Their business model is based on cheap land, free car parking and poor public transport access. The cost advantage afforded by this significant public subsidy provides these big box retailers with the opportunity to undercut retail operators in properly designated commercial areas in activity centres close to where most people live,  including strip shopping centres.

This model permits the “category killer” approach that actually destroys retail competition (and employment) in designated commercial centres like Heidelberg, Ivanhoe and Greensborough. And with a lot more car miles on the clock road congestion also increases.

As I understand it, Minister Guy’s proposed strategic plan for Melbourne (the replacement for Melbourne 2030) is to be announced for community “consultation” pretty soon. With this Victorian government announcement on the big box shopping centres it looks like we have got a major fight on our hands, as RMIT’s Michael Buxton foreshadowed in late November 2011 at the Friends of Banyule annual general meeting.

Like how the government has cut back on the bus services since there is too much congestion on the road. Hello!? Did I miss anything here or is this a stupid argument. If you want more people to leave their precious cars at home you need to give them more frequent services. Unless of course you expect them to skate to work, which only commuters in Scandinavia manage these days.

Anyway since I changed my job I am catching the bus from right around the corner where live to get to Rosanna train station. No, I don’t mind paying extra money to board the train in Zone 2 because I don’t actually have a choice. There is no bus to Heidelberg Station from where I live and I don’t want to drive the car to the station either because there is little parking there.

In the past two months the bus has only been on time once. It’s either too early (7 minutes was the biggest gap) which finds me sprinting up the hill alongside the bus and towards the actual bus stop in my office gear and high heels to make the driver aware that I want to get on. But of course the bus timetable states in large letters “timetable subject to traffic conditions” so I guess that makes it ok to give people a little more exercise or more reading time.

But the train is always late as well so I shouldn’t be complaining, really. Actually who needs a timetable anyway? Recently when I had the silly idea to try to get back to Rosanna from Hawthorn without going back to the City it took 2 trams, 2 buses and 90 minutes to reach my destination since there is no direct bus route. I also noticed that the times on the online Metlink journey planner did not correspond with the times on the bus stop. When I pointed this out in a phone call to the customer service person at Metlink, I was told that the times weren’t wrong, they were only incorrect! Just in time I stopped myself from having a discussion about the meaning of those two words with the operator. I do wonder however who trains these people to utter such total nonsense.

In the meantime my husband thinks I am going to be an unbearable, serial grumpy complainer by the time I reach 40. “But it’s not right!” I exclaim! Why does everyone act like public transport services are free and bad service delivery isn’t something we can change?

The icing on my public transport experience cake was a recent return trip home when I sat on the bus at Rosanna Station. The bus was idling at the bus stop, keys in the ignition and no driver in sight. It was also well past the scheduled departure time. A full ten minutes later the driver did emerge from the Rosanna library with his weekend reading material. Now seriously late he raced through the streets like a maniac and kept overshooting the stops so people had trouble getting off, closing doors on them too early and squashing  people.

So, here it is my big whine about PT in Banyule. There will be more I am sure. I don’t plan to ever drive my car to any job I can reach by PT and I do love reading books or catching up on my studies on the train or bus. Its much more relaxing than sitting in stop start traffic, a better use of my limited spare time and a much more efficient mode of transport than my car. On top of that I enjoy to start the day with a brisk walk to my bus stop taking in the fresh morning air and I even had some nice impromptu conversations with fellow commuters as well.

It seems to me very obvious that the promises made by the Baillieu Government at the last election to improve PT are empty. Where is the independent Public Transport Development Authority to plan, co-ordinate and manage our public transport system and demand for Melbourne. For Banyule to date there are just cuts in services and the ancient Hurstbridge train line that urgently needs an upgrade. Very disappointing indeed.

Read more about this topic in the local papers:
Congestion blamed for cuts to bus services
12 JAN 2012 BY SHAUN CAMPBELL

HAVE YOUR SAY: MP blows whistle on Eltham rail yard project delay
11 JAN 2012 @ BY SHAUN CAMPBELL

Traffic jams force cutbacks on northern bus routes
10 JAN 2012 BY MICHAEL HOWARD

YOUR SAY: Give us some space at Watsonia station
3 JAN 12 BY ADRIAN BERNECICH

Related articles

• The Back of the Bus Syndrome… (trippingdifferently.com)
• ‘Betrayed’ by promises (theage.com.au)
• 20. Unfortunate Experiences with Public Transportation (zivling.wordpress.com)

Planning Minister and Northern Metropolitan Province MP, Matthew Guy, has recently written to Friends of Banyule

to reaffirm that the North East Link project is not a Coalition Government commitment. (Click here to read the letter:  Matthew Guy re NE Link.)

However, the project is still listed on the VicRoads website  amongst a number of other road project proposals  (see http://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/Home/RoadProjects/PlanningAndProposals/Melbourne/NorthEastLink.htm )

According to the VicRoads website “The North East Link is being reviewed as part of the Metropolitan Planning Strategy. It is anticipated that this strategy will be completed within two years.”

The Victorian Government announced early in 2011 that it will prepare a new metropolitan planning strategy to manage Melbourne’s growth and change over the next 30-40 years.

The strategy is addressing housing choice, transport accessibility, economic growth, environmental protection; and infrastructure and services to support growth. Understandably Minister Guy and Public Transport and Roads Minister Terry Mulder are the two key ministers in the development of the strategy.

Inquiries made of the Department of Planning and Community Development indicate that there are plans for public consultation on the proposed new metropolitan planning strategy but it has not been revealed when they will occur or what form these consultations will take.

The approach to the mooted North-East Link project is broadly indicative of the dominant role that roads planning has assumed over many years in Victoria relative to planning for public transport. VicRoads and other roads authorities work continuously on a suite of funding bids for projects to increase the capacity of the road network. It is quite different for public transport, which is systematically underfunded and has been characterised, at best, by haphazard government  efforts to develop projects to improve the capability of train, tram and bus services.

From a planning perspective, the consistent underrating of public transport over many decades has contributed to the added household costs and the environmental degradation of urban sprawl that is now the most dominant feature of metropolitan Melbourne.

The Baillieu government’s new metropolitan planning strategy, when it is finally revealed, needs to have as a priority the reclaiming of urban space by the reduction of car dependency in Melbourne and a rerating of public transport. In doing so, Friends of Banyule will be looking forward to the North East Link proposal being ruled out once and for all. It will be a straightforward test of the Baillieu government’s mettle.

Related articles

• Doncaster Rail Project needs community involvement (friendsofbanyule.wordpress.com)
• Baillieu freeway bid signals lurch towards roads and a strike against public transport (friendsofbanyule.wordpress.com)
• Boom gates ‘chaos’ fear (theage.com.au)
• Blueprint released for Melbourne’s growth (news.theage.com.au)

We can choose our future

Writing recently in The Age senior columnist Kenneth Davidson attacked the Baillieu government’s decision to seek funding from the Commonwealth government’s capital  funding body, Infrastructure Australia, for an eighteen kilometre expanded freeway link between the Eastern Freeway and the Western Ring Road. (See “Why the east-west road tunnel is a stinker,” The Age, 28 November 2011 at  http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/why-the-eastwest-road-tunnel-is-a-stinker-20111127-1o19f.html )

The $30 million funding bid, announced in mid-November by Premier Baillieu, is in the Victorian government’s 2011 priority list of projects for funding by Infrastructure Australia. The funding sought is for project planning and the government says it may also seek  Commonwealth funding for the construction of the project.

The government claims to have reviewed and enhanced the project, which previously appeared in the Brumby government’s Victorian Transport Plan in 2008. The government  proposes to include a new stage to connect the Eastern Freeway to CityLink and connect CityLink to the Port of Melbourne as well as a connection between the Port of Melbourne to the Western Ring Road.

According to Premier Baillieu “The new East West Link is a once in a generation project that would transform the way people move around Melbourne in a way not seen since CityLink and the City Rail Loop were constructed.”

However, this funding bid gives rise to some major concerns about the direction that transport policy is now taking in Victoria.

The viability of cities

Inner city freeway construction has become a thing of the past in most cities that wish to remain environmentally sustainable. East-West Link is a “Detroit”-like approach to transport planning by the Victorian government at a time when Detroit has all but ceased existence as a viable city and some of it is reverting to open prairie.

The current viability of Melbourne (and a major reason why international business publications often choose Melbourne as one of the world’s “most livable” cities) is due to the fact that  a large proportion of the travel to and from central Melbourne each day is by public transport and increasingly by active transport, not by car. The government’s preferred funding model for this freeway would threaten to choke central Melbourne in motor car traffic and threaten the city’s livability;

Finance and economics

The financial marketability (as distinct from economic viability) of the project may rest heavily on attracting tolled  motor car traffic into inner suburban Melbourne and the Central Business District. The Victorian government noted in its submission to Infrastructure Australia that it is seeking private sector funding of the project and that those elements of the project that are most attractive to the private sector are likely to proceed first.

Public transport v cars

Such a stratagem would rely upon maintaining public transport services from Melbourne’s eastern and northern suburbs, in particular, as a poor substitute for travel to the Melbourne CBD and inner suburbs by car. This would secure the profitability of the project for the private financiers the government is currently wooing for the project.

The Victorian government’s funding submission to Infrastructure Australia lauds the Kennett government’s CityLink project as a major success story. It was claimed to be a fine piece of transport infrastructure with a successful funding model. However, the M1 required spending of another $1 billion to accommodate more motor cars shortly after CityLink opened. This was primarily because of yawning gaps in the public transport network in south-east Melbourne, rendering many households car-dependent. There is a real and present danger that this historical “model” will be repeated in northern and eastern Melbourne with the construction of the proposed East-West Link;

Freight and the Port of Hastings

Heavy justification is placed on the East-West Link being a freight route to serve a proposed new container port at Hastings on Westernport Bay. There are growing doubts as to whether this is the best location for a second container port for Melbourne. Most greenfields industrial and residential expansion in Melbourne in the next generation will be in the north and the west of Melbourne, not in the south-east. There are also valuable environmental assets at risk in this part of the Mornington Peninsula and this risk is likely to be heightened by rising sea levels triggered by climate change, even without the threat of a major container port;

Will Doncaster rail be pushed aside?

Because of its election promise to conduct a study into a rail service to Doncaster one of the first things the incoming Baillieu government did on coming to office was to halt a study by the outgoing Brumby government to increase the road capacity of Hoddle Street. This made sense as  a rail service to serve Doncaster Hill and the City of Manningham would significantly reduce peak hour traffic on the Eastern Freeway and Hoddle Street.

When a rail line to Doncaster was previously mooted in the 1980′s the Eastern Freeway reservation was nominated as a route for the service. However, any decision to extend the Eastern Freeway westward to the Western Ring Road would appear likely to place at risk access by the new train service to the Eastern Freeway reservation between Hoddle Street and Bulleen Road in Balwyn North, and therefore jeopardise the project. Road traffic would win again.

Travel mode and planning

The reality is that there needs to be a significant shift in travel mode in Melbourne from the private motor car to public transport and active transport (walking and cycling) if the metropolitan area is not to be gridlocked and if transport is not to absorb more and more of our valuable public and private land.

When it came to office in November 2010 the Baillieu government stressed it would develop an integrated approach to transport and land use planning. This was in part a response to the perceived shortcomings of the previous government and especially its failure to deliver the planning blue print Melbourne 2030. However, the pre-emptive decision to proceed with the East-West Link now seriously calls into question the sincerity of this government undertaking.

It has also been recently reported that the government’s new public transport planning agency, the Public Transport Development Authority,  will not commence until 2013. This is a further worrying sign that barely a year after assuming office the roads lobby has gained the upper hand with this government at the expense of rational transport and land use planning.

You can read the Victorian government’s 2011 funding submission to Infrastructure Australia at  http://www.premier.vic.gov.au/images/stories/documents/mediareleases/2011/000_Victorian_Government_2011_IA_Submission.pdf

Related articles

• ‘A living hell’ (theage.com.au)
• Libs rev up road priorities (theage.com.au)
• An accidental premier takes the slow road (smh.com.au)
• Baillieu’s $640m vision for transport (heraldsun.com.au)
• Public transport plan unfinished, first year of Baillieu nearly over (andrewalean.wordpress.com)

These include timetable changes and, in some cases, variations to routes. The service changes, which took effect on Monday 19 December, involve the following services:

Route 508 (Alphington to Moonee Ponds via Northcote and Brunswick)

Route 513 (Eltham to Glenroy via Greensborough and Lower Plenty)

Route 517 (Northland to St Helena via Viewbank and Greensborough)

Route 562 (Humevale to Greensborough via Whittlesea, Mernda and Bundoora)

Route 563 (Greensborough to Northland via Mill Park, Plenty Road and Diamond Creek Road)

Route 565 (Kinglake to Whittlesea via Humevale)

Route 566 (Lalor to Northland via Plenty Road, Childs Road and Grimshaw Street).

Changes were also announced to route bus service availability for the holiday period  between Wednesday 28 December 2011 and Friday 6 January 2011. The services affected by these changes include:

Route 246 (Elsternwick to La Trobe University)

Route 250 (Port Melbourne to La Trobe University)

Route 251 (Garden City to Northland)

Route 293 (Box Hill to Greensborough)

Route 340 (City to La Trobe University)

Route 350 (City to La Trobe University)

Friends of Banyule made a submission to a bus service review conducted in 2009 by the Brumby government in which we recommended upgrades to route bus services in Banyule and surrounding municipalities. There were no significant upgrades of bus services in Banyule as a result of that review.

Please let us know how these service changes affect your travel routine by replying to this blog post or by sending an email to friendsofbanyule@gmail.com

The Perth freeway rail could be a model for the Doncaster rail project

By Ian Hundley

If built Doncaster Rail could provide a sustainable solution for Banyules’ traffic congestion and lack of public transport.

As you will know the Victorian government has recently embarked on a study of a possible rail service for Doncaster. People in the City of Manningham have been lobbying/ campaigning for a rail service for many years. In the early 1980′s a study of  a proposed line was undertaken which would have connected the network at Victoria Park with the service occupying the middle of the Eastern Freeway reservation to about Bulleen Road. The rail reservation then extended directly up to Doncaster Shoppingtown.

In the end the service did not go ahead and the non-freeway part of the reservation was sold off by the government of the day. Some preliminary excavation work was then commenced near Victoria Park station but was later filled with gravel.

The current study is comprised of two parts. The first part, which is likely to conclude in about August 2012 will be considering alternative routes for a rail line. There will be a public presentation of these alternative routes in about March 2012. Consideration will also be given to issues related to extending a rail service eastward beyond Doncaster to Ringwood. The first part of the study will only contemplate a heavy rail service, but it is possible that the second part of the study could consider other vehicle types.

You will find details of the study on the Department of Transport website at  http://www.transport.vic.gov.au/projects/pt/doncaster-rail-link In addition, the study team website at  http://www.doncasterrailstudy.com/

Related articles

• ‘A living hell’ (theage.com.au)
• Libs rev up road priorities (theage.com.au)

Local Structure Plans originally emerged under Melbourne 2030 and related Planning Scheme amendments including VC71 (providing for development along transport corridors and activity centres), as part of planning policy under the previous government.
These had the aim of fostering closer urban development, providing planning “certainty” (although it is questionable for whom) and reducing urban sprawl. In the event, M2030 whilst having laudable goals, was ultimately unsuccessful in both as urban boundaries have been extended and closer urban development has continued at a frenetic pace, driven by pressure from developers and without for the most part, sufficient consultation with the community or appropriate infrastructure and transport planning.

While it is preferable for local government to develop such plans and have a say in how development occurs (otherwise development is likely to occur on an ad hoc basis), these need to be carried out in consultation with the community, which is essential if they are to be successful. If not, they will be strongly opposed by communities and less likely to provide positive and well planned outcomes.

Importantly, Local Structure Plans also need, if they are to be successful, take account of neighbourhood character, heritage overlays, height limits, size, bulk and scale and be in keeping and not at odds with, surrounding streetscapes and the general townscape. Overall, they should be sympathetic to the existing built and natural environment. Critically, they need to be done on a consultative basis and involve the community.

Equally important is the development at the same time, of improved public transport infrastructure to cope with the additional residential numbers and traffic volumes which will be generated. This should include increased train and bus frequency as well as improved connectivity between modes. If closer urban development does not occur in conjunction with an integrated  infrastructure and planning approach, rather than allowing it to be developer driven as currently, it will lead to ad hoc, poorly planned outcomes.

Whilst the Save Ivanhoe group are not against development per se (refer recent article in Nillumbik and Banyule weekly), which is the position of Friends of Banyule, they as well as FOB, believe this should be in character with and sympathetic to, the built and natural environment in which it is situated. The Banyule House subdivision as well the proposed development adjacent St John’s Anglican Church in Warringal Park, are  just two examples of where this is not the case. The proposed developments being out of character and scale with their surrounding historic and natural environments. In the case of the Ivanhoe Structure Plan, the initial draft proposes six to eight storey development, including around Darebin Station, along Lower Heidelberg Road between the Darebin Creek and Upper Heidelberg Road and in the Ivanhoe shopping precinct. These height limits are clearly significantly higher than existing built structures and streetscape in these locations. They have naturally caused concern amongst the community and need to be discussed further with residents, traders and community groups and, redrafted or amended as necessary before being proceeded with.

Council, after receiving quite strident opposition to the current draft plan, have undertaken to revise and redraft the existing structure plan and to put it back out for discussion and further consultation during November.  A walk with residents and Council officers (including CEO, Director of Planning, Manager Strategic & Economic Planning and others) around the areas affected by the proposed Structure Plan, took place on Saturday 10th September. A further walk is planned for coming weeks in October.

It is important I think to make the point of not being against development, but at the same time, to show support for a fellow community group who, like FOB, are campaigning to protect their local environment. FOB have already provided a link to Save Ivanhoe’s web site on our site and have written to Council on the Draft structure Plan supporting Save Ivanhoe’s and residents concerns.

Issues of the built as well as natural environments are of concern to us all as development continues to proceed at such an intense pace across Melbourne, driven by a boom which has shown little sign of abatement in recent years.  These issues are being repeated across the metropolitan area and beyond, exacerbated by spiraling population levels adding approximately 1600 people per week to Melbourne’s current 4.0 million or so existing population. It is important that local communities are involved in and are part of the planning process, rather than standing by or being excluded as is largely the case at present and in doing so, allow these current levels of urban growth and expansion, without proper consultation, planning and infrastructure, to simply happen.

Urban Sprawl

By Ian Hundley

The City of Banyule’s recently released draft Ivanhoe Structure Plan covers the Ivanhoe Shopping Centre, surrounding commercial, civic and residential areas as well as the Ivanhoe and Darebin railway station precincts. The draft plan is generating a high level of concern amongst residents, for reasons good and bad, not least because multi-storey developments of up to eight stories (32 metres) are proposed in particular locations.
Banyule Council’s approach to public consultation is evidently also causing angst, with little open discussion prior to the public release of the draft strategy. This is not a very sensible approach to consultation and decision making, which work best when it provides for two-way community-wide learning and information flows. The technocratic and eye glazing character of much of the documentation is also unsuited for a lay audience. Residents deserve better than that and it is to be hoped that the Council will improve in their communications efforts in the coming months.

Many people want these areas to stay the way they are. That’s not surprising, especially if you believe that any change will be for the worst. That may seem to be a reasonable presumption given the chaotic way that planning in Melbourne has unfolded over the last 30 years. But it is  unrealistic to believe that all things should stay the way they are in the light of the environmental, demographic and economic issues which now confront us.

In the discussion below I raise some of the more important issues that I believe should be addressed in the strategy planning process, not only by the City of Banyule but also the Victorian government, to ensure that Ivanhoe Major Activity Centre will be a better residential and commercial centre than it is now. If it is not done properly there is every prospect that the outcomes will, as many people fear, be worse than the status quo.

Population growth

Many see population growth as the central problem, a view reinforced by the City of Banyule’s observation that the exercise is effectively being imposed upon them by the Victorian government who say that the Melbourne metropolitan area must cater for significant population growth. In this regard, it is said that the predicted resident population growth in the City of Banyule between 2006 and 2031 will be in the order of  about 17,000. Framed in that way the structure plan exercise is also guaranteed to make residents feel that they are being put upon.

That the previous state government actually used population growth as a driver for lazy economic growth raises concerns that the current state government may see the world in the same way.

Whatever the truth of that proposition, it is certainly the case that national population growth is largely in the hands of the federal government and the ability of state governments to influence regional population growth for any sustained period of time is likely to be limited.

It seems likely that there will be population growth in Australia, including Melbourne, for the foreseeable future. This population growth may not be as high as predicted by some of the more excitable commentators, but it is on the cards nevertheless. Importantly, though, even if population growth were to remain low in this period, the case for some urban consolidation is compelling for  environmental, social and economic reasons.

How large a population for the Ivanhoe Major Activity Centre?

With population growth a key element of the process it is important that the Banyule City Council should model the prospective residential population that is being contemplated under the Ivanhoe Structure Plan. This has not been done. Apart from anything else it is essential for the purpose of modelling future demand for services in the area, and especially transport. It is also likely that other major activity centres at Heidelberg and Greensborough will see continued consolidation and this needs to be publicly recognised and taken into in the strategy planning process.

Higher density living versus urban sprawl

Higher density living in specific well serviced locations is environmentally and economically superior to urban sprawl. Effective cities make the most efficient use of land and failed cities are recognisable for their poor use of available space. And most importantly there is a demonstrated demand for higher density and smaller dwellings in Melbourne. Some of the major influences are affordability, the long-term reduction in household size and the now rapidly unfolding climate change crisis.

Many current trends in Melbourne’s built form are unsustainable: the average house size has been increasing (it has been reported that Australia is now on average building the largest houses on the globe); there is a continuing housing affordability crisis; and the urban growth boundary and green space remains under constant pressure as a consequence. Changes in consumer demand will trigger some of the more desirable changes (for example, there are more recent reports that the “McMansion” is no longer as popular in new dwelling construction as it has been). However, other desired changes depend heavily on strategy planning processes.

One other thing to keep in mind which many of us will find comforting is that even with necessary urban consolidation in major activity centres like Ivanhoe it will be found that most of the resident population of metropolitan Melbourne, including Banyule, will continue to be housed in detached housing in a suburban setting.

Predictability and regulation of building heights

In developing the Ivanhoe Structure Plan for incorporation into Banyule’s planning scheme the Council would be assisting in injecting a degree of predictability about the future shape of the activity centre, including the maximum height of new buildings, that would otherwise not exist. In the absence of this process future outcomes are likely to be less certain.

People are quite rightly concerned that existing services will not cope with further development and increased population. They are worried, too, that as part of this exercise, the City of Banyule cannot provide any comfort that the Victorian government will do what it needs to do to maintain or improve local liveability.

It might seem preferable for the structure planning process to be abandoned. However, it may then only be a matter of time before developers would be seeking to build much larger scale projects than are contemplated in the draft structure plan. Significant social costs in the form of traffic congestion and overshadowing would be imposed on the wider neighbourhood. No-one who had thought about it would want that.

Demand for housing in Ivanhoe

Is there demand for more housing in Ivanhoe and Darebin? Almost certainly: both locations have and are within close proximity to excellent services and major employment centres. Train travel time between Ivanhoe and the Melbourne CBD is between 20 and 23 minutes, about the same as by semi-express train to the CBD from  Box Hill, the largest activity centre in the City of Whitehorse. The Austin health precinct and the La Trobe University campus are ideally located employment destinations for residents of Ivanhoe and Darebin. It is unsurprising that new local residential developments in the area sell quickly.

State and local government must be in this together

It is important to call the Victorian government and the Banyule Council to account with demands for sound policy settings and for the services that they are separately responsible for to ensure that they are available for the Ivanhoe Major Activity Centre as they are required. And it would be useful to think of it within an appropriate time frame of, say, about 30 years. It is something for the long-term. Equally, it is unlikely that there will be immediate substantial changes to the neighbourhood. The changes implicit in the structure plan are more likely to occur over a decade and beyond.

One of the key objectives is to ensure that transport is placed on a more sustainable footing. Traffic congestion is top of mind for most people. Already a problem in Ivanhoe, congestion  will get worse if any significant additional car travel is encouraged in and around the area.

Public transport a State responsibility

It is the responsibility of the state government to provide public transport services. The rail service from Ivanhoe and Darebin is passable at best and very poor at particular times of the week. The Hurstbridge line did not receive any extra services in the timetable upgrades that were introduced  on the rail network in May 2011. Higher frequency services are particularly required during peak periods and on weekends. Sunday evening services are particularly poor. The Victorian government should address these deficiencies in further timetable upgrades scheduled later in 2011.

The two connecting route  bus services at Ivanhoe railway station are poor. The 548  service between Kew and La Trobe University only operates Monday to Saturday, and the 510 service to Essendon railway station has a very restricted service on Sundays. Only one route bus service connects with Darebin station, the 546 between Heidelberg railway station and Melbourne University. It operates only weekdays. To reduce car dependency it is essential that there be better connecting route bus services at each of these railway stations.

An effective approach for public and resident car parking is required

Public car parking

Even so, improved public transport, coupled with better access for active transport (walking and cycling) as proposed in the draft Ivanhoe Structure Plan, will not be sufficient to maintain the liveability of the Ivanhoe Major Activity Centre if there is expanded residential and commercial development in the area. There are a number of steps that the Council itself should take to remedy this.

The first requirement is a strategic assessment of the need for public car parking and  its pricing. One of the major sources of motor traffic congestion in and around relatively poorly performed activity centres is the large numbers of motor vehicle drivers seeking free or otherwise highly subsidised car parking spaces. The Council should calibrate the quantum of car parking spaces actually required for commercial and other visitor needs and to establish a sustainable mode mix of travel (public transport, walking, cycling and by car) for the activity centre. To achieve this objective public car parking would also need to be charged for at a level that would leave the local road network and the car parks themselves relatively free of congestion at all times. This is likely to mean that charges during the day should be higher than at other times when charges would be relatively low or (possibly) no charges at all.

This will also require a change of mindset by many of those users who are accustomed to getting parking for free all the time and by traders who see free parking as a cost-free inducement for their customers. But free parking is not cost-free (in the same way as burning greenhouse gas emitting fuels is not free) and as can be observed from the road congestion already evident in Ivanhoe. A significant increase in residential population and business activity in the area will, in the absence of such an initiative, stimulate greater road congestion, and make Ivanhoe a much less attractive place to be in.

Resident car parking

The second issue relates to resident  car parking. Too often the reflexive response of local government to existing resident concerns for access to on-street parking  is to maximise the amount of car parking in new multi-occupancy residential developments.

However, it should be found in the Ivanhoe Major Activity Centre that there will be strong demand for new multi-occupancy dwellings with no car parking or only one car park. Where car parking is provided people will generally purchase cars. Where no or relatively little resident car parking is provided residents will use public or active transport for a larger proportion of their trips. This reduces local traffic congestion and significantly enhances the liveability of the area because it is quieter, the air is less polluted and it is far more pleasant to walk around.

Further, reducing residential car parking also frees up valuable space for superior uses, whether it be for additional residential, commercial or public purposes. Also of significance is the fact that parking in multi-occupancy dwellings is very expensive to provide, somewhere in the order of $50,000 per car park in construction costs alone. Minimising the quantity of dedicated resident car parking in these developments improves the affordability of this housing. This is money that residents have to spend on other things, including on local purchases.

The provision of schools

Concern has been expressed that the already overloaded Ivanhoe Primary School would be placed under even further pressure if the Ivanhoe Major Activity Centre was included in its catchment zone. The school is already under enrolment pressure, reportedly because the nearby Bellfield Primary School was closed.

This cannot be taken as an argument against prospective residential development associated with the  activity centre. It is another illustration of the concern of local residents that the state school system will be unresponsive to increases in demand for student places in response to any increase in the local school age population. Again, as with public transport it is a Victorian government responsibility to provide the guarantee that as the residential population grows the school system will be able to meet the demand for school places in the area. This is unlikely to occur immediately but should be under active planning consideration by the state education authorities.

Conclusions

Whilst population growth may be a stimulus for urban consolidation, as proposed with the Ivanhoe Major Activity Centre, the concept has substantial merit quite independent of population growth. The discussion above spells out some of the more important issues that will need to be resolved by the City of Banyule and the Victorian government. Managing transport with an increased resident population and a higher level of commercial activity is particularly central to the effective development of the Ivanhoe Major Activity Centre. The steps required are by no means unique and have been comfortably achieved elsewhere.   

Banyule Homestead in all its glory - how long for?

Heritage Victoria have just handed down a decision on the previously reported application for subdivision of the heritage listed Banyule House (c 1845), and for the construction of contemporary town houses in its grounds.

This is a very disappointing decision for Banyule’s and the State’s heritage. It will set an unfortunate precedent or development on or adjacent to heritage properties elsewhere in Banyule.

Whilst the decision places a number of conditions on the permit, these largely go to a schedule of works which will go towards renovation and repairs. However, given the likely sale price of the three units which will have views across Banyule Flats to the Ranges (likely to be in excess of $1 m  each) the owners will still make a substantial profit. The units have not been scaled down or amended to lessen their visual impact, especially when viewed from the East across the Banyule wetlands.

This project will however still require a planning permit which would have to be approved by Council (who opposed the application on the last occasion). If the packed gallery at a Council meeting earlier in the year is any indication of the strength of feeling amongst the community on this, the owners should expect there will still be strong and passionate opposition to this project, which has not diminished. It is clear that the community in Banyule are willing to stand up for theirs and the State’s heritage and are not going to now lie down and let this significant piece of our history and heritage be diminished by such inappropriate and insensitive development.

You can leave a comment here or on the website of the Heidelberg Leader:
http://heidelberg-leader.whereilive.com.au/news/story/banyule-homestead-cornered-in-development-plans/

More frequent bus services could alleviate traffic congestion on our local main roads

By Lara

It’s really hard to get excited about our bus systems – unless you are a regular user of course – and I am not.  It’s not like they have been plagued with publicity, good or bad, and they must rate as one of the dullest political discussion topics ever, so it is hard to raise any interest in them.
The problem with this is that some parts of the bus system are actually working well and we need to publicise this.  On the down side, the lack of interest or discussion means we don’t know how they could work better.   In an attempt to find something of interest to say, I recently rode on a number of bus routes that transit through Banyule.

I started on the 517 from Rosanna to Greensborough.  The service was on time but when I boarded I was unable to work myki and the bus driver was unable to help me.  (It later transpired I was using the card incorrectly, holding it in the wrong place.)  The bus was clean and sparsely populated so I was able to get myself and my chattels on without much trouble.  The timetable is fairly consistent and easy to understand.  I arrived in Greensborough in time for morning tea.

From there I intended to get the 902 SmartBus to Doncaster Shoppingtown.  The 517 driver was unable to tell me where I could get that bus from.  Fortunately the bus set up at Greensborough is well signposted and easy to use.  So not much to report so far: bus on time, client service not so good.  I was left wondering however where all the patrons were, for the entire trip there were not more than three-five people on the bus, and this is the only public transport service through Viewbank.

So onto the 902 SmartBus, so called because of the extra information and better connections such a route should provide.  This bus ran via Greensborough to Epping Station and then south to Doncaster.  Well, myki worked this time but the Smart part of the SmartBus did not.  The bus did not announce bus stops as we approached them and the SmartBus signage at Greensborough Station, which should give bus arrival and expected waiting times, was not working.

After passing through Greensborough the Smart technology seemed to switch in and the signage and announcements worked as required.  This bus had a lot more people on board which may be attributable to the fact that we were heading to Shoppingtown.  The timetable is regular and consistent so easy to read and understand as long as you work out if you are heading to or from Chelsea or Airport West, and I must admit, I needed to visualise this a few times before getting on a bus for fear of going in the wrong direction.  Arrival at Doncaster and time for another coffee, these trips are a tad tedious and long compared to getting about by car or even train.

Time to leave Doncaster via the 903 to Heidelberg.  This is a very popular bus route, packed with people, bags, prams and shopping trolleys which is probably due to the fact that it runs to Box Hill, a major shopping and transport precinct via Shoppingtown, a major cultural drain and eyesore but popular regardless.  Anyway, the bus platforms at Shoppingtown were incredibly difficult to negotiate.  There is no signage or map as you come out of the shopping centre and it is only once you have walked up and down the platforms that you find what you are looking for.

Sooooooo off to Heidelberg, nothing else to report if you are even still reading at this point, everything worked – myki, SmartBus – and I got to my destination safe and sound.  It was not until I went to catch the 513 from Heidelberg to Rosanna that any real irritation developed.

By now most of the day is gone and I just want to get to Rosanna Library to drop off a book before heading home.  The 513 must be the worst timetable throughout Banyule for a number of reasons.  The buses are so infrequent at certain times as to almost render the service void and there are incredible gaps in the timetabling that blow waiting times out further.  The route zoning is not consistent with the train zoning so you are in zone 2 at Rosanna Rd in Heidelberg but zone 1 at Heidelberg Station which has complicated fare implications for those who want to use both the train and bus.  This is unfortunate too as many people who currently park and ride at zone 1 train stations might otherwise have an alternative to bus and ride through Heidelberg alleviating some of that peak hour traffic along Rosanna Rd and through the Banyule rat runs.  The timetable also appears to be needlessly complex with alternate services heading via Greensborough or Lower Plenty to Epping.  Once the bus splits off to do this, the wait times are even more ridiculous, one bus about every thirty minutes.  So I give up on my twenty minute wait and walk to Rosanna, beating the bus in any case.

So, what have I learnt from these trips?  The SmartBus concept has improved services along those routes and the people I spoke to who caught them regularly were happy.  I suspect the majority of the other bus services throughout Banyule are so inadequate that people just do not see them as a viable alternative to driving.  How many times have we driven to our local shops, or out to dinner when a perfectly serviceable bus route takes off from just around the corner?

And that’s the problem I suppose. The bus system does not have enough services and the resulting lack of patronage, coupled with the lack of interest, mean that no one is standing up and saying we need better because we don’t really know what better could be.

Related articles

• Thumbs up for tram, train, bus (theage.com.au)