tod-harshal wagle

1 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


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


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.

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)

Figure 2: Detroit Street Car [source- detriottransithistory.info]


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.

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 transit-

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

Figure 4: TOD verses auto-oriented development [source:(Jones 2011)]


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. Transit-

oriented 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.


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)]


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

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.

Figure 6: Waitakere TOD investigation [source:(Jones 2011)]


3. Defining the urban design factors for TOD

The success of TOD is the resultant extent of the mode shift from an auto-

dependant 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)]


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).

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

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


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


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

Description Outcomes

Liveability

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)

Improved air quality.

Better health and public safety.

Improved access to public spaces.

Decreased congestion.

Choice

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)

A diversity of housing types that

reflects the regional

mix of incomes and

family structures.

Range of affordable housing.

A balance of transportation

choices.

Public

spaces

for human

use

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

Establish a social increment of

space.

Provide quality shared space.

Connections

Create a fine-grained network of

streets, dispersing traffic and

allowing for the creation of quiet

and intimate thoroughfares

Promote shared space

Street pattern focusing on transit

station

Transit in the

urban

pattern

Transit stops should be attractive,

comfortable, and sheltering as well

as well-located

Create a visual landmark

Enhance the built form characteristics


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.

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

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


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

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

Figure 14: [ source :(Walsh 2004) ]


Establish the rail precinct as a highly permeable and visually open mixed use

development with strong internal links and external links.

Maximise the opportunities associated with an integrated public transport

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

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.





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:

i. 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.

ii. 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.

Figure 18: [ source :(Urban 2012) ]


iii. 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 medium-

low rise building height.

iv. 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.

v. 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.

vi. 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.

vii. 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.

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

Figure 19: [ source :(Urban 2012) ]


evaluated. According to Renne the evaluation of TOD should be both cross-sectional 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 22:Retail activity on Buckley Street [ Harshal Wagle]

Figure 20: Night view of Footscary Railway Station [ Harshal Wagle] Figure 21: Footscary Railway Station [ Harshal Wagle]

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


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.


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.

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.

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


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 auto-

dependency 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.


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.


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.


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.


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


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

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

tod-harshal wagle

Documents

transitoriented development

developmentoriented

development oriented

autooriented transit

transit use

oriented development

oriented development

commercial development