You are on page 1of 25

UrbDes 703 Urbanism of Transit-Oriented Development

URBANISM OF TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT

Figure 1-Del Mar Station, a transit-oriented development located on the southern edge of downtown Pasadena, California [source:www.intransitionmag.org]

Submitted by:
Harshal Wagle
6747332

UrbDes 703 Urbanism of Transit-Oriented Development

Index :
1. Transit Oriented Development: Historical Context.
2. Role of Urban Design in Transit Oriented Development
3. Defining the urban design factors for TOD
4. Background: Footscary Railway station, Melbourne, Australia
5. Critical Evaluation of Footscary-Station Area Development
6. Conclusion
7. References
8. Appendix

UrbDes 703 Urbanism of Transit-Oriented Development

1.Transit Oriented Development: Historical Context.


Transit-oriented development is not a modern concept that has been established in
past few decades, its origins lie in the very base of early civilizations. Almost every
significant human civilisation evolved around a place of convenience for
movement and accessibility, for example the Egyptian, Indian or Greek civilisation,
even though it has transformed itself into the customised specifications of the
modern urban environment. It might be too long to trace the entire history, hence
for the research purpose, it is being considered from the last century. The evolution
of Transit Oriented Development (TOD) is classified into three different timelines for
the discussion.
1.1-Development-Oriented Transit
Late 19th century pioneered the
public transit system in the form
of streetcar (known as trams
outside North America) and
resulted in the development of
economic activities in its
proximity. The private owners
developed the streetcar network
along with the residential and
commercial development
adjacent to these lines and gave
rise to development oriented
transit. Due to its ownership autonomy these lines developed in a cluster and ran in
very small commercial districts. Hence it can be assumed that these developments
along the streetcar lines were indeed the precursor of modern TOD that created
nodes and its relation with existing built environment.
Figure 2: Detroit Street Car [source- detriottransithistory.info]

However in the following years, due to the increase in use of automobile and the
distance between work and residence, most of the cities lost these public realms
that were created due to the development oriented transit. Roads, motorway
became more dominant and transformed into an auto-dependent development.
1.2- Auto-Oriented Transit
Post-World War II saw a significant decline in the transit use and public transit was
limited to the buses as a primary mode. Bus systems were subservient to the
automobile, using the same streets and experiencing the same congestion. In the
majority of cases bus service had less influence on land-use patterns than a fixed-rail
transit and transit became a last resort rather as opposed to a reliable transportation
option tied to development(Dena Belzar June 2002)

UrbDes 703 Urbanism of Transit-Oriented Development

In the subsequent years the congestion increased and as a result new transit
systems were envisioned and built. Rapid transit systems were mainly the resultant of
this system. This system was entirely dependent on automobile, it was assumed that
most of the people would drive to suburban station, and hence stations were
considered as nodes without any direct connections into the surrounding. This public
realm was often neglected due to vast presence of the surface parking or parking
buildings that created disconnect between the neighbourhood and the station. But
the entire fundamental of this auto
oriented transit was to consider
automobile as the primary source of
movement and rail transit (public transit)
as secondary. The significant drawbacks
which this system prevails in spite of its
commercial success are that, it created
a fragmented landownership-patterns
and was not able to provide ideal link
between the community and the transit.

Figure 3: Proposed car parking at Trafalgar Square [source: roadswerenotbuiltforcars.com]

1.3- Transit Oriented Development


Rail systems generally create value for adjacent land; the transit agencies and the
federal government see large-scale estate development on the transit agency
owned property as a way to capture some of that value. While this return is not
necessarily sufficient to pay the
total cost of the rail investment,
it represents at least partial
reimbursement to public
coffers(Dena Belzar June
2002)This was the reason for
various transit agencies and
governments to promote
intensification of the area
around the transit stations.
Although this form of transitoriented development
emphasised on the built form in
the proximity of the transit
stations, it was found that this
dense development resulted
into a real-estate profits and
revenue generation for the
Figure 4: TOD verses auto-oriented development [source:(Jones 2011)]

UrbDes 703 Urbanism of Transit-Oriented Development

local governing bodies. It was argued that this was solely to achieve the financial
rationale rather than how transit would work in the relation with the surrounding
development. Yet the last decade has seen new urbanism movements which led to
a greater recognition of the benefits of linking development and transit. Transitoriented development can realize its full potential only if it emerges as a new
paradigm of development rather than a series of marginal improvements. TOD
cannot be and should not be a utopian vision: It must operate within the constraints
of the market and realistic expectations of behaviour and lifestyle patterns.
However, the market and lifestyle patterns can and do change as a result of both
policy choices and socio-cultural trends. The automobile was not always the
dominant form of transportation, and suburban living was not always the lifestyle of
choice(Dena Belzar June 2002). It has been found at various instances that transit
oriented development can play a pivotal role in finding a solution to the various
socio-environmental issues.
1.4- The Future
A transit station naturally creates catchments for local and regional level activities.
This characteristic if TOD makes it unique from other categories of urban infill
projects. Accordingly the success of TOD is dependent on three Ds- density,
diversity and design (Cervero 1993) and is partial resultant of the built form which is
created. TOD has been successful in creating mixed-use development next to transit
station and it is equally important to consider the physical characteristics in relation
to the larger urban design outcomes.

UrbDes 703 Urbanism of Transit-Oriented Development

2.Role of Urban Design in Transit Oriented Development.


A successful transit oriented development delivers ideal urban design outcomes
when the outcome generates mixed-use land use, proximity to transportation and
a functioning public realm in a concise landmass. In other way, TOD is a strategy to
integrate public transportation investments and land-use practices in order to create
walkable, diverse neighbourhoods in both centre city and suburban settings(Forsyth
2008). This section describes the relation of urban design with TOD and constructs
guideline principles for the evaluation of TOD case study in the later part.
2.1 Transit-Oriented Development and Urban Design
In the past decade the term TOD has been extensively used by policy makers, urban
planners and transit related organizations. The need for such an integrated transit
based development is due to discontent among urban commuters in many regions
of the world grappling with congestion and arduous travels. The car dependent
movement consumes fuel and has
strained the supply and demand it
resulting in the price hike and lead to
environmental concerns such as the
greenhouse gas emissions. The rising
housing price has restricted the middle
class in their residential choices. Mainly,
the reason for the need of TOD
communities is growing urban sprawl and
the concept of a compact urban form.
Transit-oriented development may not
be a panacea but it is has the potential
to contribute to the improvements in all
the areas, which includes more intensive
mixed-use development. It can assist in
increase in walking and bicycling within
the neighbourhood; when a transit connection is added to this mix, an auto-free
travel to other parts of the metropolitan area can become more feasible. Less
automobile use will mean less consumption of fossil fuels, less air pollution, and lower
spending on transportation. When the characteristics of a particular place are
recognized as supportive of lower personal transportation costs, the monetary
benefits can be captured by both individuals (in the form of greater mortgage
borrowing power) and the community (in the form of lower development costs
stemming from reduced need to build expensive parking). In short, transit-oriented
development can be a central part of a development paradigm that is more
environmentally sustainable and more socially just; that contributes to both
economic development and quality of life.(Dena Belzar June 2002). It is often noted
that TOD is considered at policy making level, however it is the built environment

Figure 5: Walkable TOD [source:(Victoria 2001)]

UrbDes 703 Urbanism of Transit-Oriented Development

which is the practical outcome of this theory; hence it is necessary to review the
urban design principles in TOD.
TOD seeks to accomplish a number of interrelated goals for different types of users.
Ideally, TODs provide places for people to live, work, shop, and relax. Affordable
housing often has a prominent place in TODshouseholds with low or moderate
incomes are attracted to transit access and are likely to own fewer cars and
occupy more space efficient dwellings, meaning that they can take full advantage
of the transit orientation. While transit is essential to TODs, access for pedestrians,
bicyclists and automobiles is also important. Aesthetically, the ideal TOD is inviting
and attractive to many types of users, acknowledging that people have different
standards and different reasons for using the same space. TOD designers need to
address these varied concerns in ways that do not sacrifice economic efficiency or
conflict with larger community goals(Forsyth 2008).Hence, while considering the
urban design or the design of the built environment, it is necessary to achieve
hierarchy of spaces in a TOD.
2.2 Regional Level and Local Level Impacts
TOD aims to strengthen
the integration between
public transport systems
and urban development
by creating places in
which public transport is
readily accessible for
many activities(Curtis
2012). Thus it becomes
important to differentiate
between the not just the
regional level and local
level outcomes of TOD but
Figure 6: Waitakere TOD investigation [source:(Jones 2011)]
also the enormity of the
outcomes at these two different scales. While defining TOD as a concept at local
level, it is described in terms of a station area development which includes higher
density residential housing and promotes mixed land use. To achieve this it is
required to invest substantially in a mass transit system at the regional level, however
local area benefits may not translate to regional benefits, especially when weighed
against the costs of the transit investments needed to link individual TOD
centres(Nelson 1999).
Thus it is essential to underline the elements that decide the regional and local level
impacts and success of TOD. This research will focus at the local level and the urban
design outcome of the TOD.

UrbDes 703 Urbanism of Transit-Oriented Development

3. Defining the urban design factors for TOD


The success of TOD is the resultant extent of the mode shift from an autodependant mode to a pedestrian and transit-based mode(Nelson 1999). TOD may
have overcome the main barriers to creating dense mixed-use development next to
a transit station, but they fall short when measured by performance rather than
physical characteristics. A focus on outcomes allows a better benchmark of success
and a better measure of the trade-offs that most projects must make(Dena Belzar
June 2002) This section presents a discussion of the five factors which can be used
to evaluate the urban design outcomes of a TOD. Even though these factors have
many intersections it is been segregated into different discussions to concentrate on
their essential parameters for the outcome of TOD. As they are derived from the
literature, no single project can excel in every aspect. TOD is usually very site and
context specific. However with these factors as a starting point, it will be convenient
to identify issues and challenges that defy TOD, and conceive a relevant set of
advocacy that will ensure favourable outcomes.
3.1 Liveability
TOD, it is suggested, will increase pedestrian and transit trip taking while reducing
the number and length of auto trips, and it will contribute to the liveability that some
feel is lacking in modern suburban development(Calthrope 1993). TOD aims to
reduce car-based travel by offering alternative transport choices in the form of
public transport, walking, and cycling. On this basis, it is argued that TOD provides a
more environmentally sustainable form of urban development by reducing the need
to travel as well as facilitating a modal shift away from the car among TOD-based
residents(Curtis 2012).
As described above TOD strives to make places which work for the people. The
liveability is in relevance to the quality of the life which the TOD can deliver. In the
recent past it is noted that
quality of the living influences
the economic development for
example long travels and traffic
congestion suffered by the
people affects their deliverability
at work. Transit supportive
development induces more
walk access, it could yield
important air quality
benefits(Cervero 1993).
Liveability is critical concern in
todays urban living and by
delivering low-auto
dependency along with

Figure 7: Relationship to transit [ source:(Calthrope 1993)]

UrbDes 703 Urbanism of Transit-Oriented Development

improved mobility and access to retail and other services, TOD contributes in
enhancing the quality of living, accordingly increasing the liveability index.
3.2 Choice
A mix of housing diversities, ownership patterns, price, and building types is desirable
in a TOD. The range of permissible residential densities can accommodate variety of
household needs. Providing a mix housing types will result in more cosmopolitan
communities(Calthrope 1993). TOD also aims to provide high-density residential
development near rail stations, or transit-based housing, such projects will get
more people onto trains, reduce developers expenses, and potentially lower
commuting costs, housing prices, and air pollution(Boarnet and Crane 1997).

Figure 8: Residential Mix [ Source:(Calthrope 1993)]

The success of TOD is dependent on the choice of residential options it generates


through its emphasis on walkable-quality living. TOD involves function far more than
form, meaning that no particular housing type needs to dominate TOD projects. In
fact, most projects will work better if they include a range of types, from apartments
to townhouses to single-family detached houses(Dena Belzar June 2002). Thus the
lower-income people, first-time homebuyers and many more will be benefited by
TOD. This process can involve government incentives and housing affordability will
enable the developers built higher densities. All these initiatives can deliver
enhanced housing choices in proximity of a transit station.
3.3 Public Spaces for Human use
For places to be well used and well loved, they must be safe, comfortable, varied,
and attractive. They also need to be distinctive and offer variety of choice, and fun.
Vibrant places offer opportunities for meeting people, playing in the street, and
watching world go by(Ohland 2004). The good urban environment is one that
somehow balances these goals, allowing individual and group identity while
maintaining a public concern, encouraging pleasure while maintaining
responsibility, remaining open to outsiders while sustaining a strong sense of
localism(Appleyard 1987). These elements, though not specifically focussed in TOD,

Figure 9: Public Space Pockets [Source:(Calthrope 1993)]

UrbDes 703 Urbanism of Transit-Oriented Development

form the basis for urban design decisions in places seeking to create highly active
public spaces.
Successful transit environs entice people moving through it. In a conventional TOD,
approach is on the movement of people, however it is the public space where they
can halt and engage with other activities which the public space offers. With a
proper allocation of public space in TOD it will help create a balance between
natural and man-made environment and use each sites intrinsic resources.
3.4 Connections
While it is important to make great places, it is also important to link them through
streets which provide enhance connections. The local street system should be
recognizable, formalised, and inter-connected, converging to transit stops, core
commercial areas, schools and parks. Multiple and parallel routes must be provided
between the core commercial area, residential, and employment uses so that local
trips are not forced onto arterial streets(Calthrope 1993)

Figure 10: Circulation system [source:(Calthrope 1993)]

It should be noted that by too much emphasis on street design in TOD can increase
the auto travel due to the improved connectivity and accessibility. Hence the focus
of TOD should be to enhance the pedestrian environment and the concept of
shared space. Right design will encourage walking, thereby encouraging
interaction and a greater sense of community and discouraging automobile
dependence(Handy 2007). Places need to be easy to get and should be
integrated physically and visually with their surroundings. This requires paying
attention to how people can get around by foot, bicycle, and public
transportation(Ohland 2004)
3.5 Transit in the urban pattern.
TODs are envisioned as pedestrian-friendly and walkable nodes. Some urban form
measures of accessibility and connectivity. However, these measures do not
distinguish road segments in terms of their aesthetic appeal, pedestrian amenities,
and safety factors that have been shown to affect walkability(Anastasia
Loukaitou-Siders 2012). Although appropriate physical qualities are essential to
make TOD work, a focus solely on these characteristics can obscure the main goal
of transit-oriented development, which is not to create a particular physical form but
rather to create places that function differently from conventional
development(Ohland 2004) It is important for the transit station to be landmark for

10

UrbDes 703 Urbanism of Transit-Oriented Development

11

the perception and preference of the transit riders and pedestrians accessing
station.
The combining of physical details like building elements, development design
features, and public space can produce a harmonious environment that enhances
transit access and ridership; how this is achieved needs to be studied and
understood(Porter 1997)
Physical designboth in terms of visual quality and liveabilityis an important
aspect of making TOD projects work, hence is worthy of further attention.
For the process to evaluate urban design outcomes of any transit-oriented
development based on the factors discussed in earlier part. A table is formulated
stating the factors, its description and the desired outcomes at one glance. This
methodology will be useful to analyse how a TOD is delivering from the urban design
values. In this paper only one TOD development is evaluated against these factors.
Dimension

Liveability

Choice

Public
spaces
for human
use
Connections

Transit in the
urban
pattern

Description

Outcomes

Much evidence indicates that


many people are increasingly
frustrated with air pollution, long
commutes, traffic congestion, and
the difficulty of running errands. TOD
may take different forms in different
places. (Dena Belzar June 2002)

Residents have few options in terms


of housing types, places to shop,
and modes of transportation.
Meanwhile, people in a broad
range of different contexts have
emphasized the desire to have
more transportation options in many
of the liveability indexes. In other
words, many peoples idea of a
good place includes the notion of
choice.(Dena Belzar June 2002)
Individual parts of the overall design
should be designed with human
activity in mind with public spaces
the focus of building orientation
and pedestrian activity
Create a fine-grained network of
streets, dispersing traffic and
allowing for the creation of quiet
and intimate thoroughfares

Transit stops should be attractive,


comfortable, and sheltering as well
as well-located

Improved air
quality.
Better health and
public safety.
Improved access to
public spaces.
Decreased
congestion.
A diversity of
housing types that
reflects the regional
mix of incomes and
family structures.
Range of
affordable housing.
A balance of
transportation
choices.
Establish a social
increment of
space.
Provide quality
shared space.
Promote shared
space
Street pattern
focusing on transit
station
Create a visual
landmark
Enhance the built
form characteristics

UrbDes 703 Urbanism of Transit-Oriented Development

12

4. Background: Footscary Railway station, Melbourne, Australia.


In the year 2004 the Maribyrnong City Council prepared Footscary Rail Precinct Plan
which established vision and strategic plan for Footscary to become a Transit City.
The main feature of this plan was to exploit the potential from the proposed new
Footscary rail Station and integrated bus interchange. It aimed to achieve a
balance between increasing residential development, providing civic and
community facilities, maintaining significant
pockets of public open space and reinforcing
and improving both pedestrian and visual links
within and to supporting uses around the
precinct(Walsh 2004). For the research purpose
we will be analysing the urban design framework
established by Maribynong City council for the
Footscary Rail Station development in comparison
with transit-oriented development (TOD)
fundamentals based on the various research and
examples. The remainder of this paper will focus
on how this development has fared with respect
to these principles and how the built form has
responded in the existing situation.

Figure 11: Footscary in Melbourne context [ source : (Council 2011)]

4.1FootscaryContext:
Footscary is an inner Melbourne activity centre which is hub of employment,
education, entertainment and commercial opportunities to a culturally diverse
community. It was once a thriving industrial activity centre, which declined since the
1980s. The local city council along with the state government has envisioned the
retrofitting of the centre following the principles of TOD. The paper will discuss the
urban design framework established by the Maribyrmong City Council and also the
Footscary Skyline study and evaluate these two policy documents against the TOD
principles.

Figure 12: Footscary Aerial Photo [Source :(Council 2011, Urban 2012)]

UrbDes 703 Urbanism of Transit-Oriented Development

4.2 Footscary Station Precinct Development Report:


The report aims to develop a proposal based on urban design outcomes, it seeks to
elaborate the potential for the station precinct and further detail to achieve the
desired precinct vision. A key component of the Plan is a new Footscray Rail Station
and integrated bus interchange. This major new facility will be needed in order to
provide for the projected increase in public transport usage, and ensure that the
transport modes are closely integrated for ease of public use. The Station, proposed
as a new purpose designed public building of international standard, would
become a gateway and landmark for Footscray. Importantly, it establishes a

Figure 13: City Edge Masterplan [source:(Council 2011)]

new public realm with a central urban plaza and strong pedestrian links, supported
by a high level of activity / retail uses at street level. The existing heritage station
building is proposed to be re furbished for a range of community uses.(Walsh 2004)
The objectives which were proposed by this document were:

Establish Footscary as a major transport node for inner western Melbourne.


Establish the new Footscary as a landmark structure and gateway to the
heart of Footscary.

Figure 14: [ source :(Walsh 2004) ]

13

UrbDes 703 Urbanism of Transit-Oriented Development

Establish the rail precinct as a highly permeable and visually open mixed use
development with strong internal links and external links.

Figure 15: [ source :(Walsh 2004) ]

Maximise the opportunities associated with an integrated public transport


development-train, bus, tram, taxi and bicycle.

Figure 16: [ source :(Walsh 2004) ]

Provide a new civic urban space, supported by new purpose


retail/commercial and upper residential feature buildings as a forecourt to
Footscary station.
Maximise the opportunities for medium density residential development within
close walking distance to the Footscary station, public open space, adjacent
city centre and Victoria University of Technology.

Figure 17: [ source :(Walsh 2004) ]

14

UrbDes 703 Urbanism of Transit-Oriented Development

4.3 Footscary Skyline Study:


The aim of the Skyline study is to guide the location and design of the emergent
forms of development in Footscary. It seeks to reinforce and strengthen the
overarching, guiding principles for the distribution of built form across the
Footscary(Urban 2012). This document plays a vital role in deciding the outcome of
the built environment in the study area and is supplementary to the urban design
framework. Hence the study of this document will help in analysing the impact of the
design principles on the built environment.
The skyline report underlines the various complex influences of the high rise
development in Footscary. These influences will be essential in deciding the profile of
the building height. In order to maintain the heritage, to provide appropriate
locations, maintain the character of built form and to provide variation and diversity,
the skyline report has outlined certain development influences which are listed
below:

Figure 18: [ source :(Urban 2012) ]

i.

ii.

Transformational Change :The railway corridor and the central Footscary is


projected to be the main focus of urban renewal, this area contains large
vacant land and is hence viable for a significant development. These sites
can pioneer the regeneration and transform the local economy my
attracting large investment.
Retain Fine Grain: The retail hub of Footscary (along Nicholson, Paisely, Leeds
and Barkly streets) is the pedestrian core of the area, so the report
recommends to sustain the human scale nature of the streetscape and not
allow significant building height.

15

UrbDes 703 Urbanism of Transit-Oriented Development

iii.

iv.

v.

vi.

vii.

Medium Scale: the report states that this area can accommodate
consistent medium scale development compromising of residential,
commercial and retail growth. The educational zone along the Victoria
University is given a special consideration. This area will be having mediumlow rise building height.
Areas of minimal change: mainly consisting of the heritage precinct of the
study area, this area will have minimal or even no change in the existing built
form or built height as these are the character areas of Footscary.
Built form edge to highway: this area is been considered as buffer zone and
hence is dedicated for an increased building heights and building form to
shield the inner core.
Transitional edges: in these edges the existing built form will be retained
however special consideration of public realm and shared space will be
considered in these areas.
Public realm spaces : these are the main streets (Maddern square, Nicholson
streetmall, Irving street, Bunbury Street, Warde street), any new development
in this area should give special emphasis on the solar access is maintained to
the public realm and also maintain lower scale fine grain frontages.

Figure 19: [ source :(Urban 2012) ]

The understanding of these two documents was important for evaluation of


Footscary development. Both these reports constitute very brief information about
the urban design vision for Footscary and also the desired outcomes. The precinct
report was crucial in understanding the framework for the railways station precinct
as it will be the main driver in making Footscary a Transit City. However the analysis
and various literatures describe TOD at policy level, but it is very crucial to have a
framework for the profile of the built environment which will be the resultant of the
TOD. This research is focused around the outcomes of a TOD and how they can be

16

UrbDes 703 Urbanism of Transit-Oriented Development

evaluated. According to Renne the evaluation of TOD should be both crosssectional and longitudinal. Indicators of performance can compare the TOD with
regional and sub-regional averages, since TODs function as part of a larger
whole(Renne 2009). However each TOD has its own evaluation criteria and no
broad terms can be established to analyse it. This research tries to establish TOD
principles which are relevant to the context and then evaluate the case study. In
the next part the Footscary development will be evaluated against the TOD
principles established in the first half of the paper.

Figure 20: Night view of Footscary Railway Station [ Harshal Wagle]

Figure 21: Footscary Railway Station [ Harshal Wagle]

Figure 22:Retail activity on Buckley Street [ Harshal Wagle]

Figure 23: integration of tram and bus [ Harshal Wagle]

17

UrbDes 703 Urbanism of Transit-Oriented Development

5. Critical Evaluation of Footscary-Station Area Development


In this section the research summarizes how Footscary railway station development
has responded to the urban design outcomes against the factors established earlier.
The factors will be discussed in two parts starting with the proposed vision by the
Maribyrnong City Council and positives and negatives of the outcomes.
Livability:
Proposal: series of open spaces were proposed in order to achieve better
public health, a special greening theme proposed throughout the Footscary
development.
Outcome: the proposed concept has the full potential to deliver the
liveability of the quality of living in a TOD environment; however there is
significant amount of traffic movement which impacts the noise level and
reverberation impact, the proposal is not efficiently explaining how it is going
to create a barrier between the traffic congestion and living environment
through design.

Choice:
Proposal: most of the area under, consists of existing building stock and hence
there cant be a mass housing project, however the council has framed the
built environment policy through skyline report which outlines the building
typologies.
Outcome: the proposal does emphasis on the choice of the housing but it
may not be affordable housing. The choice of housing provided by the
proposal is limited.
Public spaces for human use
Proposal: very detailed thought to shared space along the Buckley street and
Nicholson street, which is the retail hub adjoining the railway station and
special emphasis on the human scale streetscape concept is being
proposed.
Outcome: very strong thought for the public spaces and at human scale,
which means along the streets which have emphasis for this design will curtail
any high rise development which may impact the sunlight for the street or
which may have a negative impact. Connections to these open spaces are
very strong and shared streets are proposed to encourage pedestrian
activity.
Connections
Proposal: the existing connections are very strong hence they are not altered,
however the only connection which is proposed is the bridge over railway
station.

18

UrbDes 703 Urbanism of Transit-Oriented Development

Outcome: The connections are not focused to the railways station as it is not
the main activity hub of the Footscary, and there are very strong other
centres which need connection, however while making these connection
detailed thought was given to reduce auto-dependency through better
pedestrian connection.
Transit in the urban pattern:
Proposal: the vision for the Footscary railway station is that it should become a
gateway and landmark, (McCuskey 2005) and propose a mixed use
activity in its proximity.
Outcome: the station has achieved its goal of being the landmark and
gateway to the Footscary, however the proposed development around it,
which is the main focus at the moment may reduce the landmark status of
the station however it can achieve a functional transit-oriented development.

Figure 24: Proposed Station Area Development Footscary [Source: SJB Urban]

Footscary development is seen as a very crucial development in Melbourne as it is a


potential second city centre of the city, and hence to create TOD at regional level
this development is the stepping stone, in order to achieve this, it is very important to
emphasize on context of this development. Mere economics will not be sufficient for
a comprehensive urban design outcome. Footscary has all the ingredients readily
available to make it an ideal example for TOD; however there is requirement of a
sensitive design based on the analytical understanding of the place to achieve
successful transit-oriented development.

19

UrbDes 703 Urbanism of Transit-Oriented Development

6. Conclusion.
The immense challenge which the TOD faces is the absence of an overall vision and
a well organised design. The main impact which TOD creates is that it reduces autodependency and promotes a walkable environment, however it is observed that
most of the times the economics of TOD has a very adverse effect on the design
outcomes which are often compromised to deliver the commercial success. TOD
aims to reach to a wide diversity in terms of household types, income levels and
transit options. In order to achieve this, there is need to emphasize on the urban
design and the physical characteristics of TOD.
Often it is found that TOD is discussed and analysed at a policy level and less
importance is given to the physical outcome, which can be achieved through
appropriate urban design. This research has demonstrated that by organising
fundamentals of the urban design, better goals can be achieved through this
structure. TOD generates a huge amount of synergy which can be utilised easily,
however the physical elements, place-making proposition and pedestrian
environment are the crucial impacts which should be considered at every scale of
the design. TOD is a very site specific and the local-regional context play a pivotal
role in it, however using the five assessment factors defined in this research will
enable to a broadly classify TOD as they are based on very fundamental level
outcomes which is necessary for urban design.
In future the success of TOD will be dependent on the quality of visual and physical
character it delivers and this can be achieved only through cohesive urban design.

Future Research:
The panorama of TOD is meticulous and colossal and hence this research was
limited only to the fundamentals of urban design, there has to be a detailed
discussion of the impact of urban design in various facets which determine the
physical characteristics of TOD. Many more case studies not only at policy level but
also at implementation level are needed to understand TOD in much detailed
manner.

20

UrbDes 703 Urbanism of Transit-Oriented Development

7. Refrences.
Anastasia Loukaitou-Siders, D. C. a. H. H. (2012). Up in the air : Urban Design for LRT station in
Highway Medians. http://www.uctc.net/research/papers/UCTC-FR-2012-06.pdf, University of
California Transportation Centre.
Appleyard, A. J. a. D. (1987). "Toward an Urban Design Manifesto." Amercian PLanning Journal 53(1):
112-120.
Boarnet, M. and R. Crane (1997). "L.A. story - A reality check for transit-based housing." Journal of
the American Planning Association 63(2): 189-204.
Calthrope, P. (1993). The next American metropolis: ecology,community, and the American Dream,
Princeton Architectural Press.
Cervero, R. (1993). Transit-Supportive Development in the United States: Experiences and Prospects.
http://escholarship.org/uc/item/3hx4c6r4, Institute of Urban & Regional Development,UC Berkeley.
Council, M. C. (2011). Footscary : City Edge Materplan. C. D. P. Making.
Curtis, C. (2012). "Delivering the'D' in transit-oriented development: Examining the town planning
challenge." The Journal of Transport and Land Use 5(3).
Dena Belzar , G. A. (June 2002). Transit Oriented Devlopment: Moving From Rhetoric to reality, The
Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy

Forsyth, J. J. a. A. (2008). "Seven American TODs: Good practices for urban design in Transit-Oriented
Development projects." Journal of Transport and Land Use(1:2 (Fall 2008)).
Handy, S. (2007). "Urban Form and Pedestrian Choices : Study of Austin Neighbourhoods."
Transportation Research Board 1552: 135-144.
Jones, E. (2011). Realising Development Oriented Transit: Perth Light Rail Masterclass. A. C. f. N.
Urbanism. Perth, Planning Insititue of Australia(W.A).
Link, R. R. (2010). Urban Design Strategy. V. D. o. Transport.
McCuskey, K. W. a. S. (2005). Footscary Transit City : Renewal and regeneration to promote a
walkable Footscary. The 6th International Conference on Walking in the 21st Century, Zurich,
Switzerland.

21

UrbDes 703 Urbanism of Transit-Oriented Development

Nelson, J. N. a. D. (1999). Measuring Sucess of Transit-Oriented Development : retail market


dynamics and other key determinants. National Planning Conference. Seattle,Washington.
Ohland, H. D. G. (2004). The New transit Town : Best Practices in Transit-Oriented Development.,
Island press.
Porter, D. (1997). Synthesis of Transit Practices 20: Transit focused development.
http://trid.trb.org/view.aspx?id=482415

transportation Research Board,National Research Council.


Renne, J. L. (2009). Evaluating Transit-Oriented Development Using a Sustainability Framework:
Lessons from Perth's Network City, University of New Orleans Transportation Center.
Urban, S. (2012). Footscary Skyline Study: Revised Report. C. D. P. Making. Melbourne, Maribyrnong
City Council.
Victoria, S. o. (2001). Melbourne 2030.
Walsh, K. (2004). Footscary Station Precinct Report. C. D. P. Making. Melbourne, Maribynong City
Council.

Acknowledgement
I like to thank Kelvin Walsh (Director-Urban Design, Hume City Council) for the inputs
on how Footscary station development was envisioned which was crucial in
understanding the proposal. Also Simon McPherson (Director-SJB urban) who helped
me understand the context of Melbourne and need of TOD as an urban design tool.
Special thanks of Helen Day (Studio Director- Aspect) who guided me regarding the
TOD movement in Australia and also emphasised that TOD is a very site and context
related design. Special thanks to Prof. Errol Haarhoff and Prof. John Hunt for their
constant guidance and support.

22

UrbDes 703 Urbanism of Transit-Oriented Development

8.1 Appendix 1: Understanding the TOD in Australia


[The basis of this part of the discussion is the Master-class held in Perth to
discuss TOD in September 2011 by Australian Council for New Urbanism and
planning institute of Australia (W.A) division.](Jones 2011)

Transit-oriented development is gaining popularity in Australia


as a tool to achieve sustainable development. TOD seeks to
accomplish a compact, mixed-use, pedestrian-friendly
precinct around major public transportation stations and
various Urban Design reports and framework across Australia
acknowledge the potential of TOD. The six principles which
were established as TOD principles at the Master-class were:
1. Transit Led land use: the integration of transit and land
use through TOD to create more liveable and
sustainable communities is an important model of sustainable urbanism and a
key tool for urban redevelopment.
2. Multi-purpose arterial streets and boulevards: Streets have multiple roles in
urban life and are more than public utilities or linear physical spaces that
permit carriage of people and goods. They are places to live and to do
business and facilitate the interplay of human activity. Streets moderate the
form and structure and comfort of urban communities and play a vital role in
the vibrancy of communities.
3. Route Choice: Successful TOD starts with the earliest decisions on the location
and design of the transit system, key destinations determines the viability of a
transit system and establishes the redevelopment opportunities along the
route. The location of stops determines the ability of transit to catalyse
redevelopment.
4. Station Design: Station design is characterised as to whether the station is
predominantly for trip origins or trip destinations. This informs the type of uses
and development that the station may support including housing, shops and
employment. It establishes the framework for station design, and establishes
the structure of places around the station, and by extension, the building and
development strategies that are unique to the profile of each station.
5. Land Values for redevelopment: By improving urban accessibility TOD can
increase land values and be a catalyst for opportunities in the vicinity of
stations, on vacant sites along the transit route and through intensification of
existing development. By this relationship of mutual benefit, transit can
catalyse development.
6. Community Support: The development of proposals related to a transit system
should be linked through a community participatory process such as an
Urban Design Charrette. Using this method, the community of neighbours
living in proximity to stations can raise issues of local concern or sensitivity and
discern the mobility, economic development and physical design benefits
that a station design may produce for them.

23

UrbDes 703 Urbanism of Transit-Oriented Development

24

8.2 Appendix 2 :Diagrammatic analysis of Footscary

Diagram 1:Need for Intensification

Diagram 2:Existing retail energy and possible


connection

Diagram 3:Existing and proposed strong


pedestrian links

Diagram 4: Formulation of Node due to the


proposed station development

UrbDes 703 Urbanism of Transit-Oriented Development

8.3.Appendix 3 : Urban Design Strategy at Regional level.


Urban Design frame work of Regional Railway Link, Melbourne[ Image source:(Link 2010)]

25

You might also like