Local area planning and transit-oriented development: a case
I wanted to get away from the Melbourne-focussed nature of this discussion board and look at something a bit more theoretical.
Here is a good case study (PDF) for you to examine relating to an inner urban redevelopment site in West Perth.
The short presentation is very useful and less ’spun’ than Victorians for example would expect. Very pleasant reading compared with many Victorian or NSW publications.
Some key concepts brought out include floor space ratios, pedshed sizes, pedestrian movements and the low value land uses currently on site.
I would also be interested, for those who know Perth’s public transport, on the proposal for a new rail station in the area. Particularly how it relates to the distributional and line haul functions of rail.
I’ve been looking at the same issue in relation to the Coburg Initiative…www.thecoburginitiative.com.au (sorry to bring it back to Melbourne eg again)…which is claimed to be one of the biggest urban renewal programs in Melbourne, just 8km from the CBD…whilst I am sure that redevelopment will continue as normal, I can’t see that in 100 years time, a couple of supermarkets and such massive carpark will dominate such prime real estate next to a train station as it does now…especially now you can buy groceries online…(www.homeshop.com.au). You can view the development coburg site http://tinyurl.com/5j9×3b
Cameron, what are your comments on the Perth example?
I’ll come back to the Coburg situation once we’ve had some discussion on the case.
Sorry Riccardo, I did not mean to hijack the post. I just noticed the Coburg example as I was looking at the marketing job that they have going in that area at the moment…http://tinyurl.com/5q2nsr
I’m not sure how successful you could be at that as it seems that marketing hasn’t been engaged at all stages of the planning process, but rather is being brought in at the end to sell a substandard product (ie the coburg plan has been developed with little consideration in how the internet is already changing shopping, work and distribution patterns.)
I agree with you that the Perth plan deals well with the issues you have stated, but haven’t read enough of these kind of plans to be able to critique it with authority.
I think it should have a section that deals with past visions for the area however…a list of things that areas town fathers (and mothers) dreamt of doing in the past, but didn’t have the means.
No probs Cameron
I’ll put some other case studies up for people to comment on.
I think the quality of the planning is a reflection of the ‘maturity’ and probably a combination of personal maturity, organisational maturity and political maturity.
I know there are others who claim Perth is awash with cash but I don’t buy this view. The resources boom, which is clearly having a break, has provided money but so did Sydney’s economic boom prior to 2000 on the back of growth in finance and IT industries.
Did Sydney profit from this boom? Clearly not. Perth has had quality planning for some years, under both ALP and Libs, and it appears to have become institutionalised.
I’ll see if others have comments on these issues, then we’ll come to what can be done about Coburg.
Thanks for the post Riccardo; it was the first time I’d encountered some of the principles, ie CPTED (Crime prevention through environmental design), which seems eminently sensible and should be applied to most of the rail network (I think Peter Parker discussed “wasteland stations”in a similar vein).
Interesting too that they seem to prefer a 400m pedshed for the station; 800-1000m (to a high frequency service??) doesn’t seem unreasonable to me but then perhaps for the less mobile or to encourage high usage closer is certainly better, although with what implications for current operations?
Thanks Dave
Remember with Pedsheds, the first (or last) hundred metres can be a rail platform, the length of a 6 car train. If the gate is place wrongly this can have a material effect.
The second hundred metres can also be immediate periphery of the station: a busy road, a station carpark or whatever. You might be onto your THIRD hundred metres before you are picking up genuine catchment.
Hence my passion for doing something about that first 200 metres.
I support CPTED although there have been some unfortunate casualties eg Kananook. Certainly there are plenty of examples of bad design. I would be cautious about destroying every tree, having no shelter and nowhere to sit on the grounds of CPTED.
The best passive surveillance is other passengers. It is far from perfect but perpetrators will be less inclined to perpetrate in full view of a peak hour crowd. Keeping those crowd levels up is therefore important.
I would also suggest, where feasible and where pedsheds aren’t compromised, that unused spaces be sealed off in low usage times, or disposed of altogether. For example, they use Richmond up-end subway for platform to platform transfers even when the MCG etc entrances are closed. This is fine, except it would be difficult to keep them safe in quiet times.
I also agree with PP, surplus rail infrastructure could be leased to private sector consistently for use as shops, business space etc.
What do they do with those palaces at Malvern, Armadale, Hawksburn etc?
Other states take a more realistic approach. Central in Sydney is far more creatively adapted to modern use than Flinders St. Some of it is gtacky but will come good one day when the quality of rail user improves. Adelaide bit the bullet with their main station. IIRC very little of it is now used by rail operator.
In case some of you think I’m crazy, have a look at this example from Kelmscott (not so much planning as design).
Note the following features:
-cross platform interchange from train to bus (second photo)
-high passenger amenity
-bus preference to motor vehicles
-good navigability and signage
http://www.pta.wa.gov.au/scripts/viewarticle.asp?NID=1324
Wow – that train/bus interchange is fantastic – they’re right next to each other. There’s not very many stations in Melbourne I can think of that are that good!
Ricc, land usage in the area is a bit like the area behind Southbank, ie auto-oriented land uses and not pedestrian friendly. Like Southbank it’s between the city affluent suburbs to the south and west, potentially making it an attractive place for yuppies to work and coffee shops to gather around them. It also would derive some strength from being about midway between the successful Subiaco development and the CBD. However unlike Southbank it’s on the railway, with the Fremantle line having higher average incomes than the others.
As for rail access, there are buses nearby but it must be at least a 10-15 minute walk from either West Perth or Perth Stations.
The issue of adding a station is complicated by Fremantle being the only line having two minor ‘unclosable’ stations that get a token charity service (Grant Street & Loch Street). Being one of the older lines, Fremantle has close station spacing, like Melbourne. In this regard it’s like the Armadale line, but unlike Armadale there’s little likelihood of adding a Thornlie-style spur to provide an all-day/7-day express pattern. Closing Grant St and Loch St would make the Fremantle line somewhat faster (and I believe save a train at night) but locals have successfully fought moves to close these stations (even if the service received is sub-Adelaidan) as about 500 metres would be added to some people’s walks.
A new station at the suggested site point may complement near-CBD stations to the east, such as Claisebrook, McIver and East Perth on the Midland lines. Due to the through-routing of Fremantle and Midland it wouldn’t be a bad metro-style service for a higher density corridor, though bear in mind the frequency is still only 15 min.
There’s significant development near Claisebrook/East Perth (suburb) but I’m not sure how close much is to the station (it may be like Docklands, much of which is outside SSS’s pedshed and has quite poor access to it). East Perth has no element of TOD whatsoever, and I don’t think McIver is a raging success apart from the hospital opposite.
But bear in mind that by Perth standards even a single surviving milkbar near a railway station qualifies as a TOD as many stations don’t have even that (or if they do pedestrian access isn’t good).
Kelmscott is interesting and was already unique (when the interchange was built in 1980) before the latest redevelopment in that buses pulled into a wide island platform. Also unusual is the time it was built – it was post Fremantle line closure and when the government fad was building dark shed-like bus-stations surrounded by parking or amongst refineries (ref Rockingham, Kwinana, Inaloo, Morley, Warwick, etc).
Riccardo wrote:
“You might be onto your THIRD hundred metres before you are picking up genuine catchment.”
Agreed. And note that traffic light cycles (time) compress pedsheds (space). Eg a 120 second cycle is the equivalent of subtracting nearly 200 metres from a pedshed (or conversely adding that to walking time). (gratuitous plug for forthcoming post!)
Thanks to all.
PP, excellent comment on pedsheds. Because it is really for most able bodied people a dimension of time rather than physical effort, although for many in the community it is that too.
I’m very concerned about some station designs, especially in Melbourne.
To use a Sydney example, if I was at Town Hall I have entrances in all directions, towards QVB and Wynyard, towards St Andrews Square, towards the east, south towards the World Square area. I run no danger of the pedshed being compressed as a result of layout of the station. In Melbourne, though, I have lost that whole area to the southwest and the VPC through closing one entrance to Southern Cross, at Melbourne Central the mucking around inside the shopping centre adds time, and the maze you have to run at Flinders St is not helpful.
Really interesting discussion – I suppose I can’t add much substantive material but would echo the importance of the first 100 metres in and around the station. Things like the terrible Melbourne Central redesign show how important it is to the the link from street to platform is. Melbourne Uni terminus is another example, where the terminus is ok (certainly nowhere near as bad as Mees claimed), but it is let down by horribly horribly slow pedestrian light cycle – as mentioned by Peter (and looking forward to the post!).
Riccardo, the West Perth document you put up was a good read, interesting stuff and happily lacking in spin!