[sustran] Re: Satelite cities : Which transport strategy ?

[Matthew Burke]

I've had to think this satellite city question through a few times here in
Australia, notably when I lived in Canberra working for our Transport
Department.

The satellite city situation invariably means the linkaging of disparate
locations by high-speed, limited-access motorways and express rail. These
two options are the 'standard' - though some of us will have our own ideas
about the usefulness or at least one, if not both. Invariably a corridor
develops between the centre and the satellite [as has happened leading out
of Jakarta southwards to Bogor, through Pasar Minggu]. 

But what type of corridor should be stimulated? Should more accessible
major roadways with higher order land uses [commercial and retail] be
encouraged along parallel routes to the inevitable expressways? Should
urban activities be concentrated at train stops or other transit nodes in
between the two settlements? What type of accessibility needs to be
provided for adjacent neighbourhoods to reach nearby activity centres?
Should there be in-fill development or should green-belts be put in place
to allow for recreation, health, greenery etc.? And, perhaps most
importantly, what land uses will be encouraged in the satellite city
itself.

I recently lived in the Australian capital, Canberra. While a small city
with less than 400,000 residents and certainly not comparable to Jakarta
[it used draconian planning legislation and institutions of a kind never
seen in South-east Asia], it is a fascinating example of what occurs when
satellites are used as the building blocks of urban form. Using the
Y-development plan, since the major expansion of the city in the 1950s and
60s, the growth of Canberra was funnelled into a number of 'self-contained'
suburban centres, roughly of equivalent size, each with its own
mini-Central-Business-District, and each separated from the others by
expanses of green open space [forests, grasslands and the like]. The
planners thought that workers would choose to co-locate their work and
their housing, and that the total trip length of the urban population would
be reduced due to this self-containment. Alas, this never happened. From
memory only 20-something percent of residents work in the same centre as
that in which they live in - with people driving much longer distances to
cross the green-belts. These spaces are vast, are cris-crossed by large
limited-access roadways, but they do provide for both nice vistas, and some
recreational opportunities. As a result, per city size and per capita,
Canberra is the most auto-centric city in Australia, with low modal shares
for public transport [though cycling is quite high] and very high vkt per
annum, despite a pretty decent bus service by this country's standards
[which is woeful when compared to Canadian, European or Asian examples, but
better than the US].  Everyone whinged about the traffic, even though there
was next to no congestion! And numerous schemes were continually put forth
to get people onto public transport. Heavy rail, light rail, monorail, etc.
It's too late to really fix things up though [not that plugging some of the
leaks isn't a wise manouvre]. A more compact city-form, urban corridors of
higher-order activity, and concentration of activity on key transit nodes
along those corridors would have been a better set of planning policies. It
might also have saved Canberra from becoming the most boring city in
Australia [but then again, it is full of public servants and set in a
particularly cold location!].

What I'm getting at is that there is much about land use policies that will
dictate how successful any transportation planning strategy is when
connecting satellites like Bogor and Tangerang to Jakata. The answers may
lie more in how we treat suburban areas in West, South and East Jakarta,
how we locate future commercial office space, elite private schools,
high-income housing, universities etc. in the region, and what policies are
used to contain growth at the fringe, rather than in whether carpooling or
park'n'ride is used to transport the commuters across that vast space. 

Just some thoughts. 

Matt

--- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Matthew Burke
Department of Geographical Sciences and Planning
University of Queensland
BRISBANE  QLD  4072
[w] +61 7 3365 3836
e-mail: matt.burke at mailbox.uq.edu.au
--- --- --- --- --- --- ---


----------
> From: Jain Alok <ajain at kcrc.com>
> To: 'sustran-discuss at jca.ax.apc.org'
> Subject: [sustran] Re: Satelite cities : Which transport strategy ?
> Date: Thursday, 12 October 2000 11:39
> 
> PnR can only be attractive if the land for the parking is cheap and the
> parking prices in the city centre is much more expensive as compared to
the
> PnR. Here in Hong Kong with no subsidy from Government, the PnR
experience
> is not so encouraging. Land is expensive and is in short supply.
> Multi-storey car-parks are never financially viable if the parking rates
for
> PnR is low. Also, it does not seem to make any considerable impact in
> reducing the traffic on the urban area roads. Probably, the critical mass
is
> lacking.
> 
> Railways are a good idea for high density development corridors. Here in
HK,
> the future new towns are planned to be railway centric with a high degree
of
> pedestrianisation, lower parking densities, exclusive public transport
> corridors etc. If you want more details, check www.info.gov.hk and go to
> sites for Planning Department and Transport Bureau.
> 
> Alok Jain
> Hong Kong
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Harun al-Rasyid Sorah Lubis [mailto:halubis at trans.si.itb.ac.id]
> > Sent: October 11, 2000 5:13 PM
> > To: sustrans
> > Cc: bagus; Hedi Hidayat
> > Subject: [sustran] Satelite cities : Which transport strategy ?
> > 
> > 
> > Jakarta's neighboring cities, namely Bogor, Bekasi, Tangerang 
> > have been
> > pushed to carry some extra load of residential choice. In 
> > fact, the four
> > cities has become a megapolitan of 25 millions people. Net 
> > outing rushed to
> > Jakarta from each (the satellite) city more or less 200.000 
> > people per day.
> > Toll road widening, plus suburban rail double tracking have 
> > been the recent
> > policies. Nevertheless, day-to-day congestion remains a nightmare for
> > commuters.
> > 
> > What interesting is motorcycle park and ride seems to be getting more
> > popular, as motorcycle parking space and occupation are 
> > widespread in the
> > suburban rail stations heading to Jakarta. Putting more lanes 
> > both motorways
> > (toll roads) and arterial will not solve the problems. The 
> > most obvious
> > solutions, alternatively, is doing some TDM measures, like 
> > car pooling, park
> > and ride plus pricing to restrict car get into the capital 
> > city Jakarta.
> > 
> > The recent and 'always mood of the local government of the 
> > satellite cities
> > is to keep doing more and more predict and provide, mainly, 
> > toll road and
> > arterials, just coincidentally follow Jakarta's most recent transport
> > policy, even for radial urban roads.
> > 
> > Noted, now the regional autonomy plus fiscal decentralization 
> > is soon be in
> > place for the satellite cities. My question is how to assess 
> > economically
> > the tdm schemes such as the park and ride ? Is the any 
> > experience in other
> > megapolitan cities in the world, as to how the transport 
> > strategy should
> > best be formulated, rather than providing more roads ? To 
> > what extent  rail
> > could   fill the excessive demand ?  What if the four region 
> > be administered
> > under one minister, rather than different local government ?
> > 
> > 
> > Harun al-Rasyid S. Lubis             http://trans.si.itb.ac.id
> > Traffic Lab, Transport Engineering Division
> > Dept. of Civil Engineering - ITB
> > Jl. Ganeca 10 Bandung 40132 - Indonesia
> > Tel/Facs. +62 22  250 23 50  halubis at trans.si.itb.ac.id
> >