Page 5332 - Week 14 - Thursday, 19 November 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Despite the many shops and the opening of a new library, it is anything but pedestrian friendly. All the space between the gutters is traffic space for motor vehicles. Pedestrians are segregated. All the public community space is squeezed into the footpath area.
A pro-car approach is easy to see, especially when we look at the action that has been taken around the world. Progressive cities like London, Copenhagen, Barcelona and New York have committed to a joint benchmarking project to measure the progress that each is making on walking. Copenhagen reversed the invasion of cars in the city with progressive public space policies beginning in the 1990s. Now, two-thirds of its commuting population use bikes for public transport.
New York is another good example. The recently re-elected Mayor Bloomberg has enacted bold plans to reclaim large parts of the city back from motor vehicles. A recent project has “pedestrianised” a large strip of Broadway in mid-town Manhattan. If New York can do that, anywhere can do it.
International surveys show that people are most scared to take trips as pedestrians, especially in cities that take a pro-car approach to planning. In fact, when Australians are surveyed, they cite pro-car policies as one of the biggest impediments to walking. They list this as a much bigger obstacle than people in other countries do. In Copenhagen, 33 per cent of all people who do not cycle cite bad weather as a reason. That is not really a problem we have here in Canberra—we have the problem of pro-car policies.
So what is the result of prioritising motor traffic over a long period? Look at the city of Los Angeles as an example. Driving is almost the universal way to travel in LA. The negative effects of this trickle down to all areas of life. Transport systems are inextricably connected to the quality of life in cities. In LA, there is terrible congestion. The city has suffered intractable air pollution. Shops are set back from the street to make way for parking. Most retail sales are made by the big businesses in big malls. Street life and street socialising is greatly reduced, and, of course, the consumption of non-renewable energy in LA is also very large.
It is instructive to think about what will happen to a city like LA when peak oil strikes. What if petrol reached, say, $10 a litre or more, which is likely to happen? Policy makers in LA are desperately reacting and trying to undo some of the entrenched sustainability problems. Interestingly, LA shows us that bad planning eventually stimulates innovation. For example, LA ran one of the very first emission trading systems. It was for air pollution, and it has also developed some of the most sophisticated air pollution regulations and agencies around. Incidentally, the LA emissions trading system failed, largely because big industrial polluters shape the policy agenda, and trading credits were given away free. Of course, I am sure we would never fall for that again!
We should ask these questions about Canberra. What will happen in our city when we reach peak oil? Despite this, we are still designing a city for car use, locking in transport patterns for decades to come. I acknowledge the government has been developing a sustainable transport plan. I see that it has a 2020 goal of 14 per cent walking and cycling. By international standards, that is a modest target. It needs
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video