Impact of Transit Orientated Developments

[ar_howard]

I am interested in others opinions regarding the impact of proposed transit orientated developments on the (high density immediately adjacent to rail) long term future of rail line improvements?

I was watching an ABC documentary last night on the limitations imposed on the UK rail network by housing and industry effectively locking out any future rail improvements because future expansion options disappear and alternatives are just too expensive.

It may be some time before SEQ reaches the same limits, but at the rate of population expansion currently being debated, will the future of our rail networks be limited?

I'd welcome your opinions.

[ozbob]

Welcome ar!  It is a very important point.  TODs need to be done in such a way that future expansion is not compromised, this can be achieved with a bit of thought.  One aspect of rail infrastructure planning of late in Queensland has been to future proof to some extent, even though it is often half baked.  For example, the earthworks and so forth for the planned Richlands to Springfield line will be double track, even if they still think that initially the line will be single from Richlands to Stepham.  The upgrade of the Ipswich highway has made provision for future track additions on the Ipswich line if you look carefully.  I see TODs in the same way.  



Footnote:  The points raised in the documentary need to be taken onboard by planners here, clearly.

[#Metro]

I think we also need to look at the (hidden) impacts of rail extenstion to suburbs 20, 40, 80 km out of the city. I dare call them "Transit Disoriented Developments" or TDDs!

Often this land is just empty paddocks or bushland. The government allows it to be developed as it is the path of least resistance and can be done quickly to meet their short term housing targets. The developer is happy because they place the costs of providing ongoing transport on the Public purse- (which in economics speak is causing a "negative externiality"). Many of these developments also have lots of cul-de-sacs which make bus routes nothing but torturous and awkward to to travel around in. Buses through Springfield Lakes are just like this.

The problem with this is that it easily eats up billions and billions of dollars of public money which could be better spent on increasing service frequency, rollingstock and quality. Put in a few Taj Mahal- style stations and your transport budget is gone!

[longboi]

TT I agree with you completely. TODs every suburb out to, say, Beenleigh would achieve nothing.

[ozbob]

TODs are being looked at for Woolloongabba, Milton, South Brisbane, Bowen Hills/Exhibition, Tennyson, Corinda ?, Taringa, Nundah?  and a few others that escape me at the moment ...

Regional outer urban hubs, serviced by long haul rail connectors is a different matter. 

[Jon Bryant]

TT I agree with you completely. TODs every suburb out to, say, Beenleigh would achieve nothing.

I disagree.  There are different scales of TOD from Higher Density town and district centres to neighbourhood TOD with more residential and a commercial centre.  The idea of a TOD is it is designed for greater walking, cycling and PT.  The key issue is to link neighbourhood TOD to the district TOD to the Town Centre TODs in a hierarchy with fast frequent PT.  Local trips are done by foot.  Cycling is safe and given priority. Longer distance trips are quicker by PT than car.    With greater variety in housing choice and better access to local retail, services and jobs the "need" for a car is removed.  

[#Metro]

Perhaps I should clarify. This is going to be tricky, as the word TOD needs to be defined and everyone might have different ideas. The question I pose is, simply because a rail line goes through the middle of it or near it, does that make it a TOD?

So what is and isn't a TOD? Perhaps this can be discussed by others.

If, for random example, Jimboomba was developed into a city and then they lobbied for rail extension, this would not be a TOD in my view. I don't consider Springfield Lakes as a TOD either. Even though it will eventually have a rail line right down the middle of it, and this would help. I don't think Ipswich qualifies as a TOD, certainly not with 30 minute rail frequencies off peak. Development at Buranda, Toowong Milton and South Bank qualify as TODs in my view.

Local trips are done by foot.  Cycling is safe and given priority. Longer distance trips are quicker by PT than car.    With greater variety in housing choice and better access to local retail, services and jobs the "need" for a car is removed.  

Jonno, these places already exist, if we look carefully.
Brisbane has four actually already in operation. They are called:

The University of Queensland, St Lucia Campus
QUT Kelvin Grove & Gardens Point
Griffith University

Most of the traffic around these campuses (which can be the size of a whole suburb) are done by foot. The mode share for foot traffic must be something like 90%. Bicycles are everywhere. Usually there is a main PT corridor which has high volume (Busway, Ferry) etc  On-campus accomodation, shops, businesses, food, sport and recreation, libraries, all fit into one very compact space. Cars are restricted, car speeds are low (30 km or less) and there are stringent restrictions (pay parking, parking is generally concentrated into communal multi-level carparks which require walking and a permit etc).

If you imagine the buildings are replaced with residential apartments and low-rise, you have the perfect TOD.

[Emmie]

Local trips are done by foot.  Cycling is safe and given priority. Longer distance trips are quicker by PT than car.    With greater variety in housing choice and better access to local retail, services and jobs the "need" for a car is removed. 

Jonno, these places already exist, if we look carefully.
Brisbane has four actually already in operation. They are called:

The University of Queensland, St Lucia Campus
QUT Kelvin Grove & Gardens Point
Griffith University

Most of the traffic around these campuses (which can be the size of a whole suburb) are done by foot. The mode share for foot traffic must be something like 90%. Bicycles are everywhere. Usually there is a main PT corridor which has high volume (Busway, Ferry) etc  On-campus accomodation, shops, businesses, food, sport and recreation, libraries, all fit into one very compact space. Cars are restricted, car speeds are low (30 km or less) and there are stringent restrictions (pay parking, parking is generally concentrated into communal multi-level carparks which require walking and a permit etc).

If you imagine the buildings are replaced with residential apartments and low-rise, you have the perfect TOD.

You would also have to change the population mix!  Bicycles and foot traffic work much better when the vast majority of the population are young and healthy, not pregnant, not ill - there aren't a great many babies and grannies on campus.  MAYBE if the babies grew up in such an environment, they would become healthy, bicycle riding grannies later on - look at the Netherlands, for instance - but otherwise it's not fair to compare a campus population with a normal suburban population.

[Jon Bryant]

I will start with the VTPI's definition which is

Transit Oriented Development (TOD) refers to residential and Commercial Centers designed to maximize access by Transit and Nonmotorized transportation, and with other features to encourage Transit Ridership. A typical TOD has a rail or bus station at its center, surrounded by relatively high-density development, with progressively lower-density spreading outwards one-quarter to one-half mile, which represents pedestrian scale distances. It includes these design features (Morris, 1996; Renne, 2009):

• The neighborhood is designed for Cycling and Walking, with adequate facilities and attractive street conditions
• Streets have good Connectivity and Traffic Calming features to control vehicle traffic speeds
• Mixed-use development that includes shops, schools and other public services, and a variety of housing types and prices, within each neighborhood
• Parking Management to reduce the amount of land devoted to parking compared with conventional development, and to take advantage of the parking cost savings associated with reduced automobile use
• Transit Stops and Stations that are convenient, comfortable and Secure, with features such as comfortable waiting areas, venders selling refreshments and periodicals, washrooms, Wayfinding and Multi-Modal Navigation Tools

Clearly each and every train and busway stop plus existing commerical/retail centres are perfect starting points but if we are to build sustainable cities then each and every suburb needs to be based on TOD principles.  There does need to be a hierarchy of centres (and thus density) as there should be today but in essence evey suburb need to be built so that public and active transport are the first choice of travel.  

Clearly our transit systems need to be massively enhanced to be able to have every neighbourhood have a rail or bus station at its center with a service that is fast, frequent and networked.

www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm45.htm - Worth the read.

[Jon Bryant]

They also ask the question

Is It Really TOD? (Patrick Siegman, in Tumlin and Millard-Ball, 2003)

What's the difference between a true transit-oriented development, which will deliver promised social and economic benefits, and a transit-adjacent development? A true TOD will include most of the following:

• The transit-oriented development lies within a five-minute walk of the transit stop, or about a quarter-mile (400m) from stop to edge. For major stations offering access to frequent high-speed service this catchment area may be extended to the measure of a 10-minute walk.

• A balanced mix of uses generates 24-hour ridership. There are places to work, to live, to learn, to relax and to shop for daily needs.

• A place-based zoning code generates buildings that shape and define memorable streets, squares, and plazas, while allowing uses to change easily over time.

• The average block perimeter is limited to no more than 1,350 feet (412m). This generates a fine-grained network of streets, dispersing traffic and allowing for the creation of quiet and intimate thoroughfares.

• Minimum parking requirements are abolished.

• Maximum parking requirements are instituted: For every 1,000 workers, no more than 500 spaces and as few as 10 spaces are provided.

• Parking costs are "unbundled," and full market rates are charged for all parking spaces. The exception may be validated parking for shoppers.

• Major stops provide BikeStations, offering free attended bicycle parking, repairs, and rentals. At minor stops, secure and fully enclosed bicycle parking is provided.

• Transit service is fast, frequent, reliable, and comfortable, with a headway of 15 minutes or less.

• Roadway space is allocated and traffic signals timed primarily for the convenience of walkers and cyclists.

• Automobile level-of-service standards are met through congestion pricing measures, or disregarded entirely.

• Traffic is calmed, with roads designed to limit speed to 30 mph (50 kph) on major streets and 20 mph (33ph) on lesser streets.

www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm45.htm - Worth the read.

[Jon Bryant]

Lets also discuss Car-Free Planning

Car-Free Planning involves designing particular areas for minimal automobile use.

·         Developing urban districts (such as a downtown or residential neighborhood) where personal automobiles are unnecessary and automobile traffic is restricted. Such restrictions can be part- or full-time, and often include exceptions for delivery vehicles, taxis, and vehicles for people with disabilities.

·         Housing developments where residents are discouraged from owning private cars.

·         Pedestrian-oriented commercial streets where driving is discouraged or prohibited.

·         Resorts and parks that encourage or require non-automotive access.

·         Car-free days and car-free events.

·         Temporary restrictions on driving, such as during an air pollution emergencies or a major sport event that would otherwise create excessive traffic problems.

[Stillwater]

One wonders what is going to happen with the coordination of TODs (Transit Oriented Developments) in the new government structure.  Previously they were with Infrastructure and Planning, but these functions have been split between Mr Paul Lucas (Planning) and Mr Andrew Fraser (Major Infrastructure).  I suspect the latter has charge of the major infrastructure because of the tendency for cost overruns on big projects and because of the budget implications of new infrastructure.

http://www.dip.qld.gov.au/local-area-planning/transit-oriented-development.html

http://www.dip.qld.gov.au/resources/guideline/tod/tod-guide.pdf

TODs in a rail environment:

http://www.dip.qld.gov.au/resources/guideline/tod/rail-guideline.pdf

http://www.dip.qld.gov.au/resources/guideline/tod/appendix.pdf