RAIL - Back On Track Forum

QuoteGiven the poor planning around our current station and the small park n rides available at most stations I can [sic] see how replacing them with urban development will harm patronage at all in fact the dead opposite.

Well, we can expect it to harm patronage if the TOD development that replaces the car park doesn't generate at least a replacement quantity of passengers to the station. That is a specific, quantifiable, testable statement.

This isn't saying that TOD is good or bad, the framework I have set out is simply saying it depends on circumstances. Many outcomes are possible:

TOD > Car Park
TOD = Car Park
TOD < Car Park

 

While a lot of European cities were build hundreds of years ago, it can't be forgotten that many of these cities (including Amsterdam) were completely rebuilt after WWII (sometimes directly after, sometimes a couple decades after), to be much more car-orientated cities. The Dutch saw the error of their ways before too much damage was done thankfully, and started down the current path of active and public transport priority. They've still got a fair way to go themselves, so that just goes to show how long it takes to turn things around.

We need to remember that this sort of change takes a very long time, but it needs to be started as soon as possible to prevent more damage being done. Things like starting densification in key areas, prioritising active transport infrastructure when roads are coming up to end of life requiring major works, making public transport more attractive etc.etc., over time car dependance will decline.

A really good youtube channel to see what can be done/is being done/where Amsterdam has come from to where they are now is 'Not Just Bikes'.

Densification and TODs also doesn't mean it must be apartment towers. Duplexes, townhouses etc.etc. are a great way of densifying neighbourhoods and small shopping/shop/medical etc complexes scattered throughout. While currently many people go to the supermarkets to do a 'big' shop once a week etc, that's not how it needs to always be. If shops are close by, its easy to drop by on the way home to pick up a few things etc., plus, if the active transport infrastructure is made better, the Dutch 'bakfiets', or Cargo bikes, will become much more popular, making the need for cars even less.

QuoteDensification and TODs also doesn't mean it must be apartment towers. Duplexes, townhouses etc.etc. are a great way of densifying neighbourhoods and small shopping/shop/medical etc complexes scattered throughout.

There is a lot of optics around what "should" be built as urban form. For that reason, its important to see analysis, tests or estimates so that we know rather than just think that we are getting an expected or demonstrable net improvement.

Generally I consider a TOD has to be within a walk-up zone of a station or major stop to be considered a TOD.

QuoteIn urban planning, transit-oriented development is a type of urban development that maximizes the amount of residential, business and leisure space within walking distance of public transport.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transit-oriented_development

For everywhere else, I consider it just density, not necessarily transit oriented. For that reason I do not use the TOD label for areas outside of the walk-up zone. Otherwise you could claim to call almost anything a TOD.

Well, yeah, it still needs to be walkable to a transit point, hence the T in TOD. Just saying, it doesn't absolutely need to always be apartment buildings, whuch can often scare a lot of current residents in to NIMBYism, can instead be duplex/townhouse style developments.
But again, TODs are but one piece of the town planning puzzle. Good, livable, walkable neighbourhoods don't necessarilly need a major hub right there, they just need a good transit hub close enough (access by bus, cycle, walk etc). As said above, needs to be designed to allow many trips to be conducted by active transport, with longer trips outside active transport range/usefulness to be taken by PT where possible and the car as a last resort.

Quote from: #Metro on August 30, 2022, 16:55:08 PM

QuoteGiven the poor planning around our current station and the small park n rides available at most stations I can [sic] see how replacing them with urban development will harm patronage at all in fact the dead opposite.

Well, we can expect it to harm patronage if the TOD development that replaces the car park doesn't generate at least a replacement quantity of passengers to the station. That is a specific, quantifiable, testable statement.

This isn't saying that TOD is good or bad, the framework I have set out is simply saying it depends on circumstances. Many outcomes are possible:

TOD > Car Park
TOD = Car Park
TOD < Car Park

 

You are also assuming that the parking passengers will be lost! With the proper walking and cycling infrastructure and facilities there is a very high chance these will be diverted to walking, cycling or an alternative PT service which we have improved also!

So additional population in a TOD has to equal additional trips! A very smal % will convert to no PT trips!

Finally here is the modal share for Brisbane's own Kelvin Grove TOD - 37% for residents! Visitors is out of the park

Kelvin Grove Mode Share

https://www.its-jp.org/journal/papers/63.pdf

You can install all the high rise buildings around a train station but it's still not a guarantee that they would use it. Fitzgibbon is a good example. Lots of buildings but not many residents actually use the train station. Because of its location it's popular with those that drive to work to the north, south to the industrial area at Geebung/Virginia or to the south/west such as Aspley/Chermside after dropping kids off at school. It's why the area is still a pt blackhole. In fact most of the people that are driving there are actually living further out. There are no major shops near by but there are lots available in driving distance. Chermside has all 3. Chermside west has a Woolies. Aspley has 2 coles, a Woolies, Aldi and various Asian speciality supermarkets. Beams road/Gympie road has a Woolies. Taigum has a woolies and Bracken ridge has another coles. So if you work a couple suburbs over there's lots of places to choose to shop at.

Fitzgibbon is not a very good example of a higher density mixed use Neighbourhood! It is just a slice of the surrounding  community and the City Plan is very low density for the rest of surrounding neighborhood.

Also shows the importance of the right infrastructure; interconnected, fast, direct, prioritised public transport; and walkable, car-free major centres!

It's an example of multi story buildings next to a train station with no real major trip generators such as major shops or major attractions/draw cards. This applies to much of the rail network which is what you are trying to constantly cram down our throats every time someone installs a car park or business within reach of a station.

It's why our network struggles and at times struggles to warrant frequency upgrades as there's nothing much of a major draw card along the lines. Same with a lot of bus routes to warrant their frequency at times (330/340 are examples in the evening when they are just transporting air along a corridor that has everything closed. Much of the rail network was developed around a freight/industrial network over 100 years ago. Property developers and councils have just whittled that away. Similar to locals being against the brewery at Milton or night clubs in the valley where laws were introduced to stop nimby groups complaining.

Today will only work at a handful of stations on the seq network and even then your lucky if it will actually pay off.

QuoteFitzgibbon is not a very good example of a higher density mixed use Neighbourhood! It is just a slice of the surrounding  community and the City Plan is very low density for the rest of surrounding neighbourhood.

Also shows the importance of the right infrastructure; interconnected, fast, direct, prioritised public transport; and walkable, car-free major centres!

Actually, it shows very well the limits and practical reality of many TOD developments - they don't live up to expectations and in many cases don't generate anywhere near enough mode share shift compared to an alternative park & ride facility on the same land parcel.

It's not objective to pick and choose what a TOD is or isn't based on the outcome - success or failure - of the development at the end.

The Queensland Government via the ULDA decided it was a TOD
https://www.statedevelopment.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0026/18836/fitzgibbon-proposed-development-scheme.pdf

QuoteThe land use pattern will provide for a variety of residential and mixed uses that respond effectively to local constraints and optimise local amenity and enterprise. Connections to surrounding areas will be safe and accessible and there will be a strong focus on walking, cycling and public transport, including a range of measures that promote public transport over the private car.

- There are higher density apartments built within the walkup zone. Although not enough to reach Point X and achieve TOD > Car Park. Which demonstrates the importance of quantity & threshold levels. If you have ever taken medication you will be familiar with this idea - take too little there is no effect, take some more - medication works, take too much - overdose.

TOD requires very high intensity use to match patronage generated by an alternative car park. For a TOD to generate the same level of patronage as a 500-space car park (assuming full occupancy) at PT=10% is:

500 car parks x 1.2 load factor x (1/0.10) x (1/2.53 average household) = 2371 dwellings.

How many 5-7 storey apartments (64 dwellings each) is this? 2371/64 = 37 x 5-7 Storey Mixed-Use developments around the station. There is nothing like that around the station.

There are bike lanes on both sides of the road leading to the station (can ride on footpaths too).

To test for whether the station is accessible by bike, we can take the time budget for station access (5-10 minutes) and an average value for cycling speed to calculate the effective distance/catchment area for cycling; which we can estimate as:

10 minutes x (22 km/hr) average speed x (1hr/60 min) = 3.66 km average distance, which is consistent with ~ 5 km value seen generally. I believe the whole development fits well within this 3.6 km zone. So all of that development is accessible by bicycle to the station. There are even bike paths that short-cut through a park as well.

In terms of PT infrastructure, it's Priority A Rail with 9 services in the peak hour giving a ~ 6.6 minute average wait time. The trip time to Central station on the train is 27 minutes, which is within the 30 minute commute isochrone - which makes it very competitive versus the car. The station is also served by a BUZ. 

The alternative car trip via Gympie Road during peak hour is actually longer at 36-40 minutes (Google Maps)

Conclusion
A methodical evaluation indicates that there is nothing wrong with the PT infrastructure, walkability, speed, trip times vs car, cycling etc at that location. The TOD development is simply not at a scale (critical mass) where it can be above Point X and thus in this case TOD < Car Park.

How can this be changed? You could add in those extra 37 x 5-7 Storey Mixed-Use Developments around the station but this would entail demolishing fairly new homes that are nowhere near the end of their usable life.

OR, you could open a new park-and ride (and charge access fee).

Again you fail to address the issue of you assuming all driving trips are lost! You thinking is based on an incorrect assumption as it seems are most transport models!

QuoteAgain you fail to address the issue of you assuming all driving trips are lost! You thinking is based on an incorrect assumption as it seems are most transport models!

A simple test would be to build a park and ride facility at Carseldine. Then see what happens. That wouldn't be making an assumption - that would be making observations and testing the model against real world-evidence that is specific to the site.

There is some land next to the station that could be investigated for this P&R use. IF we built a 500-space car park, then:

- If patronage increased significantly after the P&R facility opening, assuming full car park occupancy, by around 500 pax per day, then I think we could be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the car park generated new trips that didn't exist before and that were unable to be captured or generated from walk-up, bus, or cycling.

This would then be good evidence that we were, indeed, missing out on attracting additional PT trips.

- If patronage did not increase significantly after the opening of the P&R facility (e.g. - due to simple transfer of users from other modes such as cycling), that would suggest that no new trips were generated and thus be evidence for your position.

You could even do a low-cost test with say a 'do minimum' gravel car park if you didn't want to spend the full cost to find out. A key thing though would be to charge for the parking so that the car park wasn't competing for existing users. There seems to be so much money flying around for P&R construction, maybe it would be possible to get the funding for it.

The cost would be in a ball-park of about $30,000 x 500 spaces = $15 million.

Quote from: #Metro on August 31, 2022, 08:24:33 AM

QuoteFitzgibbon is not a very good example of a higher density mixed use Neighbourhood! It is just a slice of the surrounding  community and the City Plan is very low density for the rest of surrounding neighbourhood.

Also shows the importance of the right infrastructure; interconnected, fast, direct, prioritised public transport; and walkable, car-free major centres!

Actually, it shows very well the limits and practical reality of many TOD developments - they don't live up to expectations and in many cases don't generate anywhere near enough mode share shift compared to an alternative park & ride facility on the same land parcel.

It's not objective to pick and choose what a TOD is or isn't based on the outcome - success or failure - of the development at the end.

The Queensland Government via the ULDA decided it was a TOD
https://www.statedevelopment.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0026/18836/fitzgibbon-proposed-development-scheme.pdf

QuoteThe land use pattern will provide for a variety of residential and mixed uses that respond effectively to local constraints and optimise local amenity and enterprise. Connections to surrounding areas will be safe and accessible and there will be a strong focus on walking, cycling and public transport, including a range of measures that promote public transport over the private car.

- There are higher density apartments built within the walkup zone. Although not enough to reach Point X and achieve TOD > Car Park. Which demonstrates the importance of quantity & threshold levels. If you have ever taken medication you will be familiar with this idea - take too little there is no effect, take some more - medication works, take too much - overdose.

TOD requires very high intensity use to match patronage generated by an alternative car park. For a TOD to generate the same level of patronage as a 500-space car park (assuming full occupancy) at PT=10% is:

500 car parks x 1.2 load factor x (1/0.10) x (1/2.53 average household) = 2371 dwellings.

How many 5-7 storey apartments (64 dwellings each) is this? 2371/64 = 37 x 5-7 Storey Mixed-Use developments around the station. There is nothing like that around the station.

There are bike lanes on both sides of the road leading to the station (can ride on footpaths too).

To test for whether the station is accessible by bike, we can take the time budget for station access (5-10 minutes) and an average value for cycling speed to calculate the effective distance/catchment area for cycling; which we can estimate as:

10 minutes x (22 km/hr) average speed x (1hr/60 min) = 3.66 km average distance, which is consistent with ~ 5 km value seen generally. I believe the whole development fits well within this 3.6 km zone. So all of that development is accessible by bicycle to the station. There are even bike paths that short-cut through a park as well.

In terms of PT infrastructure, it's Priority A Rail with 9 services in the peak hour giving a ~ 6.6 minute average wait time. The trip time to Central station on the train is 27 minutes, which is within the 30 minute commute isochrone - which makes it very competitive versus the car. The station is also served by a BUZ. 

The alternative car trip via Gympie Road during peak hour is actually longer at 36-40 minutes (Google Maps)

Conclusion
A methodical evaluation indicates that there is nothing wrong with the PT infrastructure, walkability, speed, trip times vs car, cycling etc at that location. The TOD development is simply not at a scale where it can be above Point X and thus in this case TOD < Car Park.

How can this be changed? You could add in those extra 37 x 5-7 Storey Mixed-Use Developments around the station but this would entail demolishing fairly new homes that are nowhere near the end of their usable life.

OR, you could open a new park-and ride (and charge access fee).

Also the further out you are the possibility of larger employment that doesn't require going to the city. Chermside/Prince Charles/medical services there are the largest employment area on the Northside.

Fitzgibbon is NOT a good example of a TOD. It is a housing estate. Hence why so many people there still drive everywhere, because they NEED to, since there is nothing else there!!

Throwing up some apartment blicks next to a station and saying 'done', then being all surprised when it doesn't work the way you want it to, is just absurd thinking. To be a proper mixed use development means we need housing, retail and even (hopefully) some offices etc. If there is no retail within walking/cycling distance of the development, then of course it's going to fail as a TOD!

And before I get blasted with 'supermarkets will go broke' BS, they don't need to have full on massive supermarkets on each corner! Just a simple IGA/Woolies Metro etc style thing for groceries, a couple other shops, mayne a medical centre here and there.

For a mixed use development to be successful, it needs to allow residents the ability to get the vast majority of what they need from the local area (within a reasonable walking/cycling distance). It also needs good PT links to other areas and, particularly in Brisbane, the CBD for a lot of workers. While that would ideally be centred around a station, it's not absolutely required as long as good active and public transport links are available. Oh, and a painted bicycle gutter (painted bike lanes) on a road is NOT good active transport infrastructure. Proper, segregated, protected bikeways are the key, even if they're still along the side of the road, they need to be properly protected lanes.

One major way Amsterdam manages to encourage cycling is by guving the bike paths much more direct routings to points of interest (very easy to do when the path only needs to be a few metres wide) while making the road route more circuitous, so it actually takes longer to take the car somewhere.

As I said earlier, it's not a quick fix. It will take decades to turn the current Brisbane area in to a more walkable, livable city. But that's why we need to start now!

And of course building a new carpark now will increase patronage a bit. That's because the whole city is built around cars!! I honestly can't believe that's even being used an argument on here. Building a 10,000 space carpark at a station will of course build patronage! Doesn't mean it is the right thing to do, either in the short OR the long term.

QuoteThe cost would be in a ball-park of about $30,000 x 500 spaces = $15 million.

I also think we can become more sophisticated about evaluating the added value that P&R might bring in as it is very location specific. In inner city locations a P&R will just eat mode share from other sustainable modes, but in outer areas, this may not be the case.

Importantly, and crucially, a fee for the car park will limit the amount of mode share eaten from other modes (e.g. cycling, bus). Which is what Perth does.

Assuming a car park fills up at peak hour, 500 car park would generate the following stream of passengers:

500 car parks x 1.2 load factor = 600 pax/day x 260 working days per year.
= ~ 156,000 passengers per year.

For a 1000 car park, it would be double this at ~ 312,000 passengers per year.

These numbers are comparable to what a modest bus service would bring into the station.

So for say, $15 million dollars, we can purchase an additional ~ 156,000 passengers per year for the life of the infrastructure (say 20 years). A rough estimate would be $15/20 years = $0.75 million per year, which is comparable to what it would cost to fund a bus to round up those passengers (assuming they were in locations where a bus could be able to capture them).

For simplicity we will assume that no use is generated on weekends (we could consider dropping the car park fee on weekends).

QuoteFitzgibbon is NOT a good example of a TOD. It is a housing estate. Hence why so many people there still drive everywhere, because they NEED to, since there is nothing else there!!

Fitzgibbon is a TOD, just not one proponents of TOD want to hold up as an example simply because it meets all the criteria for:

- walkability
- Cycle access
- PT provision
- Proximity to a train station
- Frequent bus (has a BUZ) that connects to Woolworths shopping centre 1.8 km away

and STILL doesn't deliver on the expectations we have for TOD because it is not at a scale to reach Point X. Maybe we need to re-adjust our expectations of what can be achieved using this TOD method.

Maybe we need to have the TOD and still include a large car park at the train station. After all, a large car park isn't going to use all of the walk-up zone, just a portion of it.

As others have said, its not just a case of putting something next to transport and 'generating' patronage at that stop, its a whole mindset about a denser walkable community with most needs close by.

Fitzgibbon has a variety of housing types, which is probably its main strength, but it has weaknesses.


-Rail Access.
The "Dense Core" of the development is 750m from Carseldine Station. Carseldine station has only 2tph offpeak.

-BUZ access. Actually the nearest BUZ is the 330 (1200m) or the 340 (750m) so it's right on the outer.
There is no HF bus stopping in the heart of the development, so I'd struggle to call it TOD.

-Walkabilty, it's fine.

-Cycling, no special provisions it seems so they should get no credit. Narrow unprotected bike lanes in the door zone:
https://www.google.com/maps/@-27.3363031,153.0246303,3a,65.3y,330.78h,87.17t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1se6xjIh0AoPwoiZj39HUkjw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

-Local amenities.
https://www.google.com/maps/@-27.3390237,153.0280955,3a,87.7y,201.45h,95.14t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sf8cPMUuXiEAdPGGV6BTnqQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

It just has a night owl and BWS as an anchor.
People arent willingly going to take the bus to the supermarket IMO.


In Brisbane, Nundah is probably an example of it working...HF rail, good mix of shops and facilites, variety of housing.

QuoteAs others have said, its not just a case of putting something next to transport and 'generating' patronage at that stop, its a whole mindset about a denser walkable community with most needs close by.

Fitzgibbon has a variety of housing types, which is probably its main strength, but it has weaknesses.

This is about critical mass.

Should TODs include a large car park in front of the train station? I think for many locations where TOD < Critical Mass, the answer is probably YES. And that is because most TODs in Brisbane will likely not reach critical mass to achieve TOD > Car Park.

Not building a car park would probably forgo approximately 156,000 to 312,000 passengers trips per year at the station.

And as such a car park would not occupy the entire walk-up zone (2 km2), you could still continue to have your dense, walkable etc beyond the immediate station land parcel with the car park. It might just not look as pretty.

The BUZ service stops at the station platform, so if people can walk or cycle to the station, then they can walk or cycle to the BUZ stop too. I'm less concerned about the bus frequency through the Fitzgibbon development, because if residents can get to the station within their 10 minute or so time budget by walking or bicycle, then the local bus is useful but not critical to their access.

We also have a mechanism for replacing the car park. When a developer proposes to build the balance of apartments required to replace what the car park generates in patronage, it can be sold or leased for development. So it works with the timing as well - the car park is a reversible land use.

QuoteNot building a car park would probably forgo approximately 156,000 to 312,000 passengers trips per year at the station.

This is simply assumption creation to justify your position.  As has been pointed out numerous times, these trips are likely to be covert to walking, cycling (with better infrastructure) or other PT service (with service improvements).

Using poor planning as the basis of proving that we should continue poor planning is sheer madness. 

QuoteThis is simply assumption creation to justify your position.  As has been pointed out numerous times, these trips are likely to be covert to walking, cycling (with better infrastructure) or other PT service (with service improvements).

And you're making assumptions too, to justify your position.

You're assuming that they would convert in sufficient quantity to other modes. I don't think they would in many cases. I've set out a way to test the assumptions and conclusions as well. Specifically and quantiatively.

If you have a large car park in front of a station, it won't fully exclude TOD development either. It would just hold that land parcel until a time that a developer does come across who can build that critical mass.

Therefore, in many cases adding a car park to the station would improve PT patronage overall.

The TOD at Fitzgibbon is apparently a failure, we should seek to understand why.

Quote156,000 to 312,000 passengers trips per year at the station.

How so?

Carseldine gets 301,174 boardings per year?
It's clearly not 100% park and ride.

Quotethe car park is a reversible land use.

Considering the amount of crying going on in some places about the loss of parking for PT projects (Northern Transitway, Palm Beach Light Rail) or that shared path in Moolloolooba , I don't think the political reality of demolishing a park and ride is as simple as you make out.

Guessing your frequent warnings about loss aversion don't apply here?

We should be building right first time.

Fitzgibbon isn't a 'failure' its doing the best in the circumstances it has, but its more a reflection of the overall circumstances and questionable decision making we have.

QuoteFitzgibbon isn't a 'failure' its doing the best in the circumstances it has, but its more a reflection of the overall circumstances and questionable decision making we have.

Like a decision to leave out a large P&R facility?

QuoteCarseldine gets 301,174 boardings per year?
It's clearly not 100% park and ride.

Let's assume Park & Ride for Carseldine currently generates 0 trips. If we add what it pulls in currently plus those forgone by not having a large P&R, you would have 301,174 annually existing + say 156,000 annual additional trips to give Ptotal = ~ 457,174 passengers per year.

The mode share wouldn't be 100%, but it would be 50% by car, which would be broadly consistent with what is already observed at TransPerth railway stations.

Next question...

QuoteConsidering the amount of crying going on in some places about the loss of parking for PT projects (Northern Transitway, Palm Beach Light Rail) or that shared path in Moolloolooba , I don't think the political reality of demolishing a park and ride is as simple as you make out.

Guessing your frequent warnings about loss aversion don't apply here?

We should be building right first time.

Well, what is going to generate more loss aversion Gazza?

> Demolishing an ashphalt car park with no building structures on it to build TOD when Point X threshold is reached by approach of a developer,

OR

> Demolition of existing homes low-medium density homes close to the station in the walk-up zone to (re-)build the minimum of 37 x 5-7 Storey Mixed-Use developments at PT=10% around the station to get to TOD critical mass?

What if the existing residents are not interested in selling and want to stay there in the houses they occupy as it already is?

> Was there ever market interest by a developer to build 37 x 5-7 Storey Mixed-Use developments around the station at the outset? If not, was it actually possible to "build right first time", or is was that a practically inaccessible possibility?

And if it wasn't, what was the alternative land use?

I think it is important that we get a grasp of what we can expect TOD to generate and the circumstances for that. Otherwise we might be spending efforts in 'hope-based planning' rather than looking at what is practical. I think it is fair to say that Brisbane is not going to turn into Amsterdam anytime soon, but it could turn into a Perth.

FYI, Carseldine has just had a PnR expansion, but I'm yet to see it full...

QuoteFYI, Carseldine has just had a PnR expansion, but I'm yet to see it full...

Nice. Maybe there is a possibility of doing a before-and-after event study to see if there was a jump in PT patronage on and after opening.

QuoteLike a decision to leave out a large P&R facility?

Huh? Fitzbiggon Chase is 800m from Carseldine station.
It's unlikely they would have used that land for parking given it is so far from the station.

Quote from: Gazza on August 31, 2022, 10:49:45 AMIn Brisbane, Nundah is probably an example of it working...HF rail, good mix of shops and facilites, variety of housing.

Nundah has to be one of, if not the best examples of a proper TOD community (but still has so much more potential to unlock). Medium-to-high rise surrounding the train station, urban village and community facilities/amenities all within a 10 minute walk of this built out form.

This is why the area is in such hot demand, and why when I was recently looking for units in the area, there would be upwards of 30 people at each inspection (times that by 5 or 6 inspections, and that's over 150 people looking at the one unit ). Who would have thought that higher density living with such easy access and convenience to high quality transport, shopping, amenities, restaurants and open space would be such an enticing area to live in?!

By building these transit and people orientated communities and removing the middle man (i.e. the car) from getting to/from PT just makes life so much easier. So many people want to live car free (or at least, significantly less reliant on one), and by turning some of the most valuable land in the City into heat inducing, cost draining, environmentally damaging, private vehicle storage before providing high quality, sustainable housing is just bonkers to me.

As I've said, those living near transit stations will generally rely on it more than others. So I dismiss your claims regarding how many dwellings would equivalate to the same usage by cars. People using PT as their mode of transport are likely to make more than one return journey by it each day.

Park and Rides are tailored to 9-5 commuters. I think we can all agree here. If you're going to drive in off-peak and on weekends, there is barely any incentive to do so to a rail station, than catch the train, rather than just driving to the destination (aerial imagery of PnRs shows this without a doubt).

So, by providing car parking for people to park the most spatially inefficient form of transport all-day, you are then further reducing the attractiveness of anyone wanting to park outside of peak times (reasons as above and the valid view that the car park will be full).

But with people living near the station, they can walk to it at 10am to head into uni, come home at 2pm, go out to shopping at 2:30pm, come home at 4pm, head out for the night at 7pm (and hopefully make it home sometime later...) This isn't something that would ever realistically happen at stations that prioritise car parking or for someone with a car. They would just drive. [Let alone the fact that people heading out for the night should not be driving to the station at all].

This is before we even mention that car parks are an expenditure, whereas development provides long term, ongoing social and economic benefits. No kind of car parking surcharge could ever recoup the benefits that a TOD could, no matter the price or size. We both know this and I know how much you have previously brought this up.

Put simply, TODs provide reliable all-day patronage at various times of the day for various types of journeys. PnRs provide personal storage for 9-5 commuters.

QuoteBy building these transit and people orientated communities and removing the middle man (i.e. the car) from getting to/from PT just makes life so much easier. So many people want to live car free (or at least, significantly less reliant on one), and by turning some of the most valuable land in the City into heat inducing, cost draining, environmentally damaging, private vehicle storage before providing high quality, sustainable housing is just bonkers to me.

As I've said, those living near transit stations will generally rely on it more than others. So I dismiss your claims regarding how many dwellings would equivalate to the same usage by cars. People using PT as their mode of transport are likely to make more than one return journey by it each day.

Well, if you build a TOD on the land parcel taken up by the car park then the former drivers can then live in the TOD, right?

Critical Mass

And as I set out before, you can test for this. If expanding or opening a P&R adds extra passengers in the data that would be evidence of additional patronage not added by other modes.

QuoteThis is before we even mention that car parks are an expenditure, whereas development provides long term, ongoing social and economic benefits. No kind of car parking surcharge could ever recoup the benefits that a TOD could, no matter the price or size. We both know this and I know how much you have previously brought this up.

But I also showed that when you build a P&R you are purchasing a future stream of PT users over the lifecycle of the asset. When you scale for that the number of passengers that brings in and the cost would be similar to say what you would use for a bus.

QuoteSo for say, $15 million dollars, we can purchase an additional ~ 156,000 passengers per year for the life of the infrastructure (say 20 years). A rough estimate would be $15/20 years = $0.75 million per year, which is comparable to what it would cost to fund a bus to round up those passengers (assuming they were in locations where a bus could be able to capture them).

And some people aren't near buses or are in areas unviable to serve with buses. The Government cannot force development to happen at a particular location at a particular scale at a particular time. It can shape and facilitate that but ultimately a private developer will have to come in and build when the timing is right. Ignoring that ignores timing factors and that it is not financially worthwhile to build  37 x 5-7 Storey Mixed-Use developments at PT=10% around the station to get to TOD critical mass from the get go.

As before, these are the possible states:

TOD > Car Park
TOD = Car Park
TOD < Car Park

It's like that because size matters!

In many cases, but not all, overall patronage would be improved by adding or expanding a car park. Like at Carseldine Staton.

I think it would be very valuable if TMR could provide information about park and rides and how they do mode share modelling/forecasting. It clearly is a big issue on this forum and I think it would be worthwhile to get an insight into their thinking.

Quote from: Cazza on August 31, 2022, 12:40:41 PMFYI, Carseldine has just had a PnR expansion, but I'm yet to see it full...

The expansion wasn't actually an expansion but it was definitely a nice bit of PR. It was marketed as one but in reality it's to cover off the closure/reconfiguration of the western car park for the level crossing project and modifications to the road layout/new bus interchange. Should a busway or 4th track go through the eastern carpark would be removed instantly.

And people need to learn demographics and what's around  when comparing particular areas. As many have said different areas attract different commuters. Especially when you get further out from the city as other employment and educational hubs come become attractive. Take Northgate. It's an industrial area and its park and ride and patronage is crazy because of the fare zone as it sucks people from the north. It's also cheaper to drive to Northgate than catch a bus from Nundah as Nundah-City is a 2 zone trip but Northgate to city via train is 1 zone. You also have the reverse peak travel making it a quick trip from the station. Remember the time benefit is a factor too. The time it takes to drive to the station vs walking, riding, catching a bus and then to the station.

So HappyTrainGuy, what you are saying is that when looking at certain examples, we should always apply a level of nuance as to why it works / doesn't work, and not be one size fits all?

QuoteYou also have the reverse peak travel making it a quick trip from the station. Remember the time benefit is a factor too. The time it takes to drive to the station vs walking, riding, catching a bus and then to the station.

Yes. The Generalised Travel Cost Equation principles apply.

QuoteSo HappyTrainGuy, what you are saying is that when looking at certain examples, we should always apply a level of nuance as to why it works / doesn't work, and not be one size fits all?

I agree with that statement that HTG wrote. Size matters, a lot.
I'm hearing a lot of city level examples, but it's really that local level individual station/suburb level at which projects are approved or not.

- I don't think we should berate the government or developers for not building TODs with a critical mass (e.g. at least 37 x 5-7 Storey Mixed-Use developments at PT=10%) around a station because in many cases the market is not there for that kind of project yet. Developers need to make a net positive return on their investments, so they tend to stage them or won't build for a period of time.

- Larger buildings (e.g. 5-7 storeys) cost more because you need to have lifts, fire escapes, etc. I believe the cost is even higher when we get to towers. The more something costs, the less incentive there is to build that something, unless it is somehow much more profitable to build.

- Some of the comments in this thread have not considered financing & timing either. Developers need to borrow money. The TOD actually needs to be net profitable. Some years this is possible, in others this is not due to how interest rates affect the price of money. And other factors bear on this too, like demand to buy that type of housing.

Look at Cannon Hill Station and the land parcel next to it. Blank parcel of land and it has been like that for years now. Supposed to be a TOD, it is just a paddock right now. It's not helping anyone at the moment.

- One of the interesting things is that the median house price ($884,336, Aug 2022) tends to be significantly higher than the median apartment price ($504,520) for Brisbane. Which implies that people are willing to pay a premium (+$379,916) for homes vs apartments and there is some directionality to their preference (1). That's not a small difference. If apartments were the preferred option we would expect to see those medians to be similar or prices Apartments > Homes.

That's at the citywide level, but you could probably break that down that to local levels as well and see what the patterns are.

References

Brisbane Housing Market Insights: August 2022
https://www.theurbandeveloper.com/articles/brisbane-housing-market-update

Quote from: Gazza on August 31, 2022, 15:45:32 PMSo HappyTrainGuy, what you are saying is that when looking at certain examples, we should always apply a level of nuance as to why it works / doesn't work, and not be one size fits all?

Correct. One size fits all blanket approach does not work at every station or tod. You can apply similar principals but you need to adapt for the particular area before a whole bunch of things to fall into place. As I mentioned Northgate is industrial with minimal large apartments however it's patronage levels are top tier. Iirc Northgate has double the patronage of Carseldine and 200,000 more trips than Nundah gets so why don't we apply the Northgate park and ride method to the entire network?

If the area was a hotspot for tod then the 340 would already have good patronage Carseldine-Chermside and would potentially warrant an extension like we see with other buz or bus routes? But it doesn't. The saving grace for the 340 is that the Chermside-City leg props it up. And Nundah isn't exactly punching above it's weight. It's got over double the density near the station but has similar patronage levels.

I'm not saying that Tods always don't work but you have to adapt them for the particular area you are focusing on. Fitzgibbon/Carseldine is vastly different compared to Nundah from the demographic of people living there, nearby education such as pre, primary, high and special schools along with nearby sporting facilities such as football, soccer, cricket etc, shopping facilities, parks/cycleway and not to forget employment opportunities being more abundant in the area compared to Nundah.

^^^
It is rare for HTG and I to sing from the same song sheet, but I agree with HTG.

Station - Board + Alighting + Paper Ticket = Ptotal

Northgate Station - 573071 + 549241 + 4284 = 1,126,596 trips per year

Nundah Station - 380875 + 363063 + 5023 = 748,961 trips per year

Carseldine Station - 301174 + 288696 + 1142 = 591,012 trips per year

Comment:
- Northgate gets 1.5x more patronage than Nundah does, but unlike Nundah, there is no large mixed-use TOD around it.

- Northgate is one station up the line, is further, has no TOD and about half of it is industrial warehouses. Shouldn't Nundah be outperforming Northgate?

- If we used the land parcels at Northgate for TOD instead of parking, would we expect patronage to go up, down, or stay the same? Why?

- We would need to do some more investigation to see if the pattern holds elsewhere (as there may be confounding things, e.g. Express train access at Northgate).

You can check the data for yourself: https://seqtransit.henrus1.com/ 

Richlands Station
Richlands is also an interesting example. Definitely not a TOD, practically no residential.
Doesn't have the issue of express trains confounding the analysis. Off-Peak Train frequency  2x at Nundah vs Richlands.
Data Source: https://seqtransit.henrus1.com/

Station - Board + Alighting + Paper Ticket = Ptotal (Year - 2019, pre-COVID19)
Richlands Station - 360756 + 332687 + 3495 = 696,938
Nundah - 748,961

Comments - Gets 93% of the patronage that Nundah does. No TOD. Has 635 parking spaces  .
How much can the parking patronage generation model explain? Assume car park fills up at peak hour.

635 car spaces x 1.2 load factor x 260 work days per year x 2 trips = 396,240 trips estimated

Bus brings in
Station - Board + Alighting + Paper Ticket = Ptotal
Richlands bus station, stop A -
    27113    10011    471 = 37,595
Richlands bus station, stop B -
    24453    40955    1063 = 66,471
Richlands Bus Station
    7    1174    5 = 1186

Total bus - 105,252

Total Car + Bus = 501,492

Other modes must therefore be - 696,938 Ptotal minus 501,492 = 195,446 (Other, including bike, walk etc)

Comments
- At Richlands, car parks generate in at least ~ 56.8% of the patronage.
- True value is higher as we have set weekends = 0 car park use.
- Buses bring in 15.1% of the patronage, which is under PT=25% and broadly consistent with PT=10%-20% across Brisbane as per Aldonius' mode share map.
Walk-up and other modes bring in no more than 28.0%, although it does seem more than the bus brings in (figure has some weekend car park trip generation hiding inside that figure).

I admit that Nundah is much nicer, but in terms of patronage generation, the car park at Richlands is generating the majority of the patronage. If buses were a bit better, and train frequency was upped at Richlands to every 15 min then maybe it would close that 7% gap and match Nundah.

Richlands:

Quote from: #Metro on August 31, 2022, 19:00:00 PM^^^
It is rare for HTG and I to sing from the same song sheet, but I agree with HTG.

Station - Board + Alighting + Paper Ticket = Ptotal

Northgate Station - 573071 + 549241 + 4284 = 1,126,596 trips per year

Nundah Station - 380875 + 363063 + 5023 = 748,961 trips per year

Carseldine Station - 301174 + 288696 + 1142 = 591,012 trips per year

Comment:
- Northgate gets 1.5x more patronage than Nundah does, but unlike Nundah, there is no large mixed-use TOD around it.

- Northgate is one station up the line, is further, has no TOD and about half of it is industrial warehouses. Shouldn't Nundah be outperforming Northgate?

- If we used the land parcels at Northgate for TOD instead of parking, would we expect patronage to go up, down, or stay the same? Why?

- We would need to do some more investigation to see if the pattern holds elsewhere (as there may be confounding things, e.g. Express train access at Northgate).

You can check the data for yourself: https://seqtransit.henrus1.com/ 

If i had to guess (and this is pure speculation) I'd say that its simply because Northgate is on the Express pattern whereas Nundah is not, so even if Nundah is closer to drive to, they would rather make the slightly longer drive to Northgate for a quicker overall commute.

QuoteIf i had to guess (and this is pure speculation) I'd say that its simply because Northgate is on the Express pattern whereas Nundah is not, so even if Nundah is closer to drive to, they would rather make the slightly longer drive to Northgate for a quicker overall commute.

I've tried to find a station to control for that - Richlands. it     

So with these comparisons between Nundah and Richlands. Remember what I said earlier
..it's not just about patronage in the station.

Nundah would undoubtedly have higher walking and cycling because its a better set up suburb and thats what reduces car use.

Having a huge car park, meanwhile dropping the ball because the suburb is a hellscape for everyone else is NOT the way to go

Northgate is an interesting one. The railway line, Sandgate road and gateway make a little hub in terms that you don't get a lot of major traffic that you get elsewhere. Because of the railway line splitting the east/west you can get to banyo/nudgee faster by car using Northgate than the local. A big factor is the fare zone. The fare zone also attracts those further north from Virginia way and from Nudgee/Banyo (Bald hills and strathpine had a similar problem until the zone changes). As I mentioned earlier Northgate railway station is somehow still classified as zone 1. So you can cross the brisbane river on your commute from Southbank to the cbd for the same price as commuting from Northgate. Since the Nundah bus network is zone 2 not many people use bus/train to unless they have to so the alternative is to drive. With reverse peak traffic and frequency of Northgate it makes it the preferred station. Under 5 mins will get you from Northgate to Banyo/Nudgee as most of the industrial area you are driving through knocks off at 4pm. Combine frequency, the zone fare difference, the ease of access and locals that should be using Nundah/Toombul/Banyo/Nudgee as their local travel further for a faster journey.

If you want to know the zone costs. It's $1.92 cheaper per day to drive to Northgate from the north. $9.60 per week. Commute 50 weeks of the year and that's $480 difference if you drove from Banyo to Northgate. Now remember catching the 310 from rode road to Toombul and transferring to the train at Toombul for a train to central or even staying on the bus and swapping to a city service at RBWH is a 2 zone trip. So simply driving east to Northgate will save you nearly $500 bucks a year. Nundah park and ride is also a pain in the ass to use so Northgate is normally hassle free and has multiple exits everywhere. As it has its own pocket you don't have to worry about waiting for traffic. That right there is your extra patronage. Change to zone two and see how patronage shifts.

So in conclusion let's keep doing what we are doing today and keep PT mode share below 10%!!

Or follow those with active and public transport well into the 40's, 50's and 60's!!

All the maths, number manipulation and incorrect assumptions will not change that!

QuoteTOD and Multi-modal Public Transport
Paul Mees (2014) TOD and Multi-modal Public Transport, Planning Practice & Research, 29:5, 461-470, DOI: 10.1080/02697459.2014.977633
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/02697459.2014.977633

Bus access to Murdoch Station on the Mandurah line is apparently ~ 66%.

Quote"The Murdoch/Mandurah project appears to have created a greater mode shift than the Subiaco TOD (a final verdict will only be possible once the 2011 Australian census results are released), which presents planners with a dilemma.

Should urban design outcomes or transport outcomes take priority? Subiaco achieved the former without making much difference to the latter; Murdoch did the opposite. Martinovich (2008) argues that TOD should not be seen as a substitute for good access by bus and park-and-ride modes."

QuoteIt is important to carefully manage the relationship between TOD and park-and-ride. As Martinovich (2008) points out, a small TOD will produce less rail patronage than a large park-and-ride lot, so simplistic ideas of converting parking stalls at stations to TOD should be rejected.

Is anyone asking for simplistic conversion?

This has become a pointless thread ... unfortunately!

Our public transport is languishing below 10% and the assertion is that we ignore what cities with very high active and public transport have done and continue to do more of the same that got us to less than 10%.