joint development of land use and light rail stations

Joint Development of Land Use

and Light Rail StationsThe Case of Tel Aviv

Regional Science Association International -The Israeli Section

Daniel Shefer, Shlomo Bekhor, Avigail Ferdman

Centre for Urban and Regional Studies

Transportation Research Institute

Technion – Israel Institute of Technology

Beer Sheva University 6/6/04“New Direction in Urban and Regional Development”

Structure of the presentation

• Introduction

• Literature Review

• Purpose of the Study

• Hypotheses

• Methodology

• Findings

• Conclusions

Introduction

• The land-use transportation interaction

• Empirical evidence of the built environment’s impact on travel demand

• Land-use intensification and mixed land uses – their impact on transit use

• The role and function of Light Rail Transit - LRT

What can light rail transit do?

at the micro level• Enhancing accessibility • “Getting people out of their cars”

at the macro level• Relieving traffic congestion • Reducing emissions• Rejuvenating urban centres• Stimulating economic growth

LRT is perceived as a powerful mode for transferring ridership from private to public transportation

Literature Review

Tel Aviv as a case study

• 1st light rail line in Tel Aviv, due to open in 2010.

• Connects 4 major cities

• The stations location was based on travel demand

Purpose of the studyexploring various scenarios of the built environment around planned LRT stations

Purpose of the Study

The built environment and travel demand

Impacts on daily travel demand:

• Intensified areas attract trips

• Mixed land uses around LRT stations induce transit use and walking/cycling

• Trip generation is not affected by land use

Hypotheses

Methodology

Land uses and travel demand

• population densities,

• commercial densities,

• degree of land use mix

• workforce-population ratio

Parameters of land use scenarios:

Land Use Scenarios

Methodology

workforce-population ratio

Findings – trip generation

No difference between NTA models & retrofitted models, save for scenario 4

Alternative scenarios produce differential trip generation demand

Total Trip Generation

0.96

0.98

1.00

1.02

1.04

1.06

basescenario

scenario 1 scenario 2 scenario 3 scenario 4

per

cen

t d

iffe

ren

cee

fro

m b

ase

scen

ario

base sub models retroffited sub models

Trip Generation

Mixed and intensified land uses attract more trips

total trip attraction per workplace

0.98

1.00

1.02

1.04

1.06

1.08

1.10

1.12

1.14

basescenario

scenario 1 scenario 2 scenario 3 scenario 4

pe

rce

nt

dif

fere

nc

e f

rom

ba

se

s

ub

mo

de

l

Findings

Trip attraction

Job–population ratios affect home-base-work trips

Higher job–population rates – attract more motorized home-base-work trips

Scenarios 1-2-3 have a greater concentration of jobs

Home-base-work trip attraction

Findings – trip attraction

Job-population ratio

1.03

0.740.81

0.68

1.00

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

base scenario 1 scenario 2 scenario 3 scenario 4

job-

popu

latio

n ra

tio

1.40

1.45

1.50

1.55

1.60

1.65

1.70

base scenario scenario 1 scenario 2 scenario 3 scenario 4

daily

hbw

trip

s

nta sub model retrofitted sub model

More trip attraction at the outer stations

Less trip attraction

Intensified commercial areas attract less motorized home-base commuting trips

Findings – trip attraction

Findings

Mixed land uses attract more trip chaining

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

basescenario

scenario 1 scenario 2 scenario 3 scenario 4

da

ily n

hb

trip

sNon-home-base trip attraction per workplace

Main findings

• Intensified land uses tend to generate more motorized trips per household than mixed land uses or the base scenario

• Intensified and mixed land uses attract more trips per worker

Findings

Conclusions

Alternative land use scenarios generate and attract differential trip rates

Mixed land uses are different from intensified land uses, in terms of travel demand

High density & mixed land uses can serve as strategic decision variables in locating transit stations

Conclusions

Thank you

Joint Development of Land Use

and Light Rail Stations

Further research

• Metropolitan level forecasts

• Exploring the most conducive land use mix for lrt ridership -

» Before and after lrt introduction

» Comparison to other lrt systems

» Trip mode share

• Exploring station location by trip demand and land use characteristics

Trip generation with same workforce ratio for all the scenarios

Total Trip Generation

0.90

0.92

0.94

0.96

0.98

1.00

scenario 0 scenario 1 scenario 2 scenario 3 scenario 4

perc

en

t d

iffe

ren

cee f

rom

base s

cen

ari

o

base sub models retroffited sub models

Planned LRT red line in Metropolitan Tel Aviv

Differences in population densities

155

142

169

110

100

50

75

100

125

150

175

200

base scenario 1 scenario 2 scenario 3 scenario 4

pe

rce

nt

dif

fere

nc

e f

rom

ba

se

sc

en

ari

o

100

112 112 112

106

80.00

90.00

100.00

110.00

120.00

base scenario 1 scenario 2 scenario 3 scenario 4

per

cen

t d

iffe

ren

ce f

rom

bas

e sc

enar

io

Differences in job densities