Transit Oriented Development. An Approach To Neighborhood Mobility

Table of contents

1.0 Introduction
1.1 Challenges
1.2 Goals and Objectives
1.3 Structure

2.0 Transit Oriented Development
2.1 Implementation scales
2.1.1 Macro Level
2.1.2 Micro Level
2.2 Neighborhood level mobility
2.3 Types of Mobility
2.3.3 Multi-modal Mobility
2.3.4 Inter-modal Mobility
2.4 Elements of Mobility
2.4.1 Car sharing
2.4.2 Bike sharing
2.4.3 Miscellaneous

3.0 Neighborhood mobility trends
3.1 Mobility Concept
3.2 Mobility Hub
3.2.1 Tasks
3.2.2 Benefits
3.3 Identify type
3.4 Case Study –Selection Process
3.4.1 Seestadt Aspern, Wien
3.4.1(1.0) Learnings
3.4.2 Switchh Mobility Station, Hamburg
3.4.2 (2.0) Learnings
3.5 Findings - Interview results
3.5.1 Findings

4.0 Catalogue- Method
4.1 Catalogue
4.2 Design Model
4.2.1 Scenario 1
4.2.2 Scenario 2
4.2.3 Scenario 3
4.3 Integration Level

5.0 Conclusion

List of References

List of Abbreviations

List of Figures

Appendix

Statutory Declaration

A developed country isn’t a place where the poor have cars. Its where the rich use public transportation.

Gustavo Petro

Abstract

Globally, cities are being confronted with numerous challenges and Transit oriented development is the prominent solution which is considered to overcome major urban issues. There are various successful examples around the globe in TOD experiments. However, different interpretations

of this concept lead to difficulties of conducting TOD planning. Also, the scale for implementa- tion varies from macro to micro scale. So, this thesis focus on micro scale approach which refer to neighborhood transport planning, can also be called neighborhood mobility.

With new trend of mobility, transit stations in neighborhood are rather used as mobility hubs or combined with other mobility offers. Therefore, as part of mobility concept in neighborhood, mo- bility stations generates benefits in term of sustainability and act as an image of innovative transit development. These models are called multi-modal or inter-modal of mobility. These mobility of- fers include mostly sharing means of transportation like Car Sharing and Bike Sharing integrated in different ways. Emerging practices of mobility, especially multi-modal mobility has become more and more widespread in Germany or neighboring European countries, so my study approach is limited to this part of world.

Furthermore, it is identified, to what extent the mobility plan is serving the residents. To perceive this, a case of Mobility Hub with other sharing offers distributed in city and another case of periph- eral neighborhood is chosen. Both the cases, two best practices are reviewed. So comprehensive study of well operating mobility station ‘SWITCHH’ functioning in Hamburg, Germany to under- stand the method of integration in existing neighborhood is done. For second case of neighbor- hood mobility plan for a new development; ‘Seestadt Aspern’ in Vienna is reviewed. To investigate the success factor, method to approach from concept level to development level and other crite- ria’s; expert interviews are conducted from the team of mobility concept developers in Hamburg, Germany.

Accordingly, learnings from best practices and findings from interviews act as basis of thesis re- search. A catalogue is prepared by combination of learnings, findings and challenges. The main objective to create catalogue is to create the design model based on its key points. The catalogue features are divided into three aspects (Infrastructure, Services, Public Transit) which are responsi- ble for successful neighborhood mobility. To understand the result of using these aspects, design model under three different scenarios is realized. These scenarios define the future recommenda- tions under different conditions for implementing shared mobility concept in neighborhood.

1. Introduction Challenges Goals

1.0 Introduction

Eventually, Urban areas are experiencing se-rious challenges because of the lack of inte- gration between land use and transportation policy. These give rise to traffic congestion, air pollution, noise pollution, traffic accidents, inequitable access to transport and services, unreliable public transport, overcrowding, urban sprawl, and segregation of community (Alqhatani et al., 2012; Curtis, 2005; Jons- son, 2008). To overcome these challenges for future mobility, a sustainable approach has to be adopted.

The concept of sustainability emerged in the 1980s and 1990s, which became an interna- tional priority and global mission in every field. There is no standard directional path to achieve Urban Sustainability (Böhler-Baede- ker, Kost, & Merforth, 2014). Therefore, Sus- tainable development is explained in many ways but the basic fundamental described in Brundtland Commission’s report is ‘‘meeting the present needs without compromising that the future generations will need to meet their own needs’’ (WCED, 1987).

This thesis is divided into three main catego- ries. Firstly, explaining ‘ Emerging Practices ‘ with definitions of different new trends for overcoming various challenges around the globe. Secondly, by ‘ Learning lessons’ from best practices and interviewing Experts in this field and the last part of future experiments in section ‘ Future Lab ’ where these learnings and Challenges are demonstrated together to form recommendations for future proposals.

Transit Oriented Development (TOD) is a globally recognized approach for achieving sustainability through land-use-transportation integration. It can be used effectively to cre- ate high density, compact neighborhoods supported by public transit, to reduce the dependence on private vehicles and the resulting pollution and congestion. Here are various successful examples around the globe in TOD experiments. However, different inter- pretations of this concept lead to difficulties in conducting TOD planning. Implementation of TOD is realized on differ- ent scales, varying from macro to micro. The thesis focuses on the micro-scale of Imple- mentation, which is called the neighborhood scale. Each neighborhood mobility of the city comprises to form comprehensive Urban mobility.

Also, this study context aims to believe that a solution to this complex Issues lies in our immediate living environment.

In this context the promotion of sustainable urban mobility concepts plays a key role in the quality of life and competitiveness of cities. In order to achieve more sustainable transport, attractive alternatives to the use of privately owned cars have to be offered (UITP, 2019).

Yet several new mobility offers, such as car-sharing or bike-sharing, are in existence. They have already proved to be successful in terms of contributing to more sustainable mo- bility behavior. This means a focus on Individ- ual mobility must be encouraged rather than only public transport. Therefore, these mobility offers tend to form different integrated patterns which are multi-modal and Inter-modal. With the in- creasing use and advantages of these offers, a lot of platforms started to implement these models. Mobility stations influence travel behavior towards multi modality, which reduc- es ownership of private cars along traveled distances (Miramontes et. al, 2016). Whether it is for a new development neighborhood, the existing one or a neighborhood far from the city center. Some initiatives from the city and various transportation companies started the imple- mentation of similar projects not only limited to this but also with the bimodal connections, such as Park and Ride or Bike and Ride and offer complimentary mobility services as well. Hamburg, Leipzig, Offenburg, and Würzburg are some examples of the implementation of mobility stations in Germany, playing a sig- nificant role in the promotion of Sustainable Urban Mobility.

To understand the current developments, two examples are chosen as a case study explained in chapter 3. One with the new neighborhood, developed on the periphery of the city called ‘Seestadt Aspern’ in Vienna. This neighborhood is the best practice exam- ple of mobility goals in neighborhood. Sec- ond is mobility Hub developed in Hamburg named ‘Switchh’ where multi-modal offers are integrated with different transportation modes, such as car-sharing, bike-sharing, and parking facilities. As there are various mobility stations by ‘Switchh’ in the city, but this study will be detail investigation of mobility station connected with public transit station (S Bahn Station) situated at Berliner Tor. So, with the comprehensive analysis of these case studies, learnings from each of them shall be derived. To understand the mobility concept imple- mentation, there are group of people and various organizations responsible at the back end of these projects. This includes various stakeholders and further Mobility concept planners overtake for analysis and designing. Expert interviews in this field will be conduct- ed to understand different criteria and process of concept to implementation level. Hence findings from this interview shall be derived.

After the introductory part, Case study and interviews; the approach is to work for fu- ture Lab. At this stage, Challenges which are basis of this thesis study; Learnings which are currently happening; and findings which are recommendations from expertise are collect- ed together to form a catalogue. The method of catalogue preparation will be according to Lehnerer in his publication- ‘Grand Urban Rules’ (Lehnerer, 2009). It is a type of coding method for names and further derivation to show relation with each one of the category. This Catalogue covers the categories of measures needed for sustainable mobility in neighborhood under three main aspects. Three main aspects responsible behind well developed neighborhood are- Infrastructure, Services and access to Public transport. Further integrating these key elements from catalogue help to create the new future pro- posal. A design model under three different criteria is made and interpret the level of inte- grating the key elements. Thus, in this future lab of experiments the successful recommen- dations are delivered to fulfill the goals and objectives of this thesis.

1.1 Challenges

More than half of the world’s population is living in urban areas and this proportion con- tinues to grow nowadays. According to the Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations, 54% of the world’s popu- lation was residing in urban areas in 2014. It is expected to continue growth of urbanization and overall population will add 2.5 billion two thirds of the global population will live in urban areas (United Nations, 2014). ‘‘The growth in vehicular traffic has been explosive and while problems have been addressed in some parts of the world, they have simply grown space in others.’’

We clearly see these problems around us. Its just that they are not acknowledged till the limit of solutions. While urbanization brings numerous challenges, the ones acknowledged in scope of this thesis study are as following:

Traffic Congestion Traffic congestion is the effort to cope with rising tide of car traffic, all available city space was simply filled with moving and parked vehicles . Every city got as much traffic as much space they allow. Every-time, attempt to relieve traffic pressure by building more roads and parking have generated more traffic and congestion. Widening or building of new roads is direct invitation to buy and bring more cars on the roads (Garrison & Ward, 2000). The main part of this congestion is because of cars. It can be because of various reasons. This include peak time congestion and other time Shopping, leisure purpose, or to accompany someone. This Fig 1.1 shows daily pattern for commuting purpose in Germany. Except the mandatory travels in left part of figure(1.1), an alternative could be thought for others. For Example; With the new trends, Online shop- ping is in boom and can be an opportunity if well managed with the logistics of city. It is the biggest global challenge with the growing population and hard to control unless other issues related to it are not resolved first.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig 1.1: Travel Purpose Statistics in Germany (Self Illus- tration (MiD, 2017))

Increasing Car Ownership Basic need of everyday life is Car and every- one wants to own it now or later. Economically sound person and more cars will be bought. Even more than one car per person in the family. The space needed for one car on the road for one person is equal to space used by more than five people in another means of transport. These figures increases in case of rural settlements where most of the travel is by car; even to the nearest walkable distances.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig 1.2: Car Ownership in Germany (Self Illustration (MiD, 2017))

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig 1.3: Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Transport Sector (Self Illustration (Rodrigue, Comtois, & Slack, 2017))

This is mean of comfort level to travel or sometimes also to have status in the society. But this leisure creates adverse effect on envi- ronment. As no parking spaces left, more con- gestion and adverse environmental effects.

Increasing Car Ownership is the major reason of increasing carbon footprint from transport sector. This fig. Shows the statistics of Global greenhouse Gas emissions by transport sector. 22% of the global CO2 emissions are attribut- ed from transportation sector (Rodrigue, Com- tois, & Slack, 2017).

Costly & Time Consuming In metropolitan cities, travel times are gener- ally high and increasing, destinations accessi- ble within limited time are decreasing. This is happening because vehicle registrations are growing fast on the basis of increased popula- tions, increased wealth, increased commercial penetration, and probably an increasingly persuasive picture in the world of international lifestyle in which a car is an essential element.

The cost of a vehicle administration doesn’t just incorporate the direct out-of-the-pock- et cash expenses to the user yet in addition incorporates time expenses and costs iden- tified with potential inefficiencies, discomfort and risks (e.g. unexpected delays). However, economic actors often base their choice of a transport mode or route on only part of the total transport price. For instance, drivers are biased by short run negligible expenses. They may limit the cost of a particular outing via vehicle to fuel costs just, in this way barring fixed costs such as, depreciation, insurance and Automobile tax (Rodrigue, Comtois, & Slack, 2017). ‘‘The car is a money grave.’’ (Schaefer, 2019)

Also, because of parking provisions for hous- ing, Land is additional. This tends to increase rates of property whether a car is being used or not.

Urban Aesthetics The citizen is exposed to all the urban envi- ronment, from a wall, a buildings to the city as a whole. But with the development these aesthetics are overlooked as a whole. Differ- ent elements and characters together become visually chaotic. (WIlliams, 1954)

Automobile oriented streets are designed in a way which require more space and land to access goods and services. Hence losing the space integrity of neighborhood and respon- sible for less people walking and cycling on these streets. Also pedestrian infrastructure play a vital role to attract residents and make them feel safe and comfortable.

1.2 Goals and Objectives

Implementing TOD along transit corridors which decreases the number of cars on the road by enabling people to live next to tran- sit stations is a method which have been extensively used in many cities. The result of this implementation has always given posi- tive results becoming one of the reason of city’s development. Integrating TOD into a city’s overall design requires a clear vision and alignment across both public and private sectors. Without these, developments run the risk of becoming simply transit-adjacent, instead of transit-oriented. Coordinating ef- forts through each phase of the process serves to avoid competing developments from the mass transit network that could undermine TOD and further exacerbate congestion and environmental degradation. It is essential that all parties collaborate with the goal of improv- ing transit accessibility rather than just easing the use of private vehicles.

The successful but complex method of transit development at urban scale is a long term plan which is difficult to integrate in existing metropolitan areas. This is surely highly rec- ommendable when it comes to new develop- ment or increasing the Urban boundaries.

If one is trying to solve a problem, it often helps to understand it. (Garrison & Ward, 2000)

Therefore, understanding challenges and developing goals; for example- In urban areas, completely eliminating congestion is neither an affordable nor feasible goal. However quite a lot can be done to overcome its occurrence and to lessen its impacts. So main objective is to effectively manage it so that it doesn’t have diverse effect (OECD, 2008).

This thesis study limits the goal objective for urban neighborhood as the implementation must begin from small scale as solutions to complex issues begin from our immediate living environment. The goal of present thesis is to address the identified challenges in scope of this study and integrate emerging practices of new mo- bility trends to deliver recommendations for future mobility solutions in this study context.

With this goal, objectives for this study are defined as:

- Rethinking transit stations in a neighbor- hood to be much more than just a bus stop or train stop but also to include ser- vices and activities which make them more livable place.
- An approach to shift people from car oriented transportation to environment friendly modes by application of urban design aspects.
- Develop a framework in the form of cata- logue to form basis of sustainable neigh- borhood mobility required for future needs.
- To deliver recommendations for the shared mobility trends from the traditional meth- ods and shift approach to transit and Land use development under different criteria.
- To create a study from emerging mobility trends in Europe especially Germany but overcoming basic global challenges and develop a model adaptable under various conditions .

1.3 Structure

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

2.0 Transit Oriented Development

The basic philosophy appears the same in all contexts: concentrating urban development around stations in order to support transit use, and developing transit systems to connect existing and planned concentrations of devel- opment (Carey, Renne, & Bertolini, 2009).

It provides alternatives to automobile con- nected land uses as it facilitates increased accessibility.

TOD allows at least potentially, a degree of human interaction in the public domain or urbanity - which is difficult to achieve in much more socially segregated car dependent ur- ban environments (Bertolini,2000).

According to Curtis et al. (2009), TOD is a concept to “Develop better transit rides, in- creased walk and bicycle travels, and other al- ternatives to use private cars by concentrating a mix of quite dense and pedestrian friendly environment around transit stations’.

Also, Renne (2008) revealed a significant factors in TOD, which is immense accessibility with local, a reason to differentiate this con- cept with the Transit Adjacent Development (TAD), which is conventional, automobile ori- ented development and located near transit stations.

TOD has been under high consideration by the planners since many years. This concept is a basic solution to the urban transportation challenges which got generated by incorpo- rating the change in land use pattern (Ratner et al., 2013). The idea of TOD is concentrating urban development around transit nodes with particular characteristics such as relatively high density building, compact and mixed devel- opment, and efficient public transportation services, along with a pedestrian friendly en- vironment (Cervero et al., 2008; Curtis et., al., 2009; Knowles, 2012, Loo et al., 2010). Fig 2.1 shows the difference in area near transit corri- dor before and after TOD implementation.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig 2.1: Area near Transit corridor before and after Transit oriented development (Self Illustration)

2.1 Implementation Scales

The integration of transport and urban development by TOD method is however a complex challenge to accomplish. The different scales of TOD implementation are:

1. Macro Level
2. Micro Level

To understand more about the scale, each of the level can be divided into following action scales:

2.1.1 Macro Level

1. Urban scale

A sustainable urban area has a strong relation- ship with its urban footprint and is also linked to the existing city structure and services. At this scale, integral links are focused which are - physical, political, economical, environmen- tal, and social. Apparently between the urban area and the remaining of the city or metro- politan area. (Sarmiento, et al., n.d.) Predominantly residential district with good access to regional and subregional centers. Density vary from moderate to high with ac- cess to employment and commercial use.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig 2.2: Urban Scale (Self Illustration)

2. Suburban scale

Each neighborhood within a sustainable urban area must recognize its relationship with other regions, and specially, with their suburban areas. The way in which they inter- connect, through the creation of economic, social, environmental and mobility networks, creates a function in a complementary way at a larger scale. (Sarmiento, et al., n.d.)

It is a significant center of economic and cultural activity with regional scale destina- tion. Most of the transport modes are used to access this area. Mostly it takes 5- 15 minutes from periphery of the city to reach here. Den- sity vary from moderate to high with the mix of residential, commercial, employment and cultural uses.

2.1.2 Micro Level

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig 2.3: Suburban Scale (Self Illustration)

1. Neighborhood scale

The neighborhoods are generally defined as the area in the circle of 600 meter radius covered basically by pedestrian and cyclists (which corresponds to a 10-minute walk). To develop the intervention area, the public tran- sit station must be considered as the origin point of the pedestrian and cycling radius (Sarmiento, et al., n.d.). It can also be sometimes Transit town center. With high density around it and access to all means of transport like regional trains and buses with local transportation.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig 2.4: Neighborhood Scale (Self Illustration)

2. Road scale/ Mixed use corridor

An urban area where different aspects of daily life interconnect is called street. All streets must accommodate multiple usage and activi- ties in addition to mobility network, which are: spaces for cultural exchanges, political, social, recreational, and asset-related. Furthermore, it is an access point to public and private transit, and the primary access point to city/ urban area information (Sarmiento, et al., n.d.). Local focus of economic and community activity happens on street without any distinct center. The transport systems used are Light railways, BRT system or local buses. The density along this corridor is high serving housing and com- mercial demands.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig 2.5: Mixed Use Corridor (Self Illustration)

3. Site level

This is the case when redevelopment is need- ed on site level or it is the case when land is available near transit station and it can be used as a part of land use and transit devel- opment. The major focus in this is to develop connection with existing transit functions

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig 2.6: Site Level (Self Illustration)

2.2 Neighborhood mobility

Mobility of a person from residence to the nearest destinations by walking or by bike is neighborhood mobility. It varies from different group of people according to their require- ment for their destination. Various possibilities which include travel to other parts of city, so accessibility to nearest transit station is re- quired. Need of everyday things to buy and other daily life activities, so everything ac- cessed within the neighborhood zone, marks the movement of type of vehicle and people.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig 2.7: Neighborhood Mobility (Self Illustration)

According to Speck, ‘‘Every transit trip begins or ends as a walk, So we have to build walkability around the transit station.’’ (Speck,2014)

2.3 Types of mobility

There are usually different types of modal for transit use and behavior in everyday life. People who use only one mode of transport (e.g. the private car) are considered to deter- mine unimodal mobility behavior. People who use more than one mode of transportation for accessibility are of two types:

2.3.1 Multi-modal mobility

According to Zumkeller, Manz, Last, and Chlond (2005), ‘multi-modal traveling’ is use of different transport modes on different routes chosen in week. It can be defined as a mobility behavior that is characterized by flexible us- age and a combination of different transport modes as per the situation and according to the available means of transport.

2.3.2 Inter-modal mobility

According to Zumkeller, Manz, Last, and Chlond (2005), ‘Intermodal traveling’ is use of different transport modes on one route. Intermodal mobility networks confront the traditional division of mobility mindsets: the ‘convinced drivers’ on the one hand, and ‘con- vinced public transport users’ on the other.

If drivers are willing to reduce their number of car trips in favor of cycling, public transport and occasional car sharing, it will result in few- er GHG emissions.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig 2.8& 2.9 : Multimodality and Intermodality model (Self illustration (Zukun- ftsnetz Mobilität NRW, 2015)

2.4 Elements of New mobility

With new technology and development, most of our daily uses rely on Internet. With this, sharing trend is becoming popular. Platforms for home exchange on holidays (e.g. airbnb), dress exchange (e.g. Kleiderkreisel) or jewel- ery sharing (e.g. HUU) are just a few examples for collective consumption. This trend also can be observed in transportation (e.g. car-shar- ing, bike-sharing, ride sharing etc.). Sharing offers in transportation can be summarized as Shared Mobility. The main transportation means which are being used as shared are discussed in next section further in detail.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig 2.10: Different elements of new mobility (Self Illustration)

2.4.1 Car sharing

According to the Bundesverband Car Sharing, car-sharing is the system to share a car despite of owning it. It is an organized, joint use of vehicles. Customers can register themselves and conclude framework agreement with the provider. Afterwards they can book any vehicle of their choice in offer around the clock inde- pendently (b.c.s, n.y). Since 2009 electric vehi- cles are coming into use in car-sharing fleets. More and more providers integrate electric vehicles into their offer (Puzalowski, 2009).

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig 2.11: Transformation of space with Car sharing (Self Illustration)

Station based car-sharing In this type, cars are provided to be at a fixed parking area. Customers pick up the car there, after the ride they bring him back there. Reservations are possible several weeks in advance. This variant is particularly suitable for users who want to do without their own car and still need the reliability of a vehicle provid- ed in their vicinity. Station based car sharing is also the cheapest car sharing variant: driving an hour in the city costs around 4 to 8 euro, including petrol. (bcs, n.d.) Flinkster (provided by the DB Rent GmbH), cambio, teilAuto and Stadtmobil present some famous providers of car-sharing in Ger- many. (carsharing-news.de, 2016)

Free floating car-sharing

In this type, the cars are parked at any parking areas in the city. Users locate it with app via smart phone and book themselves. After the trip ends, they can park the car anywhere with- in the specified area. This variant is generally found in some big cities. Free-floating vehicles are not certainly available in neighborhood vi- cinity. But they are quite appropriate for spon- taneous trips or rides, where it is difficult to determine the end time exactly. Free-floating also makes possible for one-way trips within the specified area. (bcs, n.d.)

Automobile manufacturers integrated this form of car-sharing offers into their business and provide free floating services. The two largest providers in Germany are DriveNow (provided by BMW and Sixt) and car2go (pro- vided by Daimler and Europcar). Further providers are Multicity (Citroen) and Quicar (VW, from April 2016 continued by Greenwheels). (carsharing-news.de, 2016)

Combined car-sharing

It is combining the advantages of both vari- ants: User can find both station-based vehi- cles that can be booked in advance, as well as free-floating vehicles for spontaneous use. The free-floating vehicles are usually as cheap in the combined model as the station-based ones. Combined offers are currently available in Hanover (stadtmobil), Osnabrück (district car), Frankfurt am Main (book-n-drive), Mann- heim and Heidelberg (both stadtmobil) and Kiel (Stattauto). (bcs, n.d.)

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig 2.12: Station based and Free floating car sharing (Self Illustration (bcs, n.d.))

[...]