Beyond Mobility: Corridor Planning for the Bigger Picture AICP CM 1.5 Transit can do more than move people and generate revenue. More and more, cities are investing in transit to transform their communities and deliver on more expansive city-building objectives. Traditional transit goals are expanding to address the promise of livable communities, environmental stewardship, economic development and improved public health. Hear how two cities -- Seattle and Portland -- are shaping development scale and character with transit investment. Both cities are using parcel-based, pro forma-based tools to quantify the potential impact of transit projects. Join us for an interactive discussion about the capabilities and limitations of these tools. Hear their stories and learn how to evaluate your own projects against a broader set of goals using technical and market-based analysis. Moderator: Catherine Ciarlo, AICP, Senior Project Manager, CH2M Hill, Portland, Oregon Katherine Idziorek, AICP, LEED AP ND, Urban Designer, VIA Architecture, Seattle, Washington Antonio Gomez-Palacio, Principal, DIALOG, Toronto, Ontario Eric Engstrom, Principal Planner, City of Portland, Bureau of Planning & Sustainability, Portland, Oregon

1. TRANS
FORMING
CITIES
THROUGH TRANSIT
ANTONIO GÓMEZ-PALACIO @aurbanist
RailVolution CONFERENCE
Minneapolis, September 22, 2014

2. OUR GRAND
DISCONNECT

6. PEDESTRIANS
WORTH TEN
POINTS

11. WHO, HAS ABSOLUTELY NO INTEREST
IN EVER USING
TRANSIT?

12. WHO, HAS NO OPTION
TO MOVE
AROUND
EXCEPT
TRANSIT?

13. WHO, CHOOSES TRANSIT
EVER SO
OFTEN?

15. 3 %
OF PEOPLE IN COPENHAGEN
RIDE BIKES
FOR MORAL
REASONS
97 %
OF PEOPLE DO IT FOR
QUALITY
OF LIFE
CYCLE STATISTICS, WWW.KK.DK
57%
IT’S EASY
AND FAST
22%
IT’S GOOD
EXERCISE
13%
IT’S
CHEAP
5%
IT’S
CONVENIENT

16. presentation outline:
4 WHYS?
4 HOWS?
3 EPIPHANIES

17. TRANSIT
URBANISM
DEFINITION:
a recognition of the synergies between
where we live and how we move,
and their influence on delivering liveable communities,
environmental and public health, economic and social
development, and quality living.

18. epiphany
# 1
!

19. “INSANITY: DOING THE SAME THING
OVER AND OVER AGAIN AND
EXPECTING DIFFERENT RESULTS”
Albert
Einstein

20. PART:
WHY?

21. TOD
+ ROI
BFFs
TRANSIT ORIENTED
DEVELOPMENT
RETURN ON
INVESTMENT
BEST FRIENDS
FOREVER

22. ROI =
BENEFIT
COST

23. BENEFIT
ECONOMY
ENVIRONMENT SOCIETY COST
INDIVIDUALS

24. SOCIETY
ECONOMY
INDIVIDUALS
BENEFIT
ENVIRONMENT COST

25. SOCIETY
ECONOMY
INDIVIDUALS
HYPOTHESIS: our travel
choices have a direct
(negative) impact on the
sustenance of natural
systems and to climate
change ENVIRONMENT

26. 0.32
average car,
single occupant
0.44
GHG emissions
by mode...
large 4WD,
single occupant
0.0
0.003
walking + cycling for every extra
passenger
Kg
of
greenhouse
gas
per
person
per
kilometer
Source:
h2p://sydney.edu.au/facili:es/sustainable_campus/transport/index.shtml

28. ECONOMY
ENVIRONMENT SOCIETY
BENEFIT
COST
INDIVIDUALS

29. ECONOMY
ENVIRONMENT SOCIETY
HYPOTHESIS: our travel
choices have a direct (often
unaccounted) cost to
individuals’ livelihood and
INDIVIDUALS quality of life

32. Average total expenditure, 2008
average
household
spending
food
shelter
clothing
transpor-­‐
ta*on
personal
taxes
$
shares
of
spending
(%)
Canada
71,360
10.4
19.9
4.0
13.6
20.5
Newfoundland
and
Labrador
57,710
11.7
16.5
4.7
15.6
18.0
Prince
Edward
Island
58,710
11.5
19.0
3.6
15.2
16.2
Nova
Sco:a
60,330
11.3
18.6
3.7
14.7
17.9
New
Brunswick
58,440
11.2
17.2
3.5
17.0
17.8
Quebec
60,480
12.2
18.5
3.9
13.2
20.5
Ontario
77,310
9.7
21.2
4.2
13.1
21.2
Manitoba
63,510
10.2
18.2
3.9
14.3
18.8
Saskatchewan
68,280
9.2
17.2
3.8
16.0
19.1
Alberta
86,910
8.9
19.0
3.8
14.0
21.9
Bri:sh
Columbia
73,120
10.9
20.8
4.0
13.8
18.7
Source:
Sta:s:cs
Canada
AVERAGE TOTAL EXPENDITURE, 2008

33. GTA
$10,152
$1,077
$11,229
AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD EXPENDITURES ON TRANSPORTATION
2011
Source:
Sta:s:cs
Canada
PRIVATE
[cars,
trucks,
vans
+
their
opera:ng
costs]
PUBLIC
TRANSPORTATION
TRANSPORTATION
[public
transit,
taxis,
air
fares,
inter-­‐city
buses
+
trains]

34. AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD EXPENDITURES ON TRANSPORTATION
HIGHEST IN NEIGHBOURHOODS
POORLY SERVED BY TRANSIT
$10,152
$1,077
$11,229
$15,005
$6,803
in: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL,
LOW TRANSIT CONNECTIVITY
in: JOB DENSE AREAS, HIGH
TRANSIT CONNECTIVITY
+
-­‐
SOURCE: TransForm, 2009

35. CANADA
RESIDENTIAL AVERAGE PRICE, March 2013
$378,532
Source:
CREA
Canadian
Real
Estate
Associa:on

36. GTA
$10,152
$1,077
$11,229
AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD EXPENDITURES ON TRANSPORTATION
2011
PRIVATE
TRANSPORTATION
[cars,
trucks,
vans
+
their
opera:ng
costs]
Source:
Sta:s:cs
Canada

37. applied
to
MONTHLY
MORTGAGE
PAYMENTS
monthly
payments
increased
by
$846
$10,152

38. Mortgage
amount:
$523,975
Mortgage
amount:
$378,532

39. $145,443
difference
38%
more
Mortgage
amount:
$523,975
Mortgage
amount:
$378,532

40. $10,152
applied
to
MORTGAGE’S
TOTAL
INTEREST
COSTS
$10,152
X
25
years
=
$253,800

41. Mortgage
amount:
$719,288
Mortgage
amount:
$378,532

42. $340,756
difference
90%
more
Mortgage
amount:
$719,288
Mortgage
amount:
$378,532

43. ENVIRONMENT
ECONOMY
INDIVIDUALS
BENEFIT
SOCIETY COST

44. ENVIRONMENT
ECONOMY
INDIVIDUALS
HYPOTHESIS: our travel
choices are subsidized by
us as a society, and have
an impact on our municipal
finances SOCIETY and public health

45. $ COST PER
PASSENGER TRIP
Infrastructure (capital & operating, private operating) and
social costs (congestion, accidents, and environmental)
$
6.64
$
3.33
SOURCE: TRANSPORT CANADA, 2010

46. iTn nYeigPhbEou r2ho oDds cIoAnduBciveE toT waElkinSg a nRd cAycTlinEg
SOURCE: INSTITUTE FOR CLINICAL EVALUATIVE SCIENCES

47. OBESITY
pedestrian-­‐oriented
neighbourhoods
car-­‐oriented
neighbourhoods
RATE
50% 10%

48. 1O2B.2%E SloIwTeYr / each 25% increase in mixed use
single
use mixed
use
Source: Frank, et al. 2004

49. Source: Canadian Institute for Health Information
40%
of several Provincial budgets is health related

50. ENVIRONMENT SOCIETY
INDIVIDUALS
BENEFIT
COST
ECONOMY

51. ENVIRONMENT SOCIETY
INDIVIDUALS
HYPOTHESIS: access to
travel choices increases the
competitive advantage of
cities and neighbourhoods
and has an impact on
economic development
ECONOMY

52. YOUTH RETENTION...
agree disagree 16-34 year-olds

53. AVERAGE ANNUAL VEHICLE km TRAVELED 16-34 year-olds
23%
drop
YOUTH RETENTION...
12,700km
16,500km
2009
2001
SOURCE: FRONTIER GROUP,
2012

54. YOUTH RETENTION... 16-34 year-olds
16% walk more frequently
24% bike more trips
40% transit more passenger km
2001-2009
SOURCE: FRONTIER GROUP,
2012

55. PART:
HOW?

56. TRANSIT
SYSTEMS
DENSITY
OF USE
MODAL
INTEGRATION
URBAN DESIGN

57. MODAL
INTEGRATION
URBAN DESIGN
DENSITY
OF USE
TRANSIT
SYSTEMS

59. TRANSIT
SYSTEMS
DENSITY
OF USE
MODAL
INTEGRATION
URBAN DESIGN

60. MOVING
PEOPLE
NOT CARS
SOURCE: QUINO (JOAQUÍN SALVADOR LAVADO)

62. 900
900
900
900
900
900
5,400
PERSONS / HOUR
per direction (PPHPD)
PASSENGERS PER HOUR
19,600
PERSONS / HOUR
900
900
8,000 STREETCAR
8,000
900
900

63. COMPLETE
STREETS

64. TRANSIT
SYSTEMS
MODAL
INTEGRATION
URBAN DESIGN
DENSITY
OF USE

67. Port Credit, Mississauga

68. [PERSON / HA] AVERAGE TRACT DENSITY
200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
source: A Study of Population Density of Ancient, Medieval, and Modern Cities (Ilano, 1961)

69. [PERSON / HA] AVERAGE TRACT DENSITY
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
New York, Boston, Chicago, Pittsburgh,
Baltimore, St. Louis, Cleveland,
Milwaukee, Washington, Los Angeles,
Philadelphia, Detroit, Buffalo,
Columbus, Minneapolis, Syracuse,
Cincinnati, St. Paul, Nashville,
Indianapolis
1910
1920
1930
1940
1950
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
source: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy : https://www.lincolninst.edu/pubs/dl/1834_1085_Angel%20Final%201.pdf

72. POPULATION DENSITY
OF THE
TORONTO CMA
0
–
793
Persons/km2
33,380
–
63,770

73. % OF PEOPLE
WHO WALK
TO WORK
0
–
2%
38
-­‐
58%

74. % OF PEOPLE
WHO DRIVE
TO WORK
0
–
27%
85
–
95%

75. 0
–
5%
Persons/km2
49
–
66%
% OF PEOPLE
WHO TAKE TRANSIT
TO WORK

76. TRANSIT TRANSIT ORIENTED
AUTO DEPENDANT AUTO RELIANT MULTI-MODAL SUPPORTIVE

77. TRANSIT
SYSTEMS
DENSITY
OF USE
MODAL
INTEGRATION
URBAN DESIGN

78. epiphany
# 2
!

79. “IF YOU SCREW UP THE URBAN
DESIGN, YOU MIGHT AS WELL PACK
YOUR BAGS AND GO HOME”

81. vehicle-oriented multi-modal
(insert
image)
2/13/2012
81

82. CRITICAL
MASS of
PEOPLE and
ACTIVITIES
BUILDINGS
face the
street with
ACTIVE
USES at
GRADE
LEVEL
DISTINCT
STREET-SCAPING
PEDESTRIAN
CROSSINGS at
REGULAR
INTERVALS
INTEGRATED
TRANSIT
SYSTEM
DIVERSITY IN
HOUSING
TYPOLOGIES
CONSISTENT
BUILDING
MIXED-USE
PODIUM
ANIMATED +
MIXED-USE
GROUND LEVEL
URBAN TREE
CANOPY and
INTEGRATED
STORMWATER
SYSTEMS
SUNLIGHT
ACCESS and
SKYVIEWS
DIVERSITY IN
RETAIL and
EMPLOYMENT
TYPOLOGIES

83. CRITICAL
MASS OF
POPULATION
SAFE, ACTIVE-TRANSPORTATION
PLACES FOR
SOCIAL
GATHERING
PEDESTRIANS
PRIORATIZED
INTEGRATED
TRANSIT
FACILITIES
INTEGRATED
NATURAL
SYSTEMS
ROOFTOP
GARDENING
+ AMENITIES
MODAL
OPTIONS
ADAPTABLE
ARCHITECTURE
MIXED-USE
POLICIES
ON-SITE
STORMWATER
TREATMENT
INTEGRATED
TREE CANOPY
SUNLIGHT
PENETRATION
DIVERSITY of
HOUSING
TYPES

84. 1901, JASPER AVENUE, EDMONTON

86. 10-­‐20
metres

87. HERITAGE
CONSERVATION
PEDESTRIAN
PRIORITY
ZONES
SAFE CYCLING
FACILITIES
PLACES FOR
SOCIAL
GATHERING
ACCESS TO
EMPLOYMENT
QUALITY,
DURABLE
MATERIALS
CRIME
PREVENTION
THROUGH
DESIGN
UNCLUTTERED
URBAN
DESIGN
INTEGRATED
TRANSIT
SYSTEMS

88. epiphany
# 3
!

89. “CITIES ARE NOT THE PROBLEM,
THEY ARE THE SOLUTION”
Jaime
Lerner
Architect,
Major
for
the
City
of
Curi:ba,
Brazil

90. thank you
ANTONIO GÓMEZ-PALACIO
@aurbanist