SATC 2019 TO D or not to D

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: Ph. D 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 Haskoning. DHV, 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: 1. Investigate the influence on the PT system, of the main TOD factors: – Improved Public Transport – Density – Mixed-Use – Pedestrian friendly design – (others) 2. Theoretical Application: Transit Oriented Planning 3. Case Cornubia Boulevard – Modelling 4. Lessons learned – TOD and PT support each other – Modelling tools are inadequate

Application of TOD • TOD concept originates from 1970/80 s (USA) • (Naturally) applied in Europe – Urban development – Opportunities for planned dev. – Attracts new urban dev. Requires T&T network Spare capacity T&T network 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, Ph. D/MSc students

Influence Factors of TOD Influence factors • Cervero (1990 s) 3 D • Southern Africa Cities Network (2010 s) 8 aspects 1. 2. 3. 4. – – Improved Public Transport Density Diversity = Mixed-Use Design = Walking network and facilities / Public Realm (Cycling) (Regulating parking, car use, traffic management)

Transportation Assessment 1. Trip Generation – Work, school, other activities, shopping, social, leisure 2. Distribution 3. Modal Split – Walk, Private Transport (Car, Cycle? ) – Public Transport (minibus, train) 4. 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 4. + Closer Origins and Destinations, some at walking distance + Shorter PT trips, bi-directional + More efficient PT: more evenly used and bi-directional 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 is a new development, north of Durban Along Improved PT Corridors: • C 9 = Umhlanga – Cornubia – Phoenix – Bridge City • C 8 = 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.

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 PT % Low Inc Mid. Inc High Inc Trad. +Impr. PT +Dense +Mix +Design • Recent planning for Cornubia Boulevard includes all TOD elements OK – Include TOD in more areas in Cornubia, elsewhere (where applicable) • Improve Modelling tools: 1. Flexible Trip Generation, depending on Quality of transportation, off-peak 2. Distribution function, based on Accessibility of activities 3. Modal Split, based on Generalised Costs (money, time, effort)

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