Public transport, urban form and urban structure: the ...

This article was downloaded by: [UQ Library] On: 17 March 2015, At: 16:59 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Australian Planner Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rapl20

Public transport, urban form and urban structure: the example of Brisbane's tram system a

a

Emily Melville & John Minnery a

School of Geography Planning and Environmental Management, University of Queensland, St Lucia, Brisbane, QLD 4072, Australia Published online: 13 Feb 2015.

Click for updates To cite this article: Emily Melville & John Minnery (2015): Public transport, urban form and urban structure: the example of Brisbane's tram system, Australian Planner, DOI: 10.1080/07293682.2014.957333 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07293682.2014.957333

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http:// www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Australian Planner, 2015 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07293682.2014.957333

Public transport, urban form and urban structure: the example of Brisbane’s tram system Emily Melville and John Minnery School of Geography Planning and Environmental Management, University of Queensland, St Lucia, Brisbane, QLD 4072, Australia

Downloaded by [UQ Library] at 16:59 17 March 2015

(Received 28 April 2014; accepted 18 August 2014)

The form and structure of a city are strongly influenced by its transport system, although this influence is mutual rather than unidirectional. This paper explores the historical interactions between Brisbane’s urban form and urban structure on the one hand and its tramway system on the other hand. The paper identifies a number of financial, institutional, political and related factors that determined the development trajectory of the tramway system from its start in the 1880s; but similar factors led to its eventual demise in 1969. By showing how Brisbane’s tramways developed and the intimate connections of this system to the changing shape and structure of the city the research reinforces the importance of understanding the links between transport and land use, as well as highlighting the potential role of transport technologies in shaping more sustainable cities.

Keywords: tramways; path dependence; Brisbane; urban form; urban structure

Introduction Transport networks are among the most powerful influences shaping the structure and form of cities. But urban form and urban structure also affect transport networks. The historical development of tramways in Australia, from their meteoric rise to their eclipse in the twentieth century, provides a worthy focus to explore the evolution of transport systems, and their influence in shaping urban environments. The tale of light rail in Australia is full of ironies. Fifty years have passed since urban tramways were widely regarded as obsolete. Trams were largely replaced by buses and roads for private motor vehicles, and cities sprawled as residents moved beyond the tramlines. Only in Melbourne does the original system still operate, having survived pressures from supporters of alternate transport modes; there it has expanded to become one of the world’s largest systems in terms of route length (Spearritt 2014). Development on the fringe has now been replaced by consolidation as the main planning goal for shaping Australian cities, pressuring transport systems to adapt to support this change. As evidenced in the Gold Coast, electric-powered light rail systems are re-emerging, and many cities are following a Corresponding author. Email: [email protected] # 2015 Taylor & Francis

similar trajectory, with plans for light rail being proposed in localities including Brisbane. Appreciation of, and support for, light rail systems have grown as cities have evolved in structure and form. As described by Troy (2004, 1) urban structure is concerned with the ‘spatial relationships between cities and their services and activities’ whereas urban form refers to the ‘nature or density of development’. Understanding these two concepts and their historical association with transportation systems helps us to better understand the current state of our cities and their problems. This distinction between form and structure is not always made. Layman (2012, 2), in his study of impacts on commuting patterns, conflates the two; but nonetheless he shows how both together influence and are influenced by transport and travel patterns, in turn affecting urban sustainability. Transportation systems are, as explained by Besussi et al. (2010), fundamental components of urban infrastructure so that the evolution of cities occurs from the ‘coalescence and symbiotic interaction of infrastructure, people and economic activities’ (14). The interaction is described as systematic and sensitive; responding to developments in the global economy, including advances in building and


2

E. Melville and J. Minnery

transport technologies, whilst also considering the local context and constraints which impact on the development trajectory of the particular city. As they put it, ‘cities exist largely because transportation to accessible nodes in space provides the rationale for the agglomeration economies that define them’ (Besussi et al. 2010, 15). Transportation provides the supporting skeleton of a city’s built form, facilitating the movement between key sites that is necessary to the functioning of any urban settlement. The spatial interaction between land development and transportation is exemplified in the process of urban sprawl. Urban sprawl results from the tradeoff between the desire to live close to the city, against the desire to obtain as much land as possible, thus retaining the benefits of both urban and suburban living. It is the product of both rising wealth and advances in transport technologies (Besussi et al. 2010). The process changes the form of the city by encouraging low-density development in the suburban fringe, whilst the nature of the resultant development changes the urban structure in the sense that it catalyses expansion of urban activities and services within these areas. Choi et al. (2012) extend their identification of the relationship between transport and urban structure to include also energy consumption and level of economic development. Similar connections amongst transport, urban form and urban structure have been reported internationally by authors such as Guiliano and Dhiraj (2003), van De Coevering and Schwanen (2006) and Layman (2012). For Australian cities, Troy (2004, 1) goes as far as arguing that both the initial form and the structure of Australian cities may ‘now create problems … because their functions and the demand for and nature of the urban services available in them have changed, while they have simultaneously been subjected to large pressures as a consequence of the adoption of a variety of technologies developed since their founding’ and these changing technologies include transportation networks. The early pressures in Australia’s main cities were towards centralisation; this concentrated urban structure was reinforced where transport infrastructure was built ‘along the ridges and spines near the broken waterways’ (1), as was the case in Sydney and Brisbane. This then led to that fact that ‘(T)he original and subsequent subdivision patterns developed around transport and access routes established and then reinforced the structural centralisation exhibited by Australian cities’ (Troy 2004, 9). This paper provides an historical overview of the connections between urban structure and form on the

one hand and transportation systems on the other hand by exploring the role of Brisbane’s tramways in the city’s changing urban shape. It does this through identifying the factors that led to both the rise and the demise of the tramways within Brisbane and identifying ways in which the tramways influenced and were influenced by city shape and structure. Concepts about ‘path dependence’ are used to provide a framework to help understand the historical relationships between transport and structure. ‘Path dependence’ provides a way of thinking about the historical development of technologies, systems and other components of urban change. Some of these are locked into ‘historical and pathdependent … trajectories’ (Simmie 2012a, 729) because of past conditions. Simmie (2012a, 2012b) has used the idea of path dependence to understand the immense difficulties faced by attempts to change from current entrenched forms of energy generation; whilst Muhammad et al. (2014) have used path dependence to better understand the historical development of public transport in Auckland, New Zealand. The fundamental concepts of path dependence draw attention to the initial conditions that were present before the technology or system was initiated, the ‘path’ that is created through the way it is used or implemented, and then the rigidity or ‘lock-in’ reinforced through its continued use. But there are also instances where a trajectory that seemed fixed is abandoned or modified, sometimes through the creation and use of new technologies or systems, or when ‘crisis points’ are reached. Thus the framework of path dependence considers the conditions that lead to a specific development trajectory, the conditions that lead to that trajectory continuing, and the potential circumstances that may lead to the ‘path dissolution’ (Simmie 2012b, 756). The story of Brisbane’s tramways illustrates all three of these features. Muhammad et al. (2014), in their investigation of the history of Auckland’s public transport system, identify institutional, planning, funding and political factors as the four that most impacted on that public transport system’s historical trajectory. These factors are used to structure the current paper, although their ‘planning’ factors are translated into physical locational factors. The reason is that the location of Brisbane’s tramways was highly dependent upon the physical location of the pre-existing roads, but the development path of the tramway system was also influenced by institutions, political agendas, and finances, as was the case in Auckland. The story of the Brisbane Tramways is a tale of how these factors were involved in its evolution during the period from 1885 to 1969, and how the evolving tramway system


Australian Planner influenced and was influenced by Brisbane’s changing urban form and structure. The research concentrates on the city’s physical development, best represented through analysis of the ‘urban footprint’ representing the outer extent of development. We need to clarify that the way we use this term differs from its post-2005 legal definition in South East Queensland. The first statutory regional plan for South East Queensland in 2005 used and legally defined an ‘urban footprint’ (Queensland Government 2005). It was, and still is in the 2009 update of the plan (Queensland Government 2009), used to identify the area of currently urbanised land as well as the extra land that is anticipated will be developed within the next 25 years. The term, as used since 2005, defines development rights rather than an urbanised area. We use the term ‘urban footprint’ in the more widely understood sense of a visualisable representation of the current extent of urban development. It is used as a surrogate for the physical urban form and structure of the city and provides a foundation from which to analyse the links between these and the tramway system. The research used primary and secondary historical sources (including maps where available) to identify and analyse the historical development of both Brisbane’s urban footprint and its tramway system as well as to identify the political, institutional and financial factors which influenced the historical trajectory of both of these.

Historical context There have been a number of studies of the Brisbane’s tramways, but only a few of these try to explore the possible relationships between the tramway system and Brisbane’s urban structure or urban form (see Clark and Keenan 1977; Nightingale 2006; Ford 2008). For example, Nightingale (2006, 412) says that the ‘most important to the shape of Brisbane’s suburbs was the network of tramlines that served as the main means of personal transport up until the late 1950s … This was the network that connected workers and their homes’. Ford (2008, 65) pays special attention to the location of tram termini, when he notes that ‘often the trams simply went to the existing point of focus and increased it’ whilst ‘as each terminus was established, shopping centres developed or greatly expanded. Often the termini were located at the centre of nearby hamlets which either quickly developed or died’. This present paper builds on these previous analyses to flesh out the linkages between tramways and development, but the investigation has also shown that in many cases

3

the linkages were far more complex than the earlier analyses indicated. Whilst Brisbane began as a city based on walking and animal transport during the nineteenth century it continued to spread. Its expansion in its earliest days of settlement was not only shaped by transport routes but also by the restrictions to free settlement because of its convict origin (Cole 1984). When it was opened up to free settlement in 1842 it started sprawling outwards due to the ready availability of land, a sprawl that continued over the centuries (Ford 2008). Troy’s (2004) analysis shows this was common to many Australian cities and resulted in a city structure with a centralised main employment, business and administrative hub and residential and other land uses in the outer periphery, supported and reinforced by a radial network of roads. Tram and bus routes followed the existing roads so the structure of the system was continually reinforced or ‘locked in’. The Brisbane tramways operated in a number of different forms between 1885, when they started using horse-drawn vehicles, and 1969, when the then-electrified tramlines were closed. Over this period there were many significant technological innovations, including the introduction of electric and diesel-powered vehicles, as well as events of global significance including World Wars and depressions that had a bearing on the tramways and their operations. The way that Brisbane changed during this period, with the formation of the greater Brisbane City in 1924/1925, and the city’s population increasing from 101,500 in 1891 to 631,700 persons by 1965 (Cole 1984, 31; Wilbur Smith and Associates 1965) also provided a noteworthy backdrop to the development of the tramways system and the shape and form of the city. During the early days under private ownership: 1882–1915 Following the enactment of the colonial Tramways Act 1882, the Metropolitan Tramway and Investment Company commenced operations with horse-drawn carriages in 1885 (Greenwood and Laverty 1959, 280). The act was soon amended to enable the tramways to become electrified, and ownership was transferred to the London-based, Brisbane Tramways Company Limited (BTCL; Cole 1984, 27; Greenwood and Laverty 1959, 280). The first electric tram was operating by 1897, and all horse-drawn services were replaced by 1899. The transformation of the system from horsepower to electric-powered enhanced efficiencies in the network; during 1898 and 1916 the number of trams increased from 20 to 172, and

4


termini were extended to locations including Kedron (nine kilometres north of the Brisbane’s CBD), Coorparoo (seven kilometres east), Annerley (seven kilometres south) and Rosalie (three kilometres to the west). These changes supported an increase in annual patronage from 5,801,000 to 51,029,668 during this period (Greenwood and Laverty 1959, 439).


Institutional uncertainty over ownership: 1915–1922 BTCL was reluctant to invest further in extensions or the purchase of new trams, after the election of Thomas J. Ryan and the Labor Party into State government in 1915 (Greenwood and Laverty 1959, 439). This followed concerns about the radical proposals contained in the Labor Party’s platform. Brisbane at this point of time was administered by 20 local government councils (Figure 1). The incoming State government proposed the amalgamation of these jurisdictions with the new enlarged local authority acquiring responsibility for the construction and maintenance of public utilities, including the tramways (Cole 1984, 36). The tram franchise was due to expire in 1920, so the State government and many of the local authorities were thus reluctant to extend its terms. The State government’s reformist

agenda was flagged in legislation introduced into the parliament in 1917 and 1923 but then allowed to lapse. This was the Ryan government’s way of introducing its quite radical reforms to the wider community. Municipalisation of the tramways franchise: 1922–1925 The uncertainty over the private control of the tramways came to an end following the enactment of the Brisbane Tramway Purchase Act in 1920. The act permitted the municipalisation of the venture following the expiry of the franchise in 1922 through the establishment of the Brisbane Tramway Trust (Greenwood and Laverty 1959, 439). The trust had two representatives from the State government, two from the Brisbane City Council and four from the municipal councils that would later be absorbed within the expanded Brisbane City Council. It took over some 70 miles 43 chains (113.6 km) of single and double tramlines (BTT 1923). The result of the previous lack of activity by the BTCL resulted in the fact that, as the Trust noted in its first Annual Report of 1923, ‘Notwithstanding the greatly increased population in the suburbs, no new lines have been built since 1915’ (BTT 1923, 4). The Trust

Figure 1. Local authorities incorporated into Greater Brisbane (Cole 1984, 47).


Australian Planner was also fully aware of the intimate connection between communication through public transport and suburban expansion, noting that: ‘Several districts already sufficiently settled to make extensions payable have been waiting for tramlines for years and the development of desirable residential areas has been retarded owing to the absence of communication’ (4). It undertook an expansion programme between 1922 and 1925 which included: 27 miles (44 km) of lines to be relaid, duplicated or extended to locations including Camp Hill (nine kilometres east of Brisbane’s CBD), Kedron (nine kilometres north) and Ashgrove (six kilometres north-west) and over 80 new trams (Greenwood and Laverty 1959, 442). These changes supported an additional one million passengers during this period (Greenwood and Laverty 1959, 442). An important dilemma faced by the Trust, and one that faced its successors, was balancing the demands for its services against the resources it had available. In its first annual report it not only recognised the need for expansion of new lines, but also that congestion on the existing network required relief and tracks needed to be duplicated and relaid. It determined to expand ‘in a moderate way’ by extending three lines: Kedron Park Terminus to beyond the Lutwyche Cemetery; Red Hill along Waterworks Road past the police station; and East Brisbane Terminus to Galloway’s Hill (1923, 4). It is clear from statements such as this, and repeated in spirit in later annual reports and those of its successors, that there was no grand plan for a total integrated tramway system but rather incremental expansion as demand and resources allowed. The demands were shaped by (and shaped) Brisbane’s expansion. The Trust’s acknowledgement of the intimate relationship between the tramways as a means of public transport and suburban development (and the resultant demands on its limited resources) was expressed forcibly in its second annual report: The building of different tramway lines simultaneously opens up large areas of land, which, in consequence, are not being developed as quickly as would have been the case if only one extension had been built. The high costs of constructing lines and running cars from 16 to 18 hours a day demand a considerable volume of sustained business to avoid heavy loss, and, whilst the Trust is prepared to take a broad view of the matter and assist to develop new suburbs instead of holding back until a return on the capital expended is assured, there is a limit beyond which it would be injudicious to proceed, otherwise these extensions would become a burden too heavy to be borne by the revenue from older lines. The Trust is pressed in all directions for more and more extensions, and even for extensions of tramlines

5

which have just been built, but it is impossible to meet all requests. The Trust realises, however, that the development of new suburbs is of outstanding importance… (BTT 1924, 6)

It is important to note that the Tramways Trust took over the licencing of private buses along with the running of the tramway system. In its first annual report it noted although it had control of 16 motor bus licences when it was formed, a number that had then grown to 27 licences covering 30 buses. This gave the Trust statutory powers that were ‘greater than any other tramway system in Australia’ (BTT 1924, 13). The Trust’s policy, and one maintained by its successors, was ‘to encourage motor buses to act as feeders to the trams or the railway, rather than run in direct competition along tram routes, upon which the additional cars now being built will improve the services’ (12). The Trust felt it could support the licencing of buses where they were ‘feeders to the present electric tram system’; plied ‘new routes to and from the city where traffic warrants it’; could ‘pioneer new tram routes’ or could ‘act as auxiliaries to the present tram service’ (13). Although the suburban trains were controlled by the State government the Trust did not support buses that competed with the trains. The system continued to expand over the following decades when it was taken over by the vastly expanded Brisbane City Council, created after the passing of the City of Brisbane Act in 1924 and the amalgamation of the 20 local authorities shown in Figure 1. The period of expansion: pre-Second World War William Jolly was elected as the first Lord Mayor of the new council in 1925 and remained in office until 1931. Among the council’s key priorities was addressing the problem of increasing traffic congestion, through measures including improvements to the road network and changes to the public transport network (Cole 1984, 50). The roads programme was one of his most significant projects, which provided £350 000 worth of scheduled upgrades on over 50 miles (80 km) of arterial roads (Cole 1984, 53). One of his not so successful projects was the trial introduction of council buses on prospective tram routes between 1926 and 1928, incurring a loss of £19,792, which was argued to be partly due to the inadequacy of suburban roads (Cole 1984, 61). However, in the city core where roads had been improved by the arterial roads programme, private bus services were operating successfully. Given this situation, in 1928 the council imposed stronger restrictions on private buses from operating outside


6


tramway feeder routes (Cole 1984, 53). The intentions of the council were clearly to gain greater control over Brisbane’s transport modes, particularly as competition between buses and trams intensified. Jolly persisted with investment in the tram network, as it proved the more economical transport alternative at the time. Trams returned profits during 1925 and 1927, unlike the council bus trial, despite a decrease in patronage from 84.51 to 78.05 million travellers (Cole 1984, 61). By 1929 the network contained 56 miles (90 km) of tramlines, which included extensions to Kalinga (10 kilometres north of Brisbane’s CBD) and Rainworth (five kilometres north-west). The council continued to have responsibility for licencing private bus operators and as the 1930–1931 Minutes of the Transit, Electric Light and Power House Committee (TELPC 1930) show the policy of keeping buses from direct competition with the trams continued, even when there were petitions from community members in support of new bus routes (e.g. Paddington 1930, 3) and additional services (e.g. Taringa 1930, 4), although in 1930 a Bardon bus operator’s petrol was subsidised to ‘keep faith with the Bardon people’ (1930, 21). Despite the onset of the Great Depression in 1930, Brisbane’s transport network continued to evolve under the administration of Lord Mayors John William Green (1931–1934) and Alfred James Jones (1934–1940). Investment in roads remained a priority for the council; however, expenditure was constrained to minor improvements and upgrades on suburban roads (Cole 1984, 53). In 1937, Jones proposed that diesel buses be given a short trial on routes complementary to tramways, as the laying of additional tram tracks would not be an economic proposition except for minor extensions in growing suburbs. The tramways manager, G.R. Steer, responded in a statement to council that the focus should be on incorporating trolley buses into the network as they did not require tramways extension (Cole 1984, 92). By 1940, diesel buses were running on four of the tram routes and an order placed for trolley buses, which indicated that the institutions were becoming increasingly supportive of the incorporation of buses into the transport system (Cole 1984, 93). Fortunately for the tramways, the majority of Brisbane bus services remained privately owned, and the order for new trolley buses was put on hold by the onset of the Second World War (Ford 2008). The slow decline: post-Second World War The tramway reached its peak loading between 1944 and 1945, when 408 trams operated and carried

almost 160 million persons. This dramatically demonstrated the carrying capacity of the system. The widespread patronage of trams during the war was reinforced by petrol rationing and restrictions on car imports. But two years later, during the 1946–1947 financial year, profits had fallen by over £90,000 (Clark and Keenan 1977) as efforts to retain the profitably of the tramway were increasingly challenged by declining patronage and the concurrent rise in private car ownership and use (Cole 1984, 129). Between 1949 and 1963 car registrations in Queensland had increased from 80,800 to 298,000, whilst tram patronage had decreased by 32% (Cole 1984, 263). Various actions were taken by council and State government to further modernise Brisbane’s public transport network. Sir John B. Chandler, Lord Mayor between 1940 and 1952, believed that the future metropolitan transport requirements would be best addressed by the economic co-ordination of both tram and bus facilities. Chandler’s actions included acquiring 20 of the remaining 52 private bus services, which followed an amendment to the State Transport Facilities Act in 1947 (Cole 1984, 129–130). Acquisition of all remaining services was not considered to be economical nor desirable by council, so instead their efforts were focused on those services which ran between the suburbs and the city (Cole 1984, 130). The tram network also became more efficient through measures which included the introduction of 33 streamlined trams (Cole 1984, 131); extension of routes to the ‘rural hamlets’ of Chermside (12 kilometres north of Brisbane’s CBD), Belmont (14 kilometres east) and Mt Gravatt (11 kilometres south) (Ford 2008); and 30 trolley buses which served five additional routes and extended the tram network by a further 30 km (Clark and Keenan 1977). Chandler proved to be the last Lord Mayor to invest in the expansion of the tram network, with his successors favouring buses, in the bus–tram debate. Sir Reginald Groom (1955–1961) and his council (Citizens’ Municipal Organisation party) undertook serious investigations into the running of Brisbane public transport, which included commissioning outside management consultants to recommend ways to enhance efficiencies, whilst reducing operating costs. Following these investigations, the length of the tram network was reduced by one fifth, the number of trams reduced from 408 to 366, 250 services were withdrawn, and patronage decreased by 27% between 1955 and 1961 (Cole 1984, 184). Meanwhile the number of buses increased from 239 to 268; however, their operations remained unprofitable (Cole 1984, 184).


Australian Planner The election of Clem Jones as Lord Mayor in 1961 would soon bring an end to the bus–tram debate. A key priority of his council was to upgrade Brisbane’s road network to handle car traffic increases. This was greatly assisted by money obtained through the national Commonwealth Aid Road Scheme (Cole 1984, 220). The fire at the Paddington tram depot in 1962 could be argued to be the most significant single influence in the future of tramway operations, as it destroyed 65 trams, or 20% of the total fleet. Jones shortly after introduced a five-year programme to add an extra 140 buses and replace trams with buses on three tram routes (Cole 1984, 265). During the same time, State government pursued action to resume expired bus licences, and soon after commissioned American traffic engineers, Wilbur Smith and Associates, to analyse the existing and future travel requirements within Brisbane (Cole 1984, 227 and 266). The firm’s findings were released in the Brisbane Transport Study in 1965, which recommended that all trams and trolley buses be replaced by diesel buses for reasons including the inflexibility of tram and trolley bus operations; additional safety for passengers; and the ability to extend routes into new residential and industrial areas (Wilbur Smith and Associates 1965). In 1968, Jones announced that all tramway and trolley buses routes would be converted to diesel bus operations during the following financial year (Clark and Keenan 1977). The last tram operated in 1969. Understanding Brisbane’s path trajectory As Spearritt (2014) notes Brisbane was actually one of the last of the Australian capitals to abandon its full tramway system. Institutional, political and financial factors were shown above to have a strong influence on the development, extension and change of the system. But as external shocks impacted on this tramway-based trajectory for public transport, different aspects of these same factors led to the system’s demise. The complex connections between the development trajectory of the tramway system and that of Brisbane’s urban structure can be seen from an analysis of the tramway termini and the surrounding suburbs. The termini shifted over time as the system was expanded (or reduced). Three examples are used here. First, although many of the termini were located at retail or suburban centres in some cases they provided the connecting links between public transport modes, as was the example of the tramline to Teneriffe/Newstead on the north side of the Brisbane River and the extension to Bulimba on the south,

7

because the two lines served the Bulimba/Newstead cross-river ferry. But this kind of tramline influenced suburban development, not just the transport system: ‘the imminent extension of the tram service to Bulimba led to several residential estates in the 1920s’ (CGQ, University of Queensland 2014b, n.p.). Figure 2a shows the Teneriffe terminal serving the ferry to Bulimba in the 1960s. Figure 2b shows the same location in 2014, now part of Brisbane’s inner city urban renewal. Similarly the tramway terminus at the New Farm Wharf served the cross-river ferry to Hawthorne. The tram system also filled another important public transport route gap. Until the opening of the Merivale Bridge in 1978, the rail system south of the Brisbane River connected to the northern part via a roundabout route through Corinda. There was no connection from the South Brisbane station across the Brisbane River to the CBD and the northern lines except by tram (or foot or car). The second example is of the connections between the tramway system and the activities that form the basis of the city’s urban structure. Community pressure led to the construction of a tram line to serve the ‘Ascot’ racecourse at Eagle Farm in 1899, with the line running along Kingsford Smith Drive … and northwards along Racecourse Road to the track entrance. The tram service fostered residential development in Hamilton and Ascot, the district having been constituted as the Hamilton local-government division in 1890. A shopping strip grew along Racecourse Road, which by the 1920s had a retail catchment along tramlines in Lancaster Road to Oriel Park and Doomben. (CGQ, University of Queensland 2014a, n.p.)

In Figure 3a and 3b, the racecourse is to the left. The shopping strip developed in Racecourse Road is behind the photographer. In this example, the tramway served the particular facility (the racecourse), but its very presence supported the growth of retail facilities that depended on the greater catchment the tramline made available as well as enhancing residential development in the area. As is the case with many other small shopping strips in Brisbane that grew as a result of a tram-based catchment that in Racecourse Road still thrives. A third example shows how the outward expansion of the urban footprint is linked to the developing tramway system. Figure 4a and 4b show the terminus of the tramline that was extended to the corner of Hamilton Road and Gympie Road at Chermside in 1947. This extension ‘opened Chermside to residential expansion … Many new homes were built by the Queensland Housing Commission and the War Service Homes Commission to accommodate the



8

Figure 2. (a) Bulimba Ferry Terminus at Teneriffe, 1960s (BTM 2014). (b) Bulimba Ferry Terminus at Teneriffe in 2014 (Photo: E. Melville).

growth’ (CGQ, University of Queensland 2014c, n.p.). The Chermside area saw the growth of various health facilities, including what became the Prince Charles Hospital, near the terminal. But in addition to this, ‘Chermside was on the metropolitan map. Right at the end of the tram line the Allan and Stark department store opened Australia’s first privateenterprise drive-in, free standing shopping centre, preceding Myer’s Chadstone centre (Melbourne) by

two years’ (CGQ, University of Queensland 2014c, n.p.). Residential development was reinforced by the transport opportunities offered by the extended tramway system, and this growth and public access supported the creation of expanded shopping facilities (although no doubt at that time reinforced by the growing use of cars). These clear connections between Brisbane’s tramway system and the form and structure of specific

9


Australian Planner

Figure 3. (a) Ascot Doomben Terminus in the 1960s (BTM 2014). (b) Ascot Doomben Terminus area in 2014 (Photo: E. Melville).

suburbs can also be seen in the overall city shape. Brisbane began as a walking and animal transport city with a network of roads radiating from the centre. Tram and bus routes followed the existing roads so the structure of the system was continually reinforced or ‘locked in’. The series of maps in Figure 5 provides snapshots of the expansion of the tram network between 1925 and 1961. During these years the tramlines were extended and termini relocated further away from the city’s core, which reinforced the radial structure of Brisbane’s transport system. The figure also shows that by 1951, although some main lines had been extended, there had also

been the closure of some of the smaller branch lines, particularly towards the south-east. The process of path creation and reinforcement proves to be far more complex when analysis considers these historical events and the broader institutional and political contexts. The agendas of councils and State government throughout the period proved to both assist and hinder the expansion of the tram network. These agendas influenced the priorities allocated to the tramway system and had a direct impact on the money that was invested into its development. For instance, the conflict which surrounded the intended municipalisation of the venture



10

Figure 4. (a) Chermside Terminus, Gympie Road, in the 1960s (BTM 2014). (b) Chermside tram terminus site, Gympie Road, Chermside, 2014 (Photo: E. Melville).

from 1915 deterred the private company from further investing, and the system did not expand until the ownership was transferred to the Brisbane Tramway Trust in 1922. From 1925 the tramways, as part of the Brisbane City Council, were but a part of the conflicting priorities of the council as a whole. Another key influence in path creation and the agendas of these institutions were advances in transport technology, including that of competing public transport modes such as buses and cars. Before the Second World War, the transport debate remained principally between buses and trams. As buses were mostly under private ownership and were more

expensive to operate as evidenced in trials undertaken in 1926–1928 and 1937, trams remained the more economical option. Tram dominance was reinforced through the control of private bus licences by the Tramway Trust and the Brisbane City Council. But the prosperity which followed the Second World War was marked by increased car ownership and usage which saw Brisbane sprawl beyond the tramlines, as demonstrated in Figure 6. The two maps illustrate the tram network and Brisbane’s urban footprint in 1946 and 1960, and how the association between the two weakened over the period. As the bus–tram debate continued during

Australian Planner

11


Figure 5. Tramlines 1925, 1946 and 1961. Source: Adapted from Greenwood and Laverty (1959) and Clark and Keenan (1977).

these years, the additional force of technological change exemplified by the motor vehicle caused patronage to decline on both buses and trams. In path dependence, terms there had been resistance to changing the tramway-based transportation trajectory but the growing significance of the car appeared as an external factor putting pressure on the continuation of this trajectory. Several crisis points were reached in the 1960s, including the strong views of the Lord Mayor, Clem Jones, the Wilbur Smith and Associates’ report on Brisbane’s traffic planning, and the continuing decline in patronage of both the buses and the trams.

The eventual end of tramway operations in 1969 resulted from actions that involved all three levels of government. Federal funding enabled the road network to be upgraded to support increased car usage, whilst changes in State policy enabled the council to continue with their acquisition of private bus services. The Paddington depot fire was an unfortunate yet highly significant event, which prompted council to increase bus operations in Brisbane to compensate those lost by the trams. The transition to an all bus service was reinforced by the recommendations of the1965 Brisbane Transport Study and the approach of Lord Mayor Clem Jones.

Figure 6. Tramlines and Urban Footprint, 1946 and 1960. Source: Adapted from Greenwood and Laverty (1959) and Heywood and Brisbane City Council (1990).

12



Conclusion The clear mutually supportive relationships between urban form and urban structure on the one hand and the urban transport system on the other hand are clearly shown in how the development and eventual demise of Brisbane’s tramway system impacted on the city, and how the city’s development impacted on the tramway system. From the tramway’s start in the 1880s until its dissolution in 1969 it played a critical role in the way Brisbane was shaped and grew. The impact was not just in terms of the outward expansion of the urban footprint, although this was important; the tramway also helped reshape and restructure many of Brisbane’s inner suburbs. The trajectory that the development pathway that the tramway system represents was shaped by the political, financial and institutional factors of the time, as well as the physical location of the roads the tramways followed. An obvious path dependent trajectory came into being and was reinforced through these factors, at least until the 1940s. But then other financial, political, institutional and technological factors, most strongly represented by the growth in ownership and use of cars, led to the previous development trajectory coming under threat. A series of crisis points was reached in the 1960s that led to the tramways being abandoned. The previous development path was discarded. With light rail systems making a resurgence in transport planning in many cities, perhaps there is a need to rethink Brisbane’s public transport system and the tramway’s place within this. This historical analysis showed the powerful relationships between tram-based public transport and the structure of the city. The historical legacy of the tramway system is still apparent. With the massive technological changes now represented by modern light track rail systems perhaps they should now be seen as a formidable potential tool for reshaping Australian cities, including their largely latent role in shaping more sustainable cities. Brisbane’s highly successful bus rapid transit system is based on busways separated from other traffic, but the infrastructure is engineered to be able to carry light rail in the future (DTMR 2014; Australian Tunnelling Society, n.d.). Perhaps Brisbane’s tramways are not just a legacy of the past but also a pointer to the city-shaping public transport of the future. References Australian Tunnelling Society. n.d. Projects: South East Transit Busway Project, Brisbane. Accessed August 9. http://www.ats.org.au/index.php/projects-topmenu-4/

4-projects/historical-projects/146-south-east-transitbusway-project-brisbane. Besussi, E., N. Chin, M. Batty, and P. Longley. 2010. “The Structure and Form of Urban Settlements.” In Remote Sensing of Urban and Suburban Areas, edited by T. Rashed and C. Ju¨rgens, 13–31. Dordrecht: Springer. Brisbane Tramway Museum (BTM). 2014. Brisbane’s Tram Termini. Accessed April 27. http://www.brisbanetram waymuseum.org/phototermanii.php. The Brisbane Tramway Trust (BTT). 1923. First Annual Report. Brisbane: Government Printer (Queensland State Archives SRS4171/1 Item 1, Date 1923-1939). The Brisbane Tramway Trust (BTT). 1924. Second Annual Report. Brisbane: Government Printer (Queensland State Archives SRS4171/1 Item 1, Date 1923-1939). Centre for the Government of Queensland (CGQ), University of Queensland. 2014a. Ascot-Doomben. Accessed April 27. http://www.queenslandplaces.com.au/ascot Accessed 27/4/2014. Centre for the Government of Queensland (CGQ), University of Queensland. 2014b. Bulimba. Accessed April 27. http://www.queenslandplaces.com.au/bulimba. Centre for the Government of Queensland (CGQ), University of Queensland. 2014c. Chermside. Accessed April 27. http://www.queenslandplaces.com.au/chermside-andchermside-west. Choi, H., D. Nakagawa, R. Matsunaka, and T. Oba. 2012 “International Research on the Relationship between Urban Structure and Transportation Energy Consumption according to Economic Level.” Australasian Journal of Regional Studies 18 (1): 128–149. Clark, H., and D. Keenan. 1977. Brisbane Tramways - The Last Decade. Sydney: Transit Press. Cole, J. 1984. Shaping a City: Greater Brisbane 1925-1985. Brisbane: William Brooks. Department of Transport and Main Roads (DTMR). 2014. South East Busway Extension Concept Design Study (Rochedale to Springwood): Engineering. Accessed August 9. http://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/projects/name/s/ south-east-busway-extension.aspx. Ford, G. 2008. “Trams, Tramways, and Termini.” In Brisbane: Water, Power and Industry, edited by C. Fitz-Gerald, Chapter 8, 56–65. Brisbane: Brisbane History Group. Giuliano, G., and N. Dhiraj. 2003. “Another Look at Travel Patterns and Urban Form: The US and Great Britain.” Urban Studies 40 (11): 2295–2312. doi:10.1080/00420 98032000123303. Greenwood, G., and J. Laverty. 1959. Brisbane, 1859-1959: A History of Local Government. Sydney: Zieglar. Heywood, P., and Brisbane City Council. 1990. The Planning and Development of Brisbane’s Urban Form and Structure: Background Discussion Paper. Brisbane: Brisbane City Council. Layman, C. C. 2012. “Modeling and Evaluating Changes to City Urban Structure.” PhD diss., Department of Geography, College of Social Sciences and Public Policy, Florida State University.


Australian Planner Muhammad, I., L. Matthews, and J. Pearce. 2014. “Political Path Dependence in Public Transport in Auckland: An Historical Analysis.” In UHPH_14: Landscapes and Ecologies of Urban and Planning History, Proceedings of the 12th Conference of the Australasian Urban History/Planning History Group, edited by M. Gjerde and E. Petrovic. Wellington: UHPHG and Victoria University. Nightingale, J. 2006. “Brisbane: The 200 Kilometre City or Just Another Port Town.” Urban Policy and Research 24 (3): 409–421. doi:10.1080/08111140600877073. Queensland Government. 2005. South East Queensland Regional Plan 2005-2026. Brisbane: Department of Infrastructure and Planning. Queensland Government. 2009. South East Queensland Regional Plan 2009-2031. Brisbane: Department of Infrastructure and Planning. Simmie, J. 2012a. “Path Dependence and New Path Creation in Renewable Energy Technologies.” European Planning Studies 20 (5): 729–731. doi:10.1080/096 54313.2012.667922. Simmie, J. 2012b. “Path Dependence and New Technological Path Creation in the Danish Wind Power Industry.” European Planning Studies 20 (5): 753–772. doi:10.1080/09654313.2012.667924.

13

Spearritt, P. 2014. “Why Melbourne Kept Its Trams.” In UHPH_14: Landscapes and Ecologies of Urban and Planning History, Proceedings of the 12th Conference of the Australasian Urban History/Planning History Group, edited by M. Gjerde and E. Petrovic. Wellington: UHPHG and Victoria University. Transit, Electric Light and Power House Committee, Brisbane City Council (TELPC). 1930. Minutes of Meetings, 15th October 1930 to 11th February, 1931, Queensland State Archives. Troy, Patrick. 2004. The Structure and Form of the Australian City: Prospects for Improved Urban Planning, Issues Paper 1. Brisbane: Urban Policy Program, Griffith University. van de Coevering, P., and T. Schwanen. 2006. “Reevaluating the Impact of Urban Form on Travel Patterns in Europe and North-America.” Transport Policy 13 (3): 229–239. doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2005. 10.001. Wilbur Smith and Associates. 1965. Brisbane Transportation Study: Summary Report. Brisbane: Queensland Government.