Posts Tagged: transit oriented development

20
Jan

2015

Is Your (Gondola) Project Successful?

Dark Tunnel
Who knows. I certainly don’t.

It’s a question we get all the time. Is such-and-such a project a success? Is it going to be a success? Why was this project a success? Why was that project a failure?

Again: Who knows. I certainly don’t.

Success is one of those awful words that sounds great but means virtually nothing.

To measure success, one first has to know the intentions and strategic goals underlying the project. That goes not just for gondolas but any project.

That may seem blatantly obvious to some, but is too often completely outside of the debate when it comes to major infrastructure projects. Too often we focus on what we are building, instead of why we are building it. 

But that’s only half the problem. Another significant obstacle is that not everyone’s strategic goals are the same. Again — totally obvious to some but all too often missing from public debate about our infrastructure needs.

What’s worse is when the intentions are unintentionally miscommunicated or — even worse again — intentionally obscured. That’s why there’s such a debate about things like London’s Emirates Air Line. Everybody seems to think they know why it shouldn’t have been built, but know one really seems to know why it actually was built.

There’s a difference there, and an important one at that.

When you know the reason something was built, it’s far easier to measure whether it was a success or a failure.

In fact, there’s no other way.



Want more? Purchase Cable Car Confidential: The Essential Guide to Cable Cars, Urban Gondolas & Cable Propelled Transit and start learning about the world's fastest growing transportation technologies.

11
Aug

2011

TOD’s, urban gondolas and what to do about privacy concerns (Part 3 of 3)

Part 1 and Part 2 of this series discussed many of the pros to combining CPT with Transit Oriented Development (TOD). Today we’ll consider one of the major arguments against cable transit — security concerns, and how smart design and planning can help mitigate these issues.

  • Gondolas may pass alongside private property, even when traveling along a public corridor. Generally retail and commercial space are not impacted to the same extent as residential properties, therefore residential properties require special consideration. This is vastly avoided in a TOD arrangement where retail and commercial buildings typically occupy the land closest to transit.
  • Critical heights for CPT are located around the 2nd and 3rd stories of building. This critical area should receive further design considerations.
  • Windows can be tinted on residential properties, particularly those in bedrooms and bathrooms.
  • Proper residential property setbacks, orientation and internal room layouts are some of the ways residential design can help minimise the perception of privacy issues in relation to CPT infrastructure.
  • Vegetative screening – strategically utilising trees or foliage to block or obstruct the view of CPT passengers.
  • Land in direct proximity to the CPT infrastructure can be utilised as green or pedestrian spaces, maximising setbacks to residential buildings. Surveillance by riders could also increase safety in those areas.

There are many strategies that can help reduce safety concerns. Some of these strategies are more easily incorporated into the design of a master planned neighbourhood, as opposed to redevelopment projects. The other approaches can be implemented to the transport system directly.

In summary, CPT does not present a physical barrier in neighbourhoods, nor does it  compromise pedestrian safety. The technology, in fact, maximises land for open space for development while vastly eliminating noise and vibration nuisance, as compared to other modes of transport. With appropriate design components privacy concerns can also be dramatically reduced. In the end this means that the most valuable land in proximity to the transit infrastructure with in TOD can be utilised to its full potential.

What are your thoughts? Does CPT really offer impressive credentials for TOD and urban design in general?

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.



Want more? Purchase Cable Car Confidential: The Essential Guide to Cable Cars, Urban Gondolas & Cable Propelled Transit and start learning about the world's fastest growing transportation technologies.

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.



Want more? Purchase Cable Car Confidential: The Essential Guide to Cable Cars, Urban Gondolas & Cable Propelled Transit and start learning about the world's fastest growing transportation technologies.

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.



Want more? Purchase Cable Car Confidential: The Essential Guide to Cable Cars, Urban Gondolas & Cable Propelled Transit and start learning about the world's fastest growing transportation technologies.