groups 2 & 7 (Thenuk, Lara, Jaylana, Mikayla, Thas; Taejus, Ajmal, Patrick, Asher, Ari).

    • Alexandra Pde: Groups 3 & 8 (Nivedya, Lucy, Sangeeti, Yoyo, Sam; Amar, Manasi, Ryan, Bryn, William).

    • Kings Way: Groups 4 & 9 (Zachary, Louis, Pranaya, Vikash, Shanmukhi; Isabelle, Toby, Brodie, Kiana, Heli).

    • Flemington Rd: Groups 5 & 10 (Katherine, Ronith, Ayaan, Claire, Zara; Ryan, Soorya, Sarvesh, Maxim, Alisa).

  • Design Considerations:

    • Spatial constraints.

    • Population needs within the specific area.

    • Projected improvements to living standards.

    • Alignment with sustainability principles.

Final Evaluation and Reflection

  • Wicked Problem Definition: Transport in cities is considered a "wicked problem" because it is difficult or impossible to solve due to incomplete, contradictory, and changing requirements that are often difficult to recognize.

  • Challenges in Implementation:

    • Economic: Cost of massive infrastructure overhaul.

    • Cultural: Societal attachment to car ownership and convenience.

    • Environmental: Balancing construction impacts with long-term sustainability benefits.