Transport Rankings

The 2019 Shanghai university rankings are out. In the Transport Science & Technology subject, the University of Sydney is ranked #5 in the world:

 

  1. Beijing Jiaotong University
  2. Tsinghua University
  3. Delft University of Technology
  4. Southeast University
  5. University of Sydney
  6. Tongji University
  7. Massachusetts Institute of Technology
  8. University of British Columbia
  9. University of California Berkeley
  10. Shanghai Jiao Tong University

Our Civil Engineering program moved to 24th according to these rankings. The University did well overall. While I don’t much trust rankings, I’ll brag anyway. I am proud to be a part of this. If you too want to be a part of this, get a degree at the University of Sydney. Our new Master of Transport Program is available now …

 

 

Access across Australia: mapping 30-minute cities, how do our capitals compare?

Reprinted from The Conversation.

Accessibility – the ease of reaching valued opportunities such as jobs, workers and shops – is the whole reason cities exist. There is no reason to locate anywhere but to be near things, far from things, or to possess things. Access measures this.

Locations with better accessibility to urban opportunities generally have higher development density and more expensive real estate. This is because places with higher accessibility are more productive, so their workers earn higher wages. And modes of transport that reach more opportunities – that is, provide access to places where people work, live, shop, and more – tend to have higher market share.

Our new report, Access Across Australia, for the first time generates a set of consistent maps and graphs of 30-minute access to jobs and workers by each transport mode for each of the eight capital cities. This covers around 70% of the nation’s resident workers and employment opportunities.

The full report compares 10-minute to 60-minute accessibility to both employment locations and to workers’ homes by four modes of transport – car, public transport, walking, and cycling – for each city. It also reports the overall job-worker balance, comparing how many workplaces can be reached to how many competing workers want to reach those same workplaces.

The accessibility measures take into account the effects on travel times of traffic congestion and the walking and transfer elements of the public transport mode.

Accessibility captures the combined effect of land use and transport infrastructure. The faster and more direct the network, the higher the access. The more opportunities (people and places) that can be reached, the higher the accessibility.

This value varies across and between regions. For this article, we show this in maps for Sydney – the full report has maps for all four transport modes, for both jobs and labour (resident workers), for all eight cities. In the table, city-level accessibility numbers are reported as a metropolitan average, weighted by the number of people who experience that accessibility (population-weighted accessibility), to best represent the experience of the working population.

Population-weighted 30-minute accessibility to jobs; cities ranked by the size of employment opportunities. Hao Wu and David Levinson

The rankings in the table are discussed below for each mode.

Cars

Cars have higher accessibility than public transport, walking, or cycling. Perth has the greatest number of jobs and workers reachable by car within 30 minutes.

At time thresholds of 40 minutes and longer, residents of Sydney and Melbourne have higher accessibility than other cities. During the morning peak period, Melbourne has moderately better car accessibility than Sydney, despite Sydney being larger and having more opportunities overall. This indicates that roads in Melbourne are faster than those in Sydney.

30-minute job accessibility by car in Sydney. Hao Wu and David Levinson

 

Public transport

Public transport accessibility incorporates time to reach transit stops and station on foot, and equals the minimum of walking and transit times between an origin and destination. It remains at a significant disadvantage compared to car travel, reaching between 12% and 18% of the urban opportunities accessible by car under a 30-minute threshold.

Public transport accessibility tends to be high in city centres and low in other places. The disparity with cars peaks at 20-30 minutes’ travel time.

Sydney and Melbourne have the best public transport accessibility among Australian cities, followed by Perth and Brisbane. It could be higher still with better-located station entrances and exits.

30-minute job accessibility by public transport in Sydney. Hao Wu and David Levinson

 

Cycling

This report identifies cycling as a viable option for improving accessibility. Assuming cyclists are willing to ride on the street, people cycling can reach about twice as many jobs as people on public transport within 30 minutes in all eight Australian cities, and around one-third of job opportunities reachable by car (except for Perth, which is 16%). Sydney and Melbourne have the highest cycling accessibility.

Of course, it should be recognised that many potential bicyclists are extremely uncomfortable riding in traffic. Their accessibility on a more limited network of residential streets and protected bike lanes would be much reduced.

30-minute job accessibility by cycling in Sydney. Hao Wu and David Levinson

Walking

People walking cannot travel as fast as those on other modes, particularly over longer distances, where public transport and cars can travel at much higher speeds. Not surprisingly, walking has the lowest accessibility of all four modes. The presence and timing of traffic signals that give priority to cars significantly reduces walking accessibility.

Walking accessibility is closely related to urban density. City centres, especially those in larger and denser cities, tend to have better walking accessibility.

Among the eight major Australian cities, Sydney and Melbourne have the best walking accessibility. Hobart and Darwin have the lowest.

30-minute job accessibility by walking in Sydney. Hao Wu and David Levinson

Job-worker balance

The job-worker balance of a place is measured dynamically as the ratio of jobs and resident workers reachable within 30 minutes. City centres have superior accessibility to both jobs and workers, and less pronounced advantage in car accessibility compared to other modes. Higher jobs-to-workers accessibility ratios in city centres show that, in general, jobs are distributed closer to and better connected with city centres than residential locations.

The job-worker balance is a potent indicator for identifying urban centres and for measuring the strength of centres.

Ratio of 30-minute job accessibility to worker accessibility by car in Sydney. Hao Wu and David Levinson

Conclusions

This research gives us a baseline accessibility measurement using the best available data for 2018. Repeating this analysis over time will enable long-run tracking of accessibility as a performance measure.

This will enable us to answer questions such as: is accessibility by a particular transport mode rising or falling? Is that due to congestion, network contraction, new infrastructure, or changes in residential or employment density? Are policies working to expand accessibility for the population as a whole, and for areas within cities? Which investments give the most accessibility “bang for the buck”?

Some of the results are surprising – in particular, the observation that the speed of Perth’s freeway and street network more than compensates for more limited scale in producing 30-minute car accessibility.

But this result is just an indicator of broader accessibility, which includes additional relevant opportunities, more times of day and more information than is presently at hand. This is likely to become more widely available in an era of big data if governments choose to actually implement the open data claims they advertise.

Transportist: July 2019

Welcome to the July 2019 issue of The Transportist, especially to our new readers.  As always you can follow along at the  transportist.org or on Twitter.

New Interdisciplinary Master of Transport

The University of Sydney is pleased to unveil a new, interdisciplinary (Engineering, Planning, and Business) Master of Transport, and is accepting applications for Term 1 and Term 2 of 2020 now. Contact me if you have questions.

Transportist (the blog)

WalkSydney

Conferences

News

Books

8th International Symposium on Transport Network Reliability (INSTR)

You are warmly invited to submit extended abstracts (maximum 2500 words) to the 8th International Symposium on Transport Network Reliability (INSTR), which will be hosted by KTH Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm, Sweden on 24-26 June 2020. The INSTR series is the premier gathering for the world’s leading researchers and professionals interested in transport network reliability, to discuss both recent research and future directions in this increasingly important field of research. The scope of the symposium includes all aspects of analysis and design to improve network reliability, including:

 

  • User perception of unreliability and vulnerability
  • Public policy and reliability of travel times
  • The valuation and economics of reliability
  • Network reliability modeling and estimation
  • Transport network robustness and resilience
  • Transport network risk evaluation and management
  • Evacuation and disaster relief distribution
  • Network interdependencies and cyber security
  • Reliability of public transport and supply chains
  • Travel behavior under uncertainty
  • Vehicle routing and scheduling under uncertainty
  • Traffic management (including ITS) to improve network reliability
  • Reliability of connected and automated vehicles
  • Reliability and resilience of emerging mobility systems

 

Important dates

15th October 2019: Extended abstract submission

15th January 2020: Acceptance notification

15th March 2020: Submission of accepted extended abstracts

 

Special issue

The local organizing committee are arranging agreements with selected journals for special issues. Currently, the special issue on “Reliability and Resilience of Emerging Mobility Systems” in Transportmetrica B: Transport Dynamicshas been accepted. Guest editors will invite full papers to be submitted to these journals, which will be reviewed under the normal process.

 

Submission instructions and further information can be found on the conference website: https://www.instr2020.se

 

We look forward to your contributions and to seeing you in Stockholm next year!
On behalf of the Local Organizing Committee,

Erik Jenelius (chair)

Taken for a ride | AltMedia

Joan Henson writes Taken for a ride in AltMedia. My quotes below, the full interview below that.


Sydney lags internationally for cycling

University of Sydney Professor David Levinson has researched how the distance between commuters and stations can be shrunk by installing strategic station entry points, thus expanding commuter catchments.

As bicycle speeds can be three to four times that of walking, “many more people are in range of the station via bike.”

For safe accessibility, cyclists need entry points in low-speed residential streets and protected cycleways on high-speed roads.

In addition to better station accessibility, he says that Sydney “sorely lacks a protected bike lane network.”

According to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, one in five Australians hospitalised for a transport-related injury from 2015-16 was a cyclist.

In early May, it was reported that the rate of injury for other road users declined from 1990-00 to 2015-16 by 1.3 per cent per year.

Over the same period there was an increase of 1.5 per cent per year transport-related injuries for cyclists, until the last six years, where the average increased to 4.4 per cent per year.

Levinson says that far fewer people cycle in Sydney than in places with better cycling infrastructure like Canberra, Portland and Minneapolis in the United States, or “most places in Europe or China,” and that changes in road rules and infrastructure could make walking and cycling more attractive alternatives.

Andrew Chuter, President of Friends of Erskineville, says that his group has started canvassing the community about building a southern entrance to Erskineville station, inspired by Redfern Station developments.

The new Ashmore Estate development, which will house about 6000 residents, presents challenges for accessing the station via walking and cycling.

“That estate accesses Erskineville Station by walking up a hill to the top of the station, and then comes back down to the platform,” he says.

“It really doesn’t make sense… to come back down to the platform.”

The City of Sydney’s Sustainable Sydney 2030 target aims for 10 per cent of all trips to the city to be made by bicycle.

In early May NSW Public Spaces Minister Rob Stokes told the Sydney Morning Herald that he was “very aware that Sydney is not a cycle-friendly city”, and wanted to work with councils and the Transport Minister to make improvements.

The full interview is below:

I watched your Tuesday Friends of Erskineville talk where you spoke about the extended catchment area that would be provided to commuters at various Sydney railway stations by building an extra entry (bringing commuters closer to stations and potential workplaces).

  • In your estimation, briefly, which Sydney stations could most benefit from better bicycle accessibility and whyI imagine there might be some overlap with the study you referenced at the Tuesday talk, but also unique problem areas, such as connecting to cycleways and making wider concourse entry/exit areas?

I think all stations could benefit from better bicycle accessibility, including both bicycle access routes and bike storage at stations. Bicycles expand the catchment area significantly beyond the walk catchment. Bike speeds are about 3 to 4 times as fast as walking, so in the same 5 or 10 minutes, many more people are in range of the station via bike. The issue is not just bike access to stations on safe facilities (low-speed residential streets and protected bikeways on higher speed roads), but bike access to everywhere. Sydney sorely lacks a protected-bike lane network. People say no one bikes in Sydney, and while not true of course, far fewer people bike here than in good cities for bicycling like Canberra in Australia, Portland and Minneapolis in the United States, or most places in Europe or China. Is the lack of facilities due to the lack of bicyclists, or is the lack of bicyclists due to the lack of facilities? I think at this point the latter is true. Sydney’s roads have been given over to maximising automobile throughput at the expense of all other modes, and this is socially counterproductive. The new Metro was an excellent opportunity to connect to local neighborhoods with protected bike lanes. I don’t think this opportunity was fully taken advantage of (yet). It is much easier to do this in the Western suburbs, where the rights-of-way are wider (enabling protected bike lanes to be installed with less pain), and the distances longer, making the region even more amenable to bicycling than walking.

  • Have you done similar catchment studies related to bicycle accessibility? 

Not as such. The logic is the same though, bikes are just faster so the territory is wider. If we assume bike speeds are 3 times faster than walking, and bikes can go everywhere people on foot can, then the 15-minute walk access catchment is the 5-minute bicycle catchment.

  • How could Redfern station and Macdonaldtown cycling accessibility be improved? 

Part of the issue at both stations is that the railway tracks act as a barrier to north-south crossing. One (or more) pedestrian/bike crossing between would be useful. There are plans for this, but they haven’t been implemented. As the new south/west entrance at Redfern is planned, this helps shorten distances, but it should be designed to accommodate crossings for both modes (without bikes having to dismount), and the entrance should provide bicycle storage for bike-to-train travelers.

  • Do you see problems with the Transport for NSW’s Redfern station overpass model? What about its likability to the currently in-construction Wilson st cycleway and never-made Lawson st cycleway?

The plan is still a schematic. I think it should be wide-enough to accomodate separated bike lanes.

Lawson Street, which I use daily, is a separate matter, and needs a major redesign, far too much space is given over to cars for parking, and not enough for people on foot to move when Sydney University is in session. A shared space design, with many fewer parking spaces, and slower speed limits, might be appropriate here. But again the problem from a transport perspective is the tracks act as a barrier, so too many people are channeled onto a small road. The new entrance at Redfern would reduce pedestrian demand on Lawson significantly.

  • Does Sydney have a problem synchronising cycling infrastructure with roads and railways? How in particular? Should changes be made and what are the priorities in your view? Is there a disconnect between state government and Sydney City Council cycling prioritiesAnd does that confuse future infrastructure planning investments and commuters? If so, how?NSW Public Spaces Minister, Rob Stokes, recently said that the road network is shaped in a way that is not friendly to bicycle riders. The state has been reluctant to approve plans to link up cycleways in the inner city. There is no east-west cycleway in the CBD, links at King, Castlereagh, Chalmers and Liverpool streets lack state funding and approval.

Australia has given far more power to the State government, and less to local government, than most places in the United States, where I am most familiar. Given that governance structure, it is not surprising that NSW privileges the longer distance trips over shorter distance. Imagine local governments (or even a new metropolitan-level government) had more powers over local streets, they would be more responsive to local demands, and less to demands from people who would be considered non-residents (non-voters). You may periodically wind up with a sympathetic state government for bicycle issues, but structurally, it is not embedded in the system. Local governments, of whatever party, will support local travel rather than through travel.

  • What led you to found the Walk Sydney group? What feedback have you received?

Brigid Kelly was the main organiser of WalkSydney. I and others helped. There was no one advocating for pedestrians in Sydney, and so pedestrians get the short end of policies. I saw this especially with traffic signal timings. While Sydney is walkable from a land use perspective, there are lots of adjacent activities and interesting things to see. The footpaths are decaying, and the delays for those on foot so that cars don’t have to stop are appalling. The road rules favour cars rather than pedestrians in a way that is strange.

I was previously involved in establishing and chairing the streets.mn group in Minnesota, which provided a forum for discussion of transport and land use issues, and grew to be a pretty successful website and community that influenced public perception of transport and land use questions. Minneapolis has become much more progressive on these issues since we started talking in a coherent way about them.

I think Sydney needs something similar, that brings together intelligent people discussing the transport and land use problems here in a civilised forum. There are lots of small advocacy groups, but no strong voice, and no one looking systematically at the problem multi-modally.

  • What are the most pressing safety concerns for you for cyclists on Sydney transport networks?

Crash and fatality rates in Australia are higher for cyclists than many other countries. We need to ask why. And then we need consider whether the putative safety solutions with heavy fines are important  to improve safety or just ’safety theatre’. It’s not like we can’t learn from other countries that have a much safer environment, and import their strategies. Some of this is driver education and behaviour and enforcement, but most of this is road rules (which are especially hostile to pedestrians here and give drivers an expanded perception of their privilege) and infrastructure (protected bike lanes, wombat crossings for pedestrians and cyclists), things that can be directly affected by pubic decisions.

  • Where do you see thefuture of transport alternatives in Sydney, like cycling, walking and new alternatives like shared electric scooters, Lime Bikes (after failure of share-bike predecessors)?

I think walking remains the most important of the set you gave, followed by bicycles and e-bikes. I see more privately owned e-scooters/e-skateboards around. Dockless Bike share (and scooter share) did not work here the first time around. The issues are in part for the shared bikes/e-bikes/e-scooters etc. are that people who are using them are traveling faster than walking, so shouldn’t be on footpaths generally, but not as fast as cars (or feel unsafe doing so) so don’t want to use streets. Thus, without a comfortable place to use the device, prospective users aren’t going to rent bikes (or scooters). So this gets back to infrastructure. The companies are doing what companies should do, explore the market. But as they have learned, the market environment here unfortunately isn’t ready for them.

Transport Poverty| A Political Economy of Access

We are pleased to make available Chapter 21: Transport Poverty of A Political Economy of Access. It opens:

A Political Economy of Access: Infrastructure, Networks, Cities, and Institutions by David M. Levinson and David A. King
A Political Economy of Access: Infrastructure, Networks, Cities, and Institutions by David M. Levinson and David A. King

When we talk about access as a value that should guide transport policy, we need to address access for whom, not just access to where by what mode. In the auto-dependent US, the mode that offers the most access in most places currently is the car. Yet cars are expensive, and many people struggle with basic access (and mobility) simply because they can’t afford it. Transport is the second largest spending category for US households, behind only housing. This is the case even as transport is heavily subsidized, regardless of mode.1 As discussed in Subsidy,2 the general approach is to spread whatever help is offered thinly across infrastructure capital investment. This does little to help those with the least.

Polycentricity Podcast

Following up on our article in The Conversation on Polycentricity, I was interviewed on 2SER (107.3) radio (June 13, 7:30 pm) about polycentrism. Here is the podcast: https://2ser.com/three-cbds-in-one-city/

THREE CBD’S IN ONE CITY

One CBD… how about 3? Sydney is becoming polycentric. The original CBD remains an ideal place for some businesses, but for others, it is impossible expensive or too far away. David Levinson a Professor of Transport and Engineering at the University of Sydney believes it is a requirement for any growing city to create a structure which suits the businesses.

William Gleeson spoke to him for this report.

Some comments on Hyperloop

I have some comments on the so-called Hyperloop on p. 10 of the current issue of Modus.  There are comments by others as well.

 

Hyperloop is not a reality, and may never be 

Hyperloop can’t be a solution to any current transport problem, as it doesn’t exist. This is like the Wright brothers pitching airports before they’d flown an aeroplane – it’s a bit premature. Magnetic levitation technology has been around for years and we’ve had pneumatic tubes since the 18oos. Putting these two technologies together doesn’t work at this time. There’s no reason public agencies should propose to build lines until they’ve built a test track that functions.

Long tubes of metal are going to expand and contract. You can imagine shorter tubes connected by rubber or something, but what ‘s the loss of vacuum? We don’t know. Nobody’s built one. Since they’ve never put a person in a hyperloop, they have no idea how people are going to react. In addition to not having technology, they don’t have a business case. How do they get passenger flows that justify the cost? This isn’t faster than anything that has come before – we have aeroplanes. They haven’t come up with a market where this works better than anything we already have.

— David Levinson is professor of transport at the University of Sydney

 

Friends of Erskineville: Conversation with David Levinson

I am honoured to be invited to present to the Friends of Erskineville (Facebook signup) group on Tuesday, 11 June 2019 from 19:30-20:30, at the Erskineville Town Hall Committee Room talking about a bunch of things, notably station access.

Friends of Erskineville's photo.

David hails from the USA but since 2017 has been a professor of transport engineering at Sydney University. His area of expertise is travel behaviour and transport planning. Recently he founded the Walk Sydney group and has written numerous articles about how we can improve walkability in Sydney. He has analysed the design of a number of intersections in the Erskineville neighbourhood and suggested ways to improve them. In a recent article he wrote about the possibility of improving station access, such as by creating a southern entrance to Erskineville station.

David will give a presentation on these issues followed by an informal Q&A.

See the following links for some of David’s recent articles:

Update June 13, 2019

The recording is up on Facebook in two parts:
%d bloggers like this: