Transit Oriented Development Making it HappenConference PATREC Perth 58th July 2005

1
Transit Oriented Development Making it
HappenConferencePATREC Perth 5-8th July 2005

• Strength and Weaknesses of Bus in Relation to
  Transit Oriented Development

Professor Graham CurrieChair of Public
Transport, Institute of Transport Studies, Monash
University
2
Agenda

• Introduction
• Background
• Weaknesses
• Strengths
• Assessment

3
This paper assesses strengths vs weaknesses of
bus (compared to rail) in relation to TOD

• Focus is strengths and weaknesses of bus in
  relation to TOD aim is identification and
  assessment of importance of strengths/ weaknesses
• Assessment is relative to rail (heavy and light)
• Emphasis is an objective assessment but to be
  honest I came at this issue as a skeptic (from
  hard experience of the difficulties of planning
  buses/rail and urban development together)
• Main sources are the research literature and some
  data from Australian transit systems

4
Why the Skeptic? The Environment for Bus TOD in
Melbourne
Doncaster
Sunshine
Box Hill
Footscray
Bus Service Frequency/ Hour A.M. Peak
Chadstone
Dandenong
Source Currie (2003)
5
Why the Skeptic? The Environment for Bus TOD in
Melbourne
Doncaster
Sunshine
Box Hill
Footscray
Chadstone
Services Operating on Sundays
Dandenong
Source Currie (2003)
6
This presentation is structured as follows

7
Agenda

• Introduction
• Background
• Weaknesses
• Strengths
• Assessment

8
While Bus is rarely considered in relation to TOD
it has been noted in TOD Typologies
Typology of TOD Type and Associated Transit Modes
TOD Type
Housing Density
Transit Frequency
Heavy Rail
Light Rail
Rapid Bus
Local Bus
Para- Transit
Commuter Town Centre
gt12
Peak Service
Bus More Related To Lower Density
?
?
Urban Downtown
gt60
lt10 min
?
?
?
?
?
Suburban Centre
gt50
10min Peak 10-15 min
?
?
?
?
?
Urban Neighbourhood
gt20
10min Peak 20min Off Pk
?
?
?
Suburban Neighbourhood
gt12
20min Peak 30min Off Pk
?
?
?
?
Neighbourhood Transit Zone
gt7
25-30min Demand Responsive
?
?
Source Dittmar and Poticha (2004)
More than One Type of Bus
9
Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) and TOD are frequently
related
Land Use Benefits of Selected BRT Systems
Source Transportation Research Board (2003)
10
But is TOD based BRT Relevant to Australia/US?
Henry (1989) Strengths of Planning Controls in
places like Ottawa are very high. Considered
Most Unlikely and Formidable in US
Environments
11
Agenda

• Introduction
• Background
• Weaknesses
• Strengths
• Assessment

12
Bus Lacks MAGNITUDE AND PERMANENCE, Has Bad
Implications for Development RISK
Pro
Con

• Scale and magnitude of rail investment is much
  more significant with rail
• Buses lack fixed infrastructure and therefore
  permanence
• Development risk clearly associated with
  commitment of Governments

• BRT Systems have considerable Scale
• What Makes for Permanence? many bus routes
  have much permanence streetcars have been
  globally withdrawn

13
Bus Lacks the NEWNESS of rail
Pro
Con

• California DOT citied newness of rail as an
  advantage over bus
• Rail and LRT in particular are entirely new
  vehicles and infrastructure
• BRT replaces on street bus often with the same
  vehicles

• How important is newness?
• BRT systems can be as NEW as rail

Not a Significant Issue
14
Rail has MARKETS suited to TOD bus doesnt
Pro
Con

• Rail and bus markets are demographically
  different
• Rail has more choice riders on higher incomes
• Affluence means a more profitable TOD market

• Relationship between successful TOD and affluence
  is unclear
• Is TOD more successful if represented by high
  income transit users?
• Many successful TODs targeted at low income
  groups

15
Rail has MARKETS suited to TOD bus doesnt
Conclusion

• Rail has more choice, generally higher income and
  low no car available than on street bus
• BRT is similar to rail

16
Rail has MARKETS suited to TOD bus doesnt
Pro
Con

• Rail and bus markets are demographically
  different
• Rail has more choice riders on higher incomes
• Affluence means a more profitable TOD market

• Relationship between successful TOD and affluence
  is unclear
• Is TOD more successful if represented by high
  income transit users?
• Many successful TODs targeted at low income
  groups

17
PARK AND RIDE is common with BRTs PNR and TOD
dont mix
Pro
Con

• 57 of US rail TODs identified PNR as a negative
  factor affecting TOD performance issue is need
  for large parking lots, road capacity for cars
  and poor walk environment
• PNR is a common access mode to busways (BRT)

• Not an issue for local bus
• Only affects some busway stations
• Affects rail in much the same way as it can
  affect BRT

18
PARK AND RIDE is common with BRTs PNR and TOD
dont mix
Perth Joondalup Line Car Access Share 42
19
PARK AND RIDE is common with BRTs PNR and TOD
dont mix
Pro
Con

• 57 of US rail TODs identified PNR as a negative
  factor affecting TOD performance issue is need
  for large parking lots, road capacity for cars
  and poor walk environment
• PNR is a common access mode to busways (BRT)

• Not an issue for local bus
• Only affects some busway stations
• Affects rail in much the same way as it can
  affect BRT

Potential Benefit Over Rail
20
BTODs have little TOD INDUSTRY CAPABILITY
relative to RTOD
US Transit Agencies With TOD Full Time Staff
Pro

• BTOD harder to implement than RTOD needs more
  focused approach an extra level of leadership

Source TRB (2004)
21
TOD more successful with quality PEDESTRIAN
ACCESS this more difficult with BTOD
Pro
Con

• Good pedestrian access and people places
  adjacent to stations make them livable and
  vibrant environments
• Major bus station might have 20-30 routes using
  roads shared with pedestrians
• Hard to mix congested roads (with buses) and
  people

• Larger bus facilities can have quality grade
  separated pedestrian access more difficult with
  smaller facilities
• Evidence of pedestrian access being critical to
  successful TOD is weak

22
TOD more successful with quality PEDESTRIAN
ACCESS this more difficult with BTOD
23
TOD more successful with quality PEDESTRIAN
ACCESS this more difficult with BTOD
Pro
Con

• Good pedestrian access and people places
  adjacent to stations make them livable and
  vibrant environments
• Major bus station might have 20-30 routes using
  roads shared with pedestrians
• Hard to mix congested roads (with buses) and
  people

• Larger bus facilities can have quality grade
  separated pedestrian access more difficult with
  smaller facilities
• Evidence of pedestrian access being critical to
  successful TOD is weak

24
TOD more successful with PARKING RESTRAINT this
more difficult with BTOD
Pro
Con

• Car restraint an important part of TOD provides
  mode shift and a better living environment
• Car restraint easier with rail and higher density
  development
• Difficult to justify car restraint with low
  order developments with low mode share i.e.
  local bus environments

• Not relevant to large scale BRT investments
  although may be important where mode share is low
• Mode relevant to local services

25
TOD more successful in HIGHER DENSITY DEVELOPMENT
bus not associated with this
Pro
Con

• nearly every study that has focussed on transit
  ridership has provided evidence that density is
  the primary determinant of transit ridership
  Cervero, 1996
• Luscher (1995) identified density as a key
  feature affecting TOD success
• Bus notably low order local bus provides service
  in low density areas

• Not relevant to large scale BRT investments
  although may be important where mode share is low
• Mode relevant to local services

26
BTOD has SCALE DILUTION the inability to focus
on numerous potential development sites
Pro
Con

• Large number of potential bus stops vs rail
  creates a dilution effect better to focus on
  key sites e.g San Diego
• 3,400 bus stops
• 49 LRT stops

• BTOD create wider and potentially greater
  opportunities e.g. Luscher (1995)
• San Francisco Bay Area
• Identified 82 RTODs but 246 BTODs
• While BTOD far less effective on a per site basis
  than RTOD, BTODs together create 60 of benefits

27
BTODs have NOISE AND POLLUTION associated with bus
Pro
Con

• Most buses have diesel power with fumes
• Buses are noisy and operate on roads where
  pedestrians are

• Could have alternative fuel buses (but they are
  rare)

28
BTODs have Low FREQUENCY/SPEED, STIGMATIZATION
and poor TRACK RECORD
Potential Benefit Over Rail
Local Bus Services
Bus Rapid Transit
Weakness
Service Frequency and Speed
YYY
Z/X
Bus Stigmatization
YYY
X/Y
Track Record
YY/YYY
YY/YYY
29
Agenda

• Introduction
• Background
• Weaknesses
• Strengths
• Assessment

30
BTOD has COMPLIMENTARITY AND UBIQUITOUSNESS
Pro
Con

• BTOD create wider and potentially greater
  opportunities e.g. Luscher (1995)
• San Francisco Bay Area
• Identified 82 RTODs but 246 BTODs
• While BTOD far less effective on a per site basis
  than RTOD, BTODs together create 60 of benefits

• Could BTOD act to reduce the effectiveness of
  RTOD?
• If Yes because RTOD is more effective maybe BTOD
  is not worthwhile

31
BTOD provides FLEXIBILITY - CHOICE
Pro
Con

• BTOD can provide lower density TOD which may be
  attractive to the market
• BRT an interim step to building ridership for rail

• Bus will it success in attracting development?

32
BTOD provides FLEXIBILITY ADAPTIBILITY TO CHANGE
Pro
Con

• Bus can more easily be adapted to changing
  environments
• Rail infrastructure has a longer lifespan e.g.
  vehicles
• BRT can be upgraded to rail at a later data it
  has adaptability

• What is the value of adaptability it is at best
  an uncertain value
• Conflict between permanence and adaptability

33
BRT/ Bus more COST EFFECTIVE to implement than
Rail
Pro
Con

• US GAO BRT cheaper to build than LRT
• Some evidence demand impacts are as significant
  hence it is cost effective
• Cost a major constraint on new transit systems
  development

• Is cost effectiveness a clear case rail could
  have longer term benefits

34
BRT based BTOD provides better FREQUENCY
Pro
Con

• No Pros for Local Bus
• BUT BRT have headways which are significantly
  better than rail e.g. 40 sec headways on the
  Brisbane SE busway

• Frequency one of the most significant aspects of
  service offering
• TOD can only transit oriented if a reasonable
  service is provided
• Local bus services operate at low frequency and
  hence have a lower offering relative to TOD

Potential Weakness Compared to Rail
35
BRT based systems need less TRANSFERS than rail
Pro
Con

• Passenger dislike transfers (Currie, 2005)
  transfer penalties
• Bus to LRT av.19 mins
• Bus to heavy rail av.10 mins
• BRT e.g. OBahn removes need for transfers
• Easier to use transit must be more attractive

• TOD customers not making transfers therefore less
  relevant
• Not all BRTs reduce transfers compared to rail
  (e.g. LP Transitway Sydney)

36
Agenda

• Introduction
• Background
• Weaknesses
• Strengths
• Assessment

37
Overall AssessmentLOCAL BUS SERVICES
Weaknesses
Large Developments
Small Developments
Permanence, Magnitude, Risk
Newness
?
Different Markets
Park and Ride
Industry Capabilities
Pedestrian Access
Parking Restraint
Urban Density
Scale Dilution
Strengths and Weaknesses
Noise and Pollution
Frequency/ Speed
Bus Stigmatization
Track Record
Strengths
Complementarity
Flexibility - Choice
Flexibility - Adaptability
Cost Effectiveness
Service Frequency
Transfers
Case Against BTOD
Case For BTOD
38
Overall AssessmentBUS RAPID TRANSIT
Weaknesses
BRT with New Look Vehicles
Permanence, Magnitude, Risk
Newness
?
Different Markets
Park and Ride
Industry Capabilities
Pedestrian Access
BRT with Grade Separated Pedestrian Access
Parking Restraint
Urban Density
Scale Dilution
Strengths and Weaknesses
Noise and Pollution
If green fuels and vehicles are Segregated from
pedestrians
Frequency/ Speed
Bus Stigmatization
Track Record
Strengths
Complementarity
Flexibility - Choice
Flexibility - Adaptability
Cost Effectiveness
Service Frequency
Transfers
Case Against BTOD
Case For BTOD
39
Overall AssessmentBUS RAPID TRANSIT (Good Design)
Weaknesses
BRT with New Look Vehicles
Permanence, Magnitude, Risk
Newness
?
Different Markets
Park and Ride
Industry Capabilities
Pedestrian Access
BRT with Grade Separated Pedestrian Access
Parking Restraint
Urban Density
Scale Dilution
Strengths and Weaknesses
Noise and Pollution
If green fuels and vehicles are Segregated from
pedestrians
Frequency/ Speed
Bus Stigmatization
Track Record
Strengths
Complementarity
Flexibility - Choice
Flexibility - Adaptability
Cost Effectiveness
Service Frequency
Transfers
Case Against BTOD
Case For BTOD
40
Conclusions

• Bus is WEAK compared to rail in relation to TOD
• BRT has more potential than Local Bus
• Opportunities for greater impacts of TOD via BTOD
  shouldnt be ignored
• BUT it needs work
• Needs significant scale (BRT)
• Bus Industry Knowledge and Capabilities
• Addressing Bus Stigmatization
• Bus Noise and Pollution
• PROFESSIONAL TOD RESEARCHERS TAKING A BALANCED
  APPROACH TO THE ISSUE

41
BRT Vehicles
42
Transit Systems for TOD
Wendy Adam Dick Fleming
Graham Currie
Lachlan Daniel
Les Chandra
Day 1 Sponsor
Session Sponsor