Managing Growth: Integrating Land Use & Transportation Planning Metro Vancouver Sustainability Community Breakfast Andrew Curran Manager, Strategy June 12, 2013
2 Integrating Land Use & Transportation Planning
Presentation Outline 1. Transportation Shaping Land Use 2. Land Use Shaping Transportation 3.Better Coordination 4. Challenges 1 2 3 4 3
How Transportation Shapes Land Use Outcomes Marchetti s Constant: The 1-hour constant travel time budget Result: Cities are only ever 1-hour wide 1 2 3 4
The 1-Hour-Wide City Walking City 5km/h > 2.5km radius 20 km 2 Streetcar City 15km/h > 7.5km radius 177 km 2 Auto City 40km/h > 20km radius 1260 km 2 5
The 1-Hour Wide City 2006 Census, Journey to Work
1 million more residents over next 30 years 18% 28% 74% 11% 240,000 95,000 19% 78% 360,000 135,000 730,000 460,000 53% 48% 420,000 245,000 56% 78% 79% 160,000 50,000 37% 49% 250,000 195,000 69% 835,000 350,000 56% 89% 230,000 125,000 Note: these projections are currently being reviewed as part of Metro Vancouver s regional growth strategy review process. Source: Metro Vancouver
Accommodating 3 million more trips per day 2013 2045 6M 9M Car will still play important role. But we don t physically have the space to accommodate all of these new trips by car
Accommodating 3 million more trips per day 1.6 M trips 27% 50% 4.4 M trips 4.4 M trips 73% 50% 4.4 M trips 2011 2040 TARGET
How Land Use Shapes Transportation Outcomes: Towards a More Transit-Oriented Region 1 2 3 4 10
Bike + Walk + Transit Journey-to-Work Mode Share for People Living in Centres, 2006 Urban Centres: More Walking, Cycling & Transit 70% 11 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Surrey Metro Centre Aldergrove MTC Destination Distance Edmonds MTC Lougheed MTC Design Newton MTC Density Maple Ridge RTC Richmond Centre RTC Coquitlam Centre RTC Inlet Centre MTC Cloverdale MTC Pitt Meadows MTC Port Coquitlam MTC Ladner MTC Fleetwood MTC Diversity Langley Town Centre RTC Demand Downtown New Westminster Oakridge MTC Brentwood MTC Guildford MTC Lynn Valley MTC Semiahmoo MTC DEMAND? Metrotown Denser development will not influence Ambleside travel very much Lonsdale unless road level-of-service standards and parking requirements are reduced or 20% for People Living Outside Urban Centres eliminated. (Chatman, 2008)* Metro Core 0 50 100 150 200 250 Gross population + employment density (persons+employment/gross ha), 2006 Walk/Bike/Trasit Mode Share for Journey to Work Trips for People Living in Centres, 2006 Census data
Transit-Oriented Communities For more resources: www.translink.ca/tocs
Transit-Oriented Communities are places that, by their design, allow people to drive less and walk, cycle, and take transit more. are really walking- and cyclingoriented communities focused around frequent transit stops and stations. 13 Joyce-Collingwood Looking Towards Metrotown Robson Street, Vancouver
Urban Centres and Frequent Transit Corridors Frequent Transit Network: service at least every 15 min throughout the day; 7 days/week 14 Regional framework for a conversation around transit and land use coordination
Creating Transit-Oriented Communities: the 6 D s Places that facilitate a decreased reliance on driving by providing: Good Destination accessibility Short Distance to transit Pedestrian-friendly Design Density of jobs & residents Diversity of uses Demand management 15
Creating Transit-Oriented Communities: the 6 D s 1. Destination Accessibility > Be on the Way! 16 Poor transit geography Good transit geography
Creating Transit-Oriented Communities: the 6 D s 1. Destination Accessibility > Be on the Way! Livable Region Plan (1976)
Creating Transit-Oriented Communities: the 6 D s 2. Distance to Transit 18 Poor connectivity = long walk Good connectivity = short walk
Creating Transit-Oriented Communities: the 6 D s 3. Design 19 Auto-oriented design Pedestrian-oriented design
Creating Transit-Oriented Communities: the 6 D s 4. Density 20 Auto-oriented density distribution Pedestrian-oriented density distribution
Creating Transit-Oriented Communities: the 6 D s 5. Diversity Poor mix of uses Rich mix of transit-supportive uses 21
Creating Transit-Oriented Communities: the 6 D s 6. Demand Management No pricing = inefficient use of resources Pricing = optimized performance 22
Creating Transit-Oriented Communities: the 6 D s Places that facilitate a decreased reliance on driving by providing: Good Destination accessibility Short Distance to transit Pedestrian-friendly Design Density of jobs & residents Diversity of uses Demand management 23 Need all SIX working in concert along with transportation investment
Creating Transit-Oriented Communities: the 6 D s VARIABLE Destination Distance Design Density Diversity Demand AVG ELASTICITY of VEHICLE KM TRAVELED* -0.22 (distance to downtown) & -0.20 (access by auto) -0.12 (intersection density) N/A -0.04 (population density) & 0.00 (job density) -0.09 (entropy index) & -0.02 (jobs-housing balance) N/A 24 * Ewing and Cervero. 2010. Travel and the Built Environment, Journal of the American Planning Association 76(3):265-294.
Creating Transit-Oriented Communities: the 6 D s VARIABLE Destination Distance Design Density Diversity Demand AVG ELASTICITY of TRANSIT USE* N/A 0.29 (distance to transit) & 0.23 (intersection density) N/A 0.07 (population density) & 0.01 (job density) 0.12 (entropy index) N/A 25 * Ewing and Cervero. 2010. Travel and the Built Environment, Journal of the American Planning Association 76(3):265-294.
Creating Transit-Oriented Communities: the 6 D s Destination Distance Design Density Diversity Demand DENSITY? Density has a relatively weak direct relationship with travel. It is rather a proxy for the other Ds i.e. dense settings commonly have central locations, short blocks, mixed uses, good transit, traffic congestion & expensive parking. 26 * Chatman. 2008. Deconstructing development density: Quality, quantity, and price effects on household non-work travel. Transportation Research Part A 42: 1008-1030.
Creating Transit-Oriented Communities: the 6 D s Destination Distance Design Density Diversity Demand DEMAND? Denser development will not influence travel very much unless road level-of-service standards and parking requirements are reduced or eliminated. (Chatman, 2008)* * Chatman. 2008. Deconstructing development density: Quality, quantity, and price effects on household non-work travel. Transportation Research Part A 42: 1008-1030.
Better Coordination: More Certainty More Effective Outcomes 1 2 3 4 28
29 Integrating Land Use & Transportation Planning
A Healthy Dialogue Land Use Planning Here is a land use vision, conveying a sense of where people & jobs will be in 30 years Thanks! Given that, here is a revised land use plan that tries to take more advantage of your draft Frequent Transit Network with more density around stops in proposed FTDAs and less density elsewhere Transportation Planning Thanks! Here s a sketch of a Frequent Transit Network that will serve that land use pattern. Notice that this network creates opportunities for land use and has inefficiencies that could be addressed by adjusting land use. Thanks! Here is an updated transit network plan, reflecting commitments you ve made to land use changes Document Reciprocal Commitments Adapted from: Human Transit (2012) by Jarrett Walker
Identifying Frequent Transit Development Areas Opportunities Filling in the gaps between Centres along the FTN = more balanced demand = more productive service = more transit resources for everyone = achieve our regional goals and targets faster 31
Identifying Frequent Transit Development Areas Opportunities / Inefficiencies that can be addressed through land use
Identifying Frequent Transit Development Areas Most permanent Destination Distance Design Density Diversity Demand more permanent = more critical to get right at the early stages of community design other D s easier to integrate later 33 Least permanent
Identifying Frequent Transit Development Areas High Destination Is this location on the way? Best candidate sites for FTDAs Low High Low Distance Is there a fine-grained network of wellconnected streets?
Concurrent Commitments Investment & Land Use
Concurrent Commitments Investment & Land Use Lower Capilano / Marine FTDA Lower Lynn FTDA Lynn Valley Town Centre Maplewood Village Centre 36
Transit Neighbourhoods Area Planning Partnerships with municipalities to: Better integrate our transit infrastructure into the community Co-develop transit-oriented area plans for pedestrian catchments of frequent transit stations and stops 37 e.g. Main Street Corridor Plan
Joint Development Program e.g. Newton Town Centre Plan 38 Newton Transit Exchange (Existing and Future) e.g. Newton Town Centre Land Use & Transportation Plan
Issues, Challenges, Parting Thoughts 1 2 3 4 39
To plan effectively, we all need more certainty. Making commitments on land use and pricing at the same time as commitments on investment will help provide that certainty. The FTDA process provides a useful starting point. Total certainty is not possible. Funds may not be available to expand service. Zoning doesn t necessarily lead to development. Agreements will need to address these issues. Will we spread ourselves too thinly? Will we dilute the benefits if we designate too many FTDAs across too extensive a network? How do we manage this risk? What s in it for municipalities? Not obligated to designate FTDAs so why bother? To encourage engagement with the region in this process, could provide additional incentives (e.g. priority for capital cost-sharing, funds for joint planning) Partnerships. Responsibility is spread over many agencies. We need to continue building strong partnerships in order to succeed. 40