Transit-Oriented Development Christoffer Weckström 31.10.2017
Outline Context of Transit-oriented Development Elements of Transit-oriented Development A short history of land use and transit integration Case study of Transit-oriented Development in Helsinki The relationship between land use and travel behavior Categorization of transit stations areas Conclusions 1.11.2017 2
Context There are several problems related to urban transportation: Congestion Pollution Health Social equality Shaping travel demand trough land use a current planning trend Transit-Oriented Development one of the proposed land use concepts 1.11.2017 3
What is Transit-oriented Development (TOD)? Dense, mixed and compact land use centered public transport The aim is making sustainable transportation a viable option for the residents The interaction of land use and travel behavior is the basis of the concept There is plenty of research that have tried to assess the impact of different land use indicators to travel patterns, for an overview: (Ewing, Cervero 2010) 1.11.2017 4
What is Transit-oriented Development (TOD)? Dense, mixed and compact land use centered public transport The aim is making sustainable transportation a viable option for the residents The interaction of land use and travel behavior is the basis of the concept There is plenty of research that have tried to assess the impact of different land use indicators to travel patterns, for an overview: (Ewing, Cervero 2010) http://www.nhhsrail.com/pdfs/todcasestudy draft_100311.pdf 1.11.2017 5
Features Defining TOD Density: higher than average Diversity: more mixed land use than elsewhere Design: walkable street grid and pedestrian friendly infrastructure (Cervero, Kockelman 1997). Distance to transit: compact design generally within 800 meters from station Destination accessibility: good access to other parts of the region with public transit (Ewing 2002). 1.11.2017 6
Density: Karhusaari, ~400 inhabitants Laitoksen nimi 7
Density: Vallila, ~400 inhabitants in this block Laitoksen nimi 8
Diversity: services in that same block Laitoksen nimi 9
Design: to avoid this 10
Historical Context of TOD (1800's - 1930) - Late 19 th early 20 th century: Suburban development around train and tram stations often trough private land development - The motives were often different vs. today: - Back then: - Out of necessity, no alternatives to public transport - Practicality - Escape from the city, closer to nature (The garden city movement) - Today: Bring urbanity to the suburbs (Transit oriented- Development) 11
Schematic plan of a network of Garden cities Copenhagen finger plan 1947 12
Kulosaari in Helsinki was developed as a private venture Eliel Saarinen's suggested masterplan for Greater Helsinki (1918) was based on garden cities interconnected with railroads or tram lines 13
Historical Context of TOD - 1930 s - 1970 s The rise of the private car: public transport, especially trams gradually fell out of favor - Need for public transport did not disappear in larger cities - Link between public transport and land use weakened Los Angeles 1920 s Los Angeles 1956 14
Historical Context of TOD - 60 s - 70's Metro + Bus systems was the ideal public transport solution, with metro lines often planned with little regard of the land use that it was supposed to serve - Focus was on travel time, not ease of use or convenience M Herttoniemi metrostation 1988 Atlanta: subway in freeway median 15
Historical Context of TOD - However, some successful TOD implementations of the 60's 70's: Especially in Northern and Eastern Europe Stockholm 1965 Vällingby 1960 16
Historical Context of TOD - 1970 s: oil crisis and increased environmental consciousness - The car would not solve all our transportation needs after all? - Increased interest for public transport 17
Historical Context of TOD 80's -> Reinventing the wheel: Car dominated planning contested also in USA The concept of Transit-oriented Development was coined in the early 90's in The Next American Metropolis: Ecology, Community, and the American Dream by Peter Calthorpe Light rail boom in Europe and North America 18
TOD Examples: Arlington (next to Washington DC) Metro route was planned in a freeway median, luckily the plans were realigned to enable TOD High density, mixed-use development centered around stations, low density further away http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/dpz/projects/reston/presentations/40_years_of_transit_oriented_development.pdf 19
TOD Examples: Vauban, Freiburg Freiburg has around 220 000 inhabitants Vauban is a TOD centered around a tram line 20
TOD Examples: Leppävaara Mostly empty land around Leppävaara railway station was developed into a new neighborhood Shopping center provides services, but in the same time blocks off the railway station 21
TOD Examples: 2016 Master plan suggestion for Helsinki Complementing current public transport network with light rail lines Densification around current and future station areas Turning freeways into urban boulevards 22
Measuring TOD - Land use (density, diversity) - Data driven analysis, can use data about population, jobs and buildings - Walkability (design) - Street network data (data driven), on-site analysis (more accurate but resource intensive) - Accessibility (are the public transit services adequate?) - Travel behavior (modal split, travel distances) - Has the implementation of TOD changed the travel habits? - Real-estate value - Appreciation of the neighborhood by the inhabitants (softgismethod) 23
Case: Helsinki Capital Region Logistic regression model linking land-use indicators to mode choice Travel diary data from HSL - time of day - trip origin - trip destination - mode choice - trip purpose - background information Purpose of the study: We know the land use shapes travel behavior, but we don t know how much. 1.11.2017 24
Study area 1.11.2017 25
Indicators Density - Population within 200 meters - Jobs within 200 meters Diversity - Simpson s diversity of service jobs/jobs/population within 200 meters - Distance to services of 10 different categories Public transport service level: - Ratio between public transport and car based accessibility (30 minutes) Background indicators - Car ownership & car availability - Age - Income - Gender Modes: walking, public transport, car and bicycle 1.11.2017 26
Land use travel behavior connection Density: Both types of density associated with less car usage, less bicycling and more walking Density: Public transport usage unaffected by population density Diversity: Poor service availability associated with more car usage, the opposite is true for the other modes Diversity: positive impact on walking, negative on driving and public transport usage 1.11.2017 27
Land use travel behavior connection Public transport service level: strongest predictor for public transport usage The results for walking and car usage in line with previous results The differences in bicycling infrastructure may be the reason behind the odd results Results for public transport usage: caused by dominance of radial lines? 1.11.2017 28
Public Transport Competitiveness Laitoksen nimi 1.11.2017 29
Average Distance to Service Laitoksen nimi 30
Simpson s diversity Laitoksen nimi 31
Job Density Laitoksen nimi 32
Population density Laitoksen nimi 33
Predicted car use Laitoksen nimi 1.11.2017 34
TOD classification Laitoksen nimi 1.11.2017 35
Conclusions TOD as dense, mixed and compact land use centered public transport TOD concept relies on the relationship between land use and travel behavior and focuses on density, diversity, design, distance to transit, and destination accessibility TOD is not a new idea and it has proven to be a successful concept world wide, since the advent of public transport 1.11.2017 36
Thank you