Welcome. If you're new to this site, start here
Friday, July 21, 2006
Why Transit Oriented Development is not Relevant (Here)
Tom also wrote in support of Transit Oriented Development (TOD). He suggests that light rail (modern trams) will encourage benefical patterns of land usage. The TOD approach is typically based on neighbourhoods up to 800m in diammeter, with high density development at the centre, focussed on a rail or bus station.
That's very good idea, but unfortunately it's about 100 years too late for the Northern Suburbs. The patterns of land usage are already established here, and they won't change just because a tram drives past.
In fact, the Council's technical report (2.5 MB PDF) finds that:
Point (a) is graphically illustrated by the maps in the Council's Scenarios Reports. The maps show which areas are within 800 metres of a rail station. They show that about half the streets in the Nothern Suburbs are within 800 metres of a station.
Note that 800 metres is double the expected maximum walking distance in TOD. (TOD uses a diameter of 800 metres, whereas the Council is using a radius of 800 metres.) Even using double the recommended TOD walking distance, we still only encompass half of the Northern Suburbs. This is exactly the problem I was ranting about earlier.
The busway, on the other hand, gives a bus stop within 400 metres of virtually every home.
That's very good idea, but unfortunately it's about 100 years too late for the Northern Suburbs. The patterns of land usage are already established here, and they won't change just because a tram drives past.
In fact, the Council's technical report (2.5 MB PDF) finds that:
[Light rail] has a number of benefits including being able to influence land useIn otherwords, there is only one point, in the whole Northern Suburbs, where TOD is viable. In the rest of the Northern Suburbs:
patterns through densification around stations and transit orientated development (TOD). This is however unlikely to be the case on the Johnsonville railway line due to nature of the communities it travels through. The exception is at Johnsonville where densification and TOD are likely to be viable if encouraged by planning policies.
(a) Housing is too far from the rail line to make (rail-based) TOD viable.
and/or
(b) Land use patterns are entrenched, in the form of long-standing residental neighbourhoods. This is particularly true of those neighborhoods that lie along the rail line itself. They are not neighborhoods that may easily be changed. They contain well-maintained, well-loved, high-value homes. It would be polically, socially and economically infeasible to replace them with new high-density development.
Point (a) is graphically illustrated by the maps in the Council's Scenarios Reports. The maps show which areas are within 800 metres of a rail station. They show that about half the streets in the Nothern Suburbs are within 800 metres of a station.
Note that 800 metres is double the expected maximum walking distance in TOD. (TOD uses a diameter of 800 metres, whereas the Council is using a radius of 800 metres.) Even using double the recommended TOD walking distance, we still only encompass half of the Northern Suburbs. This is exactly the problem I was ranting about earlier.
The busway, on the other hand, gives a bus stop within 400 metres of virtually every home.
The only exceptions are some existing rail customers in the north-western sides of Ngaio and Crofton Downs - they are left with their existing 800-metre walk to their local station. See figure 6 in this section (2 MB PDF) of the report for details.
posted by John Rusk at 9:00 am
About Me
Previous Posts
- Frequency of Service, Part 2
- Frequency of Service
- Good article on busway versus light rail
- Enhanced Rail: No new trains in peak periods
- FAQ 1
- Comments Now Enabled
- Rant - Support the Busway
- Hello
Subscribe
- Site Feed
- No RSS sorry, just Atom format
2 Comments:
That section of the report is both wrong, and completely at odds with the council's stated commitment to concentrate most new housing development within the spine. While there won't be space for large, brand new ToDs of the type seen along rail lines overseas, there's still plenty of scope for densification around many of the stations.
For instance, Crofton Downs has a vast area of open-air carparks and single storey bulk retail around the station. That could easily be converted to mixed use with medium density housing, without disrupting existing houses.
Many of the neighbourhoods are far from "long standing": much of the housing stock only dates from the 70s. It's funny that the council had no qualms about bulldozing and displacing a much more established neighbourhood to make way for the so-called bypass, but it becomes "politically, socially and economically infeasible" to make much less disruptive changes to much less historically valuable areas when it comes to encouraging public transport.
And by "high-density", I don't mean you have to turn it into Hong Kong. Densities only need to be about 2-4 times that of quarter-acre suburbia to make mass transit feasible. Many suburban houseowners are already more than happy to subdivide their properties if they can reap the profits. We just have to ensure that it doesn't happen in a piecemeal and scattered way (there's not much point densifying the outer reaches of Churton Park) but is concentrated around the spine.
Yes, I forgot about Crofton Downs. As you say, it is a bit different from the stations on the Ngaio to Khandallah stretch.
I imagine that re-shaping a neighbourhood in that way would require a certain degree of political will, as was the case for the bypass. How does light rail fit into that picture? Compared to a busway, does light rail make it easier for politicians to find the nerve to alter the neighbourhood? Does it make it easier to sell the idea to locals? Does it, in fact, make the whole thing possible (in some manner that a busway does not)?
<< Home