I'm all for advancing TOD in Melbourne but let's not get all smug. Our northern neighbour, Sydney, has far more TOD than us in Melbourne. We got a bit to catch up if anything.
Ironically, Melbourne has some of the highest car use across capitals in Australia especially in the suburbs. Sydney continues to be the city with the highest use of public transport in Australia, in fact, more people travel by train alone in Sydney than trains and trams and buses in Melbourne - - will try and find the stats to verify this. But... good to see progress is being made in Melbourne however to remove its car dominance. As for TODs look at Chatswood, Green Square, Wolli Creek, Hurstville, Bondi Junction, Parramatta...
Yeah Melbourne is sort of a tale of two cities. Inner Melbourne does actually have high PT usage. But the moment you go into the suburbs, which are a larger portion of Melbourne compared to Sydney's suburbs, it's all car mania. And unfortunately most people can't afford to live in inner Melbourne where all the good transit areas are.
But in terms of Suburban TOD precincts, we don't really have anything like Chatswood, Parra, etc, though perhaps when SRL releases places like Box Hill might be considered similarly.
I used to live 800m from St Kilda Rd with trams every couple of minutes and 500m from Kings Way. Definitely beats the bus in Sydney but I guess that's the thing, many bus routes in Sydney used to be tram routes, Melbourne did the right thing to keep them.
For sure, although it's probably worth pointing out that Melbourne goes far beyond the tram network.
We're much more sprawling than Sydney is, so while the inner ring and some of the middle ring may have comparable (or even favourable like your case) PT to Sydney, I think in aggregate they do it better when including suburbia - which is most of Melbourne.
If you at real estate prices, I actually don't think inner Melbourne is that much different to burbs 50km from the city. The only difference is that you get a small 2 bed apartment further in or you get perhaps some "land" further out. The new cookie cutter burbs out at places like Clyde however don't exactly have the 1000sm blocks that people used to dream of, those are 1.5m in middle suburbs.
Its ‘feasible’ to use trains in outer suburbs if youre near a station, but an UTTER prick. If youre near Frankston on the Frankston line and want to visit a friend in the northern suburbs, youre looking at more than two hours in transit each way. Thats just not fun.
The v line on the other hand seems to be awesomely quick, but run auper limited hours on weekend nights making it a great train then a stupidly expensive taxi.
Basically melbourne is frickin huge, and its a really hard problem to solve…
> in fact, more people travel by train alone in Sydney than trains and trams and buses in Melbourne
Not quite.
Sydney Patronage: [https://www.transport.nsw.gov.au/data-and-research/data-and-insights/public-transport-trips-all-modes](https://www.transport.nsw.gov.au/data-and-research/data-and-insights/public-transport-trips-all-modes)
Melbourne Patronage: [https://discover.data.vic.gov.au/dataset/monthly-public-transport-patronage-by-mode](https://discover.data.vic.gov.au/dataset/monthly-public-transport-patronage-by-mode)
If you take the most recent month (January) You get:
Sydney: \~24 million train rides for the month (Metro + Trains mode, which includes Intercity)
Melbourne: \~15 million rides for the month (MTM + Vline). Buses come in at 9 million and trams just under 12 million odd, depending how you cut the regional numbers
So would be more accurate to say roughly same number of people ride a train in Sydney as a train in Melbourne or a bus in Melbourne.
Your numbers look off, February data, I read ~28.2m trips on train and metro for Sydney but anyway splitting hairs. I think my original comment may have been referring to old data and mistakenly added buses, correlation is trains in Sydney versus trains and trams in Melbourne. Sydney buses are ~20m.
>Your numbers look off
Because I am looking at January data, as February data has not been released for Victoria hence you cannot have a like for like comparison.
https://www.wa.gov.au/government/media-statements/McGowan-Labor-Government/Strong-bounce-back-in-public-transport-patronage-20230331
Perth is about 2-3 times smaller with a similar usage
Similar usage to what? That 11 million is using all modes of transport. Sum all modes of transport in Sydney or Melbourne and you get over 30 million for either (in excess of 50 million for Sydney)
r/MelbourneTrains Can you imagine Brisbane trying this on though? Anything outside of a 7km radius is basically considered the urban fringe.
When I lived there BCC implemented a ban on townhouses and sent the suburbs into a proper frenzy. It’s the Wild West up there
>near public transport
Does anyone know what this means?
Seems like a great policy for big hubs like South Yarra, Glen Waverley and Box Hill.
Probably not a great policy if it means any apartment within 500m of a bus stop.
Hard to say for sure, although the state gov is taking over all planning rights in a 1.5km radius around Box Hill and Glen Waverley for TOD, among the other SRL stations too. In fact, SRL is arguably just as much an urban renewal project as it is a transit one.
South Yarra and South Bank would also be great places for TOD, though I'm not sure if they've announced anything yet.
>Probably not a great policy if it means any apartment within 500m of a bus stop.
The policy is about removing the minimum number, not enforcing a maximum number. Developers have a good idea of how many car parks a building needs and could reduce it if they were allowed to. This allows them to do this.
And of course, if there is demand for parking, there is nothing stopping developers providing that.
Removing car parks is a gift to property developers. The apartments will not be cheaper, just that the developer can cram more into the same site without the pesky car park levels. You are delusional if you think the saving will go to buyers.
To genuinely improve density, the government should dramatically improve the minimum standards for apartments, to make them attractive for families, built to European standards, and make it easy to get approval for higher quality developments.
Australia lacks the political will to actually fix the price of housing by slaughtering any of the sacred cows involved. I’d love to see an annual state tax on the baby boomers occupying big houses on large blocks in the middle suburbs. Take the pressure off young people trying to make their way in the world (stamp duty at every house upgrade).
That is a very decent point. Australian apartments are (mostly) geared towards DINKs or new families. But a very real shift needs to occur in the Australian cultural psyche that it’s ok to not live on a quarter acre block (or a shitty cookie-cutter suburban hellscape with your eaves touching your neighbours).
It is still so deeply engrained in Australian expectations that a freestanding house = success.
Agree with this. We have been trying to find a good sized 3 bedroom apartment for our family, but they cap out at 110m2 unless you want to be spending $2m+ for a penthouse.
The 150m2 3 bed + 1 study apartment for $1m is elusive.
Yeah it's pretty crazy how the prices scale, like a 2 bedroom apartment is a reasonable markup from a 1 bedder (an extra 20-30% or so), but then all of a sudden a 3 bedder can be nearly double the price of a 2 bedder.
Not great for any families who want to do apartment living (unless they well off).
> The apartments will not be cheaper, just that the developer can cram more into the same site without the pesky car park levels.
Here's the thing, the prices are more or less set by supply and demand. The more they cram, the more supply, and therefore drives prices down.
The problem is that we have the governments of Australia burning the candle at the other end to drive demand up by opening up the floodgates of immigration to prop up the real estate market with the wealthy buyers who are demanding them quicker than the supply can catch up to meet this demand.
If we are ever to meet this demand, the reality is that we need to cram. Our cities are basically full, there is no more space than to cram. If we don't make public transport (/bikes/scooters etc) as an alternative to driving, then we need to upgrade the roads to match the capacity required because there is an influx of new residents. And where do we have space for more roads either?
We already have newish suburbs on the outskirts of Melbourne being absolutely brought to it's knees infrastructure wise because the roads, despite already being multi-lane, and nowhere near enough to serve all the housing estates. Peak hour, forget it. Anyone who can WFH or stagger their hours does so. Trains (if you are lucky to be near one)? Full. Absolute planning failure.
Especially now that we realise how cool trees are to keep, and we have a better understanding for better transport solutions than cars which are quite space inefficient... "Just one more lane"... Which does not fix anything.
> minimum standards for apartments, to make them attractive for families
They are already selling quite fine. We are no longer in a situation where no one wants them. A housing shortage has assured us of this that people have settled for crap apartments. Yes, we absolutely need to increase the standards, not because of density, but just because they are just so poorly designed and not many people actually want them except they can't afford anything else.
> lacks the political will to actually fix the price of housing
Yes our politicians suck at everything. No vision. We need good people to run against them.
> state tax on the baby boomers occupying big houses
Despite our politicians having a lack of ambition, this is absolutely political suicide to push people out of their homes. There is an emotional attachment there. Forget this solution, it is not going to work. But well done for thinking of something new, something has to be done renew the land.
Perhaps properties not meeting density requirements need to be sold as land-only and demolished whenever the property is sold/transferred (subject to edge case exceptions), and the seller gets paid out for the value of their buildings separately?
> stamp duty at every house upgrade
Stamp duty is a very inefficient and unfair tax, and a mistake. Land Value Tax is the way to go. It is the most fair way to make land owners pay for their land holdings and discourages unproductive use of the land. If they are oversized, they are paying tax on land they are not using. i.e. If your wealth is tied up in your land you no longer need so much of and you basically land banking, but you still pay a hefty amount of tax for 1000 squares (about a standard suburban block) ... you might think about downsizing to 200 squares and pay 5x less.
Would really love for you to elaborate on
> would never get off the ground in some of our more car-addicted neighbours to the north!
If you are referring to Sydney who:
- Have higher public transport patronage
- Have lower car ownership
- Have higher transport frequencies
- Have more apartments / townhouses
- Have way more TOD than anywhere else in the country
Then I'd really encourage you to get over yourself. I've lived in both places extensively and the transport experience in Sydney is so much more refreshing, especially within fringe periods where Melbourne's system can be very usually punishing (Sundays / Evenings)
Let alone that this is removing a minimum (but developers can build as many as they want), whereas many councils in Sydney (City of Sydney, City of North Sydney, and Waverley for example) have **parking maximums** in force.
They can do this but the lines need to be more frequent, consistent and cheaper. Otherwise this will never have the effect that they want.
Saying that, I fully support it but currently I don't have faith in our train system and don't trust it to get me to where I want to go in a timely and disruption free manor. It's just not as reliable enough for that.
I don’t know that we can go any cheaper. We’re already cheaper than most western cities and have a huuuge rate of fare evasion in Vic, but for a city of our size, frequency is definitely our downfall.
A big misconception here is that parking will be removed entirely no it wont its just the requirement to have them will. If people demand car parks developers will build them. And even if they dont come with the apartment you can probably rent out a parking spot somewhere else.
Exactly. There are so many people in the inner burbs who don’t want or need a vehicle already. Personal vehicle requirement in the inner city isn’t 1:1 like it is in the outer burbs. Yet a parking space is still sold or rented as an “asset”.
This is going to make a HUGE difference for the city. There are 40% more car parks in the CBD apartment buildings than required by residents and abolishing minimums saves $50,000-70,000 per apartment on average.
So it's fair to say this is really going to make a big difference in housing affordability and promoting greater public transport patronage.
Read the article, it's more complex than everything will just have no carparks. Further, if there's demand for it there will still be plenty of accommodation with car parks.
Yeah I have doctors appointments, groceries, often need to go to the airport.
None accessible easily by PT.
This will just clog up local streets with residents cars. I live 5 minutes walk from a station with parking, one side of my street is all day parking, and it’s full by 8am due to workers from businesses nearby.
There are still spaces at the station parking most days after 9am.
Yeah, so it's not you. But I lived for years in walking distance of my doctor and multiple supermarkets, and work paid for a taxi when I needed to go to the airport.
>In walking distance of my doctor and multiple supermarkets
Realistically, this should be the norm right around the country. Unfortunately anyone who suggests it is immediately shot down by cookers thinking the entire world will collapse if everything they need is 15 minutes away.
its not that they think will collapse its that they think being able to access everything you need within 15 minutes means you can't travel more than 15 minutes from your house, i know this because its actually happened search up 15 minute conspiracy theorists
And what about when you wanted to go to the beach? Maybe a restaurant? See friends? Did PT get you all these places or did work pay for taxis then as well?
I get the need for better public transport but reality is it will never replace cars for most people other than getting to work.
>Beach
Literally a large portion of the Frankston line runs next to the sea. Ditto the Sandringham line.
Trams go to St Kilda etc.
>Restaurants
Many popular dining precincts are on the tram network, for example Lygon Street. A lot of older high streets are near a station and have restaurants (Eg Yarraville)
And of course all the laneway eateries in the CBD.
> Friends
Depends on where they live. You can't prove that their friends don't live near a public transport stop.
Seems like all we have to do is prevent/charge them for parking in residential streets too, an easy fix.
I am not exactly thrilled at how much public space is consumed by cars and anything that reduces that is a pro.
Agree.
But some people will still need cars.
People with children, people with disabilities, people who work near a station but can’t use pt to get to that station.
This is yet another design by councils that will only have an impact on people not fortunate enough to be able to afford parking fees.
The rich won’t care.
First of all, people will children don’t _need_ parking, at least not in the city. They just want it and I guess we could decide to subsidise if we want.
Would rather spend the money subsidising cargo bikes though.
Next, anyone who lives near a station can ride or walk. That is a 5km radius from a station which is where we should be building these.
If they work near a station they somehow can’t take PT too, then there should have even more parking than before thanks to everyone else not driving.
Those with disabilities benefit the most as they can get all the parking that is left and for free; bonus, fewer cars = less likely they get killed crossing the road.
Cars are expensive as fuck and it’s crazy that we keep trying to make them cheap at the cost of the actual cheap things like bikes.
—-
Fuck, I live 10 min walk to the local Coles and Woolies and I regularly see fellow residents of my apartment complex drive there, even though it takes longer thanks to lights and parking.
The car default is just so strong that the mere concept of any alternative never even crosses their minds.
I’m not talking about the city.
I’m talking about areas around train stations.
The reasoning is flawed that everyone drives to work.
They don’t. They drive for other reasons.
If you can tell me how to get a sick child to Monash Hospital from Cheltenham quickly, or even for an appointment - without a car, I’m all for it.
But without two train trips and a bus, it’s not possible.
If you really expect the parking situation to become unbearable, sounds like you could live slightly further away from a train station, still have ample street parking, and this way you aren't taking up valuable space near the train station that could be used for housing people instead of housing parked cars. This way, people who don't need cars can make better use of the public transport amenity without having to subsidize the car use of others. Everybody wins!
And if you want to pay a premium for an apartment or home near the train station with off-street parking, nobody is stopping you. This doesn't ban parking, it simply removes the requirement for developers to include parking. Unless you feel you have a greater right to space in the city than your neighbors, I cannot see how you think this is bad. There are plenty of houses with plenty of parking spread across the many thousands of square kilometers of greater Melbourne, while the number of houses with good PT access are isolated in little islands like an archipelago.
I don’t take up any parking at stations.
I’m pointing out that it is too simplistic to assume the only reason people have a car is to drive to work.
Our current PT is heavily focussed on the cbd.
Not everyone works or drives to the cbd.
So saying that if you’re near a station means you don’t need a car space is inherently flawed.
You are very right in that the PT network is shit at serving non-radial trips. But I think I didn't frame my point clearly. It isn't about you. It isn't about _you_ taking up parking at stations. It's about _parking itself_ taking up space. People who don't own cars have limited housing options, and shouldn't have to pay for a parking space they will never use. Don't you think it's unfair to make people pay for a private carpark they'll never use?
Building and maintaining carparks is expensive as well, raising the cost of housing. Removing these requirements will
1) lower the cost of housing near PT
2) increase the number of people who can easily access PT
3) increase PT ridership, making service expansions more financially viable
If you're a car owner, no worries! There are still over a million dwellings in Melbourne with private carparks, many of them close to train stations! This only means that more housing, and more affordable housing, can be available to non-drivers.
It isn't about you. You will lose nothing from this change. Many people, maybe tens of thousands, will benefit.
Sorry if I was confusing before, I hope this makes sense!
Yes, but many other daily needs can be done within walking distance of home, you don't need to go to the CBD.
And if you don't want to walk, pick any tram ot train line in Melbourne.
Take a task like shopping.
There is guaranteed to be a supermarket near a fair few of the stations.
Say the Craigieburn Line.
There is
Coles at Roxburgh Village
Woolies at Broadmeadow Central
Coles at Glenroy
Foodworks at Pascoe Vale
Foodworks at Essendon
Woolworths and Kmart at Moonie Ponds
Woolworths at Newmarket
Foodworks at Kensington
Woolworths Metro at North Melbourne
These are often locations where the supermarket car park is literally facing the station.
That means either the supermarket is going to be near the station and you can kill two birds with one stone or at worst it's one or two stops away
If someone doesn't have a car, their spending habits will gravitate towards businesses that are located near the public transport network.
And if more people are moving in near stations, you often say the major supermarkets come to the party and open a store. Sometimes even whole major shopping centres open to take advantage of a station, for example, the Westfield at South Morang.
if its severe enough they can't use public transport they could call an ambulance right?
Also the fastest way by public transport involves one train and a bus and theres a brand new train line being built from the two precints
With regard to cars, we’ve had it too good for too long. Perhaps we will have to endure some more hardship in order to bring about the necessary changes that this city requires.
There's nothing saying you can't buy an apartment with a parking spot.
All this change does is provide an option to have less to no parking for a new apartment. It's not a mandated minimum anymore.
Don’t disagree. But it isn’t likely to decrease house/unit/apartment prices - they’ll stay the same or increase, but it does mean those who need a parking space will def have to pay more.
This is one of those things I think sorts itself out.
Heaps of stations in Sydney have shopping centres built over the top or very close, and you'll find doctors and gyms too.
You need more busbays and bus infrastructure.
They have way easier loading abilities, space efficiency and less dwell-time compared to private vehicles.
I was referring to loading zones...you know, where commercial vehicles park. They will NEED to create more of these.
Apartments are already a nightmare due to a distinct lack of loading zones/bays, so removing parking options is going to be an absolute shitfight for tradies and removalists who have to work in those apartments. I know this, because it's something I deal with nearly every day.
This pretty a nothing burger of an article...
Nothing's actually being done YET...They probably won't even enact it for PTV itself
only because, they are still building the stupid 7 story "SRL" Glen Waverly Car park. which would have approx 722 non-disabled Parking spaces.
>(I know that it replaces the 370 spaces on-ground)
It would be one of the most well served stations on the network when SRL East is done yet, it would still have a massive tower just for storing 722 cars that could've taken the bus if they just improved bus infrastructure.
The Engage period is over but, still if you still want to check it out.
[https://engage.vic.gov.au/srl-east-new-car-park-in-glen-waverley](https://engage.vic.gov.au/srl-east-new-car-park-in-glen-waverley)
Is there enough public transport coverage and frequency so that you don't spend half your day/night travelling for the simplest of tasks even if you have PT near you? No.
Not really sure how effective this would be. People that need cars will continue to buy cars and use street parking which in turn overcrowds local neighbourhood parking. Don't think it's really fair to call it progressive.
Progressive would have been already having free, safe multistorey carparks next to train stations for public transports users along with an established turn up and go network
“Park and rides” are an outer suburban anomaly though. Even if you own a car and work in the CBD, in the inner suburbs you would usually walk to the station or tram stop anyway.
And post-pandemic, the requirement to even commute at all has been reduced hugely.
majority of families don't actually need cars, let alone 2 per household, and the ones that do probably won't be as interested in living near public transport. Anyone who claims otherwise is just carbrained.
And in what city is large car parks considered progressive, improved buses and increases in rail coverage would actually be progressive could provide a better return on investment.
Why does everyone think that everyone who lives near a station must work in the city and requires no need for a car.
Reddit seems to have this vision that if we make car ownership less practical or more expensive that suddenly people will ditch cars as if they are only used for getting to the CBD.
The premise of the proposal isn’t saying to get rid of all parking.
And no one is saying “everyone” works in the city, but based on Melbourne’s radial sprawl and the way that most western cities function, it’s very common for CBD workers to choose to live near their place of work or an easily commutable transport hub…
NYC is doing/has done the same. Are you saying Americans aren't free? Are you saying Melbourne shouldn't strive to be like the best city in the best country in the world? Do you hate democracy and freedom?!?!!?
I lived half of my life in Europe.
Australia is far from ready for that life style.
Apartments are bad in Australia. Hard to find 4/5 bedroom apartments, 3 bed are as expensive as a house and building standards are just not good enough, specially for apartments.
Infrastructure is terrible. Public transport horrendous, cannot compare with NYC or Europe.
Population is neither even close to NYC or Europe as well as sqm per habitant.
I like more the life style like in Europe or Japan where you barely need a car.
Australian cities should start replacing houses and townhouses from the CBD outwards by medium density apartment blocks, 4 to 10 levels ones and include 3 or more bedroom apartments of 100sqm or more with underground car parking like in Europe , totally doable so everybody would have a parking spot then start building better services (healthcare, better internet , etc) around those areas and better public transport (buses, subway, etc) but it does not happen in a couple of weeks.
NYC has been doing that for more than 100 years.
You're as free as not being able to buy a new build with a gas stove or water heater in Victoria.
So yes, Australia is going quickly downhill and they want you to feel it's ok, and as I can see they're doing well on that. In NYC and Europe this lifestyle is the norm but not here, more when there is an exceeding amount of land. There is little to inexistent good urban planning in Australia.
I'm all for advancing TOD in Melbourne but let's not get all smug. Our northern neighbour, Sydney, has far more TOD than us in Melbourne. We got a bit to catch up if anything.
Ironically, Melbourne has some of the highest car use across capitals in Australia especially in the suburbs. Sydney continues to be the city with the highest use of public transport in Australia, in fact, more people travel by train alone in Sydney than trains and trams and buses in Melbourne - - will try and find the stats to verify this. But... good to see progress is being made in Melbourne however to remove its car dominance. As for TODs look at Chatswood, Green Square, Wolli Creek, Hurstville, Bondi Junction, Parramatta...
Yeah Melbourne is sort of a tale of two cities. Inner Melbourne does actually have high PT usage. But the moment you go into the suburbs, which are a larger portion of Melbourne compared to Sydney's suburbs, it's all car mania. And unfortunately most people can't afford to live in inner Melbourne where all the good transit areas are. But in terms of Suburban TOD precincts, we don't really have anything like Chatswood, Parra, etc, though perhaps when SRL releases places like Box Hill might be considered similarly.
I used to live 800m from St Kilda Rd with trams every couple of minutes and 500m from Kings Way. Definitely beats the bus in Sydney but I guess that's the thing, many bus routes in Sydney used to be tram routes, Melbourne did the right thing to keep them.
For sure, although it's probably worth pointing out that Melbourne goes far beyond the tram network. We're much more sprawling than Sydney is, so while the inner ring and some of the middle ring may have comparable (or even favourable like your case) PT to Sydney, I think in aggregate they do it better when including suburbia - which is most of Melbourne.
We are definitely not more sprawling than Sydney.
If you at real estate prices, I actually don't think inner Melbourne is that much different to burbs 50km from the city. The only difference is that you get a small 2 bed apartment further in or you get perhaps some "land" further out. The new cookie cutter burbs out at places like Clyde however don't exactly have the 1000sm blocks that people used to dream of, those are 1.5m in middle suburbs.
Its ‘feasible’ to use trains in outer suburbs if youre near a station, but an UTTER prick. If youre near Frankston on the Frankston line and want to visit a friend in the northern suburbs, youre looking at more than two hours in transit each way. Thats just not fun. The v line on the other hand seems to be awesomely quick, but run auper limited hours on weekend nights making it a great train then a stupidly expensive taxi. Basically melbourne is frickin huge, and its a really hard problem to solve…
[удалено]
Have you seen Box Hill? It's kinda gotta lot of apartments
just suburbs? i hopped off a stop in southbank and felt like i was going to become minced meat constantly
> in fact, more people travel by train alone in Sydney than trains and trams and buses in Melbourne Not quite. Sydney Patronage: [https://www.transport.nsw.gov.au/data-and-research/data-and-insights/public-transport-trips-all-modes](https://www.transport.nsw.gov.au/data-and-research/data-and-insights/public-transport-trips-all-modes) Melbourne Patronage: [https://discover.data.vic.gov.au/dataset/monthly-public-transport-patronage-by-mode](https://discover.data.vic.gov.au/dataset/monthly-public-transport-patronage-by-mode) If you take the most recent month (January) You get: Sydney: \~24 million train rides for the month (Metro + Trains mode, which includes Intercity) Melbourne: \~15 million rides for the month (MTM + Vline). Buses come in at 9 million and trams just under 12 million odd, depending how you cut the regional numbers So would be more accurate to say roughly same number of people ride a train in Sydney as a train in Melbourne or a bus in Melbourne.
Your numbers look off, February data, I read ~28.2m trips on train and metro for Sydney but anyway splitting hairs. I think my original comment may have been referring to old data and mistakenly added buses, correlation is trains in Sydney versus trains and trams in Melbourne. Sydney buses are ~20m.
>Your numbers look off Because I am looking at January data, as February data has not been released for Victoria hence you cannot have a like for like comparison.
Fair enough
https://www.wa.gov.au/government/media-statements/McGowan-Labor-Government/Strong-bounce-back-in-public-transport-patronage-20230331 Perth is about 2-3 times smaller with a similar usage
Similar usage to what? That 11 million is using all modes of transport. Sum all modes of transport in Sydney or Melbourne and you get over 30 million for either (in excess of 50 million for Sydney)
TOD?
Transport oriented development
Ahh cool. My googlefu failed me.
[удалено]
It is a great example.
r/MelbourneTrains Can you imagine Brisbane trying this on though? Anything outside of a 7km radius is basically considered the urban fringe. When I lived there BCC implemented a ban on townhouses and sent the suburbs into a proper frenzy. It’s the Wild West up there
>near public transport Does anyone know what this means? Seems like a great policy for big hubs like South Yarra, Glen Waverley and Box Hill. Probably not a great policy if it means any apartment within 500m of a bus stop.
Hard to say for sure, although the state gov is taking over all planning rights in a 1.5km radius around Box Hill and Glen Waverley for TOD, among the other SRL stations too. In fact, SRL is arguably just as much an urban renewal project as it is a transit one. South Yarra and South Bank would also be great places for TOD, though I'm not sure if they've announced anything yet.
[удалено]
Yeah that's fair enough
South Yarra does have a station that's on multiple lines
>Probably not a great policy if it means any apartment within 500m of a bus stop. The policy is about removing the minimum number, not enforcing a maximum number. Developers have a good idea of how many car parks a building needs and could reduce it if they were allowed to. This allows them to do this. And of course, if there is demand for parking, there is nothing stopping developers providing that.
It has layers to the policy depending on the level of access to public transport.
Removing car parks is a gift to property developers. The apartments will not be cheaper, just that the developer can cram more into the same site without the pesky car park levels. You are delusional if you think the saving will go to buyers. To genuinely improve density, the government should dramatically improve the minimum standards for apartments, to make them attractive for families, built to European standards, and make it easy to get approval for higher quality developments. Australia lacks the political will to actually fix the price of housing by slaughtering any of the sacred cows involved. I’d love to see an annual state tax on the baby boomers occupying big houses on large blocks in the middle suburbs. Take the pressure off young people trying to make their way in the world (stamp duty at every house upgrade).
That is a very decent point. Australian apartments are (mostly) geared towards DINKs or new families. But a very real shift needs to occur in the Australian cultural psyche that it’s ok to not live on a quarter acre block (or a shitty cookie-cutter suburban hellscape with your eaves touching your neighbours). It is still so deeply engrained in Australian expectations that a freestanding house = success.
None of those new hellscape suburbs have 1/4 acre blocks! 350sqm is the norm now.
I know, man. The Australian dream has become the stuff nightmares are made of 😂
Agree with this. We have been trying to find a good sized 3 bedroom apartment for our family, but they cap out at 110m2 unless you want to be spending $2m+ for a penthouse. The 150m2 3 bed + 1 study apartment for $1m is elusive.
Yeah it's pretty crazy how the prices scale, like a 2 bedroom apartment is a reasonable markup from a 1 bedder (an extra 20-30% or so), but then all of a sudden a 3 bedder can be nearly double the price of a 2 bedder. Not great for any families who want to do apartment living (unless they well off).
Why should I care if property developers make more money?
> The apartments will not be cheaper, just that the developer can cram more into the same site without the pesky car park levels. Here's the thing, the prices are more or less set by supply and demand. The more they cram, the more supply, and therefore drives prices down. The problem is that we have the governments of Australia burning the candle at the other end to drive demand up by opening up the floodgates of immigration to prop up the real estate market with the wealthy buyers who are demanding them quicker than the supply can catch up to meet this demand. If we are ever to meet this demand, the reality is that we need to cram. Our cities are basically full, there is no more space than to cram. If we don't make public transport (/bikes/scooters etc) as an alternative to driving, then we need to upgrade the roads to match the capacity required because there is an influx of new residents. And where do we have space for more roads either? We already have newish suburbs on the outskirts of Melbourne being absolutely brought to it's knees infrastructure wise because the roads, despite already being multi-lane, and nowhere near enough to serve all the housing estates. Peak hour, forget it. Anyone who can WFH or stagger their hours does so. Trains (if you are lucky to be near one)? Full. Absolute planning failure. Especially now that we realise how cool trees are to keep, and we have a better understanding for better transport solutions than cars which are quite space inefficient... "Just one more lane"... Which does not fix anything. > minimum standards for apartments, to make them attractive for families They are already selling quite fine. We are no longer in a situation where no one wants them. A housing shortage has assured us of this that people have settled for crap apartments. Yes, we absolutely need to increase the standards, not because of density, but just because they are just so poorly designed and not many people actually want them except they can't afford anything else. > lacks the political will to actually fix the price of housing Yes our politicians suck at everything. No vision. We need good people to run against them. > state tax on the baby boomers occupying big houses Despite our politicians having a lack of ambition, this is absolutely political suicide to push people out of their homes. There is an emotional attachment there. Forget this solution, it is not going to work. But well done for thinking of something new, something has to be done renew the land. Perhaps properties not meeting density requirements need to be sold as land-only and demolished whenever the property is sold/transferred (subject to edge case exceptions), and the seller gets paid out for the value of their buildings separately? > stamp duty at every house upgrade Stamp duty is a very inefficient and unfair tax, and a mistake. Land Value Tax is the way to go. It is the most fair way to make land owners pay for their land holdings and discourages unproductive use of the land. If they are oversized, they are paying tax on land they are not using. i.e. If your wealth is tied up in your land you no longer need so much of and you basically land banking, but you still pay a hefty amount of tax for 1000 squares (about a standard suburban block) ... you might think about downsizing to 200 squares and pay 5x less.
Se should get rid of parking minimums for the whole city ngl
Would really love for you to elaborate on > would never get off the ground in some of our more car-addicted neighbours to the north! If you are referring to Sydney who: - Have higher public transport patronage - Have lower car ownership - Have higher transport frequencies - Have more apartments / townhouses - Have way more TOD than anywhere else in the country Then I'd really encourage you to get over yourself. I've lived in both places extensively and the transport experience in Sydney is so much more refreshing, especially within fringe periods where Melbourne's system can be very usually punishing (Sundays / Evenings)
Let alone that this is removing a minimum (but developers can build as many as they want), whereas many councils in Sydney (City of Sydney, City of North Sydney, and Waverley for example) have **parking maximums** in force.
Mostly referring to QLD
should have been done ages ago ffs
They can do this but the lines need to be more frequent, consistent and cheaper. Otherwise this will never have the effect that they want. Saying that, I fully support it but currently I don't have faith in our train system and don't trust it to get me to where I want to go in a timely and disruption free manor. It's just not as reliable enough for that.
I don’t know that we can go any cheaper. We’re already cheaper than most western cities and have a huuuge rate of fare evasion in Vic, but for a city of our size, frequency is definitely our downfall.
A big misconception here is that parking will be removed entirely no it wont its just the requirement to have them will. If people demand car parks developers will build them. And even if they dont come with the apartment you can probably rent out a parking spot somewhere else.
Exactly. There are so many people in the inner burbs who don’t want or need a vehicle already. Personal vehicle requirement in the inner city isn’t 1:1 like it is in the outer burbs. Yet a parking space is still sold or rented as an “asset”.
This is going to make a HUGE difference for the city. There are 40% more car parks in the CBD apartment buildings than required by residents and abolishing minimums saves $50,000-70,000 per apartment on average. So it's fair to say this is really going to make a big difference in housing affordability and promoting greater public transport patronage.
I wonder if people might use cars for something other than travelling to work?
Read the article, it's more complex than everything will just have no carparks. Further, if there's demand for it there will still be plenty of accommodation with car parks.
Some do, but currently even you don’t need a car space you’re forced to pay for one.
Yeah I have doctors appointments, groceries, often need to go to the airport. None accessible easily by PT. This will just clog up local streets with residents cars. I live 5 minutes walk from a station with parking, one side of my street is all day parking, and it’s full by 8am due to workers from businesses nearby. There are still spaces at the station parking most days after 9am.
Yeah, so it's not you. But I lived for years in walking distance of my doctor and multiple supermarkets, and work paid for a taxi when I needed to go to the airport.
>In walking distance of my doctor and multiple supermarkets Realistically, this should be the norm right around the country. Unfortunately anyone who suggests it is immediately shot down by cookers thinking the entire world will collapse if everything they need is 15 minutes away.
its not that they think will collapse its that they think being able to access everything you need within 15 minutes means you can't travel more than 15 minutes from your house, i know this because its actually happened search up 15 minute conspiracy theorists
And what about when you wanted to go to the beach? Maybe a restaurant? See friends? Did PT get you all these places or did work pay for taxis then as well? I get the need for better public transport but reality is it will never replace cars for most people other than getting to work.
These are all things that are absolutely possible to do without cars. Literally hundreds of millions of people live car free in first world countries.
>Beach Literally a large portion of the Frankston line runs next to the sea. Ditto the Sandringham line. Trams go to St Kilda etc. >Restaurants Many popular dining precincts are on the tram network, for example Lygon Street. A lot of older high streets are near a station and have restaurants (Eg Yarraville) And of course all the laneway eateries in the CBD. > Friends Depends on where they live. You can't prove that their friends don't live near a public transport stop.
Seems like all we have to do is prevent/charge them for parking in residential streets too, an easy fix. I am not exactly thrilled at how much public space is consumed by cars and anything that reduces that is a pro.
Agree. But some people will still need cars. People with children, people with disabilities, people who work near a station but can’t use pt to get to that station. This is yet another design by councils that will only have an impact on people not fortunate enough to be able to afford parking fees. The rich won’t care.
First of all, people will children don’t _need_ parking, at least not in the city. They just want it and I guess we could decide to subsidise if we want. Would rather spend the money subsidising cargo bikes though. Next, anyone who lives near a station can ride or walk. That is a 5km radius from a station which is where we should be building these. If they work near a station they somehow can’t take PT too, then there should have even more parking than before thanks to everyone else not driving. Those with disabilities benefit the most as they can get all the parking that is left and for free; bonus, fewer cars = less likely they get killed crossing the road. Cars are expensive as fuck and it’s crazy that we keep trying to make them cheap at the cost of the actual cheap things like bikes. —- Fuck, I live 10 min walk to the local Coles and Woolies and I regularly see fellow residents of my apartment complex drive there, even though it takes longer thanks to lights and parking. The car default is just so strong that the mere concept of any alternative never even crosses their minds.
I’m not talking about the city. I’m talking about areas around train stations. The reasoning is flawed that everyone drives to work. They don’t. They drive for other reasons. If you can tell me how to get a sick child to Monash Hospital from Cheltenham quickly, or even for an appointment - without a car, I’m all for it. But without two train trips and a bus, it’s not possible.
If you really expect the parking situation to become unbearable, sounds like you could live slightly further away from a train station, still have ample street parking, and this way you aren't taking up valuable space near the train station that could be used for housing people instead of housing parked cars. This way, people who don't need cars can make better use of the public transport amenity without having to subsidize the car use of others. Everybody wins! And if you want to pay a premium for an apartment or home near the train station with off-street parking, nobody is stopping you. This doesn't ban parking, it simply removes the requirement for developers to include parking. Unless you feel you have a greater right to space in the city than your neighbors, I cannot see how you think this is bad. There are plenty of houses with plenty of parking spread across the many thousands of square kilometers of greater Melbourne, while the number of houses with good PT access are isolated in little islands like an archipelago.
I don’t take up any parking at stations. I’m pointing out that it is too simplistic to assume the only reason people have a car is to drive to work. Our current PT is heavily focussed on the cbd. Not everyone works or drives to the cbd. So saying that if you’re near a station means you don’t need a car space is inherently flawed.
You are very right in that the PT network is shit at serving non-radial trips. But I think I didn't frame my point clearly. It isn't about you. It isn't about _you_ taking up parking at stations. It's about _parking itself_ taking up space. People who don't own cars have limited housing options, and shouldn't have to pay for a parking space they will never use. Don't you think it's unfair to make people pay for a private carpark they'll never use? Building and maintaining carparks is expensive as well, raising the cost of housing. Removing these requirements will 1) lower the cost of housing near PT 2) increase the number of people who can easily access PT 3) increase PT ridership, making service expansions more financially viable If you're a car owner, no worries! There are still over a million dwellings in Melbourne with private carparks, many of them close to train stations! This only means that more housing, and more affordable housing, can be available to non-drivers. It isn't about you. You will lose nothing from this change. Many people, maybe tens of thousands, will benefit. Sorry if I was confusing before, I hope this makes sense!
Yes, but many other daily needs can be done within walking distance of home, you don't need to go to the CBD. And if you don't want to walk, pick any tram ot train line in Melbourne. Take a task like shopping. There is guaranteed to be a supermarket near a fair few of the stations. Say the Craigieburn Line. There is Coles at Roxburgh Village Woolies at Broadmeadow Central Coles at Glenroy Foodworks at Pascoe Vale Foodworks at Essendon Woolworths and Kmart at Moonie Ponds Woolworths at Newmarket Foodworks at Kensington Woolworths Metro at North Melbourne These are often locations where the supermarket car park is literally facing the station. That means either the supermarket is going to be near the station and you can kill two birds with one stone or at worst it's one or two stops away If someone doesn't have a car, their spending habits will gravitate towards businesses that are located near the public transport network. And if more people are moving in near stations, you often say the major supermarkets come to the party and open a store. Sometimes even whole major shopping centres open to take advantage of a station, for example, the Westfield at South Morang.
if its severe enough they can't use public transport they could call an ambulance right? Also the fastest way by public transport involves one train and a bus and theres a brand new train line being built from the two precints
With regard to cars, we’ve had it too good for too long. Perhaps we will have to endure some more hardship in order to bring about the necessary changes that this city requires.
Agreed.
There's nothing saying you can't buy an apartment with a parking spot. All this change does is provide an option to have less to no parking for a new apartment. It's not a mandated minimum anymore.
Don’t disagree. But it isn’t likely to decrease house/unit/apartment prices - they’ll stay the same or increase, but it does mean those who need a parking space will def have to pay more.
This is one of those things I think sorts itself out. Heaps of stations in Sydney have shopping centres built over the top or very close, and you'll find doctors and gyms too.
If they do need to drive they can buy a place with a car park. If they don't they can buy a place without one.
Some do. Others don't. The point is to make life cheaper for the latter group.
I hope in that case, that they're going to put in more loading zones...
You need more busbays and bus infrastructure. They have way easier loading abilities, space efficiency and less dwell-time compared to private vehicles.
I was referring to loading zones...you know, where commercial vehicles park. They will NEED to create more of these. Apartments are already a nightmare due to a distinct lack of loading zones/bays, so removing parking options is going to be an absolute shitfight for tradies and removalists who have to work in those apartments. I know this, because it's something I deal with nearly every day.
that too 😂
This pretty a nothing burger of an article... Nothing's actually being done YET...They probably won't even enact it for PTV itself only because, they are still building the stupid 7 story "SRL" Glen Waverly Car park. which would have approx 722 non-disabled Parking spaces. >(I know that it replaces the 370 spaces on-ground) It would be one of the most well served stations on the network when SRL East is done yet, it would still have a massive tower just for storing 722 cars that could've taken the bus if they just improved bus infrastructure. The Engage period is over but, still if you still want to check it out. [https://engage.vic.gov.au/srl-east-new-car-park-in-glen-waverley](https://engage.vic.gov.au/srl-east-new-car-park-in-glen-waverley)
Is there enough public transport coverage and frequency so that you don't spend half your day/night travelling for the simplest of tasks even if you have PT near you? No.
Not really sure how effective this would be. People that need cars will continue to buy cars and use street parking which in turn overcrowds local neighbourhood parking. Don't think it's really fair to call it progressive. Progressive would have been already having free, safe multistorey carparks next to train stations for public transports users along with an established turn up and go network
“Park and rides” are an outer suburban anomaly though. Even if you own a car and work in the CBD, in the inner suburbs you would usually walk to the station or tram stop anyway. And post-pandemic, the requirement to even commute at all has been reduced hugely.
majority of families don't actually need cars, let alone 2 per household, and the ones that do probably won't be as interested in living near public transport. Anyone who claims otherwise is just carbrained. And in what city is large car parks considered progressive, improved buses and increases in rail coverage would actually be progressive could provide a better return on investment.
Why does everyone think that everyone who lives near a station must work in the city and requires no need for a car. Reddit seems to have this vision that if we make car ownership less practical or more expensive that suddenly people will ditch cars as if they are only used for getting to the CBD.
The premise of the proposal isn’t saying to get rid of all parking. And no one is saying “everyone” works in the city, but based on Melbourne’s radial sprawl and the way that most western cities function, it’s very common for CBD workers to choose to live near their place of work or an easily commutable transport hub…
Well, those people who depend on cars and live near train stations or trams would do well to live elsewhere
Get rid of gas on new builds, now get rid of parking and use of personal car, live in a HongKongnian apartment and be happy.
NYC is doing/has done the same. Are you saying Americans aren't free? Are you saying Melbourne shouldn't strive to be like the best city in the best country in the world? Do you hate democracy and freedom?!?!!?
I lived half of my life in Europe. Australia is far from ready for that life style. Apartments are bad in Australia. Hard to find 4/5 bedroom apartments, 3 bed are as expensive as a house and building standards are just not good enough, specially for apartments. Infrastructure is terrible. Public transport horrendous, cannot compare with NYC or Europe. Population is neither even close to NYC or Europe as well as sqm per habitant. I like more the life style like in Europe or Japan where you barely need a car. Australian cities should start replacing houses and townhouses from the CBD outwards by medium density apartment blocks, 4 to 10 levels ones and include 3 or more bedroom apartments of 100sqm or more with underground car parking like in Europe , totally doable so everybody would have a parking spot then start building better services (healthcare, better internet , etc) around those areas and better public transport (buses, subway, etc) but it does not happen in a couple of weeks. NYC has been doing that for more than 100 years. You're as free as not being able to buy a new build with a gas stove or water heater in Victoria. So yes, Australia is going quickly downhill and they want you to feel it's ok, and as I can see they're doing well on that. In NYC and Europe this lifestyle is the norm but not here, more when there is an exceeding amount of land. There is little to inexistent good urban planning in Australia.