PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

This article was downloaded by: [Monash University]On: 21 October 2010Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 922191591]Publisher RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Urban Policy and ResearchPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713449094

CAN URBAN DENSITY EXPLAIN PERSONAL TRAVEL LEVELS?Patrick Moriarty

To cite this Article Moriarty, Patrick(1996) 'CAN URBAN DENSITY EXPLAIN PERSONAL TRAVEL LEVELS?', UrbanPolicy and Research, 14: 2, 109 — 118To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/08111149608551604URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08111149608551604

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial orsystematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug dosesshould be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directlyor indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Research Articles

CAN URBAN DENSITY EXPLAIN PERSONAL TRAVEL LEVELS?Patrick Moriarty

T his article examines the changes in personal travel levels, urban density, andother land use patterns over the period 1901 to 1991 in large Australian cities.It is shown that urban density changes are not the direct cause of the observedtravel increases. Instead, the huge rise in travel convenience brought about

largely by the shift from public transport to cars, best explains travel growth in thepost-war era. Urban density, however, does affect travel convenience (especially averagetravel speeds and ease of parking), and thus indirectly, travel levels.

Keywords: urban density; urban transport; land use; travel convenience.

Introduction

Reductions in vehicular travel, especially by car,have often been suggested as a way of reducingthe problems high levels of urban traffic cause(Cevero 1995; Moriarty 1994; Royal Commissionon Enviromental Pollution 1994.) These problemsinclude not only air and noise pollution, trafficintrusion and accidents, but also oil depletionand increasing concentrations of heat-trappinggreenhouse gases.

Many researchers argue that appropriatechanges in land use, especially increases inurban density, are an important means ofreducing urban travel, and thus the problems itentails. Newman and Kenworthy (1989) forexample, in their analysis of 32 world cities,including Australia's five largest, showed that for1980, both per capita transport energy and travelitself, increased exponentially as urbanpopulation density decreased, although Brindle(1994) argues that this result was inevitable,given the way the data were analysed. Forindividual cities such as Perth and New York

(Newman and Kenworthy 1989) and Melbourne(Moriarty and Beed 1987), it has been found thatpersonal travel levels increase with distance fromthe centre, whereas urban density decreasesoutwards from the centre. Other studies whichsupport the use of land use policy to reduce cartravel include Pushkarev and Zupan (1977) andHoltzclaw (1994), both for the U.S., and Sherlock(1991) for the U.K.

Other urban researchers are sceptical of thevalue of urban density increases. Ruth Steiner(1994), in her review article on the topic, pointsout that studies supporting the link fail to separateout several factors associated with high densityresidential areas that also lead to differences inthe use of the automobile'. She further arguesthat 'density could be seen as a proxy for theseother unmeasured variables' which includeincome, household size and lifecyclecharacteristics of the household members.Australian critics include Kirwan (1992) andBrindle (1994).

109

Urban Policy and Research Vol 14 No 2 1996

Downloaded By: [Monash University] At: 23:09 21 October 2010

The present article aims to help resolve thiscontroversy, for large Australian cities at least,by examining in detail the changes in personaltravel levels, urban density, and other land usepatterns over the period 1901 to 1991. I arguethat urban density changes are not the directcause of the observed travel increases. Instead,the huge boost to travel convenience broughtabout largely by the shift from public transport tocars, best explains travel growth in post-war era.Urban density does affect travel convenience(especially average travel speeds and ease ofparking), and thus indirectly, travel levels.

Twentieth century transport and land usepatterns

This section presents selected transport and landuse data for the five large capital cities over the20th century. Table 1 gives data for 1901, acensus year, for Sydney and Melbourne only,because the other three capital cities were verysmall in 1901. Table 2 gives data for 1947, theyear of the first post-war census, and Table 3 for1991, the most recent census year. All data, asfar as possible, are based on the metropolitanarea boundaries as defined at each census. Theimportant exception is the second last entry ineach table, urban density, which is based onurban centre boundaries and population, asdefined by the Australian Bureau of Statistics(ABS). Since these figures are not directlyavailable for 1901 and 1947, I have usedManning's figures for Melbourne and Sydney.The values for the three smaller capitals in 1947

are my rough estimates, calculated like Manning's,on the basis of the ABS urban centre definition.

Also included in each table is the cut-off density,calculated on a Local Government Area (LGA)basis, for the quintile of the urban population withhighest density. Since at each date this quintilewere invariably living in fully urbanised LGAs, thelack of data at the Collector District level does notlead to any inaccuracy. The two indices forpopulation density give consistent results, exceptfor Sydney in 1947. Given that Sydney had thehighest urban density at all other dates, including1960-80 (Newman and Kenworthy 1989), it isunlikely to have been overtaken by Melbourne in1947. I thus assume that the rank order for urbandensity was: Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane,Adelaide, Perth at all dates.

Most of the data for 1901 and 1947 came fromState and Commonwealth yearbooks of the period,and Manning (1984). Sometimes public transportpatronage alone was available, so revenue figuresand average fares per km were used to estimatepassenger-km (Moriarty and Beed 1992). The1991 demographic data were based on publishedand unpublished census material for population,household size and other data. The 1991 transportdata were based mainly on the 1991 Motor VehicleUsage Survey (ABS 1993) and the recent studyon 'Urban Transport' by the Industry Commision(1994). In general, the population and relateddata are more accurate than the transport data.Also, the recent transport statistics are moreaccurate than those of 1947, or especially, 1901.

Table 1 Transport and land use data, 1901

Population (000s)Per capita public transport pass.-kmAverage household sizeAverage distance of -the population

from the CBD (km)Urban density (persons/km2)Cut-off density for top quintile

(persons/km2)

Sydney

4821100

5.5

4.74430

7860

Melbourne

4961000

5.0

4.93570

6180

Sources: ABS State and Commonwealth Yearbooks; Manning (1984).

110

Urban Policy and Research Vol 14 No 2 1996

Downloaded By: [Monash University] At: 23:09 21 October 2010

Table 2 Transport and land use data, 1947

Population (000s)Cars per 1000 populationPer capita veh.pass.-km— public transport— carAverage household sizeAverage distance of the pop.from the CBD

Retail sales % in central LGAUrban density (persons/km2)Cut-off density for topquintile (persons/km2)

Sydney

163266

41903550

6403.9

10.450.32900

7000

Melbourne

122875

36302900

7303.6

8.444.33210

5390

Brisbane

40265

27802150

630N.A.

5.6N.A.1700

3990

Adelaide

38399

251015509603.8

6.561.41500

3110

Perth

27874

232016007204.1

7.470.41300

1710

Sources: ABS State and Commonwealth Yearbooks; Manning (1984); ABS Census of Retail Establishments, 1947-48.

Taken together, the tables enable the followingcomparisons to be made:

(a) changes in both transport and land use overthe periods 1901-1947 and 1947-1991.

(b) comparison between the five cities intransport and land use for both 1947 and1991.

Although many trends have been continuousthroughout the century, such as declininghousehold size and population density, thedecades following 1947 are very different fromthe earlier period for transport, with car travelreplacing public transport as the dominant mode.This change in transport led to important changesin land use as well, as we shall see.

Table 3 Transport and land use data, 1991

Tables 1 and 2 show that over the period 1901-1947, the large population increases in Melbourneand Sydney were accompanied by declininghousehold size and decreasing populationdensity. Per capita vehicular travel also roseappreciably over the period, and of course, thisincrease was mostly by public transport. Wetherefore have the unexpected result thatdeclining population density was accompaniedby increasing per capita public transport travel.Both declining household size and increasingpopulations lead to the average distance of thepopulation from the CBD steadily increasing, notonly in 1901-1947, but also 1947-1991.

Table 2 shows that the two larger cities, Melbourneand Sydney, not only had higher urban densities

Population (000s)Cars per 1000 populationPer capita veh. pass.-km—public transport—carAverage household sizeAverage distance of thepop. from the CBDUrban density (persons/km2)Cut-off density for topquintile (persons/km2)

Sydney

3673476

9645152581202.81

24.92005

3220

Melbourne

3157535

10050800

92502.88

20.21680

2530

Brisbane

1358524

11085885

102002.83

16.71140

2140

Adelaide

1057549

10150700

94502.61

12.51430

1900

Perth

1188573

11075485

105902.75

14.41165

1500

Sources: 1991 Census; ABS State and Commonwealth Yearbooks; Industry Commission 1994; INTSTAT 1988.

111

Urban Policy and Research Vol 14 No 2 1996

Downloaded By: [Monash University] At: 23:09 21 October 2010

than the three smaller cities, but also had muchhigher levels of per capita vehicular travel, chieflybecause of higher public transport use. Again,the conventional wisdom would be that the citieswith higher urban density would have lower percapita levels of vehicular travel. However, thehigher density cities did have higher levels of percapita public transport travel, as expected.

In the more recent period 1947-1991, urbandensities in all cities continued to fall, largelybecause of declining household size (Table 3).These density declines were accompanied byvery large increases in per capita travel, largelythe result of the explosive growth in car ownershipand use. The static comparison of transport andland-use data is also in accord with conventionaltheory: the three smaller cities have lower urbandensities than Melbourne or Sydney, and haveslightly higher levels of per capita travel.

Overall there are anomalous results in the earlierpublic transport period, but in the more recent carera the results are apparently in agreement withthe argument that lower urban density decreasespublic transport patronage, but increases overalllevels of personal travel.

Analysis of transport and land use patterns

The previous section demonstrated that therelationship between land-use and personal travellevels were different in the public transport erathan in the present era. The following twosubsections analyse in detail the different landuse/transport interactions in each of the twoperiods.

Public transport eraConsider a very simple model for a city, in whichall activities requiring vehicular travel are locatedat the centre—workplaces, retail, sales, majorentertainment and sports venues and so on.Clearly, total vehicular travel in such a city is theproduct of the average number of trips eachperson makes, weekly say, to the centre, and theaverage distance the population lives from the

CBD. If two cities have the same populationdensity distribution then ceteris paribus the citywith the higher population will have higher percapita travel simply because the average residentlives further from the CBD.

There is some evidence that the five major citiesapproximated this model up to the beginning ofthe post-war era. For example, Table 2 showsthat the central LGA (i.e. containing the CBD)had a share of total metropolian retail sales for1947-48 varying from 44.3% for Melbourne to70.4% for Perth. For jobs, the position wassimilar. In Melbourne in 1951 for example, theCBD alone still contained 28% of all metropolitanjobs, and the central six LGAs with an area ofonly 65.5 km2, nearly 60% of all workplaces(MMBW, 1954). Partial data suggest that thepercentages for the other cities were even higher,as was the case for retail sales.

Of course, not all trip destinations were in thecentral area; in fact most weren't. There wasmuch local shopping, working, visiting friendsand socialising, but the majority of this was doneby non-motorised means, walking and cycling.But vehicular travel—especially on a passenger-km basis— was largely centralised, as might beexpected given the radial nature of the fixed railnetworks, and as evidenced by actual travelpatterns for Melbourne in 1951 (MMBW, 1954).Vehicular travel was largely centralised, but non-motorised travel was strongly decentralised.

The travel data presented in Tables 1 and 2 lendsome support to this simple urban model. Table 2shows that the two larger cities (with greateraverage residential distance from the CBD) hadgreater average per capita vehicular travel thanthat for the smaller three cities. Further, the percapita travel increases found over the period1901-1947 for Melbourne and Sydney, can be atleast partly explained by the rising distance of thepopulation from the CBD, particularly if non-vehicular travel is included. Such cheap travelmodes were a far larger proportion of total travelin 1901 than in 1947 (Manning 1984). Average

112

Urban Policy and Research Vol 14 No 2 1996

Downloaded By: [Monash University] At: 23:09 21 October 2010

distance of the population from the CBD is in turninfluenced by two factors: population density andcity population size. In general, two cities ofequal population but different density will havedifferent levels of personal travel, the higherdensity city having less travel because theresidents live closer on average to the CBD.

Average distance of the population from the CBDcannot be the sole explanatory variable, sinceTable 2 shows that in 1947, Perth, with a largerCBD distance than Brisbane, had lower levels ofpersonal travel. Other factors affecting vehiculartravel levels included the geography of the cities,for example the presence of wide rivers, estuaries,bays and hills. The extent of the fixed rail publictransport network was also important: Brisbanein 1947 had a much more extensive network thanPerth. Finally economic prosperity increasedvehicular travel, and depressions lowered it. Thusboth rail and tram patronage were hit by thedepressions of the 1890s and 1930s. (See forexample, the historical transport statistics in thestate yearbooks). But at any one time, incomedifferences between the five cities was small, soaverage resident distance to the CBD along withfixed rail network extent, best explain the observedtravel levels.

Car eraThe late 1940s saw not only the lifting of petrolrationing, but the full establishment of carmanufacturing in Australia. The changes totransport, as Table 3 shows, and everybodyknows, were profound. The data in Tables 2 and3 show that over the period, as urban densitycontinued its decrease in all five cities, overallvehicular travel increased per capita and publictransport travel levels fell. In 1991, the smallercities had lower densities, lower public transportshare and higher levels of vehicular travel. Inaddition, the residents of the denser inner suburbsof larger cities have lower vehicular travel levelsthan the residents of the less dense outer suburbs(Moriarty and Beed 1987). Do differences inurban density provide an explanation fordifferences in levels of personal vehicular travelin the present car era?

Decreased urban density as a key explanatoryfactor for travel increase only makes sense ifseparation of activities has increased, if, forexample, the average separation of residencesand workplaces (or shops, or schools) hasincreased. But Moriarty and Beed (1992) in theiranalysis for the period 1947-1986 could find littleevidence of any such increases for shopping,work or education trips. For example, theycalculated the minimum work travel distance—the average airline distance each worker wouldneed to commute for minimum city-wide worktravel (Moriarty and Beed 1988). From 1961 to1986 minimum commutes actually decreased from5.3km to 4.8km for Melbourne, and from 5.9km to5.4km for Sydney. In other words the need fortravel, at best, has increased only marginally.

A simple way of making the same point is tocalculate the difference in the value of the distancethe average resident lives from the CBD on theone hand, and the equivalent distance for retailsales expenditure, workplaces and so on, on theother. In Melbourne, for example, this differencefor retail sales has decreased from 4.4km in 1951to 3.1km in 1991/92; for workplaces the differenceis today the same as in 1951 (about 5 km) althoughit peaked at 7km in 1961 (MMBW 1954; ABS1993, ABS 1994). The minimum work traveldistances given above are in good agreementwith the difference between average residentand average workplace CBD distances, whichsuggests that it is indeed the case thatsuburbanisation of activities has largely offsetthe effects of decreasing urban density.

A closer examination of the urban density-travelrelationship in the car era shows some anomalies.In 1991 for example, urban density for the twolarger cities was about 40% higher than for thethree smaller capitals considered together, butper capita travel differences between the twogroups was less than 5%. At the very least, thissuggests that density changes are not a veryeffective policy instrument for reducing travel.Also, since 1981, the urban density of all fivecapitals has stabilised, or in the case of Sydney,

113

Urban Policy and Research Vol 14 No 2 1996

Downloaded By: [Monash University] At: 23:09 21 October 2010

has even risen, yet travel levels are greater thanin 1981. Indeed, for eight of the 32 cities analysedby Newman and Kenworthy (1989), urban densityeither increased or remained constant over atleast one of the two decades 1960-1980, yet percapita travel and fuel use continued to increase,just as in the other cities. Clearly, urban densitycannot be the explanation for these results.

Further, the implicit assumption is often madethat decreasing urban population density meansthat a given urban area can support fewer servicessuch as schools and shops. But because of thelarge increases in both per capita incomes andproportion of the relevant age groups in secondaryand tertiary education, for example, the 'retailsales dollar density' and '15-24 years old studentdensity' have actually increased in all cities overthe period. It is still true, of course, that higherurban densities would have led to even highervalues. The point is simply that other factorsbesides population density determine viablecatchment areas for a given service.

So what has the dominant driving force been forincreased levels of personal travel in the post-war era? The answer, I will argue, is the greatboost to travel convenience associated with theshift from public to private travel since the war.Travel convenience has two parts (Moriarty andBeed 1992; Moriarty 1994). The first, independentof traffic conditions, includes privacy, all-weatherprotection, and ease of transporting youngchildren or goods, and varies little from city tocity. With car air-conditioning and stereo systems,and now car phones, it is increasing over time.The other part is traffic-dependent, varying withtraffic speeds and ease of parking, both of whichdetermine, for example, door-to-door travel times.Travel convenience in this sense not only variessomewhat from city to city, but also over a givencity, and by time of day.

Travel convenience can readily explain the minordifferences in travel levels between the two largerand the three smaller capitals in 1991. Averagetravel speeds are higher, and ease of parking,

especially in the CBD, is easier in the smallercities. Similarly, travel convenience differencescan explain the lower levels of travel by inner city,compared with outer city, residents.

The huge boost to travel convenience resultingfrom rising car ownership can also explain whytravel has risen so much since 1947. In contrastto the radially oriented fixed rail public transportnetwork, the ever-expanding road network madenon-radial travel easy. The progressivesuburbanisation of activities meant that most tripswere less and less oriented to the centre. Sucha dispersion of destinations also meant that cartravel convenience could be kept high even ascar ownership rose to about one vehicle for everytwo residents. The result was a large rise indiscretionary trip making. A factor related to travelconvenience, psychological benefits of privatetravel (Moriarty 1994), also contributed to travelincreases.

Travel convenience can thus offer explanationsof all the data presented here. Urban density canexplain some, but not all, the results. Also,increased activity separation since 1947 has atbest been modest. The only other plausibleexplanation, income differences, cannot explainwhy the three smaller cities today have higherlevels of personal travel than the two larger cities,nor why inner city residents travel less than outercity residents. This is not to say that travelconvenience is the sole reason for travel increasesin all cities at all times. I have already shown thatin the public transport era, travel conveniencewas a minor factor, along with income differences.If in future motoring costs rise dramatically, andincome inequality increases, it is possible thatincome could be the major factor in explainingtravel differences within a city. Finally, thisanalysis has focused on Australian cities. It ispossible that urban density is more important insome overseas cities.

It is relevant to ask what all this increased travelhas been for. Nearly all the increase was fordiscretionary trip making, since per capita growth

114

Urban Policy and Research Vol 14 No 2 1996

Downloaded By: [Monash University] At: 23:09 21 October 2010

in work and education trip frequency (and averagetrip lengths) has been modest. One importantconsideration is the shift from non-motorised tovehicular travel. In 1947 the great majority ofdiscretionary trips—for shopping, personalbusiness, recreation and visiting friends—wereby non-motorised means, and were necessarilyof short length. With rising car ownership, thisnatural constraint on trip length was lifted, withthe result that vehicular discretionary travelexpanded rapidly.

In summary, in the public transport era, urbandensities were high, but activities were moreconcentrated in the centre. In the car era, urbandensities were much lower than in the first era,but suburbanisation meant that residences,workplaces and services of all kinds were nowintermingled. The potential for the low travel levelsof 1947 was present, but the travel convenienceof the car resulted in actual travel levels todaybeing several times greater than in 1947.

Possible objections

There are two main criticisms which have been,or could be, made against the argumentsdeveloped so far:

(a) the arbitrary and changing nature of the urbanboundaries, and a related point, the use ofhighly aggregated data for analysis.

(b) the importance of other factors, especiallyincome, but also household size, agedistribution and so on, as an alternativeexplanation for travel increases.

Personal travel levels increase with residentdistance from the CBD (Moriarty and Beed 1987).If the urban boundary is drawn close to the centre,then evidently average personal travel levels willbe lower than if they are drawn further out. Howimportant is this effect? Consider the differencein average travel that would occur if the 'urbancentre' area, which is only 21% of the StatisticalDivision (S.D.) area, was used instead forMelbourne in 1991. Assume personal travel levels

increase linearly from the centre to twice thisvalue 30 km out, after which they remain constant,as suggested by the data in Moriarty and Beed(1987),and the more recent 1991 census LGA carownership figures. Again using 1991 census data,average personal travel levels in the urban centrearea will only be 2.5% less than in the muchbigger S.D. area.

Similar calculations show that variables such asaverage household size, and car ownership areall affected very little by boundary changes. Themain reasons are that the much smaller area stillincludes about 90% of the S.D. population, andthat the distinctive inner city area is only a smallproportion of the total population. Averagedistance of the population (and workplaces, retailsales) from the CBD will be more affected, but thedifference between these will again be very small.Population density can be measured in a varietyof ways (for a comprehensive discussion, seeMees 1994), with each giving a different value.However, different methods, if appliedconsistently, should not affect the relative densityranking of the five cities. In summary, despitemuch intra-city variation, particularly in Sydneyand Melbourne, data obtained at the city-widelevel gives reliable results, even when somewhatarbitrary boundaries are inevitably used.

As noted earler, some researchers think that thelower personal travel levels observed for innercity residents is less the result of higher densitiesthan of differing incomes, household sizes andother social factors. Data from Melbourne(Moriarty and Beed 1987) suggest that thisargument is not valid for modern Australian cities.Per capita income levels, population percentagein the 15-65 year age group and percentageeconomically active —all correlated with highertravel levels (INTSTAT 1988)—were all higher inthe inner than the outer suburbs (ABS 1991).True, household sizes were smaller, but this hasbeen allowed for by using per capita values ofincome and travel. I conclude that the traveldifferences observed are real.

115

Urban Policy and Research Vol14No2 1996

Downloaded By: [Monash University] At: 23:09 21 October 2010

Travel growth over time in a given city is anothermatter, as it was accompanied not only by fallingdensities, but also by rising incomes. Howimportant was income growth compared withincreasing distance from the centre in the pre-war era, or the increasing convenience ofvehicular travel, especially in the car era? First,it is clear that rising incomes enabled householdsto finance their growing travel, particularly in thepresent era when it involves purchasing cars. Tothe extent that the psychological benefits of caruse increase overall travel (Moriarty 1994),income growth can. be linked to travel growth.

Psychological benefits aside, the idea of travelas a largely derived demand argues againstincome growth as a major direct contributor totravel growth. For example, higher incomes meanmore money available for shopping, but this doesnot necessarily mean that shopping trip frequencymust increase. Nor, obviously, does work tripfrequency. But some new expenditure madepossible by higher incomes may require new tripsto be made. Overall, income effects on travel aremainly indirect. As the Melbourne example shows,lower travel can occur—as in the inner suburbs-even with higher per capita incomes.

Implications for travel reduction policies

I have shown that, historically, a different urbanform was associated with each dominant transportmode. These forms were well matched to thecapabilties of the transport modes: morecentralised in the public transport era, moredecentralised in the present car era. Again, thepublic transport decades had large householdsizes, low per capita incomes, as well as stronglycentralised cities. Such is not the case today. Butthis does not necessarily mean that increasedpublic transport and much lower car travel levelsare impossible. The fall in public transport's shareof urban travel is not only the result of changingland use patterns, but is also heavily influencedby the superior convenience we have created forcar travel. While many trips will always beunsuitable for public transport, there is still a

significant untapped section of the travel marketwhere public transport access and convenienceis not much inferior to that for car (Moriarty andMees 1994). And as we have seen,suburbanisation has created the potential fortravel reduction, even the car's convenience hasactually led to travel increases. The scope forsome shift to non-motorised travel is also good,since many car trips are less than one kilometre.

Regardless of the main reason for travelincreases, reductions can always be effected bysufficiently high price rises for motoring. Similarly,falling incomes for any groups will lower theirtravel demand. Such an approach would, however,be inequitable. Increasing urban density (whichusually has the indirect effect of reducing cartravel convenience) offers a more equitableapproach, but the very large changes required forsignificant results would not only take decades toachieve, but would face much opposition.

I have argued in this paper that the greaterconvenience of the car is the chief reason whyurban personal travel has risen so much sincethe war. Lowering the traffic-related componentof travel convenience is therefore a possiblemeans of curbing urban travel and the problemsit entails, should such reductions be thoughtnecessary. This would involve such actions asstreet closures, an end to further urban arterialroad building, tighter parking restrictions in theCBD, much more pedestrian and public transportpriority, and big cuts in speed limits. A similar setof policies has been recently proposed for theU.K. by the Royal Commission on EnvironmentalPollution (1994).

Clearly if urban road space was to be drasticallyreduced, with no other policy changes, increasedcongestion, and possibly fuel consumption, wouldresult. But if initially the road system was leftunchanged (with no additions or closures), cartraffic would still drop, and road closures couldfollow without congestion increasing. No policiesfor reducing car travel will prove popular, but thisapproach should produce results in a timely and

116

Urban Policy and Research Vol 14 No 2 1996

Downloaded By: [Monash University] At: 23:09 21 October 2010

equitable manner. Implementation, however, willprobably have to wait until local oil depletion orobligations to cut greenhouse gas emissions forceus to take action.

Conclusions

This paper has analysed personal travel and landuse patterns in the five large Australian citiesover the period 1901-1991. The main findings areas follows.

References

Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) (Variousyears) Commonwealth and StateYearbooks.

ABS (1949) Census of Retail Establishments1947-48, AGPS. Also later surveys.

ABS (1991) published and unpublished censusdata.

Between 1901 and 1947, declining urban densitywas accompanied by rising levels of personaltravel, as expected. But in 1947 the larger (andhigher density) cities—Sydney and Melbourne-had much higher personal travel levels than thethree smaller capitals. An explanation which fitsboth observations is that since vehicular travelwas much more centrally-oriented than it is today,the average residential distance from the CBDwas the main determinant of urban travel levels.The different coverage and service frequency ofpublic transport, and their increase over time inall cities, also affected travel levels to someextent, as did rising incomes.

Since 1947, personal travel growth hasaccelerated and urban density has continued todecline. Today, however, residents of the lowerdensity smaller capitals travel a little more thanthose of the larger two capitals. Superficially,density declines can explain this travel growth.In contrast to the public transport era, however,there is little evidence of increased separationover time of residences and workplaces,educational centres or other services.Suburbanisation has led to their progressiveintermixing. It is argued that rising levels of carownership gave a huge boost to the convenienceof vehicular travel, leading to higher personaltravel but shrinking public transport patronage.Urban density has an indirect influence on travel,however, by reducing travel convenience formotorists. Lowering travel convenience thus offersa direct approach for reducing travel, shouldenvironmental or resource constraints require it.

ABS (1993) Survey of Motor Vehicle Use Australia30th September 1991 (and previoussurveys), AGPS, Canberra.

ABS (1994) Retailing in Victoria 1991-92.

Brindle, R. (1994) Lies, Damned Lies and'Automobile Dependence' —somehyperbolic reflections, Proc. 19th ATRF,Sept, Lome.

Cervero, R. (1995) Why go anywhere?, ScientificAmerican, September, 92-93.

Holtzclaw, J. (1994) Using Residential Patternsand Transit to Decrease Auto Dependenceand Costs, Natural Resources DefenceCouncil, San Francisco.

Industry Commission (1994) Urban Transport,Report No. 37, AGPS, Melbourne.

INTSTAT Australia P/L (1988) Day to day travelin Australia 1985-86, Federal Office forRoad Safety, Canberra.

Kirwan, R. (1992) Urban form, energy andtransport: a note on the Newman-Kenworthythesis, Urban Policy and Research, 10(1),6-22.

Manning, I. (1984) Beyond Walking Distance,ANU Press, Canberra.

117

Urban Policy and Research Vol14No2 1996

Downloaded By: [Monash University] At: 23:09 21 October 2010

Mees, P. (1994) Toronto: paradigm reexamined,Urban Policy and Research, 12(3), 146-163.

Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works(1954) Melbourne Metropolitan PlanningScheme 1954, MMBW, Melbourne.

Moriarty, P. (1994) Urban transport: time forchange, Australian Quarterly, 66(4), 105-117.

Moriarty, P. and Beed, C. (1987) Land-usemodification to reduce travel in Melbourne,Proc. Int. Symposium on Transport,Communication and Urban Form, Vol. 2,195-216, Monash University.

Moriarty, P. and Beed, C. (1988) Transportcharacteristics and policy implications forfour Australian cities, Urban Policy andResearch, 6(4), 171-180.

Moriarty, P. and Beed, C. (1992) Explanation ofpersonal travel increases in Australiancities, Proc. 17th. ATRF, 7-9 Oct., Canberra.

Moriarty, P. and Mees, P. (1994) Counterreformation in urban transport—seeking'win-win' solutions, Proc. 19th ATRF, Sept,Lome.

Newman, P.and Kenworthy, J. (1989) Cities andAutomobile Dependence: An InternationalSourcebook, Gower, UK.

Pushkarev, B., and Zupan, J. (1977) PublicTransport and Land Use Policy, IndianaUniv. Press, Bloomington, USA.

Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution(1994), Transport and the Environment,Report 18, Cm 2674, HMSO, London, UK.

Sherlock, H. (1991) Cities are Good for Us: TheCase for Close-Knit Communities LocalShops and Public Transit, Paladin, London,UK.

Steiner, R. (1994) Residential density and travelpatterns: a review of the literature,Transportation Research Record, 1466, 37-43.

118

Urban Policy and Research Vol14No2 1996

Downloaded By: [Monash University] At: 23:09 21 October 2010