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: 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

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

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

Influence Factors of TOD 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)

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

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…

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

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

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

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

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

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. Melrose Arch

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

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

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