rv 2014: beyond mobility: corridor planning for the bigger picture by antonio gomez-palacio
DESCRIPTION
Beyond Mobility: Corridor Planning for the Bigger Picture AICP CM 1.5 Transit can do more than move people and generate revenue. More and more, cities are investing in transit to transform their communities and deliver on more expansive city-building objectives. Traditional transit goals are expanding to address the promise of livable communities, environmental stewardship, economic development and improved public health. Hear how two cities -- Seattle and Portland -- are shaping development scale and character with transit investment. Both cities are using parcel-based, pro forma-based tools to quantify the potential impact of transit projects. Join us for an interactive discussion about the capabilities and limitations of these tools. Hear their stories and learn how to evaluate your own projects against a broader set of goals using technical and market-based analysis. Moderator: Catherine Ciarlo, AICP, Senior Project Manager, CH2M Hill, Portland, Oregon Katherine Idziorek, AICP, LEED AP ND, Urban Designer, VIA Architecture, Seattle, Washington Antonio Gomez-Palacio, Principal, DIALOG, Toronto, Ontario Eric Engstrom, Principal Planner, City of Portland, Bureau of Planning & Sustainability, Portland, OregonTRANSCRIPT
TRANS FORMING CITIES THROUGH TRANSIT
ANTONIO GÓMEZ-PALACIO @aurbanist
RailVolution CONFERENCE Minneapolis, September 22, 2014
OUR GRAND
DISCONNECT
PEDESTRIANS WORTH TEN
POINTS
WHO, HAS ABSOLUTELY NO INTEREST IN EVER USING TRANSIT?
WHO, HAS NO OPTION TO MOVE AROUND EXCEPT TRANSIT?
WHO, CHOOSES TRANSIT EVER SO OFTEN?
OF PEOPLE IN COPENHAGEN RIDE BIKES FOR MORAL REASONS
3 %
97 % OF PEOPLE DO IT FOR QUALITY OF LIFE
CY
CLE
STA
TIS
TIC
S, W
WW
.KK
.DK
57% IT’S EASY AND FAST
22% IT’S GOOD EXERCISE
13% IT’S CHEAP
5% IT’S CONVENIENT
4 WHYS?
4 HOWS?
3 EPIPHANIES
presentation outline:
TRANSIT URBANISM DEFINITION:
a recognition of the synergies between where we live and how we move, and their influence on delivering liveable communities, environmental and public health, economic and social development, and quality living.
epiphany
# 1 !
CONTINUING TO BUILD CAR-DEPENDANT INFRASTRUCTURE IS MYOPIC?
“INSANITY: DOING THE SAME THING OVER AND OVER AGAIN AND EXPECTING DIFFERENT RESULTS”
Albert Einstein
PART: WHY?
TOD
ROI +
BFFs
TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT
RETURN ON INVESTMENT
BEST FRIENDS FOREVER
ROI = BENEFIT
COST
BENEFIT
COST ENVIRONMENT SOCIETY
INDIVIDUALS
ECONOMY
SOCIETY
INDIVIDUALS
ECONOMY
BENEFIT
COST ENVIRONMENT
SOCIETY
INDIVIDUALS
ECONOMY
HYPOTHESIS: our travel choices have a direct
(negative) impact on the sustenance of natural
systems and to climate change ENVIRONMENT
average car, single occupant
0.44
GHG emissions by mode...
large 4WD, single occupant
0.0 walking + cycling
0.003
Source: h2p://sydney.edu.au/facili:es/sustainable_campus/transport/index.shtml
0.32 for every extra
passenger
Kg of greenhouse gas per person per kilometer
ENVIRONMENT SOCIETY
ECONOMY
BENEFIT
COST
INDIVIDUALS
ENVIRONMENT SOCIETY
ECONOMY
HYPOTHESIS: our travel choices have a direct (often
unaccounted) cost to individuals’ livelihood and
quality of life INDIVIDUALS
Average total expenditure, 2008
average
household spending
food shelter clothing transpor-‐ta*on
personal taxes
$ shares of spending (%) Canada 71,360 10.4 19.9 4.0 13.6 20.5
Newfoundland and Labrador 57,710 11.7 16.5 4.7 15.6 18.0
Prince Edward Island 58,710 11.5 19.0 3.6 15.2 16.2 Nova Sco:a 60,330 11.3 18.6 3.7 14.7 17.9
New Brunswick 58,440 11.2 17.2 3.5 17.0 17.8 Quebec 60,480 12.2 18.5 3.9 13.2 20.5 Ontario 77,310 9.7 21.2 4.2 13.1 21.2
Manitoba 63,510 10.2 18.2 3.9 14.3 18.8 Saskatchewan 68,280 9.2 17.2 3.8 16.0 19.1
Alberta 86,910 8.9 19.0 3.8 14.0 21.9 Bri:sh Columbia 73,120 10.9 20.8 4.0 13.8 18.7
Source: Sta:s:cs Canada
AVERAGE TOTAL EXPENDITURE, 2008
GTA
$10,152
$1,077
$11,229
2011 AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD EXPENDITURES ON TRANSPORTATION
Source: Sta:s:cs C
anada
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION [public transit, taxis, air fares, inter-‐city buses + trains]
PRIVATE TRANSPORTATION [cars, trucks, vans + their opera:ng costs]
$10,152
$1,077
$11,229
HIGHEST IN NEIGHBOURHOODS POORLY SERVED BY TRANSIT
$6,803
$15,005 in: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, LOW TRANSIT CONNECTIVITY
in: JOB DENSE AREAS, HIGH TRANSIT CONNECTIVITY
+
-‐
AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD EXPENDITURES ON TRANSPORTATION
SO
UR
CE
: Tra
nsFo
rm, 2
009
CANADA
$434,696 The average home price for March, 2011 transac:ons
Greater Toronto REALTORS report March Resale Market Figures
RESIDENTIAL AVERAGE PRICE, March 2013
Source: C
REA Canadian Real Estate Associa:
on
$378,532
GTA
$10,152 $1,077
$11,229
2011 AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD EXPENDITURES ON TRANSPORTATION
PRIVATE TRANSPORTATION [cars, trucks, vans + their opera:ng costs]
Source: Sta:s:cs C
anada
applied to MONTHLY MORTGAGE PAYMENTS
monthly payments
increased by $846
$10,152
Mortgage amount:
$523,975 Mortgage amount:
$378,532
$145,443 difference 38% more
Mortgage amount:
$523,975 Mortgage amount:
$378,532
$10,152
applied to MORTGAGE’S
TOTAL INTEREST COSTS
$10,152 X 25
years = $253,800
Mortgage amount:
$719,288 Mortgage amount:
$378,532
$340,756 difference 90% more
Mortgage amount:
$719,288 Mortgage amount:
$378,532
ENVIRONMENT
INDIVIDUALS
ECONOMY
BENEFIT
COST SOCIETY
ENVIRONMENT
INDIVIDUALS
ECONOMY
HYPOTHESIS: our travel choices are subsidized by us as a society, and have
an impact on our municipal finances and public health SOCIETY
$ COST PER PASSENGER TRIP
Infrastructure (capital & operating, private operating) and social costs (congestion, accidents, and environmental)
$ 3.33 $ 6.64
SO
UR
CE
: TR
AN
SP
OR
T C
AN
AD
A, 2
010
TYPE 2 DIABETES RATE in neighbourhoods conducive to walking and cycling
SOURCE: INSTITUTE FOR CLINICAL EVALUATIVE SCIENCES
OBESITY
pedestrian-‐oriented neighbourhoods
car-‐oriented neighbourhoods
RATE
10% 50%
OBESITY 12.2% lower / each 25% increase in mixed use
per each quartile increase in mixed use
mixed use single use
Sou
rce:
Fra
nk, e
t al.
2004
Source: Canadian Institute for Health Information
of several Provincial budgets is health related 40%
ENVIRONMENT SOCIETY
INDIVIDUALS
BENEFIT
COST
ECONOMY
ENVIRONMENT SOCIETY
INDIVIDUALS
HYPOTHESIS: access to travel choices increases the competitive advantage of cities and neighbourhoods
and has an impact on economic development
ECONOMY
YOUTH RETENTION...
disagree agree 16-34 year-olds
23% drop
YOUTH RETENTION...
12,700km
16,500km
2009
2001
AVERAGE ANNUAL VEHICLE km TRAVELED 16-34 year-olds
SO
UR
CE
: FR
ON
TIE
R G
RO
UP, 2012
YOUTH RETENTION... 16-34 year-olds 16% walk more frequently
24% bike more trips
40% transit more passenger km 2001
-200
9
SO
UR
CE
: FR
ON
TIE
R G
RO
UP, 2012
PART: HOW?
TRANSIT SYSTEMS
DENSITY OF USE
URBAN DESIGN
MODAL INTEGRATION
URBAN DESIGN
MODAL INTEGRATION
DENSITY OF USE
TRANSIT SYSTEMS
TRANSIT SYSTEMS
DENSITY OF USE
URBAN DESIGN
MODAL INTEGRATION
SO
UR
CE
: QU
INO
(JO
AQ
UÍN
SA
LVA
DO
R L
AVA
DO
)
MOVING PEOPLE NOT CARS
900
900
900
900
900
900
5,400 PERSONS / HOUR
PASS
ENG
ERS
PER
HO
UR
pe
r dire
ctio
n (P
PH
PD
)
19,600 PERSONS / HOUR
900
900
8,000
900
900
8,000 STREETCAR
COMPLETE STREETS
TRANSIT SYSTEMS
URBAN DESIGN
MODAL INTEGRATION
DENSITY OF USE
Port Credit, Mississauga
source: A Study of Population Density of Ancient, Medieval, and Modern Cities (Ilano, 1961)
[PE
RS
ON
/ H
A] AV
ERA
GE
TRA
CT
DEN
SITY
200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 2000 1800 0
source: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy : https://www.lincolninst.edu/pubs/dl/1834_1085_Angel%20Final%201.pdf
[PE
RS
ON
/ H
A] AV
ERA
GE
TRA
CT
DEN
SITY
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 2000 1990
New York, Boston, Chicago, Pittsburgh, Baltimore, St. Louis, Cleveland,
Milwaukee, Washington, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Detroit, Buffalo,
Columbus, Minneapolis, Syracuse, Cincinnati, St. Paul, Nashville,
Indianapolis
POPULATION DENSITY OF THE TORONTO CMA
+ -‐ 0 – 793
Persons/km2
33,380 – 63,770
% OF PEOPLE WHO WALK TO WORK
0 – 2%
38 -‐ 58%
% OF PEOPLE WHO DRIVE TO WORK
0 – 27%
85 – 95%
0 – 5% Persons/km2
% OF PEOPLE WHO TAKE TRANSIT TO WORK
49 – 66%
TRANSIT ORIENTED TRANSIT SUPPORTIVE MULTI-MODAL AUTO RELIANT AUTO DEPENDANT
TRANSIT SYSTEMS
DENSITY OF USE
MODAL INTEGRATION
URBAN DESIGN
epiphany
# 2 !
“IF YOU SCREW UP THE URBAN DESIGN, YOU MIGHT AS WELL PACK
YOUR BAGS AND GO HOME”
2/13/2012 81
multi-modal vehicle-oriented
(insert image)
CRITICAL MASS of
PEOPLE and ACTIVITIES
DISTINCT STREET-SCAPING
BUILDINGS face the
street with ACTIVE USES at GRADE LEVEL
PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS at
REGULAR INTERVALS
INTEGRATED TRANSIT SYSTEM
CONSISTENT BUILDING
MIXED-USE PODIUM
ANIMATED + MIXED-USE
GROUND LEVEL
DIVERSITY IN HOUSING
TYPOLOGIES
URBAN TREE CANOPY and INTEGRATED
STORMWATER SYSTEMS
SUNLIGHT ACCESS and SKYVIEWS
DIVERSITY IN RETAIL and
EMPLOYMENT TYPOLOGIES
CRITICAL MASS OF
POPULATION
SAFE, ACTIVE-TRANSPORTATION
PEDESTRIANS PRIORATIZED
PLACES FOR SOCIAL
GATHERING
INTEGRATED TRANSIT
FACILITIES
INTEGRATED NATURAL SYSTEMS
ROOFTOP GARDENING + AMENITIES
MODAL OPTIONS
ADAPTABLE ARCHITECTURE
MIXED-USE POLICIES
ON-SITE STORMWATER TREATMENT
INTEGRATED TREE CANOPY
SUNLIGHT PENETRATION
DIVERSITY of HOUSING
TYPES
1901
, JA
SP
ER
AV
EN
UE
, ED
MO
NTO
N
10-‐20 metres
HERITAGE CONSERVATION
PEDESTRIAN PRIORITY
ZONES SAFE CYCLING
FACILITIES
PLACES FOR SOCIAL
GATHERING
ACCESS TO EMPLOYMENT
QUALITY, DURABLE
MATERIALS
CRIME PREVENTION
THROUGH DESIGN
UNCLUTTERED URBAN DESIGN
INTEGRATED TRANSIT SYSTEMS
epiphany
# 3 !
“CITIES ARE NOT THE PROBLEM, THEY ARE THE SOLUTION”
A turtle lives, works, and plays in the same place Jaime Lerner Architect, Major for the City of Curi:ba, Brazil
thank you
ANTONIO GÓMEZ-PALACIO
@aurbanist