brisbane’s citycat service presentation by alicia ames phd candidate school of geography,...
TRANSCRIPT
Brisbane’s CityCat Service Presentation by Alicia AmesPhD Candidate
School of Geography, Planning, Environmental Management
The University of Queensland
The role of water-based transport in history
• Many cities have evolved proximate to water bodies
• Expansion of land-based transport led to the decline of water-based transport
Communication means
Transporting goods, people,
livestock
Accelerated economic
development
(Castonguay & Evenden 2012; Lambert 2010)
“Rivers are a spatial system woven into the geographic fabric of the city” (Castonguay & Evenden 2012 p. 5).
Bangkok’s khlongs (canals)
Khlong Saen Saeb connects the Chao Phraya River to Prachin Buri and Chachoengsao
Source: Iioilo Wanderer 2013 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khlong_Saen_Saeb#/media/File:Major_ferr
y_boat_stop_Bangkok_with_skyscraper.JPG
Source: Fotograf 2006 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khlong_Saen_Saeb#/media/File:Ferrieskhlon
gsaensaeb0609.jpg
Early Brisbane history • Water-based transport most reliable means for
communication and transport of goods and passengers
• Earliest documented ferry services on the Brisbane River are in 1843
• Ferries plied the river connecting small settlements located at Kangaroo Point, South Brisbane and North Brisbane
TOD is generally described as medium to high density walkable, mixed-use development focused around high frequency transit stations, stops
or exchanges and featuring quality public spaces (Calthorpe 1993; Cervero et al. 2004).
Traditional transit-oriented developments (TODs) have been largely land-based.
There is a growing focus on river-based developments and river-based transport.
Ferry-oriented development (FOD)• Waterfront development projects nestled around ferry terminals
• Spur development of waterfront areas, particularly where the decline of port, industrial and military uses has created opportunities for redevelopment
• Land value uplift may occur around terminals
Port Imperial Ferry Terminal, New York
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weehawken_Port_Imperial#/media/File:Weehawken_Port_Imperial
_Ferry_Terminal_on_Hudson_River.jpg
Ferry-oriented development (FOD)
• Hoboken, New York
• 8-10 minute ferry trip from Manhattan
• In some areas, rents are half the price of midtown Manhattan
• Ranked #11 in the Top 20 ‘creative class’ cities in the United States
Source: City of Hoboken 2014
Source: City of Hoboken 2014
Are ferries different?
Waterbody Crossings
9
• Traditionally used to cross rivers, lakes, channels, bays, etc.
• Used to transport people primarily
• Struggle to compete with bridges and tunnels Sydney Ferry (cross harbour route)
Source: Nicole Smith 2015
San Francisco
• Ferries have been used to cross the bay since 1850
• Golden Gate Bridge opened in May 1937
• Ferries declined by the late 1950s
Source: Beautiful Photography Blog n.d.
San Francisco• Serious problems with traffic congestion
on the bridge
• Ferries reintroduced in the late 1960s to help ease traffic congestion
• Extension of ferry services to a third terminal and special event services to baseball games and concerts at AT&T Park
Source: Reddit 2015
Source: Golden Gate Bridge Highway & Transport District 2015
Linear Ferry Systems• Distinct to ferry services that cross water bodies
• Less common to water body crossings, but increasingly being considered
• Characteristics:
• Linear travel
• Operate along a riverfront or shoreline
• Service multiple stops
• Higher speed (22-52 kilometres per hour)
• Passenger focus
• Regular service
Linear Ferry Systems• Cities with linear ferry systems:
• Asia – Bangkok, Manila
• Europe – London, Copenhagen, Gothenburg, Hamburg
• Australia – Brisbane, Sydney
• North America – San Francisco, New York
Source: Groupon, Inc 2015 Source: Bangkok Trip n.d. Source: CBS New York 2011
Brisbane Case Study
Source: Steve Parish Nature Connect 2014
Brisbane’s Ferry NetworkThree types of ferry services:
• Cross river ferries
• Cityhopper ferries
• CityCat catamaran ferries
Cross River Ferries• Conventional single-hull boats
• Carries between 53-54 passengers
• Fleet of 6 boats
• Top speed of 8-12 knots (14-22 km/h)
• 3 cross river routes
Cityhopper Ferries• Conventional single-hull boats
• 8 terminals (2 shared with CityCat service)
• Carries 78 passengers
• Fleet of 3 boats
• Top speed of 8-12 knots (14-22 km/h)
Source: State of Queensland 2015
When were the CityCats introduced?
• Introduced catamaran high-speed boats in 1996
• Initially 6 catamarans in fleet, now 21
• Expanded to 18 terminals
• Carry between 149-162 passengers
• Top speed of 25 knots (42km/h)
• Run by private operator (Transdev) under tender
Why were the CityCats introduced?
Sources : (TL) Australia Trade Coast 2012, (TR) Skyscrapercity 2010, (BL) ABC 2014, (BR) Mactaggarts Place Management 2007.
Reorientation of the city towards the river
Urban renewal agenda
TourismReplace some cross-river ferry services
Why were the CityCats introduced?
University of Queensland
Griffith University at South Bank
Queensland University of Technology
CBD
Link important activity centres
Reorientation towards the river• Economic and commercial uses moved downstream
• Opportunity to redevelop disused industrial, warehousing and port
sites along the riverfront
Reorientation towards the river• Brisbane had turned its back on the river
• 1987 Brisbane’s ‘Year of the River’
• Redevelopment of South Bank for World Expo in 1988
Urban renewal agenda• Hawke Labor Government introduced $816 million Building Better Cities
Program in 1991
• Urban Renewal Taskforce created with local and state government
support
• Focused on inner city including riverfront
suburbs New Farm, Teneriffe, Newstead
• Redevelopment of brownfield sites into
residential, commercial, leisure and cultural
uses
Source: Brett Gray n.d.
Powerhouse at New FarmBEFORE AFTER
Tourism• Provide a tourism opportunity
Source: Trip Advisor 2015
Replace some cross-river ferry services
• Some cross-river ferry services ceased after the introduction
BUT
Go Card data suggests that the CityCats are being used as a linear
service
How were the locations for the CityCat terminals decided?
• Availability of existing infrastructure
• Existing land ownership
• Topography of proposed sites
• Potential catchment land uses and population size
• Alternate public transport modes in the area
What are the processes causing change?
Developers show considerable interest in adding terminals to service
large redevelopment sites along the river.
Source: Economic Development Queensland 2014
A need for flood resiliency
A need for flood resiliency
A need for flood resiliency
Source: Brisbane Inner West Chamber of Commerce 2014
Expansion of the network
Ageing first generation vessels
What are the impacts of the CityCat service?
• Increase in property values around the ferry terminals particularly
for the Regatta, Bulimba and Hawthorne terminals
• Housing affordability around ferry terminals
• Potential for gentrification
• Can reduce pressure on other modes
What could be next for the CityCat service?
Different routes and more express services
Thames Clippers
Hamburg
Better coordination and timing of CityCats with other public
transport modes
Source: Brisbane City Council n.d. http://wwwww.everystockphoto.com/photo.php?
imageId=16163898
Source: Foto Fanatic http://www.yourbrisbanepastandpresent.com/2010/08/n
ewstead-air-raid-shelter.html
Better strategic planning
• Need for an endorsed ferry strategy
• More emphasis in transport planning documents
• City Plan 2014
• Transport Plan 2008-2026
• SEQ Regional Plan 2009-2031
Consider the ‘service’ being offered
Investigate alternative financing options for ferry infrastructure such as
value capture
Brisbane City Council and Regatta Hotel shared the cost of the original Regatta terminal in 2003
Higher residential densities around ferry terminals
Battersea Power Station RedevelopmentSource: Mission 2015
Battersea Power Station FOD
ReferencesPrado, M 2010, ‘Golden Gate Ferry celebrates 40 years’, Marin Independent Journal, viewed 10 May, http://
www.marinij.com/general-news/20100814/golden-gate-ferry-celebrates-40-years.
Sipe, N & Burke, MI 2011, ‘Can river ferries deliver smart growth? Experience of CityCats in Brisbane, Australia’, Transportation Research
Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board No. 2217, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington
D.C, pp. 79-86.
Soltani, A, Tanko, M, Burke, M & Farid, R 2015, ‘Travel patterns of urban linear ferry passengers: Analysis of smart card fare data for
Brisbane, Australia’, Accepted for publication in Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board.
Thompson, R, Burroughs, R & Smythe, T 2006, ‘Exploring the connections between ferries and urban form: Some considerations before
jumping on board’, Journal of Urban Technology, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 25-52.
Tsai, CH, Mulley, C, Burke, M & Yen, B 2014, ‘Exploring property value effects of ferry terminals: Evidence from Brisbane, Australia’,
Proceedings from the World Society for Transport and Land Use Research, June 24-17, Delft.
Weisbrod, RE & Lawson, CT 2003, ‘Ferry systems: Planning for the revitalization of U.S cities’, Journal of Urban Technology, vol. 10, no. 2,
pp. 47-68.