The Adelaide Evolution

Adelaide is the capital of the State of South Australia. The metro area of 1.5 million residents is nestled between hills to the east, the Gulf of St. Vincent to the west and Australia’s greatest vineyards to the north and south. Dozens of small councils (units of local government) constitute the region. At the center of the region is Adelaide itself. Adelaide’s layout is strikingly similar to Philadelphia, with a central square, a grid of streets and four smaller squares. 

For decades City leaders have successfully protected the ring of park land that surrounds the city from development. That parkland has provided a natural urban growth boundary for the core of Adelaide. During the mid and late 20th century sprawling suburbs developed to the north and south of the parklands. The region is more car dependent than any large Australian city. 

There are a group of leaders at the local and state level working shift the future of Adelaide to provide its residents more choices in how live and move across the City the and region. The urban form of a city doesn’t change by revolution, it morphs by evolution. In 2002, the state government instituted an urban growth boundary to protect high value agricultural areas. Some in planning community have been concerned that the boundary is not held to strictly enough, but from those I had discussions with it seems to have largely held or at least is far better than the scenario of development without an urban growth boundary. 

In 2007, the Genelg tram that links a beach community with downtown Adelaide was extensions for one mile in a loop through the city center. Ridership has exceeded expectations and further extensions are under construction. In 2009, then Premier (roughly equivalent of governor) Mike Rann created an Integrated Design Commission to, “ensure that our future development and infrastructure investment is better coordinated and of the highest quality, not something that we, or our children, will regret later.” Other recent developments include, Adelaide's release and efforts to implement a plan to make the city more bike friendly and introduction of bus lanes to speed bus travel times and reduce the congestion caused by cars changing lanes to move around a stopped bus. Structurally, the state government has joined responsibilities for transportation and land use planning under one division. In just the last year, an Urban Renewal Authority was formed to “create great places for people to live by forging strong community and private sector partnerships and accepting only the highest standards of design and planning.”

Adelaide by its nature is a conservative town, conservative in the sense of not liking to see itself change too quickly. That is not different from lots of communities. All of this of work to evolve Adeliade demands leadership, particularly in the context of conservative culture. Adelaide has smart and progressive political representation and public sector executives. Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure Pat Conlon, who also serves as Minister of Housing and Urban Development and Minister of Transportation Services Chole Fox provide political leadership at the state level. Their leadership is a complement to the dynamic Lord Mayor of Adelaide Stephen Yarwood. As Minister Conlon noted great public administrators are critical to the success of a community, “a very good minister will fail with a bad administration; and a good administration can make a bad minister look good.” At the state level the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure is led by “Mr. Fix-It” Rod Hook, the Integrated Design Commission by architect and planner Tim Horton, and the Urban Renewal Authority by former Portland Tri-Met General Manager and EPA Deputy Administrator Fred Hansen. Adelaide City government is led by similarly dynamic personnel. Without this team Adelaide could be doing the right thing, but it would be hard for them to do it right. 

There are some who would like the evolution to be a little more revolutionary and there are others who are concerned that the public could revolt at any moment. As an outsider it looks to me that Adelaide has public sector leadership that is in pretty good balance.

Smiling after lunch with Lord Mayor Yarwood and Integrated Design Commissioner Tim Horton

Obama supporter Minister Pat Conlin and Urban Renewal Authority Executive Fred Hansen

The Sydney Contention

ay be As I noted in my recent post about the future of transportation investments in Melbourne,  one of the most intellectually exciting parts of this experience has been to engage with some serious debates about the future of transportation infrastructure in Australian cities and be able to engage with an openness that can only come from not having a personal or professional stake in the outcome. This is the first of two posts of my observations about the investment future of these cities. 

In Sydney the debate is vigorous between the Department of Transportation (DOT) and Infrastructure New South Wales (INSW) and their respective media champions, the Sydney Morning Herald and the Daily Telegraph. To be fair to both papers, they have a range of reporting on transportation issues, but their leanings are not in dispute. The Department of Transportation’s State Transportation Strategy would heavily weight investments toward public transportation investment.  INSW and Telegraph argue that with billions in public transit investment in the last decade an investment in highway connections is what is needed. In addition to the highway the INSW proposes a light rail extension to the University of New South Wales.  Further, they argue the economic returns on highway investments are higher and quicker and their top priority highway project can be paid for by its users, unlike transit.

No doubt there is plenty to critique about the state of America’s federal, state and local inability to even maintain what we have, no less have a serious debate about expanding our infrastructure.  My critique of both plans comes from a place admiration for a public and politicians who are willing to aggressively debate these issues. I also share a frustration that many feel around debate that fails to lead to action. One can always pick apart any cost/benefit analysis, but I would argue that there are some fundamental problems with both strategies.

For the DOT, the lack of clear funding strategy, a collection of public transit assets that doesn’t act as a system and labor agreements that stifle innovation in public transit poses real challenges for their approach. These challenges shouldn’t be understated.  From the best I can tell rail network work rules are crippling the system with costs, operational inefficiencies and poor quality of service. The state operated busses are not as easy to use as the should be and a lack of coordination with other transportation assets including the rail and ferry network means Sydney is not getting all it can out of its system.    

For INSW, I think there is a more fundamental problem with not thinking about the right time frame for their investment. Major transportation infrastructure lasts a minimum of 30 years and can often be around for a century, so decisions made today will shape development patterns for decades. US experience, no less international experiences, demonstrates that building capacity doesn’t reduce congestion.  This is especially true when the highway capacity is not priced for demand – higher charges during rush hour to encourage travel at other times or by other modes.  To paraphrase the Harvard economist Ed Glaeser, any Soviet Commissar will tell you that free bread leads to endless lines.  Freeways are free bread and there are endless lines (congestion). I would fear that the west connects project will ultimate increase congestion by facilitating auto-oriented development.   

Where the INSW plan does expand transit I believe it does not adequately considering the economic development impacts of suggested investment. Cities like Adelaide and Melbourne in Australia and Denver and Portland in the U.S. are seeing the positive impacts of adding light rail systems to the urban core. Developing the proposed underground bus way will perpetuate an auto dominated central business district. What CBD retail and restaurants need to thrive are not cars driving by, but people walking by, and that is exactly what light rail provides. A line to a University will experience heavy use while the uni (as they would say here) is in session, but the rest of the year they won’t get as much from the system as they would from taking it through the core of the CBD. 

No strategy or plan is perfect, but no action may be the worst case scenario. INSW deserves credit for putting forward a plan with a compelling strategy for delivery. The State Department of Transport deserves credit for putting forward a plan that considers what the impacts of investments will be decades from now. As one private sector leader vented to me, “The government just needs to do something.  Probably anyone of the top five highway or transit projects is a positive investment for the region.”

The Melbourne Consensus

One of the most intellectually exciting parts of this experience has been to engage with some serious debates about the future of transportation infrastructure in Australian cities and be able to engage with an openness that can only come from not having a personal or professional stake in the outcome. This is the first of two posts of my observations about the investment future of Melbourne and Sydney.

Melbourne and the State of Victoria seem to have largely reached a consensus on the future of infrastructure development. Calls are coming from inside and outside of government for considerable investment in public transportation, making the most of the existing road network, filling critical gaps in the road network and paying close attention to how infrastructure investment can drive development patterns. Some of the key players, including the Committee for Melbourne (similar to Select Greater Philadelphia), Vic Roads, the Victoria Department of Transportation, the recently created Public Transport Victoria and the Royal Automotive Club of Victoria have all expressed similar visions and priorities.  Each organization acknowledges funding constraints, while painting a picture of how transportation infrastructure can shape the region.

Vic Roads is smartly focusing on how to best leverage the existing road network through its SmartRoads program. Vic Roads exemplifies the best in thinking across transportation modes from what is at its core a highway department.  Gary Liddle, the Vic Roads CEO, explained to me that he is working to evolve the organization from a purveyor of transportation infrastructure to a provider of transportation services for people and goods.  Fundamental to providing that service is the maintenance and expansion of the infrastructure, but infrastructure that doesn’t move people and goods is meaningless. The short video below outlines the SmartRoads approach.  

In the US, the SSTI initiative is comprised of state DOT’s that are flirting with these ideas, but I would argue haven’t been provided the political space to advance them.

The consensus bodes well for Victoria being able to make investment rhetoric a reality.