Joint Development of Land Use and Light Rail Stations
description
Transcript of Joint Development of Land Use and Light Rail Stations
Joint Development of Land Use
and Light Rail StationsThe Case of Tel Aviv
Regional Science Association International -The Israeli Section
Daniel Shefer, Shlomo Bekhor, Avigail Ferdman
Centre for Urban and Regional Studies
Transportation Research Institute
Technion – Israel Institute of Technology
Beer Sheva University 6/6/04“New Direction in Urban and Regional Development”
Structure of the presentation
• Introduction
• Literature Review
• Purpose of the Study
• Hypotheses
• Methodology
• Findings
• Conclusions
Introduction
• The land-use transportation interaction
• Empirical evidence of the built environment’s impact on travel demand
• Land-use intensification and mixed land uses – their impact on transit use
• The role and function of Light Rail Transit - LRT
What can light rail transit do?
at the micro level• Enhancing accessibility • “Getting people out of their cars”
at the macro level• Relieving traffic congestion • Reducing emissions• Rejuvenating urban centres• Stimulating economic growth
LRT is perceived as a powerful mode for transferring ridership from private to public transportation
Literature Review
Tel Aviv as a case study
• 1st light rail line in Tel Aviv, due to open in 2010.
• Connects 4 major cities
• The stations location was based on travel demand
Purpose of the studyexploring various scenarios of the built environment around planned LRT stations
Purpose of the Study
The built environment and travel demand
Impacts on daily travel demand:
• Intensified areas attract trips
• Mixed land uses around LRT stations induce transit use and walking/cycling
• Trip generation is not affected by land use
Hypotheses
Methodology
Land uses and travel demand
• population densities,
• commercial densities,
• degree of land use mix
• workforce-population ratio
Parameters of land use scenarios:
Land Use Scenarios
Methodology
workforce-population ratio
Findings – trip generation
No difference between NTA models & retrofitted models, save for scenario 4
Alternative scenarios produce differential trip generation demand
Total Trip Generation
0.96
0.98
1.00
1.02
1.04
1.06
basescenario
scenario 1 scenario 2 scenario 3 scenario 4
per
cen
t d
iffe
ren
cee
fro
m b
ase
scen
ario
base sub models retroffited sub models
Trip Generation
Mixed and intensified land uses attract more trips
total trip attraction per workplace
0.98
1.00
1.02
1.04
1.06
1.08
1.10
1.12
1.14
basescenario
scenario 1 scenario 2 scenario 3 scenario 4
pe
rce
nt
dif
fere
nc
e f
rom
ba
se
s
ub
mo
de
l
Findings
Trip attraction
Job–population ratios affect home-base-work trips
Higher job–population rates – attract more motorized home-base-work trips
Scenarios 1-2-3 have a greater concentration of jobs
Home-base-work trip attraction
Findings – trip attraction
Job-population ratio
1.03
0.740.81
0.68
1.00
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
base scenario 1 scenario 2 scenario 3 scenario 4
job-
popu
latio
n ra
tio
1.40
1.45
1.50
1.55
1.60
1.65
1.70
base scenario scenario 1 scenario 2 scenario 3 scenario 4
daily
hbw
trip
s
nta sub model retrofitted sub model
More trip attraction at the outer stations
Less trip attraction
Intensified commercial areas attract less motorized home-base commuting trips
Findings – trip attraction
Findings
Mixed land uses attract more trip chaining
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
basescenario
scenario 1 scenario 2 scenario 3 scenario 4
da
ily n
hb
trip
sNon-home-base trip attraction per workplace
Main findings
• Intensified land uses tend to generate more motorized trips per household than mixed land uses or the base scenario
• Intensified and mixed land uses attract more trips per worker
Findings
Conclusions
Alternative land use scenarios generate and attract differential trip rates
Mixed land uses are different from intensified land uses, in terms of travel demand
High density & mixed land uses can serve as strategic decision variables in locating transit stations
Conclusions
Thank you
Joint Development of Land Use
and Light Rail Stations
Further research
• Metropolitan level forecasts
• Exploring the most conducive land use mix for lrt ridership -
» Before and after lrt introduction
» Comparison to other lrt systems
» Trip mode share
• Exploring station location by trip demand and land use characteristics
Trip generation with same workforce ratio for all the scenarios
Total Trip Generation
0.90
0.92
0.94
0.96
0.98
1.00
scenario 0 scenario 1 scenario 2 scenario 3 scenario 4
perc
en
t d
iffe
ren
cee f
rom
base s
cen
ari
o
base sub models retroffited sub models
Planned LRT red line in Metropolitan Tel Aviv
Differences in population densities
155
142
169
110
100
50
75
100
125
150
175
200
base scenario 1 scenario 2 scenario 3 scenario 4
pe
rce
nt
dif
fere
nc
e f
rom
ba
se
sc
en
ari
o
100
112 112 112
106
80.00
90.00
100.00
110.00
120.00
base scenario 1 scenario 2 scenario 3 scenario 4
per
cen
t d
iffe
ren
ce f
rom
bas
e sc
enar
io
Differences in job densities