Impact of Transit Oriented Development on Public Transport: Case Cornubia

 
10 July 2019
 
Pieter  Onderwater
Pieter.onderwater@hatch.com
 
SATC 2019
TO D or not to D, that is the question
(Possible) Impact of Transit Oriented
Development on Public Transport
– Case Cornubia
 
Education:
1980 – 1988
 
Technical University Delft: MSc Civil Engineering
  
Traffic & Transport: PT/Rail Planning
2017 – now
 
University of Cape Town: PhD on Rail Planning
Work:
1988
 
– 1989 
 
Swiss Railway Company,  
University Delft
1989 – 2001 
 
Goudappel Coffeng T&T Consultancy
1992 – 2006 
 
Municipalities of The Hague and Rotterdam
2006 – 2011 
 
DHV Consultants Rail, the Netherlands
2011 – 2013
 
SSI / Royal HaskoningDHV, South Africa
2013 – 2018
 
SMEC, South Africa
2018 – now 
 
Hatch Africa
Lecturing:
2000 – 2010
 
Deventer, Utrecht techikons, Twente University, the Netherlands
2012 – now
 
University of Cape Town
2017 – now 
 
University of Namibia
 
Pieter Onderwater (1962)
 
Objective of this paper:
1.
Investigate the influence on the PT system, of the main TOD factors:
Improved Public Transport
Density
Mixed-Use
Pedestrian friendly design
(others)
2.
Theoretical Application: Transit Oriented Planning
3.
Case Cornubia Boulevard
Modelling
4.
Lessons learned
TOD and PT support each other
Modelling tools are inadequate
 
Objective and Methodology
 
TOD concept originates from 1970/80s (USA)
 
(Naturally) applied in Europe
Urban development
  
    Requires 
T&T network
Opportunities for planned dev.  
 
        
Spare capacity T&T network
Attracts new urban dev. 
 
      
 
        H
igh quality T&T network
 
TOD in South Africa, only in last decade
2006 – Wilkinson published on it, at SATC
2011 – National Development Plan
Then – included in (some) local planning policies
Recently – several researchers, SACN, PhD/MSc students
 
Application of TOD
 
Influence factors
Cervero (1990s) 
 3 D
Southern Africa Cities Network (2010s) 
 8 aspects
 
1.
Improved Public Transport
2.
Density
3.
Diversity = Mixed-Use
4.
Design = Walking network and facilities / Public Realm
   (Cycling)
   (Regulating parking, car use, traffic management)
 
Influence Factors of TOD
 
1.
Trip Generation
Work, school, other activities, shopping, social, leisure
2.
Distribution
3.
Modal Split
Walk, Private Transport (Car, Cycle?)
Public Transport (minibus, bus, train)
4.
Assignment
Routes 
 PT operations
 
Individual economic assessment, budgets: money, time, effort.
If quality of transportation system is insufficient, then:
Other mode: Car 
 PT (
 cheaper P mode) 
 Walk
Different distribution, other (sub-optimal) activity 
 closer by
Not make the trip at all
Impacts on Economic and Social activities…
 
Transportation Assessment
Activity
Traffic
Transport
Travel
 
0.
 
Traditional Land Use = segregated activities, low densities
 
Traditional PT = unscheduled, low Quality Level of Service
 
 
 
 
–    Often direct services, but in-frequent, slow
–    Long PT trips
–    Small PT units (most efficient)
 still inefficient, expensive
 
Only attracts Captives
Spend a large proportion of money, time, effort on Transportation…
 
0. Traditional Planning
 
0.
 
Traditional Land Use and PT
 
 
 
 
1.
 
Improved PT = IPTN = Trunk and Feeder
 
 
 
+   Some PT improvements: scheduled, frequent, fast (dedicated infra)
–   Still long PT trips, long walking distances from stations / or Feeders
–   Inefficient PT: one-directional, unevenly used, expensive / subsidy
 
Hardly attracting Choice Users
Walking / Feeder cost too much time, effort
 
1. Improved Public Transport
 
1.
 
Improved PT = IPTN
 
 
 
2.
 
High Density
 
 
 
+   More improvements on PT service, better used.
–   PT operations still one-directional, and inefficient
–   Still long PT trips, long walking distances from stations
 
Still not attracting many Choice Users
 
2. Higher Density
 
2.
 
High Density
 
 
 
3.
 
Mixed-Use Density
 
 
 
+   Closer Origins and Destinations, some at walking distance
+   Shorter PT trips, bi-directional
+   More efficient PT: more evenly used and bi-directional
4.
 
Design Public Spaces for Pedestrians
+   Right Development Mix: Offices, Facilities, Retail, Leisure
+   Pleasant walking 
 attracting Choice Users
 
3. Mixed-Use
 
With High Density and Mixed-Use:
 smaller catchment area, for activities to be self-sufficient
 more activities in reach of population = higher accessibility
Origins and Destinations close by, ‘around the corner’
More walking trips, less Car and PT
Also activity / trip-’chains’ in lunch-time or after work (off-peak)
Pedestrian friendly environment
Pleasant place to live, work, play
Attracting additional activities / trips 
 also in off-peak
PT and NMT support each other 
 more PT use 
 modal shift
Road network can’t handle high densities, but (as with PT) mixed
densities make road network more efficient
Also consider mixed-use Parking
More economic / social activities 
 higher land value
 
Additional Benefits of TOD
 
Cornubia is a new development, north of Durban
Along Improved PT Corridors:
C9 = Umhlanga – Cornubia – Phoenix – Bridge City
C8 = Durban – Umhlanga – Cornubia – Airport
Plus additional Local PT routes
Dense Mixed Design
First developments already had higher densities 
 higher in recent plans
First plans were only partly mixed 
 Cornubia Boulevard is well mixed
 
Case Cornubia
 
Modelling results:
Densification 
 Higher Trip Generation
Improved PT 
 More PT trips, good Assignment on PT network
Efficient PT system, station design, etc.
 
Support by Modelling
 
However, current Transportation Models hardly cater for TOD assessments
 
1. Fixed Trip Generation 
 
 no impact shown of mixed-use (less trips)
    
 no results for off-peak
 
2. Same Distribution function
 
 based on historic (traditional) planning
 
   
 little impact of mixed-use
 
3. No Modal-Split function
 
 ‘manual’ fixed impact of improved PT
    
 policy parameter = wishful thinking
 
4. Assignment
  
 OK
 
Modelling was inadequate
 
TOD 
 more off-peak trips, shorter trips, modal shift, more efficient PT
Impact of TOD elements works differently for Captives and Choice Users
 
 
 
 
 
 
Recent planning for Cornubia Boulevard includes all TOD elements 
 OK
Include TOD in more areas in Cornubia, elsewhere (where applicable)
Improve Modelling tools:
1.
Flexible Trip Generation, depending on Quality of transportation, off-peak
2.
Distribution function, based on Accessibility of activities
3.
Modal Split, based on Generalised Costs (money, time, effort)
 
Conclusions and Recommendations
 
Trad.
 
+Impr.PT
 
+Dense
 
+Mix
 
+Design
 
PT %
 Low Inc
 
 Mid. Inc
 
 High Inc
 
Any other questions ?
 
Pieter.onderwater@hatch.com
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
.
 
Discussion
 
So, the questions was: 
 
TO D or not to D ?
And the answer is:
 
TOD !
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
.
 
William 
Shakespeare – Hamlet (Prince of Denmark) – written 1599-1602
"To be, or not to be" = opening phrase of Act 3, Scene 1.
In the speech, prince Hamlet contemplates death and suicide,
bemoaning the pain and unfairness of life, but acknowledging that the
alternative might be worse.
 
Know your Classics
 
Definition (3) of Public Transport (Metro Rule):
It doesn’t really matter where you develop a (high quality) railway line,
in 20 years time it will function…!
Provided it is really high quality !!! 
 Rail !  (and maybe BRT ?)
= Transit Oriented Development
Partly planned 
 Partly u
nplanned / anticipated
 
Urban Passenger Rail upgrade (by Railway Company, Government):
New rolling stock, modernised infrastructure, station upgrade
Improved train service
The next step is area development (partly by others):
Local government 
 
 station area upgrade (public)
Railway Property 
 
 precinct development (private and public)
Local government 
 
 precinct development (public facilities)
Private partners 
 
 more urban development (private)
 
Rail 
 Transit Oriented Development
 
Private developers will step into the TOD market, once they believe in it
 When they can make money:
First Railway Company and Local Municipality have to show they are
serious about rail transport / urban re-generation
Long term vision, plans, budgets, implementation
Then Private Developers will step in…!
Short term profits 
 long term return on investment
 
‘Proof’ of TOD:
Land Value increase near stations
Office Rents / House Prices
Compared to similar areas >1 km
 10 to 30 % higher…! (50 % ?)
 
TOD and Private Developers
Slide Note

Embed
Share

Investigate the influence of Transit Oriented Development (TOD) factors on the public transport system, including improved public transport density, mixed-use design, and pedestrian-friendly infrastructure. This paper explores the theoretical application of TOD in urban planning with a focus on the Cornubia Boulevard modeling. Lessons learned suggest that TOD and public transport support each other, although modeling tools may be inadequate in capturing their full potential. Application of TOD originated in the 1970s/80s in the USA and has seen recent implementation in South Africa. Various influence factors of TOD such as public transport density, mixed-use design, and walking networks are discussed, with an emphasis on transportation assessment factors like trip generation, modal split, and economic impacts on individuals.


Uploaded on Sep 24, 2024 | 0 Views


Download Presentation

Please find below an Image/Link to download the presentation.

The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author. Download presentation by click this link. If you encounter any issues during the download, it is possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. SATC 2019 TO D or not to D, that is the question (Possible) Impact of Transit Oriented Development on Public Transport Case Cornubia 10 July 2019 Pieter Onderwater Pieter.onderwater@hatch.com

  2. Pieter Onderwater (1962) Education: 1980 1988 Technical University Delft: MSc Civil Engineering Traffic & Transport: PT/Rail Planning 2017 now University of Cape Town: PhD on Rail Planning Work: 1988 1989 Swiss Railway Company, University Delft 1989 2001 Goudappel Coffeng T&T Consultancy 1992 2006 Municipalities of The Hague and Rotterdam 2006 2011 DHV Consultants Rail, the Netherlands 2011 2013 SSI / Royal HaskoningDHV, South Africa 2013 2018 SMEC, South Africa 2018 now Hatch Africa Lecturing: 2000 2010 Deventer, Utrecht techikons, Twente University, the Netherlands 2012 now University of Cape Town 2017 now University of Namibia

  3. Objective and Methodology Objective of this paper: 1. Investigate the influence on the PT system, of the main TOD factors: Improved Public Transport Density Mixed-Use Pedestrian friendly design (others) 2. Theoretical Application: Transit Oriented Planning 3. Case Cornubia Boulevard Modelling 4. Lessons learned TOD and PT support each other Modelling tools are inadequate

  4. Application of TOD TOD concept originates from 1970/80s (USA) (Naturally) applied in Europe Urban development Opportunities for planned dev. Attracts new urban dev. Requires T&T network Spare capacity T&T network High quality T&T network TOD in South Africa, only in last decade 2006 Wilkinson published on it, at SATC 2011 National Development Plan Then included in (some) local planning policies Recently several researchers, SACN, PhD/MSc students

  5. Influence Factors of TOD Influence factors Cervero (1990s) Southern Africa Cities Network (2010s) 3 D 8 aspects 1. 2. 3. 4. Improved Public Transport Density Diversity = Mixed-Use Design = Walking network and facilities / Public Realm (Cycling) (Regulating parking, car use, traffic management)

  6. Transportation Assessment 1. Trip Generation Work, school, other activities, shopping, social, leisure Distribution Modal Split Walk, Private Transport (Car, Cycle?) Public Transport (minibus, bus, train) Assignment Routes PT operations Activity 2. 3. Travel Transport 4. Traffic Individual economic assessment, budgets: money, time, effort. If quality of transportation system is insufficient, then: Other mode: Car PT ( cheaper P mode) Walk Different distribution, other (sub-optimal) activity closer by Not make the trip at all Impacts on Economic and Social activities

  7. 0. Traditional Planning 0. Traditional Land Use = segregated activities, low densities Traditional PT = unscheduled, low Quality Level of Service Often direct services, but in-frequent, slow Long PT trips Small PT units (most efficient) still inefficient, expensive Only attracts Captives Spend a large proportion of money, time, effort on Transportation

  8. 1. Improved Public Transport 0. Traditional Land Use and PT 1. Improved PT = IPTN = Trunk and Feeder + Some PT improvements: scheduled, frequent, fast (dedicated infra) Still long PT trips, long walking distances from stations / or Feeders Inefficient PT: one-directional, unevenly used, expensive / subsidy Hardly attracting Choice Users Walking / Feeder cost too much time, effort

  9. 2. Higher Density 1. Improved PT = IPTN 2. High Density + More improvements on PT service, better used. PT operations still one-directional, and inefficient Still long PT trips, long walking distances from stations Still not attracting many Choice Users

  10. 3. Mixed-Use 2. High Density 3. Mixed-Use Density + Closer Origins and Destinations, some at walking distance + Shorter PT trips, bi-directional + More efficient PT: more evenly used and bi-directional Design Public Spaces for Pedestrians + Right Development Mix: Offices, Facilities, Retail, Leisure + Pleasant walking attracting Choice Users 4.

  11. Additional Benefits of TOD With High Density and Mixed-Use: smaller catchment area, for activities to be self-sufficient more activities in reach of population = higher accessibility Origins and Destinations close by, around the corner More walking trips, less Car and PT Also activity / trip- chains in lunch-time or after work (off-peak) Pedestrian friendly environment Pleasant place to live, work, play Attracting additional activities / trips also in off-peak PT and NMT support each other Road network can t handle high densities, but (as with PT) mixed densities make road network more efficient Also consider mixed-use Parking More economic / social activities more PT use modal shift higher land value

  12. Case Cornubia Cornubia is a new development, north of Durban Along Improved PT Corridors: C9 = Umhlanga Cornubia Phoenix Bridge City C8 = Durban Umhlanga Cornubia Airport Plus additional Local PT routes Dense Mixed Design First developments already had higher densities First plans were only partly mixed higher in recent plans Cornubia Boulevard is well mixed

  13. Support by Modelling Modelling results: Densification Higher Trip Generation Improved PT More PT trips, good Assignment on PT network Efficient PT system, station design, etc.

  14. Modelling was inadequate However, current Transportation Models hardly cater for TOD assessments no impact shown of mixed-use (less trips) no results for off-peak 1. Fixed Trip Generation 2. Same Distribution function based on historic (traditional) planning little impact of mixed-use manual fixed impact of improved PT policy parameter = wishful thinking 3. No Modal-Split function OK 4. Assignment

  15. Conclusions and Recommendations TOD Impact of TOD elements works differently for Captives and Choice Users more off-peak trips, shorter trips, modal shift, more efficient PT PT % Low Inc Mid. Inc High Inc Trad. +Impr.PT +Dense +Mix +Design Recent planning for Cornubia Boulevard includes all TOD elements Include TOD in more areas in Cornubia, elsewhere (where applicable) Improve Modelling tools: 1. Flexible Trip Generation, depending on Quality of transportation, off-peak 2. Distribution function, based on Accessibility of activities 3. Modal Split, based on Generalised Costs (money, time, effort) OK

  16. Discussion So, the questions was: And the answer is: TO D or not to D ? TOD ! Any other questions ? Pieter.onderwater@hatch.com .

Related


More Related Content

giItT1WQy@!-/#giItT1WQy@!-/#giItT1WQy@!-/#giItT1WQy@!-/#giItT1WQy@!-/#giItT1WQy@!-/#