Mobility Hub Guidelines: Tools for Achieving Successful Station Areas

Transcription

1 Mobility Hub Guidelines: Tools for Achieving Successful Station Areas This paper introduces Metrolinx s recently released Mobility Hub Guidelines and highlights two key aspects of the document: the importance of classifying the current and planned urban context and transportation function at a mobility hub, and methods to overcome challenges in achieving both transport and placemaking roles. Introduction The Big Move Regional Transportation Plan The Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area (GTHA), Canada s largest metropolitan area, is projected to grow from six million to nine million residents over the next 25 years. 1 To ensure that the region s transportation system can support this growth, Metrolinx, the GTHA regional transportation agency, has developed the area s first Regional Transportation Plan, which is called The Big Move: Transforming Transportation in the GTHA. 2 The Big Move proposes that, by 2031, more than 80 percent of the region s population will be within 2 kilometers of a rapid transit line, the distance that people drive every day will drop by one third, one-third of trips to work will be taken by transit, and one in five trips will be taken by walking or cycling. Reaching these proposed targets will require significant investment in transportation infrastructure, as well as strong measures to achieve transit supportive land use patterns. The Big Move identifies a system of connected mobility hubs to ensure the efficient coordination of land use and transportation planning, and seamless integration of the different elements of the regional transportation system. Mobility Hubs Mobility hubs are more than just transit stations. They vary in size, but generally comprise a rapid transit station and the surrounding area that can be comfortably accessed by foot, approximately an 800-meter radius. BY JOSHUA ENGEL-YAN AND AMANDA LEONARD They serve a critical function in the regional transportation system as the origin, destination, or transfer point for a significant portion of trips. They are places of connectivity where different modes of transportation come together seamlessly and where there is an intensive concentration of employment, living, shopping, and/or recreation (Figure 1). As illustrated in Figure 1, the mobility hub concept combines two key roles: transport role allowing for quick and efficient movement, as well as flexibility for infrastructure modification and expansion; and placemaking role the mix of activities, and people that use these activities, which makes the hub a desirable and interesting place/destination. 3 These two roles have the potential to compete and conflict in many ways, such as providing for commuter parking needs vs. optimizing opportunities for development close to rapid transit stations, ensuring pedestrian priority vs. providing for quick bus movements into and out of key terminals, and allowing development close to a rail corridor vs. protecting extra right of way for future track expansions. Focus of This Paper Metrolinx has developed Mobility Hub Guidelines to direct the planning and development of mobility hubs in the GTHA. This paper introduces the guidelines and highlights two key aspects of that document: rent and planned urban context and transportation function at a mobility hub; and in achieving both transport and are provided for (1) providing for commuter and private parking needs, while optimizing development opportunities, and (2) coordinating the phasing of development and transportation infrastructure. Although this paper focuses on mobility hubs, the typology and strategies discussed here are transferable to planning for other areas in a transit-supportive manner. 42 ITE JOURNAL / JANUARY 2012

2 Planning for Mobility Hubs Metrolinx s Mobility Hub Program Identifying Mobility Hubs The Big Move identifies 51 mobility hubs across the region, selected based on the following criteria: Strategic Importance: For example, the station is located within an Urban Growth Centre in the provincial growth management plan 1 or international gateway (e.g., Pearson Airport); and Major Interchange with Development Potential: intersection of two or more rapid transit lines with high level of forecasted transit ridership (4,500 or more peak period boardings and alightings by 2031) and development potential (10,000 people and jobs within 800 miles by 2031). Figure 2 illustrates the distribution of the mobility hubs across the region. Prioritization From the many projects included in The Big Move, the plan identifies a list of 15 priority regional rapid transit projects. Several of these projects have received funding. Metrolinx has prioritized the mobility hubs into three levels: currently funded priority projects identified in The Big Move. currently unfunded priority projects identified in The Big Move. Key metrics that can be used to further prioritize mobility hubs within these groupings include: alightings; density, and projected growth; low-income residents, seniors, and children; and structure being made in the area. operates the regional rail and bus service (GO Transit), the agency faces several key challenges in implementing mobility hubs. First, Metrolinx has limited jurisdiction at mobility hubs that do not include GO Transit facilities (i.e., about half of identified hubs). Second, Metrolinx has no jurisdiction over land use. Third, Metrolinx currently does not have a specific funding program for the implementation of mobility hubs, so its approach to date has been to leverage existing infrastructure funding and work collaboratively with municipalities, local transit agencies, landowners/ developers, and other key stakeholders to advance mobility hubs across the GTHA. For GO stations where Metrolinx owns and operates the station, Metrolinx often leads mobility hub planning studies that develop conceptual designs for the station and land use plans for the surrounding area. Metrolinx can then lead the implementation for the station infrastructure and work Figure 1. Elements of a Successful Mobility Hub 3 with the municipality to set up the supportive land use framework for the surrounding area. Metrolinx is also pursuing joint developments at a number of locations where the agency owns sufficient land. For hubs along major transit investments where Metrolinx is the funder but the design and delivery are being led by one of the region s local transit agencies, Metrolinx works to ensure that mobility hub objectives are incorporated into station designs and operating plans. This is facilitated by the Mobility Hub Guidelines and achieved through the design review process. Metrolinx also works with the municipalities to ensure that supportive land use frameworks are put in place in advance of the transit line. For other mobility hubs, Metrolinx prioritizes its role in planning and implementation largely based on the timing of future investment and related local initiatives. Where municipalities are proactively engaged in planning initiatives, Metrolinx often partners with municipalities to develop joint plans, or adopts an advisory role. Given the wide range of stakeholders and various approaches Metrolinx adopts planning and implementing mobility hubs, a tool was needed to clearly communicate the mobility hub concept and the key factors that contribute in creating successful mobility hubs. This led to the development of the Mobility Hub Guidelines. The Mobility Hub Guidelines Metrolinx has developed a set of multidisciplinary guidelines to clearly communicate Planning and Implementation Although Metrolinx is responsible for regional transportation planning, makes major transit investments in the region, and Figure 2. Mobility Hubs and Planned Rapid Transit Network in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area ITE JOURNAL / JANUARY

3 the mobility hub concept. 3 The Mobility Hub Guidelines focus on the factors that contribute to creating successful mobility hubs, including transit station design, station circulation and access, transit customer information and wayfinding, land use and urban design surrounding rapid transit stations, and funding and implementation. Recognizing the need to achieve transport and placemaking roles, the Mobility Hub Guidelines are organized in three categories: (1) Seamless Mobility, (2) Placemaking, and (3) Successful Implementation with specific objectives under each category: Seamless Mobility seamless integration of modes at the rapid transit station; safe and efficient movement of people with high levels of pedestrian priority; a well-designed transit stations for a highquality user experience; and strategic parking management. Placemaking a vibrant, mixedused environment with higher land use intensity; an attractive public realm; and a minimized ecological footprint. Successful Implementation flexible planning to accommodate growth and change and effective partnerships and incentives for increased public and private investment. For each of the nine objectives, a series of guidelines, detailed strategies, best practices, case studies, and suggested resources are provided (Figure 3). Figure 3. Sample of the Mobility Hub Guidelines 3 Mobility Hub Typology The Mobility Hub Guidelines recognize that there cannot be a one size fits all approach to planning and developing mobility hubs. Many identified station areas currently offer little more than vast parking lots, while others are easily accessible by many modes and are already vibrant destinations. In addition, each location presents unique challenges and opportunities based on multiple factors, including urban context, real estate market characteristics, site conditions and constraints, and existing and planned transit service. A mobility hub typology has been developed to address many of these differences. Each location is classified based on two categories: urban context (U1-U6) and transportation types (T1-T3), as illustrated in Table 1. This two-axis typology reflects the transport and placemaking roles of each mobility hub. The typology is used throughout the Mobility Hub Guidelines to tailor the application of individual strategies. For example, appropriate intensification strategies at an Urban Transit Node will be quite different from those at a Suburban Transit Node, as suitable urban sites can be more expensive and complicated to develop, given land constraints, need for structured parking, and so forth. 4 Considering transportation function, the quality and supply of multimodal station access facilities (e.g., commuter parking supply, feeder bus connections) are more important for a transit station that acts as a main entry point into the rapid transit system, relative to one that serves primarily as a key transfer point between rapid transit lines. Going through the classification exercise forces one to consider where different hubs rank in their existing state, how they are expected to change, and how planning efforts can best direct these changes. Therefore, identifying a typology is one of the first steps of mobility hub planning identified in the guidelines. Addressing the Challenge to Achieve Transport and Placemaking In developing the Mobility Hub Guidelines, our municipal partners identified a number of key challenges in the planning and implementation of mobility hubs. Topping this list included (1) addressing parking needs, while achieving more compact urban form and walkable environments, particularly in emerging urban areas, and (2) coordinating and phasing development with transportation infrastructure improvements. Both challenges sit at the interface of transport and placemaking roles. This section highlights how the guidelines address these two topics. Designing and Managing Parking to Optimize Development Potential Parking is a central topic within the Mobility Hub Guidelines and objective four of the document focused on strategic parking management. Commuter parking and private commercial and residential parking is a major land use at many mobility hubs, particularly in suburban areas. As such, parking design and management must reflect the longerterm objectives for these areas, such as developing a more compact urban form with a mix of uses, reducing auto trips, increasing transit ridership, and creating a more walkable environment. For park-and-ride facilities, which can sometimes consume the most attractive properties for development close to a station, the Guideline 4.1 instructs: Design parking to maximize development and ridership potential at transit stations. In many cases, park-and-ride facilities can be built in locations that are close to the station, but less attractive to development (e.g., adjacent to the rail corridor, in electrical transmission corridors, awkward parcel 44 ITE JOURNAL / JANUARY 2012

4 configurations), freeing up more valuable land for development. The case study of Islington subway station, described below, provides an illustrative example. Case Study: Islington Subway Station, Toronto, Ontario Islington Station is located on the eastwest Bloor Danforth subway line. It is surrounded by a mix of high-density residential buildings, single-family homes, and large surface park-and-ride facilities (Islington was a terminus station before Kipling Station was constructed to the west). Both Islington and Kipling stations are located within the Etobicoke Urban Growth Center in the City of Toronto. This area is classified as an Urban Transit Node/Entry (U2/T1) mobility hub, although the area has the potential to evolve into a destination type (T3) hub given planned future development. As typical of Urban Transit Nodes, land in the area is relatively constrained and valuable, which suggests that infill opportunities would be profitable. In this case, a highly attractive redevelopment site right on top of the station is being created by relocating commuter parking to a nearby narrow parcel along a rail/electrical transmission corridor (Figure 4). This transition is also happening in tandem with a large bus terminal being vacated. The Toronto Transit Commission will generate a one-time revenue from the sale/ development of the site and an ongoing fare revenue boost from the new ridership generated by the new people/jobs in close proximity to the station. Developing Flexible Commercial Parking Requirements For private parking, Guideline 4.4 suggests: Develop a short and long term area-wide parking strategy with maximum and minimum parking standards and shared use parking. To be effective, parking requirements need to be specified in a way that will support long-term policy objectives, while reflecting existing and future parking needs, and not significantly impeding development. 5 For suburban and urbanizing areas (U3-U5), the guidelines recommend placing temporary-use or holding provisions in parking codes to accommodate short-term parking needs Urban Context Transportation Function Typology Table 1. Mobility Hub Typology 3 Description U1: City Center multiple destinations, and high densities. opportunities primarily through infill. walkable street network. U2: Urban Transit Nodes U3: Emerging Urban Growth Centers U4: Historic Suburban Town Centers U5: Suburban Transit Nodes U6: Unique Destinations high densities. opportunities primarily through infill. potential. generally auto oriented. development T1: Entry parking, and bicycle parking and related facilities. activity peaks during rush hour. T2: Transfer with transfer between two or more rapid transit lines and other transit services. traveler movements within the rapid transit station(s). lines. T3: Destination concentration of employment, recreation, and institutional uses. potential to achieve a greater inbound/outbound balance. with a greater focus on walking connections to and from the hub (e.g., the PATH network). ITE JOURNAL / JANUARY

5 Figure 4. Case Study: Creating Development Opportunities through Commuter Parking Relocation 3 Note: Development is dependent on specific infrastructure and service delivery, and is associated with market absorption. Figure 5. Phasing of Development Associated with Transportation Improvements 8 in locations where reduced parking requirements are being phased in. Markham Centre in Markham, Ontario, provides an interesting example of how this strategy can be applied. Case Study: Markham Centre, Markham, Ontario Markham Centre is identified as a mobility hub in the GTHA. This Emerging Growth Center (U3) is attempting to steer development toward a transit-supportive form in advance of major rapid transit investments. To do this, Markham has adopted aggressive parking maximums for the area, particularly for employment, along with a suite of other parking management strategies (e.g., joint venture parking facilities, paid parking, downtown parking reserve fund). 6 However, recognizing that rapid transit is not yet in place, new office buildings can supply parking above the maximum, provided that this additional parking is placed under a temporary holding agreement, under which it will be redeveloped once better transit service is provided to the area. This approach prevents the parking maximums from unduly deterring office development, while ensuring that future development parcels are explicitly identified on temporary surface parking lots. Coordinated Phasing of Development and Infrastructure A key challenge in planning for the growth and evolution of mobility hubs is the coordination and phasing of new development with appropriate investment in transportation infrastructure. This is particularly the case in Emerging Growth Centers (as defined in the typology) where the visions and plans for high-density growth and rapid transit investment can be ambitious when compared with existing conditions, which are often greenfield or low-density suburban. Such an evolution will typically take a number of decades at least, which makes the coordination of development and infrastructure even more important as intermediary phases in the plan may last many years. The risk is often that development will outpace infrastructure investment, leading to a condition where the transportation network cannot accommodate the travel demand generated by the high concentration of activities, hindering further growth. Mobility Hub Guidelines 8.1 recommends: Develop detailed phasing strategies connected with infrastructure improvements. Examples of specific strategies under this guideline include the following: to mode share targets; plans to build transit ridership in advance of rapid transit investments; and timed with implementation of rapid transit infrastructure and achievement of density targets to provide more certainty to developers of future planning directions. Case Study: Richmond Hill-Langstaff Gateway, York Region, Ontario The Richmond Hill-Langstaff Gateway is a GTHA mobility hub and growth center in York Region, Ontario, which is located at the interface of three local municipalities: Richmond Hill, Markham, and Vaughan. of suburban office, low-density residential, industrial, and greenfield uses to a mixeduse, high-density center with 48,000 residents and 31,000 employees over the next 46 ITE JOURNAL / JANUARY 2012

6 node as the intersection of five higher-order transit facilities. 7 York Region led a transportation study for the entire area. Many parties, including York Region, local municipalities, Metrolinx, and other provincial ministries have been actively involved in planning for this area. A transportation study has been conducted to consider the anticipated sequence of each planned new element of rapid transit and road infrastructure, and how new residential units and commercial space can be phased in coordination with these investments (Figure 5). 8 The result is a telling picture of how the transportation and placemaking roles of the mobility hub are intrinsically linked. Since the surrounding road network already operates at close to capacity, major transit investments are required before significant new growth can be supported. Looking at the phasing challenge from a different perspective, the town of Markham considered three phases of development, and what transportation investments and non-auto mode share targets would be required for each phase to ensure that the road network is not completely overwhelmed by new growth (Figure 6). With each new phase, significantly higher non-auto mode shares are required. Conclusions ITE s Designing Walkable Urban Thoroughfares: A Context Sensitive Approach encourages the integration of land use, transportation, and infrastructure needs through a collaborative and multidisciplinary process. 9 Similarly, an assumption implicit to this discussion is that the transportation node not be considered separately from its urban surroundings. In other words, planning for mobility hubs must be interdisciplinary to integrate different parties and authorities responsible for land use planning, urban design, transportation planning and engineering, transit operations, real estate market analysis, and related disciplines. The importance and benefits of such an approach are reinforced in the Mobility Hub Guidelines. For more information about Metrolinx s mobility hubs programs, see metrolinx.com/mobilityhubs. Figure 6. Transportation Targets Based on Development Phasing 3 Acknowledgments The authors would like to acknowledge IBI Group as the lead consultant supporting the preparation of the Mobility Hub Guidelines, as well as the many stakeholders who provided valuable input in the development of this document. References 1. Ontario Ministry of Public Infrastructure Renewal. Places to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, Ontario Ministry of Public Infrastructure Renewal, Metrolinx. The Big Move: Transforming Transportation in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area, Metrolinx, Metrolinx. Mobility Hub Guidelines for the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area, Metrolinx, Bertolini, L. Spatial Development Patterns and Public Transport: The Application of an Analytical Model in the Netherlands. Planning Practice and Research, Vol. 14, No. 2 (1999): Dunphy, R. and D. Porter. Manifestations of Development Goals in Transit-Oriented Development Projects. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, Vol (2006): Engel-Yan, J. and D. Passmore. Assessing Alternative Approaches to Setting Parking Requirements. ITE Journal, Vol. 80, No. 12 (December 2010): BA Group. Parking Strategy for Markham Centre, Appendix A. Markham, Ontario, Canada: BA Group, York Region. Richmond Hill/Langstaff Centre-Wide Transportation Study. Report No. 5 of the Transportation Services Committee Regional Council Meeting of May 19, Accessed September 22, 2011, at ahi4ukcnxdog4bj7cpc52jofudon6ciltq4ryezvgqr fl4iuxlzakrjwbhczpvqkyamizids4qkwbraydrhlv vakif/rpt+5+cls+1.pdf 9. Institute of Transportation Engineers. Designing Walkable Urban Thoroughfares: A Context Sensitive Approach, ITE, JOSHUA ENGEL-YAN is a senior advisor in the Policy and Planning Division at Metrolinx, the regional transportation authority for the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area. His work focuses on integrating land use and transportation planning around major rapid transit stations. He holds a bachelor s degree in systems design engineering from the University of Waterloo and a master s of applied science in civil engineering from the University of Toronto. He is a member of ITE. AMANDA LEONARD is an intern within the Policy and Planning Division of Metrolinx. She is a recent graduate of the School of Urban and Regional Planning at Queen s University. ITE JOURNAL / JANUARY