melbourne: policy position - curtin university · the luti criteria as evidenced by the fact that...

1 Urbanet Working Paper No 2: Melbourne Policy Position Curtis, Babb & Armstrong February 2010

Melbourne: Policy Position

Carey Curtis

Courtney Babb

Rachel Armstrong

The Capacity of State and Local Government

to Deliver Sustainable and Integrated Transport

WORKING PAPER No. 2

February 2010


Carey Curtis, Courtney Babb and Rachel Armstrong

Urbanet

Department of Urban and Regional Planning

Curtin University

http://urbanet.curtin.edu.au/

This Working Paper is part of a research project funded by GAMUT entitled Innovation (and Barriers to Change) in Urban Transport. GAMUT is one of a global network of Centres of Excellence in Future Urban Transport created by the Volvo Research and Educational Foundations, an independent research and educational institution.

Copyright protects this material. Except as permitted by the Copyright Act, reproduction by any means (photocopying, electronic, mechanical, recording or otherwise), making available online, electronic transmission or other publication of this material is prohibited without the prior written permission of the authors.


List of Tables ..................................................................................................................................... 5

Contents

List of Figures .................................................................................................................................... 6

List of Abbreviations .......................................................................................................................... 7

1. Executive Summary ................................................................................................................... 8

2. Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 13

3. Research Approach ................................................................................................................. 18

3.1 Study Area ............................................................................................................................. 18

3.2 Review of government process and policy relevant to the integration of land use and transport, and the collation of policy documents ........................................................................................... 20

3.3 The Land Use Transport Integration principles ...................................................................... 23

3.4 Content Analysis method ....................................................................................................... 27

3.5 Selection of documents for content analysis ........................................................................... 29

3.6 Data analysis ......................................................................................................................... 31

4. The governance of land use and transport integration in the Melbourne Metropolitan Region ... 34

5. Policy for Land use and transport integration in the Melbourne Metropolitan Region ................. 46

5.1 Selection of documents for content analysis ........................................................................... 46

5.2 Statutory Documents.............................................................................................................. 47

5.3 Strategic Documents .............................................................................................................. 50

6. Content Analysis Results ......................................................................................................... 53

6.1 Overview ............................................................................................................................... 53

6.2 Summary Results................................................................................................................... 55

6.3 Detailed results ...................................................................................................................... 64

6.4 Combined Results................................................................................................................ 100

6.5 Analysis of LUTI capacity in Local Planning Schemes by potential explanatory criteria ......... 119

6.5.1 Location ........................................................................................................................ 119

6.5.2 Population ..................................................................................................................... 122

6.5.3 Membership of the Metropolitan Transport Forum (MTF) ............................................... 123

6.5.4 Existence of a Local Transport Strategy ........................................................................ 123

6.6 Ambiguous or negative representation in state or local government documents .................... 127

7. Discussion ............................................................................................................................. 129

7.1 Addressing the Research Question ...................................................................................... 129

7.2 Scoping for stage two of the research project ....................................................................... 137

7.2.1 Progressing to stage two of the research ....................................................................... 137

7.2.2 Case Study Option 1. .................................................................................................... 138




8. Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................ 147

9. References ............................................................................................................................ 148

10. Appendices ........................................................................................................................ 152

Appendix 1: Critical Responses to Melbourne Planning Policy.................................................... 152

Victorian Planning Provisions ................................................................................................. 152

Melbourne 2030 ..................................................................................................................... 153

Appendix 2: List of Acts and Policy Documents Referred To. ..................................................... 161

Appendix 3: Websites Accessed ................................................................................................ 164

Appendix 4: Membership of Transport Organisations ................................................................. 165

Appendix 5: LUTI Content Analysis Template ............................................................................ 166

Appendix 6: Content Analysis Example ...................................................................................... 168

Appendix 7: Content Analysis Detailed Findings......................................................................... 184

Appendix 8: Additional Tables .................................................................................................... 190


List of Tables

Table 1: LUTI criteria. ...................................................................................................................... 25Table 2: Access Criteria Summary ................................................................................................... 58Table 3: Land Use Criteria Summary ............................................................................................... 61Table 4: People Places Criteria Summary. ....................................................................................... 63Table 5: State Government Documents- Access Criteria Summary .................................................. 65Table 6: State Government Documents- Access Criteria Rating ....................................................... 67Table 7: Local Planning Schemes- Access Criteria Summary ........................................................... 70Table 8: Local Planning Schemes- Access Criteria Ratings .............................................................. 75Table 9: Local Transport Strategies- Access Criteria Summary ........................................................ 77Table 10: Local Transport Strategies- Access Criteria Rating ........................................................... 78Table 11: State Government Documents- Land Use Summary ......................................................... 81Table 12: State Government Documents- Land Use Ratings ............................................................ 83Table 13: Local Planning Schemes- Land Use Criteria Summary ..................................................... 84Table 14: Local Planning Schemes- Land Use Criteria Ratings ........................................................ 88Table 15: Local Transport Strategies- Land Use Criteria Summary .................................................. 90Table 16: Local Transport Strategies- Land Use Criteria Ratings ...................................................... 91Table 17: State Government Documents- People Places Summary ................................................. 93Table 18 State Planning Documents- People Places Rating ............................................................. 94Table 19: Local Planning Schemes- People Places Summary .......................................................... 96Table 20: Local Planning Schemes- People Places Ratings ............................................................. 98Table 21: Local Transport Strategies- People Places Summary ....................................................... 99Table 22: Local Transport Strategies- People Places Ratings ........................................................ 100Table 23: Combined Summary for SPPF and Local Planning Schemes: Access Criteria ................ 102Table 24: Combined Ratings for SPPF and Local Schemes- Access Criteria .................................. 105Table 27: Combined Summary for SPPF and Local Planning Schemes- Land Use Criteria ............ 107Table 28: Combined Ratings for SPPF and Local Planning Schemes- Land Use Criteria ............... 109Table 31: Combined Summary for SPFF and Local Planning Schemes: People Places Criteria .... 111Table 32 Combined Ratings for SPPF and Local Planning Schemes- People Places Criteria ......... 113Table 35: Combined Summary for LPPF and Local Transport Strategies- Access Criteria .............. 116Table 36: Combined Ratings for LPPF and Local Transport Strategies- Access Criteria ................. 118Table 37: Membership of Transport Organisations (as at 15 September 2008) ............................... 165Table 38: State Documents Summary ............................................................................................ 184Table 39: Local Planning Schemes Summary ................................................................................ 185Table 40: Local Transport Strategies Summary .............................................................................. 186Table 41: State Documents Ratings ............................................................................................... 187Table 42: Local Planning Schemes Ratings ................................................................................... 188Table 43: Local Transport Strategies Ratings ................................................................................. 189Table 44: Combined Summary for LPPF and Local Transport Strategies- Land Use Criteria .......... 194Table 45: Combined Ratings for LPPF and Local Transport Strategies- Land Use Criteria ............. 195Table 46: Combined Summary for LPPF and Local Transport Strategies- People Places Criteria ... 196Table 47: Combined Ratings for LPPF and Local Transport Strategies- People Places Criteria ...... 197


List of Figures

Figure 1 Melbourne Local Government Areas .................................................................................. 19Figure 2 Source: (Department of Environment and Planning n.d. 6) ................................................. 49Figure 6: Location Chart- Access Criteria ....................................................................................... 120Figure 7: Location Chart- Land Use Criteria ................................................................................... 121Figure 8: Location Chart- People Places Criteria ............................................................................ 122Figure 9: Transport Strategy Chart- Access Criteria ....................................................................... 125Figure 10: Transport Strategy Chart- Land Use Criteria .................................................................. 125Figure 11: Transport Strategy Chart- People Places Criteria .......................................................... 126Figure 12: Population Chart- Access Criteria .................................................................................. 190Figure 13: Population Chart- Land Use Criteria .............................................................................. 191Figure 14: Population Chart- People Places Criteria ....................................................................... 191Figure 15: Metropolitan Transport Forum Chart- Access Criteria .................................................... 192Figure 16: Metropolitan Transport Chart- Land Use Criteria ........................................................... 192Figure 17: Metropolitan Transport Chart- People Places Criteria .................................................... 193


List of Abbreviations

DOI Department of Infrastructure

DOT Department of Transport

DPCD Department of Planning and Community Development

DPLG Department of Planning and Local Government

IMAP Inner Melbourne Action Plan

LGA Local Government Area

LPPF Local Planning Policy Framework

LUTI Land Use Transport Integration

MSS Municipal Strategic Scheme

MTF Metropolitan Transport Forum

MVA Municipal Association of Victoria

PPTN Principal Public Transport Network

SPPF State Planning Policy Framework

UGB Urban Growth Boundary

VCAT Victorian Civil Administrative Tribunal

VPP Victorian Planning Provisions


1. Executive Summary

Globally, the capacity of local and regional governments to implement policy and invest in integrated land use and transport decisions has emerged as an important issue for urban transport policy and for urban policy in general. In Australia there is a National Charter on Integrated Land Use and Transport Planning. Some State governments have implemented local procedures, for example in Western Australia the metropolitan local governments have an Integrated Transport Planning Partnering Agreement with the objective of working cooperatively with the state. However, bringing together the policy tools to achieve optimal planning outcomes in such a way to aid delivery is an ongoing challenge.

This working paper reports the results of a content analysis of state and local government policy texts in order to understand the capacity of government for land use and transport integration in the Melbourne metropolitan area. It is the second working paper produced as part of the outputs of a larger research project assessing the the capacity of State and Local Government to deliver sustainable and integrated transport. The first working paper reported on the Perth metropolitan area. The two working papers represent the first stage of the research. In this stage our interest encompasses the need to understand the extent to which there is vertical integration of policy from state to local government, and the extent to which there is horizontal integration of policies documents within any given agency or level of government. The second stage of our research will focus on the barriers to the delivery of land use transport integration. Findings from both stages aim to identify how the capacity of state and local government can be improved.

Policies represent the front door of the particular agency; they can indicate the extent to which there is any capacity for land use transport integration as conceived in this project. We acknowledge that the texts are open to multiple interpretations, they are influenced by the content and interpretation of other policy texts and that interpretation and emphasis changes with the political climate in which policy is interpreted. In Stage 2 of this research we aim to delve much deeper into the organisational dynamics and interrelationships that influence policy development and implementation, but as a pre-requisite to that work it is important to understand the way in which policy texts are presented in published documents.

A comprehensive suite of land use transport integration (LUTI) principles were developed to frame policy content analysis and are grouped into three key components: Access, Land Use, and 'People Places'. The key state and local government policy documents relevant to land use and transport planning were identified through a review of government websites and academic literature relevant to the Melbourne planning system. These were policies in use at the time of our review in 2007.These documents were analysed and policy statements were


identified and assessed, recording whether these made both a positive or negative (productive or counter-productive) contribution towards LUTI and a how well (or poorly) the policy statement performed in relation to satisfaction of the LUTI criteria.

The governance of urban transport and land use in Melbourne is complex and highly fragmented and in order to achieve broad strategic goals attaining to sustainable transport, the need for state and local government to communicate and facilitate with a wide range of stakeholders through clear policy guidance is imperative.

Overall there is evidence of vertical and horizontal integration of policy messages that reflect the LUTI criteria. Partly this is due to the format of the Victorian planning schemes, which require the inclusion of state policy within each local governments scheme. Gaps are evident in coverage, however, and the strength of policy commitment at both levels of government and between documents within the same level of government is also of concern. We found, overall, a stronger level of commitment to general LUTI type criteria rather than criteria that added a level of specificity to LUTI type planning actions. There is a demonstrated policy capacity for the LUTI criteria as evidenced by the fact that each of the LUTI criteria were addressed by at least one state or local government policy document. Furthermore, the criteria were also represented by statements that demonstrated strong support.

Our analysis included local government transport strategies. We found that fourteen of the thirty-one local governments had transport strategies at the time of analysis. The documents focussed mainly on the Access criteria. Land use and People Places criteria received little attention in the transport strategies. Most local governments transport strategies complemented an already strong policy commitment to the LUTI Access criteria. There were strategies, however, that provided an alternative strategic direction, much more in support of the LUTI criteria than their corresponding planning scheme. Overall, the local transport strategies improved the local governments support of the LUTI criteria, although it must be noted that these documents receive less weight in the decision making process than the local planning schemes.

In relation to the three categories of LUTI criteria:

Access

There is strong representation of policy at both levels of government that reflect the criteria relating to walking and cycling. These policy measures represent commitment to sustainable transport objectives and also a means to enable the successful implementation of other objectives.

The state government strategic documents Melbourne 2030, Linking Melbourne and Meeting Our Transport Challenge contained the most extensive coverage and support of the LUTI Access criteria.


The state statutory document the Victorian Planning Provisions (VPP) demonstrated reasonable coverage of the criteria yet contained no policy statements that strongly supported the LUTI criteria.

Gaps are evident at both levels of government in the areas of traffic management and public transport service provision. The support that was evident, particularly at the local level, was strong which suggests that the capacity to address these criteria exists.

Local transport strategies greatly improved the strength of policy commitment to access criteria in those local governments that had one. This was primarily due, not to additional coverage of the criteria than the local planning schemes, but rather to an increase in the strength of statements addressing the criteria. This suggests that the transport strategies are being utilised at the local government level as an additional tool to complement a focus on policy that supports LUTI.

Land Use

Land use criteria were not as comprehensively covered as Access criteria at both levels of government.

There was much stronger support for generalised criteria relating to land use, such as LU1 Land use configuration- land use integrated with integrated transport, than criteria that prescribed specific actions, for example, LU15 Parking- car parking behind buildings not fronting street.

Criteria relating to parking and land use configuration were poorly represented at both levels of government, although this support and coverage was notably weaker at the state government level.

There is little policy support in the state transport strategies that reflect the LUTI criteria relevant to car parking.

People Places

People Place criteria received better overall coverage and stronger support at the local government level.

Strong support at the state level is contained within Melbourne 2030, the state strategic document at the time of analysis, covered almost all criteria. The Victorian Planning Provisions has poor coverage and policy commitment.


In relation to vertical integration (state to local)

The format of the planning schemes in Melbourne, requiring the state planning policy framework to be included at the front of each planning scheme, enabled the vertical integration of several policy messages reflected in the LUTI criteria. The integration of state policy within the local planning document provides an important opportunity for macro level changes at the metropolitan scale to be planned for across different local governments. Alternatively, local governments are able to integrate their various planning measures in relation to metropolitan scale changes.

LUTI policy in the Victorian Planning Provision, where the state planning policy framework is drawn from, has several gaps in coverage and no policy statements that strongly met the criteria were recorded.

In many cases, stronger policy support is evident from the local government. Several local governments were recorded as having wide coverage of the LUTI criteria and consistently high rating policy statements.

In relation to horizontal integration:

Policy support from the strategic documents at state level demonstrated better coverage and stronger support of the LUTI criteria than the state statutory document, the Victorian Planning Provisions (VPP). The gaps and the dilution of policy messages in the VPP has further consequences for the vertical integration of policy, as the VPPs state government planning policy framework is the policy text that is required to be included in each local government planning scheme.

The lack of clear statutory link between the strategic and statutory documents contribute to a situation where strong policy commitments exhibited at the strategic level of planning, therefore having less weight in decision making, may lead to a disparity between policy rhetoric and implementation.

Several other criteria were assessed at the local government level to assess whether there were additional influences on the policy coverage and support of the LUTI principles. These criteria included geographical location, size of the local government and interest in sustainable transport, measured by membership to the Metropolitan Transport Forum. Due to the requirement of the inclusion of the state planning policy framework within each of the planning schemes, there was little variation amongst


each of these criteria. The location of the local government appeared to result in minor variation in coverage of LUTI criteria and strength of support, with local governments located closer to the Melbourne central business district demonstrating better coverage and support of Access, Land Use and People Places criteria than those in outer suburban areas. This pattern however was not consistent and several exceptions were present, that is inner city local governments that demonstrated poor support and outer suburban local governments that showed strong support of the criteria.

From this stage in the research there would appear to be benefits in introducing the following measures aimed at improving the capacity of state and local government to deliver sustainable and integrated transport.

Stronger state government policy, directed at precise planning actions rather than primarily broad objectives for LUTI, is required in order to guide decision-making that integrates land use and transport planning objectives.

A statutory requirement for all local governments to produce a Local Transport Strategy, similar to Local Transport Plans prepared in the UK.

The showcasing of exemplars of LUTI policy documents in professional workshops.


2. Introduction

This paper is the second in a series of Working Papers reporting on the research

findings for a project The Capacity of State and Local Government to Deliver

Sustainable and Integrated Transport: A case study investigation in Perth and

Melbourne. The purpose of the research is to understand with precision the real

barriers created by the horizontal and vertical governmental relationships. The focus

of the research is on how the principles for land use and transport integration are

reflected in state and local policy documents in Perth and Melbourne. The first

working paper (Curtis and Armstrong 2009) reported on the Perth findings and this

paper analyses policy documents relevant to the Melbourne metropolitan area.

Land use and transport integration' is seen as a means of achieving sustainable

travel outcomes, a message reinforced by the National Charter on Integrated Land

Use and Transport Planning (DOTARS, 2003). In Australia, the state governments

have historically played the major role in the development and management of

transport policy and transport systems. However the importance of state local

government partnerships to enable place-based integration of transport policy is now

recognised. Important roles for local government include establishing community

visions; forming policy; undertaking integrated transport planning; and making

connections to planning and development control (Richardson, 2002).

Globally, the capacity of local and regional governments to implement policy and

invest in integrated land use and transport decisions has emerged as an important

issue for urban transport policy and for urban policy in general (ECMT/OECD, 2003).


However while optimal planning outcomes are well understood in theory, bringing

together the policy tools to make them happen is an ongoing challenge (Kennedy et

al, 2005). In many western European countries and the USA the trend has been to

devolve decision making and resources to the local level, and this is also the case in

Australia. Given this direction it is important to examine the degree to which

integrated land use and transport planning policy is being adopted by local and state

institutions, the influence of any such policy on decision making and the difficulties

encountered in implementation (Breheny et al, 1996). As Condon (2008) illustrates,

there is often a disjunction between high-level strategic plans and implementation.

Banister (2005) identifies six types of barriers to implementation: resource;

institutional and policy; social and cultural; legal; 'side effects' (effects of one action

reduce the outcome of another action); and physical barriers. Reitveld and Stough

(2005) argue that one of the primary barriers to the delivery of sustainable transport

is the institutional barrier. Such barriers can either reduce the potential of delivery, or

make it impossible to achieve (Banister, 2005). Conversely, Kennedy et al (2005)

identify enabling factors to sustainable transport planning as: integrative governance

across transport and land use planning, stable funding, strategic infrastructure

investment and local design. Achieving implementation requires an understanding of

two components the rules and rule structures that guide action (North, 1990) and

the organisations as agents of those rules with particular organisational dynamics

that influencing actions and implementation. An analysis of the institutional barriers

can then provide for an exploration of the interactions between different levels of

public sector policy, and examination of the benefits to be achieved from policies that

reallocate authority from one level of government to the next. By examining how


organisations operate, via an analysis of their policy instruments, it is possible to

begin an evaluation of the impact, in part, on delivery of sustainable transport

outcomes.

One type of institutional barrier arises where there is an inability of one jurisdiction of

government to effect the actions of another (Ubbels and Verhoef, 2005) and it is this

area of research which requires further investigation in Victoria: the ability of state

agencies to effect the delivery of sustainable transport through other state agencies

and through local agencies; and the ability for agencies at each level to influence

each other for more holistic and integrated outcomes. Colebatch (1998) identifies

these two dimensions of policy as vertical integration and horizontal integration.

Vertical integration encompasses the interaction and consistency of policy, enabled

by governance mechanisms, between differing levels of government. The horizontal

dimension on the other hand involves policy integration between sectors within the

same level of government. Differing power relationships are involved with each

dimension, with vertical interactions tending towards authority and conformance,

while horizontal interactions utilise negotiation, co-ordination and bargaining. It is

important to note that several definitions of vertical policy integration are used in

public administration literature such as those that relate to rank and employment

hierarchies within organisations (Matheson 2000). Hierarchical relationships and

power differentials which influence the capacity within various government sectors

and organisations to deliver LUTI outcomes no doubt exist and will be investigated in

follow up research. This research focuses on vertical integration between different

levels of government as expressed through policy.


These issues give rise to the following research questions:

1. What is the current capacity (using statutory and non-statutory powers) of state

and local public agencies to integrate land use and transport planning towards

achieving infrastructure/services for collective and active modes of transport?

2. What is the current capacity of state and local public agencies to integrate land

use and transport planning and manage car-based travel?

3. What are the institutional constraints (rules, finance, structures, cultures etc) to

delivery?

4. How can the capacity be improved?

With these questions in mind our research has three main objectives:

1) To assess, through a content analysis of key state and local government

policy documents, the capacity of the governmental system in Australia to

deliver sustainable and integrated land-use/transport outcomes;

2) To detail the horizontal (interagency) and vertical (intergovernmental

state/local) relationships at bureaucratic level that come into play to restrict

integrated land use/transport outcomes; and

3) To identify how the capacity of the governmental system can be improved.

This paper reports on the findings for objective one for the Melbourne case study.

Prior to presenting the results of the content analysis, a review of government

relationships and government policy is necessary in order to frame the context for

the content analysis results. Whilst the content analysis documented in this working

paper focuses on government policy, as reflected in policy documents, the broader

context of government relationships that affect the drafting and implementation of


policy is also central to this study, and will be the core focus of research undertaken

in Stage 2 of the project.


3. Research Approach

The study is aimed at assessing the capacity of the planning and infrastructure

institutions in the Melbourne Metropolitan Area to deliver sustainable and integrated

land-use/transport outcomes. In this Working Paper we report the findings of the first

stage of our research. We assess the suite of policies and strategies of each local

government, regional government and state government agencies. These policies

and strategies are evaluated against a comprehensive set of land use transport

integration criteria. The aim of this stage of the research is to produce a

comprehensive position statement about the degree to which, and in what way public

institutions aspire to the delivery of sustainable transport, and the extent of that

aspiration.

3.1 Study Area

There are 31 local government areas (LGAs) in the Melbourne metropolitan area.

These are indicated in Figure 1. (nb The Melbourne Statistical Region as defined by

the Australian Bureau of Statistics does not include the rural part of the Yarra

Ranges Shire. The whole of the Shire is included in the Melbourne region for land

use planning purposes.)


Figure 1 Melbourne Local Government Areas (Source: Melbourne Atlas, Reference Maps DSE, 2006)

The LGAs have been classified into three categories, Inner, Middle and Outer (ABS,

2001).

Inner Local Governments City of Melbourne; Yarra; Port Phillip; Stonnington

Middle Local Governments Maribyrnong; Hobsons Bay; Bayside; Maroondah; Moonee Valley; Manningham; Banyule; Glen Eira; Greater Dandenong; Darebin; Kingston; Moreland; Whitehorse; Knox; Boroondara; Monash; Brimbank.

Outer Local Governments Cardinia; Nillumbik; Melton; Wyndham; Frankston; Whittlesea; Mornington Peninsular; Yarra Ranges; Hume; Casey.


3.2 Review of government process and policy relevant to the integration

of land use and transport, and the collation of policy documents

In order to frame the research, a review of government relationships in Victoria and

of the relevant policy documents at the state and local level was undertaken. A wide

range of policy documents that aim to portray the land use and transport policies of

each particular agency were collated from local and state authorities in Melbourne.

This is in line with the focus of stage 1 for this research, upon which this working

paper reports.

Policy includes both the texts that guide direction, as well as the discourse and

actions of the individuals and organisations that manage policy interpretation and

implementation. Policy texts themselves are open to multiple interpretations, and are

influenced by the content and interpretation of other policy texts. Policy interpretation

and emphasis changes with the political climate in which policy is interpreted (Ball,

1993). Policy is not only an output from the political system, but open to interests and

demands articulated from outside the political system (Radaelli, 1995). It is therefore

best viewed as an open ended and interactive process rather than a particular, time

limited outcome, such as that represented in a document. Stage 1 of this research,

reported in this working paper, focuses only on the policy texts that guide direction

and decision making. In Stage 2 of this research, we aim to delve much deeper into

the organisational dynamics and interrelationships that influence policy development

and implementation. As a pre-requisite to the Stage 2 work it is, nevertheless,

important to gain some impression of the way in which policy texts are presented in

published documents, notwithstanding the above discussion. One key reason for so


doing is that these policies represent the front door of the particular agency they

indicate the extent to which there is any capacity for land use transport integration as

conceived in this project.

In 2004, Curtis and James described the relationship between policy and institutions

in land use and transport planning based on the following assumption:

government policy is progressed by institutions towards the desired outcome by virtue of the

approach institutions take to land use transport integration, the use of resources and tools, and

the relationships between the agencies within the institution. The achievement of the desired

outcomes then informs government policy thereby closing the loop. In practice the process is

not linear and can comprise numerous iterations within this loop as each stage informs

previous stages (p278)

The interrelationship between different types of policy in the area of planning is

unique, as a result of the need for clear legal instruments to guide planning and

development decisions; the need for long term strategic visions and frameworks to

guide development; and at times, the need to develop policy in response to particular

developments as they occur. In the Australian system, planning statutes are the legal

instruments by which development decisions are made, however there are also a

plethora of policies of different types that inform interpretation of statutory policy and

therefore decision-making. In Melbourne, the strategic planning policy, Melbourne

2030 (DOI, 2002a), lacks a legal mechanism that links it with the primary statutory

document the Victorian Planning Provision (Stein 2008, 119). This is unlike Perth

where under section 77 of the Planning and Development Act planning schemes

must pay due regard to relevant state planning policies. However, through Ministerial


directives (Minister for Planning 2002) key policy objectives of Melbourne 2030 have

been incorporated into the policies contained in the Victorian Planning Provisions.

Other non-statutory policy have little to no legal weight, but still guide or enable

particular decisions at the local level (Stein, 2008). For example, local governments

are not required by law to formulate transport plans. Yet many local governments

have them in order to communicate to residents and stakeholders strategic transport

visions, guide and stage local government infrastructure provision and provide a

framework to facilitate the local governments advocacy or educational role for

transport objectives. These various statutory and strategic documents and their

weight in matters relating to decision making will be explored in detail in Section 3

and 4 below.

Strategic planning policy in Melbourne, through Melbourne 2030: Planning for

Sustainable Growth (DOI, 2002a), in Perth, through Network City Community

Planning Strategy (WAPC, 2004) and for Australian cities more generally has moved

toward sustainability generally, and land use and transport integration in particular,

as a central element to the creation of sustainable urban form (Bunker and Searle,

2009). Sustainability is also incorporated in the Victorian Planning and Environment

Act (1987), where the first objective listed in Section 4 is to provide for the fair,

orderly, economic and sustainable use and development of land. Implementing land

use and transport integration throughout the urban fabric requires mutually

supportive integration of State and local level policy (Curtis and James 2004). Whilst

policy documents are not enough to ensure this, they do set the framework though

which the many small scale and local decisions required to achieve this can be

made. Planners and decision makers are concerned with the conformance of plans


and decisions with existing governance mechanisms like policy. In an investigation of

this issue in the Victorian context, March (2007, 379) notes that although this is

problematic, as planners tend to equate success with compliance to policy procedure

rather than substantive outcomes, it does highlight the importance of the policy

framework and the need for planners to incorporate knowledge of how this

framework influences practice so that more substantive and collective outcomes can

be sought. The key documents are therefore a central part of analysing the policy

framework for land use and transport integration. A comprehensive analysis of the

horizontal and vertical relationships relevant to the governance of land use and

transport integration is included in the background discussion in Section 3: The

governance of land use and transport integration in the Melbourne Metropolitan

region.

3.3 The Land Use Transport Integration principles

A comprehensive set of land use transport integration (LUTI) principles were

developed to frame policy content analysis. A broad definition of LUTI would include

physical, spatial, behavioural and institutional characteristics. The content analysis

reported in this working paper focuses on the physical and spatial characteristics.

However it is recognised that in order to achieve LUTI all four of the above aspects

must be addressed as they are complementary (see for example Rietveld and

Stough, 2005; Curtis and James, 2004, on behavioural or institutional aspects).

Behavioural and institutional characteristics will be investigated through more

detailed case study analysis in stage 2.


The definition of LUTI must also be placed in the context of sustainability, and

presumes a holistic approach to providing access while reducing the need to travel.

This would mean (in this order):

Adapted from: Potter and Skinner, 2000; Bertolini and le Clerq, 2003.

A key characteristic of this approach is using land use planning as a means of

managing and reducing travel demand. Here the focus is on providing for proximity

of activities using an accessibility planning approach, where the objective is to

maximise the benefits from interactions between land uses and transport modes,

rather than solely a focus on maximising the performance of the transport network

(Curtis and James, 2004).

These core principles that define land use transport integration from a

physical/spatial perspective are shown in Table 1. These have been developed with

reference to the literature, policy documents, and a survey of local experts based in

Perth (see Curtis, 2005 for a fuller explanation).

providing alternatives to travel (home deliveries, telecommunications);

increasing the opportunity to walk or cycle (by providing physical space and continuous networks);

where motorised travel is necessary, providing for easy transfer between modes through both

physical location (and infrastructure), information, timetabling and ticketing;

improving public transport options; and

ensuring more efficient use of cars


Table 1: LUTI criteria.

Access The Network high degree of interconnectedness to urban system (adjacent centres, residential

catchments, transit interchanges) balance of access between through-travel and travel to the place; local and regional

access requirements choice of transport options in close proximity to many homes and facilities - the

possibility of substituting the right mode for the specific trip Activity function (rather than transport function)

highly connected street network focussed on access to centres and transit stops, permeable for people

well designed walkable catchments, high quality pedestrian experience - safe, well lit, trees, shelter

arterial roads have safe pedestrian facilities, on-road cycle lanes Traffic Management lower traffic speeds, moderate traffic volumes, narrower streets (but not at the

expense of conditions for cyclists) effective traffic management pedestrian priority

Service integrated transport - easily accessible by all modes and interchange between these modes to destinations reached on foot; seamless and safe connections, ease of movement

in operational terms timetabling; easy to navigate system, high frequency, reliable, efficient public transport service to many destinations no need for consulting timetables

safe, secure, convenient and comfortable stations, stops and interchanges accessible by people with disabilities, seniors, children, mothers with prams etc. cycle friendly; secure cycle storage; connective networks of adequate capacity good business servicing opportunities

Land Use Land use configuration land use integrated with integrated transport

a robust urban form can adjust to changes in demand for transport and land use greater diversity, vibrant mix of land uses (within precincts and within buildings) high pedestrian trip generating uses at ground floor, housing above in close proximity

of transit stop buildings oriented to station/streets/paths active ground floor uses for surveillance frontage development - human scale

Density/Intensity highest residential density in close proximity to activities (but ensure includes family housing types)

medium to high residential densities Proximity compact cluster of related (compatible) activities (highly visited) in close proximity

(walking distance), clustered around rail station/high frequency bus stop more intensive/ high-medium density office, retail and other commercial uses

(measured by high worker densities) within walking distance of transport facilities Parking car parking areas managed so pedestrian access, amenity and safety not

compromised parking provided in shared structures rather than on individual sites car parking behind buildings not fronting street street parking short term parking but limited commuter parking car-based retailing (drive-thru') and light industry located on periphery of town with

good car access 'People Places' Scale and Design human scale less demand for 70kph scale advertising, more public art opportunities,

sense that cars are not the priority mode integration of character and scale of development within precinct respecting existing development (through retention or sympathetic re-development) diversity of architectural styles legible design - is easily understood for residents and visitors

Amenity high amenity precincts a place you want to go to a destination in its own right community/neighbourly feel mixed ages family friendly good 'people places' public open space, public seating, public art more social encounters due to more walking, cycling, use of public transport busy places


The core principles are grouped into three key components: Access, Land Use, and

People Places. 'Access' principles involve creating a transport network connected to

centres, capable of meeting local and regional travel needs. Many of the daily

activities should be served locally. The network must provide for transport choice

and recognise the way in which journey purposes may have different spatial reach,

thus enabling local trips to be undertaken by walking and cycling, inter-suburban

trips by public transport, and those less frequent trips outside centres and further

afield to be undertaken by car. 'Land Use' principles focus on locating higher

density/intensity uses close to transit, and clustering complementary uses in walking

proximity to each other and to transit. 'People places' focuses on design at the

human scale assuming pedestrian and bicycle priority.

These principles have their roots in both the transport and urban design disciplines.

Westerman (1998) argues that land use location and the transport network must not

be planned independently. In planning the transport network the focus should be on

equal access to places rather than on provision for through-traffic (Schaeffer and

Sclar 1975; Yenken, 1995). Common principles include concentrating development

in locations that have access to public transport; developing mixed use; higher

densities that can support a choice of transport modes; locating complementary

activities closer together; giving priority to public transport; and controlling parking to

encourage public transport use. Through-traffic should be directed away from

'people-places' where streets should be traffic calmed providing space for all modes

in a safe, attractive and convenient manner. There should be a strong sense of place

including street-oriented uses along arterials (Westerman, 1998; Ministry of

Transportation and Ministry of Municipal Affairs, 1995). At the neighbourhood scale


the focus is on a physical environment that encourages walking and cycling.

Appleyard and Lintel (1972), Whyte (1980), Gehl (1987), Tibbalds (2001), Jacobs

(2001) all argue for particular qualities of city space based on designing at a human-

scale reducing distance between buildings, and increasing activity on the street in

order to maximise the opportunity for contact and observation. It is not just the

physical distance that is important but also the quality of the experience: the design

of buildings and orientation to the street and mix of uses to serve daily activity needs.

They argue for replacement of car-dominated city centres by pedestrian-scale street

systems.

3.4 Content Analysis method

Content analysis methodology provides a systematic and quantitative approach to

the analysis of text (Neuendorf, 2005). It involves the use of codes for textual

analysis in order to compile the messages contained in the texts in a condensed

form, enabling an assessment of patterns and trends both within and across

documents (Stemler, 2001). Content analysis is therefore ideal to enable

assessment of the content of policy texts in terms of land use and transport

integration and to assess the degree of horizontal (state level between documents)

and vertical integration (state to local policy) present towards achieving land use and

transport integration.

In the content analysis reported on in this working paper, the patterns and trends

being evaluated are the integration of Land Use and Transport Integration within and


across policy documents relevant to the Melbourne Metropolitan region. Achieving

this involves the development of exhaustive and mutually exclusive categories as a

basis for content analysis (Stemler, 2001). This was carried out by assessing each

document (policy, strategy etc) against a set of core land use transport integration

(LUTI) principles derived from earlier research (Curtis, 1998; 1999; 2005).

The assessment of documents against these core LUTI principles was carried out

using the template shown in Appendix 3. This provided for the recording of particular

policy statements, recording whether these made either a positive or negative

(productive or counter-productive) contribution towards LUTI and the use of a rating

system to broadly indicate how well (or poorly) the policy statement performed in

relation to satisfaction of LUTI criteria. The rating system used a 7 point scale:

3 Strongly satisfies LUTI criterion

2 Satisfies LUTI criterion

1 Weakly satisfies LUTI criterion

0 Ambiguous

-1 Weakly works against LUTI criterion

-2 works against LUTI criterion

-3 Strongly works against LUTI criterion

An example of the content analysis methodology is provided in Appendix 3.


3.5 Selection of documents for content analysis

There are a very wide range of potential policy documents that could be analysed,

but time and resources limit this research. The documents also had to reflect the

sample of documents chosen for Working Paper 1: Perth Policy Position, in order

that a degree of comparison can be made between the two cases. In this respect,

the documents ultimately selected for content analysis were those that are central to

framing planning decision making, either strategically or through statutory

requirements, at the state and local level. The suite of documents analysed includes

statutory documents at both levels of government, such as the Victorian Planning

Provisions (DoPLG 1997) and local planning schemes (the primary statutory

documents that guide the use and development of land). It also includes documents

with a more strategic planning orientation, such as Melbourne 2030: Planning for

Sustainable Growth (DOI, 2002 a) at the state level and local transport strategies,

that are designed to provide an overarching guide the development and

implementation of statutory policy and to set the context for development decisions.

The documents and the relationships between different departments and levels of

government are discussed in detail in section 3 and 4 of this working paper.

The documents from the state and local government level ultimately selected for

analysis were:


The Victorian Planning Provisions

Melbourne 2030: Planning for Sustainable Growth

Melbourne 2030: Implementation Plans

o Growth areas

o Housing

o Activity Centre

o Integrated transport

Linking Melbourne: Metropolitan Transport Plan

Meeting Our Transport Challenges: Connecting Victorian Communities

Local Planning Schemes: Local Planning Policy Framework

Local Transport Strategies- in cases that a LGA had one.

These documents are discussed in more detail in section 4 and full reference details

included in Appendix 2.

The documents were gathered by searching the websites of each of the authority

and then by a follow up phone call to that authority to obtain any further documents

not listed or accessible via the web. All documents analysed were easily accessible

on the websites of LGAs. Document selection and collation occurred in 2008, and

the document analysis therefore reflects the suite of documents that were available

for analysis at this time.


3.6 Data analysis

Following the content analysis, two sets of data were compiled for each document as

follows:

Data set 1 provides a summative indication for each of the LUTI criteria, coded as

follows:

1 Document has content that satisfies the LUTI criterion

2 Document has content that works against the LUTI criterion

3 Document has some content that satisfies the LUTI criterion, and

some data that works against the criterion.

This data set does not consider the relative strength of policy statements in the

document in relation to each LUTI criterion. The purpose of this data set is to get an

overall indication, for each document as to whether there is generally, support, lack

of support, or ambiguity in relation to each LUTI criteria. A summary of the content

analysis for data set 1 is available in Appendix 5 Summary of Melbourne state and

local policy document analysis by positive, negative or mixed reference to LUTI

Criteria

Data set 2 records the highest point achieved on the seven point rating scale (-3

through to +3) used for the content analysis (see content analysis method above) in

each document in relation to each LUTI criteria that is, the best case scenario as

reflected in the document.


The rationale for compiling these two data sets is as follows. Firstly, we wanted an

overall measure of whether or not a document was supportive of each of the LUTI

criteria and to identify where there were mixed or ambiguous messages within a

document in relation to the LUTI criteria. Secondly, we wanted to present a realistic,

but positive overall analysis of each policy document, hence the choice of a data set

that scores each document according to its best rating.

It is important to note that our analysis does not include a count of how many times

each criterion was referenced in each document. In any one document, some criteria

however may have been coded several times, others only once (or not at all). With

more time, this may have been a useful way to also collect data in that it shows the

degree to which a particular LUTI criterion is infused across each document.

Several challenges were noted through the process of the content analysis. In many

cases, the documents analysed were lengthy and the process was therefore time

consuming. There were also observed implications from breaking down a policy

document into separate elements to score. Firstly, a qualitative assessment of the

overall document is not achieved. Secondly, data may become de-contextualised.

For example, a local planning scheme could score +3 for the criterion relating to

medium to high residential densities because one precinct within the scheme

strongly advocates for higher density, whereas the overall picture for the total


scheme area works against higher densities. Finally, the sheer amount of data

generated makes analysis complex.


4. The governance of land use and transport integration in

the Melbourne Metropolitan Region

Land Use Planning

The State Government of Victorias key legislation in land use planning is the

Planning and Environment Act (1987). The Acts purpose is to provide a statutory

framework to guide the development, use and protection of land within Victoria for

current and future Victorians through the administration of planning schemes, which

are the primary instrument of planning control. Planning Schemes are statutory

documents that control the use and development of land within Victoria through

objectives, policies, zones, overlays and general provisions.

The Planning and Environment Act distinguishes between a planning authority,

which creates and amends planning schemes, and a responsible authority, which

administers the scheme and issues development approvals. Most roles of a

responsible authority are delegated to local government (except that the Minister is

the responsible authority for major capital city projects) and much of the day to day

work of the planning authority is also delegated to local government. The Minister for

Planning approves all planning schemes and amendments to planning schemes.

The passing of the Planning and Environment Act (1987) reflected a gradual shift in

the Victorian planning system that had been occurring over the previous thirty years.

This shift was characterised by an increasing focus on environmental and social

values and an emphasis towards state and regional issues, achieved through a


standardised state level policy format (Buxton 2003, 7). This trend was further

reinforced by the introduction of the Victorian Planning Provisions (VPP) in 1996.

The VPP is a statutory document which contains a comprehensive set of

standardised provisions, such as policies, zones and overlays, of which each LGA

may draw upon to contribute to their planning schemes. The rationale of the new

provisions was that planning schemes would become more policy focussed, enabling

wide discretionary powers; simpler and user friendly; and consistent across Victoria,

reducing local variation and conflict (Department of Planning and Environment, n.d.),

The chief aim of the VPP is to enable a consistent format of Planning Schemes

across the State of Victoria by providing a template in which LGA may incorporate

local planning objectives and policies. In doing this, the VPP also aids vertical

integration of State planning policies and principles into the local level by requiring

each scheme include the State Planning Policy Framework (SPFF). Further

information relating to the content of the VPP is discussed below in section 4.

There are 79 planning schemes in Victoria, one for each local government area. The

Melbourne metropolitan area has 31 local government areas and associated

schemes. Section 7(5) of the Planning and Environment (Planning Schemes) Act

1996 requires that planning schemes are to comply with the format as stated by the

Ministerial Direction on the Form and Content of Planning Schemes. This format is

presented in the VPP. Each scheme must have a state and local policy section. The

state policies are contained in the SPPF which appears at the front of each local

planning scheme. The local content in the planning schemes is required to be

consistent with the SPPF and local policies cannot conflict with the SPPF.


The local policy section of each planning scheme is headed by the Municipal

Strategic Statement (MSS) which reflects the Councils broad intentions for land use

in the area. The Planning and Environment Act requires Councils to review their

MSS every three years. The MSS in each municipality's planning scheme is followed

by particular local policies which are tools used to implement the objectives and

strategies of the MSS. The remainder of each planning scheme is a combination of

various zones and overlays, chosen by Council from the VPP suite of standard

zones and overlays, and particular provisions also chosen from the VPP. Zones

generally govern uses of land, while overlays, usually relating to a single issue such

as heritage, govern the type and design of development on the land and have

schedules attached showing how they apply to specific areas within each planning

scheme. Local schemes may also contain a number of incorporated and referenced

documents relating to planning and management of specific areas for instance,

structure plans for activity centres.

Melbourne 2030, a strategic document to guide urban growth in the metropolitan

region, was released as a statement of Victorian state government policy in 2002.

The objectives of the strategy included a more compact city, an urban growth

boundary, building up activity centres around transport nodes and encouraging

development to locate in centres rather than out of centre locations. The strategy,

among other policy directives, nominated about 130 centres around the Melbourne

metropolitan area as areas for future concentration of higher density housing and

commercial activity and showed how they are to be linked over time by a Principal

Public Transport Network (PPTN), which builds on Melbournes fixed radial rail


network and incorporates bus routes as feeders into the network (DOI 2002a). The

release of the Melbourne 2030 strategic document was followed by the release of a

series of draft implementation plans that aimed to facilitate the introduction of the key

objectives of the overall strategy into the planning system. A further report

Melbourne @ 5 Million (DPCD 2008), which provided additional initiatives in support

of the key policy areas of Melbourne 2030, was released in late 2008. The two

documents are intended to be considered together and the policy refinements of

Melbourne @ 5 Million to be later incorporated into the Victoria Planning Provisions

(DoPCD 2008, 2). As this research asks the extent of horizontal and vertical

integration of policy messages this report was not included in the documents

analysed as it was released after the analysis had begun and therefore its policies

were not reflected in the VPP and in local planning schemes at the time of analysis.

Melbourne 2030 is connected to both the statutory document (VPP) at the state level

and local planning schemes and it is necessary to examine this relationship in order

to illustrate the horizontal and vertical relationships of policy documents at the state

and local levels of governments. Stein (2008, 119) notes that there is no statutory

mechanism, such as a statute requiring a local scheme to pay due regard to a

strategic document, that links Melbourne 2030 to the VPP. Despite this the strategic

objectives are incorporated into the statutory framework. For example, following the

release of Melbourne 2030, Ministerial Direction Number 9: Metropolitan Strategy, a

direction from the Minister of Planning to the planning authorities was issued

requiring the objectives of Melbourne 2030 to be incorporated into any planning

scheme amendment. The direction also contained a draft clause that was used to

introduce the overall objectives of Melbourne 2030 into the SPPF. The directions in


Clause 12 of the SPPF give effect to the Melbourne 2030 policy in the state statutory

framework and illustrate how horizontal interaction of policy can occur in the

Victorian planning system. As the SPPF is incorporated into every planning scheme,

the objectives of Melbourne 2030 are evident at the local level in some capacity also

indicating a degree of vertical integration of policy. The content analysis in section 5

will determine the extent of that capacity.

Another significant piece of legislation is the Victorian Civil and Administrative

Tribunal Act (1998) which established the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal

(VCAT). The VCAT is able to independently review decisions made by responsible

authorities in administering their planning schemes and has enforcement powers for

matters set out in the Planning and Environment Act. Victorian planning is

influenced by third party appeals in a way not seen in other states. Third parties,

meaning parties other than the appellant and the respondent, have a broader

capacity to seek review of development approvals and the VCAT examines cases de

novo meaning that the appeal is considered afresh, without reference to prior

considerations.

Transport governance and policy

The governance of Victorias transport system is unique in Australia and it is

necessary to provide a brief description in order to set the context for the research.

Victorias move towards a fully privatised public transport system was completed in

1999 when, following public buses in the mid 1990s, trams and trains were

privatised. Mees (2005) explains that Victorias model of privatisation was influenced

by Britains franchise model which saw the strategic aspect of the system remain in


government hands, while the tactical and operational aspects be determined by a

bidding process to determine privately operated franchisees. The strategic aspect

involves establishing modal targets and budget allocation; the tactical aspect deals

with routes, frequencies, timetabling and determined infrastructure needs; and the

operational aspect involves the day-to-day functioning of the system including staff

management and maintenance. This splitting of responsibilities amongst private and

public organisations has major implications for the capacity of policy to deliver

integrated land use and transport objectives and also for public agencies to

horizontally integrate policy messages across differing departments, organisations

and amongst stakeholders.

The state agency, the Department of Transport, is the central agency responsible for

the management of the overall public transport network. The co-ordination and

monitoring of bus, tram and train services are undertaken by the Public Transport

Division, or Office of Director of Public Transport, within the Department of

Transport. The Planning and Environment Act (1987) now requires that major land

use developments be referred to the Director of Public Transport to consider the

potential implications for integration into the public transport network. Planning

schemes were amended in 2006 to include the Director of Public Transport as a

referral authority with the power to impose conditions and refuse planning permits.

In December 2008, the state government released a new transport strategy, the

Victorian Transport Plan (DOT 2008). This strategy however is not included in the

analysis as it was released after the research had begun and it is considered is too

soon for its policy message to be incorporated in other statutory and strategic


documents, at both levels of government. The main relevant state government level

transport policy that has an impact on land use and transport integration is Meeting

Our Transport Challenges: Connecting Victorian Communities (DOI 2006), which

was released in 2006. The transport strategy, as well as defining broad strategic

directions, included a ten year expenditure program including spending on arterial

roads, an extended orbital bus network linking activity centres, and extended outer

urban bus services. The strategy built upon the initiatives of an earlier strategy

released in 2004, Linking Melbourne: Metropolitan Transport Plan. Linking

Melbourne and Meeting Our Transport Challenges are primarily investment

strategies and statements of intent and have no statutory significance. Both plans

were included in the analysis as their policies have potential to be integrated into

other documents considered.

The governance of transport policy in the Melbourne metropolitan area is therefore

influenced by a number of separate organisations over the period in which policy

was analysed. The major state and private organisations of the differing modes and

their responsibilities are:

Department of Transport (DOT) (previously Department of Infrastructure) is

enabled by the Transport Act (1983) to coordinate the delivery and

management of public transport, road and port networks across Victoria. The

department provides support to the Minister for Public Transport and the

Mister for Roads and Ports; oversees the delivery of public transport services

including the franchising process; delivers infrastructure; and develops

strategies for infrastructure and service provision.


Trains: The original franchise agreements in 1999 were with Bayside Trains

and Hillside trains, although Connex became the sole franchisee in 2004.

After Connexs contract expired in 2009, Metrotrains Melbourne, under the

name Metro, now operates and maintains the train services under a contract

agreement with the state government.

Trams: Keolis Downer EDI, under the name Yarra Trams, operates and

maintains the train services under a contract agreement with the state

government. The original franchise agreements were with Swanston Trams

and Yarra Trams, with Yarra Trams becoming the sole franchisee in 2004.

Buses: Melbournes bus system is provided by several private operators who

are contracted by the state government.

VicRoads is a statutory corporation under the responsibility of the Minister for

Roads and Ports that, as well as being responsible for the delivery of road

based public transport projects, also manages the primary and secondary

road network in Victoria. VicRoads is enabled by the Transport Act (1983),

Road Safety Act (1986) and the Road Management Act (2004), to manage

the arterial road network, maintain road safety standards and register

vehicles. VicRoads also has statutory power as a referral authority for many

projects.

Metlink is a private, not-for-profit organisation owned by Metrotrains and Yarra

Trams with input from the state government and bus operators, and is

responsible for marketing and customer service aspects of public transport

services.


Public Transport Ombudsman is a statutory body established to act on

complaints against the public transport operators. This does not include ticket

inspectors though, who are covered by the powers of the Victorian

Ombudsmen.

Transport Ticketing Authority is the state body with the responsibility of

introductions and management of the new transport ticketing system.

Other organisations

There are also several other government groups and initiatives and regional, council

and community groups that lobby for and plan for improved land use and transport

integration. Some of these are as follows:

VicUrban is the state land development agency whose powers are

established in the Victorian Urban Development Authority Act 2003. The agency

works in collaboration with private and government bodies to carry out urban

development and a key role of the agency is to assist in the implementation of

the objectives of Melbourne 2030.

The Urban Development Program is a state government initiative that

provides information of the development and availability of residential and

industrial land, in line with the objectives of Melbourne 2030.

Land use planning for metropolitan development is supported by place-based

planning and capital works programs like the Transit Cities program. Transit

Cities is a Victorian government initiative managed by the Department of

Planning and Community Development in collaboration with the Depart of

Transport, Department of Innovation, Industry and Regional Development,


VicUrban and local governments of the transit cities. Its objective is to

establish transit oriented development demonstration projects and it aims to

build upon the development of activity centres as a major absorber of growth

pressures, one of the central policy directions of Melbourne 2030. This State

Government program allocates money for the detailed planning of and some

capital works in several activity centres in the Melbourne metropolitan region.

The Priority Development Panel is an advisory group established under

section 151 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. It is a non-decision

making group comprised of experts in planning and related fields and its main

role is to provide independent advice to the Minister for Planning. The Priority

Development Panel is established by the Minister for Planning to advise on

developments that are of regional or state significance; key strategic sites; or

of developments of a large and complex scale.

The Municipal Association of Victoria (MVA) is a statutory body incorporated

by an Act of State Parliament, the Municipal Association Act 1907. It seeks to

monitor issues relevant to and protect the rights of local government.

The Growth Area Authority is a statutory body with a role of facilitating and

coordinating the development of the five growth areas in the outer Melbourne

metropolitan area as identified by Melbourne 2030- Casey-Cardinia, Hume,

Melton-Caroline Springs, Whittlesea and Wyndham.

The Melbourne Transport Forum (MTF) is an advocacy group comprised of

representatives from 19 local governments, the state government, the private

sector and environmental groups. The forum seeks to undertake research,


disseminate information, develop policy and advocate for efficient and

equitable transport system in Melbourne.

The Eastern Transport Coalition is a collection of representatives from local

governments in eastern Melbourne that advocate for sustainable transport.

The members include: City of Greater Dandenong; City of Knox; City of

Manningham; City of Maroondah; City of Monash; City of Whitehorse; and the

Shire of Yarra Ranges.

Inner Melbourne Action Plan (IMAP) A collaboration between the councils of

Melbourne, Port Phillip, Stonnington and Yarra, promoting the sustainable

growth and prosperity, including transport issues, of the inner region.

The Committee for Melbourne: The Committee for Melbourne was formed in

1985 by members of the private sector, government and representatives of

the community. It is a non-profit network of stakeholders advocating the

development of Melbourne as a liveable and prosperous city. In 2004 the

committee established Melbourne's Transport Taskforce which was made up

of representatives from the private sector, state and local government and

universities and promotes and advocates for an integrated and multi-modal