RAIL - Back On Track Forum

Sounds familiar

https://youtube.com/shorts/R7yjFRzWSe0?feature=share

How should we define and qualify a TOD?

Firstly, I think the TOD standard should be objective.

That is, anyone should be able to do a measurement on it and reproduce the same result. Just like taking the temperature of something or weighing something.

Secondly, I think the TOD standard should be performance-based. That is, whether a development is or isn't a TOD can only really be known after the buildings are occupied, not before. If a TOD is built and ends up generating 100% car mode share (but it is next to a train station), we should not call it a TOD.

Some sort of principle is also needed to form the standard. A simple one would be that the development generates more PT+AT patronage than it generates in car trips. So basically, it is judged on mode share.

Putting all of this together means that a development is a TOD if:
- It is within walking proximity to PT service
- It is multi-family housing
- It achieves a mode split of PT+AT = 50% or more

Anything less than PT+AT = 50% will mean that the development, is still creating increases in net car use.

Interesting to Note
Because mode split varies by distance from the CBD, an identical development cluster placed at a different location on the train or busway network may qualify as a TOD in one location, but not as a TOD in another location.

Is the definition too harsh? Sure it is, but IMHO the principle is sound. You would create a different label for developments next to PT but still generated car trips > PT+AT, but perhaps less than the rate of a truly outer urban development. There are probably lots of words for that - Transit Adjacent Development (TADs) are one that I have seen.

Quote from: #Metro on January 01, 2023, 10:56:14 AMAnything less than PT+AT = 50% will mean that the development, is still creating increases in net car use.

This isn't necessarily true unless you are only talking about car use in the immediate area surrounding the TOD. For instance, if you have a TOD with 200 residents which had an average mode split of 90% cars to 10% PT+AT before moving in and the majority of them were moving from within city/region then a TOD with PT+AT of 20% would still have a 10% net reduction in car use amongst those residents. That would translate to approximately 20 fewer cars as a result of the TOD.

I'm not saying that a TOD with mode split 80% cars to 20% PT/AT is desirable or even that it could be considered a true TOD, I'm simply pointing out the fact that it doesn't need to be 50% 50% or better for it to reduce net car use.

QuoteThis isn't necessarily true unless you are only talking about car use in the immediate area surrounding the TOD. For instance, if you have a TOD with 200 residents which had an average mode split of 90% cars to 10% PT+AT before moving in and the majority of them were moving from within city/region then a TOD with PT+AT of 20% would still have a 10% net reduction in car use amongst those residents. That would translate to approximately 20 fewer cars as a result of the TOD.

I'm not saying that a TOD with mode split 80% cars to 20% PT/AT is desirable or even that it could be considered a true TOD, I'm simply pointing out the fact that it doesn't need to be 50% 50% or better for it to reduce net car use.

Thanks for the comment RowBro. This comes up in discussions engineers often have about measuring 'Sustainability'. The first part of the answer is about drawing a line or boundary, the second is about migration chains.

Lines

Where do you draw the line? Do you include or exclude things that are connected/contingent etc.

For example, if you want to measure Australia's carbon emissions, do you include or exclude coal being exported and burned in foreign countries? Should you add that carbon to our budget or theirs? Or double count it? I think the approach Environmental engineers take is they define a system and draw boundaries around it. Anything outside of those boundaries is then excluded, or calculated in a separate calculation that sits along the primary one.

For practical purposes, I would say that a TOD boundary is the buildings built. Otherwise we would have a very complex calculation, particularly if people from overseas or interstate were living in the building, you would then have a difficult time tracing that.

Migration chains

When people migrate somewhere, they leave behind a vacancy. Unless the building is demolished.
So if 200 people moved from the greater region, their trips would decrease car use and increase PT use. So far so good.

BUT one now needs to consider what happens to the vacancy they left behind. That property would be re-let or sold to some new occupants. Those occupants would continue to generate trips at the low PT generation rate.

Quote from: #Metro on January 01, 2023, 11:59:20 AM

QuoteThis isn't necessarily true unless you are only talking about car use in the immediate area surrounding the TOD. For instance, if you have a TOD with 200 residents which had an average mode split of 90% cars to 10% PT+AT before moving in and the majority of them were moving from within city/region then a TOD with PT+AT of 20% would still have a 10% net reduction in car use amongst those residents. That would translate to approximately 20 fewer cars as a result of the TOD.

I'm not saying that a TOD with mode split 80% cars to 20% PT/AT is desirable or even that it could be considered a true TOD, I'm simply pointing out the fact that it doesn't need to be 50% 50% or better for it to reduce net car use.

Thanks for the comment RowBro. This comes up in discussions engineers often have about measuring 'Sustainability'. The first part of the answer is about drawing a line or boundary, the second is about migration chains.

Lines

Where do you draw the line? Do you include or exclude things that are connected/contingent etc.

For example, if you want to measure Australia's carbon emissions, do you include or exclude coal being exported and burned in foreign countries? Should you add that carbon to our budget or theirs? Or double count it? I think the approach Environmental engineers take is they define a system and draw boundaries around it. Anything outside of those boundaries is then excluded, or calculated in a separate calculation that sits along the primary one.

For practical purposes, I would say that a TOD boundary is the buildings built. Otherwise we would have a very complex calculation, particularly if people from overseas or interstate were living in the building, you would then have a difficult time tracing that.

Migration chains

When people migrate somewhere, they leave behind a vacancy. Unless the building is demolished.
So if 200 people moved from the greater region, their trips would decrease car use and increase PT use. So far so good.

BUT one now needs to consider what happens to the vacancy they left behind. That property would be re-let or sold to some new occupants. Those occupants would continue to generate trips at the low PT generation rate.

Thanks for the response, Metro!

By that logic, wouldn't a 50 50 split at the TOD still cause a net increase since that's 100 people still driving plus the new occupants of the residence they moved away from. This is all pedantic though and the principle is good.

We should be aiming for at least a 50% PT/AT split for TODs since the whole point is to revolve around transit. Another way one could measure whether a TOD is successful is by comparing the TOD's PT use against the average PT use of the region and/or the surrounding locality. Say Albion has a PT split of 70% to 30%. The TOD should thus have a greater than 30% use of PT and AT to be worthwhile. This is different to say a target which would be >50% PT and AT trips which should overall be the goal of a TOD. While having greater PT use than the surrounding locality is technically an improvement, 30% would still be pretty awful for a TOD.

Anyways just to make it clear I agree with what you're saying. I just think saying it needs to be at least 50% PT/AT to have a net reduction in car use is misleading. At the end of the day PT use could multiply by 2 while still having more car traffic if the city is growing fast enough. Because of this I think we should be focusing on the percentage of car use, not net car use.

Hey RowBro, give me a second, I'm constructing something in MS Excel.

Thanks!!

An (Over)simplified TOD Effect Model

1. We already have a method for working out PT trips by calculating theoretical total trip pools. Not sophisticated, but overall okay.
2. From that we can look at scenarios. I get that Brisbane is more than 2 suburbs, but I was not prepared to type in 100+ suburbs and growth rates for each. So we look at something simpler. But in principle, it is possible to do that (if you have time).
3. I've attached the XLS file so you can play with the inputs

As always, if you find any actual arithmetic errors please let me know so I can adjust.

In the following scenario, the PT mode share has increased, but traffic has still become much worse because the total car trips have increased too, despite a mode shift to PT. You could think about this like a Doughnut Model. The 'Inside' is the hole in the Donut, 'Outside' is a ring of the Doughnut surrounding it at lower density.

The growth rate has been kept constant in the outer suburb, which in the Brisbane case is not true. Also we have more 'outer' suburbs than inner ones.
But anyway, lets see what happens:



Note: I have used 20% PT+AT here but that is low for inner city. 30% might be more reasonable.

I think most people know what a TOD is. It's usually defined as a high density dwelling of at least one or two towers with a minimum of 20 floors. Each tower usual consist of 180 units being solely apartments or preferably a mixture of offices, apartments and retail. They are usually built on top of a station or right next to it for easy access. Sometimes a TOD can be solely a hotel and retail. There is an example of this at Central but the retail could be better.

While I appreciate the density of townhouses, duplexes and small apartment blocks close to a train or bus station, it's not really a TOD. There are examples of this at Indooroopilly and Taringa where there is density close to the train station but there is no TOD.

Quote from: verbatim9 on January 01, 2023, 19:22:22 PMI think most people know what a TOD is.

Funny, because you gave a highly prescriptive definition of a transit-oriented development which... you literally just made up I don't see any urban planners defining a TOD that way.

I wouldn't say Toowong is a TOD but that's because it wasn't explicitly planned and developed around the station. Toowong Village might have been, but that's just one commercial building with little care for surrounding land uses. Selling the airspace above a station MTR-style and leaving the rest of the "precinct" as-is isn't what most people would understand as a TOD. But of course, individual perception varies.

QuoteFunny, because you gave a highly prescriptive definition of a transit-oriented development which... you literally just made up I don't see any urban planners defining a TOD that way.

I know, but in that field planners are all arguing whether development X is a TOD or a TAD or something else.

The essence of a TOD is that it should generate more AT + PT trips than car trips. That is a test that meets the SMART criteria - Specific, Measurable, Achievable, and Time defined. It makes the definition performance-based. It is a high bar.

If a building sits on top of a railway station, but the train comes once per day and 100% of occupants drive, what good is it?

Pipeline: Buranda Village
Brisbane's newest retail, residential and working precinct
https://www.vicinity.com.au/portfolio/our-developments/development-pipeline/pipeline-buranda-village

QuoteResidential
New to Buranda Village will be approximately 600 apartments spread across four buildings.

A mix of one, two, and three-bedroom floor plans, Buranda Village's residential spaces will cater for a diverse cohort of future residents while providing unparalleled amenity with the retail precinct directly below.

Located just 5 kilometers south from Brisbane CBD and a stone's throw from the Princess Alexandra Hospital and Boggo Road Research and Innovation Precinct, Buranda Village's residential spaces offer a convenient and well-located base for local workers to live.

^ Jonno, this reads like something you might have written. I think you will like it.

I think the Wikipedia article sums it up well.

In urban planning, transit-oriented development (TOD) is a type of urban development that maximizes the amount of residential, business and leisure space within walking distance of public transport.[1][2] It promotes a symbiotic relationship between dense, compact urban form and public transport use.[3]

So it doesn't have to be a building that is on top of the station or a set height.

Like if we look at this T-Bana stop in Stockholm. Clearly this is TOD.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Copenhagen,+Denmark/@59.3609438,17.8339059,403m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x4652533c5c803d23:0x4dd7edde69467b8!8m2!3d55.6760968!4d12.5683372!5m1!1e2

https://www.google.com/maps/@59.3608641,17.8318281,3a,75y,65.25h,93.93t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sdsIt7NvIzsT8QYvzdaDpDw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e2

It's just a general idea about more density and walkability and convenience around frequent PT.

I find the Buranda Village redevelopment a huge improvement for the area. It will increase density while at the same time provide improved dining and retail options re Full line supermarket.

It's not really a TOD although it's serviced by a Buz stop.

Quote from: Gazza on February 08, 2023, 15:20:26 PMI think the Wikipedia article sums it up well.

In urban planning, transit-oriented development (TOD) is a type of urban development that maximizes the amount of residential, business and leisure space within walking distance of public transport.[1][2] It promotes a symbiotic relationship between dense, compact urban form and public transport use.[3]

So it doesn't have to be a building that is on top of the station or a set height.

Like if we look at this T-Bana stop in Stockholm. Clearly this is TOD.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Copenhagen,+Denmark/@59.3609438,17.8339059,403m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x4652533c5c803d23:0x4dd7edde69467b8!8m2!3d55.6760968!4d12.5683372!5m1!1e2

https://www.google.com/maps/@59.3608641,17.8318281,3a,75y,65.25h,93.93t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sdsIt7NvIzsT8QYvzdaDpDw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e2

It's just a general idea about more density and walkability and convenience around frequent PT.

If we are classifying TODs as an easy walk to Public Transport, we might as well call every building in South Brisbane, the CBD and the Valley a TOD.

We can also rename Hamilton Northshore and Portside as one massive TOD as well because it's a walk to the ferry and a bus stop.

QuoteIf we are classifying TODs as an easy walk to Public Transport, we might as well call every building in South Brisbane, the CBD and the Valley a TOD.

QuoteI find the Buranda Village redevelopment a huge improvement for the area. It will increase density while at the same time provide improved dining and retail options re Full line supermarket.

It's not really a TOD although it's serviced by a Buz stop.

+1 agree with that Verbatim9.

The common definition of TOD is not fit for purpose and needs to be changed. It places a high value on proximity as an indicator of PT improvement when there is a much better and more reliable indicator - direct measurement of the mode split of building occupants (performance measurement). This is a second criterion that should be added to the requirement for proximity.

Too many of these and similar constructions come with massive amounts of free car parking for residents. The resulting trips generated thus contribute more to car trip generation than PT or AT trip generation. Yes, it is helping PT, but it is helping car trips much more.

TMR sums it up well as it gives opportunity for further infill and urban development surrounding TODs. I classify the student high rise at Buranda busway station a TOD.

TMR--->https://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/Community-and-environment/Planning-and-development/Transit-oriented-developments/About-transit-oriented-developments

A good example of infill other than Buranda Village can include South City at Woolloongabba. These two examples are not TODs yet  are just infill surrounding TODs.

Quote from: Verbatim9TMR sums it up well as it gives opportunity for further infill and urban development surrounding TODs. I classify the student high rise at Buranda busway station a TOD.

TMR--->https://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/Community-and-environment/Planning-and-development/Transit-oriented-developments/About-transit-oriented-developments

A good example of infill other than Buranda Village can include South City at Woolloongabba. These two examples are not TODs yet  are just infill surrounding TODs.

I think the term "Transit Adjacent Development" or TAD is very appropriate for those developments that increase PT but do not yet meet the proposed higher bar for TOD status.

At the end of the day, the label given needs to truthfully reflect what is (or isn't) being delivered.

In NZ it is now law that minimum parking requirements cannot be enforced:

Councils no longer allowed to enforce minimum car parking requirements on developers
https://www.autocar.co.nz/councils-no-longer-allowed-to-enforce-minimum-car-parking-requirements-on-developers/

QuoteThere was a change in law last Sunday, forcing council district plans to no longer have minimum car parking requirements for any future or existing developments.

It's not exactly a new change. Cities like Wellington have already implemented these regulations into their own district plans. However, from February 20, the changes became law, and all New Zealand councils must abide by them accordingly.

Quote"In Auckland, we already have no requirements for on-site car parking in certain places where there is a high frequency of public transport.

"However, these requirements have been removed for any new or existing development anywhere in the city and the council can no longer require developers to provide on-site car parking."

Quote from: verbatim9 on February 08, 2023, 17:09:09 PM

Quote from: Gazza on February 08, 2023, 15:20:26 PMI think the Wikipedia article sums it up well.

In urban planning, transit-oriented development (TOD) is a type of urban development that maximizes the amount of residential, business and leisure space within walking distance of public transport.[1][2] It promotes a symbiotic relationship between dense, compact urban form and public transport use.[3]

So it doesn't have to be a building that is on top of the station or a set height.

Like if we look at this T-Bana stop in Stockholm. Clearly this is TOD.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Copenhagen,+Denmark/@59.3609438,17.8339059,403m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x4652533c5c803d23:0x4dd7edde69467b8!8m2!3d55.6760968!4d12.5683372!5m1!1e2

https://www.google.com/maps/@59.3608641,17.8318281,3a,75y,65.25h,93.93t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sdsIt7NvIzsT8QYvzdaDpDw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e2

It's just a general idea about more density and walkability and convenience around frequent PT.

If we are classifying TODs as an easy walk to Public Transport, we might as well call every building in South Brisbane, the CBD and the Valley a TOD.

We can also rename Hamilton Northshore and Portside as one massive TOD as well because it's a walk to the ferry and a bus stop.

Yes?

Like the CBD and the valley have the highest levels of public transport service.
Density increased in these parts of Brisbane to take advantage of it.
Public and active mode share is higher as a result.

Portside and Hamilton isn't Todd because as you said there's not really the mass transit to support it.

TOD can be both organic and deliberate.

Organic is when it is the result of good zoning and street layouts which naturally support high model share, for example Chatswood.

Deliberate is like Milton where you specifically go and put high density next to a station

Hears the thing! All urban development should be transit oriented or anchored around transit! Transit (and I mean direct, fast, frequent, interconnected routes not the bus routes that wander all over the shop and do loops on themselves or 10 routes all rushing down the same road) should be on ever major road and every suburb oriented around them! Yes in some areas the development needs to do an about  face. 

Each Neighbourhood is then a 15min Neighbourhoods with mixed-use centres (around the transit) a wide mix of housing hoyusing, low-car, walkable and cycling safe streets.

Our major/district centres are then higher density mixed use centres surrounded by higher density 15min Neighbourhoods because they are also walkable/cycling to a major/district centre.

Buranda is an improvement but our city plan and roads/public space stops it being a great example of the above!

100% right Jonno.

I think individual "Transit oriented developments" are of little to no benefit if the broader development approach of government is not "transport oriented".

We can debate definitions of TOD's until the cows come home but it's original conception was as a broader planning approach not about individual developments.

That's exactly how i see it.

"A" Transport Oriented Development can mean a literal project by a developer that is at Transit, eg the Milton, Buranda.

But I think the more relevant definition is "transport oriented development" as a broader Urban planning movement where the city orients itself around its transport.

( As opposed to other urban planning philosophies such as "greenfield development" or "car oriented development"

The focus should be on how the entire catchment area around each stop functions, not just chucking up a singular huge building with an Ezy Mart at the bottom floor and calling it a day .

Because if we only do the Milton and buranda approach
It's actually pretty useless for the city as a whole, since you have neighbourhoods, just beyond those developments which lack walkability and the amenities needed to reduce the kilometres you have to travel

Quote from: AJ_Transport100% right Jonno.

I think individual "Transit oriented developments" are of little to no benefit if the broader development approach of government is not "transport oriented".

I take the site approach for the simple reason that most of the city is already built anyway. Changes to development policy will thus not impact the 97% of the housing stock that is already built. That just leave us with the sites that are under active (re) development.

It does matter what the site and building is doing. If it is not going to work at the site level then it also cannot work at any of the higher levels either.

If a 'TOD' development generates 25% PT + AT mode share, then that means it is generating 75% car mode share. That means it is generating 3x more car trips than PT + AT trips.

It is similar to the marketing of those "Fat free" ice creams which are highly loaded with sugar ... that makes you fat. Yes, it is technically true there is no fat in it, but the end result is the same.

IMHO It is misleading to call such a development "transit" oriented.

Brisbanetimes --> Put the community into commuting: Brisbane's next redevelopment push

Quote... But a not-for-profit planning group believes mixed-use developments over or adjacent to train stations would contribute more to Brisbane's quality of life than "white lines on bitumen". They could become destinations, not just stop on the way to somewhere else.

Suburban Futures argues Brisbane's expanding Ferny Grove station hub is a good model to reshape at least six of the 158 Brisbane train stations with park'n'rides. ...

https://twitter.com/railbotforum/status/1629126767746387969

Brisbane Times---> $1.2 billion complex planned for Gabba in major pre-Olympic investment

QuoteStation Square will be announced on Wednesday by developers Trenert and Deputy Premier Steven Miles, who has portfolio responsibility for planning and Olympic infrastructure.

I reckon the walkway should go underground (under Stanley St) from the TOD instead of over.

Quote from: verbatim9 on April 26, 2023, 09:36:12 AMI reckon the walkway should go underground (under Stanley St) from the TOD instead of over.

So on one had we have a walkway over a STROAD (wrong on sooooo many levels) in direct conflict with proposal to make it all pedestrian friendly. Welcome to planning QLD style. No one has any idea what to build.

Stanley Rd should look something like this adjacent to the Stadium.

Slide1

Slide2

Stanely Road to Stanley Road East like this (only requires 1m resumption on both sides of the road.

Slide3

Main and Ipswich Road

Slide 4

Turn Vulture Street back to 2 way and make a residential street street not a thoroughfare.

7News--->https://youtu.be/tS6l4BON8Hg

Brisbanetimes --> New Gabba transport hub may be off-limits to developers until after 2032

QuoteThe coveted development site above the new Woolloongabba train station, next to a planned Metro bus station, may remain open space until after the 2032 Olympic and Paralympic Games.

Queensland Treasury Corporation has been making plans for above-ground developments across the $6.3 billion Cross River Rail network, but has released little information. ...

Rail Express --> Australia becoming a station nation

QuoteMore than a third of new dwellings built across Australia's four largest capital cities over the last 15 years were built within a kilometre of a train station, in what is a trend that has been steadily increasing over the same period.

Of the 1.5 million new homes built in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, and Perth between 2006 and 2021, 35 percent were within that distance of a train station, a recent analysis by KPMG Australia has found.

According to KPMG urban economist Terry Rawnsley, train stations have had a significant impact on housing supply.

"Our analysis highlights that long term precinct planning policies can have a positive impact by clustering jobs and services near a major train station," he said.

Between 2006 and 2021:

Greater Sydney produced 430,000 additional dwellings, with 49 percent located within one kilometre of a train station.
Greater Melbourne produced 565,000 additional dwellings, with 35 percent located within one kilometre of a train station.
Greater Brisbane produced 273,000 additional dwellings, with 28 percent located within one kilometre of a train station.
Greater Perth produced 239,000 additional dwellings, with 16 percent located within one kilometre of a train station. ...

Thought I would re-define TOD in these succinct terms and put it here:

The #Metro TOD definition:

"A TOD is a residential development proximate to transit that generates more daily public and active transport trips than it generates car trips."

Brisbanetimes --> How to cut more than 1.3 million minutes off the daily commute across SEQ $

QuoteMore than 1.3 million commuter minutes could be saved across south-east Queensland daily by building a mix of new accommodation closer to where people work, government planners have estimated.

The new South-East Queensland Regional Plan stipulates that 100,000 of the 900,000 new dwellings needed to house an extra 2.2 million residents by 2046 must be close to public transport. ...

Plenty of stations have half-hourly train frequency, which means you drive even if you live next to or on top of the train station. They need to add more service in the off-peak for this to work. Proximity is not utility. Just ask Doomben line residents 

" Proximity is not utility "


So true #Metro, particularly in SEQ context

Quote from: #Metro on August 30, 2023, 00:42:48 AMPlenty of stations have half-hourly train frequency, which means you drive even if you live next to or on top of the train station. They need to add more service in the off-peak for this to work. Proximity is not utility. Just ask Doomben line residents 

For most residents in Logan, Moreton and Ipswich, 30 minute off-peak rail provides the best service they get. Buses are often hourly, and finish at ridiculously early times, many finishing by 8pm, or even earlier like 7 or 6:30.

For someone that lives on western section of the 674, the earliest they could arrive in the CBD is 7:43 am. Whereas if they are in walking distance from Lawnton Station, that 5:13am, a two and a half hour difference. No wonder the Park & Rides are packed!

Going the other way, the last bus to leave Lawnton Station is at 6:38pm, meaning the latest they could leave Central is 5:55pm. Not much use if you want to go out for dinner or drinks after work, or work flexi-time.

This example is for a CBD (say 8:30am-5pm) office worker. For workers in other locations, the situation is far worse. There is no way a person living on that route could get to Eagle Farm for a factory or warehouse job by 7am (a reasonably common start time for that kind of role; 6am is not even that unusual). If you can walk or drive to Lawnton Station, it's doable (although a pretty long trip), but once you get someone into their car, they probably will stay in it for the whole journey, considering most industrial areas don't charge for parking, either. Hence why the Gateway Mwy is congested from about 5:30am every day.

Quote from: achiruel on August 30, 2023, 05:07:01 AM

Quote from: #Metro on August 30, 2023, 00:42:48 AMPlenty of stations have half-hourly train frequency, which means you drive even if you live next to or on top of the train station. They need to add more service in the off-peak for this to work. Proximity is not utility. Just ask Doomben line residents 

For most residents in Logan, Moreton and Ipswich, 30 minute off-peak rail provides the best service they get. Buses are often hourly, and finish at ridiculously early times, many finishing by 8pm, or even earlier like 7 or 6:30.

For someone that lives on western section of the 674, the earliest they could arrive in the CBD is 7:43 am. Whereas if they are in walking distance from Lawnton Station, that 5:13am, a two and a half hour difference. No wonder the Park & Rides are packed!

Going the other way, the last bus to leave Lawnton Station is at 6:38pm, meaning the latest they could leave Central is 5:55pm. Not much use if you want to go out for dinner or drinks after work, or work flexi-time.

This example is for a CBD (say 8:30am-5pm) office worker. For workers in other locations, the situation is far worse. There is no way a person living on that route could get to Eagle Farm for a factory or warehouse job by 7am (a reasonably common start time for that kind of role; 6am is not even that unusual). If you can walk or drive to Lawnton Station, it's doable (although a pretty long trip), but once you get someone into their car, they probably will stay in it for the whole journey, considering most industrial areas don't charge for parking, either. Hence why the Gateway Mwy is congested from about 5:30am every day.

Logan? That's Brisbane. I've been saying it for ages. The supporting bus network needs to support the rail network if you want to justify a better frequency. Saying increase the frequency and they will come isn't the full answer. There are arguments for Northgate being busier due to frequency but that's not true. That's because Northgate is zone 1 on the Translink network. People drive to northgate as it's $500 cheaper per year than catching a train from Virginia/Sunshine/Bindah/Banyo. We saw this issue at Bald Hills/Strathpine when the border used to be there. The feeder bus becomes zone 2 at Toombul. You then get similar problems with people a little further out then going well it's cheaper to drive for a few mins to get a higher frequency/ease of access - but bottom dollar is still the big driving point. Another problem Northgate has are transfers with people catching Caboolture/Redcliffe trains tagging off at Northgate and transferring to a Shorncliffe service - once again due to the price difference. You can be done for fare evasion multiple times and still have change left over from the money saved by tagging off early. This is one issue I've addressed before that no one really wants to address both from a fare evasion side, a road network congestion problem (check out Gympie street/Sandgate road intersection in afternoon peak - that's the road that links Sandgate road to Northgate station - along with the roads that head west towards Rode Road which saw an increase in traffic congestion/crashes resulting in extra traffic lights in the citybound direction on Sandgate road), zone conflict with transfers (costs more to bus from Nundah and train transfer at Toombul than driving northbound out of your way to park at Northgate for a cheaper fare) but also the patronage side that affects the justification for increasing service frequency on the Springfield and Shorncliffe lines as patronage data is now solely based on gocard data. Geebung has 60-120 minute bus frequencies. Strathpine-Petrie has a 60 minute peak frequencies vs 7 minute frequencies for the rail network. Carseldine station has the first outbound 335 arriving there at 9am. I'm all for boosting frequencies but if there isn't any patronage there then it's hard to justify it. Even the outer cbd suburbs suffer. Look at Eagle Junction and the 321/369 times. Hell from Sandgate road to Lutyche road what buses are still running after 6pm. Meanwhile gympie road has 24bph between 10-11pm not including the 370.

Facebook ...

📸 Look at this post on Facebook https://sunnybankhillsnews.com.au/transit-oriented-community-proposed-for-runcorn/?fbclid=IwAR1tuSkakrcBRT7imMinMcM2ZXdN7FqD1S7TOMo0-nVL4mERdwJyoTvOV6A_aem_AbZL9Fes6zGgcWdKDpjbuldVrFum2ZXWRyeY8X87DKltkq923Sl4X8xqzYvNWsfWIlc

QuoteA large mixed-use urban development has been proposed near the Runcorn train station, designed to transform the area into a bustling transit-oriented community.

Local architecture firm ZENX Architects has rendered the masterplan, which calls for a precinct spanning 32 Bonemill Road focused on adaptively reusing existing buildings whilst adding housing, shops, and community facilities.

The proposal features 931 residential units in low-to-medium density buildings (850 medium density and 81 low medium density) three to five storeys tall, structured around preserving heritage buildings and an open space network.



Precinct plan (Photo credit: ZENX Architects)

It also makes way for restaurants, hardware stores, markets and other businesses meant to stimulate local entrepreneurship.

Specific zones are delineated for medium-density housing near the existing station, mixed-use buildings along main thoroughfares and a "community heart" with the highest densities, envisioning the transit hub as an emerging urban hub.



Photo credit: ZENX Architects

"The design approach for Runcorn Central is to create a Transit Oriented Development (TOD), which provides the opportunity for Runcorn station to play a bigger role within South Brisbane," planners stated in the development application. 


"The Site represents 16ha of superfluous industrial land just 14km southeast of Brisbane's CBD. While the site has a long history of industrial use over time these operations have changed and evolved, and now continued industrial operations are no longer viable," planners added.



Photo credit: ZENX Architects

Stormwater drainage and bioretention basins are included to manage environmental impacts and heritage structures, like former factory buildings, will be refurbished to house community services.

The masterplan requires updating zoning laws and approval by Brisbane City Council, but the planners believe it charts an exciting future connecting multiple precincts where residents can live, work and play, whilst invigorating Runcorn with new amenities.

The applicant believes the transit-oriented community will have several economic benefits. Besides delivering new and diverse housing to Runcorn, it will also provide additional direct investment to the economy by generating over 663 job-years during construction.

If approved, construction could commence on the transit-oriented development within a few years, completely transforming the formerly industrial area.

The car park remaining on s stupid!!

Grade separate Bonemill Street and Nathan Road as part of the works while they're at it

Looks good Jonno. And it is a much bigger scale as well. 

However, no mention of the car parking ratio.

The TOD title should only be assigned to developments that have mode share 50% or better from PT+AT. Otherwise, they are TADs (Transit Adjacent Developments). To achieve TOD, the car parking provided should probably be reduced.

The second thing is that the train frequency at Runcorn is half-hourly. This is bad.

Comparable developments over the border in NSW: NSW Government is simply blanket rezoning/upzoning around train stations.

QuoteThe first phase of the scheme would see the rezoning of land within 1.2kms of the stations at Bankstown, Bays West, Bella Vista, Crows Nest, Homebush, Hornsby, Kellyville and Macquarie Park.

The second tranche would see new planning control applied to precincts within 400m of 31 train stations "which will allow the development of more multi-storey housing".

Notes

NSW government's plan to address housing crisis by rezoning land around train stations accidentally revealed
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/dec/05/nsw-government-housing-crisis-plan-leaks-rezoning-land-train-stations#

TOD Versus TAD: The Great Debate Resolved...(?)
Chris Hale
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02697459.2012.749056

QuoteWith a few exceptions, researchers and experts have generally been reluctant to provide a clear benchmark for TOD success or failure—perhaps because so many well-intentioned TOD efforts fall short of initial expectations. This paper puts forward a proposal that mode share should be the apex metric for determining TOD project success or failure. It is suggested that a majority (50%+) of travel movements need to be accommodated by the sustainable modes (walking, cycling, and public transit) for a location to assume the label of 'genuine TOD'. Equally, other locations that attempt TOD, but do not deliver a sustainable travel majority, might be placed in the 'TAD' category.

I've known about this one for a while. I'm fine with the Park n' ride staying, it's not very big anyway and Runcorn station serves a fair majority of the suburb south of Beenleigh road. Also, why would the developer have any input on the park n ride anyway? Its a state asset and they're literally just building something on private land they own. Dumb take.

I don't care about someone's ultra specific definition of what makes it a TOD or not. Yeah sure it would be nice to have less parking in the development that close to a station  but we're dealing with BCC's mandatory parking minimums. Its density next to a train station where there previously was an unused factory. We should be celebrating the small win IMO.

15 min off peak frequency on Beenleigh line is definitely something we should advocate for post K2B upgrade