Tag: Design Principles

Characteristics and Design Principles of Transit Oriented Development

 

Factors Driving the Trend Toward TOD 

  •  Rapidly growing, mind numbing traffic congestion nation wide 
  •  Growing distaste for suburbia and fry pit strip development 
  •  Growing desire for quality urban lifestyle 
  •  Growing desire for more walkable lifestyles away from traffic 
  •  Changes in family structures: more singles, empty nesters etc.
  •  Growing national support for smart growth 
  •  New focus of federal policy

Components of Transit Oriented Development 

  •  Walkable design with pedestrian as the highest priority 
  •  Train station as prominent feature of town center 
  •  Public square fronting train station 
  •  A regional node containing a mixture of uses in close proximity (office, residential, retail and civic) 
  •  High density, walkable district within 10-minute walk circle surrounding train station 
  •  Collector support transit systems including streetcar, light rail and buses, etc. 
  •  Designed to include the easy use of bicycles and scooters as daily support transport 
  •  Large ride in bicycle parking areas within stations 
  •  Bike share rental system and bikeway network integrated into stations 
  •  Reduced and managed parking inside 10 minute walk circle around town center / train station 
  •  Specialized retail at stations serving commuters and locals including cafes, grocery and dry cleaners 

Benefits Of TOD 

  •  Higher quality of life with better places to live, work and play 
  •  Greater mobility with ease of moving around 
  •  Increased transit ridership 
  •  Reduced traffic congestion, car accidents and injuries 
  •  Reduced household spending on transportation, resulting in more affordable housing 
  •  Healthier lifestyle with more walking and less stress 
  •  Higher, more stable property values 
  •  Increased foot traffic and customers for area businesses 
  •  Greatly reduced dependence on foreign oil, reduced pollution and environmental damage 
  •  Reduced incentive to sprawl, increased incentive for compact development 
  •  Less expensive than building roads and sprawl 
  •  Enhanced ability to maintain economic competitiveness 
  •  Incorporation of public and private sector engagement and investment 
  •  Revitalization of neighborhoods 
  •  Improved safety for pedestrians and cyclists through non-motorized infrastructure
TOD principles cannot be applied uniformly across an entire city or transit network, since densities of jobs and people vary widely across the urban space. In fact, experience has shown that only about 15% of transit stations and their surrounding area can support very high density development. 
To make informed decisions about TOD, research institutions and governments have developed a variety of methodologies that can help identify which station areas are good candidates for TOD, determine what level of density the area around a given station can absorb, and figure out what kind of development mix makes sense in a particular area, looking to strike the right balance between jobs, housing and other amenities. 
Building on these approaches, the report proposes a new framework for guiding TOD plans, by simultaneously assessing the “three values” (3V) of transit stations and surrounding areas:
  • The Node value describes the importance of a station in the public transit network based on passenger traffic, connections with other transport modes and centrality within the network. 
  • The Place value reflects the quality and attractiveness of the area around the station. Factors include the diversity of land use; the availability of essential services such as schools and healthcare; the proportion of everyday amenities that can be accessed by walking or cycling; pedestrian accessibility and also the size of urban blocks around the station. 
  • The Market potential value refers to the unrealized market value of station areas. It is measured by looking at the major variables that can influence the demand for land (current and future number of jobs in the vicinity of the station, number of jobs accessible by transit within 30 minutes, current and future housing densities) as well as the supply (amount of developable land, possible changes in zoning policy, market vibrancy etc.). 
The report presents an approach to identify and address potential imbalances between node, place and market potential values to create new economic opportunities, for example, by improving the urban environment around a major transit hub, or by improving public transit service to a booming area. The tool provides a common framework of assessment for urban, transport, and economic planners, thereby facilitating conversations needed for better economic, land use, and transport integration.

Design Principles of TOD 

The eight Principles of the TOD standard for designing better streets and better cities. 
  1.  Walk – Develop neighborhoods that promote walking. 
  2.  Cycle – Prioritize non-motorized transport networks. 
  3.  Connect – Create dense networks of streets and paths. 
  4.  Transit – Locate development near high quality public transport. 
  5.  Mix – Plan for mixed use. 
  6.  Density – Optimize density and transit capacity. 
  7.  Compact – Create regions with short commutes. 
  8.  Shift – Increase mobility by regulating parking and road use.

Principles for Transit Oriented Development

Cities can ensure TOD by focusing on the following seven principles. 

1) Quality Public Transit 

Public transit is strongly linked to urban development. High quality, convenient transport depends on dense and connected neighborhoods. The goal of a transport system is to connect a high number of riders with the city in a comfortable, efficient and affordable way. 

2) Active Transport 

The interests of pedestrians and cyclists should be at the heart of urban planning. Decision making should shift residents, particularly car users, to active transport. Many commuters already take two non-motorized trips on a daily basis by walking to and from transit hubs to their homes or cars. It is important to build on this and encourage non-motorized transport holistically.

3) Car Use Management 

Car use and parking policies play an important role in creating a safe, human oriented urban environment. 

4) Mixed Use Neighborhoods with Efficient Buildings

A mixture of land uses enhances the local economy by densifying and diversifying the design of the community. Mixed use neighborhoods favor short trips by foot or bike. Similarly, buildings should minimize how much energy and water they consume and require for building and maintenance. 

5) Neighborhood Centers and Vibrant Ground Floors 

A built environment with adequate public space promotes social interaction between residents. Sustainable urban communities must be sufficiently dense and contain a variety of uses that are complementary to residential life. Public spaces should be connected to the urban transport network and serve as vibrant, human centered places of activity. 

6) Public Spaces 

The purpose of public space is not only to enhance public life and social interaction, but also to provide a safe environment for pedestrians and cyclists. Public space is the place of encounter, exchange, and circulation within a community. All individuals have the right to access public spaces, regardless of personal, social or economic condition. 

7) Community Participation and Collective Identity 

Community participation is essential to building a vibrant, inclusive neighborhood that is safe and equitable. Stimulating community participation creates a more equitable, harmonious relationship between varying social groups living in the same area. Respecting the unique identity of local communities results in a higher share of residents engaging in civic, cultural and economic activities, generating a sense of belonging and ownership of the city. 

Process of Planning and Designing a New Town

 Planning is the process of thinking about and organizing the activities required to achieve a desired goal. The process of planning includes the determination of objectives and outlining the future actions that are needed to achieve these objectives. Various steps that are followed in the process of planning are:

1) Identifying the problem 

It involves the identification of the aim for the fulfillment of which the plan is being formulated. If a new plan is require or the modification of an existing plan could help in achieving these aims. 

2) Gathering information about the activities involved 

An effective plan needs complete knowledge of the activities involved and their effect on other external and internal activities. 

3) Analysis of information 

This information is then analyzed minutely and the information related with similar subjects is classified so that similar type of data can be kept together. 

4) Determining alternate plans 

There are alternate plans available for the achievement of the objectives and ingenuity and creativeness are required as some plans are also developed at this stage. 

5) Selecting the plan 

At this stage the plan which is acceptable to the operating personnel is proposed. The adaptability and the cost of the plan are also taken into consideration. 

6) Detailed sequence and timing 

Detailed like who will perform which activity under the plan and the time within which the plan should be carried out is determining in this step. 

7) Progress check of the plan 

The provisions are made for the follow up of the plan as the success of any plan can be measured by the results only. 

8) Implementation 

Implementation is the carrying out, execution, or practice of a plan, a method or any design, idea, model, specification, standard or policy for doing something. As such, implementation is the action that must follow any preliminary thinking in order for something to actually happen. 

9) Monitor and Control 

Managers must continually monitor the actual performance of their work units against the unit’s goals and plans. Manager’s also need to develop control systems to measure that performance and allow them to take corrective action when the plans are implemented improperly or when the situation changes.

MARS (Modern Architectural Research Group) Plan

 In the inter war years, there was a war between two rival camps for urban planning, the highdensity housing with lots of communal space, or low-density with lots of private space. One group was known as The Modern Architectural Research Group (MARS), founded in 1933, with luminaries as varied as Morton Shand, Wells Coates, Maxwell Fry, F. R. S. Yorke, Ove Arup and John Betjeman. 

As an organization though, it is probably most famous for a radical plan for the redevelopment of London, the details of which were published the Architectural Review in June 1942. They pretty much planned to rebuild London in its entirety – the entire city was to be rebuilt from scratch. Away with haphazard layouts they provided with an organized “herringbone” arrangement of homes, factories and facilities. 

Although the report was presented in terms of preventing the further expansion of the built-up area of London and planning for new growth, it was suggested that redevelopment might extend the linear city corridors inwards as well, slowly stripping away the mass of buildings that had built up over centuries to create a utopian linear city.

MARS plan

The plan included a “vertebra” of the herringbone that comprised the areas of administrative and commercial buildings, with the docks and industries at its ends. The “bones” are the residential areas with the local industries at their ends. Between the residential ribbons are parks and recreation grounds would have been where the schools and playing fields were to be located. All parts of the city would have been then connected by a railway, whose stations were to be within walking distance even from the remote parts of the residential area. The long-distance railways were then to be connected by means of a belt which forms a traffic ring to the north and south, meeting in a central line where the main passenger stations are located. 

One of the main criticisms of the plan wasn’t just how utterly bonkers it was, but that the finer details were less than ideal. For example, placing factories at the ends of the spines meant more travel was needed to go between residential and work zones within the city. Blending them more closely would reduce travel times the critics argued. 

The plan was overshadowed by the release of a much more famous planning document, Abercrombie’s County of London Plan which came out two years later, in 1944 and was seen as a blueprint for post-war rebuilding, not just of London but also other bomb damaged cities. The welcoming of Abercrombie, and the rejection of MARS pretty much signed the death warrant for MARS, and its direction changed in subsequent years. The group finally disbanded in 1957.