This is the author’s version of a work that was submitted/accepted for pub- lication in the following source: Miller, Evonne & Kennedy, Rosemary J. (2012) Public realm and transport, international best practice case studies and opportunities for Brisbane. Centre for Subtropical Design, Brisbane Qld. This file was downloaded from: https://eprints.qut.edu.au/53756/ c Copyright 2012 Queensland Univeristy of Technology Notice: Changes introduced as a result of publishing processes such as copy-editing and formatting may not be reflected in this document. For a definitive version of this work, please refer to the published source:
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
This is the author’s version of a work that was submitted/accepted for pub-lication in the following source:
Miller, Evonne & Kennedy, Rosemary J.(2012)Public realm and transport, international best practice case studies andopportunities for Brisbane.Centre for Subtropical Design, Brisbane Qld.
This file was downloaded from: https://eprints.qut.edu.au/53756/
Notice: Changes introduced as a result of publishing processes such ascopy-editing and formatting may not be reflected in this document. For adefinitive version of this work, please refer to the published source:
International best practice case studies and opportunities for
Brisbane
February 2012
Associate Professor Evonne Miller
Rosemary Kennedy
Centre for Subtropical Design
Queensland University of Technology
2
Contents
Contents ............................................................................................................................................... 2 List of Figures ................................................................................................................................................ 3 List of Tables .................................................................................................................................................. 3
Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 4 PUBLIC DOMAIN ................................................................................................................................ 6
Landscape ....................................................................................................................................................... 9 Case Study: ‘City in a Garden’ (Singapore) ................................................................................... 9
Public Art ...................................................................................................................................................... 14 Case Study: Urban Art Initiative (New York) ........................................................................... 15 Case Study: Docklands Integrated Urban Art / Art Walk (Melbourne) ......................... 15 Case Study: The Ponds Estate (Sydney) ..................................................................................... 16
Streetscape .................................................................................................................................................. 18 Case Study: World Class Streets initiative (New York) ........................................................ 18 Case Study: Great Streets - Pavement to Parks (San Francisco)....................................... 21
Views and Vistas ........................................................................................................................................ 23 Case Study: The High Line (New York) ....................................................................................... 23
River Integration ....................................................................................................................................... 25 Case study: River Revitalization (Los Angeles) ....................................................................... 25 Case study: Stream restoration and stormwater management (Oslo) .......................... 26
Urban Space ......................................................................................................................................28 Case study: CheongGyeCheon (CGC) River, Seoul .................................................................. 28 Case Study: Insurgent public space and guerrilla urbanism .............................................. 29
Connectivity ......................................................................................................................................31 Case study: Madrid Rio Project (Spain) ...................................................................................... 31
TRANSPORT DOMAIN ....................................................................................................................33 Pedestrians .................................................................................................................................................. 34
Case study: Pedestrian Priority Program (Buenos Aires) ................................................... 34 Case study: Inner-urban higher density (Brisbane) .............................................................. 35
Cyclists........................................................................................................................................................... 37 Case study: PRESTO project (Europe) ......................................................................................... 38
Public Transport ....................................................................................................................................... 40 Case study: Carpooling (Europe) ................................................................................................... 40 Case Study: Travel-Mode choices, inner-urban higher-density (Brisbane) ................ 41 Case Study: Older Inner-Urban and Suburban Residents (Brisbane) ............................ 43
Traffic ............................................................................................................................................................. 45 Case study: Auckland CBD (New Zealand) ................................................................................ 46 Case study: Congestion charge (London) ................................................................................... 47
Parking .......................................................................................................................................................... 49 Case study: Heifer International Green Parking Lot (Arkansas) ...................................... 49 Case Study: Park at Post Office Square (Boston) .................................................................... 50
References.........................................................................................................................................52 Appendix A ........................................................................................................................................57
3
List of Figures Figure 1: The Place Program - the Project for Public Places (Metropolitan Planning Council 2008, p16)................. 7
Figure 2: Power of 10 Example, Applied to Chicago (Metropolitan Planning Council 2008, p10) ............................. 8
Figure 3: Orchard Central Mall - green roof, walls, colourful sculpture art ............................................................... 10
Figure 4: Orchard Central Mall - green roof, walls, colourful sculpture art ............................................................... 11
Figure 5: Park Connectors – recreation areas (National Parks 2011; Ministry of Finance 2008) ............................ 12
Figure 6: Singapore, open access bus stop and Orchard Road corner (R.Kennedy) .............................................. 12
Figure 7: Sydney art, Melboure Graffitti wall in urban laneway and Santos Place public laneway .......................... 14
Figure 8: NYC Urban Art Program Track - Barrier Beautification............................................................................. 15
Figure 9: Docklands Public Art Walk & John Kelley’s “cow up a tree” (VicUrban 2010) .......................................... 16
Figure 10: Float, 2008 by Susan Milne and Greg Stonehouse (Hall 2009, p.26) .................................................... 17
Figure 11: Manhattan's 9th Avenue (before & after), David Byrne bicycle rack, request a bench ........................... 19
Figure 12: NYC Plaza Program - Pavement to Parks .............................................................................................. 20
Figure 13: Parklets - San Francisco Great Streets Project ...................................................................................... 20
Figure 14: The New York Highline (Hamm 2010; Ivan Baan 2009) ......................................................................... 24
Figure 15: Masterplan projection of the river revitalisation project (City of Los Angeles 2011) ............................... 26
Figure 16: Alna river restoration, storm water management & natural river bed...................................................... 27
Figure 17: CheongGyeCheon river restoration (Susita 2011) .................................................................................. 28
Figure 18: Madrid Rio urban design foot bridges, river regeneration (west8 2011) ................................................. 31
Figure 19: Pedestrian Priority Program (Lostri 2011)............................................................................................... 34
Figure 23: Older Brisbane resident’s mobility patterns – car versus public transport (Buys et al., 2012) ................ 44
Figure 24: The Shared Zone & Accessible Routes (Karndacharuk et al., 2011) ..................................................... 47
Figure 25: Map of Congestion Charging Zone (Transport for London 2009) ........................................................... 48
Figure 26: Heifer International design development ................................................................................................ 49
Figure 27: Post Office Square Section Elevation and Plantings .............................................................................. 51
List of Tables Table 1: Public domain - categories, case studies and region ................................................................................... 6
Table 2: Transport domain - category, case studies and region .............................................................................. 33
Table 3: Inner-urban Brisbane resident’s mode of travel to work, life and leisure locations (n=636) ....................... 42
Table 4: Inner-Urban Brisbane Resident‘s Transport Choices and Concepts of Convenience (n=24) .................... 43
Table 5: Case study category relationship map ......................................................................................................... 5
4
Introduction Internationally, and within Australia, there is an increasing realisation that high
quality public realm – defined as publicly accessible non home and work ‘third
spaces’ such as greenspace and other non-park public spaces including buildings,
streets, corners, pavements, bikeways and squares (Oldenburg, 2001) – is an essential
element of a prosperous, sustainable and liveable city. Indeed, Micallef (2010) argues
that “great cities are judged by the quality of their public realm”.
However, creating and maintaining successful public realm places where “people
want to live, work, play and invest” (CABE Space, 2004) – is a long-term multi-
faceted process requiring collaborative partnerships and active participation from a
wide array of government, industry and community stakeholders. Successful public
realm planning, design and creation involves in-depth and innovative consideration of
a wide array of interconnected factors – including local site conditions, climate,
historical and cultural characteristics, budgets constraints, long-term strategic
priorities and vision, as well as government, industry and user needs and expectations.
For Brisbane, the fast-growing growing capital city in Australia, understanding how
best to support and create public realm spaces within an already densely developed
City Centre is an urgent priority. The South-East Queensland Regional Plan 2009-
2031 predicts very significant population growth: currently, there are over 700,000
workers, one million residents and five million visitors each year, with predicted
increases of 43% in residents, 60% in employment and 60% in visitors. Managing this
rapid growth presents multiple challenges and opportunities, with three defining
characteristics informing the shape Brisbane’s future public realm spaces: it is a river
city, with a subtropical climate (high rainfall, warm weather and humidity) and a
positive, forward-thinking new “World City” mentality (Brisbane City Council,
2011). Fortunately, a growing body of national and international best practice’ help
provide innovative inspiration of how to (re)design the public realm in a modern city
centre.
In this review, we highlight some key learnings and recommendations from
innovative projects across the globe to inform public realm design and help facilitate
active transport in subtropical Brisbane. Traditionally, Australian cities have been
have been based on northern European models. We must look beyond that paradigm
5
to redefine and re-conceptualise our city in a different way, one that values our unique
local identity and climate. In re-designing Brisbane’s public realm, therefore, our
responses must celebrate our unique identity and outdoor lifestyle yet also address the
subtropical climatic reality. This period of rapid urban and climate change offers an
opportunity to prioritise and integrate design features that provide shade and shelter
from sun and summer rain, open and permeable urban environments that facilitate
cooling air movement, and connections to water and nature, so that the urban built
form co-exists within an inviting, functional and memorable natural landscape.
To inform this transformation, this review provides insight into international
experiences and best practices. To date, although there is much practice-based
knowledge, academic studies outlining learnings and recommendations from case
studies (especially in a subtropical context) remain rare. Thus, a range of sources
(industry reports, websites, journal articles and books) have been utilised, with the
table below highlighting how these case studies frequently overlap and illustrate
multiple aspects of the public realm.
Case study category relationship map
Case study
Public Domain Transport Domain
REV
IEW
ED
Lan
dsc
ap
e
Pu
bli
c Art
Stre
etsc
ap
e
Vie
ws
& V
ista
s
Riv
er
Con
nec
tivi
ty
Urb
an
Sp
ace
Ped
estr
ian
s
Cycl
ists
Pu
bli
c Tra
nsp
ort
Tra
ffic
Park
ing
Garden City Urban Art Initiative Docklands The Ponds Work Class Streets Initiative Great Streets - Pavement to Parks The High Line River revitalisation CheongGyeCheon River Stream restoration & storm water management Insurgent public space and guerrilla urbanism Madrid Rio project Pedestrian Priority Program Inner-urban higher density PRESTO program City-wide bicycle commuting program Car pooling Travel-Mode choices in inner-urban HD Older Inner-Urban and Suburban Brisbane Residents Auckland CBD Congestion Charge Heifer International Green Parking Lot Park at Post Office Square
6
PUBLIC DOMAIN
Public domain covers 7 primary categories; these – and the example case studies - are
listed in the table below.
Table 1: Public domain - categories, case studies and region
Category Focus Case study Region
Landscape Vertical landscapes, elevated
gardens, heritage reuse
City in a Garden
Singapore
Public Art Facilitates civic pride, a sense
of ownership, place, and
community identity
Urban Art Initiative
Docklands
The Ponds
New York
Melbourne
Sydney
Streetscape Provide connection, light,
access, recreation and
democratic and symbolic
space. Streetscapes are human
interaction
World Class Streets
Great Streets -
Pavement to Parks
New York
San Francisco
Views & Vistas Views, greenspace,
connectivity, place
The Highline New York
River Integration Emphasises river accessibility
and recreation
River Revitalization
Stream restoration and
management
Los Angeles
Oslo
Urban space Subtropical context if possible Cheonggyecheon
Regeneration
Insurgent public space
& guerrilla urbanism
Seoul
Connectivity Improves design quality,
amenity, legibility and
connectivity to transport
Madrid Rio Spain
As discretionary places, public domain spaces thrive only if people chose to utilise
them and thus give the area vibrancy and ‘buzz’ (Carmona, Heath, Oc & Tiesdell
2010). Fortunately, a wide range of guidelines and theoretical frameworks exist to
guide practice. Perhaps the most well-known framework is the United States based
non-profit planning, design and educational organisation ‘Project for Public Spaces’
approach (Metropolitan Planning Council 2008). The PPS provides an online database
of resources, tools and projects that highlight the value of place-making as a
transformative agenda and the importance of creating and maintaining public spaces.
7
The PPS Place Diagram (see Figure 1) is a tool, which helps people judge any place
and comprises of four key attributes, with both tangible (in blue) and intangible (in
green) characteristics.
– Access & Linkage (visual and physical connections to surroundings)
– Uses & Activities (something to do gives people reasons to visit and return)
Native trees and vegetation are substituted for chemically dependent green lawn and
dominate the parking area, with the organisation supporting alternative transport and
commuting by subsiding public transport, an on-site bike rack and an internal
commuting program (six premium parking spots set aside for carpooling or hybrid
vehicles). For its response to issues of land use and site ecology, it was awarded a Top
Ten Green Projects in America 2007 award by the American Institute of Architects’
Committee on the Environment. The total initial cost was US2.5 million, with annual
operating costs of US$47,850 (see Appendix A or Industrial Economics (2007) for
specific comparisons of conventional and the green Heifer parking lot costs).
Case Study: Park at Post Office Square (Boston)
The slogan at Boston's Post Office Square is "Park above, park below", with a 1.7-
acre park (Norman B. Leventhal Park) sitting atop an underground parking garage.
Fees from the garage repay capital costs and ongoing maintenance, meaning the park
is supported, structurally and financially, by the 1,400-space parking garage. This site
transformed an ordinary city block into one of financial, aesthetic and community
success, with the park/garage design receiving more than 20 planning and architecture
awards. Located in the heart of Boston’s financial district, in an environment of few
vacant sites for the addition of green spaces and surrounded by high rise buildings, the
project replaced an existing deteriorating multi-level car park. It was developed by a
public-private partnership, lead by an active non-profit consortium of local businesses
“Friends of Post Office Square”. The deep excavation, extra supports needed for soil
51
and difficulties acquiring the site meant the garage was one of the most expensive
ever built, at approximately US$34,000 per space.
Figure 27: Post Office Square Section Elevation and Plantings
Placing the park above the car park (Figure 27) successfully encourages and
prioritises pedestrian access, while still accommodating vehicular parking. The open
green space “provides a landmark for orientation and allows surrounding buildings to
be seen”, and through careful selection of trees, bushes, and flowers provides “a
garden for all seasons” with varying colour each month (e.g., red maple leaves in
October, red holly berries in January snows; Friends of Post Office Square 2008). The
park also respects and reflects the surrounding buildings, history and environment, by
incorporating local art, replicating and mimicking details of nearby structures, and a
sculptural water fountain for summer fun. Since the project’s completion, many
surrounding residences and businesses have adapted to incorporate the park, usually
through the inclusion of direct access to the public facility.
The designers attribute the success of the park to “strong leadership, building
coalitions between downtown and neighbourhood interests, inclusion of
representatives of a broad spectrum of interests in the planning process, use of
volunteer advisory boards for technical as well as design issues, visiting and learning
from other similar projects, careful programming and articulation of design
requirements, structuring a competition to select a design team rather than design,
careful attention to detail, and excellent management of the project after completion”
(The Bruner Foundation 2006). Brisbane can learn from both these case studies,
which highlight innovative ways in which the sustainability, functionality and visual
appeal of parking spaces can be enhanced.
52
References
Introduction
Brisbane City Council, 2011. Draft Brisbane access and inclusion plan 2012-2017: Achieving universal inclusion of people with disability in the life of Australia's new world city, Brisbane City Council,, Brisbane, <www.brisbane.qld.gov.au>.
CABE space, 2004. Manifesto for better public spaces, <http://www.westmidlandsparksforum.co.uk/documents/CABESpacemanifesto.pdf>.
Micallef, S., 2010. 'Toronto's ever changing skylines', in N Dunton and H Malkin (eds), A Guidebook to contemporary architecture in Toronto, Douglas & McIntyre, Vancouver, pp. 175-184.
Oldenburg, R., 2001. Celebrating the third place: inspiring stories about the "Great Good Places" at the heart of our communities, Marlowe & Company, New York.
PUBLIC DOMAIN
Carmona, M., Heath, T., Oc, T. and Tiesdell, S., 2010. Theoretical framework: Attributes of successful places, Second edn, Taylor & Francis, Oxford.
Metropolitan Planning Council, 2008. A Guide to Neighborhood Placemaking in Chicago, by Project for Public Spaces (PPS), Placemaking Chicago, <http://www.placemakingchicago.com/cmsfiles/placemaking_guide.pdf>.
Landscape Kiang, C.H. and Liang, L.B., 2009. New Asian Public Space: Layered Singapore. Urban Design International
14, pp. 231-246. Kennedy, R., 2005. Response to the Brisbane City Centre Draft Master Plan, Centre for Subtropical Design,
Brisbane.
Kennedy, R., Hockings, J. and Webster-Mannison, M., 2005. Principles of subtropical design for detached houses, The Centre for Subtropical Design, Brisbane.
Kennedy, R., 2010. Subtropical Design in South East Queensland: A Handbook for Planners, Developers and Decision-Makers, QUT, Brisbane.
Kolesnikov-Jessop, S., 2011. 'An Urban Jungle for the 21st Century', The New York Times, <http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/29/business/global/an-urban-jungle-for-the-21st-century.html?pagewanted=all>.
Ministry of Finance 2008. Ministry of National Development (MND), Government of Singapore,, <http://www.mof.gov.sg/budget_2008/expenditure_overview/mnd.html>.
National Parks 2011. Our Garden City, Singapore Government, <http://www.nparks.gov.sg>.
Russell, J.S., 2009. 'Arts Ban in Stimulus Bill is Stupid Economics', Bloomberg, <http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aq.l988k3gOI>.
Public Art
Becker, J., 2004. 'Public Art: An Essential Component of Creating Communities', Americans for the Arts, <http://artsusa.org/pdf/networks/pan/becker_communities.pdf>.
Carver, S., 2009. 'Melbourne Living', City Lights, <http://www.citylightsprojects.com/press/citylights>.
City of Sydney 2003. Tide of tides, NSW Government, <http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/cityart/detail.aspx?id=SOM202SC>.
Dowling, J., 2011. 'Lack of 'soul' has Docklands tenant ready to leave', The Age 28/9/2011, <http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/lack-of-soul-has-docklands-tenant-ready-to-leave-20110927-1kvgz.html>.
Hall, D., 2009. Planning, Public Art and the Making of Community - the Ponds [online]. Art Monthly Australia, 220, pp. 26-29.
Kubler, A., 2007. Fifteen years of Urban Art Projects, QUT Art Museum, Brisbane.
Moulis, A. and Thomson, S. 2012. Santos Place by Donovan Hill, Architecture AU, <http://architectureau.com/articles/santos-place/#img=0>.
Todd, K., 2009. Public Art: A Case Study at Nundah Community Health Centre, Queensland. Australasian
53
Medical Journal 1, pp. 115-120.
VicUrban, 2010. Docklands Public Art Walk, VicUrban, Melbourne, <http://www.docklands.com/cs/Satellite?c=VPage&cid=1182927626493&pagename=VicUrban%2FLayout&site=Docklands>.
Victoria Government, 2011. 'A new civic hub unveiled for Docklands ', Media Release, <http://premier.vic.gov.au/media-centre/media-releases/2771-a-new-civic-hub-unveiled-for-docklands-.html>.
Streetscape
Brisbane City Council, 2006. Brisbane City Centre Master Plan 2006: A vision for the future of our city's centre, Brisbane.
Brkovic, M.B. and Milakovic, M., 2011. Planning and designing urban places in response to climate and local culture: A case study of Mussafah district in Abu Dhabi. SPATIUM International Review 25, pp. 14-22.
Lee, L., 2009. 'Planting in the streets: San Francisco turns underused roads into public parks', The Architect's Newspaper, <http://archpaper.com/news/articles.asp?id=3813>.
New York City Department of Transportation 2012. Pedestrians & Sidewalks: Urban Art, The City of New York, <http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/sidewalks/urbanart_prgm.shtml>.
San Francisco Streets, 2011. Parklet Impact Study San Fancisco Great Streets project, San Francisco.
Views & Vistas
Amateau, A., 2010. 'High Line rolls up numbers; Vistors top 2 million mark', The Villager, vol. 79, no. 44, <http://www.thevillager.com/villager_362/highline.html>.
David, J. and Hammond, R., 2011. High Line: The inside story of New York City's park in the sky, Farrar, Straus & Giroux.
Foderaro, L.W., 2011. 'Record $20 Million Gift to Help Finish the High Line Park', The New York Times, <http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/27/nyregion/20-million-gift-to-high-line-park.html>.
Friends of the High Line 2010. High Line, Friends of the High Line, <http://www.thehighline.org/>.
Hamm, H., 2010. High Line (Chelsea), Blogspot.com, Sunday June 27, 2010, Blog,
<http://languageandplaceshighline.blogspot.com/>.
River Integration
Atelier Dreiseitl 2004. Stream restoration combined with a stormwater management demonstration park, www.dreiseitl.de, <http://www.dreiseitl.de/index.php?id=526&lang=en&choice=22&ansicht=text>.
ASLA, '2009 Professional Awards: Los Angeles River Revitalization Master Plan', ASLA, <http://www.asla.org/2009awards/064.html>.
ASLA, 2010. Interview with Mia Lehrer on Revitalizing Communities, ASLA.org, <http://dirt.asla.org/2010/04/15/interview-with-mia-lehrer-on-revitalizing-communities/>.
City of Los Angeles 2011. Los Angeles River Facts, lariver.org, <http://www.lariver.org/>.
Kashef, M., 2008. Reclaiming Urban Riverfronts: Creative Urban Design Intervention. Journal of Creative Work 2, pp. 1-3.
Hymon, S., 2007. 'L.A. will take its river to a new level', Los Angeles Times, February 2, 2007, <http://articles.latimes.com/2007/feb/02/local/me-riverplan2>.
Noh, S.H., 2006. 'Chenggyecheon Restoration In Seoul', paper presented to Minato Water Meeting, Tokyo, Japan.
Revkin, A.C., 2009. 'Peeling Back Pavement to Expose Watery Havens', The New York Times, <http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/17/world/asia/17daylight.html>.
Connectivity
Brisbane City Council, 2006. Brisbane City Centre Master Plan 2006: A vision for the future of our city's centre, Brisbane.
EDAW 2012. Manchester city centre regeneration, rudi.net, <http://www.rudi.net/node/17478>.
Transport Policy Unit, 2010. Transport Strategy for Manchester City Centre, by MCC, Manchester City
54
Council.
Urban space Chen, C., 2010. 'Dancing in the Streets of Beijing: Impoverished Users within the Urban System', in J Hou
(ed.), Insurgent Public Space: Gurrilla Urbanism and the Remaking of Contemporary Cities, 1st edn,
Routledge, London, pp. 21-35.
esmadrid 2012. Parks and Leisure Centres: Madrid Rio, esMADRID.com, <http://www.esmadrid.com/en/madridrio>.
Hou, J., 2010. Insurgent Public Space: Guerrilla Urbanism and the Remaking of Contemporary Cities,
Routledge, London Rojas, J., 2010. 'Latino Urbanism in Los: A Model for Urban Improvisation and Reinvention', in J Hou (ed.),
Insurgent Public Space: Guerrilla Urbanism and the Remaking of Contemporary Cities, Routledge,
London.
Department of Infrastructure and Transport: Major Cities Unit, 2011. Creating places for people an urban design protocol for Australian cities, by Australian Government, Australian Government,, <www.urbandesign.gov.au>.
DoIaTMC Unit, 2011. Creating places for people an urban design protocol for Australian cities, by Australian Government, Australian Government,, <www.urbandesign.gov.au>.
Ercan, M.A., 2010. 'Less public than before? Public space improvement in Newcastle city centre', in A Madanipour (ed.), Whose Public Space? (e-book), Routledge, Oxon, pp. 21-50.
Kimmelman, M., 2011. 'In Madrid’s Heart, Park Blooms Where a Freeway Once Blighted', The New York Times, vol. Art & Design, viewed 25 January 2011, <http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/27/arts/design/in-madrid-even-maybe-the-bronx-parks-replace-freeways.html?pagewanted=all>.
Madanipour, A. (ed.) 2010. Whose Public Space?: International Case Studies in Urban Design and Development, Routledge.
Metropolitan Planning Council, 2008. A Guide to Neighborhood Placemaking in Chicago, by Project for Public Spaces (PPS), Placemaking Chicago, <http://www.placemakingchicago.com/cmsfiles/placemaking_guide.pdf>.
The Center for Design Excellence 2011. Elements of Urban Design, Urban Design, <http://www.urbandesign.org/elements.html>.
Thompson, C.W. and Travlou, P., 2007. Open space: people place, Taylor & Francis, New York.
West8 2011. Madrid Rio, west8.nl, <http://west8.nl/projects/madrid_rio/>.
TRANSPORT DOMAIN
ABS, 2008. Australian Social Trends: Public Transport Use for Work and Study, by ABS, Australian Bureau of Statistics, <http://abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]/Lookup/4102.0Chapter10102008>.
Dixon, K.K., Liebler, M., Zhu, H., Hunter, M.P. and Mattox, B., 2008. Safe and Aesthetic Design of Urban Roadside Treatments, NCHRP, Washington.
Pedestrians
Buys, L. and Miller, E., 2011. Conceptualising convenience: Transportation practices and perceptions of inner-urban high density residents in Brisbane, Australia. Transport Policy 18, pp. 289-297.
Department for Planning and Community Development (DPCD), 2009. Croydon Pedestrian Priority Plan, by David Lock Associates and Traffix Group, Maroondah City Council.
Lostri, H., 2011. 'To put pedestrian first in the heart of Buenos Aires. Pedestrian Priority in the Central Area', paper presented to The International Conference on Walking and Liveable Communities, Vancouver, 3-5 October.
Cyclists
AGMA, 2006. Greater Manchester Local Transport Plan 2 (LTP2): Accessibility Strategy, Manchester.
Infrastructure Australia, 2009. Cycling infrastructure for Australian Cities: background paper, by Australian government, Infrastructure Australia.
55
Murphy, E. and Usher, J., 2011. 'An analysis of the role of bicycle-sharing in a European city: The case of Dublin, Ireland', paper presented to ITRN2011, Cork.
R Urbanczyk, B Fenton and D Dufour, 2011. Presto: Promoting cycling for everyone as a daily transport mode, by European Union, Intelligent Energy Europe, <www.presto-cycling.eu>.
Public Transport
Brereton, M., Roe, P., Foth, M., Bunker, J. and Buys, L., 2009. 'Designing Participation in Agile Ridesharing with Mobile Social Software', paper presented to OZCHI 2009 Proceedings: Design: Open 24/7, Melbourne.
Buys, L. and Miller, E., 2011. Conceptualising convenience: Transportation practices and perceptions of inner-urban high density residents in Brisbane, Australia. Transport Policy 18, pp. 289-297.
Buys, L. and Miller, E., 2012. Residential satisfaction in inner urban higher-density Brisbane, Australia: role of dwelling design, neighbourhood and neighbours. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management pp. 1-20.
Buys, L., Snow, S., van Megen, K. and Miller, E., in press. Transportation behaviours of older adults: An investigation into car dependency in urban Australia. Australasian Journal on Ageing pp. 1-7.
DeGruyter, C., 2006. 'Investigating a CBD-wide carpooling scheme for Melbourne', paper presented to 29th Australasian Transport Research Forum, Gold Coast.
NRMA Insurance Limited and Clean Air 2000 Project Team, 1996. Shaping Sydney's transport - a framework for reform : discussion paper, City Planning NSW, Sydney.
Therese, S., Buys, L., Bell, L. and Miller, E., 2010. The role of land use and psychosocial factors in high density residents' work travel mode choices: Implications for sustainable transport policy. World Review of Intermodal Transportation Research 3, pp. 46-72.
Transport - Roads & Maritime Services 2011. Car pooling, NSW Government, <http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/usingroads/traveldemandmanagement/carpooling.html>.
Traffic
BTRE, 2007. Estimating urban traffic and congestion cost trends for Australian cities, Working Paper No.71, Department of Transport and Regional Services,, Canberra, <http://www.btre.gov.au/publications/56/Files/wp71.pdf>.
CABE, 2007. This way to better streets: 10 case studies on improving street design, London, <http://www.designcouncil.org.uk/Documents/Documents/Publications/CABE/this-way-to-better-streets.pdf>.
Chamorro-Koc, M., Miller, E. and Smith, P., 2010. The complexity of urban public transport and technologies: User’s reflections, Queensland University of Technology: School of Design, Brisbane.
Karndacharuk, A., WIlson, D. and Tse, M., 2011. 'Shared Space Performance Evaluation: Quantitative Analysis of Pre-Implementation Dat', paper presented to IPENZ Transportation Group Conference, Auckland, March.
Transport for London 2009. Congestion Charge Zone, Transport for London, <http://www.tfl.gov.uk/>.
Transport for London 2010. Benefits, Transport for London, <http://www.tfl.gov.uk/roadusers/congestioncharging/6723.aspx>.
Parking
Friends of Post Office Square 2008. Norman B. Leventhal Park, Friends of Post Office Square,
Industrial Economics, 2007. Green Parking Lot Case Study: Heifer International, Inc., US Environmental Protection Agency,, <http://www.epa.gov/region6/6sf/pdffiles/heiferparkingstudy.pdf>.
Lee, L., 2009. 'Planting in the streets: San Francisco turns underused roads into public parks', The Architect's Newspaper, <http://archpaper.com/news/articles.asp?id=3813>.
Power, A. 2009. Pavement to parks, San Franscico Planning Department, viewed 26 January 2012, <http://sfpavementtoparks.sfplanning.org/index.htm>.
Roth, M., 2009. 'Finding unused pavement for parks and plazas in Lower Potrero', SF.STREETSBLOG.ORG,