Graduate School of Engineering Department of Civil Engineering Interaction in Land Use and...

Graduate School of EngineeringDepartment of Civil Engineering

Interaction in Land Use and Interaction in Land Use and Transport: Transport:

Based on Case StudiesBased on Case StudiesCuritiba and SingaporeCuritiba and Singapore

Group 5Oscar MillewskiAhmed MosaEdson Asafu

Puspita Dirgahayani


• Urban Form and Transportation• Transportation and Sustainability• Study Cases of Integrating Land Use and Transportation

Planning:1. Curitiba, Brazil2. Singapore

Outline of Presentation


URBAN FORM AND URBAN FORM AND TRANSPORTATIONTRANSPORTATION


• The invention of means of transportation – mainly the car – had the biggest impact on the urban form than anything that came before it.

• Before the means of transportation became widely available to the public, industrial cities’ sizes were determined by the walking distance from one’s house to one’s work place.

• But along with means of transportation came new challenges for the urban forms. There was a sudden surge of uncontrolled development in the suburbs and other remote areas, often referred to as ‘sprawl’. Thus the geographical growth of cities has stopped being relevant to their population levels.

• The basic, underlying reason for this was not the transportation itself directly but rather what today is called the Land Rent Rule.

• The structure of land use has an important impact over transport demand and over the capacity of transport systems to answer such needs.

• Though the main objective of transportation is to overcome the friction of space, it also is a great consumer of space – which is most expensive in urban areas. In some cities as much as 60% of overall space is dedicated to road infrastructure (vs. 10% in the pre-automobile era).

• At the urban level, demographic and mobility growth have been shaped by the capacity and requirements of urban transport infrastructures, let it be roads, transit systems or simply walkways. Consequently there is a wide variety of urban forms, spatial structures and associated urban transportation systems.

Rent

a

b

cd

a Retailingb Industry/commercialc Apartmentsd Single houses

City limits

Urban Form and Transportation


• Urban form is determined by the spatial imprint of an urban transport system as well as the adjacent physical infrastructures and activities. Jointly, they confer a spatial arrangement of cities.

• Since originally cities have been restricted by walking distances, their urban forms were compacted and activity nodes agglomerated. Many European and Asian cities inherited urban form under such circumstances.

• Urban transportation is thus associated with a spatial form which varies according to models being used. Many cities in turn (mainly in America) develop a spatial structure that increases reliance on mechanized transportation.

• There is also a strong and varying relationship between urban density and car use. For instance, between 1950 and 1990 while the population of Chicago grew by 38% its build area grew by 124%.

• Finally, transport technology plays a very important role in defining urban form, i.e.., the spatial extent of the build up area and the spatial pattern of various activities.

• As a means of transportation, car has the lowest capacity and consumes the greatest amount of space – since it lays idle for about 98% of its time – but it also is the fastest, placing a heavily car dependant America at the top of the fastest commuters to work.



• The major components of the spatial imprint of urban transportation are: pedestrian, roads and parking, cycling, transit systems, transport terminals. Large variations of the spatial imprint of urban transportation are observed between different cities as well as between different parts of a city, such as between central and peripheral areas.

• Rapid and expanded urbanization occurring around the world involve a greater number of people living in cities and increased numbers of trips in urban areas. Cities have traditionally responded to growth in travel demand by expanding the transportation supply, by building new highways and/or transit lines. In the developed world, that has meant building more roads to accommodate an ever-growing number of vehicles, therefore creating new urban structures. Several urban spatial structures have emerged, with the reliance on the car being the most important discriminatory factor. Four major types can be identified at the metropolitan scale [Thomson, 1977]:

• Type I – Completely Motorized Network – Representing a car-dependant city with limited centrality (ex: Los Angeles).

• Type II – Weak Center – Representing the spatial structure of many American cities where many activities are located in the periphery (ex: Boston, Chicago)

• Type III – Strong Center – Representing high density urban centers with well-developed urban transit systems, particularly Europe and Asia.

• Type IV – Traffic Limitation – representing urban areas that have efficiently implemented traffic control and modal preference in their spatial structure. Commonly the central area is dominated by public transit. There cities were planned in advance to achieve just that, taking advantage of the “funnel effect” – that is: public transport is used in the central area, while individual transportation takes a greater importance in the periphery.



• The previously mentioned spatial structure can also be expressed at different scales where transportation systems influence the structure of communities, districts and the whole metropolitan area. For instance, one of the most significant impacts of transportation on the urban structure has been the clustering of activities near areas of high accessibility.

• Facing the expansion of urban areas and the increasing importance of inter-urban movements, several ring roads were built around major cities. They became an important attribute of the spatial structures of cities, notably in North America. Highway interchanges in suburban areas are notable examples. The extension (and the over-extension) of urban areas have created what may be called peri-urban areas. They are located well outside the urban core and the suburbs, but are within reasonable commuting distances.



TRANSPORTATION AND TRANSPORTATION AND SUSTAINABILITYSUSTAINABILITY


Current Situation

ToAo

A1 T1

Land use/Transport Approach

ToAo

A2 T2

TATo

Ao

Sustainability Limit

SupplyDemand

How Can We Think? Unstable Situation

Conventional Approach

Land use/Transport Integration

Reduce The Need to Travel

Transportation and Sustainability


Economy

•Level of economic growth.

•Economic Related activity.

Social

•Socio-demographic Characteristics.

•Travel needs Preference/ attitudes .

Ecology

•Natural Recourses.

•Environment spatial quality.

Policy

Mobility.

Accessibility.

Economy

•Level of economic growth, Consumer welfare

Social

•Equity, Opportunities, Health.

Ecology

•Emission, noise.

Land Use

Activity Location

Land Use

Transport

Passenger Travel

Transport Infrastructure

Transport Demand

Accessibility

Land Use/ Transport system

Internal Impact

External Impact

Sustainability Impact

Sustainability Initials

Fe

ed

Ba

ck

Impact cycle



Smart Growth Management for Planning

Smart growth is a general term for land use practices that create more accessible land use patterns which reduce the amount of travel needed to reach goods and services. (Mobility Management, GTZ 2003)

How Can We Achieve

1. Create more self-contained communities (Reduce average trip distances, and encourage walking, cycling and transit travel, by locating schools, shops and recreation facilities in or adjacent to residential areas).

2. Encourage quality, compact development. (Allow and encourage higher density development, particularly around transit and commercial centers. Demand high quality design to address problems associated with higher density).

3. Concentrate activities. (Encourage walking and transit by creating “nodes” of high-density, mixed development linked by convenient transit service. Concentrate commercial activities in these areas. Retain strong downtowns and central business districts. Use access management to discourage arterial strip commercial development.)

4. Encourage transit-oriented development. (Encourage dense development within walking distance (0.4 to 0.8 km) of transit stops, and provide high quality pedestrian and cycling facilities in those areas).



Smart Growth Sprawl

Density Higher density. Lower density

Growth pattern Infill development Urban periphery (Greenfield)

development

Land use mix Mixed land use Homogeneous land uses

Scale

Human scale. Smaller buildings, blocks and roads. Careful detail,

since people experience the landscape up close,

as pedestrians

Large scale. Larger buildings, blocks, wide roads. Less detail, since people

experience the landscape at a distance, as motorists

Transportation

Multi-modal transportation

support walking, cycling and public

transit

Automobile-oriented transportation and

land use patterns, poorly suited for walking,

cycling and transit

Table: Comparing Smart Growth and Sprawl Development



Economic Social Environmental Reduced accessibility and

higher transportation costs.

Increased land devoted to roads and parking facilities.

Increased costs to provide public services.

Reduced regional business activity and employment.

Reduced economies of agglomeration.

Reduced economies of scale in transit and other alternative modes.

Threats to environmentally- sensitive businesses (e.g. farming and resorts .

Reduced accessibility for people who are transport disadvantaged.

Reduced housing options. Increased external

transportation costs (crash risk, pollution, etc.).

Degraded public realm. Reduced neighborhood

interaction and community cohesion.

Reduced opportunities to preserve cultural resources.

Reduced exercise by walking and cycling.

Increased impervious surface.

Reduced green space and habitat.

Increased energy consumption and pollution emissions.

Aesthetic degradation. Increased water

pollution. Increased “heat island”

effects.

Table : Sustainability Impact of Sprawl and Automobile Dependency



Economic Social Environmental

Reduced development costs. Improved transport options

and mobility, particularly for non-drivers.

Green space & habitat preservation.

Reduced public service costs. Improved housing options. Reduced air pollution.

Reduced transportation costs. Community cohesion. Increased energy

efficiency.

Economies of agglomeration.

Preserves unique cultural resources (historic sites,

traditional neighborhoods, etc.)

Reduced water pollution.

More efficient transportation.

Reduced “heat island” effect.

Supports industries that depend on high quality environments

(tourism, farming, etc.).

Table : Sustainability Impact of Smart Growth Planning.



Binary Logit Model for Shopping Activity Participation under income level 1 and car available

Explanatory Variable B Wald df Sig

Household size -0.1087 10.0552 1 0.0015

No. of workers -0.6244 73.6895 1 0.0012

No. of children <6 years -0.1609 4.821 1 0.0028

Female 0.8313 33.3023 1 0.0034

Age -0.0181 12.3023 1 0.0011

Population density -0.0521 40.1423 1 0.0043

Retail employment density 0.8781 53.2073 1 0.0000

Employment density -0.0031 12.3023 1 0.0000

Constant -1.1044 9.8402 1 0.0017

N 3655 LOG LIKLE HOOD 2271.943

Restricted log likelihood 3467.3253

Impact of Land Use On Activity Participation



INTEGRATING LAND USE AND INTEGRATING LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNINGTRANSPORTATION PLANNINGCase Study I : Curitiba, BrazilCase Study I : Curitiba, Brazil


Curitiba RMC - MetropolitanRegion of Curitiba

Surface (Km2) 432.17 15,622.33

Population 1,587,315 2,768,394

GDP US$ 12.1 billion US$ 17.7 billion

Vehicles 655,386 805,691

Case Study I : Curitiba, Brazil


Urban Planning-Urban Urban Planning-Urban FormForm

1943 - Agache Plan1953 - Introduction of Zoning

1965/66 - Serete Plan1975 - Zoning update1985 - PMDU - Municipal Plan for Urban Development2000 - Master Plan update



Agache PlanAgache Plan Concentric Model Concentric Model

Traffic System - “Plan of Avenues” attempted to organize traffic by defining main avenues

Zoning - Definition of functional centers- Definition of Residential, Commercial and Industrial Zones



Agache PlanAgache Plan Transportation SystemTransportation System

Problema) In 1955, the quality of public transportation was very

low.b) There was no timetable established for the buses.c) Conflict among the 150 bus owners, who were

operating public transportation in the city.

PlanPublic transport system was not included in Agache Plan.

ImplementationCuritiba issued the following regulations:1) Fares, timetable and frequency of buses were to be

established by the municipality;2) Municipality now responsible for the planning of

the public transportation;3) The city was divided into 9 operation sectors;4) The 150 bus owner were to be grouped into 13

companies and each company was given permission to operate with exclusivity in a portion of the city.

Resultsa) With this system, anyone who wished to go to a sector

operated by a different company, had to go to the center first, and there take another bus. One company could not circulate in another company’s sector.

b) A consensus was reached among the companies.c) The quality of transportation was improved.

1

9

8

76

5

4

3

2



Growth & Increasing Growth & Increasing ProblemsProblems1) “Plan of Avenues” was not executed, traffic

system was not improved

2) Traditional Center- concentration of 50% of business activites;- concentration of 50% of job places;- increasing traffic problems;

3) Scattered pattern of occupation:- low density (16 inhab/ha); - elevated costs to provide infrastructure;

4) Zoning was not able to organize the occupation and distribution of activities:- no criteria for high rise buildings location;- industrial and commercial activities in residential areas;- uncontroled/illegal land development;

5) Populational growth rate: 7%/year



Serete PlanSerete Plan Linear Growth ModelLinear Growth Model

1) From a concentric model to a linear growth model, through “structural axis”.

STRUCTURAL AXIS: structural corridors to guide development and growth of the city.

2) Growth to be managed, based on:- Land use;- Traffic system;- Public transportation

3) Policies for economic and social development, and environmental preservation.

Public transportation: 1) priority for mass transportation instead of private car;2) priority for man, with the creation of pedestrian streets and historical preservation in the traditional central area, keeping its human scale.



Serete PlanSerete Plan ZoningZoning

Zoning Map (2000)

- Traditional Center high rise building/ high density/ residential,commercial,service uses

- Structural Axis high rise building/ high density/ residential,commercial,service uses (compulsory existence of commercial activities at street level)

- Medium (ZR3/ZR4) and Low (ZR1/ZR2) Density Zones

- Industrial District- Environmental Preservation

ZonesIguacu River and Passauna River: water supply



Serete PlanSerete Plan Traffic Traffic SystemSystem

Hierarchy of Streets Hierarchy

- Pedestrian streets to organize traffic flow

- Local streets &

- Collector Roads to schedule infrastructure

- Express Roads implementation

- Rapid Roads



Serete PlanSerete Plan Transportation Transportation SystemSystem

Transportation system was planned to beimplemented in the land use/traffic systemframework.

- Main arteries along the Structural Axis

- Interchange stations- Feeder lines (orange)

- Perimetral lines - “Interdistrict”(green)

- Direct Lines - “Speedy” (gray)



Serete PlanSerete Plan Structural AxisStructural Axis

3 Road System:

- Central Road with dedicated lanes for buses

- External Roads: outbound and inbound fast flow roads



Serete PlanSerete Plan Resulting Urban LandscapeResulting Urban Landscape



Serete PlanSerete Plan Implementation ProcessImplementation Process

Scheduled Implementation and Continuous Improvement

1974- North-South Axis- Normal bus (80 passengers)

1979 - Perimetral Lines (Interdistricts)

1980’s- Articulated bus (160 passengers)- Integration



Serete PlanSerete Plan Implementation Implementation ProcessProcess

1991 Direct Line (Speedy) & Tube Station



Serete PlanSerete Plan Implementation Implementation ProcessProcess

1992 Bi-Articulated Bus (270 passengers)Tube Stations in the Structural Axis

1995 Integration tothe Metropolitan Region

2001 Articulated busalso in Feeder andPerimetral Lines



Serete PlanSerete Plan Elements of the systemElements of the system



CharacteristicsCharacteristics

RIT - Rede Integrada de Transporte (Integrated Transportation Network)

One Fare System

- Internal Cross subsidy: Short distance travelers pay for long distance travelers;

- Operational Costs covered by fare revenues(Self-sustainable system)

COMBUSTÍVEL24%

LUBR/RODAGEM4%

PEÇAS E ACESSÓRIOS

11%CUSTOS PESSOAL

47%

CUSTOS DE CAPITAL

14%




- Environmental friendly: Fuel (Alcohol Etilico Anidro Carburante (8.0%) + Co-solvente (2.6%) + Diesel Oil (89.4%)

- Environmental Gain -35.0 % Black smoke- 2.6 % CO2- 1.0 % CO- 5.0 % NO- 8.0 % Emission of Particles-30.0 % Emission of Smoke with particles




Transportation Capacity

Buses in Operation 2,216

Total Quantity of Buses 2,580

Passengers transported/day 2,281,654

Lines 470

Interchange Stations 34

Tube Stations 350

Companies 28



User’s satisfaction surveyUser’s satisfaction survey



INTEGRATING LAND USE AND INTEGRATING LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNINGTRANSPORTATION PLANNING

Case Study II : SingaporeCase Study II : Singapore


• Singapore has 3.6 million people living in a total area of just 646 square kilometers, making it one of the most densely populated and urbanized countries in the world.

• Rapid industrialization and intensive development have required a corresponding growth in transport infrastructure.

• Roads currently take up about 12% of total land area.

• Given the scarcity of land, the push factor is to develop a comprehensive rapid transit network with dedicated rights of way, transporting large numbers of people to their destination quickly and reliably.

SINGAPORE’S CHALLENGE

Case Study II : Singapore


• Singapore has chosen integrating the goals of transportation planning with land use planning which had been set out since the Concept Plan 1971. As travel is always made with a purpose, the amount and number of travels can be reduced by means of effective land use and transport planning. For example, by proper location of homes, offices and other uses in relation to the transport system.

• Singapore’s government used ‘land banking’, buying land around the metro rail transit system before and during construction, and re-selling some of this land at a profit which in turn financed the construction of high density moderate income housing around the MRT stations.

• Singapore’s government also developed a network of bike and pedestrian paths to MRT stations, and provided extensive bicycle parking facilities at the MRT stations.

SINGAPORE’S STRATEGY (1)



In the 1991 Revised Concept Plan, transport considerations resulted two key land use planning strategies:

• Decentralizing commercial and other economic activities through the development of regional, sub-regional, fringe centers of MRT stations. This has resulted in better utilization of MRT network in both directions during peak hours. Therefore, Singapore aimed for a proper mix of residential, industrial, and even institutional developments, and the highest plot ratios at and around MRT stations (White Paper of Transportation Planning, 1996).

• Reducing the need for people to travel by locating employment centers like in industrial estates, business park and commercial centers near residential areas. Specifically, more homes would be built in the western part of island while more employment centers would be created in the eastern part of the island.

SINGAPORE’S STRATEGY (2)



• Central to the success of Singapore model is high density urban development that is closely integrated around the transit system. Singapore’s basic urban structure plan shows a series of radial and circumferential mass transit and light rail lines with major and minor sub-center nodes developed at high densities around the intersection of all these lines (Kenworthy et al., 1994).

• The success of Singapore in integrating development around their respective rail systems is shown by high percentage of city’s total activities lying within walking distance of stations and the ease with which stations are reached either on foot or by transit.

• The story of Singapore’s successful transit system is not without its battles, nor is it without the support of highly successful policies aimed at restraining car use, such as (i) Area Licensing Scheme (ALS) introduced in 1975 to reduce morning peak commuting into CBD; (ii) long history of steep vehicle taxes; and (iii) the more recent Certificate of Entitlement (COE) system, which requires would-be car owners to bid for the right to buy a vehicle. The price of COE varies continously, but in the early 1994 it was as high as US$ 47,000, on top of the car purchase price (Straits Times, December 17, 2003).



Table – Integration of Land Use with Transit in Singapore

Descriptor % Population/Passengers

Percentage of Singapore population living within walking distance of MRT station

30.0%

Percentage of Singapore population living within 1 km of the line

50.0%

Percentage of all businesses and industrial areas located near stations

40.0%

Percentage of passengers who walk to and from MRT stations

65.0%

Percentage of passengers who transfer to or from buses at MRT stations

35.0%

TOTAL 100.0%

Source: Letter from Singapore MRT Ltd, July 5, 1994, quoting Transit Link Figures, and Introduction to “The MRT Story” (Singapore: MRT Corporation, 1988).



• Singapore will continue to ensure high quality of living. The Concept Plan 2001 will provide a variety of housing choices and a comfortable living environment. The concept also includes initiatives to be flexible and responsive to the needs of businesses, to support value-added industries, and to provide for the growth of Singapore into an international business hub.

• These future expectations will create:– More intensification : industries and businesses close to MRT

stations to optimize the use of land around these important transport nodes. This will allow people to enjoy the convenience of working near an MRT station.

– More jobs closer to homes : more jobs will be provided in the North, North East, and East regions. In addition, there will be more housing in the West and in the city so that more can live to their workplace.

FUTURE EXPECTATIONS (1)



New Homes in Familiar Places

High-Rise City Living

Greater Flexibility for Businesses

A Global BusinessCentre

An ExtensiveRail Network

More ChoicesFor Recreation



• Boundaries between businesses and services are blurring.

• One of the key new ideas in the Concept Plan 2001 is to have a new zoning system in the future: New Business Zone and New White Zone.

– Under the new zoning system, industrial and business activities will be grouped according to their impact on the surrounding environment. New business zones will be introduced, with B1 for non-pollutive uses and B2 for pollutive uses.

– This new "impact-based" zoning approach will allow businesses to house different uses under one roof and change activities easily without rezoning.

– A new white zone will be introduced, allowing all uses except pollutive ones.

FUTURE EXPECTATIONS (3)



FUTURE EXPECTATION (4)

Singapore’s Extensive

Rail Network

The Concept Plan plans for new orbital and radial lines in future. Radial lines will enable the community to travel to the city directly. Orbital lines will enable them to get from one place to another outside the Central Area more quickly. The existing 93 km of rail lines will increase to about 500 km in future.



• Intensifying developments around MRT stations alone is not sufficient to ensure good accessibility. Planners must fully integrate MRT stations with building developments and other transport modes.

• Factors influence the success of creating a transit-based urban form which expected to overcome automobile dependence are: – Developing Non-auto-dependent land uses– Favoring alternate modes– Utilizing economic penalties– Creating traffic calming

• To follow the success of Singapore, it is necessary to build:– Commitment to building up quality transit, preferably rail;– Some preparedness to introduce physical and economic restraint on

private transportation that support the investment in transit; and– Investment in relatively inexpensive improvements in the environment

for pedestrians and cyclists.

CONCLUSIONS FROM SINGAPORE’S LESSONS LEARNED



The End and Thank YouThe End and Thank You

Graduate School of Engineering Department of Civil Engineering Interaction in Land Use and...

Documents

Transcript of Graduate School of Engineering Department of Civil Engineering Interaction in Land Use and...