Australasian Transport Research Forum 2015 Proceedings30 September - 2 October 2015, Sydney, Australia

Publication website: http://www.atrf.info/papers/index.aspx

The performance and potential of rail stations in and outside freeway medians: the application of a node/place

model to PerthCourtney Babb1, Anthony Duckworth-Smith2, Ryan Falconer3, Richard Isted4, Doina Olaru5,

Sharon Biermann5

1Planning and Transport Research Centre (PATREC), Curtin University2Australian Urban Design Research Centre, University of Western Australia

3ARUP, Perth, Western Australia4Jacobs, Perth, Western Australia

5PATREC, University of Western Australia

Email for correspondence: c.babb@curtin.edu.au

AbstractIn some global cities new rail infrastructure is located within freeway medians. This is primarily due to spatial constraints inherent in existing urban areas and the opportunity to avoid land resumption for major transport infrastructure. In Perth, WA the opening of the Joondalup (1991) and Mandurah (2007) railway lines delivered 22 new stations, most located within the freeway median. The historic Midland, Armadale/Thornlie and Fremantle lines were not constructed in freeway medians. State Government planning policy has identified many of the new stations as activity centres for future higher residential development and land-use intensity. A planning challenge for development in these precincts is to address the current and future conflict between the mobility needs of the car, and those of public transport, walking, and cycling. Many of the precincts have remnant low-density development, feature fragmented land tenure and represent the effects of past auto-centric policy. The Node/Place model developed by Bertolini (1996) has been used to analyse the land-use and transport functions of rail station precincts in several cities around the world. This paper reports on a new application of an extended node/place model to 13 rail stations in the Perth metropolitan area, identified by WA State planning policy as activity centres. A tri-dimensional analysis – Node, Place and Background Traffic – was conducted of stations located within and outside freeway medians, and of stations on heritage lines for the purpose of comparison. Performance was captured using 43 indicators. The findings suggest that achieving the balance of Node and Place function associated with stations in freeway medians is problematic and a more effective policy setting may be to emphasise Node functions. The work also makes a unique contribution to TOD research by assessing how background traffic conditions influence node/ place functionality and related policy opportunities.

1. IntroductionThe mutual benefits of co-locating public transport nodes and areas of higher intensity, mixed use and walkable development, traditionally termed Transit-Oriented Development (TOD), have been well recognised and studied in the literature (Bertolini 1999, Cervero et al. 2002). Achieving transport and land use integration through TODs has been a popular planning policy in Australian cities in the last decade (Curtis et al. 2009), including Perth. The strategic planning agenda for metropolitan Perth and Peel is strongly predicated on a hierarchy of more broadly termed, activity centres, most but not all of which are spatially associated with train stations. Despite this strong planning tradition, while rail patronage has escalated in the last two decades in response to the construction of northern Joondalup (early 1990’s) and southern Mandurah (2007) rail lines, development of activity centres around stations in most

1

cases, has not materialised to anywhere near planning expectations. A number of contributing factors have been postulated, not least of which is the location of stations within or adjacent to freeway medians. This paper examines the performance and potential of transport and land use function of 13 rail stations in the Perth metropolitan area, identified by WA State planning policy as activity centres.

2. Background2.1 Station precinct developmentRail stations play a defining role in the form and function of urban land use and transport systems. Given the accessibility gains generated by new and existing rail stations, planners have increasingly sought to intensify density within station precincts in order to capture greater public transport mode share through increased walk-on ridership. Transit oriented developments (TODs) are “development near or oriented to mass transit facilities, areas of compact, mixed-use developments and a high quality walkable public realm, located within proximity to well-connected public transport stops” (Cervero et al. 2002). As with other models of urban development such as Smart Growth, (Outwater et al. 2014), Urban Villages (Li et al. 2014), and compact cities (Jenks et al. 1996), TODs are now widely part of urban planning policy, as public agencies are driven by concerns for the sustainability of urban regions, particularly in securing a good quality urban life within an energy and resource limited future.

The Node Place model, developed by Bertolini (1999), draws on earlier theories of the land-use and transport feedback cycle to provide a means of analysing station precincts.

Figure 1: Node/Place model (Chorus and Bertolini 2011)

According to Bertolini, stations are both “node of networks” and “places in the city” (Bertolini 1996, p. 332). The model outlines five types of relationships between Node and Place: Stress, Dependence, Balance, Unbalanced place and Unbalanced node. The Node/Pace model has been adapted and used to analyse stations in several international regions (see Peek et al. (2006) for a review of several applications in the Netherlands; Chorus and Bertolini (2011) in Japan; Kamruzzaman et al. (2014) in Brisbane). The wide applicability of the model and the development of a number of other typology approaches to station precinct development support the view that TODs take a number of forms depending on local and urban regional contexts (CTOD 2013; Falconer 2014). One application of the model highlights the importance of distinguishing between potential and performance (Brand-van Tujin et al. 2001, cited in Gert-Joost Peek et al. 2006). The distinction between current

2

The performance and potential of rail stations in and outside freeway medians

performance as TODs and potential to become TOD is important, as TODs may establish over time and require ongoing strategic planning and management. For this reason, Dittmar and Ohland (2004) cautioned against defining or evaluating TODs based purely on physical factors and identified other factors that are important including location efficiency, value capture, place making and regional accessibility. These are important considerations for cities such as Perth with historic patterns of sprawl and emerging compact growth agendas.

2.2 Station in freeway mediansDespite the interest in developing typologies of TODs, there has been little recognition of opportunities and constraints associated with TODs located at stations in freeway medians. In San Francisco, several lines of the Bart System are partly co-located with major interstate highways. Built at the height of auto-dominance in city planning and in a region containing one of the highest rates of car ownership in the world at the time (Webber 1976), the BART line stations were originally designed for park-and-ride (PnR), to capture ridership within the low-density urban catchment. Current policy direction is in line with transitioning many PnR facilities at BART stations to TODs (Willson and Menotii 2007). These aspirations tend to require long-term commitment from government because land proximate to major transport infrastructure is not always valued highly by the market and at-grade PnR is often considered highest and best use. The densities required at BART stations to generate ridership levels equivalent to existing park and ride are significant and may not be deliverable by the market. This creates disincentive for BART, who have prerogatives to maintain (or grow) transit mode share and not disadvantage current patrons (Duncan 2012). Some TODs at stations located near freeways are achieving modest success such as Mockingbird Station in Dallas Texas (Dittmar and Ohland 2004) and Pleasant Hill, San Francisco (King 2012). Other stations located within major road reserves have developed in very different regional and cultural contexts that limit the transferability of policy lesson for Australian cities. Stations at Zuid, Amsterdam (Bertolini and Spit 1998) and Orestad, Denmark (Knowles 2012) have developed adjacent to motorways but have high levels of regional accessibility. New stations in China (Cervero and Day 2008) and Hong Kong (Xue et al. 2010) have very different institutional factors and very high levels of urban density.

In Perth, Western Australia (WA), rail infrastructure was built in the late 1800s linking the port city of Fremantle to central Perth, Guildford and Armadale (PTA n.d.). The station precincts along these heritage lines developed largely independent of major road infrastructure, although for some of its length the Armadale line runs parallel to a highway. Since the early 1990s two additional major rail lines have been built linking Perth to Joondalup (1991) and beyond, and Mandurah (2007). The Joondalup line has been extended since and now extends to Butler. The two lines feature twenty-two stations. Two more stations are proposed on the Mandurah line (Karnup and Aubin Grove) while the Joondalup line is anticipated to extend as far north as Yanchep by 2031. The Mandurah line is situated within the median of Kwinana Freeway as far south as Anketell Road and the Joondalup line in the Mitchell Freeway median as far north as Burns Beach Road (excepting a deviation to the Joondalup City Centre).

Since the early 2000s, strategic metropolitan planning in WA including the Network City (2004), Directions 2031 (2009) and Perth@3.5million (2015) growth paradigms have emphasised a degree of urban polycentrism. They have acknowledged the need for the city to make better use of metropolitan rail assets including accessibility to stations. In 2009, State government planning policy 2.4 (SPP2.4) was released specifying design criteria for activity centres and corridors. Activity Centres are Western Australian vernacular for TOD and their hinterland and are intended to be:

“community focal points …includ[ing] activities such as commercial, retail, higher density housing, entertainment, tourism, civic/community, higher education, and medical services. Activity centres vary in size and diversity and are designed to be

3

well-serviced by public transport” (State Planning Policy 4.2 Activity Centres for Perth and Peel, Government Gazette 2010 p. 4139).

State Government planning policy has defined many existing stations within the freeway median as Activity Centres and therefore contexts appropriate for higher density residential development and greater land-use intensity. A planning challenge for development in these precincts is the resolution of current and future conflict between development intensity and local access needs, interchange functions (car/ bus-to-transit) and background traffic (district traffic movements). The latter variable is particularly important in the context of freeway median stations but has been subject to little research. Many of the precincts feature legacies of earlier auto-centric policy such as remnant low-density development and fragmented land tenure. Station precincts also function in different ways contingent on their role within the greater urban system with respect for their distance from the Perth CBD and local land use. On these bases, uniform growth policy is inappropriate: stations should be evaluated for their current performance and potential, especially as constituents of a much greater city system.

2.3 Station functions – Place, Node and Background TrafficThe selection of relevant criteria is critical to establish the function of stations as Nodes and Places, and to assess the impact of Background Traffic within the station precinct. Station precincts need to be compact, support a range of activities and have a high quality pedestrian realm to function as successful Places (Cervero 2005). There needs to be adequate employment opportunities to support some self-containment and attract trips from other stations on the public transport network.

Quality of place is also important. Places should be comfortable and easy to walk around, with limited impact from vehicle noise or emissions. The impact of road infrastructure and traffic on the quality of everyday urban life has been well documented (Appleyard 1972). There needs to a good supply of developable land to ensure future development opportunities. Without these features, stations are a risk of becoming Transit Adjacent Developments (TADs) rather than TODs, where development is present yet has a poor relationship with transport nodes (Renne 2008).

Interchange functions are important for stations to perform as successful Nodes. These functions can be both road (e.g. kiss-and-ride and park-and-ride) and feeder transit-based. Stations in low-density cities such as Perth can serve large residential catchments and Node functionality is particularly important. Access for bicycle trips also contributes to the Node function of stations.

Background traffic can confound both Node and Place functions, and this is relationship is of primary interest to the current research. In TODs, residential car ownership is lower generally than in non-TODs while actual vehicle trip rates are significantly lower (Arrington and Cervero, 2008). Nevertheless, high densities of land use can still generate relatively high intensities of vehicle trips. The orientation of the street network in TODs is therefore towards local traffic access at managed speeds. Furthermore, agglomerated economic activity can yield relatively high freight traffic flows where again, local access is of principal importance.

Access to the station by feeder modes is critical at Nodes. Node and Place functions often conflict because the former relies on transport interchange and the latter on walkability and co-location of land use activity with the station. Arguably, there are means to reconcile both objectives for station precincts through definition of sub-precincts, traffic calming and rationalisation of park-and-ride within spatially efficient decked structures.

In contrast, high levels of background traffic would seem to denude both Place and Node functionality. Co-location of train stations with major road interchanges and within freeway medians leads to mixing of through-traffic and traffic trying to access the station. It also

4

The performance and potential of rail stations in and outside freeway medians

compromises both opportunities to co-locate land use with the station and quality-of-place. Costly grade-separation may be able to reconcile background traffic and Node functions (at least partly), but is unlikely to benefit Place functionality

The research reported on in this paper involved the development of a Place, Node and Background Traffic model to address the question: how do stations located in freeway median compare to other stations with regard to their current performance and potential of transport and land-use function? The research incorporated a sample of 13 stations on Perth’s metropolitan rail network.

3. Methodology3.1 Station sampleThe 13 stations in our sample were selected through application of a typological framework. The variables in the framework were:

Rail line (heritage or recent construction) Co-location of stations with or separation from major roads or freeways Co-location of stations with or separation from major road interchanges.

Figure 2 illustrates the four examples of station types included in the study.

Figure 2: Example stations (Source: AUDRC)

Heritage line stations Freeway Interchange Freeway midblock Divergent stations

Although the research question is concerned with stations located within freeway medians or adjacent to freeways, we also included for comparison stations along the heritage lines. Stations included in the study were Subiaco, Cannington, Maddington and Midland (Heritage line stations); Murdoch, Cockburn Central and Stirling (Freeway Interchange stations); Warwick, Glendalough and Leederville (Freeway Midblock stations); Joondalup and Wellard (Divergent stations); and Greenwood (a control site; freeway median station with no activity centre). Each station precinct, excepting Wellard and Greenwood, has been identified as an Activity Centre in Western Australian State Planning 2.4. There are expectations that the station precinct at Wellard will become more transit-oriented in the future (Curtis et al. 2009). The station locations within the Perth metropolitan region are illustrated in Figure 3.

5

Figure 3: Station locations

3.2 AnalysisMulti-criteria analysis (43 measures) was used to assess the performance of the selected stations. Secondary data obtained from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the WA Public Transport Authority and Department of Planning, and modelling outputs from the Strategic Transport Model developed by the WA Department of Planning was applied. The Node/Place framework was used to guide the selection of data. To allow disaggregated analysis, Node and Place indicators were further categorised as domains. These domains reflected either current performance or potential Node and Place functionality. To better reflect the interaction (and potential conflict) between car mobility and public transport traffic, an additional indicator, Background Traffic, was included. Data was processed using ArcGIS and Microsoft Excel. A summary table of raw individual indicators was created and then the 43 criteria were transformed/standardised to a value between 0 and 1 (see the Appendix for the criteria). For criteria hypothesised to represent a positive relationship with either the Node, Place, or Background Traffic functions, 0 was attributed to the station with the lowest raw data value and 1 attributed to the station with the highest value. Conversely, for criteria hypothesised to have negative association with the Place, Node, or Background Traffic function (e.g., longer travel time to a station means lower access; higher values for hardscape/shade balance and noisescape indicate poorer amenity and comfort; higher

6

The performance and potential of rail stations in and outside freeway medians

Volume/Capacity ratio means higher congestion conditions) the opposite was applied; a value of 0 was attributed to the station with the highest value. A linear interpolation method was applied to determine the values for the remaining stations/activity centres within the range 0-1. The benefit of the method is in providing a measure to easily compare the stations relative to each other. The disadvantage is that the magnitude of the metrics is ignored.

The Background Traffic indicator consists of two domains representing the degree of constraint in the station precinct, encompassing total vehicle movement including station access in the morning and afternoon peak period times. The first domain captures the Traffic Function in vehicle capacity and level of service measures. The second domain measures the Capacity of the road network including vehicle lanes and regional road network features. The aggregation of scores provides a rudimentary indication of Background Traffic and it is important to consider each of the two domains separately when evaluating the station precincts for Node/Place performance and potential. For example, there may be more potential for TOD in Heritage line station precincts with busy local roads than for TOD at stations located near busy major arterial roads.

3.3 Scenario weightingsThe analysis presented in this paper compares two scenarios. The first scenario (Figure 4) contains weightings determined by the research group, reflecting the observed importance allocated to station precinct development in the Perth metropolitan region. For Place function the weighted model places higher value on Urban Density and Land Use, relative to the Quality of Place. For Node function, Public Transport Access and Roads Access were identified as having more importance compared to Cycling. For example, potential demand for access to the station by car received the lowest weighting, compared to current performance as a PnR interchange, reflecting a vision of multi-modal station access within the current car-dominant cities. The lesser weighting for cycling access is particular to Perth and does not reflect the significance of cycling access in the Node function of stations in other geographies. International experience, as in The Netherlands demonstrates that cycling access to stations can be a major, if not the dominant, access function of some stations. Thus, this weighting reflects the current low rate of cycling mode share characteristic of Perth and other Australian cities.

Figure 4: Scenario A – research team weighted indicators and domains

In the second scenario (Figure 5) the domains representing Node and Place potential were given highest weightings, and other performance domains received lowest weightings. The comparison assesses the capacity for stations to develop Node and Place functionality. The indicators included are development potential; urban structure; potential demand for public transport access; and potential demand for road access. No potential indicators were

7

included for cycling access or background traffic indicators. Also, there was no change in weighting for the indicators of Background Traffic.

Figure 5: Scenario B – potential Place and Node domains weighted

4. FindingsFigure 6 illustrates the Node/Place matrix for Scenario A and Scenario B. Place function is recorded on the x axis, Node function recorded on the y, and Background Traffic function is reflected by the size of the sphere representing the station. A larger sphere represents higher Background Traffic function. As noted above there are two components to the Background Traffic indicator and these should be also interpreted individually, rather than relying on the aggregated score. A discussion of the Background Traffic function at stations is at the end of this section.

Figure 6: Example Node/Place/Background Traffic Scenarios

Scenario A: Node and Place matrix Scenario B: Node and Place matrix

The first scenario yields three identifiable clusters of stations. Murdoch, Cockburn Central and Warwick, all stations on the freeway median, are relatively Unbalanced Nodes according to Bertolini’s model. The three stations’ Node function are shaped by average metrics overall, with high metrics in PnR supply at all stations, and good public transport supply at Murdoch.

8

The performance and potential of rail stations in and outside freeway medians

The station precincts at Murdoch and Cockburn central are identified as Activity Centres under the State’s spatial planning framework, so a more balanced Node/Place score would be more in keeping with strategic policy. For Warwick, the activity centre is outside the walkable catchment of the station and a balanced Node/Place function is less critical. Subiaco, Leederville and Joondalup are relatively Unbalanced Places, the latter being a primary metropolitan regional centre and the two former stations inner city stations. The remaining stations display relative balance between Node and Place function, with some (Stirling, Midland and Glendalough) exhibiting a stronger overall degree of functionality than others (Maddington and Wellard).

Scenario B, emphasising the Node and Place potential, shows less distinctive clusters of stations. Although Murdoch and Warwick remain the most Unbalanced Nodes and Joondalup, the most unbalanced Place, the other stations form a big common cluster. The potential for each of the station precincts to develop Node and/or Place functionality can be illustrated by comparing the aggregate Node/Place scores in Scenario A with those in Scenario B. Table 1 illustrates the difference between aggregated Node and Place metrics for Scenario A and B. Higher Difference (Diff_) scores mean improved function when potential factors are given more weight, indicating more potential for improved Place or Node function.

Table 1: Differences between Scenario A and Scenario B Node and Place metrics

Station type Station Place A Place B Diff_ Node A Node B Diff_Heritage Cannington 0.371 0.438 0.067 0.391 0.591 0.200

Maddington 0.401 0.596 0.195 0.223 0.387 0.164Midland 0.461 0.530 0.069 0.417 0.456 0.040Subiaco 0.780 0.691 -0.089 0.243 0.529 0.286

Interchange Cockburn Central 0.276 0.270 -0.006 0.571 0.512 -0.059Murdoch 0.279 0.209 -0.070 0.694 0.672 -0.022Stirling 0.440 0.468 0.027 0.504 0.586 0.082

Freeway midblock

Glendalough 0.492 0.528 0.036 0.377 0.620 0.243Leederville 0.691 0.633 -0.058 0.285 0.604 0.319Warwick 0.347 0.271 -0.076 0.669 0.659 -0.009

Divergent Wellard 0.277 0.340 0.063 0.264 0.190 -0.074Joondalup 0.550 0.591 0.041 0.274 0.284 0.010

Control Greenwood 0.354 0.274 -0.081 0.339 0.365 0.026

Stations on the heritage lines, excepting Subiaco - Maddington, Cannington and Midland – improve both their functions when the potential/capacity for stations to develop is enhanced. Divergent station configurations also demonstrate improvements. This suggests that there is extra capacity to develop Place function in all stations away from freeway medians. Of the stations located in Freeway medians, data indicate that Glendalough and Stirling are underperforming Places relative to their potential. Data for other freeway stations indicates that there may be limited potential for enhanced Place function without major investment in infrastructure such as land bridges (e.g. Leederville). For Node function, Leederville, Subiaco and Glendalough demonstrate the most improvement in Scenario B compared to Scenario A. These stations are also the closest in proximity to the CBD, indicating that regional accessibility is a relevant factor for their performance. Freeway stations at Cockburn Central, Murdoch and Warwick were the worst performers, with negative Node potential compared to Scenario A. These stations are already performing well as Nodes, therefore further developing their function my move them in the zone of Unbalanced Node, according to the model. Wellard was the worst performing stations, indicative of its location in the regional context, being the most distant station to the Perth CBD.

9

Aggregated Node and Place measures provide a general sense of a station’s role of its potential within the broader urban system. Disaggregated analysis allows us to develop a more thorough understanding of the opportunities and challenges for each station in the sample; particularly with respect for strategic policy direction. Figure 7 illustrates the individual indicator scores for each of the stations for Scenario A.

Figure 7: Scenario A Place and Node indicators

Scenario A: Place indicators Scenario A: Node indicators

Place was measured by two domains: Density and Diversity and Quality of Place. In Scenario A, Subiaco, Leederville and, to a lesser extent Joondalup, functioned well across both indicators, whereas Cockburn Central and Murdoch scored poorly against the Place indicators. Together with Stirling, the freeway interchange stations are amongst the poorest performing Places with respect for both Density and Diversity, and Quality of Place. Other stations not located on the Freeway, such as Maddington and Cannington also display a poor Place function, suggesting that location relative to freeways is not the only factor shaping Place metrics. Other stations including Wellard, Midland, Warwick and Greenwood, perform well for Quality of Place, yet not in Density and Diversity, This has clear implications for strategic planning policy and leads us to question if these station precincts are true TODs. High urban quality-of-place is of limited value when there simply is not a critical mass of residents and jobs benefitting from it. In contrast, Glendalough has better Density and Diversity, reflecting mixed land-use and urban intensity; however, it has poor Quality of Place because of high Background Traffic and the influence of nearby, light industrial land-use.

The freeway interchange stations and Warwick perform well overall across Node indicators (except for Stirling, which has limited cycling access) reflecting the supply of feeder bus services and park-and-ride. Subiaco, Leederville and Maddington demonstrate limited Node functionality because of the limited feeder bus services and PnR supply, expected considering the spatial constraints. In contrast, the implications of the low Node function of Maddington should be considered in a broader policy context. Intuitively, Maddington could have a stronger interchange function and by implication, a wider catchment. Increased feeder bus operations and park-and-ride could yield higher transit patronage. Greenwood and Cannington both exhibit high performing cycling access relative to other indicators. Stations with varying indicator performance include Glendalough, Joondalup and Wellard (good public transport access but limited car access), and Midland and Wellard (good car access and limited public transport access). For these stations, where feasible, policy could be targeted towards different modes of station access in order to raise the Node function overall.

10

The performance and potential of rail stations in and outside freeway medians

Figure 8: Scenario B Place and Node indicators

Scenario B: Place indicators Scenario B: Node indicators

Scenario B Place and Node indicators are illustrated in Figure 8. A comparison with Scenario A shows that Cannington and Maddington increase their overall Place function when potential indicators are given more weight. Although, performing well as Places already, the results for this scenario indicate that Subiaco and Leederville have very good urban design frameworks from which additional place function could be leveraged. The results reflect the dense and diverse inner urban context where the stations are located, yet the criteria used to capture the Place potential are based on lot sizes and do not reflect the full potential for vertical density in station precincts. In Scenario B, the Vehicle access indicator reveals that stations in proximity to the CBD and the freeway stations at Murdoch and Warwick have high vehicle access, due to their central location and regional accessibility. Stations on the periphery have limited Vehicle access. Subiaco and Leederville, the most unbalanced Places, have limited capacity to for station vehicle access through providing PnR.

Table 2 illustrates the average Background Traffic, and separate Traffic Function and Road Capacity domains for each of the station types (a lower score indicates a more constrained Background Traffic function).

Table 2: Background Traffic Function

Heritage Interchange Freeway midblock

Divergent Control

Average .449 .460 .342 .741 .500

Traffic Function .73 .57 .55 .89 .42

Road Capacity .26 .39 .20 .64 .56

Overall, Divergent stations had the highest Background Traffic metric, primarily reflected in their Traffic Function, indicating lower volumes of vehicles and less congestion at major intersections, and also more Road Capacity. Heritage stations scored well in Traffic Function, relative to Road Capacity. The lower Road Capacity measure is due to constrained road widths and railway crossing in older Heritage station precincts. For stations located in freeway medians – both interchange and midblock – the Traffic Function was similar (busy roads, more delays), yet road capacity varied. Overall, Midblock stations had the lowest score for Background Traffic, having a combination of both busy roads and limited capacity.

11

The Interchange stations had busy roads and major arterials with more lanes and less traffic from feeder roads. Some of these measures reflect recent road widening projects, for example at Murdoch station.

5. Discussion and Conclusions For TODs to contribute to genuine multi-modal transport systems, an investigation of the trade-offs between different station functions is required (Mees 2014). To achieve an understanding of the trade-offs between land use and transport functions of stations, the research in this paper presents an evaluation of the Node, Place and Background Traffic function at a variety of station types in the Perth metropolitan area. A key research objective is to understand these trade-offs within station precincts co-located with major road infrastructure, particularly stations located in the freeway medians. The findings presented here illustrate that there is a variety of station types when considering current performance and potential of the stations to function as a Node or a Place. The function of Background Traffic and limited potential for Place development is problematic for future development at stations in freeway medians.

The WA State Government strategic plan, Directions 2031, directs development to Activity Centres located at accessible nodes within the public transport network. The stations included in this research display varying performance and capacity for development. Stations located away from the freeway median – on Heritage lines or Divergent configurations – performed better overall as Places. The inner city station, Subiaco, and the major regional sub-centre of Perth’s north-eastern sub-region, Joondalup, were the densest, most diverse and had the best quality of urban environment. Cannington and Maddington, although having poor Place function for Scenario A, showed the most potential to develop as Places in Scenario B. This is due to an intrinsically strong urban structure which could be leveraged toward meeting the goals of more intense and diverse land use development. TOD in these precincts may be realised with a combination of strategic land assembly, incentive schemes and urban design interventions (Tan et al. 2014). However, Leederville, which is located on the freeway but away from a major interchange, also performed well as a Place, suggesting that proximity to the CBD is an important factor in determining Place function.

The findings suggest that station precinct planning is not currently aligned with the underlying performance and potential functionality of stations located in freeway medians. In general the precincts located at freeway interchanges are not performing well as Places. WA State Government planning objectives are focused on developing these stations as Activity Centres, high density, employment centres with good quality walkable environments. However, the capacity for developing places in freeway precincts is constrained. The potential Place metrics in Scenario B indicate a shortage of developable land and poor urban structure for enhancing the quality of place around stations in freeway medians. In many instances the surrounding area is either dominated by road reserves or consists of fragmented ownership of single residential estates. This poses problems both in terms of amalgamation and being able to introduce higher density development within a generally resistant suburban context. Stations on the freeway that are close to central Perth with large lots, such as is the case with Glendalough, have some potential for urban development.

There are opportunities for planners to advance development at stations in freeway medians. For example, internationally PnR spaces are being seen as a means of land assembly for future TOD. Many of the stations located in freeway medians in Perth have substantial land areas devoted to PnR that could be used to consolidate urban development adjacent to the station. However, this approach will contribute to realising multi-modal urban transport systems only with careful consideration of the potential consequences for conversion of land. One potential consequence is a reduction in ridership at stations that are currently well served by PnR. Although there is research that suggests reduction in supply of PnR at

12

The performance and potential of rail stations in and outside freeway medians

stations in favour of TOD can maintain or increase public transport ridership levels (Wilson 2005), Duncan (2010) found that stations in San Francisco transitioning from park-and-ride to TODs do not have the capacity to develop at densities where current ridership levels are maintained. This is an important consideration for stations such as Murdoch that currently have the highest levels of ridership in the Perth metropolitan area, a significant proportion that do come from PnR. To maintain ridership Mees (2014) argues that conversion of PnR to TOD should occur when demand for PnR is reduced by improved secondary transit access to the station, by feeder bus services for example.

For stations in freeway medians, the presence of major regional road infrastructure will remain an ongoing barrier to development. High vehicle movements, wide carriageways and regional road infrastructure interfere with the potential to develop the kind of urban structure which can be used to attract mixed use high density development. Research in Perth has found that at stations co-located with the freeway the positive effect on land prices due to proximity to rail is negated by the presence of major road infrastructure and large areas of PnR (McIntosh et al. 2014). The conflict evident between land use and transport functions at stations in freeway medians suggests that future station planning in freeway medians should prioritise services and infrastructure that captures ridership from regional district catchments, rather than developing high density activity centres. The research findings indicate that stations located at major freeway interchanges, such as Murdoch and Cockburn Central, are characterised by conflict between Place, Node and Background Traffic function and that future stations should be located away from these sites.

A number of strategies could be employed to facilitate station planning that better reflects the underlying Node and Place functions identified in this research. Firstly, an assessment of economic and market readiness of stations for urban development would help identify stations best positioned as TODs in the short term. International examples have shown that development potential is a key factor in successful implementing TODs (Dittmar and Ohland 2004). A second strategy is the use of station performance metrics to better understand the role of stations within a broad urban transport system. Station evaluation based on the indicators used in this research or other methods such as station access performance indicators (Hale and Eagleson 2014) should inform station and infrastructure planning, rather than a presumption that the accessibility provided by rail will alone lead to the development of successful transit oriented precincts.

There are a number of limitations of the analysis and findings presented in this paper that indicate fruitful future directions for research. We have not included data capturing station-to-station travel in this study and this is an important consideration of stations’ Place/Node function within the regional transport network. The findings indicate that trains arriving at stations in freeway median located near the CBD – Glendalough as an example – are at capacity. With careful planning, the development of Place functionality at these stations, importantly economic activity and employment opportunities, could alleviate capacity issues on city bound trains by attracting trips. Furthermore, the method of evaluation of stations reflected performance and potential Node and Place functionality relative to other stations included in the study. The results therefore do not encompass best practice of TODs and station precinct developments reflected in other national and international cities.

AcknowledgmentsThank you to the project steering committee for feedback and the Public Transport Authority, Department of Planning and Main Roads Western Australia for data. Also, thanks to Professor David Gordon from Queens University, Ontario, for a review of an earlier version of the project report.

13

ReferencesAppleyard, D. 1972. The environmental quality of city streets, Journal of the American Planning Association, 35, 84-101.

Arrington, G. B. & Cervero, R. 2008. Effects of TOD on Housing, Parking, and Travel. In: BOARD, T. R. (ed.) Transportation Cooperative Research Program. Washington D.C.

Bertolini, L. 1996. Nodes and Places: Complexities of Railway Station Redevelopment. European Planning Studies 4 (3), 331-345.

Bertolini, L. 1999. Spatial Development Patterns and Public Transport: The Application of an Analytical Model in the Netherlands. Planning Practice & Research, 14, 199-210.

Bertolini, L. & Spit, T. 1998. Cities on rails: the redevelopment of railway station areas, London, New York: E & FN Spon.

Cervero, R., Ferrell, S., & Murphy, S. 2002. Transit Oriented Development and Joint Development in the United States: A Literature Review. Transit Cooperative Research Program Research Results Digest 52, available at http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_rrd_52.pdf, 1-144.

Cervero, R. & Day, J. 2008. Suburbanization and transit-oriented development in China. Transport Policy, 15, 315-323.

Chorus, P. & Bertolini, L. 2011. An application of the node place model to explore the spatial development dynamics of station areas in Tokyo. Journal of transport and land use, 4, 45-58.

CTOD 2013. Downtowns, Greenfields and Places in Between. Centre for Transit Oriented Development. http://www.ctod.org/ctod-research.php [Accessed: 12/10/2014]

Curtis, C., Renne, J. L. & Bertolini, L. 2009. Transit oriented development: making it happen, United Kingdom, Farnham, United Kingdom: Ashgate.

Dittmar, H. & Ohland, G. (eds). 2004. New transit town: best practices in transit-oriented development, Washington, DC: Island Press.

Duncan, M. 2010. To Park or To Develop: Trade-Off in Rail Transit Passenger Demand. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 30(2), 162.

Falconer R. 2014. Smarter Centres: lessons from Perth regarding assessment of transport and access contexts, in Australian Planner, published online 29 May.

Hale, C., & Eagleson, S. 2013. Passenger rail in Melbourne - new challenges in a new century. Australian Planner. doi:10.1080/07293682.2013.764910.

Jenks, M., Burton, E. & Williams, K. 1996. (eds.) The Compact City: A Sustainable Urban Form?, Spon Press.

Kamruzzaman, M., Baker, D., Washington, S. & Turrell, G. 2014. Advance transit oriented development typology: case study in Brisbane, Australia. Journal of Transport Geography, 34, 54-70.

King, J. 2012. Density Dare: A look at BART's long-term efforts to build transit-oriented development. Planning, 78(5), 41-46.

14

The performance and potential of rail stations in and outside freeway medians

Knowles, R. D. 2012. Transit Oriented Development in Copenhagen, Denmark: from the Finger Plan to Ørestad. Journal of Transport Geography, 22, 251-261.

Li, L.H., Lin, J., Li, X. & Wu, F. 2014. Redevelopment of urban village in China – A step towards an effective urban policy? A case study of Liede village in Guangzhou. Habitat International, 43, 299-308.

McIntosh, J., Trubka, R., & Newman, P. 2014. Can value capture work in a car dependent city? Willingness to pay for transit access in Perth, Western Australia. Transportation Research A, 67, 320-339.

Mees, P. 2014. TOD and Multi-modal Public Transport. Planning Practice and Research, 29(5), 461-470. doi:10.1080/02697459.2014.977633.

Outwater, M., Smith, C., Walters, J., Welch, B, Cervero, R., Kockelman, K., Kuzmyak, J.R. 2014. Effect of Smart Growth Policies in Travel Demand. Report S2-C16-RR1, Transportation Research Board, Washington DC, available at http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/shrp2/SHRP2_S2-C16-RR-1.pdf.

Peek, G.J., Bertolini, L., & de Jonge, H. 2006. Gaining Insight in the Development Potential of Station Areas: A Decade of Node-Place Modeling in The Netherlands. Planning Practice & Research, 21(4), 443-462.

Public Transport Authority (n.d.) http://www.pta.wa.gov.au/. [Accessed 27 April 2015].

Renne, J. L. 2008. From transit-adjacent to transit-oriented development. Local Environment, 14, 1-15.

Tan, W. G. Z., Janssen-Jansen, L. B. & Bertolini, L. 2013. The Role of Incentives in Implementing Successful Transit-Oriented Development Strategies. Urban Policy and Research, 32, 33-51.

Xue, C., Zhai, H. & Roberts, J. 2010. An urban island floating on the MTR station: A Case study of the West Kowloon development in Hong Kong. Urban Design International, 1-17.

Webber, M. 1976. The BART experience: what have we learned? Berkeley, California, University of Berkeley.

Western Australian Government. 2010. State Planning Policy 4.3: Activity Centres for Perth and Peel. No 167. Available at: http://www.planning.wa.gov.au/.

Willson, R. 2005. Parking policy for transit-oriented development: lessons for cities, transit agencies, and developers. Journal of Public Transportation, 8(5), 79.

Willson, R., & Menotti, V. 2007. Commuter parking versus transit-oriented development: evaluation methodology. Transportation Research Record, 2021(1), 118-125.

15