Connecting neighbourhoods: The 20 minute city. Bus and Coach Industry Policy paper 4

Full text

Connecting Neighbourhoods:
The 20 minute city
Bus and Coach Industry
Policy Paper 4
MOVING PEOPLE
Solutions for Policy Thinkers
Policy Paper 4
BUS INDUSTRY CONFEDERATION
PO Box 6171, KINGSTON ACT 2604
Tel: +61 2 6247 5990
Fax: +61 2 6273 1035
Email: enquiries@bic.asn.au
Web: www.ozebus.com.au

Policy Paper 4
Connecting Neighbourhoods:
The 20 minute city
MOVING PEOPLE
Solutions for Policy Thinkers
Copyright 2015 Bus Industry Confederation Inc.
First Published March 2015.
This work is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted
under the Copyright Act 1968, no part may be reproduced
by any process without prior written permission from the Bus
Industry Confederation. Requests and enquiries concerning
reproduction and rights should be addressed to the BIC
National Secretariat, PO Box 6171,KINGSTON ACT 2604.
Email: enquiries@bic.asn.au.
Authors:
Adjunct Professor John Stanley, Institute of Transport and
Logistics Studies, Business School, University of Sydney
Dr Janet Stanley Social Policy Adviser, Stanley & Co
Stephen Davis, Industry Development and Planning Manager, BusVic
Other policy papers are available from
this Policy Set of six publications.
Please contact:
BUS INDUSTRY CONFEDERATION
PO Box 6171, KINGSTON ACT 2604
Tel: +61 2 6247 5990
FAX: +61 2 6273 1035
EMAIL: enquiries@bic.asn.au
WEB: www.ozebus.com.au

Moving People > Solutions for Policy Thinkers  Policy Paper 4 1
Foreword
This research policy paper is part of a series of six publications
aimed at decision and policy makers, academics and students.
This Policy Series focuses on land transport, land use, integrated
planning and urban development challenges in Australia.
The Policy Series has been developed by the Bus Industry
Confederation (BIC) of Australia and the Institute of Transport
and Logistics Studies - Sydney University, and addresses
specic subject matters and issues raised in the BIC’s previous
reports: “Moving People - Solutions for a Growing Australia”
and “Moving People - Solutions for a Liveable Australia.”
Both publications are available at www.ozebus.com.au.

Moving People > Solutions for Policy Thinkers  Policy Paper 4
2
Contents
Foreword 1
Executive Summary 3
1. Context 6
2. The importance of ‘local’ 8
2.1 Spatial concepts 8
2.2 The role and value of mobility 8
3 Built form 11
3.1 The Five Ds 11
3.2 Built form and walking 12
Why is walkability important? 12
Some Melbourne Evidence 13
Implications 14
3.3 Densities and public transport use 14
3.4 A look at Melbourne’s growth areas 15
4. Public transport service requirements 17
4.1 Broad setting 17
4.2 Improvements to grow local public transport use 18
4.3 Minimum service levels 18
5. Low patronage services 19
5.1 Densities and minimum service levels 19
5.2 Improving public transport service efciency in low volume settings 20
Smaller buses 20
Demand responsive/exible services 20
6. Conclusions 23
Appendix 1
Visual Representation of
Connecting Neighbourhoods:
The 20 Minute City Possible Governance Framework 24
References 27
Figures
Figure 1: The most critical factors to achieve social inclusion and wellbeing 9
Figure 2: Benets of route bus services attributable to social inclusion* 15
Figure 3: Journey to work in Melbourne by area (percent share, excluding car). 17
Figure 4: Jobs per 1000 population across Melbourne, 2011. 20
Figure 5: ConnectU patronage 21
Tables
Table 1: Walkability, sense of community and social capital: some Victorian survey data (2008) 13

Moving People > Solutions for Policy Thinkers  Policy Paper 4 3
Executive Summary
Scope
The BIC Policy Paper 2 challenged Australia’s capital city
land use and transport planners to target zero growth in
vehicle kilometres of travel, as a key performance indicator of
progress towards sustainable cities. It looked at some of the
regional scale transport/built environment issues that need
to be tackled in moving to more sustainable Australian cities.
The present paper complements this by exploring ‘local’.
The paper looks at the idea of a ‘20 minute city’, a concept
raised (but little developed) in Plan Melbourne, the city’s
recent long term land use/transport plan. A ‘20 minute
city’ is one in which most people are able to undertake
most activities needed for a good life within a 20 minute
walk, cycle or public transport trip from where they live.
Transport is a very important lever for taking action to
achieve a metropolitan area that consists of a series of
smaller 20 minute cities, each of which might comprise one
or more neighbourhoods. The paper focuses mainly on the
roles of density, supportive public transport requirements
and walking in achievement of the 20 minute city. It is
very early days in thinking about the 20 minute city in
an Australian setting. The BIC encourages all interested
stakeholders to contribute ideas to progress thinking.
The 20 minute city
The paper refers to ’20 minute city’, ‘communities’ and
‘neighbourhoods’. It views neighbourhood as a local
area, personally dened as where the resident has a
sense of belonging. A community can, but need not,
overlap with neighbourhood. It can refer to a group of
people in an area or to a shared community of interest to
which a person belongs. A 20 minute city refers to a larger
area than a neighbourhood, perhaps an area with a ve
kilometre radius, as dened by a 20 minute public transport
or bike trip and with a potential population catchment
of about 200,000+ people. This area will encompass
a number of communities and neighbourhoods.
The 20 minute city needs to offer most of the services,
activities and social infrastructure to meet essential
needs: social inclusion, personal wellbeing, mental
health and social equity; a sense of place and
belonging; participation and choice; the ability to
successfully adapt to external challenges; and the
provision of some local employment opportunities.
The ability to be mobile and to access friends, employment
and activities is a requirement to achieve most needs. A 20
minute city therefore requires both a range of local activities
and also requires local mobility choices, particularly safe
walking/cycling opportunities and an adequate service
level on local public transport. These can be best provided
where urban densities are planned for this purpose.
A neighbourhood structure embedded in a 20 minute
city, with good local and regional transport
choices, is likely to promote many positive
outcomes in terms of personal and societal
wellbeing, enhance liveability (which
is already a strong international
brand for our cities), as well as
being cost effective to service
and supportive of increased
economic productivity. Flow-
on effects will include lower
trafc congestion levels,
improved health outcomes,
lower accident costs,
reduced emissions
(greenhouse gases and
air pollutants) and greater
social inclusion.
1 West Line Corridor Collaborative, 2013, “Sheridan Station,
20-Minute Neighbourhood Implementation Strategy”, http://
www.westlinecorridor.org/20MinuteNeighborhood/
J
O
B
S
H
E
A
L
T
H
Y
L
I
V
I
N
G
H
O
U
S
I
N
G
C
O
M
M
U
N
I
T
Y
D
E
C
I
S
I
O
N
-
M
A
K
I
N
G
P
L
A
C
E
S
A
N
D
A
C
T
I
V
I
T
I
E
S
C
O
N
N
E
C
T
I
V
I
T
Y
&
M
O
B
I
L
I
T
Y
20 minute city:
Thinking design
I
m
a
g
e
a
d
a
p
t
e
d
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
S
h
e
r
i
d
a
n
S
t
a
t
i
o
n
2
0
M
i
n
u
t
e
N
e
i
g
h
b
o
u
r
h
o
o
d
I
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
y
1

Moving People > Solutions for Policy Thinkers  Policy Paper 4
4
Built form
Discussion about connections between travel and the
built environment usually focuses on the ve ‘Ds’ of built
form (density, diversity of land uses, design, destination
accessibility and distance to public transport) in terms of
how they impact on car travel distances (vehicle kilometres
of travel, or vkt). Individually these ‘D’ factors have only
small impacts on vkt but the combined effect of a number
of measures can be signicantly large, particularly when
regional scale and local measures are combined.
Policy packaging, therefore, needs to play a central role
in the land use/transport space to deliver an increased
likelihood of achieving a series of 20 minute cities. These
policy packages need to encompass from regional to
neighbourhood level considerations, underlining the vital
importance of taking integrated approaches across land
use and transport, including both top down (regional)
and bottom up (neighbourhood) perspectives.
The prospects for achievement of a city that comprises
a series of 20 minute cities will be enhanced if there is:
• a high proportion of metropolitan, regional and sub-
regional activities and services concentrated in high
to medium density mixed-use nodes/corridors
• fast and reliable trunk public transport connectivity
between these centres (nodes) and along trunk
feeder corridors, with good connections to the
various neighbourhoods
• a wide range of activities available for people to
undertake in their local neighbourhood/20 minute
city
• a range of options for easy, safe and convenient
movement around that neighbourhood/20 minute
city on foot, by bicycle or on public transport
(mainly local bus) and for connecting to trunk public
transport corridors (mainly rail or bus) and regional
cycle-ways.
PT service requirements to
support the 20 minute city
Supportive densities are fundamental to achievement
of a city as a series of 20 minute cities. But this is not
enough. Densities need to be complemented by high
quality local mobility opportunities that are available to
all, implying the availability of high quality public and
active transport (walk and cycle) choices. Public transport
performs mass transit and local transit roles. Mass transit
is mainly about getting in and out of your neighbourhood
and/or 20 minute city; local transit is mainly about
getting around your neighbourhood/20 minute city.
To provide local public transport service in support of the
20 minute city in the middle and outer suburban parts of
Australia’s largest cities, where the greatest urban needs
exist with respect to achieving a 20 minute city, local
bus services will be the prime focus. The aim should be
to provide a service level that enables most people to
do most of the things they want to do, most of the time,
without needing a car, subject to meeting a minimum
boarding rate benchmark (5-6 boardings/service hour).
This is likely to require a 30 minute minimum local service
frequency on local services for about 15-18 hours a day,
with increased peak frequencies if loadings sufce.
These local services need to complement trunk services
operating at the same, or higher, frequencies and over
direct routes, with a synchronised timetable. This mass
transit/local transit combination will give people the
certainty that they can achieve their trip purpose(s)
without long waits, when they need or wish to travel.
It will also reduce the need for car ownership.
Walking and public transport
Planning neighbourhoods and regional centres for
walkability and public transport use go hand-in-hand,
supporting higher densities and the 20 minute city. A
number of steps can be taken to promote walkability, in
the context of developing a 20 minute city, such as:
• provide a full range of uses within nodes (having
regard to node size), including medium to high
density residential, institutional (e.g., hospitals,
community facilities), entertainment, ofces,
educational facilities, personal services, social
services, recreational facilities, retail, faith-based
uses
• focussing on urban intensication to meet target
density levels that are public transport supportive,
because of the connection between public transport
use and walking
• create an alternative set of development standards
and processes for transit-supportive development.
This might include density/height bonusing
opportunities and fast approval processes
• boundaries for medium to high density nodes should
be based around at least 90% of people being
within a 5-10 minute walk (400-800m) from a PT
focal point (distance depending on PT frequency).
Similar distances should dene boundaries of
medium to high density PT corridors
• provide good quality walking and cycling
infrastructure to PT, creating additional street or
pedestrian connections if needed to keep walk/
cycling distances and safety acceptable. Such
access planning should be within a complete streets
or smart streets framework.
Cycling is also an important contributor to the 20 minute
city but is less so than public transport and walking,
which have been the focus of the current paper.

Moving People > Solutions for Policy Thinkers  Policy Paper 4 5
Target densities and public
transport
The BIC Policy Paper No. 2 pointed out that 35-40 residents
plus jobs per hectare has been suggested as a threshold
for effective public transport provision, supporting a 30
minute frequency across an extended span of hours.
That paper showed that there are substantial parts of
Australia’s capital cities that fall short of this density
level. Pursuing development strategies that accelerate
achievement of this density benchmark should be a priority.
It is arguable, however, that public transport service
frequencies of 20 minutes are more consistent with
the idea of a 20 minute city. Lifting density targets
from ~35-40 to ~50 residents plus jobs per hectare
would support an improved public transport service
frequency (a bus every 20-30 minutes, based on Ontario
experience). Many middle suburban areas already meet
this density benchmark and other parts are close. An
accelerated urban inll program would support more
widespread achievement of the 20 minute city.
Growth area minimum density targets would need to be lifted
if a target at this level were to be adopted. For Melbourne,
for example it would probably require minimum densities to
be increased by about 3 dwellings/ha. There are a number
of ‘sustainable city’ reasons to pursue such a higher target
and it would enhance achievement of the 20 minute city.
In outer growth suburbs, development on multiple fronts
slows achievement of target densities over large contiguous
areas. It also results in lagged provision of infrastructure
and services, including local public transport. Land release
needs to be managed in a way that supports earlier
achievement of these density levels. This will mean that a
wider range of infrastructure and services are available to
residents earlier in their occupancy. This eases pressure on
household budgets for residents who have lower household
incomes, promoting social inclusion and enhanced
wellbeing. It will also reduce the need for car ownership
and lower the associated external costs of car use.
Increasing densities will take time, particularly in new
growth suburbs. In the meantime, what public transport
service levels should be provided in lower density areas?
The minimum proposed service levels should be in place as
soon as feasible, to reduce the requirement for households
to acquire multiple cars. A minimum boarding rate of about
5-6 passengers per service hour is sufcient to economically
justify a bus service in outer suburbs (and regional towns/
cities). If a 30 minute minimum frequency service fails to
meet this benchmark boarding rate, options include going to
an hourly frequency. This is a bare bones minimum service
level and would be undesirable unless complemented with
some additional service opportunities. A Warrnambool
(Victoria) trial, partly supported by the Bus Industry
Confederation, is providing some good ideas in this regard.
Warrnambool is trialling a new social enterprise approach
to ‘public transport’ (ConnectU), which is proving effective
in providing public transport to people who do not have
a service, including meeting the needs of some people
who are largely unable to use existing public transport. It
extends the local availability of public transport services
by making use of currently underutilised assets (e.g.,
community buses and cars owned by service providers,
local government and other agencies) and volunteers
as drivers, providing the user a little extra assistance
if needed. Patronage is growing very strongly.
The ConnectU model is cost-effective and should
be tested for extension to service provision in low
volume outer urban settings, as a complement to, not
replacement for, the route bus service. The ultimate
operating goal should be ‘total transport’, with service
integration across a full range of opportunities. This
goal is in line with new approaches recently proposed
by the UK House of Commons Transport Committee.

Moving People > Solutions for Policy Thinkers  Policy Paper 4
6
1. Context
The BIC Policy Paper 2 challenged Australia’s capital city
land use and transport planners to target zero growth in
vehicle kilometres of travel, as a key performance indicator of
progress towards sustainable cities (Stanley 2014). Greater
Vancouver (>2.4m population in 2014) has been a pioneer
in setting such an ambitious target, aiming to almost double
its city-wide combined mode share for walking, cycling and
public transport (PT) to 50% by 2040 (from 27% in 2011)
and reduce trip lengths by 30% to meet the target (Translink
2013). Within the smaller City of Vancouver (>600,000
population in 2014), the target is for at least 2/3 trips to be
by walk, cycle and/or PT by 2040 (40% in 2008), with motor
vehicle volumes to decline slightly (City of Vancouver 2012).
The connections between travel and the built environment
(Ewing and Cervero 2010) mean that delivering zero (or
low) growth in vehicle kilometres of travel (vkt) places high
demands on both transport policy/plans and on policy/
plans for the built environment to be mutually supportive.
Urban transport and land use planning have traditionally
been treated as ‘top-down’ activities, which start by
identifying some loosely dened high level economic, social
and environmental outcome goals for the greater urban
area. The dominance of major transport infrastructure in
city shaping, however, is such that it is crucial for the land
use/transport planning process to rst decide on a clear
vision of desired future land use and then use transport to
help deliver that result (Cervero 2014). All too frequently in
Australian capital cities ‘big transport projects’ have taken
on political lives of their own and urban land use/transport
integration becomes lost in the mire, as these projects are
imposed on land use. An incapacity to establish, and then
stick with, bipartisan integrated long term land use/transport
strategies is one outcome. Governance arrangements
must tackle this problem in Australian cities (Sussex 2014),
an area on which the BIC has made representations at a
national level. Appendix 1 provides an example of a possible
governance framework, including policies, strategies,
programs and investment ideas, developed by the BIC.
The BIC Policy Paper 2 looked at some of the regional
scale transport/built environment issues that need to be
tackled in moving to more sustainable Australian cities.
The present paper complements this by looking ‘local’.
Most people live most of their daily lives locally, not city
wide. Their wellbeing is therefore at least as much tied
up in how well their local neighbourhood functions as it
is in how well the wider city functions. This issue is well
understood in much social literature and research (see for
example, University of Western Sydney 2014) but has not
impacted much on Australian strategic land use/transport
policy and planning. City and neighbourhood are both
important but one, the neighbourhood, has rarely been
part of the international and Australian urban land use/
transport policy and planning conversation. New York
City has been a notable international exception, with its
recent planning focus at street/place level (NYSSP 2008)
and a history that includes the vibrancy of Jane Jacobs’
discussions of life in Greenwich Village (Jacobs 1961).
This relative neglect of the neighbourhood level in urban
land use/transport planning is starting to change. The
North American focus on Smart Growth (see, for example,
US EPA 2013) and on Creating Complete Communities
(see, for example, Ohland and Brooks 2013 for the US and
GVRD (1996) and Metro Vancouver (2011) for Canada) is
a good example of the growing interest in neighbourhood,
integrated with regional and national level policy settings
and partnerships. Ohland and Brooks describe the aim of
creating complete communities as to build communities
where people can live, work, move and thrive.
Building on work by Florida (2002) and others, Ohland and
Brooks (2013) highlight how structural economic change
is resulting in growth of knowledge-based/creative jobs,
where lifestyle is a key locational determinant. Compact
inner urban areas, characterised by Leinberger (2009) as
‘walkable urbanism’, are increasingly providing the magnets
that attract talent, especially the millennial offspring of the
baby boomer generation (Leinberger and Alonzo 2012;
Speck 2012). Public transport, walking and cycling are
the travel modes of increasing choice in these settings.
Williams (2014) has commented on similar structural
inuences in Sydney, as did the Ministerial Advisory
Committee that worked on Plan Melbourne (MAC 2012).
Demographics are reinforcing the effect of structural
economic shifts on urban development patterns, with
a rapidly growing and aging population, an increasing
number of single person and single parent households
and increasing demand for affordable, accessible and
more diverse housing. This is leading, in turn, to a need
for innovation in housing styles and nancial models,
and associated planning arrangements (e.g., to increase
supply of accessible affordable housing, including medium
density family housing in inner/middle suburbs). Educational
facilities, medical and other services, open space (including
the role of the street), add to the built environmental
inputs required for creating complete communities,
where strong social capital and sense of community are
expected outcomes when this planning is done well, in turn
promoting wellbeing (see for example, Farrell et al. 2004).
The growing UK localism agenda is a further expression
of the shift in the urban planning focus towards the
neighbourhood. Localism is viewed as a means of better
meeting needs by viewing people holistically, rather than
as clients for a transaction, and resolving local needs
rather than offering a standardised service designed by
people too far removed to hold the requisite knowledge to
resolve the issues of local concern. Localism is effective
because it seeks to resolve issues and achieve outcomes,
while at the same time building personal and community
capacities, rather than dependency. Local cooperation and
integration of services between government, business, the
third sector and the community also offers efciencies,
while at the same time developing leadership, local
ownership and the opportunity to have greater exibility and
innovation in approach (Breeze et al. 2013; Blond 2010).
In Australia, Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth have
been leaders in drawing attention to the importance of
neighbourhoods in urban land use/transport planning.
In Melbourne, this was primarily through the work of the
Ministerial Advisory Committee appointed to advise the
State Minister for Planning on the city’s new long term
land use/transport strategy (MAC 2012)2. A demonstration
of the level of interest in neighbourhoods for urban and
transport planning was provided by the 2012-13 consultation
process for that plan. Of all the ideas discussed during the
2 John Stanley was a member of the MAC; Janet Stanley was a contributing
author for the Plan.

Moving People > Solutions for Policy Thinkers  Policy Paper 4 7
consultation process that was run by the MAC, the idea that
created most interest was that of the 20 minute city. This was
explained as a city in which most people would be able to
undertake most activities needed for a good life within a 20
minute walk, cycle or public transport trip from where they
lived. This idea had strong resonance with a wide range of
stakeholders, many of whom queried exactly what it meant
and how it might be delivered in their locality. The subsequent
Plan Melbourne (State Government Victoria 2014) includes
a chapter on liveable communities and neighbourhoods,
which is unusual for long term city-wide strategies. Anthony
Albanese, Federal Shadow Minister for Cities, has taken up
the idea, modied somewhat to a ‘30 minute city’ (perhaps
with an inclination to under promise and over deliver).
This paper looks at the idea of the 20 minute city, as an
expression of neighbourhood, in more detail than was
presented in the Plan Melbourne work. Transport is a very
important lever for taking action to achieve a city that
consists of a series of smaller 20 minute cities, each of which
might comprise one or more neighbourhoods. The paper
focuses mainly on supportive public transport requirements in
this regard but also looks in some detail at the role of walking.
Walking is an area of growing policy interest internationally,
is inextricably linked to public transport use and is closely
associated with the idea of neighbourhoods (and ‘walkable
urbanism’) and with health. Cities like Vancouver, for
example, increasingly talk about public transport, walking
and cycling mode shares in common. The paper also looks
at urban densities that are likely to support more widespread
achievement of a series of 20 minute cities and also briey
introduces some of the wider policy agenda items that
will be needed to deliver successful 20 minute cities.
Section 2 offers some background thinking on what a
20 minute city might encompass. It explores the idea of
neighbourhoods and explains why they are important. This
leads to a Section 3 discussion of the role of built form
and, in particular, the part that density plays in providing
the foundations for an effective 20 minute city. Section
4 discusses public transport service standards that are
likely to support achievement of a 20 minute city and ways
that patronage can be increased on local public transport
services, which are essentially bus services. It also discusses
active transport (particularly walking) as an important element
of neighbourhood accessibility. The low densities that exist
across Australian capital cities contributes to lower public
transport boardings per service kilometre than in higher
density locations and poses the question of the best way
to provide ‘public transport’ in relatively low patronage
settings. This is an important discussion in Section 5, which
includes ideas for taking a more integrated approach to local
‘public transport’ and broadening the conception of public
transport. Section 6 presents the paper’s conclusions.

Moving People > Solutions for Policy Thinkers  Policy Paper 4
8
2. The importance of ‘local’
2.1 Spatial concepts
The paper refers to ’20 minute city’, ‘communities’ and
‘neighbourhoods’. While there are no set denitions for
these terms, this paper views neighbourhood as a local area,
largely personally dened as where the resident has a sense
of belonging. A community can, but may not, overlap with
neighbourhood. It can refer to a group of people in an area or
to a shared community of interest to which a person belongs.
A 20 minute city refers to a larger area than a neighbourhood,
perhaps an area with a ve kilometre radius, as dened by
a 20 minute public transport or bike trip. This area is likely
to encompass a few communities and neighbourhoods.
Neighbourhoods are key building blocks to achieve a
well-functioning city (Jacobs 1961). A well-functioning
city facilitates wellbeing and is able to meet challenges
and change through strong communities. Strong
communities arise from well-resourced and well-
functioning neighbourhoods. Such neighbourhoods
will be good for people, the environment and
economic participation (Stanley et al. 2014).
The 20 minute city needs to offer most of the services,
activities and social infrastructure to meet essential needs:
social inclusion, personal wellbeing, mental health and
social equity; a sense of place and belonging; participation
and choice; the ability to successfully adapt to external
challenges; and the provision of some local employment
opportunities. The ability to be mobile and to access friends,
employment and activities is a requirement to achieve most
of these needs. In line with this thinking, Ohland and Brooks
(2013, p. 3) describe the elements they see are needed to
turn neighbourhoods in to ‘complete communities’ as:
... a quality education, access to good jobs, an
affordable roof over our heads, access to affordable
healthy food and health services, the ability to
enjoy artistic, spiritual and cultural amenities,
access to recreation and parks, meaningful
civic engagement, and affordable transportation
choices that get us where we need to go.
A 20 minute city requires a range of local activities and it
requires local mobility choices, particularly safe walking/
cycling opportunities and an adequate service level
on local public transport (discussed in more detail in
section 4). In many ways this is going back to the future,
since cities were necessarily organised in this way for
the 5,000+ years they existed prior to the widespread
use of the motor car. The City of Vancouver, within the
Greater Vancouver region, has pursued this approach
for some time (City of Vancouver 2012, p. 18):
Much of Vancouver is built around the idea of
being able to live, work, play and shop in the
same neighbourhood, which allows people to
easily walk or cycle for most trips , and to take
transit when they need to travel a little further.
That city has learnt from research by Zahavi (1979) and
Marchetti (1994) on travel time budgets, and Duranton and
Taylor (2011) on the trafc-generating effects of additional
road capacity, how major new road capacity additions
pose risks to the idea of the compact city. The absence
of freeways in Vancouver stands in marked contrast to
Australian cities, yet liveability is very competitive.
As our cities grow, good mobility opportunities and
availabilities of local services and infrastructure can be best
provided where urban densities are planned for this purpose,
in an integrated land use/transport setting, thereby also
reducing infrastructure costs and trip lengths (see Section 3).
2.2 The role and value of
mobility
Urban land use/transport strategies commonly seek to pursue
triple bottom line economic, social and environmental goals,
as elaborated in the BIC’s Policy Paper 2 (Stanley 2014). With
respect to the social inclusion element of this set of goals, a
major Victorian study supported by BusVic examined which
factors are important in facilitating a person to achieve social
inclusion and wellbeing (Stanley et al. 2011). Risk of social
exclusion was measured using the following dimensions:
• household income
• employment status
• political activity in 12 months prior to interview
• social support available
• participation in community events in the month prior
to the interview.
Modelling revealed (Figure 1) that ‘adequate’ levels of
household income, trip making (mobility) and social
capital are all important for social inclusion; having an
extrovert personality also helps. Social inclusion, in turn,
is important for promoting personal wellbeing, as is
attachment to community, environmental mastery (being
able to manage personal space), good relationships with
others and self-acceptance. A person is also more likely
to achieve higher levels of wellbeing as they age.

Moving People > Solutions for Policy Thinkers  Policy Paper 4 9
Figure 1: The most critical factors to achieve social inclusion and wellbeing
Risk of social exclusion/social inclusion Personal wellbeing
Social capital
(networks)
Extraversion
Trips
Age Sense of Community
Household income Environmental mastery
Positive relations with others
Self-acceptance
Source: Based on Stanley et al. (2011)
Being socially included promotes wellbeing and this
opens other opportunities for people, such as increasing
the likelihood of nding employment. Trips both directly
full the need for inclusion and wellbeing, as well as
promoting need fullment achieved as a result of the
access to resources that travel can foster (Vella-Brodrick
and Stanley 2013). The provision of a 20 minute city, which
includes good quality public transport and active transport
opportunities, should be particularly benecial for people
at risk of social exclusion and with low levels of wellbeing.
This model shown in Figure 1 could be extended to explain
how some of the drivers of social inclusion and wellbeing
might be achieved using the opportunities made available
through the ability to be mobile. Thus, for example, without
the ability to be mobile, it will be more difcult to obtain an
education to gain the skills for work, to build social capital
and connection to community, and thus achieve social
inclusion and wellbeing. Transport has subsequently been
shown as important for achieving other tools needed to
maintain and build wellbeing. Vella-Brodrick and Stanley
(2013) showed that mobility enhances mental health through
enabling satisfaction of inherent psychological needs known
to be important for mental health: environmental mastery,
positive relations with others and self-acceptance. The
fullment of these needs is vital to many other positive
outcomes for individuals, such as improved health, vitality
and motivation, as well as decreased anxiety (Deci and Ryan,
2000). Apart from the economic costs, Wilkinson and Pickett
(2009) show that inequality, or having areas of disadvantage,
reduces the wellbeing of all people in that society.
The results of an evaluation of a transport project called
ConnectU, discussed in more detail in Section 5.2, also
show that there are small but important improvements in
attachment to community and the wellbeing of customers,
particularly in relation to an improvement in personal rating
of a purposeful and meaningful life, after they became a
ConnectU passenger. These improvements are small but
present, even though many of the passengers only took
a small number of trips with ConnectU. This nding is
important because it is often difcult for policy makers to
initiate policy that increases a sense of community (Farrell
et al. 2004). This research shows that, even if no new
community initiatives are undertaken, merely facilitating
mobility has a capacity building impact for individuals.
A person is thought less likely to be at risk of social exclusion
when they are embedded in societal structures (family and
friends, the community and society; Bronfenbrenner 1979),
a theory supported by the empirical work reected in the
model in Figure 1. In the literature, social capital and sense
of community is rarely linked with public transport, although
Putnam (1995) notes an indirect association. He points out
that two-thirds of car trips (in the US) involve ‘driving alone’
and this is increasing, and that the time and distance of
commuting is increasing, with the consequence that time
is reduced for community engagement. He recommends
we should aim for less travel time and better design of
communities to encourage more casual socializing. Urry
(2002 p.265) argues that co-presence is necessary and that
mobility is ‘… central to glueing social networks together’ and
that the development of social capital depends on the range,
extent and modes of mobility to prevent social exclusion. He
talks about the need for co-presence for the development
of trust, often dened as a component of social capital. The
neighbourhood and idea of a 20 minute city, are at the heart
of these conversations about wellbeing and social inclusion.
Mobility is particularly important for those at most risk of
social exclusion. A substantial proportion of Melbourne
residents at high risk of exclusion reported they cannot do
some activities because of transport problems (Stanley
et al. 2010). The most frequent activities nominated were
enjoyment, getting out and about and sporting activities.
The value of these informal activities is greatly under-
estimated by planners, transport planners and by the
community transport system, yet they appear to be very
important to people. When additional local bus services
were provided in Pakenham (Victoria), under the Meeting
our Transport Challenges program, increased mobility was
linked with feeling good about the community (Bell et al.
2006). Almost half of the use of the new bus services was
associated with leisure activities and socialising, in addition
to 20% of passengers who used the new services to reach
community activities and sport, 16% to get to work, 8%
for accessing health services and 8% for education. These
activities build social capital and sense of community
and, in so doing, promote inclusion and wellbeing.
While the denition of social capital varies, the most
common version identies social capital as comprising
networks of people, trust and reciprocity.

Moving People > Solutions for Policy Thinkers  Policy Paper 4
10
The network component of social capital can be
disaggregated as:
• bonding capital - the extent of contact with close
family, extended family, friends/intimates and
neighbours, and
• bridging capital - the extent of contact with work
colleagues and community groups (e.g. church,
sporting, clubs, school, self-help or voluntary
groups).
When this division was explored, it was found that trips
are especially important for bridging social capital, but less
important for bonding social capital (Stanley et al. 2010).
When monetary values are applied, a unit increase in
bonding social capital (as dened by Stanley et al. 2012) is
worth about $37/day (or $13,500 p.a.) to that person, and a
unit increase in bridging social capital (as dened) is worth
about $43/day ($15,700 p.a.). These gures need to be
treated with caution, due to assumptions made around this
calculation, but they indicate the potential scale of benet
available from improving social capital. Greater condence,
however, can be given to the dollar value of connection
to the community, where a unit increase in a person’s
‘sense of community’ (as dened) is worth about $60/day
(or $22,000 a year) to that person (Stanley et al. 2012).3
The value of these connections to people and the community
goes well beyond the dollar value for individuals cited in
the preceding paragraph. Improving an individual’s social
inclusion and wellbeing also benets society as a whole.
For example, gaining employment removes the cost to
society of unemployment benets. In addition, there are
many other community costs forgone, such as in areas
around health, mental health, substance abuse and family
violence. There are also many benets gained from a happy
and healthy population, including increased volunteering
and a population which is able to be innovative, responsive
to emergencies, forward thinking and creative. These ow-
on impacts of exclusion might be seen as external costs.
This analysis suggests that the way we are shaping our
cities is also shaping life chances and is increasingly
becoming a determinant of economic productivity. Both
the quality and utilization of human capital will, in large
part, depend upon how our cities facilitate citizens to be
healthy and well educated, able to participate in the labour
market and in social and civic life. Thus, a neighbourhood
structure embedded in a 20 minute city, with good local
and regional transport choices, is likely to promote many
positive outcomes in terms of personal and societal
wellbeing, as well as being cost effective to service
and supportive of increased economic productivity.
This analysis suggests that trip making (as a
reection of the ability to be mobile) is:
• a direct source of social inclusion and wellbeing
• an input in some elements (such as income and
connection to community) needed to achieve social
inclusion and wellbeing
• important for maintaining and improving social
inclusion and wellbeing
3 This value sounds high but achieving a one point
increase in ‘sense of community’ is very hard.
• a source of social capital and connection with the
community, in itself, and
• an important input in economic productivity.
Public transport is particularly important in this
mix for people at risk of social exclusion and
diminished wellbeing that results there-from.4
Thus, there is clear evidence that mobility has a central role
in social policy. Expenditure in improving transport mobility
through improved infrastructure and increased service
provision can be justied on social and health (physical and
psychological) criteria and not just on economic grounds.
It could be argued that the evidence on improvement of
mobility options provided by the research reported above is
far more compelling than evidence arising from the ndings
on neighbourhood renewal type programs, which tend to
concentrate on personal decits rather than policy decits.
In short, neighbourhoods are fundamental building
blocks for a strong and resilient community. If we get our
neighbourhoods right, the city and its citizens and visitors
will benet and ourish. If we don’t, then disadvantage will
be further entrenched. How then, might Australian cities
go about delivering a city that consists of a series of 20
minute cities, building on neighbourhoods? We examine
this primarily in terms of actions that can be taken in the
transport sector and in the built environment, with additional
and complementary suggestions about social infrastructure.
A particular focus on walking is included, since walking
needs to be integrated more closely with our thinking about
public transport (where there is strong co-dependence)
and urban development. For example, Speck (2012) has
noted how cities with high public transport use also tend
to be highly walkable, many built form factors that support
public transport use also being supportive of walking, which
suggests that measures to support one or other of these
travel modes will also tend to support the other (public
transport trips usually require a walking component at each
end of the trip). Cycling tends to be more self-contained.
4 As well as for its role in supporting major urban nodes, particularly CBDs.

Moving People > Solutions for Policy Thinkers  Policy Paper 4 11
3 Built form
3.1 The Five Ds
The probability of achieving a city that substantially consists
of a series of smaller and vibrant 20 minute cities, building
on neighbourhoods, will depend to a signicant extent on
the nature of that city’s built form, as well as available travel
opportunities. A growing body of research has demonstrated
that there are links between travel and the built environment,
characteristics such as higher density and mixed-use
development (for example) tending to be associated with a
higher share of trips by walk, cycle and public transport.
The most comprehensive review of connections between
travel and the built environment is the meta-analysis
by Ewing and Cervero (2010), who talk about the ve
‘Ds’ of built form in terms of how they impact on car
travel distances (vehicle kilometres of travel, or vkt):
1. Density - higher densities support more local
activity opportunities, higher public transport
service levels and walking opportunities.
Destination density is particularly important.
2. Diversity of land uses makes it easier to undertake
activities locally, associated with ideas such as
mixed-use development and jobs/housing balance.
3. Design - particularly creating interesting places
where people want to be, are safe and feel safe.
4. Destination accessibility - ease of access to trip
destinations and developing activity nodes and corridors.
5. Distance to transit, supported by ne-grained
pedestrian opportunities, embedded in intersection
density and street connectivity. For example, Ewing
and Cervero (2010) nd that halving the distance to the
nearest transit stop is associated with a 29 per cent
increase in trips.
Ewing and Cervero report impact elasticities, which show
the relative sensitivity of response variables (primarily vkt
in their case) to changes in a range of causal inuences
(the respective Ds). This is relevant to calculating the broad
magnitudes of changes that might be required to manage
or reduce aggregate vkt, which was the main interest of
their work. Most reported elasticities are quite small, those
with respect to neighbourhood level land use variables
(e.g., population density, land use mix, street network
connectivity) being typically between -0.025 to -0.12 and
those with respect to regional access to employment being
larger, at between -0.05 and -0.2 (Boarnet 2011). Prima
facie this might suggest that not much can be done at the
neighbourhood level, through land use, to promote the 20
minute city. However, the combined effect of a number
of measures can be signicantly large, particularly when
5 An elasticity value of -0.02 suggests that doubling the
causal variable in question would lead to a 2 per cent
decline in vkt (if the elasticity in question was for vkt).
regional and local measures are both used.6 More specically,
the prospects for achievement of a city that comprises a
series of 20 minute cities will be enhanced if there is:
• a high proportion of metropolitan, regional and sub-
regional activities and services concentrated in high
to medium density mixed-use nodes/corridors, with
good freight access
• fast and reliable trunk public transport connectivity
between these centres7 and along trunk feeder
corridors, with good connections to the various
neighbourhoods
• a wide range of activities available for people to
undertake in their local neighbourhood/20 minute
city
• a range of options for easy, safe and convenient
movement around that neighbourhood/20 minute
city on foot, by bicycle or on public transport and for
connecting to trunk public transport corridors and
regional cycle-ways.
The resulting land use pattern will be good for public
transport use, for walking and for cycling, with ow-
on benets in terms of reduced congestion, cleaner
air, lower greenhouse gas emissions, fewer road
accidents and improved health and wellbeing.
Policy packaging needs to play a central role in the
land use/transport space to deliver an increased
likelihood of achieving a series of 20 minute cities. These
policy packages need to encompass both regional
and neighbourhood level considerations, underlining
the vital importance of taking integrated approaches
across land use and transport, including both top down
(regional) and bottom up (neighbourhood) perspectives.
Higher development densities (particularly destination
densities), a focus on mixed-use and greater street
network connectivity, for example, will be supportive
of greater public transport use, walking and cycling.
Compact pedestrian (and bicycle-friendly) mixed use
development, containing medium to high density residential,
ofce and retail uses within walking distances of fast and
frequent public transport, is sometimes called Transit
Oriented Development (TOD) or Transit Supportive Land
Use. Ontario has produced comprehensive, high quality
guidelines that advise on ways of maximising the likely
effectiveness of such developments, in terms of increasing
use of public transport and active travel (MOT Ontario
2012). A number of studies have shown how such
developments can substantially reduce car use (see, for
example, SYDEC 2007; Nasri and Zheng 2014). However,
TOD type initiatives have generally not been very successful
at increasing the supply of affordable housing, being
frequently positioned at relatively high price points (Ingram
et al. 2009; Speck 2012; Robert Cervero pers.comm.),
6 For example, Bento et al. (2005) showed that the estimated effect of
moving a sample of households from a city like Atlanta (733 persons
per km2; 7000 rail miles of service/km2; 10,000 bus miles of service/
km2) to a city with the characteristics of Boston (1202 persons/km2;
18,000 rail miles of service/km2; 13000 bus miles of service/km2) is
a reduction in annual vehicle travel of 25 per cent. This reduction
is driven by differences in public transport supply, city shape and
especially in population centrality (essentially compactness).
7 Which include the CBD. The connectivity needs to be both
radial and circumferential, particularly in the larger cities.

Moving People > Solutions for Policy Thinkers  Policy Paper 4
12
reecting (for example) capitalization of accessibility
benets. Australian development experience is similar.
Housing affordability is a growing community and policy
concern in many cities and should be an integral part
of planning that is directed towards delivery of the 20
minute city, to help ensure that adverse consequences
for housing affordability are not an unintended outcome
of such efforts. Planning initiatives that substantially
lower formal on-site parking requirements, for example,
are likely to support affordability and be consistent
with the relatively greater use of PT and active
transport by residents in such developments.8
3.2 Built form and walking
This section introduces some of the recent built form/
walking research ndings, because of the important
role walking will play in achievement of a 20 minute
city, both as a stand-alone mode of travel and as a way
of accessing other modes, particularly local bus.
In transport planning and policy conversations, built form has
primarily been a focus in terms of its longer term impact on
vehicle kilometres of motor vehicle travel and the associated
external costs of such travel (particularly congestion,
greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution), the latter
impacts motivating much of the relevant research. In health
circles, the built environment has been of interest because
of its possible connection with health outcomes, another
externality, particularly in terms of active travel and the
associated benecial impacts on mitigating obesity and air
pollution. For example, Frank et al. (2006, p. 75) observe that:
The literature shows single-use, low-density
land development and disconnected street
networks to be positively associated with auto
dependence and negatively associated with
walking and transit use. These factors in turn
appear to affect health by inuencing physical
activity, obesity and emissions of air pollutants.
Linkages between built form and walking (and, to
a lesser extent, cycling) are thus important in both
transport and health policy conversations.
Leinberger (2009) uses the term walkable urbanism to
describe a situation where you can satisfy most everyday
needs, such as school, shopping, parks, friends, and
even employment, within walking or transit distance of
home (Leinberger 2009, p. 5).9 This is very similar to the
concept of the 20 minute city, with the latter having a
specic time boundary specied. Leinberger goes on
to distinguish between regional serving walkable urban
places and neighbourhood serving walkable urbanism.
Leinberger identies regional serving walkable urban
places with (1) the traditional downtown or CBD, (2)
downtown adjacent areas, (3) suburban towns, (4)
greeneld towns and (5) redeveloped regional and strip
malls. Neighbourhood serving walkable urban places
provide what Leinberger (2009) calls the bedroom
communities that support the regional serving places.
8 Ontario’s Transit Supportive Guidelines (MOT Ontario 2012) would
benet from the addition of a housing affordability focus, underlining the
importance of broadening the approach to land use/transport integration.
9 This is contrasted to driveable suburbanism.
Based on his analysis of Washington DC, Leinberger
estimates that about 300,000 people form the market for
a regional serving walkable place, with a core size of 200-
500 acres. Interestingly, in his address to the Australian
ADC Forum 2010 Cities Summit, Professor Ed Blakely of
University of Sydney argued that 250,000-300,000 people
was sufcient number for a city that would provide most
of the activities and services most people might require.
About half the trips in Australian capital cities are 5 kilometres
or shorter. This is usually an easy trip length for a bicycle
or bus trip and provides an indicative catchment scale for
a 20 minute city. A hypothetical 5 kilometre radius urban
area, settled at a dwelling density of 20 dwellings per
net developable hectare, with net developable hectares
constituting about 70% of gross area and an average
of 2.6 persons per dwelling (as is common in middle
Melbourne, for example), would include almost 300,000
people, in line with Leinberger and Blakely’s indicative
gures, providing a broad dimensioning of a possible
20 minute city. Public transport use should be effective
in this context (this is elaborated further in section 4).
Why is walkability important?
Some authors looking at linkages between the built
environment and health, such as Handy et al. (2006, p.
55), do not mince words: “these days it is hard to miss that
Americans are fatter than ever”. In looking for solutions,
many researchers have focused on neighbourhood
walkability, looking not only at potential health benets
but also at complementary benets in areas such as lower
transport externalities, crime reduction, lower rates of
mortgage foreclosures, higher social capital and sense of
community and increased neighbourhood housing values
(see, for example, Gilderbloom et al. 2015). Leinberger
and Alfonzo (2012) identify signicant economic benets
from walkable places. Their economic analysis nds that:
• more walkable places perform better economically
(e.g., higher ofce and retail rents, higher retail sales,
higher housing values)
• residents of more walkable places have lower
transport costs and better public transport access
but higher housing costs. Good walkability was
associated with US$301.76 per month higher
residential rents and sale prices US$81.54 sq. ft.
higher than places with only fair walkability (as
measured) in their research. At a local Melbourne
level, in 2013, buyer’s advocate rm Secret Agent
revealed prices can rise as much as A$298 per
square metre in Melbourne for a ve-point rise on an
area’s ‘Walk Score’, on a scale of 0-10010)
• residents of places with poor walkability are
generally less afuent and have lower educational
attainment than places with good walkability.
They further identify the tendency for gentrication of more
walkable places, highlighting the housing affordability and
equity issues associated with higher density developments,
such as TOD. In cities like Sydney and Melbourne, trends
10 http://www.news.com.au/nance/real-estate/
melbourne8217s-most-walkable-suburbs-scoring-a-
pricey-advantage/story-fncq3gat-1226694398352

Moving People > Solutions for Policy Thinkers  Policy Paper 4 13
would be similar, with higher income, access rich, high land/
housing cost and walkable inner areas contrasting with
outer suburbs that are generally relatively access poor,
are typically occupied by residents with lower incomes,
poorer walkability and ‘drive-in/drive-out’ lifestyles.
Speck (2012) has observed the important role walkable
neighbourhoods, with active street life, play in attracting
talented millennials. The tendency for many of this
generation to defer car ownership, or choose to not own a
car, aligns with this desire for walkable neighbourhoods.11
Importantly, Leinberger and Alfonzo (2012) and Gilderstrom
et al. (2015) both note the converging housing demands
in the US of many of the substantial ageing baby boomer
generation and their millennial off-spring, highlighting
a strongly growing future demand for neighbourhoods
with characteristics such as vibrancy, safety, walkability,
environmental quality, mixed uses and proximity to
jobs and schooling. This convergence is described by
Speck (2012) as a ‘demographic perfect storm’.
Some Melbourne Evidence
Using the same data set as was used for Figure 1, Delbosc
and Currie (2011) showed that there was a statistically
signicant difference between the mean walking distances
from dwellings to a business zone between inner Melbourne,
outer Melbourne, fringe areas and regional areas (the sample
included the Latrobe Valley), walking distances increasing
as you move through these locations. They further showed
that there was a statistically signicant decrease in the
availability of public transport service as you move from
inner to outer to fringe Melbourne. Those living in outer
Melbourne, fringe Melbourne and regional Victoria (Latrobe
Valley) were more likely to have frequent difculty undertaking
activities because of transport problems than those in inner
Melbourne, particularly sporting/leisure activities, enjoyment
(getting out and about), visiting friends and relatives and
getting to work (Delbosc and Currie 2011). Wellbeing was
adversely affected (statistically signicant) by such difculties.
This data conrms that outer urban and fringe areas are
likely to need most attention in terms of the 20 minute city.
Table 1 adds to the analysis by Delbosc and Currie (2011).
It shows mean values for a range of the independent
variables included in Figure 1, from the same data set,
categorised according to whether the survey respondent’s
dwelling location was walkable, or not, to a business zone
(i.e. whether or not it was within 500m of such a zone). A
key point that stands out in Table 1 is that, in most cases,
respondents in walkable areas (as dened) score higher
(on average) than those in non-walkable locations in terms
of sense of community (important for well-being), bonding
social capital and bridging social capital (important for
reducing risk of social exclusion). The results for inner/middle
Melbourne are somewhat unexpected, with respondents
living in walkable locations scoring (on average) a little worse
than those in non-walkable locations, but the differences are
not signicant. One possible explanation is that city residents
have communities of interest rather than communities of
location and therefore view community somewhat differently
to those living in a more dominant residential location.
Table 1: Walkability, sense of community and social capital:
some Victorian survey data (2008)12
Location
Mean Sense of
Community Score
Mean Bonding Social
Capital** Score
Mean Bridging Social
Capital *** Score
Walk (under
500 metres)
Non-walk*
(Over 500
metres)
Walk Non-walk* Walk Non-walk*
Metro
Inner/middle
Outer
Outer Interface
Interface remote
Regional
Full sample
54.88 (120)
57.74 (244)
55.66 (134)
58.62 (17)
57.11 (9)
55.26 (374)
55.83 (70)
54.47 (339)
54.09 (248)
52.20 (51)
53.52 (219)
54.09 (629)
18.33
19.77
19.12
19.65
19.78
18.78
18.8
18.15
18.15
17.16
17.72
18.08
6.95
7.76
7.46
8.69
7.33
7.46
7.77
6.94
6.94
5.84
6.26
6.80
Notes:
*Non-walk is where the respondents live more
that 500 metres from a business zone.
** Bonding social capital is the development of
reciprocity, social networks and trust between
immediate family and close friends
***Bridging social capital is the development of reciprocity,
social networks and trust between more emotionally
removed people, such as colleagues at work.
Source: Authors’ calculations, based on
data in ARC Project data set.
11 This millennial behavior is one explanation for the concept of ‘peak car’ or
‘peak travel’, discussed (for example) by Millard-Ball and Schipper (2010).
12 Walkability for Table 1 was dened as being within
500 metres of a B1Z planning zone, or not.

Moving People > Solutions for Policy Thinkers  Policy Paper 4
14
Interface Councils ring outer Melbourne. People who live
in ‘non-walkable’ locations in these areas, particularly
in the more remote parts of the Interface Council areas,
tend to be lowest (on average) for sense of community,13
bonding social capital and bridging social capital. Bridging
social capital is particularly important for social inclusion
(Stanley et al. 2010). People living in regional areas
away from public transport are the second most ‘at-risk’
group. In terms of delivering positive outcomes from the
20 minute city, these results show some of the benets of
walkability and again conrm the importance of targeting
outer and middle suburbs, particularly areas where
walkability is poor. This will tend to correspond with areas
where public transport availability is also relatively poor.
Implications
Speck (2012) sets out his General Theory of Walkability,
which provides a useful framework for thinking about how
to develop walkability in our cities. He suggests that, to be
chosen, a walk has to satisfy four conditions. It has to be:
1. Useful – e.g., most aspects of daily life are located
close by and arranged in a way that walking serves
them well, which links to the idea of the 20 minute city.
Parking requirements should be reduced in TOD areas.
2. Safe – the street/pathway has been designed for
safe pedestrian movement (e.g. protection from
motor vehicles) and for pedestrians to feel safe.
3. Comfortable – buildings and landscape shape
streets into ‘outdoor living rooms’, as distinct from
wide-open spaces that fail to attract pedestrians
(building on the internationally recognised work of
Jan Gehl, who is well-known in Australian capital
cities – see, for example, Gehl et al. 2006).
4. Interesting – footpaths are lined by unique buildings
with friendly faces and signs of humanity abound.
Some cities have adopted guidelines that promote
walkability, reecting principles such as these and going to
considerable detail in terms of practical design application.
3.3 Densities and public
transport use
Ewing and Cervero (2010) show that residential density is not
a major driver of public transport use but destination density
is important. Other things being equal, however, higher
urban residential plus job densities will increase walking
and public transport use (and cycling), shorten average
trip lengths and will reduce the external costs of motor
vehicle use. As a result Australian capital cities are generally
seeking to lift their densities and become more compact.
13 The standard deviation for sense of community score across the full
(1003) sample is 6.78 (mean score 54.59), which about equals the
difference between the mean value for walkable and non-walkable
remote Interface Council areas. Similarly the standard deviation for the
bridging social capital score over the full sample is 3.04 (mean score
6.98), which is also similar to the difference between the mean score
for walkable and non-walkable in remote Interface Council areas.
The BIC’s Policy Paper No. 2 drew on the work of Newman
and Kenworthy (2006) and pointed out that 35-40 residents
plus jobs per hectare14 has been suggested as a threshold
for effective public transport provision. Stanley and Hensher
(2011) showed that boarding rates of about 8 passengers
per service hour are sufcient for an economically warranted
local route bus service, recognising the substantial social
inclusion value of these services and also allowing for
congestion cost savings. This boarding rate assumes that
about one in three users are at risk of social exclusion from
mobility circumstances (a typical Melbourne-wide rate for
bus) and that the at-risk people are from average income
households. Figure 2 extends that work and shows that,
if the at-risk group is two in three bus users, as is likely in
new fringe suburbs (and in regional towns), and household
incomes are 10% less than average, about in line with
the fringe of Melbourne (as an example), then economic
benet benchmark break-even boarding rates of about
6/hour apply for services costing $100/hr, as shown in
Figure 2, based on social inclusion benet values alone.
This implies 5-6/hr allowing for congestion benets.
Boarding rates that should be expected at an activity
intensity of 35-40 persons plus jobs per hectare should
support a 30 minute frequency on local services against this
boarding rate benchmark. For example, Sydney PT mode
shares in middle suburban areas where these densities are
achieved are typically 11-14 per cent of total trips, on an
SSD basis. These densities, if contiguous, would support
a 20 minute city of 200,000+ (5 km radius). The BIC Policy
Paper 2 also showed, however, that there are substantial
parts of Australia’s capital cities that fall short of this density
level, particularly in outer areas but also in parts of the middle
suburbs. Pursuing development strategies that accelerate
achievement of this density benchmark should be a priority.
It is arguable, however, that public transport service
frequencies of 20 minutes are more consistent with the idea
of a 20 minute city than 30 minute frequencies. Ontario’s
Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe 2006 (which
includes Toronto) targets a minimum density of 50 residents
plus jobs per hectare in designated Greeneld areas,
equating this with 22 dwelling units/ha15, and then linking
this to 20-30 minute bus frequencies (Ontario MOT 2012;
MEDEI 2013). Higher minimum densities are set for nodes.
Lifting minimum density targets from ~35-40 to ~50
residents plus jobs per hectare would support a public
transport service frequency more aligned with the idea of a
20 minute city (based on Ontario experience). Many middle
suburban areas already meet this density benchmark and
other parts are close. An accelerated urban inll program
would support more widespread achievement of the 20
minute city, while improving the balance between jobs and
residential locations (which helps to reduce trip distances
and increase walking and cycling as well as PT use).
Growth area minimum density targets would need to be
lifted if a target at this level (~50) were to be adopted.
14 This counts the number of people who live in a dened area
and adds the number of jobs in the same area. For example,
Boroondara has around 40 (residents plus jobs)/gross ha or 56/
net developable ha, with over two thirds being residents.
15 This dwelling rate suggests that little provision is made for
jobs in the Ontario people plus jobs per hectare benchmark. A
surprisingly low 2.2 persons per dwelling is used to derive the 22
dwellings, much lower than in outer suburban Australian areas
but closer to inner area Australian dwelling occupancy rates.

Moving People > Solutions for Policy Thinkers  Policy Paper 4 15
Figure 2: Benets of route bus services attributable to social inclusion*
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
$

Boardingrateperhour
1/3RSI
2/3RSI
2/3RSI,LowerHI
Notes: * In the legend, RSI = proportion of users at risk of social exclusion from mobility issues; HI = household income at ~90%
of mean. $20 trip value is assumed for an ‘at-risk’ person from a household with mean household income, based on Stanley et
al. 2011, and $5/trip for all other trips.
3.4 A look at Melbourne’s
growth areas
An exercise was undertaken to explore what setting a target
of 50 people plus jobs per hectare might imply for the growth
areas of Australian capital cities. To shed light on this issue,
a detailed analysis was made of some of the growth suburbs
on Melbourne’s fringe. While this is only one city, the issues
raised for growth area planning are relevant elsewhere.
The metropolitan growth areas of Melbourne have
accommodated just over half the city’s new house
construction over the past decade or so but the recently
released planning strategy for metropolitan Melbourne
has targeted reducing this share to 39%, recognising
the importance of achieving a more compact city (Plan
Melbourne, 2014, p.62). The Ministerial Advisory Committee
for Plan Melbourne wanted 30% but this was not accepted.
A 30% growth areas share would mean a bigger emphasis on
inner and middle urban inll, where most jobs are located.
Strategic planning for Melbourne’s growth is mainly
conducted via the Precinct Structure Planning process
established by the Metropolitan Planning Authority
(MPA, former Growth Areas Authority). Precinct Structure
Plans (PSPs) provide a strategic framework to guide
the development of greeneld areas and a statutory
framework intended to ensure that important community
and development infrastructure are appropriately located
and co-ordinated, and to ensure that opportunities to
achieve a diversity of land uses such as local town centres
and sporting facilities are not precluded from areas.
Among other things, the PSPs set a requirement for a
minimum average housing density to be achieved across
the planning area of 15 dwellings per net developable
hectare, a tighter denition than is used in the Ontario
benchmark.16 Typically around 65%-70% of a given
greeneld area is available for development, which includes
land for the provision of schools, active and passive public
spaces, local or neighbourhood town centres, and the
street network which includes local access streets and
connector streets but not arterial roads. Land available
for residential development (i.e. Net Residential Area)
is typically around 55%-60% of the gross area.
In an Australian context, the idea of increased growth area
residential housing density does not appear to have been
explicitly linked to actions designed to reduce private vehicle
use. Rather than direct policy interventions structured
around the idea of coordinating higher density living options
with higher frequency public transport provision and
increased walkability, planning authorities prefer to allow
‘the market’ to respond to a relatively benign requirement
to achieve the average housing density outlined in the
planning ordinance. This typically results in residential
estates in Melbourne’s growth areas developing in their
early stages at conventional housing densities on single
dwelling allotments at an average of 15-16 dwellings per
developable hectare. Sites close to future local activity
centres, such as shops, schools and neighbourhood parks,
are often required to develop at higher densities of between
22 and 25 dwellings per developable hectare, which
translates into groupings of small lot and townhouse sites.
While PSPs do a good job in terms of establishing an
urban structure planned around future uses, particularly
16 The Net Developable Area (NDA) is the area of land available for
development after encumbrances such as arterial roads, conservation
areas and drainage are excluded from the gross or total precinct area.
The main difference we can see with the Ontario measure is that it
does not remove arterial roads and railway corridors, which typically
account for about 7% of the gross area in Melbourne’s PSPs.

Moving People > Solutions for Policy Thinkers  Policy Paper 4
16
non residential land uses, they have not been successful in
establishing the conditions needed to achieve substantially
higher average residential densities. Free market house
and land prices generally do not approach the levels (>1.3
times the median house price ratio) at which the market will
move at any scale to higher densities (Property Council of
Australia 2012). National Economics (2010) suggests that
the lack of local services and community infrastructure
in outer areas, together with the poor accessibility that
results from lagged provision of transport infrastructure
and public transport services, contributes to this price
gap. The accessibility of a full range of services and
infrastructure, including travel choices and employment
opportunities, is substantially greater in areas that reach
the higher price points. The associated higher densities
show that some people are prepared to make a dwelling
size trade off and pay a premium to achieve better
accessibility and services. The alternative is usually lower
priced dwellings with poorer accessibility and services.
Lifting densities in growth areas requires, inter alia, earlier
provision of services and better accessibility, including
better public transport. This, in turn, would be more
feasible to provide if development was not happening on
so many fronts at the same time. MPA (2014) indicates
that the Authority has approved 38 PSP’s, with a further
11 currently awaiting approval, 10 under preparation and
11 in the ‘pre-planning’ process. This suggests around
4,500 hectares of land potentially under development at
one time, which makes timely provision of a full range of
community infrastructure and services, including public
transport, problematic. Sequencing of new greeneld
development should be aligned with the capacity to provide
and fund a wide range of infrastructure and services (e.g.,
schools, shops, active open spaces and other community
facilities, especially public transport and walking facilities)
at an early stage in estate development and this should
be a high priority for state and local governments.
Lagged provision of public transport in new residential
estates leads to low income households having little choice
but to rely more on motor vehicles for meeting their mobility
requirements, putting pressure on household budgets and
inhibiting subsequent use of public transport (once household
cars have been purchased). Public transport services should
be available at an early stage in estate development, to
reduce pressures for vehicle ownership and help reduce
the external costs of car use. Limiting the number of active
development fronts will mean target population plus jobs
densities can be achieved more quickly over feasible
service areas, supporting better public transport services.
Notwithstanding this concern about the number of
development fronts in metropolitan Melbourne, the current
growth area PSPs look unlikely to be able to achieve a
density of 50 residents and jobs combined per hectare. 10
PSPs were assessed and evaluated based on their projected
built form outcome. Using dwelling forecasts derived from
the known developable areas listed in the PSP land use
budgets, it was estimated that, at full development and
assuming the precincts develop fully in accordance with the
PSP, land within the PSP’s will achieve an average dwelling
density of 15.7 dwellings per Net Developable Hectare. This
result suggests net dwelling densities would need to be
increased to about 18 dwellings per net developable hectare
to be able to reach 50 people plus jobs per hectare (based on
higher dwelling occupancy rates than in the Ontario work).

Moving People > Solutions for Policy Thinkers  Policy Paper 4 17
4. Public transport service
requirements
4.1 Broad setting
Figure 3 shows that nearly half the journeys to work in
Inner Melbourne (a relatively high density, mixed-use area)
are already undertaken either by public transport (about
one in four trips), bicycling (6%), walking (11%) or involve
working at home (5%), all likely to involve relatively short
trips (particularly the last!). However, this share falls off to 10-
15% in total across these modes (including work at home)
for outer suburbs, where densities are lower and mixed
land uses less common.17 These numbers indicate that, to
deliver a series of 20 minute cities for work trips in a city
like Melbourne, the major focus will need to be on built form
and access opportunities in middle and outer suburbs.
The same general pattern applies for other trip purposes.
For example, in Melbourne, average travel times for various
trip purposes tend to increase as you move from inner to
middle and then outer suburbs, although local provision of
educational services in outer suburbs breaks this pattern
(for this trip purpose). Average trip times for ‘shopping’ and
‘other’ trips are less than 20 minutes across the whole city,
which is prima facie promising in terms of the 20 minute city
concept, but the numbers will be dominated by car travel
(not intended to be part of the 20 minute city concept).
‘Work’ and ‘educational’ trips in all broad segments of
Melbourne exceed the 20 minutes threshold, on average,
and so do ‘social’ trips for all except the inner area.
The same general ndings would arise for all Australian
capital cities, indicating that that there is much to be done
to make our major cities function as a series of 20 minute
cities. This work needs to focus on accessibility, which
involves both the distribution and intensity of land uses/
activities throughout our cities, particularly the middle and
outer areas, and the availability/quality of travel opportunities.
This, in turn, implies a need to focus on links between
travel and the built environment to identify those measures
that are most likely to be supportive of moving towards
the 20 minute city. Section 4 considers such matters.
Figure 3: Journey to work in Melbourne by area (percent share, excluding car).
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Inner
InnerEast
InnerSouth
NorthEast
NorthWest
OuterEast
SouthEast
West
Mornington
Pen.
Train
Tram
Bus
Bike
Walk
TrainBus
WkHome
% of Trips
Source: Derived from data in Department of Transport (2014).
17 This is, in part, a matter of urban location economics but is also
inuenced by policy opportunities, particularly in areas such as
transport (e.g., public transport service availability, frequency and
operating hours) and also with respect to some service location
decisions (for example, in the education and health sectors careful
location choices can help promote neighbourhood job opportunities).

Moving People > Solutions for Policy Thinkers  Policy Paper 4
18
4.2 Improvements to grow
local public transport use
If public transport service is provided, solid patronage
levels will encourage service continuity and, if volumes
are sufcient, service improvement. A wide range of
initiatives can be used to promote use of local public
transport. Ensuring a suitable service frequency and
span of operating hours within 400 metres walking
distance of most residences is the key starting
point. This can be supported by, for example:
• linking transit routes in new residential
developments directly to routes serving existing
urban development, without gaps or circuitous
routing. This should include provision of service
early in the development stage of a new estate
• providing bus priority treatments at intersections and
along main trunk corridors, to improve speed and
reliability (this will encourage transfers from local to
trunk services at interchange points)
• ensuring good service marketing and customer
experience, throughout the journey and in
journey planning.18 For example, as buses do not
operate on xed rails, route information is vital.
Neighbourhood local buses need good information
on routes, timing, good way-nding signage and
trip-planning tools, as well as mode connections.
The electronic signalling of time, as used with
SmartBus, is a valuable information source
• a range of fare offerings. For example, Toronto offers
a day pass which can be used any day for a month,
which is very convenient for visitors and casual
users. Fares which include bike sharing, parking
payment, short distance fares, for example, could be
offered
• transit and active transport supportive land use
initiatives, such as focussing urban growth around
transit nodes and along transit corridors, providing
a full range of land uses in these locations (e.g.
jobs, retail, recreational, personal business, cultural,
institutional, etc),19 providing good connectivity for
walking and cycling access to transit (including
minimising unbroken block lengths and avoiding
the need for back-tracking), avoiding impermeable
street frontages. Section 3 explores such built form
matters associated with walking in particular, in
more detail
• linking transit to neighbourhood open space and
natural areas.
MOT Ontario (2012) provides further examples. By
supporting use of public transport and active transport, such
initiatives will help to build strong, healthy communities.
18 Train stations have many features not included or not routinely
included at bus stops: seating, shelter, lighting, information, often
toilets and food outlets (Daniels and Mulley 2013). Better bus stops
are offered in some international cities. In Portland, Oregon, bus
shelters were tted with solar lighting, better customer information,
and safe street crossings to reach stops (Hansen 2010).
19 Subject, of course, to market realities about nancially viable land uses.
4.3 Minimum service levels
If mobility is important for social inclusion, what can we say
about public transport service levels that might support such
inclusion, an important part of planning for a 20 minute city?
Public transport services can be broadly classied as
mass transit, where the emphasis is on longer distance
trunk movements, and local transit, where the focus is
on providing a local access service, with connection to
trunk services. Mass transit is about getting in and out of
your neighbourhood and/or 20 minute city; local transit is
about getting around your neighbourhood/20 minute city.
The current interest of public transport service providers
in many cities in concentrating services in the trunk mass
transit movement category creates risks in terms of
accentuating problems of achieving the 20 minute city,
because it downplays the importance of complementary
local transit. It also risks increasing social exclusion.
This service trade-off is currently exercising the minds of
transit providers in Toronto (at Metrolinx) and Vancouver
(at Translink), with whom two of the current authors have
recently discussed this issue. As noted in Section 3.3,
the minimum boarding rates of about 5-6 passengers per
service hour are sufcient for an economically warranted
local route bus service, if about two in three users are at
risk of mobility-related social exclusion, recognising the
substantial social inclusion value of these services. Section
3 discussed development densities that should support
consistent achievement of this boarding rate, or higher.
To provide a social safety net public transport service for
social inclusion purposes in the middle and outer suburban
parts of Australia’s largest cities, where the greatest urban
needs exist with respect to achieving a 20 minute city,
local bus services must be the prime focus. No other mode
has the service economics to do the job. The aim should
be to provide a service level that enables most people to
do most of the things they want to do, most of the time,
without needing a car, subject to meeting the boarding rate
benchmark (5-6/hour). This is likely to require a 30 minute
minimum service frequency on local services for about
15-18 hours a day, with increased peak frequencies being
justied if loadings sufce. Vancouver’s community shuttle
services,20 for example, typically operate at frequencies of
between 30 and 60 minutes, depending on demand.21 We
have argued above, however, that a 20 minute frequency
would better align with the intentions of a 20 minute city.
These local services need to be complemented by trunk
services operating at the same, or higher, frequencies
and over more direct routes, with a synchronised
timetable. This mass transit/local transit combination will
give people the certainty that they can achieve their trip
purpose(s) without long waits, when they need or wish to
travel. It will also reduce the need for car ownership.
20 A brand name they have used for what are essentially local services.
21 Translink BC is currently reviewing its service operating standards.

Moving People > Solutions for Policy Thinkers  Policy Paper 4 19
5. Low patronage services
5.1 Densities and minimum
service levels
There are substantial parts of Australia’s capital cities that fall
short of having 35-40 residents plus jobs/hectare (Stanley
2014). These areas will struggle to achieve efcient public
transport service levels at 20-30 minute frequencies and
will, in consequence, tend to be highly car dependent. A
land use planning priority should be to increase resident
numbers and jobs in most of these areas, towards reaching
these density gures and higher, with 50 residents plus
jobs per hectare being a preferred target for a 20 minute
city. Achievement will support improved public transport
service levels, reduce the external costs of car use and
support more efcient urban settlement patterns.
Census data suggests that, in outer areas, jobs are relatively
scarce compared to population numbers. For Melbourne,
Figure 4 shows that in 2011 there were about 1000 jobs per
1000 residents in what we call ‘inner Melbourne’, excluding
City of Melbourne (i.e., the Cities of Yarra, Port Phillip and
Maribyrnong). This ratio drops to 440 (rounded) in middle/
outer suburbs (including Greater Dandenong and Frankston)
and 330 in outer suburbs. The lowest ratio for any metro
Melbourne municipality in 2011 was Melton, at less than
200 jobs/1000 residents. The vast majority of jobs in outer
suburbs will be population serving and, while the jobs/
population ratio has increased in outer areas, manufacturing
job losses in recent years will have put downward pressure
on the ratio. Outer suburbs that sustain jobs/population
ratios much above 300/1000 in the coming years will
be faring relatively well in terms of local employment.
Converting this discussion to jobs/ha, it is notable that, for
example, Boroondara (which includes the relatively afuent
areas of Camberwell, Kew and Hawthorn) had only about
13 jobs/gross ha in 2011, or about 18 if net developable
area is 70% of gross area, with Maroondah having a similar
number of jobs/NDha. Job densities will be higher, of
course, in business centres. Fringe areas have very small job
numbers per net developable hectare, such that the large
majority of threshold residents plus jobs/ha in outer areas
will need to be derived from increasing residential densities.
One way to encourage job growth in outer areas is to focus
on building a good neighbourhood structure, building
social capital and sense of place and developing a sense
of community. This is likely to encourage local purchasing
and to support local job opportunities, because of local
purchasing but also from the role of local networks in
opening up access to jobs. Focussing suitable employment
opportunities in or adjacent to neighbourhood centres (e.g.,
schools, health facilities) can help to create a small local
economic cluster that might lead, for example, to extra
employment opportunities in the business services area and
in local retail. Such initiatives will not have dramatic additional
employment generating effects but, when jobs are scarce,
every bit helps. This can be supported by providing good
local public transport and walking opportunities. This adds
up to a focus on improving place and the opportunities for a
good life that are available at neighbourhood level (including
affordable housing), as well as providing opportunities to
easily connect by public transport, walking and cycling to
activities, including job opportunities. This, in turn, needs
to be supported by connecting middle and outer suburban
neighbourhoods to strong employment clusters by fast
and frequent trunk public transport, a critical element
in sharing employment opportunities across the city.
Increasing densities will take time. In the
meantime, what public transport service levels
should be provided in lower density areas?
The target minimum boarding rate of about 5-6 passengers
per hour, which is sufcient to economically justify
a route bus service, can be considered in multiples.
Thus, for example, if an hourly service attracts 5-6 or
more boardings per hour, this meets the target. If two
30 minute frequency services each meet the target,
then a 30 minute service would be justied. Individual
services can be subjected to this test. If a service fails to
meet the benchmark boarding rate, options include:
• replacing it with a lower cost service, which might
involve (for example) using smaller buses, shifting to
a more demand responsive service, implementing
a social enterprise type approach, as is currently
being trialled in Warrnambool, or some combination
thereof. These options are considered in Section 5.2
• continuing the service, particularly if deleting
the service would lower boarding rates on other
services. For example, running additional later
services under Victoria’s Meeting our Transport
Challenges served to increase boardings on existing
services, because of the greater exibility that
later services provided (Loader and Stanley 2011).
Knock-on effects are to be expected if any service
is removed and need to be considered in assessing
the case for removal/continuation. A better approach
may be to market the service more intensively and
offer other improvements, even a more frequent
service!
Under Meeting our Transport Challenges, implementation
of minimum hourly bus service frequencies for about 15-
18 hours a day on weekdays and Saturdays, with slightly
shorter service spans on Sundays, demonstrated that this
should be considered as a minimum acceptable service level;
anything less is not sufcient to encourage a reasonable
base level of use (Loader and Stanley 2011). 30 minutes is
a preferred ‘minimum’ for social safety net purposes, with
20 being more consistent with the idea of a 20 minute city.

Moving People > Solutions for Policy Thinkers  Policy Paper 4
20
Figure 4: Jobs per 1000 population across Melbourne, 2011.
(Authors’ calculations from NIEIR data base information)
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Innercore(exCoM)
Middle/outer
Fringe
5fringegrowthsuburbs
MSD
5.2 Improving public
transport service efciency
in low volume settings
Smaller buses
Capital costs of route buses typically account for about
one quarter of total costs. Smaller buses have lower
capital costs and, prima facie, might be expected
to reduce total service delivery costs. Translink in
Vancouver has analysed this question in some detail,
concluding that (Brian Mills, Translink, pers. comm.):
...most of the benets are from reduced operating
cost and not from reduced capital cost. On capital,
the vehicles are less expensive to buy, per vehicle,
than standard transit buses but have a shorter
life-cycle. As a result the annual debt service
cost is comparable to that of a standard bus.
Operating cost savings in Vancouver arise on
the fuel side, in maintenance and on wages,
where a separate industrial agreement has been
negotiated for drivers of smaller vehicles.
The major problem with smaller buses is that if passenger
loads at any time exceed the capacity of a smaller bus, then
another bus (or other vehicle) is needed.22 If this necessitates
acquisition of another vehicle, costs will clearly increase.
22 Or people could simply be denied a trip, which our research on social
exclusion shows has a high cost (~ $20/trip foregone, on average,
for a person on average income, or higher if income is lower).
If a spare vehicle is available or is purchased in on an ‘as-
required’ basis, then the need for (and marginal cost of) an
additional bus would be reduced. Either way, the potential
cost savings, from a smaller bus, are likely to be quite small.
Demand responsive/exible services
Demand responsive and exible transit services are
advocated by some analysts in low volume settings. Demand
responsive services typically have no set routes, customers
being picked up and dropped off at those locations and
times agreed with the service provider (just like a taxi
service). Flexible transit involves a variation from a main
route and stopping pattern, such as a deviation to drop-off
or pick-up a passenger. Various evaluations of such schemes
have been reported and they typically reect the inherently
costly nature of more closely aligning service provision
with the requirements of individual clients. Such a demand
responsive service may also lead to difculties in building
passenger numbers amongst those who wish to regularly
use a time-tabled bus service, to meet time commitments.
Labour primarily drives the cost of various forms of public
transport service, accounting for about half the cost of
a route bus service (for example). The key to providing
cost-effective public transport services in a low patronage
setting is thus labour cost, not vehicle cost. Vancouver
has introduced an industrial agreement that allows drivers
of some vehicles to be paid at a lower rate than drivers
of others. This is in the nature of a training wage. It was
introduced in a context of service expansion, such that
existing drivers were not disadvantaged. This possibility
should be explored for Australian cities, in a context
of increasing the provision of local bus services.

Moving People > Solutions for Policy Thinkers  Policy Paper 4 21
Figure 5: ConnectU patronage
y=10.126e
0.1748x

R²=0.95265
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
ConnectUTrips/month
Number of Trips per Month
Number of Months (from Oct 2012 to June 2014)
Social enterprise model: ConnectU
BusVic research in Warrnambool (Stanley and Stanley
2004) showed substantial unmet travel demand from
people who were largely unable to use existing public
transport, due either to the absence of a service and/or
to personal difculties in use, and without another ready
form of mobility. At the same time, the research identied
underutilised transport assets in the community, particularly
community buses and cars owned by service providers,
local government and other agencies. ConnectU, a local
social enterprise using volunteers, commenced in 2012 to
address these issues in Warrnambool and surrounds. The
service seeks to provide improved local public transport
services, including transport service for those with mobility
difculties, through coordinating local transport. Where
possible, people are moved to existing public transport
or another form of independent transport. The ConnectU
service also provides a little extra assistance if needed,
such as taking the person in to a medical appointment.
Figure 5 shows the enormous growth in the number of
clients carried since commencement of ConnectU, averaging
17.5% per month. This considerable growth has occurred
without the service being advertised, because ConnectU is
unwilling to turn away clients where it lacks the resources to
provide service. If ConnectU is able to secure sustainable
funding, a target of 1000 trips per month is in reach in 2015.
This service currently has a net cost of about $23.80/
trip, or $28.10 gross cost/trip (one-way). Given customer
characteristics, the present service provided by ConnectU
has much in common with Canada’s specialised transit
services. In 2012, the net cost of Canadian specialised
services was C$24.17/trip, almost identical to the Connect
U net cost,23 given similar exchange rates between the two
currencies. ConnectU has, therefore, reached the stage of
operating in accordance with external cost benchmarks.
Examining ConnectU’s current operation, the benet
cost ratio sits at 2.8 (Wines et al. 2014). This estimate
is conservative due to the many intangible benets that
have not been included in the assessment. Such benets
include forgone costs to society, such as where a medical
condition is prevented, or savings in Newstart payments,
as the person has been able to obtain a skill-based
education, therefore possibly future employment, due to the
ConnectU service. In addition, the benets to volunteers,
such as increased social capital and connection to the
community, have not been included in the analysis.
Given the growth trend in passengers, costs per trip could
be lowered by further expanding the service. If more
underused community transport vehicles from the area were
made available to ConnectU, service expansion could take
place at very low marginal cost. Passenger numbers could
probably be doubled, with net costs closer to $16/boarding.
This is likely to be well below the costs of community
transport services and is similar to the cost/boarding of
local public transport with 6 boardings/hour. If this cost
level can be achieved with a primarily volunteer-based
service, it conrms the 5-6 boardings/hour as a benchmark
minimum for mainstream local public transport service.
The ConnectU model should be tested for extension of
service provision in low volume outer urban settings, as a
complement to (not replacement for) the route bus service.
23 Data sourced from the Canadian Urban Transit Association data base.

Moving People > Solutions for Policy Thinkers  Policy Paper 4
22
Operating it in this way would save some back-ofce costs
and reduce the costs per passenger carried. It would widen
the range of vehicles available to the bus operator to provide
service and open up the possibility of better matching
vehicles with demand levels, from increased eet diversity
(i.e., cars, people movers and small buses could be available).
This approach to service provision in low volume
settings is consistent with conclusions reached by the
UK House of Commons Transport Committee in its
very recent report on Passenger transport in isolated
communities. That Committee concluded (UK House
of Commons Transport Committee 2014, p. 3):
‘Total transport’ involves pooling transport resources
to deliver a range of services. For example, it might
involve combining hospital transport with local bus
services. That new approach could revolutionise
transport provision in isolated communities by
making more efcient use of existing resources.
We recommend that the DfT initiates a large-
scale pilot to test the concept in practice.
Warrnambool is already well down this track.
A similar approach has been proposed by the Ontario
Ministry of Transport (MOT Ontario 2012, p. 105):
All public transportation services within a community
should be coordinated to expand or provide more
efcient transit service. This can include coordination
between conventional or specialised agencies; long
term care agencies; social service agencies; hospitals,
ambulance and patient transfer operators; school
boards and school bus companies; intercity bus
companies; taxi operators; and volunteer groups.
The UK PTEG report (2014) recommends the establishment
of a ‘Connectivity Fund’, with contributions from a range of
government departments, such as health and education,
thus recognising the importance of transport in achieving
the desired outcomes of these departments. It would be
reasonable to ask other organisations to share transport
costs to better enable their passengers to access their
services, in recognition of the value that transport offers
to these services and their client populations, as detailed
earlier. However, the Auditor General of Scotland and the
Accounts Commission (2011) notes the difculties that can
be associated with convincing agencies to release some
control and to work at breaking down silos of responsibility
for the greater good, as there are long established practices
and boundaries between different policy areas. A similar
challenge has been found in Warrnambool. As evidenced
with ConnectU, such a total transport arrangement has a
number of advantages beyond offering a transport service
in a low density area. It offers a service to those who have
few mobility options and are at risk of social exclusion due
to infrequent travel, whatever the housing density. Despite
the presence of both route bus and community transport
services, an examination of transport in Warrnambool
(population ~35,000) found that there is a potential market
of unmet trips amounting to perhaps 150,000 trips a year
(Stanley & Stanley, 2012). The groups of people with unmet
travel needs include those not connected with a welfare
agency, elderly frail people, those on a low income who
cannot afford a car, single parents, those with chronic or
short term medical problems and, particularly, youth.
The local mobility coordination function should be performed
by the entity best placed to do this in any local context.
In many cases it will be the local route bus operator, who
will most likely be the largest service provider and should
be well placed to provide a cost-effective coordinating
service. A larger service provision role by the coordinator
is likely to be efcient, given scale economies. Thus, for
example, in Warrnambool the ConnectU model should
be incorporated in to the route bus service, and transport
tasks undertaken by other non-specialist transport
providers should also be coordinated with these broader
transport services. The ‘bus operator’ could then provide
a client transport service for those agencies, on a fee-for-
service basis, covering matters similar to those suggested
by the Ontario MOT (MOT Ontario 2012, p. 105):
The level of coordination between agencies
should be tailored to local conditions, and can
include shared information or referral, joint
acquisition and sharing of supplies and services,
use of excess capacity, joint use of resources, and
centralised services for intake and dispatch.

Moving People > Solutions for Policy Thinkers  Policy Paper 4 23
6. Conclusions
Neighbourhoods are key building blocks to achieve
a well-functioning and sustainable city, and strong
communities arise from well-resourced and well-functioning
neighbourhoods. Such neighbourhoods are good for
people, the environment and economic participation.
They help meet essential needs. The ability to be mobile
is a fundamental ingredient required for achievement.
The concept of a 20 minute city is a useful way to think
from the ‘bottom up’ about a sustainable city. A 20 minute
city implies a population catchment of 200,000+ within
a 5 km radius. It requires a wide range of local activities
plus local mobility choices, particularly an adequate
local public transport service level and safe, convenient
walking and cycling opportunities. Local public transport
service frequencies, which will largely be bus services,
should achieve 30 minute headways within 400 metres of
residences, for about 18 hours a day, with 20 minutes being
preferable to support a 20 minute city. These local services
need to be co-ordinated with high frequency trunk services.
In outer growth areas, where delivery of the 20 minute city
is most problematic, these public transport services should
be available at an early stage in the estate development
cycle, to reduce the need for multiple car ownership.
To enhance opportunities for delivering a city that consists
of a series of smaller 20 minute cities, which include a
range of local activities and supportive mobility options,
minimum density benchmarks should be set, particularly
for outer growth areas. This minimum should be no less
than 35-40 residents plus jobs per net developable hectare.
Development densities lower than 35-40 are not conducive
to 30 minute public transport service frequencies over
extended hours and are a barrier to progressing towards
a 20 minute city. A target of 50, rather than 35-
40, is consistent with public transport service
frequencies of 20- 30 minutes, which is more
supportive of the 20 minute city and will
better support strong communities, social
inclusion and wellbeing of residents.
24 West Line Corridor Collaborative, 2013, “Sheridan Station,
20-Minute Neighbourhood Implementation Strategy”,
http://www.westlinecorridor.org/20MinuteNeighborhood/
Densities in outer growth suburbs will reach these
levels more quickly if the number of active new
development fronts is managed in line with the capacity
for early funding of infrastructure and services. This
will avoid the time lags in provision that currently
disadvantage residents in many outer growth areas
and often result in the purchase of additional cars.
Given the time it takes to inuence land use, improved local
public transport, walking and cycling opportunities should be
a high and early priority for delivering Australian cities that are
comprised of a series of 20 minute cities. The generally low
densities in middle and outer suburbs, where the availability
of public transport is relatively poor, means that this is
where most attention needs to be focused. Earlier provision
of public transport, in conjunction with higher density
targets, will provide a foundation for the 20 minute city.
If public transport boarding rates on particular local
services regularly fall below 5-6 per hour, then alternative
service delivery methods should be explored, with the
Warrnambool ConnectU social enterprise model worthy
of more widespread trialling. This trial is moving towards
the ‘total transport’ concept promoted recently by the
UK House of Commons Transport Committee. Formal
adoption of minimum public transport service boarding
rates, with agreed processes for working through
alternative service options, would help to de-politicise
service planning and improve service efciencies.
Achieving Australian capital cities that function as a series
of 20 minute cities should lead to a number of desirable
outcomes: reduced air pollution and greenhouse gas
emissions, reduced congestion, better health, improvements
to wellbeing and social inclusion, stronger social capital,
improvements in the quality of local
community and associated
economic and social
opportunities for
people, now and
in the future.
J
O
B
S
H
E
A
L
T
H
Y
L
I
V
I
N
G
H
O
U
S
I
N
G
C
O
M
M
U
N
I
T
Y
D
E
C
I
S
I
O
N
-
M
A
K
I
N
G
P
L
A
C
E
S
A
N
D
A
C
T
I
V
I
T
I
E
S
C
O
N
N
E
C
T
I
V
I
T
Y
&
M
O
B
I
L
I
T
Y
20 minute city:
Thinking design
I
m
a
g
e
a
d
a
p
t
e
d
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
S
h
e
r
i
d
a
n
S
t
a
t
i
o
n
2
0
M
i
n
u
t
e
N
e
i
g
h
b
o
u
r
h
o
o
d
I
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
y
2
4

Moving People > Solutions for Policy Thinkers  Policy Paper 4
24
Appendix 1
Visual Representation of
Connecting Neighbourhoods:
The 20 Minute City Possible
Governance Framework
The BIC, in developing this policy paper, looked at a range
of policies, strategies, programs and investments that
are currently in place, have been previously implemented
or considered including some new ideas, with a view to
presenting a possible governance structure to deliver
connected neighbourhoods and the 20 minute city
concept. The governance ow chart on page 25, is a
visual representation of this. The aim is to add to the
national debate on the Federal Government’s role in
the growth and development of our cities and how we
move people, including public and active transport.
“Connecting Neighbourhoods: the 20 minute city”,
presents a range of programs and investment within
a policy framework that encompasses transport and
infrastructure networks and strategic land use planning.
Below provides a brief explanation of the Policies
and Strategies, Program and Investments elements
in the governance ow chart. Further information
and detail is available by contacting the BIC.
Policies and Strategies
Infrastructure Australia: National
Infrastructure Plan
The National Infrastructure Plan to provide funding
for Public and Active Transport Infrastructure.
The National Infrastructure Plan:
> Identify and assess road congestion “Hot Spots” that
incur high productivity losses.
> Invest in infrastructure through the ‘Unlocking Our
Roads: National Program for Reducing Congestion’,
referred to later in this appendix.
Infrastructure Australia Urban Transport
Strategy
This strategy outlines assessment criteria that can be applied
to investment in urban transport infrastructure projects.
These assessment criteria should be applied in
the evaluation (pre and post build) of public and
active transport infrastructure projects.
Modied criteria for regional infrastructure projects can be
developed on the basis of those outlined in the strategy.
COAG Criteria for Capital City Planning
Systems
The COAG Capital City Planning Systems Criteria agreed
between Federal, State and Territory Governments provides
a set of guidelines for the development of strategic
plans for major cities and growing regional centres.
Our Cities, Our Future—A National Urban
Policy for a Productive, Sustainable and
Liveable Future
The Our Cities, Our Future policy document developed
by the Major Cities Unit within the Federal Department
of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development
provides a foundation for the delivery of connected
neighbourhoods and the 20 minute city concept.
Creating Places for People—an Urban
Design Protocol for Australian Cities
The “Creating Places for People - an Urban Design
Protocol for Australian Cities” was developed in 2011 by
a range of not for prot organisations, all Governments
(except NT), and all members of the Federal and
State Planning Ofcials group. This design protocol
should be used to provide design principles for urban
and regional development and renewal projects.
Programs and Investment
Connecting Neighbourhoods – the 20 Minute City
suggests two key programs and one investment fund
to drive the key outcomes for a 20 minute city:
> National Public and Active Transport Infrastructure Fund.
> Unlocking Our Roads: A National Program to Reduce
Congestion.
> Stronger Neighbourhoods Program.
National Public and Active Transport
Infrastructure Fund
The National Public and Active Transport Fund could:
> Provide funding to State and Local Government public
transport systems in areas of identied need.
> Deliver start-up capital and investment into public
transport projects designed by State and Local
Governments.
> Provide funding for identied areas of need to increase
service frequency and reliability and reduce travel costs.

Moving People > Solutions for Policy Thinkers  Policy Paper 4 25
improved
public
health
ageing
in place
KEY OUTCOMES
KEY OUTCOMES
Connecting Neighbourhoods - The 20 Minute City Mission
COAG - Council of Australian Governments
Minister for Cities & Urban
Development
Ministerial Council - Infrastructure, Transport, Planning Ministers and Agencies
Federal Department of Infrastructure,
Transport, Cities, Urban & Regional
Development
Policies & Strategies
Infrastructure Australia
National Infrastructure Plan and Urban Transport
Strategy
COAG Criteria for
Capital Cities
Planning Systems
"Creating Places for People" - an
urban design protocol for Cities
"Our Cities, Our Future" - A National
Urban Policy for productive,
sustainable and liveable cities
Programs & Investments
National Public and Active
Transport Infrastructure Fund
Stronger Neighbourhoods
Program
Unlocking our Roads:
A National Program for Reducing Congestion
20 Minute
Neighbourhoods
Flow on
Benefits
transport
related
living costs
reduced
alleviation
of mortgage
pressures
lowered
vulnerability
to fuel price
fluctuations
improved
social
inclusion &
access to
opportunity
reduced
pollution &
emissions
reduced
traffic
congestion
productivity
gains
sense of
place
local
governance
arrangements
Place Based Integration
State Government
Local Government
Minister for Infrastructure, Transport
& Regional Development
Federal Department of Infrastructure,
Transport, Cities, Urban & Regional
Development
Council of Capital City Lord Mayors
Community Consultation
Community Consultation
City
Source: Apps/Neelagama 2015

Moving People > Solutions for Policy Thinkers  Policy Paper 4
26
Stronger Neighbourhoods Program
The Federal Government supports local communities by
facilitating best practice land use and transport integration.
The Stronger Neighbourhoods Program could include:
> Support for State, Territory and Local governments in
meeting the challenges of improving the quality of life in
our capital cities and major regional centres by providing
support for planning and design of projects and funding
of demonstration projects.
> Support for State, Territory and Local governments to
plan and help deliver employment opportunities close
to residential areas in growing areas of Australia’s major
cities.
> Regional community and development funds to
strengthen community outcomes in regional centres.
Projects that could be supported by the
Stronger Neighbourhoods Program
> Projects that deliver urban and regional development
and enhancements which facilitate Transit Oriented
Development.
> Demonstration projects that feature best practice
innovation in architecture, renewal and development for
capital, major and regional cities.
> Strategic planning focused on integrated transport and
land use plans.
> Precinct planning focused on integrated transport and
land use plans.
> Design projects that promote public and active travel
network planning efciency.
> Corridor planning and protection for future urban and
regional growth areas.
> Feasibility assessment studies for rapid transit projects.
Unlocking our Roads: A National Program
for Reducing Congestion
Trafc congestion has signicant impacts across
the economy, environment and society.
Unlocking Our Roads is a National Program for reducing
congestion in Australia’s major cities and regional centres
to t within a broader Connecting Neighbourhoods package
of policies, strategies, programs and investment.
Unlocking Our Roads uses ve measures that
t together to form a National Program:
> Measure 1 – Identify the congestion reduction value of
existing and future transport infrastructure investment.
> Measure 2 – Develop a national congestion hotspots
program.
> Measure 3 – Encourage travel demand management
strategies.
> Measure 4 – Promote travel behaviour change programs.
> Measure 5 – Tax and nancial incentives for increasing
public transport patronage.
Place Based Integration
Place-based integration is the integrated planning of
services such as land use, transport, housing and health
at a local level, which may be a neighbourhood or 20
minute city, as distinct from planning of these functions at
a wider level, such as city-wide or state-wide, where there
may be functional integration but silos are more likely.

Moving People > Solutions for Policy Thinkers  Policy Paper 4 27
References
Auditor General for Scotland and the Accounts
Commission. (2011). Transport for health and social
care, August, Audit Scotland, Edinburgh.
Bell, D., in association with Currie, G., Stanley, J.
& Fletcher, M. (2006). Buses in Outer Suburban
Melbourne, Multi-modal Transport Solutions, July
Bento, A.M., Cropper, M.L., Mobarak, A.M. and Vinha
K. (2005). ‘The Effects of Urban Spatial Structure
on Travel demand in the United States’, The Review
of Economics and Statistics, 87(3), 466-478.
Blond, P. (2010) Red Tory, London: Faber and Faber.
Boarnet, M. G. (2006). ‘Planning’s role in
building healthy cities’. Journal of the American
Planning Association, 72(1), 4-9.
Boarnet, M.G. (2011). ‘A broader context for land
use and travel behaviour, and a research agenda’,
Journal of the American Planning Association, 77(3),
197-213, DOI 10.1080/01944363.593483.
Boarnet, M.G., Forsyth, A., Day, K. and Oates, J.M.
(2011). ‘The street level built environment and physical
activity and walking: Results of a predictive validity
study for the Irvine Minnesota Inventory’, Environment
and Behaviour. Doi:10/1177/0013916510379760.
Breeze, J., Cummings, C., Jackson, M., McInroy, N.
and Nolan, A. (2013). Addressing Poverty through local
governance, Joseph Rowntree Foundation, UK, October.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The Ecology Of Human
Development: Experiments By Nature And Design.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Cervero, R (2014). ‘Land use transport integration:
implications for infrastructure in North American and
Australian cities’, in Stanley, J and A Roux (eds).
Infrastructure for 21st century Australian cities: papers
from the ADC Forum National Infrastructure and Cities
Summit, March 2014, Melbourne: ADC Forum.
City of Vancouver (2012). Transportation 2040:
Moving Forward. City of Vancouver.
Cook, J.A., Bose, M., Marshall, W.E. and Main, D.S. (2013).
‘How does design quality add to our understanding of
walkable communities’. Landscape Journal 32(2), 151-166.
Deci, EL and RM Ryan (2000). ‘The ‘what’ and ‘why’ of
goal pursuits: human needs and the self-determination
of behavior’. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227–268.
Delbosc A and G Currie (2011). ‘Taking it apart: Disaggregate
modelling of transport, social exclusion and wellbeing’, in
G Currie (ed). New perspectives and methods in transport
and social exclusion research, Bingley UK: Emerald.
Department of Transport (2014). Victorian Transport
Statistics Portal. http://www1.transport.vic.gov.au/
VTSP/homepage.html. Viewed 7th December 2014.
Duranton, G and Taylor M A (2010). ‘The fundamental
law of road congestion: Evidence from US cities’,
American Economic Review 101, 2616-2652.
Ewing, R. and Cervero, R. (2010). ‘Travel and
the built environment’. Journal of the American
Planning Association 76(3), 265-294.
Farrell, S, T., Aubry, T and Coulombe, D. (2004).
‘Neighbourhoods and neighbours: Do they
contribute to personal well-being?’. Journal
of Community Psychology, 32( 1), 9-25.
Florida, R. (2002). The Rise of the Creative
Class, New York: Basic Books.
Frank, LD, Sallis, J., Conway, T., Chapman,J., Saelens
B. and Bachman, W. (2006). ‘Many pathways to health:
Associations between neighbourhood walkability and active
transportation, body mass index, and pollutant emissions’.
Journal of the American Planning Association 72(1), 75-87.
Gehl, J, L., Gemzøe, Kirknæs, S. and Søndergaard, B. (2006).
New City Life. Copenhagen: The Dainsh Architecture Press.
Gilderbloom, JI, Riggs, W. and Meares, W. (2015).’ Does
walkability matter? An examination of walkability’s impact on
housing values, foreclosures and crime’. Cities 42, 13-24.
Greater Vancouver Regional District (1996). Livable
Region Strategic Plan. Policy and Planning Department,
Greater Vancouver Regional District, January.
Handy S, X Cao and Mokhtarian, P. (2006). ‘Self-selection in
the relationship between the built environment and walking’.
Journal of the American Planning Association 72(1), 55-75.
Hansen, F. (2010). All on Board: Building Vibrant Communities
Through Transport, Government of SA, November.
Ingram, G.K., Carbonnell, A., Yu-Hung Hong
and Flint, A. (2009). Smart growth policies.
Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, May.
Jacobs, J. (1961). The death and life of great
American Cities. New York: Random House.
Larsen, K. (2007). The health impacts of place-
based interventions in areas of concentrated
disadvantaged: A review of the literature, Sydney
South West Area Health Service, Sydney.
Lawless, P. (2007). ‘Continuing dilemmas for
area based urban regeneration: evidence from
the New Deal for Communities Programme in
England’, People, Place & Policy, 1(1), 14-21.
Leinberger, C (2009). The option of urbanism: Investing in
a new American Dream. Washington DC, Island Press.
Leinberger, C and M Alonzo (2013). Walk
this way: The economic promise of walkable
neighbourhoods in Metropolitan Washington D.C..
Metropolitan Policy Program at Brookings.
Loader, C and J Stanley (2009). ‘Growing bus patronage
and addressing transport disadvantage: The Melbourne
experience’, Transport Policy (16), 106-114.
Lupton, R., A Fenton and A Fitzgerald (2013). ‘Labour’s
Record on Neighbourhood Renewal in England: Policy,
Spending and Outcomes 1997-2010, Social Policy
in a Cold Climate’, Working Paper 6, July, Centre
for the Analysis of Social Exclusion, LSE, UK.
Marchetti, C (1994). ‘Anthropological invariants
in travel behaviour’, Technical Forecasting
and Social Change, 47(1): 75-78.
Ministry of Economic Development, Employment and
Infrastructure (2013). Growth Plan for the Greater Golden
Horseshoe, 2006: Ofce Consolidation, June 2013. https://
www.placestogrow.ca/index.php?option=com_content&
task=view&id=9&Itemid=14. Viewed 7th August, 2014.
Metro Vancouver (2011). Metro Vancouver 2040:
Shaping our Future. Regional Growth Strategy,
Bylaw No. 1136, 2010. Metro Vancouver. http://www.

Moving People > Solutions for Policy Thinkers  Policy Paper 4
28
metrovancouver.org/planning/development/strategy/
RGSDocs/RGSAdoptedbyGVRDBoardJuly292011.
pdf. Viewed 30th October, 2014.
Millard-Ball, A and L Schipper (2010). ‘Are we reaching
peak travel? Trends in passenger transport in industrialised
countries’. Paper presented to the World Conference
on Transport Research, Lisbon, 11-15 July.
Ministerial Advisory Committee (2012). Melbourne: let’s
talk about the future. Discussion Paper. Prepared by
the Ministerial Advisory Committee for the Metropolitan
Planning Strategy for Melbourne, October.
Ministry of Transport Ontario (2012). Transit Supportive
Guidelines. Ministry of Transportation. Government of Ontario.
Nasri, A and L Zheng (2014). ‘The analysis of transit-oriented
development (TOD) in Washington, D.C. and Baltimore
metropolitan areas’, Transport Policy 32, 172-179.
National Economics (2010). State of the Regions 2010-11.
Canberra: Australian Local Government Association.
Newman, P and J Kenworthy (2006). ‘Urban design to
reduce automobile dependence’, Opolis: An International
Journal of Suburban and Metropolitan Studies, 2(1), 35-52.
NYSSP (2008). Sustainable Streets: Strategic
Plan for the New York City department of
Transportation: 2008 and Beyond. New York: New
York City department of Transportation.
Ohland G and A Brooks (2013). Are we there yet?
Creating complete communities for 21st Century America.
Washington DC: Reconnecting America. http://www.
ssti.us/wp/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/20121001Are
WeThereYet-web.pdf. Viewed 17th November 2014.
Property Council of Australia (2012). Making the numbers
stack up: A study into major urban residential renewal
in Melbourne. Melbourne: Charter Keck Cramer
PTEG (2014). Making the Connections: The Cross-
sector Benets of Supporting Bus Services, July,
Public Transport Executive Group, Leeds.
Putnam, R. (1995). ‘Bowling alone: America’s declining
social capital’. Journal of Democracy, 6, 65-78.
Speck, J (2012). Walkable City: How Downtown can save
America one step at a time. New York: North Point Press.
Shield, M, M Graham and A Taket (2011). ‘Neighbourhood
renewal in Victoria, Australia: An effective way to address
social inclusion’, Journal of Social Inclusion, 2(2), 4-18.
Stanley, J (2014).’ Sustainable transport in Australian cities:
targeting vehicle kilometres of travel’, Bus and Coach Industry
Policy Paper 2, Canberra: Bus Industry Confederation.
Stanley, J. & Stanley, J. (2004). Improving Public Transport
to Meet Community Needs: A Warrnambool Case-
study, October, Bus Association Victoria, Melbourne.
Stanley, JR and JK Stanley (2012). Improving Personal
Mobility Opportunities in Regional Areas: A Report
to BusVic by Monash Sustainability Institute, June,
Monash Sustainability Institute, Melbourne.
Stanley, JR and JK Stanley (2014). Turning our
City Up-side Down: The 20 minute city. Paper
prepared for Bus Association Victoria.
Stanley, J and D Hensher (2011). ‘Economic modelling’, in
G. Currie (ed.) New perspectives and methods in transport
and social exclusion research, Bingley, UK: Emerald.
Stanley, J K, D Hensher, JR Stanley and D Vella-Brodrick
(2011). ‘Mobility, social exclusion and well-being: exploring
the links’, Transportation Research A, 45(8):789-801.
Stanley, JK, JR Stanley and D Hensher. (2012).
‘Mobility, social capital and sense of community:
What value? Urban Studies 49(16): 3595-3609.
Stanley, JR, JK Stanley, D Vella-Brodrick, and G Currie,
G. (2010). ‘The place of transport in facilitating social
inclusion via the mediating inuence of social capital’,
Research in Transportation Economics 29 280-286.
Stanley, J R, T Nicholson and I Manning (2014). ‘ Social
infrastructure’, in Stanley, J. and A. Roux (eds). Infrastructure
for 21st Century Australian Cities. Melbourne: ADC Forum.
State Government Victoria (2014). Plan
Melbourne. Department of Transport, Planning
and Local Infrastructure, 2014.
Sussex, M (2014). ‘Effective governance for Australian
cities’, in Stanley, J. and A. Roux (eds). Infrastructure for
21st Century Australian Cities. Melbourne: ADC Forum.
SYDEC, INC. (2007), ‘Long Term Transit Expansion
Prospects’, Commission Brieng paper 4M-05,
Prepared for National Surface Transportation Policy
and Revenue Study Commission, May, 16.
Translink (2013). Regional transportation strategy:
strategic framework. Vancouver: Translink. July.
UK House of Commons Transport Committee (2014).
Passenger transport in isolated communities. http://
www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmselect/
cmtran/288/288.pdf. Viewed 7th August 2014.
University of Western Sydney (2014). Dropping off the Edge,
http://www.uws.edu.au/equity_diversity/
equity_and_diversity/open_fora/dropping_off_the_
edge_mapping_disadvantage_in_australia
Urry, J. (2000). Mobility and Proximity, Department
of Sociology, Lancaster University http://www.its.
leeds.ac.uk/projects/mobilenetwork/downloads/
urry1stpaper.doc Accessed August 2006.
US Environment Protection Authority (2013). About
Smart Growth. http://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/
about_sg.htm. Viewed 30th October 2014.
Vella-Brodrick, D. and Stanley, J. (2013). ‘The
signicance of transport mobility in predicting well-
being’, Transport Policy, 29, September, 236–242.
West Line Corridor Collaborative, 2013, “Sheridan Station,
20-Minute Neighbourhood Implementation Strategy”,
http://www.westlinecorridor.org/20MinuteNeighborhood/
Wilkinson R. and Pickett, K. (2009). The Spirit level: Why More
Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better, Allen Lane,UK.
Williams, T. (2014). ‘Peak advocacy group perspectives:
Sydney infrastructure’, in Stanley J and A Roux (eds)
Infrastructure for 21st Century Australian Cities. Papers
from the ADC Forum National Infrastructure and Cities
Summit, March 2014, Melbourne: ADC Forum.
Wines, G. M, Scarborough, H., Stanley, J. and Wallis,
A. (2014). ConnectU Social Enterprise: Final Research
Monograph, Deakin and Monash Universities, Victoria.
Zahavi, A (1979). The UMOT Project. Washington
DC: US Ministry of Transport.

Policy Paper 4
Connecting Neighbourhoods:
The 20 minute city
MOVING PEOPLE
Solutions for Policy Thinkers
Copyright 2015 Bus Industry Confederation Inc.
First Published March 2015.
This work is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted
under the Copyright Act 1968, no part may be reproduced
by any process without prior written permission from the Bus
Industry Confederation. Requests and enquiries concerning
reproduction and rights should be addressed to the BIC
National Secretariat, PO Box 6171,KINGSTON ACT 2604.
Email: enquiries@bic.asn.au.
Authors:
Adjunct Professor John Stanley, Institute of Transport and
Logistics Studies, Business School, University of Sydney
Dr Janet Stanley Social Policy Adviser, Stanley & Co
Stephen Davis, Industry Development and Planning Manager, BusVic
Other policy papers are available from
this Policy Set of six publications.
Please contact:
BUS INDUSTRY CONFEDERATION
PO Box 6171, KINGSTON ACT 2604
Tel: +61 2 6247 5990
FAX: +61 2 6273 1035
EMAIL: enquiries@bic.asn.au
WEB: www.ozebus.com.au

Connecting Neighbourhoods:
The 20 minute city
Bus and Coach Industry
Policy Paper 4
MOVING PEOPLE
Solutions for Policy Thinkers
Policy Paper 4
BUS INDUSTRY CONFEDERATION
PO Box 6171, KINGSTON ACT 2604
Tel: +61 2 6247 5990
Fax: +61 2 6273 1035
Email: enquiries@bic.asn.au
Web: www.ozebus.com.au