CTRF 2010: Linking land use and transit
Tags: grid, high speed rail, Land Use, sprawl, Stockholm, suburban rail, suburbs, Sweden, toronto, transit, Transportation, TTC, university of toronto
Transit service and land use patterns are inextricably linked. Thanks to Wylie Poon on Flickr for this Creative Commons photo showing a transit expansion in Toronto!
One of the session topics on the last day of the CTRF 2010 conference was Urban Transit, which for the transit planner at heart was a great way to close off the event! The first paper was presented by Sybil Derrible, a PhD candidate at the University of Toronto. The paper, prepared with Bilal Farooq, categorized four types of neighbourhoods based on the type of land use development and corresponding transit potential. The four styles were exemplified by Toronto-based developments, but can be applied to most North American settlement patterns. They are: urban sprawled, compact, laissez-faire, and strategic.
Derrible presented a background on the history of land use and transit in the Toronto area and then proceeded to provide examples of the land use categories:
The compact example given was of the Queen Street West area near Spadina Avenue; there is a grid pattern with mixed medium density development along the street. The corresponding transit is ROW (Right of Way) B or C, where transit shares with other road users, but is sometimes on a dedicated ROW or may have its own traffic signals at some intersections.
Strategic development was defined as mixed high density development resembling a node or peak in population activity. The example given was North York Centre in Toronto. This area is north of the downtown core, but has ROW A transit available, meaning a grade separated transit mode. Here it comes in the form of the underground heavy rail TTC, but is complemented by a bus hub.
A third type is laissez-faire; here we see low density and isolated land uses. The method develops out of low policy guidance and limited restrictions. The example was Leslie Station on Toronto’s Sheppard subway line. This line has low ridership, and the development surrounding was proposed as the cause. Derrible illustrated on a map the difficulties faced by residents of housing adjacent to the station when trying to walk to the subway. It was a circular trek that would better suit a car than a pedestrian. Hardly a type of land use development conducive to supporting heavy rail transit!
The fourth category of land use, and perhaps the one most familiar to North Americans is urban sprawled. This category represents typical suburban development: low density single family homes and cul-de-sac road networks with limited or infrequent availability of public transport. The example chosen was of a Toronto neighbourhood not far from Downsview Station on the Spadina/University subway line. This example illustrated that you don’t have to go very far out of the city to find development patterns unsuitable to offering effective transit service.
Aside from the technical matters of zoning, land use and density, Derrible offered points for discussion that provide opportunities for policymakers to think outside the box when trying to guide development for better transit prospects. The strategic type that Derrible and Farooq categorize was suggested to help incorporate multi-nodal cities where the metropolitan area has grown immensely or where intensive growth is expected.
The train station in Södertälje, Sweden, one of the satellite cities on the Stockholm commuter line. Thanks very much to Ollie Crafoord for the great Creative Commons photo!
Although an example of a multi-nodal city was not highlighted, I will offer the example of Stockholm’s transport network and core Tunnelbana metro as what Robert Cervero sites as a polycentric transit city. (See Cervero’s book The Transit Metropolis for more global transit examples.) The key features of Stockholm’s land use surrounding transit are similar to the characteristics that make up Derrible and Farooq’s strategic type. Stockholm’s satellite cities are served by grade-separated rail transport and bike path systems. Rail stations are surrounded by moderate to high-density mixed-used development.
It seems that North America has much to learn and many facets of transportation that need to be improved to better our cities and neighbourhoods by facilitating more efficient, effective and greener movement. I would not take that as a painful truth, but rather a great opportunity for young planners and policymakers to seek out and push forth innovative ideas. There is plenty of room to improve the way we move in and through our cities and regions, by foot, by bike, by transit or by car!
