This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Elliot Fishman, Institute for Sensible Transport. Tim Brennan, Monash University and Intern, Institute for Sensible Transport November 2009
The sprawling auto based city. mobility and in the longer term. .Abstract Peak oil and climate change present serious challenges to governments and planners. An Oil Vulnerability Index has been created and its application suggests that the fast growing outer suburbs of Melbourne are particularly vulnerable to oil price rises. the very viability of some suburbs. which is the model upon which Australian cities have grown is particularly unsuited to a situation of decreasing oil availability and a need to reduce carbon emissions. This study assesses vehicle ownership and usage characteristics by local government area (LGA). as well as Commonwealth data on income and fuel efficiency. Future petrol price increases are likely to place stress on household expenditure. Outer suburban LGAs were found to have lower average incomes and travel by car more frequently and for longer distances. using data collected by the Victorian Department of Transport’s Victorian Integrated Survey of Travel and Activity (VISTA) analysis.
Contents 1 2. Prepared by the Institute for Sensible Transport . 3 4 5 6 7 Introduction Method Melbourne’s Profile – The Data Oil Vulnerability Index Discussion Conclusion References 01 02 02 09 12 14 15 Oil vulnerability in Melbourne.
Oil discovery peaked in 1964 (ExxonMobil. Currie et al (2009) have investigated transport disadvantage and social exclusion related to a lack of public transport opportunities. Deffeyes. They found 20 years of intense forward planning is required to negate the economic and social impact of reduced oil supply. the United States Department of Energy commissioned a team of risk management experts to address the threat posed by peak oil (Hirsch et al.Introduction The dramatic increase in the price of crude oil between 2004 and 2008 has raised concerns over the world’s oil supplies. Dealing with the threats of peak oil and climate change requires long term preparations. we have been generally finding less oil each year and this has now reached a point in which we use approximately four barrels of oil for every one discovered (ExxonMobil. Since then. 2005. 2006). the world is likely to experience a spiralling of oil prices. Prepared by the Institute for Sensible Transport 01 . 2004. Recently. Concern over rising oil prices have sparked growing interest in oil vulnerability and its economic and social impacts. Heinberg. 2002). It collects data by LGA rather than the Census Collection District level. 2004. An increasing number of prominent experts argue that the world has failed to find oil in sufficient quantities to balance with consumption (Skrewbowski. 2004. Dodson and Sipe (2006 & 2008) have developed the Vulnerability Assessment for Mortgage. In 2004. Shah. 2002). Cities such as Melbourne. The Oil Vulnerability Index developed in this report differs to that developed by Dodson and Sipe (2008) in that it contains information on modal split for all purposes rather than journey to work only and includes data on distances travelled. Since then. 2007. 2005. 2002). Klare. With new demand from the emerging economies of India and China. 2005). that have developed sprawling. 2008. less dependent on the private automobile and the availability of cheap oil. Hartmann. Campbell. and a global failure to match this growing demand with new discoveries. Leggett. Petrol and Inflation Risks and Expenditure (VAMPIRE) Index and have applied this to develop maps of oil vulnerability across each Australian capital city. Twenty years of intense forward planning is required to negate the economic and social impact of reduced oil supply. 2005. Simmons. Planners and governments need to begin taking action now in order to make mobility and indeed accessibility. the CSIRO (2008) released the Fuel for Thought report which forecast petrol prices for 2018 at between $2 and $8 a litre. 2005. we have been generally finding less oil each year and this has now reached a point in which we use approximately four barrels of oil for every one discovered (ExxonMobil. Oil discovery peaked in 1964 (ExxonMobil. 2002). This will have a major impact on the transport sector. These research areas are strongly connected to the question investigated in this paper – how transport patterns and income vary across Melbourne and what implications this might pose should petrol prices rise? Oil vulnerability in Melbourne. Strahan. low density urban form since WWII face significant adaptation challenges if they are to avoid significant transport disadvantage and subsequent social exclusion issues.
Melbourne’s Profile – The Data Income distribution Melbourne is a city with a high degree of spatially based economic inequality. cycling and public transport were combined to create a percentage for Non-Auto Travel. From these four sources of data the following indicators were generated by LGA. The VISTA data also provided modal splits for weekday travel. Oil vulnerability in Melbourne. The spatial income inequality. model. VISTA also collected data on vehicle usage such as average trip distance and number of trips made. the pre-1986 vehicles made up less than 10% of the vehicle fleet. combined with the difference in car usage patterns result in wide variation in Melbourne’s exposure to higher oil prices.45% of the highest. 2008). the fuel economy characteristics of the Melbourne vehicle fleet was established. cylinders and whether the vehicle costs are covered by a private individual or a company. The figures for walking. The VISTA study collected data on vehicle ownership such as vehicle make. Figure 1 shows a map of metropolitan Melbourne with the LGAs grouped by income. • • • • • Average Weekly VKT Average Vehicle Fuel Economy Average Weekly Fuel Use Weekday Modal Splits (all travel) Average Personal Net Taxable Income. age. The Green Vehicle Guide does not provide fuel economy data for pre-1986 vehicles and so these vehicles were excluded from the average figure creating a slight bias towards lower fuel economy figures. Data was also obtained from the Green Vehicle Guide. This data has been used to generate average Vehicle Kilometres Travelled (VKT) by LGA.Method This research is based primarily on data obtained from the Victorian Department of Transport’s Victorian Integrated Survey of Travel and Activity (VISTA) 2007 (Department of Transport. is just 46. the research adopts LGAs as the base spatial unit for analysis. In all but one case. Prepared by the Institute for Sensible Transport 02 . 2009). model and year of production data from VISTA. Average Taxable Income figures were obtained from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) National Regional Profile (ABS. Regional Development and Local Government. and from this an average vehicle fuel economy figure for each LGA was generated. 2009) study. The wealthiest councils are located in a band stretching from the CBD through the inner south-east and inner eastern suburbs. The Average Annual Taxable Income for residents of the poorest LGA. the City of Greater Dandenong. By matching the make. Combining the Average Fuel Economy and VKT figures enabled the generation of an Average Weekly Fuel Use figure. a Federal Government website that provides consumers with information about the fuel economy of vehicles (Department of Infrastructure. As the VISTA data is aggregated at the level of the Local Government Area (LGA). Transport. The pattern of increasing wealth with increasing proximity to the CBD is stark. the City of Stonnington.
Hobsons Bay 29. Nillumbik 5. Port Phillip Average Taxable Income Extremely Low (<40k) Low (40-45k) Moderate (45-50k) High (50k+) Figure 1: Average Taxable Income per person (ABS. Maribyrnong 30. Whittlesea 4. Stonnington 20. Maroondah 17. Banyule 23. Wyndham 28. Moreland 25.Average Taxable Income In Melbourne Local Government Areas 1. Melton 2. Knox 16. The four income bands have been developed for use in the Oil Vulnerability Index. 2008). Cardinia 7. Glen Eira 14. Hume 3. Mornington Peninsula 9. Darebin 24. Manningham 22. Brimbank 27. Frankston 10. Moonee Valley 26. Yarra Ranges 6. Melbourne 31. Oil vulnerability in Melbourne. Prepared by the Institute for Sensible Transport 03 Produced with the assistance of Stuart Walsh . Monash 15. Bayside 13. Whitehorse 18. Boroondara 19. Casey 8. Greater Dandenong 11. Kingston 12. Yarra 21.
Transport. Moreland (C) Vehicle fuel economy Local Government Area Local Government Area Brimbank (C) Maroondah (C) Figure 3: Average fuel economy of the vehicle fleet by LGA (Department of Transport. Prepared by the Institute for Sensible Transport Darebin (C) Monash (C) Banyule (C) Manningham (C) Whitehorse (C) Hobsons Bay (C) Figure 2: Weekly Vehicle Kilometres Travelled (Department of Transport. (Department of Infrastructure. 2009). 2009). Wyndham (C) Vehicle kilometres travelled by car Greater Dandenong (C) Melton (S) Mornington Peninsula (S) Yarra Ranges (S) Hume (C) Whittlesea (C) Frankston (C) Nilumbik (S) Knox (C) Casey (C) Cardinia (S) 04 . Regional Development and Local Government.Average fuel economy (L/100km) 100 150 200 250 Weekly Vehicle kilometres travelled 50 0 10 12 0 Melbourne (C) Moreland (C) Darebin (C) Maribyrnong (C) Greater Dandenong (C) Moonee Valley (C) Yarra (C) Port Phillip (C) Brimbank (C) Boroondara (C) Bayside (C) Whitehorse (C) Hume (C) Hobsons Bay (C) Glen Eira (C) Monash (C) Kingston (C) Whittlesea (C) Banyule (C) Stonnington (C) Manningham (C) Maroondah (C) Casey (C) Nilumbik (S) Wyndham (C) Knox (C) Frankston (C) Yarra Ranges (S) Melton (S) Mornington Peninsula (S) Cardinia (S) 2 4 6 8 Melbourne (C) Inner region Outer region Middle region Inner region Vehicle use and expenditure Middle region Outer region Yarra (C) Bayside (C) Port Phillip (C) Stonnington (C) Glen Eira (C) Boroondara (C) Moonee Valley (C) Maribyrnong (C) Oil vulnerability in Melbourne. There is considerably greater car travel among residents in outer suburban LGAs. Kingston (C) Figure 2 shows the average VKTs travelled by residents of each LGA. 2009).
2009). Knox 16. Prepared by the Institute for Sensible Transport 05 Produced with the assistance of Stuart Walsh . Moreland 25. Melton 2. Hume 3. Boroondara 19. Transport. The average fuel use figures were determined by multiplying the average VKT by the average fuel economy figure for each LGA (Department of Transport. 2009). Regional Development and Local Government. Wyndham 28. Cardinia 7. Maroondah 17. Nillumbik 5. Yarra 21. Casey 8. Kingston 12. Stonnington 20. Port Phillip Fuel Use (litres per week) Extremely Low (0-7) Low (7-9) Moderate (9-10) High (10-13) Extemely High (13+) Figure 4: Fuel usage in Melbourne. Brimbank 27. Whitehorse 18. Frankston 10. Greater Dandenong 11. (Department of Infrastructure. Manningham 22.Fuel Use in Melbourne Local Government Areas 1. Banyule 23. Moonee Valley 26. Mornington Peninsula 9. Monash 15. Maribyrnong 30. Melbourne 31. Yarra Ranges 6. Hobsons Bay 29. Darebin 24. Bayside 13. Glen Eira 14. Whittlesea 4. Oil vulnerability in Melbourne.
(Department of Infrastructure. as represented by modal split data (see figure 8 below). 2009). fuel comprises a small proportion of expenditure. 2008). 2009). 2009). Regional Development and Local Government. Percentage of income spent on fuel Percentage of income spent on fuel 4 3. with Cardinia Shire Council residents spending seven times the proportion of income on fuel as their City of Melbourne counterparts.5 1 0. This is due to higher car use. as a percentage of income. very little spatial relationship exists for vehicle fuel efficiency (see figure 3). Regional Development and Local Government. Oil vulnerability in Melbourne.5 2 1. The difference between LGAs can be stark however.5 0 Melbourne (C) Bayside (C) Boroondara (C) Monash (C) Brimbank (C) Banyule (C) Kingston (C) Knox (C) Frankston (C) Yarra Ranges (S) M Mornington Peninsula(S) Cardinia (S) Darebin (C) Maribyrnong (C) Glen Eira (C) Whitehorse (C) Hume (C) Maroondah (C) Nilumbik (S) Whittlesea (C) Wyndham (C) Casey (C) Port Phillip (C) Stonnington (C) Yarra (C) Moreland (C) Moonee Valley (C) Greater Dandenong (C) Manningham (C) Hobsons Bay (C) Melton (S) Inner region Middle region Outer region Local Government Area Figure 6: Fuel spending as a proportion of average weekly income (Department of Transport. and greater trip distances (see figure 2 above). Figures 4 and 5 above both show higher fuel expenditure among LGAs located on Melbourne’s fringe. Despite the strong sentiment in the community and media regarding the burden of high petrol costs. Transport. 2008). Interestingly. 2009). (ABS.20/Litre (Department of Transport.Weekly expenditure on fuel Average weekly expenditure on fuel ($) 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Melbourne (C) Yarra (C) Bayside (C) Port Phillip (C) Stonnington (C) Glen Eira (C) Boroondara (C) Moonee Valley (C) Maribyrnong (C) Darebin (C) Monash (C) Banyule (C) Manningham (C) Whitehorse (C) Hobsons Bay (C) Kingston (C) Moreland (C) Brimbank (C) Maroondah (C) Wyndham (C) Greater Dandenong (C) Melton (S) Mornington Peninsula (S) Yarra Ranges (S) Hume (C) Whittlesea (C) Frankston (C) Nilumbik (S) Knox (C) Casey (C) Cardinia (S) Local Government Area Inner region Middle region Outer region Figure 5: Current average individual weekly expenditure on fuel per person at 1. Transport.5 3 2. (ABS. (Department of Infrastructure. Prepared by the Institute for Sensible Transport 06 .
2008). In most cases fuel is not the major cost of owning a car (NRMA. At CSIROs upper projection of $8 per litre. The incomes are adjusted by the trend increase in incomes from 2000-2009 (ABS. Transport. individuals in the Shire of Mornington Peninsula and the Shire of Melton would be spending almost 10% of their income on fuel. 15% of income will be spent on fuel. 15% of income will be spent on fuel. In the Shire of Cardinia. (Department of Transport.. Regional Development and Local Government. These figures have been divided by the total population (which includes children and non-car owners) in order to derive the average fuel use figure for each LGA. The fuel prices are derived from the projections in the CSIRO (2008) Fuel for Thought report. 2009). The VISTA survey aggregated the VKT figure by LGA.Percentage of income spent on fuel under CSIRO 2018 fuel price projection 16 14 At $2/Litre Percentage of income spent on fuel 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Darebin (C) Maribyrnong (C) Manningham (C) Yarra Ranges (S) Stonnington (C) Yarra (C) Hume (C) Casey (C) Greater Dandenong (C) Banyule (C) Moonee Valley (C) Kingston (C) Melton (S) Mornington Peninsula(S) Hobsons Bay (C) Maroondah (C) Glen Eira (C) Nilumbik (S) Wyndham (C) Whitehorse (C) Port Phillip (C) Whittlesea (C) Frankston (C) Moreland (C) Bayside (C) Knox (C) Melbourne (C) Boroondara (C) Monash (C) Brimbank (C) Cardinia (S) At $8/Litre Local Government Area Figure 7: The proportion of average income spent on fuel (ABS. individuals in the Shire of Mornington Peninsula and the Shire of Melton would be spending almost 10% of their income on fuel. the proportion of income spent on fuel (see figure 6) is still quite small at the low projection price of $2 per litre. Prepared by the Institute for Sensible Transport 07 . (Department of Infrastructure. 2009). The overall cost of car ownership and use may become an untenable financial burden for some outer suburban residents Oil vulnerability in Melbourne. In the Shire of Cardinia. Therefore the true cost of fuel for drivers will be higher than reported here. 2009) therefore the overall cost of car ownership may become an untenable financial burden for some outer suburban residents. 2009) Under the CSIRO (2008) fuel price projections for 2018. At CSIROs upper projection of $8 per litre.
The inner city LGAs recorded a significantly greater proportion of their trips by public transport. Modal split of weekday travel Car Cardinia (S) Knox (C) Melton (S) Nilumbik (S) Whittlesea (C) Wyndham (C) Yarra Ranges (S) Mornington Peninsula (S) Casey (C) Manningham (C) Frankston (C) Monash (C) Hume (C) Maroondah (C) Kingston (C) Brimbank (C) Whitehorse (C) Bayside (C) Glen Eira (C) Greater Dandenong (C) Banyule (C) Hobsons Bay (C) Boroondara (C) Moonee Valley (C) Darebin (C) Stonnington (C) Moreland (C) Maribyrnong (C) Port Phillip (C) Yarra (C) Melbourne (C) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Percentage of travel 80% 90% 100% Walk Public Transport Bike Figure 8: The modal split for weekday travel – all purposes (Department of Transport. with the City of Melbourne showing the lowest at 36%. Lo Governmnet Area ocal Oil vulnerability in Melbourne. Car use shows significant variability across Melbourne. 2009).Modal split Figure 8 below illustrates the mode of transport for weekday travel by LGA. Prepared by the Institute for Sensible Transport 08 . walking and cycling. with Cardinia reporting just over 90% of all travel by car. It includes travel for all purposes rather than journey to work only and this therefore captures the 75% of trips that are for non-commuting purposes.
the median household weekly income and the proportion of dwellings that are under a mortgage (Dodson & Sipe. Our index differs from Dodson and Sipe (2006 & 2008) in that it includes all purpose weekday travel rather than journey to work only.something not present in the VAMPIRE model. the proportion of journeys to work made by car. For these reasons. The Oil Vulnerability Index developed for this paper uses average weekly fuel use. This range was split into 10% brackets and a rating from 0 – 10 assigned for each 10% bracket. The three variables were added together (without weighting). average taxable income. 2008). to give a total oil vulnerability rating of 0 – 30. average personal income and modal split of sustainable transport. is potentially a more accurate indicator of oil dependence than the proportion of houses with more than two cars. Each LGA was assigned a score from 0 – 10 corresponding to their value for each variable. made possible by the newly released VISTA data (Department of Transport. the CCD. Sustainable transport includes the percentage of weekday travel using public transport.approximately 200 houses in each CCD. Their data is aggregated at the level of Census Collection District (CCD) . an Oil Vulnerability Index has been developed for Melbourne that can be applied at the local government level. This builds on the aforementioned work of Dodson and Sipe (2006 & 2008). The maximum score of 10 was assigned to the lowest average income and non-automobile travel modal split and the highest fuel use. The fuel use indicator in the Oil Vulnerability Index replaces the proportion of households owning more than two cars in the VAMPIRE Index. The Oil Vulnerability Index is derived from a combination of three variables. The VAMPIRE index combines four variables. However VAMPIRE’s use of the proportion of houses with two or more cars does give an indication of the long term investment in cars that a household has made. Prepared by the Institute for Sensible Transport 09 . fuel use and the percentage of non-automobile weekly travel. For each of the three variables. the proportion of households with two or more cars. the range from the minimum to the maximum value was determined. To achieve this. cycling or walking. as well as rough indications of the accessibility of services and employment. the fuel use indicator. Moreover the spatial units used by Dodson & Sipe (2006 & 2008).Oil Vulnerability Index A key aim of this report was to assess the spatial distribution of oil vulnerability within Melbourne. 2009). Oil vulnerability in Melbourne. Fuel usage (which is based on average VKTs and average fuel economy) gives an indication of how far people are travelling . The fuel use indicator gauges the amount of money individuals are spending on fuel for transport. provides a greater level of geographic precision than the use of LGAs. The income indicator used in the Oil Vulnerability Index is broadly similar to that used in the VAMPIRE Index.
Transport. 2008). (ABS. 2009). Regional Development and Local Government.The Oil Vulnerability Index of Melbourne Local Government Areas Local Government Area Melbourne Stonnington Port Phillip Yarra Bayside Boroondara Moreland Maribyrnong Darebin Moonee Valley Glen Eira Banyule Hobsons Bay Whitehorse Manningham Monash Greater Dandenong Brimbank Kingston Maroondah Hume Whittlesea Wyndham Nilumbik Knox Casey Frankston Yarra Ranges Mornington Peninsula Melton Cardinia Oil Vulnerability Index Score 4 7 8 8 9 10 12 13 14 14 15 15 15 16 17 17 18 18 18 19 19 20 20 20 21 21 21 21 22 23 28 Figure 9: Results of Oil Vulnerability Index (see figure 10 for scale). (Department of Infrastructure. (Department of Transport. Oil vulnerability in Melbourne. 2009). Prepared by the Institute for Sensible Transport 10 .
Greater Dandenong 11. Bayside 13. Yarra 21. (ABS. Cardinia 7. Casey 8. Regional Development and Local Government. Glen Eira 14. Transport. Darebin 24. Maroondah 17. (Department of Infrastructure. Maribyrnong 30. Mornington Peninsula 9. Brimbank 27. Melbourne 31. Oil vulnerability in Melbourne.Oil Vulnerability in Melbourne Local Government Areas 1. Hume 3. Melton 2. Moonee Valley 26. Stonnington 20. 2009). Nillumbik 5. Whitehorse 18. Knox 16. Boroondara 19. 2008). Monash 15. Whittlesea 4. Banyule 23. Yarra Ranges 6. Wyndham 28. 2009). Kingston 12. Moreland 25. Prepared by the Institute for Sensible Transport 11 . Port Phillip Oil Vulnerability Index Extremely Low (0-10) Low (11-15) Moderate (16-18) High (19-20) Extemely High (21+) Figure 10: The Oil Vulnerability Index (Department of Transport. Manningham 22. Hobsons Bay 29. Frankston 10.
It is not the ideal indicator as it measures current usage for non-auto based transport rather than the actual availability of these modes of transport. a significant shift from car use to public transport may overwhelm current capacity.6 as opposed to the five northern and western LGAs that average 20. 102). the key concern of traffic engineers during the twentieth century. In addition. Adams (2005) has termed our current society as ‘hypermobile’ and believes this obsession with mobility has had a detrimental impact on community cohesion. If future VISTA surveys are aggregated to this level this would be a useful indicator for the availability of public transport. as measured by income and car use. At peak times. low-income families are forced to own a car as they ‘need’ the accessibility it provides. it is more common for a household to have two or more cars than to have zero cars. A more accurate gauge of transport resilience to oil price rises would be an indicator based upon supply rather than demand for public transport and cycling. in which the outer suburbs are more heavily dependent on Oil vulnerability in Melbourne. Ideally if this could be matched with data that measured the amount of services and employment within the local pedestrian and cycle catchment. Vulnerability increases with distance from the CBD. They have identified specific. able to absorb a considerable proportion of the short trips that are currently made by car.Discussion There is a clear pattern in the distribution of vulnerability. This difference in these scores is due to the outer north and west having lower VKT than the outer east and south. This supports key findings of this report and specifically the spatial pattern of oil vulnerability. this would create a strong indicator for the ability of people to reduce auto dependency. the car due to increasing fuel prices) leads to greater risk that social isolation will occur. Mobility. Litman (2009) has shown that even a 5% shift from current car commuters to public transport would create a 50% increase in public transport demand. Hypermobility seeks to provide access to services by moving people to services. To the best of our knowledge there is currently no public transport supply index aggregated to the level of LGA. The study shows that amongst low income earners in the outer suburbs. Nevertheless. Prepared by the Institute for Sensible Transport 12 .4). the bicycle may prove to be a vehicle with significant additional capacity. volume and distance) largely through the enabling of the free flow of traffic and road building. due to the lack of other transport alternatives. ‘needs gaps’ within the public transport network as well as investigating the phenomenon of ‘forced car ownership’ where. the Melbourne system would be unable to absorb this increase in patronage. The sustainable transport indicator (the modal split for non-auto travel) is an attempt to gauge a useful level of existing resilience to oil price increases within localities. In these two plus car households there is generally little to no access to public transport as an alternative. An analysis of ‘zero car ownership’ showed that they tended to live in areas within walking distance of activity centres. The findings presented above support the work of a growing body of research concerning transport disadvantage and social exclusion. even in areas with good access to public transport. In areas where mobility options are not diverse. In such a situation. A key characteristic of this work is the distinction made between mobility and accessibility. Currie et al (2009) are currently working on the creation of a public transport supply index aggregated to the level of CCD. A pattern that emerges from the results. rather than the other way around. Accessibility. The work of Currie et al (2009) is an ongoing research project studying the patterns of transport disadvantage within Melbourne. The least vulnerable councils are the central suburbs and the wealthy inner east and bayside suburbs. is that the outer north and west are slightly less vulnerable than the outer east (the five outer eastern LGAs average an Index score of 22. as shown in Figure 10. reduced availability of the dominant mode (for example. walk accessibility and inaccessibility is an equally strong driver of car use” (p. Overall the findings of Currie et al (2009) “suggest a strong link between the quality of public transport supply and the share of low income households facing financial burden associated with car use. aims to facilitate travel quantity (speed. rather than focusing on transport per se focuses on the destinations and making them as accessible to people as possible.
a $4. $6 billion for the Metropolitan Ring Road. The considerable exposure to high fuel prices on Melbourne’s margins. the lack of preparation made by government would suggest that there would be a serious decrease in social and economic well-being in the outer suburbs. Our analysis has shown that the urban fringe is heavily dependent on automobile travel and therefore the most oil vulnerable outer suburbs. it has been shown that a significant proportion of household expenditure will need to be dedicated to petrol in outer suburbs. Oil vulnerability in Melbourne. By integrating new data on vehicle use and projections of petrol price increases.5 billion Melbourne Metro (costed at $8 billion in the Eddington Report). as illustrated in figure 10 above warrants renewed consideration of transport investment in middle and outer ring areas. Given the well documented links between road construction and urban sprawl (Newman & Kenworthy. It is quite probable that the life-span of the Victorian Transport Plan will extend into the period of peak and possibly post peak oil. 1999). should mobility patterns remain unchanged and petrol prices rise within CSIRO projections.5 billion for a new road tunnel under the Maribyrnong River and $750 million for Peninsula Link. $2.automobile travel and have lower levels of income. If a sharp and continued rise in the price of oil was to occur. Therefore it would be prudent for the government to begin investing in projects that help build resilience to oil price rises. these projects will increase rather than diminish oil dependence and therefore vulnerability to higher petrol prices. The major proposed public transport project in the Victorian Transport Plan. Prepared by the Institute for Sensible Transport 13 . The Victorian Government’s Victorian Transport Plan (2008) aims to set out a blueprint for Victoria’s transport investment directions to 2020 and beyond. largely focuses on improving services in the already relatively wealthy and transport rich inner suburbs rather than easing transport disadvantage in the outer suburbs. Whilst there are some rail extensions planned and upgrades to regional rail many of the major projects are still road based infrastructure.
Prepared by the Institute for Sensible Transport 14 . Should CSIROs (2008) prediction of dramatically higher petrol prices by 2018 prove correct. Oil vulnerability in Melbourne. This analysis suggests that priorities for government action should include a focus on improving public transport services to the outer suburbs. which are currently experiencing heavy population growth (ABS. Fuel use increases with distance from the CBD and this pattern mirrors the patterns of income and public transport supply. This Index has found a clear correlation between fuel use and location. 2009a). both of which decrease with distance from the CBD. are also more likely to be economically disadvantaged than their inner city counterparts. are extremely vulnerable to oil price increases. encouraging compact land use and supporting active transport modes by upgrading bicycle infrastructure (both on road and end of trip) and encouraging pedestrian friendly development.Conclusion This study of the data from the VISTA survey and the ABS has developed an Oil Vulnerability Index for Melbourne’s LGAs. who are already driving more than other people in Melbourne. The findings support the work of Currie et al (2009) in suggesting there are residents in parts of outer suburban Melbourne for whom driving is the only mobility option. This suggests that Melbourne’s outer suburbs. all of Melbourne’s LGAs are likely to be significantly impacted upon – but outer suburbs will clearly be the worst affected. The residents of these LGAs.
.. ExxonMobil. Accessed at http://www. Science Applications International Corporation. 2009 Presentation to Cycling Promotion Fund Expert Advisory Panel. New York. 2009 Shah S. London.mynrma. Inc. Vella-Brodrick D. Skrewbowski C. Commonwealth Government. 2004 Blood and Oil. Sipe N.... 2009 Australian Economic Indicators. Melbourne.. Hill and Wang. J. Accessed at http://www...planning the networks. UK.L.. California. Aldershot. Wendling R. Half Gone: Oil.. Department of Planning and Community Development. UK. Currie G. social exclusion and well-being in Melbourne – Preliminary Results.gov. 2009 About Operating Costs. Vol.au/publications/fiveyearplan/ 20th October 2009.greenvehicleguide.org.. Hartmann T. Ashgate.uk/index. Nielsen.gov. Bezdek R. 2006 The Oil Depletion Protocol.. NRMA. No.. Accessed at http://www.gov.. gas. Public Transport Users Association..energyinst. Morris J. G. 6th April.1: 37 (26). London...com.ptua.abs. Transport. Crude: The Story of Oil. Victorian Government. Essex. Accessed at http://www. Urban Studies.. Transport Policy.References ABS.. Network structure design in “Public transport . Technology. Newman P. 2005 Beyond Oil: The View from Hubbert’s Peak. 2009 Melbourne 2030: a planning update – Melbourne @ 5 million. 2005 Hypermobility: a challenge to governance in Lyall. New Jersey. 2008 National Regional Profile. Risk and the Environment. Deffeyes K. Accessed at http://www.. Prepared by the Institute for Sensible Transport 15 . HI-Trans. Campbell C. 2008 What is driving record prices?.. Department of Transport. Penguin Books. Canada Hirsch R.transport.. Accessed at http://www..html 20th October 2009. au/2008/05/05/spending-comparison/ 22nd October. Portobello Books.abs. Hot Air and the Global Energy Crisis. Parkville.nsf/nrpbygeogtype?openview&restricttocategory=Main+Areas&Exp and=1& 23rd September 2009 ABS.au/AUSSTATS/abs@. Three Rivers Press.. 44..vic. Washington. 2009a Regional Population Growth Australian 2007-2008. 17. Stanley J. 1999 Sustainability and Cities. 5. Public Transport Users Association. 2009 Investigating links between transport disadvantage.. John Wiley and Sons. 2004 The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight. Melbourne. http://www..0~2007-08~Main+Feature s~Victoria?OpenDocument#PARALINK3 20th October 2009 Adams J.au/ausstats/abs@. Dodson J. Accessed at http://www4.nsf/Products/9399E3109DED5048CA25765C0019225D?opendocu ment.S. Regional Development and Local Government. New York. au/DSE/nrenpl.nsf/fid/93E1884BDDA65F63CA25762500047CE5 20th October 2009 Department of Infrastructure. Petroleum Review. Sipe N. Sipe N. US. Urban Research Program Research Paper No. Accessed at http://www. Seven Stories Press. Simmons M... 3. p.dse. 2006 Shocking the Suburbs: Urban Location. 2005 Oil Crisis. Canberra. Department of Transport. Griffith University.. and Tait. CSIRO 2008. 2005 Five Years Closer to 2020: A plan to get transport back on track. 2008 The Victorian Transport Plan. 2009 Victorian Integrated Survey of Travel and Activity.R. London. 2005 Twilight in the Desert: The Coming Saudi Oil Shock and the World Economy. Kinnear R. 2007 The Last Oil Shock. ExxonMobil 2002 The Future of the Oil and Gas Industry: Pass Approaches. 2009 Green Vehicle Guide. 2008 Unsettling Suburbia: The new landscape of oil and mortgage vulnerability in Australian cities.vic. (Eds). Stanley J. Litman T.gov.cfm?PageID=1255 Strahan D.. Oil vulnerability in Melbourne. US. 20th October 2009 ABS. New Society Publishers.abs. C.au/ausstats/abs@. Brisbane Dodson J..xsl/about_operating_costs.au/vtp/ 20th October 2009 Department of Transport. US.org. 2007 Oil vulnerability in the Australian city: Assessing socioeconomic risks from higher urban fuel prices. Fuel for Thought. Lucas K.. British Columbia. 2005. Kenworthy J.ptua. Leggett J. World Energy.gov. Public Transport Users Association. Multi-Science Publishing Company Ltd. Richardson T. The future of transport fuels: challenges and opportunities CSIRO. Mitigation. Heinberg R. Accessed at http://www.. Klare M. John Murray.gov..J... UK.. Public Transport Users Association.nsf/Products/3218..au 20th October 2009 Dodson J. Hine J. 2005 Peaking of World Oil Production: Impacts..80-135. Housing Debt and Oil Vulnerability in the Australian City.. and Risk Management.au/cps/rde/xchg/mynrma/hs. UK. Gabriola Island. 2009 Spending road vs public transport. New York. New Challenges. Smyth P. New Modes of Governance: Developing an Integrated Policy Approach to Science. Island Press.org.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.