1. 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

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 – Swiss Railway Company, University Delft
1989 – Goudappel Coffeng T&T Consultancy
1992 – Municipalities of The Hague and Rotterdam
2006 – 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

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
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.
Melrose Arch

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 . . So, the questions was: TO D or not to D ?
And the answer is: TOD ! .
Any other questions ? .