Public transport policy and land use in Melbourne and Toronto, 1950 to 1990

Public transport policy and land use in Melbourne and Toronto, 1950 to 1990

urban transport policy, public transport, land use, infrastructure, transport

This study examines the reasons behind the decline in public transport patronage in Melbourne between 1950 and 1990, through a comparison with Toronto. The share of urban travel undertaken by public transport has declined since the Second World War in all developed countries, but public transport patronage in Melbourne appears to have declined more rapidly than in most other industrialised cities. Public transport has, however, gained or held ground in Toronto, where the form of development is similar in many ways to Melbourne. Most accounts of Toronto's success (particularly in Australia) regard transport/land-use integration as the critical factor. The contrasting analysis maintains that Melbourne's urban form has changed over this period to a dispersed, car-oriented pattern. This study evaluates a different interpretation of the 'Toronto model'. This is that Toronto has undergone similar urban changes to Melbourne since the war, but has found a way of operating public transport successfully in a relatively dispersed environment. The contrast with Melbourne, then, is not primarily in land-use patterns, but in policies towards the operation of public transport. The principal research objective for this study is to determine the cause of the difference in public transport performance in Melbourne and Toronto since the war, with particular attention to the role played by urban form and transport policy. The research objective is addresed by examining current patterns of, and historical trends in, urban form in the two cities, and comparing these with public transport patronage trends. The comparison reveals that land use does not show correlations with public transport patronage. Patronage does, however, correlate closely with the differing quality of public transport services in the two cities. The explanation for the contrasting patronage performances is found to lie not in urban form, but in the different policies toward public trnasport in the two cities. In Metropolitan Toronto, services have been planned and integrated by a public monopoly; policy in Melbourne has been market-driven, and based around competition and extensive private sector involvement. Toronto's centrally planned system has proven the more flexible in practice, successfully responding to the challenges of changing travel patterns and rising car ownership. While public transport operators in Melbourne have competed with one another, Metro Toronto's single operator has competed with the car.

Mees, Paul Andrew

University of Melbourne

1997

Yencken, David. Supervisor

en

Thesis

http://repository.unimelb.edu.au/10187/1411

http://lallier.msh-vdl.fr/theses/items/show/955

http://lallier.msh-vdl.fr/theses/archive/files/49c77854c9bc4566b7a99b0a9e88c228.jpg