1 / 16

10 July 2019 Pieter Onderwater Pieter.onderwater@hatch

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. Pieter Onderwater (1962). Education:

jasons
Télécharger la présentation

10 July 2019 Pieter Onderwater Pieter.onderwater@hatch

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. SATC 2019TO 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 GoudappelCoffeng 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 – 2010Deventer, 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: • Investigate the influence on the PT system, of the main TOD factors: • Improved Public Transport • Density • Mixed-Use • Pedestrian friendly design • (others) • Theoretical Application: Transit Oriented Planning • Case Cornubia Boulevard • Modelling • 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  Requires T&T network • Opportunities for planned dev.  Spare capacity T&T network • Attracts new urban dev.  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)  3 D • Southern Africa Cities Network (2010s)  8 aspects • Improved Public Transport • Density • Diversity = Mixed-Use • Design = Walking network and facilities / Public Realm • (Cycling) • (Regulating parking, car use, traffic management)

  6. Transportation Assessment • 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 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… Activity Travel Transport Traffic

  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 4. Design Public Spaces for Pedestrians + Right Development Mix: Offices, Facilities, Retail, Leisure + Pleasant walking  attracting Choice Users

  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  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

  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  higher in recent plans • First plans were only partly mixed  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 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

  15. Conclusions and Recommendations • 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: • Flexible Trip Generation, depending on Quality of transportation, off-peak • Distribution function, based on Accessibility of activities • Modal Split, based on Generalised Costs (money, time, effort) PT % Low Inc Mid. Inc High Inc Trad. +Impr.PT +Dense +Mix +Design

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

More Related