“Minister Chris Steel’s belief that Canberra is a 15-minute city is not a good omen. It is a simplistic concept. A cursory look at travel data demonstrates this is wildly inaccurate,” writes former planner MIKE QUIRK.

Chris Steel, as transport and planning minister, can improve the quality of life of Canberrans. 

His record, highlighted by the reduction in bus services, prioritising light rail over extending bus services and a failure to act on employment location, suggests minimal improvement is likely. 

His belief that Canberra is a 15-minute city is not a good omen. It is a simplistic concept where work, shopping, education, healthcare, community services and leisure can be easily reached by a short walk, bike or public transit ride from any point in the city. 

A cursory look at travel data demonstrates this is wildly inaccurate. 

People routinely travel further to access employment and services requiring larger catchments such as hospitals, tertiary education and specialist retailing and services found at the town centres, Fyshwick and Majura Park. 

This flawed perception underlies an incomplete policy response. Reducing car dependence and the development of a more sustainable city is far more complex than providing additional houses in and near centres, infrastructure and green spaces. 

His use of the term is a deception similar to that he displayed when portraying the transport choice as between light rail and the car, ignoring bus-based solutions. 

If Mr Steel wants to develop a more sustainable city, he should analyse the operation of Canberra’s centres hierarchy. 

The hierarchy is Civic, serving as the prime centre for commercial, entertainment and facilities and services requiring a metropolitan catchment; town centres providing residents of the new towns with employment, retailing, community and entertainment services and facilities; local centres to meet the day-to-day convenience needs of the community; and group centres, serving a “group” of neighbourhoods to primarily meet the weekly grocery shopping and business needs of the community. 

The compromise between competing objectives

It represents a compromise between the often competing objectives of facilitating competition to achieve lowest possible prices; ensuring facilities are convenient and easily assessed; meeting the needs of the disadvantaged; reducing travel and infrastructure costs; providing safe, attractive and comfortable centres. 

It has been modified from time to time to respond to change generated by factors including the increased workforce participation of women, increased car ownership, greater affluence, the advent of big-box retailing at Fyshwick and Majura Park, an increased demand for higher-density housing in and adjacent centres and increased size of supermarkets at town and group centres.

Town centres have increasingly become the locations of services including cinemas, higher-density housing and, with the exception of Gungahlin, continued to be locations for major office development (albeit at levels less than desirable). 

Group centre policies were adjusted to facilitate additional residential and services space in response to the contraction of functions that had previously been supported such as banks, libraries and health centres. 

Local centres have experienced a decrease in their share of retail and services space and an increase in vacant space. 

In 1988, 60 of the 61 local centres had a supermarket. By 2011, 24 of the 79 local centres did not have a supermarket with the proportion of local centres without a supermarket varying from 7 per cent in central Canberra to 44 per cent in Belconnen. 

The decline disproportionately affects those with low mobility including the frail aged, people without cars, with disabilities and those on low income. 

Initiatives to improve the viability of local centres have included programs to upgrade paving, street-lighting, signage and street furniture; the widening of lease-purpose clauses and the land uses permissible and the introduction of policies permitting higher-density housing close to centres. 

Some local centres have closed while others (eg Scullin, Aranda and Carleton Street, Kambah) are being revitalised by the opening of new activities including cafes and restaurants attracting customers from a wider area. 

A recent response, Variation 381, increased the maximum size of supermarkets to 1500 square metres. This will increase the attractiveness of some centres (eg Giralang) but will attract expenditure away from other centres and could exacerbate the decline of those centres.

The hierarchy, if it is to optimise the integration of land use and transport, needs to be responsive to trends influencing household and commercial decisions. 

Assessments required include: 

(a) The extent of how increased working from home will result in the conversion of office space to other uses, a reduction in commuting and additional spending at group and local centres. 

(b) The scope to increase office employment at town centres given the impact of office location on travel demand. 

(c) The impact of changing demography and decreased housing affordability on housing demand and choice by location. 

(d) Infrastructure costs by location. 

(e) Whether the light rail extension should be cancelled given the reduction in peak-hour capacity required and improvements in bus technology. A cancellation would free-up funds for the improvement of bus services, cycling and walking infrastructure, a strategy that could be more effective in reducing car dependency by promoting healthy and sustainable living through increasing the ease of reaching desired destinations

If decisions surrounding light rail are a guide, the needed assessments are unlikely to be undertaken by the analysis-light Barr-Rattenbury government.

Mike Quirk is a former NCDC and ACT government planner.