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