Urban Planning & Design « The Gondola Project

Urban Planning & Design

09
Aug

2011

What opportunities do urban gondolas present TODs? (Part 2 of 3)

Last week, in Part 1 of this series, the idea of combining CPT and Transit Oriented Development (TOD) was introduced. Today we’ll look closer at this topic and explore the opportunities ropeway technologies present to TOD.

While at-grade cable systems, such as funiculars have similar characteristics to LRT in terms of their impact on the urban form, top-supported systems, such as gondolas, present a unique situation.

From a planning effects based perspective, gondolas are well suited to TODs because they lessen the adverse effects on adjoining land, as compared to more traditional urban transport.

Here are just a few reasons why urban gondolas are well suited to TOD’s:

FOOTPRINT: Gondolas have a very small land footprint. Since land is valuable in a TOD this is clearly a positive characteristic. Utilizing less space for transit means more area to work with. This flexibility gives property developers and authorities a larger scope for development options. Since urban gondola TOD’s would not be limited by existing transport corridors (such as ‘at grade’ LRT and BRT) their route is less constrained by topography and the ‘urban form’.

PEDESTRIANS: Gondolas do not present a safety issue for pedestrians since they operate above foot traffic. This is a positive characteristic considering TOD are meant to be walkable and safe.

POLLUTION: Gondolas do not generate point source pollutants, noise or vibration effects. This plays heavily into TODs as a place of amenity – designed for people to live, work and play. Try having a coffee outside next to a busy bus route – not nice!

What other urban gondola characteristics are beneficial to TOD’s, and how? How can the urban form be designed and developed to be complementary to gondolas and vice versa?

(Addressing privacy impacts will be detailed in Part 3.)

This post was written by Ryan O’Connor, a planning and transportation professional based in Wellington, New Zealand. Ryan has been involved with Creative Urban Projects since March 2010.

Urban Planning & Design

Comments

04
Aug

2011

Transit Oriented Development and CPT (Part 1 of 3)

Most readers understand the concept of Transit Oriented Development (TOD) – a planning approach that encourages transit ridership through increased development around transit stations. TODs are designed to create higher density, mixed use, walkable communities. In this way the day-to-day needs met by shops, cafes, and entertainment venues are located within the neighbourhood (usually near the station), and access to a rapid public transport network is maximised. Despite mixed successes, TODs are often touted as one of the great solutions to urban mobility.

TOD designs tend to occur within 800 metres of the transit station, which is considered the distance that people are willing to walk or cycle to reach public transport. However, depending on the transport mode and the ‘walking culture’ of the area, this distance can vary between 400-1200 metres.

Typically, TODs are associated with streetcars, LRT and heavy rail, although the developing world has implemented successful BRT TODs as well. A few examples of CPT and TOD also exist. The Metrocable in Medellin, Columbia utilises elements of TOD for the Linea L & J lines. The Metrocable in Caracas, Venezuela integrates retail, commercial and social services into customised CPT stations, although it appears that no coordinated development has occurred outside of these stations.

What is important to remember is that (for the most part) efficient public transport spurs development regardless of TOD plans. TODs simply try to offer an assurance that development will occur in a planned, coordinated way over a shorter timeframe (often determined by investors.) TODs can be master planned or guided redevelopment. Planning regulations are often tweaked to allow different land uses and higher densities. Property developers demand certainty to the type of development that is expected in order to reduce business risk. TODs usually involve a number of stakeholders and in some instances are implemented via innovative PPP arrangements. However, TODs are not always successful as there are multiple internal and external factors at play.

It is also frustrating that the very factor that make TODs possible – rapid transport systems – can also significantly hinder their success and have negative impacts on the adjoining land and people. Basically, ‘at grade’ transit presents a problem to the urban form; it bisects it, it divides it, it makes it unsafe for pedestrians. Tracks takes up valuable land. Buses are noisy and generate pollutants. Heavy rail is even noisier (unless underground) and produces vibration effects. These nuisances impact properties adjoining the infrastructure and can compromise the whole TOD model – which values land close to public transport.

TRB research finds that property prices are compromised as close as 200 metres from a transit line. For this reason, the 200-400 metre quadrant (from the transit station) in a TOD tends to be the most sought after by residents and therefore most valued. What should be the most desirable, useful and practical land – that closest to the transport station – is not maximised to its full potential. This is a serious issue and one that compromises the very outcomes TOD seek to achieve – liveability and sustainability.

What opportunities exist for CPT and TODs? I will tackle this issue next week in Part 2 of TODs and CPT.

This post was written by Ryan O’Connor, a planning and transportation professional based in Wellington, New Zealand. Ryan has been involved with Creative Urban Projects since March 2010.

Urban Planning & Design

Comments

15
Mar

2011

The 10 Most Beautiful Examples of Elevated Transport Infrastructure – Part 2

As I said yesterday, elevated transport infrastructure don’t get no love.

In this, the second of two posts, we wrap up our list of the 10 most beautiful examples of elevated public transport infrastructure from around the world.

Comments

07
Mar

2011

More Elevated Beauty

Last week’s post about the Randstadrail and elevated infrastructure (both track and station) generated a few comments and a fair bit of email. Most interesting were the number of emails we received from people pointing out beautiful elevated systems around the world. Without fail, these were systems or installations we’d never ever heard of.

With that in mind we thought it would be interesting if Gondola Project readers could help us come up with a list of the ten most beautiful examples of elevated transit infrastructure from around the world. The more obscure, the better.

Send us an email at gondola (at) creativeurbanprojects (dot) com or post in the comments. Wherever possible, please include images and a brief description of what we’re looking at.

We’ll try and have the list up by Friday.

Design Considerations / Urban Planning & Design

Comments

17
Jan

2011

Are Gondolas Too Cheap To Be Accepted As Transit?

Any good marketer knows that it’s better to sell a product with a higher margin than with a lower one. Furthermore, the higher the margin on the product, the more likely it will be viewed by the buyer as prestigious and luxurious.

It doesn’t matter that one car may be identical to another, the higher price point carries with it a certain cache.

So does such a phenomenon exist in the world of public transit and policy? I think it might, especially since transit planners, policy wonks and politicians aren’t actually playing with their own money when they select one technology over another.

In that situation, why wouldn’t they opt for that which carries more prestige?

When we talk about Cable Propelled Transit, we’re often quick to point out that it is a very cost-effective technology. Same for Bus Rapid Transit. In comparison to Light Rail, BRT is almost always the more cost-effective technology.

But we have to remember that another word for “cost-effective” is “cheap.” And no one ever wants to look cheap.

Light Rail & Streetcars / Thoughts / Urban Planning & Design

Comments

11
Jan

2011

An Easy Way To Help Spread The Idea Of Urban Gondola Transit

The Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual

Published by the Transportation Research Board, the Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual is a kind of bible for the transit planning industry. I use it constantly.

Now Kittelson & Associates is preparing the 3rd edition of the manual and they want your help.

By clicking here, you’ll be taken to a survey detailing what you want to see in the upcoming edition.

Why not tell them you want to see more information about Urban Gondolas and Cable Propelled Transit?

Kittleson already talks about CPT solutions in sections 2-27 through 2-35 of their second edition, so it stands to reason they’d talk about it in the third as well.

The second edition, meanwhile, was written in 2003 well before such things as the Caracas, Medellin and Rio Metrocables; the Algerian gondolas; the Portland Aerial Tram; and the rebuilt Roosevelt Island Tram.

Furthermore, the Kittelson Streetwise blog already has a pretty good post on CPT solutions called New Forms of Mass Transit Gaining Steam.

In other words, they’re receptive to the idea. Let’s not let them forget it.

The best part? It only takes 5 minutes to complete the survey.

Research Issues / Urban Planning & Design

Comments

29
Nov

2010

The Transit Geek’s Assumption

I think it fair to say most transit geeks/advocates/aficionados/whatever start from the following rational, central assumption:

The role of transit is to move as many people as quickly, cost-effectively and comfortably as possible.

Obviously some might favor one aspect of that assumption more so than others. Jarrett Walker, for example, would favor speed over all others while Patrick Condon is likely to skew towards the issue of comfort (for a great debate about this issue, check out Is Speed Obsolete? over at Human Transit). But generally speaking I think the above assumption is the unstated jumping off point for most transit geeks and their analyses.

It’s also probably the worst assumption any transit geek can make.

Let me explain:

When transit geeks argue about things like speed, capacity, station spacing, route alignments and technology, they are starting from a place that begins with the Transit Geek’s Assumption; that transit is about moving many people quickly, cheaply and easily. However transit isn’t about moving many people quickly, cheaply and easily. At least not entirely.

Transit is also about . . .

economic stimulus;
vote-buying through infrastructure;
real estate development;
dividing communities into pro-transit and anti-transit camps;
providing jobs to those who would build and operate said transit;
ego-centric legacy projects;
consulting contracts;
political gamesmanship and brinksmanship;
city marketing;
attention-seeking;
lobbying, lobbying, lobbying;
media coverage;
environmental improvement;
a whole host of other things.

Transit advocacy comes in many forms. Image by Elly Blue.

When you start from the Transit Geek’s Assumption, you trap yourself into believing that your worldview about transit is shared by everyone else. But it’s not. Transit is a deeply political act that engages – quite literally – millions of stakeholders, each with their own agenda.

Conflict is assured and arguments guaranteed.

Argue for (or against) a transit plan from the position of the Transit Geek’s Assumption against someone who doesn’t share that worldview and you’ve already lost the argument.

After all, a proposed transit line being too expensive isn’t an argument to a politician who explicitly wants over-priced Transit Bling solely to boost his media profile and garner him a front-page quote.

In fact, to him, the more expensive the better.

Thoughts / Urban Planning & Design

Comments

The Gondola Project