TOD Case Studies: Density Bonusing & Bus Rapid Transit · TOD Case Studies: Density Bonusing & Bus...

© OECD/IEA 2016 © OECD/IEA 2015

TOD Case Studies: Density Bonusing & Bus Rapid Transit

Holly Foxcroft

Urban Analyst June 8, 2016

© OECD/IEA 2016

Transit Oriented Development

An urban planning policy tool to create dense, mixed-use development (office, retail, and residential) within walking distance of a rapid transit station (rail, light rail, or bus rapid transit).

500 m 1 km

© OECD/IEA 2016

MAXIMIZING THE BENEFITS OF DENSITY IN BANGKOK, THAILAND

Case Study

© OECD/IEA 2016

Bangkok and Vicinity Development Structure Plan

Source: Comprehensive Plan 2013 (City of Bangkok)

© OECD/IEA 2016

Floor Area Ratio Bonus System

Floor area ratio (FAR): the ratio between the built area and the total site area

An FAR bonus is additional development density in exchange for community benefits

© OECD/IEA 2016

Discussion Question

What are the benefits of increasing density in your city?

(5 minutes discussion time)

© OECD/IEA 2016

Why Bangkok Implemented FAR Bonusing in 2013

Food security: Leap-frog land development on agricultural land threatening food security

Climate change mitigation: Increase on-site permeability of rain-water

Environmental resiliency: Informal settlements along the riverbank and flood plains

Social equity: Disconnected low-income population that has to travel long distances to work in the city

© OECD/IEA 2016

FAR Bonus System Benefits

20% density bonus

Low income housing

Park & Ride parking in

public buildings

Public green space

Open space & rainwater

storage

Green building

construction

1

2

3 4

5

© OECD/IEA 2016

Applying the FAR Bonus 1/3

Low income housing

Park & Ride parking in

public buildings

1

2


© OECD/IEA 2016


Public green space

Open space & rainwater

storage

3

4


© OECD/IEA 2016


Green building

construction

5


© OECD/IEA 2016

Discussion Question

What are potential challenges in your city that could be improved by using the density bonusing tool?


© OECD/IEA 2016

The Other Side of the Map

Separated land uses will perpetuate the urban-

suburban commuting patterns

Commercial areas not connected with transit will

lead to more congestion

Ex-urban residential

growth


© OECD/IEA 2016

Lessons Learned

TOD does not exist in Bangkok: planning policy has been incremental, iterative, and is clearly delineated

FAR bonusing only applies to new buildings and building sites: incentivizing existing buildings and building sites with FAR may recapture land in desirable areas

Greater coordination with planning and transit: compact urban form relies on mixed-use spaces that have access to rapid transit

© OECD/IEA 2016

BUS RAPID TRANSIT & LAGOS, NIGERIA

Case Study

© OECD/IEA 2016

Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)

Fast, frequent, reliable, and limited stop high-capacity bus

service.

BUS

PRIORITY

AT

SIGNALS

Institute for

Transportation

and

Development

Policy

5 criteria

Source: Institution for Transportation & Development Policy

© OECD/IEA 2016

The Promise of BRT

Addresses some problems associated with urbanization: • Auto-dependence • Congestion and lengthy commutes • Potential loss of economic productivity • Urban sprawl and urban inequality • Air pollution and GHG emissions • Wasted energy (petrol/gas/oil) • Better use of municipal tax base than building and maintaining

more roads

Quicker to design, build, and open than rail rapid transit: • Engineering and construction requirements are not as great • Do not need to install rail lines or increase the energy utility

capacity • E.g.: Lagos, Nigeria BRT – 15 months

Lower cost: 5-10 times LESS than rail rapid transit

© OECD/IEA 2016

BRT & Energy Use

Land Development Benefits

Can encourages higher density development

Less fuel consumption from private vehicles because VKT is reduced

BRT Operating Benefits

Opportunity to shift to more fuel efficient transit vehicles – compressed natural gas, electric

Less energy intensive form of transportation

© OECD/IEA 2016

Energy Intensity of Passenger Transport

Colour Country

World (range)

OECD

World

Non-OECD

Source: IEA, Energy Technology Perspective 2016

Buses and

minibuses are

up to 3 times

more efficient at

moving people

© OECD/IEA 2016

Workshop Participants from Countries with BRT

1 1

12

3

8

13

122

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Nigeria Turkey Indonesia South Africa Argentina United Kingdom Brazil

Cities BRT Corridors

Source: IEA Emerging Economies Workshop

© OECD/IEA 2016

Discussion Questions

For those participants that do not have BRT in their cities – What is the main barrier to implementation?

For those participants that have BRT in their cities – What has been the biggest challenge after implementation?


© OECD/IEA 2016

Case Study: Lagos, Nigeria

First BRT in Africa, growing by 6% annually, may become the 3rd largest urban agglomeration

Public private partnership success

New Light Rail Transit lines and heavy rail transit lines projects funded

Selected Transportation Data Results

Opening Day Ridership 65,000

Ridership in 2012 220,000

Total commuter travel on BRT 25%

Decrease in travel cost 30%

Decrease in travel time 25%

Decrease in accidents 30%

© OECD/IEA 2016

Lessons Learned: Community Participation and Education

• Community consultation was critical to success Understanding of project objectives, principles, rules, and

regulations is necessary for community support and trust of the process and project partners

Incorrect placement of stations may pervert important travel demand indicators

• Citizen behaviour may disrupt the functioning of the travel time reliability Pedestrians illegally crossing the road

Unauthorized vehicles using the BRT lane

© OECD/IEA 2016

Lessons Learned: Design of Pedestrian Facilities and Interface

Necessary to provide easy access to the stations at regular intervals

• Marked crosswalks

• Pedestrian initiated signalized crossings

Early design trade-offs versus long-term success

• Curb-side (BRT Lite) vs median running (classic BRT)

© OECD/IEA 2016

Lessons Learned: Policy Consistency

Consistency in land use and transportation policies to ensure that high density, mixed use development occurs near transit areas

• This has been planned for the forthcoming Blue Line (Heavy Rail)

• Coordination with multiple layers of governments

Scaleability of the network

Land speculation & incentivization of sprawl vs. capturing the property value lift from transit

© OECD/IEA 2016

Final Thoughts

TOD and BRT are complimentary but require extensive coordination across levels of government and departments (transportation, planning, energy) and buy-in from the community

Both are tools to develop cities that are more resilient, equitable, efficient, and sustainable

© OECD/IEA 2016

Understanding BRT & Local Bus Service

BRT Service

Greater travel time reliability as they run in separated lanes, have signal priority, and off-board ticket collection

Frequent service – operates every 15 minutes

Fewer transit stops, so can travel further faster

Viewed a higher quality service experience similar to rail, but without the cost

Local Bus Service

Less travel time reliability, suffers from congestion, right turning cars, and traffic lights

Infrequent service levels

Bus stops are placed too close together

Local bus is seen as inconvenient

TOD Case Studies: Density Bonusing & Bus Rapid Transit · TOD Case Studies: Density Bonusing & Bus...

Documents

Transcript of TOD Case Studies: Density Bonusing & Bus Rapid Transit · TOD Case Studies: Density Bonusing & Bus...