Case Studies

Introduction

This section presents case studies of Transit Oriented Development in 10 cities from across the world. They represent various modes of public transit and different appraoches to development. While some cases illustrate success as a result of deliberate planning and long strategic growth management, others showcase incidental success resulting from juxtaposition of high quality transit, mix of land use and high population density. The section specifically looks at cases from UK, highlighting their successful station area development.

The 10 cities presented in this sesction are Ahmedabad, Curitiba, Delhi, Paris, Mumbai, Tokyo, Portland, King’s Cross, Canary Wharf and New Street Station.

• Case studies from the Indian cities of Ahmedabad, Delhi and Mumbai, represent the three main modes of mass transit in the country - bus, metro and rail. Transit induced (or dependant) development in these cities has evolved organically over years or was a result of deliberate planning. but it does not necessarily reflect the definitions of TOD applicable in the western countries. These cities illustrate the role and impact of mass transit on development. They have the densities necessary for sustaining ridership in public transit and the demand for real estate which will support high density development.
• Case studies from Portland, Curitiba, Tokyo and Paris show four different approaches to managing growth through the implementation of TOD.
• Case studies from UK highlight the role of station area development.

First, the international cases reinforce the significance of a comprehensive approach in the implementation of TOD. Second, they illustrate the relationship between the various constructs of a TOD, discussed ealier in the book. Finally, they identify additional factors, instrumental to their success.
These cases represent two different scales of TOD implementation: city level/regional and neighbourhood/station area level. Further, there are similarities among some of the cases:

• Mode of public transit (BRT) in Curitiba and Ahmedabad
• Size of the city and scale of metro project in Paris and Delhi
• Railway guided land development in Tokyo and Mumbai

The two scales of interventions presented - city scale and station area scale - are meant to illustrate a comprehensive picture of TOD, making the case for a two-pronged approach that includes a broader city level strategy and a detail oriented local area solution.

The Case Study Presentation

Each case is structured into three sections:

• ‘Context’ gives the introduction and background
• 'Theme’ describes the interventions or strategies involved
• ‘Lessons learnt/Conclusion’ highlights the key takeaways

Each case study focuses on a specific theme that is characteristic of the TOD. The cases along with their theme are listed below:

1. Ahmedabad: An incremental and progressive approach to bus based TOD
2. Curitiba: Transforming city with bus transit
3. Delhi: Transportation and regional transformation
4. Paris: Improving quality of life through mass transit
5. Mumbai Metropolitan Region: Railway guided development
6. Tokyo: Collaboration between rail and land development
7. Portland: Combining growth management with strategic planning
8. King’s Cross: TOD for the regeneration of inner city neighbourhood
9. Canary Wharf: PPP in brownfield redevelopment
10. New Street Station: Station area planning to improve neighbourhood

Ahmedabad

An incremental and progressive approach to Bus based TOD

Context

Ahmedabad is the seventh largest metropolis in India and the largest city in the state of Gujarat. According to Census 2011, it has a population of 5.5 million in the municipal limits and 6.3 million within the urban agglomeration. It is located on the strategic Delhi  Mumbai Industrial Corridor (DMIC) that  creates large potential for investment, industrialisation and development. In 2010, Forbes magazine rated Ahmedabad as one of the fastest growing cities in the world after the Chinese cities of Chengdu and Chengqing (Kotkin, 2010).

Ahmedabad Municipal Transport Service (AMTS) was established in 1947 as one of the first urban transport organisations in the country. By 2005, the AMTS bus fleet had reduced to 521 buses (from 650 in 1992) and the daily ridership declined to 390,000 (52% decrease from 1992) (ATMS, 2006) and the overall mode share of public transport in Ahmedabad stood at 15%. With the declining public transport ridership, the city witnessed rapid growth in private vehicle ownership, especially two wheelers. The increasing Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in Ahmedabad along with the rapid rise in vehicle ownership triggered the city authorities to explore methods to reverse the declining modal share of public transit. Acknowledging the growing dissatisfaction among the commuters due to poor level of service and lack of comfort of AMTS buses, the authorities undertook the implementation of a high quality public transportation system (in the form of Janmarg BRTS) under the JnNURM scheme in 2005. Aim of the BRTS was to create road space for pedestrians, cyclists and vendors, manage on-street parking, and most importantly to provide an efficient and reliable bus system.

The Janmarg Story - Laying the groundwork for TOD

Gujarat celebrated an “Urban Year” in 2005 with AMC’s proposal to develop a Bus Rapid Transit System (BRTS) in the city. The BRTS system in Ahmedabad is named Janmarg and is operated by Ahmedabad Janmarg Limited (AJL), a subsidiary of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation. Initially the project was undertaken in 2 phases and later execution of the third phase was approved in 2013. The first stretch of the phase-1 was between RTO-Pirana covering a distance of 12.5 km and open to public in 2009. The second phase was proposed to be completed by 2010, covering 84 km with additional 4 Km elevated corridors, but was recently completed in 2014. The third phase is currently under progress. There has been a constant effort on part of the managing authority’s (Ahmedabad Janmarg Ltd.) to upgrade the system and to make it more efficient. AJL uses smart cards for ticketing and Intelligent Transport System (ITS) to improve customer convenience, speed, reliability and safety of the bus system. ITS is extensively applied in areas of operations control, electronic fare collection, real-time passenger information system and traffic management (Centre of Excellence in Urban Transport, 2010) in the BRTS system. BRTS was designed to connect recreational zones, educational zones and other important areas along the corridors. The BRT network has also triggered redevelopment of these areas at higher built-up space ratios abutting the corridors. The BRTS corridor has impact on the land-use and housing policies of the city, especially under the Development Plan (DP). A new housing zone focusing to affordable housing has been proposed along the Sardar Patel ring road (16.3 km) away from the city centre.

The Other Players: Land-Use and Housing

• Land-use: The core city area in Ahmedabad is dominated by commercial, mixed land-use and major residential areas along the periphery. Several parcels of land under industrial zone are within close vicinity of the residential areas within the city’s administrative boundary. This urban settlement pattern and work place location has triggered a travel pattern with regular trips in both directions, from the periphery to city centre and vice versa, during all through the day. The land-use along the BRTS corrider has changed over time. The increase in built up space and in the urban skyline can be vividly seen along the BRTS corridor as more ‘ground+5’ structures have started getting built.

• Housing: About 13.5% of the total population of AMC (Corporation SFCPoA, 2014) lives in slums in Ahmedabad. Though the number of slums have come down by 40% in 2014 as compared to 2011 (Corporation SFCPoA, 2014), approximately 0.16 million households still reside in 961 slum pockets in the city. With an aim to redress this situation AMC & AUDA, have proposed construction of affordable housing units with an average built up area of about 30 to 60 sq.m. Due to land constraints AMC extended the city limits and the proposed resettlement sites along the periphery of city (eg. Khodiyar, Nikol, Khatwada etc.), these sites were the receiving zones for city’s rehabilitation programs. The BRT has extended connectivity to these zones at the city’s periphery, thereby providing affordable transportation modes to the residents. Going forward, the integration of the transportation network with these housing clusters is one of the key objectives addressed in the Development Plan 2021 of Ahmedabad.

 

Completing the Jigsaw Through Policy - Ahmedabad Development Plan 2021

Ahmedabad Development Plan has sought to establish a policy framework to imbibe the TOD principles within the urban planning for the city and integrate the current gaps in land-use and housing with the expansion of transit infrastructure. Two major initiatives that will highlight these principles are as follows:

• To encourage higher densities along BRTS corridors while maintaining the urban form of the city, the governing authorities have defined intense development zones called Transit Oriented Zones about 200 m on both sides of the BRT corridor in the Development Plan.

 

• The current central business district (CBD) of the city will be shifted from from the east bank of the Sabarmati river to the west bank, primarily to converge the high density commercial land-use, the recreational space provided by the waterfront and the upcoming Metro corridor (Metro-Link express between Ahmedabad and Gandhinagar). The proposed guidelines are in line with traditional TOD norms. In addition, the housing policy framed by the city corporation focuses on the integration of transportation facilities and commercial activites along the BRTS corridors.

Proposals in Ahmedabad Development Plan

The land-uses in the proposed central business district will include a mix of offices, retail and other business areas, along with some residential developments. CBD would be strengthened by a transit shuttle route to serve exclusively and to connect it with BRTS and metro stations along the northern and southern ends. This zone will promote and incentivise regeneration and rejuvenation of city’s central area and transform it into a vibrant, mixed use, transit oriented, walkable CBD that is attractive for business, entertainment and promotes tourism.

• Density: The special zones, identified along the BRTS and the proposed Metro corridors will have higher permissible FSI. Differential FSI in the city range from the highest of 5.4 in CDB, 4.0 in the transit corridors and 1.8 (with chargeable FSI up to 2.25) in other parts of the city. FSI of 4.0 is proposed to be implemented along a 41 km stretch (marked with red and orange in the Figure 21) within TOZ.

• Diversity: The land-use distribution within the impact zone has been kept flexible and is broadly marked for mixed use it was suggested to let the market decide (BRT, 2014). It is but imperative that the areas marked under influence zone would not have segregated land-uses and single use zoning.

• Parking management and NMT: The TOD norm in Ahmedabad is extended beyond the basic discussion of density and diversity, and further explores parking management, pedestrian and NMT facilities as well. A part of the existing CBD area parallel to the river front development is proposed to be a pedestrian only zone. Parking norms are proposed to be changed to include “limited parking in pedestrian zones” (parking maximums) in the revised Development Control Rules 2021 (DCR). The DP also proposes to implement an increase in parking charges in the CBD area. In 2014, the AMC also launched a bike share programme called “MYBYK” at four BRT stations (Shivranjani, Andhajan Mandal, Memnagar) (Greenpedia Bike Share pvt.ltd., 2016).

• Housing: Low-income housing proposed along the Sardar Patel (SP) Ring Road (Ahmedabad Mirror Correspondent, 2013) about 16.5 km away from the city centre, will be used for rehabilitating the city slum dwellers. The development strategy proposes to develop “nodes of intersection” between the SP Ring Road and the existing BRTS corridors to extend public transportation to the location, which will lead to a finger shaped development along the periphery of the city, and help maintain the compact nature of the development.

 

 

The Unsolved Questions

• Prior to the BRTS, AMTS had 7500 passengers per day boarding and alighting on the corridor, which increased to 17500 passengers per day within the first week of BRTS operations, by adding 10000 Passengers per day (Centre of Excellence in Urban Transport, 2009). However, the capacity of BRTS to lead a radical shift from private to public transport is yet to be seen in Ahmedabad. So far, there has been a shift of about 8% to public transport, mostly from two wheelers. The user experience suggests that the BRT system is yet to reach to the fringe areas and internal pockets in the city. Currently, individuals commuting to work in the city from outside the city boundary can avail the BRT only at certain stops of BRT corridors. This has led to a situation, where, people use private modes such as motorbikes and scooters to access the BRT corridors. To improve complete integration of transit to provide end-to-end connectivity between work and house/origin is yet to be achieved by the BRT system.

• Major slum redevelopment projects in Ahmedabad shifted the lower income households from the city centre to the areas along the road in the periphery (Ahmedabad Mirror Correspondent, 2013). Locating the working class away from the CBD has increased the trip length to commute work. In addition, the BRT system does not align with major resettlement areas along the ring road. This puts financial burden on low-income households, as they have to spend more on transportation to reach the work places in city centre. Finally, the major housing neighborhoods Vastrapur, Shastrinagar, Gota, Ambedkarnagar on the western side of the river lack of proximity access to the BRT network.

• The areas identified for TOZ include major blight parts of the city with dilapidated residential buildings as a result of previous legislations such as Rent Control Act and Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act (ULCRA), which makes it complicated and time-consuming to acquire land for development. In addition, the proposal to extend BRT to the east part of the city lays a challenge for the city authorities to decongest and manage existing high densities in the area.

Curitiba: Transforming city with bus transit

Curitiba’s urban planners recognised early on that the development of infrastructure in the city can be used to guide the city’s development. They diverted the city from its radial growth configuration to a linear model of spatial expansion by leveraging public transit and mixed land-use. In Curitiba, public transportation was used as a tool to develop the compact, sustainable and inclusive city they desired.

Context

Curitiba is the capital city of the State of Parana in Southern Brazil. The city is located about 250 kilometres south-west of Sao Paulo. Currently, it has a population of more than 1.8 million (2015) distributed over an area of about 430 sq.km and a total metropolitan area population of over 3.2 million (IBGE estimate, 2010).

 

 Transportation-land-use integration was adopted early in Curitiba to address the rapid population growth and to keep the city from becoming an uncontrollable, sprawling metropolis (Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc., 1996). In 1964, Curitiba prepared, the “Preliminary Urban Curitiba”, a plan that evolved over the next 2 years to become the “Curitiba Master Plan”. Parallel to the evolution of the plan, in 1966, Curitiba created a planning institute, the “Instituto de Pesquisa e Planejamento Urbano de Curitiba (IPPUC)”, to develop, supervise, monitor, and to continually update the Master Plan (Karas, 1985). The Master Plan directed Curitiba’s growth along proposed bus lanes called “Structural Axes”, by creating articulated densities along the corridors.

Curitiba’s integrated transportation system plays an important role in the realisation of this Master Plan. It is a system of median bus ways along the five “structural axes” complemented by “direct” express service on parallel arterial roads, and by an extensive feeder bus network.

Transforming City with Bus Transit

The BRT in Curitiba was key in the transition of the city from a radial to a linear model of urban growth. The transport system is based on the major radial corridors of the city or the “structural axes”. Each of the structural axes was developed as a “trinary system” comprising three roads. The central road of the three contains a two-way bus-way that feeds into transfer points called “terminals,” and also provides a limited number of traffic lanes. Approximately at the distance of one block from each side of the central bus-way/service road, a one-way traffic road with three or four lanes is developed for use by private vehicles. Intensive high density land-use development has been permitted and encouraged on the block between the bus-way and the main traffic roads on either side. This land-use form creates a concentrated, high demand for transport services along a narrow corridor that can be met efficiently by a track-based public transport service – the bus-way. The bus-way system along the five structural axes is only a part of the Curitiba city-wide bus mass transit system. The system, termed the Rede Integrada de Transporte (RIT – Integrated Transport Network), provides a hierarchy of types of bus service, which include city bus-ways, inter-district express service and feeder network, all operated under an integrated tariff system. Curitiba achieved its intended compact development, independent of private vehicles, using policies and practices in majorly four arenas- land-use planning, public transportation, parking policies and institutional mechanisms.

Land-use Planning

 Several land-use policies emerged in the city which helped to bring out the best of the “trinary road system”. These included: 

• The master plan allows only high-rise (10 to 20 story buildings) and mixed development along the BRT corridors. Also, large-scale shopping centres are only allowed in transit corridors. 

• Land within two blocks of the bus-way has been zoned for mixed commercial-residential uses. Beyond these two blocks, zoned residential densities taper with distance from the bus-ways. It brings together various land-uses in walkable areas within short distances from the transit station.

 • The zoning prescribed by the structural axes has a combination of control and incentives. This includes various bonuses to develop as planned; incentives to transfer development rights; firm control over location of large scale development (such as large shopping centers); provision of incentives to developers to increase residential density close to the transit corridors; and development of transit terminals with a wide range of facilities.

As one move further away from the corridor, buildings become shorter, less dense and lastly it turns into predominantly residential areas. This land-use planning has led to greater number of people staying within the first zone and the density gradually decreasing towards the feeder corridors. City planners took the opportunity to use infrastructure as a tool in dictating the orientation of spatial growth, instead of taking the more common approach of scrambling to make the infrastructure meet pre-existing demands.

Public Transportation

The public transportation system (RIT – Integrated Transport Network), provides a hierarchy of types of bus service, which include city bus-ways, inter-district express service and feeder network, all operated under an integrated tariff system.

•  The bus-way system has been instrumental in driving land-use development and has been used to stimulate development along the structural axes. The buses run frequently and reliably, and the stations are convenient, well designed, comfortable, and attractive.
• Travel demand for the bus-way system is generated because in the central business district (CBD) while traffic access is limited by traffic management, methods bus-ways enter and cross through it (bus-only access, pedestrianisation, parking controls, etc.).
• The BRTS offers many of the features of a subway system at the low cost of a bus system. This includes vehicle movements unimpeded by traffic signals and congestion, fare collection prior to/boarding, quick passenger loading and unloading. To attract passengers, transit stops for the BRTS was constructed with the look and feel of train station with handicapped access equipment at all stops.
• The BRTS uses articulated buses that offer higher seating capacity as compared to conventional buses to avoid the problem of a low drivers to passengers ratio in the city.
• The inter-district express and the bus feeder services integrated into the bus-way attracts commuters from the suburbs as well as parts of the city not covered in the BRTS network through interchange terminals and stops. 

Parking Policies

Parking policies have assisted in shaping travel demand, particularly to/from the central area in Curitiba. Some policies are-

• On-street parking is limited in location and duration
• City’s central area is partially closed to vehicular traffic
• Off-street parking is expensive
• Within structural corridors, development must provide off-street parking 

Institutional Mechanism

The organisations involved in the implementation of the BRTS are the city government (Curitiba Municipality); research and urban planning institute (IPPUC); public transportation corporation (URBS) and private bus operation firms. The inherent structure of the organisations and institutional policies help the system function efficiently.

• An auxiliary to the city’s executive branch of government, the Curitiba Institute of Urban Planning and Research – IPPUC (Instituto de Pesquisa e Planejamento Urbano de Curitiba) was responsible to plan and test solutions. Due to the dual responsibility, new plans were generated, tested, accepted by the community, and put into practice quickly. The population began to trust the ideas of the Institute, and this trust has largely been responsible for changes in the mentality of the city’s inhabitants.

• Work based on the Master Plan in 1965 was financed by the Development Company of Parana and by the Curitiba municipal government’s Department of Urban Development. Operation of the bus system is financed completely by bus fares, without any public subsidies. The Inter American Development Bank, the private sector, and the Municipality of Curitiba financed the north-south Bi-articulated Bus Line project (approved in 1995).
• The municipal government collects detailed operational information, audits the implementation and collects income received from the whole system, and pays the operators for services rendered in real costs. Detailed regulations establish the rights and obligations of the operating companies, define the faults and penalties, and seek to eliminate waste while constantly improving the quality of service. This arrangement ensures the fair distribution of income among operators and prevents unhealthy competition among drivers over specific routes.

 In addition to the land-use-transport sector, Curitiba has also followed enlightened policies on housing, environment, waste recycling, social matters (particularly for the young), and other initiatives.

• Areas outside the transit corridors are zoned for residential neighbourhoods. Also, public housing for low-income families are built along the transit ways.
• Single fare system of ticketing subsidises cost of commute for long distances (mostly used by low-income population residing in the periphery of the city over shorter trips. Besides being socially just, the system facilitated the implementation of fare integration between different companies.
• In spite of having the potential to raise funds for a heavy rail or subway, Curitiba built on its previous bus systems network and developed a BRT system to guide development, and in the process developing a low-cost public transportation system.

Lessons Learned

Long term vision, strong leadership and flexibility in the plan has lead to the success of TOD in Curitiba. By utilising the existing corridors for BRT and adopting measures to intensify development along these corridors, Curitiba established a public transit system at relatively low cost. Through the use of public transportation and land-use instruments, the local governments effectively directed population growth to establish compact dense settlements independent of private vehicles.

The decision to rely on buses was perceived as a more flexible and affordable public transport solution than rail transit for a medium-sized developing city of Curitiba. Both the development of the city and the bus rapid transit system are the result of policies established over the last 30 years on land-use, parkway, transit management and operations, and community participation in the city. But, in recent years Curitiba’s BRT is facing issues due to road accidents, opposition to high fares and thereby decrease in ridership. URBS, the city agency in charge of managing the system, has failed to adapt to changes in usage patterns and evolving demographics. Curitiba’s planning method concentrates on the formal city, not considering the “region”, leaving thousands of low-income residents with no choice but to establish illegal settlements in the absence of affordable housing. This also makes most of the planning interventions that Curitiba is known for – public parks and green spaces, pedestrian streets, preservation of the historic district – inaccessible to many of the suburban (and usually lower income) residents.

The highest density in Curitiba’s TOD zone is 294 persons/hectare or 93 DUs/hectare indicating to a household size of 3.1 members. The same density in India translates to 418 persons/hectare. Curitiba also illustrates the significance of a feeder system to support the main transit system. Clearly, many of the larger Indian cities already have the densities to sustain a TOD along existing transit corridors. But a strong last mile connectivity network is lacking in many parts of the country (Mahadevia, Joshi, & Datey, 2013).

Datasheets

Delhi : Transportation and Regional Transformation

Context

Delhi, also called the National Capital Territory of Delhi (NCT Delhi), is the second most populous urban area in the country after the Mumbai Metropolitan Region. As per Census 2011, its population stood at over 16.7 million persons. From 1951 to 2001, NCT Delhi has seen an average decadal growth rate of 50% (although it slowed down to 21% in the last decade), higher than any other urban area. Much of this growth has occurred along the city’s outer areas such as East Delhi, Noida, Ghaziabad and Gurgaon.

The NCT Delhi is spread over an area of 1484 sq.km and has an average population density of 11,289 persons/sq.km. The density varies from as little as 4,000 persons/sq.km in the inner core of New Delhi district (Lutyens Delhi) to as high as 36,000 persons/sq.km in some of the peripheral area such as the North East district, displaying a doughnut-shaped spatial structure. Barring a few pockets such as Narela, Rohini and Dwarka, much of the urban sprawl in Delhi’s outward growth has occurred in an unplanned manner dominated by unauthorised colonies, slum settlements and urban villages. Also driving these settlements is the unaffordable cost of housing within the NCT (55% of households in NCT earn less than Rs. 30,000 per month and live in unauthorised colonies and slums).

Highway Construction and Regional Transformation

The first Master Plan of Delhi 1962 was the first large-scale planning exercise for the city and it took into account the new urban extensions that were developing post independence. The concept of the Master Plan for Delhi 1962 was based on a poly-nodal, polycentric distribution of work centres and expansion of the road network. In the decades that followed, successive governments built ring corridors encircling the city to provide faster mobility. This continues to be accompanied by an aggressive construction of grade separated interchanges within city limits. This expansion of surface road area of ring corridors, the doughnut-shaped urban form of Delhi and the initial lack of focus on public transport resulted in orbital travel patterns. As seen globally, the result was an exponential growth in private motor vehicle ownership (Delhi’s car ownership at 157 cars per 1000 people is the highest in the country), a corresponding increase in air pollution and congestion and a loss of man-hours (Ministry of Urban Development, 2014). Major arterials of the city are currently down to 10 km/hr average speed in peak hours (UTTIPEC, 2012).

Another major fall out of this strategy was the distortion between infrastructure, transport and land-use. High-density pockets and outgrowths such as Sangam Vihar-Devli, Khora Colony, Karawal Nagar, Loni, Burari, Samaypur, Kirari Suleman, Bawana and Hastsal are still devoid of mass transit modes forcing commuters to rely on personal modes for commuting to work.

 

Hare (Spatial Growth) and Tortoise (Public Transportation) Story

In 1969, a need for a mass rapid transit system for Delhi emerged from traffic and travel characteristics study (Sreedharan, 2002). Although buses served as the common means of transit till late 1970’s, increased affordability of private vehicles began to change the modal trends. Lack of safety of pedestrians, non-motorised transport, and poor conditions of public transport pushed people to opt for personal motorised vehicles (Tiwari, 2011). Between the years 2000 and 2011 there was a phenomenal increase in the growth of the number of vehicles in Delhi (Delhi Development Authority, 2010). The number of buses increased from 15,514 to 34,251 but the number of motor vehicles far outnumbered them (29.51 lakhs in 2000 to 70.01 lakh in 2011) (Economic Survey of Delhi, 2012-13). The private motorised vehicles increased, despite the fact that Delhi has a cheap and affordable transport system. A recent study covered by Hindustan Times indicates the fact and ranked Delhi’s urban transport cheapest among the 60 cities around the globe. The report said in Delhi, average public transport ticket costs $0.22 (about Rs. 13) (Times, 2014). The maximum fare in a non-AC low floor bus is Rs.15 and in an AC low floor bus is Rs.25. Similarly, maximum fare on metro rail is Rs.30 and maximum fare on Airport Express metro line is Rs. 60.

 

Delhi Metro

The Metro changed the face of public transit in Delhi. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) opened its first corridor between Shahdara in east Delhi and Tis Hazari in north Delhi on 25^th December, 2002. Since then the DMRC network (today 190 km) has crossed the boundaries of Delhi to reach Noida and Ghaziabad in Uttar Pradesh and Gurgaon in Haryana. The system has kept more than 3.9 lakh vehicles off the roads in 2014, resulting in a saving of Rs. 10,364 Crore in fuel consumption, reduction in pollution, work hours lost and fuel due to decongestion along with other benefits (PTI, 2015). The metro network came up in response to alleviate high travel demand patterns existing along the arterial roads of Delhi but did not change the travel patterns; it provided relief from the road based congestion by accommodating the growing number of commuters along the existing corridors.

Despite the operational success of the metro system in Delhi, this mass transit system is yet to infuse new service infrastructure and guide urban growth along the metro corridors. Disagreement between the agencies (DDA and DMRC) on the FAR thresholds and on sharing benefits from higher development revenues have prevented the implementation of a robust value capture model for the city.

The initial mechanism for revenue generation and value capture relied on renting areas within the metro premises for commercial activities. This strategy resulted in the metro stations transforming into commercial hubs, for example – Banquet hall at Karkardooma Metro Station, fast food joints at metro stations at Akshardham, Rajiv Chowk, New Delhi, Kaushambi, Nehru Place, etc. This was significantly different from utilising Transit Oriented Development for new housing and job centres; this was more akin to generating positive business externalities due to increased commuting footfalls within the metro station premises. 

The business model for DMRC has now evolved to include developing depot and standalone plots into larger real estate projects by leasing these plots on a 90-year lease (DMRC). Consequently, large-scale development projects such as hotel development (Taj Group of Hotels) at Sector 21-Dwarka, high-end residential development at Vishwavidyalaya and Khyber Pass depot and IT Parks at Shastri Park Depot emerged. This has led to a jump in the revenues of DMRC due to real estate development; 30% of the recurrent income of DMRC is attributed to real estate development (Hiroaki Suzuki). The pattern of these developments indicates a selection based on easy availability and assembly of land and segregated land-use developments connected by a transit line.

Equally important is that rather than pursuing densification around the transit routes, the Metro has enabled accessibility and further expansion of the city to erstwhile fringe areas such as Bahadurgarh, Faridabad, Gurgaon and Noida. The NCT continues to experience accelerated growth towards the periphery and a further hollowing out of the city centre. This has lead to a dichotomy whereby public transit investments have improved mobility for the urban commuters but the sprawl has not been arrested. The average trip length of Metro commute is more than 14 kilometres (RITES, 2008) indicating that this mode has become more of a regional connector than a local one.

Bus System in Delhi and Bus Rapid Transit System

Delhi has one of India’s largest bus transport systems. The bus system is operated by the state-owned Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC). Buses are the most popular means of transport by carrying 27% of the total trips made in Delhi (GNCTD, 2010). Given that 80% of the trips made in Delhi are less than 10 km, enabling a high capacity efficient bus network can also help in shifting car owners to shift to Metro for longer commutes. As compared to the Metro (3%, GNCTD, 2010), the bus system has a wider geographical reach, providing accessibility to areas in outer Delhi; areas such as Tikri border, Najafgarh and Bijwasan etc. Despite this significance, the bus system in Delhi has gaps in the quality of service as can be seen below (Basu, 2012):

• The gaps between the number of buses required and the actual number of buses plying in a mega-region like Delhi is significant. Estimates show while 10,000 buses (as even directed by Supreme Court on 27 July 1998) are needed for providing regional and last mile connectivity, the existing fleet is only 6088 buses across 773 routes with only 34% of the fleet conforming to urban bus specifications (Basu, 2012).

• The low quality of operations and maintenance of the bus fleet leads to frequent breakdowns (Refer to the chapter on public transport improvements) and underutilisation of the bus fleet thereby reducing the frequency. Some estimates show the average wait time for buses in Delhi is 70 minutes (includes all DTC routes, including low-frequency routes in outer Delhi, night service, etc.) (Basu, 2012).

These two factors and the congestion on the streets in Delhi makes bus a less preferred mode of commuting as compared to the Metro, despite the higher penetration of the bus network on Delhi’s streets.

To induce a change in the bus culture of the city, the government planned for a Bus Rapid Transit System. In April 2008, Delhi began its first dedicated bus corridor that was only 5.8 km long. This stretched from Moolchand to Ambedkar Nagar along JBT Marg in South Delhi and was to be the pilot of a BRT network. Given the limited length, the corridor was designed as an open system without dedicated buses to run solely in the stretch. The system began with issues related to extensive queuing in general traffic lanes due to 4-minute signal cycles in peak hours, accidents and fatalities due to jaywalking and over-speeding buses and unreliability of buses due to breakdowns and lack of driver training. Although most of these issues were resolved in time by Delhi Integrated Multi-modal Transit System Ltd. (DIMTS) who were the managing agency, it built a negative perception among the mass media that gathered steam given that the corridor earlier catered to the elite motor vehicle users of South Delhi. Additionally, a survey of actual user feedback by CSE (The Perception Survey: Bus Rapid Transit System, 2008) indicated positive reports from 88% of bus users, 85% of pedestrians and non-motorised vehicle users, 45% of motor vehicle users and 50% of other modes. In spite of an increase of 14% in per capita travel time for private motor vehicles, there was a 35% reduction in travel time for bus users. The total increase in per capita efficiency for the dedicated bus corridor was 19% (Hidalgo & Pai, 2009).

 

Ironically despite the benefits, the operation of the corridor had been suspended in 2013 on the orders of the Delhi High Court in response to a public interest litigation arguing that the corridor is in contradiction to the Delhi Master Plan 2021. This highlights the  ailure of managing outreach and communication of benefits for a newly invested public transit corridor.

In spite of Delhi’s recent investments in public transport systems, Delhi has been unable to deliver efficient, comfortable and affordable mobility options to its citizens. The current lack of last mile connectivity (in particular to Metro stations), abundant subsidised parking options as well as a lack of safety for pedestrians, cyclists and women in the city has resulted in public transportation being relegated to second or even last choice of travel.

Provisions of Delhi TOD Policy Draft 2012

The Master Plan of Delhi 2021 clearly outlines its goals for densification along MRTS corridors. Its TOD Policy was developed over a period of six years beginning in 2009. In 2012, the TOD Policy was taken up for extensive public consultation by the Management Action Group (MAG) for Transportation. An updated version of the policy was approved by the Ministry of Urban Development in 2015. The policy was further changed and released for public suggestions and objections in 2016.

 

The policy is still to be finalised. Delhi’s Transit Oriented Development Policy Draft of 2012 covers following key components:

A. Pedestrian and NMT friendly environment and connectivity

Good pedestrian and cycling/NMT facilities to be promoted to reduce dependence on motor vehicles for short trips and induce modal shift. The policy attempts to promote pedestrian activities and amenities for pedestrian, NMT and public transport users for improving safety and convenience. All streets, public spaces and buildings must be universally accessible, streets must be well-lit.

The policy has a provision of dedicated streets for NMT. Provide shortest routes for NMT and pedestrians to stations and bus stops. Mandatory primary pedestrian entry to building complexes.

B. Multi-Modal Interchange

Minimise the number and the time required for transfer between different modes for maximum commuters. Ensuring reliable, frequent and affordable public transport systems across the city. Create compact, mixed-use developments and enable sharing and multi-use of spaces to reduce number and length of trips. Incentivise use of public transport, IPT and NMT modes by making them comparatively cheaper, convenient, safe and easily available. Limit and price private parking appropriately to discourage private vehicle use in TOD catchment areas.

C. Density

Densification through redevelopment and infill within existing urban areas is to be prioritised over development in urban extension. Underutilisation of FAR (below 3.0 and the corresponding minimum density) is not permissible for any new or redevelopment projects. The policy also mentions that higher FAR would be an effective tool only for the redevelopment of low-density and/or dilapidated neighbourhoods existing along transit stations. As per the policy, the minimum standard for gross density permissible for any TOD project is 250 DU/ha.

D. Land-Use

All projects and sites within TOD influence zones may have a mix of uses. At least 30% residential and 20% Commercial & Institutional use of FAR is mandatory in every new/redevelopment project within the Influence Zone.

E. Minimum Housing Mix Criteria

Minimum 15% of FAR for all TOD projects to be allocated to rental or for-sale housing with unit sizes no larger than 25 sq.m (small size units for low-income and economically weaker sections). Another 15% of FAR for all TOD projects should be of unit sizes 40 sq.m or less. Provision of dormitories, daily rental homes, hostels within walking/cycling distance of Stations, and in close proximity to sources of employment and recreation.

F. Parking Reform

The aim of parking policy in TOD zones is to manage and control the parking supply and demand within the area. Caps shall be calculated by the process of a Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) to be conducted for each influence zone or TOD project. Parking for IPT and NMT modes shall be prioritised at-grade and on-street, within 300m of the Station and also provided within 300m walking distance of every home within all TOD zones. In New/Redevelopment Projects, all parking facilities shall be shared between activities with different peak hours of activity. Park-and-Ride Facilities for private modes may be provided only at Terminal MRTS Stations or major Multimodal Interchanges.

G. Open Spaces and Social Infrastructure

To ensure efficient and optimum use of land, social amenities shall no longer be given individual plots of land within the influence zone. They shall be allocated the required built-up area within planned redevelopment schemes as per Masterplan requirements. Open Space requirements for the residential population may be provided on site.

In the story of the hare and tortoise, the hare moves ahead rapidly without much thought for conserving its strength, while the tortoise slowly but steadily keeps moving to reach, the eventually tired out tortoise to win the race. Something similar is going in India’s National Capital Territory. In the last decades, the city has rapidly grown outwards without much thought for the connections of transportation and infrastructure. The new solutions we

Lesson Learned

The TOD and redevelopment policies of the city are opportunities to correct accessibility issues while simultaneously making policy changes in the existing Development Control Regulation. In Delhi, the lack of adequate affordable housing has forced citizens to either commute long distances or to live illegally in the near proximity of their workplace. The TOD policy floated for Delhi addresses the need for affordable housing within walking distances from transit stations (Bureau, 2015). Given that metro in Delhi would only serve a portion of the city - both in modal share and in area covered - even when it is completely developed, it is necessary that it serves the role of a regional transit system and inculcate other modes into its planning to create a networked transportation grid. In spite of 27% (RITES, 2008) of the modal share being that of buses, the routes have not been realigned to be supplementary to the metro system.

The effectiveness of the TOD Policy that allowed for increased densities by increasing permissible FAR around MRTS stops is diluted in the city by the Redevelopment and Land Pooling Policy that allow for similar limits of permissible FAR. Also, in the case of multiple agencies working together, as with DMRC and DDA, coordination plays a big role in solving any conflict of interest and sharing profits. Limitations in Delhi's TOD can be briefly summarised as-

• No integration of different travel modes
• Delhi metro routes are along the major arterial roads. This was planned to decongest roads but it did not help in changing or transforming the movement patterns. Even the upcoming III and IV phases of metro are aligned along the existing outer and inner ring roads
• The metro terminals are located outside the city boundary. These terminals act as development nodes and have further promoted the outward growth of the city thus supporting sprawl
• At some places, last mile connectivity to major public modes is poor. Metro feeder services are available only at selected stations. Pedestrians and the NMT are amongst the most neglected ones
• DMRC needs to use the same development policies as DDA, in order to promote mixed development and affordable housing

Datasheets

Paris: Improving Quality of Life through Mass Transit

Context

Paris is the capital and most populous city of France. It is in the centre of the Île-de-France region, also known as the Région Parisienne or Paris Region. The City of Paris retains its old administrative boundaries, with an area of only 105 sq.km (41 sq.mi) and has a population of about 2.5 millions. Paris’ metropolitan area spans over the Île-de-France region (2,845 sq.km) and has a population of about 11 million. It has an urban density of over 21,000 persons/sq.km, which is rather comparable to Indian cities. For instance Mumbai has a density of around 23,000 persons/sq.km.

Paris has a metro station every 500 meters accessing 16 lines. It is supported by a network of bus and tramway lines. Paris is also the hub of the Réseau Express Régional (RER), a higher-speed and wider-spaced-station above- and under- ground train network with 5 lines that connect the capital to more distant suburban regions. The Transilien, a 6 lines rail network radiating from the capital’s train and RER stations, compliments this with access to yet more suburban destinations. The RATP (Régie Autonome des Transports Parisiens) manages all transport within and extending from the City of Paris, and the SNCF (Société Nationale des Chemins de Fer Français, the state-owned rail company whose network covers all of France) manages all transport outside of and only penetrating the capital. Metro, tramway, and bus services are run by the RATP. RER and Transilien, are run by the SNCF. Paris’ transportation pricing schedule is dictated by zones, with zones 1-2 covering the capital and its immediate periphery, and zones 3, 4 and 5 covering increasingly distant destinations in the Île-de-France region. The Navigo pass, a means of payment using a same contactless smart card for all public transportation in the Île-de-France region for a flat fee.

However, despite the very good public transportation offered in the French capital, the use of private vehicles still represents over 30% of the modal split and the metropolis suffers from recurring congestion and high air pollution levels. In addition, some disadvantaged suburbs do not benefit from this good connectivity. Commuters from these areas sometimes take more than an hour to reach the centre of Paris. This constitutes a barrier to employment access. For many years, Paris has been experiencing a housing crisis. With little housing available in the centre of the capital, and both rents and real estate prices have become very high. As a consequence, the Parisian employees must accommodate themselves increasingly far from the city centre, resulting in urban sprawl. The Grand Paris project adopts a very comprehensive approach to tackle this and other different issues faced by the capital.

The new transport network will be accompanied by major urban projects developed as TODs. The Grand Paris Express will be an unprecedented economic, technological and social accelerator, which will link the three Paris region’s airports with business districts and science parks. New neighbourhoods will host multiple features (housing, economic activities, university centres and cultural facilities) around the strategically placed stations.

Improving Quality of Life with Mass Transit

The project aims to improve connectivity across the capital to promote the use of public transportation, resulting in improvement of residents’ quality of life, reduction of spatial inequalities, and reduction of greenhouse gases emissions. The project has two components: the first one concerns the modernisation and extension of the existing network and the second one is the creation of new automatic metro lines, the Grand Paris Express.

The Grand Paris project will modernise and extend the existing network according to a plan of more than €12 billion (€7 billion by 2017) that will improve daily commute for Parisians. This includes the extension of five metro lines (1, 4, 11, 12, 14), extension of the RER to the West, the modernisation of all RER lines, the creation of 7 new tram lines and the extension of another 4 tram lines, the construction of 5 Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) lines, the improvement of Transilien lines and the construction and rehabilitation of 13 multimodal hubs to facilitate connections from one mode of transport to another.

The main component of the project is the creation of 4 new automatic metro lines, the Grand Paris Express. The estimated cost of the project is € 22.5 billion for 200 km of metro lines, 72 stations, generating 15,000 to 20,000 direct jobs. In the medium term, 90% of Parisians will be living within 2 km from a station. These 4 lines, (15, 16, 17 and 18) 90% will be underground and covered by automatic metros. Frequency will be favoured over capacity, with only 2 to 3 minutes between trains. Ultimately, these four lines will carry 2 million passengers daily. Construction began in 2015, and from 2022 to 2030, all lines will be phased into service without interruption of service.

Thus, the project will result in the reduction of commuting times. The promotion of public transport will lead to reduction in car use leading to better air quality and reduction of greenhouse gases emissions. Finally, the new transportation network will achieve a better balance between areas, between East and West and between Paris and the suburbs, reducing of spatial inequalities.

Institutional Mechanism

Paris’ metropolitan area has a very complex governance structure, including up to 5 levels of territorial authorities which involve hundreds of very small local bodies at the lowest level and several specific situations in each of those levels. These various administrative levels often create confusion for both citizens and professionals and lead to difficulties in the implementation of large scale projects which overlap different territorial authorities’ jurisdictions or territories.

Thus, there was a need for reorganisation of powers and for simplification of the governance structure of Paris and its densest suburbs, which led to the creation of the Métropole du Grand Paris: the institutional part of the project. TheMétropole du Grand Paris is a governance structure encompassing the City of Paris, 123 municipalities of the 3 departments of the inner suburbs (Hauts-de-Seine, Seine-Saint-Denis and Val-de-Marne) and 7 municipalities of the departments of the outer suburbs. Passed by the French Parliament in December 2013, January 2014 and August 2015, the creation of this special status metropolitan local body took place on January 1st, 2016, at which all the former intermunicipal structure of this territory were replaced by this new territorial authority. Hence, the Métropole du Grand Paris is itself an intermunicipal structure (see diagram) and replaces 11 distinct intermunicipal structures.

Its surface is 814 sq.km and it includes almost 7.5 million inhabitant.

The original plan for the Métropole declared these objectives: “The Métropole du Grand Paris is established in order to define and implement metropolitan action to improve the quality of life of its residents, reduce inequalities between regions within it, to develop an urban, social and economic sustainability model, tools to improve attractiveness and competitiveness for the benefit of the entire national territory”. Thus, the jurisdiction of the Métropole du Grand Paris encompasses planning, housing, economic development, construction and maintenance of the cultural and sports facilities, environment, sustainability and fight against pollution, and projects of metropolitan interest. Among its jurisdiction, the Métropole itself will be responsible for strategic level planning and public policy development and the public territorial institutions for the level of implementation and management.

Housing and Densification

Housing is the second leading pillar of the Grand Paris project. While rising rents and property prices cause difficulties to number of households to find housing, there is an urgent need for more housing, at reasonable prices and at strategic locations.

The law of 2010 about the Grand Paris project fixed the target of 70,000 units per year for 25 years, against 40,000 per year before the project. Construction of 63,000 housing units started in 2015. To comply with the legal obligation of 25% of social housing, this objective involves the construction of 17,500 social homes a year for 25 years. The ambition is to build, about 1.5 million of additional housing overall.

The amount of public funding related to the construction of social housing, directly attributable to the Grand Paris, will be €11 billion. This amount will add up to €42 billion for the construction of private housing. Private investment in housing construction will also be fostered by attractive loans. The total surface needed to meet the goal of 70,000 units built per year is 200 sq.km. Some territories, particularly those adjacent to the future stations of the Grand Paris Express, appear as priorities for this project. It is therefore nearly 400,000 houses which will be built around the stations of the future subway.

In addition, the new transport network will be accompanied by major urban projects developed as TODs. New neighbourhoods will host multiple features (housing, economic activities, university centres and cultural facilities) around the strategic and structuring places that are the stations. The aim is to bring out clusters and establish a balance between the Paris region and isolated and deprived areas. In order to enable this development, the Contrats de Dévelopement Territorial (CDT, English: Territorial Development Contracts) have been defined in the June 3, 2010 law of on the Grand Paris. These contracts, operationally oriented, bound the French State and municipalities to undertake economic, urban and social development of the territories defined as strategic, particularly those served by the public transport network of the Grand Paris. They specify among others the number of housing and social housing to be built in each neighbourhood. A total of 22 CDT were signed, covering 8% of the region, 157 municipalities, 4.4 million inhabitants (38% of the region’s population) and 2.1 million jobs (39% of the region’s jobs).

An international contest called “Les HUBS du Grand Paris” (English: Grand Paris’ hubs) is organised by the Métropole du Grand Paris. The winners will be granted land and building rights for their projects. Urban guidelines for development, density, urban form, provisions for roads and public facilities, etc. will be defined in advance and will integrate reversibility of buildings and spaces, mixed use within the same building and the same neighbourhood, diversified activities in the ground floor to foster employment and vibrant station areas, public spaces designed to complement the buildings and the train station, etc. The winners will be selected in 2018 and constructions will be completed between 2022 and 2024.

Datasheets

Mumbai Metropolitan Region : Railway Guided Development

Context

Mumbai is the capital of State of Maharashtra in India, and its economy is based on financial services, IT enabled services and media/entertainment. The city of Greater Mumbai is geographically divided into 3 main regions, Mumbai island city (25% of the population (Census, 2011), the Eastern Suburbs (30% of the population (Census, 2011) and the Western Suburbs (44% of the population (Census, 2011). The population trends have stabilised in the island city and now growth is expected to slow down by 2034, but the population in the suburbs is expected to grow up to 80% of the total population by 2034 (LEA Associates, 2008). This diffusion of population is correlated with the transformation of Mumbai from a predominantly mono-centric city to a poly-centric city with new business centres in the suburbs. The city credits its rail network, which carries over 7.5 million passengers daily (MCGM, 2005), for enabling this diffusion.

The first passenger train in India, the Great Indian Peninsula Railway (GIPR), ran in 1853 in erstwhile Bombay (Mumbai) Presidency over a distance of 34 km, with the primary aim of transporting cotton and other raw materials from the Indian hinterlands to Bombay port for shipment to Europe (Alkekar, 2014). Since then, the railways in Mumbai has expanded to 465 km in five corridors: two on the Western Line, two on the Central Line, and one on the Harbour Line (connecting Mumbai to Navi Mumbai). With the support of strong network of railways, the city that was confined to the island with partial expansion to the suburbs and a population of about 6 million in the 1970s, grew into a metropolitan region with population of about 14 million in 1990s and 22 million in 2012.

The Mumbai Metropolitan Region as of today is spread over 4355 sq.km with 8 municipal corporations, including Greater Mumbai, Thane, Kalyan-Dombivali, Ulhasnagar, Mira-Bhayandar, Bhiwandi Nizampur, Navi Mumbai and Vasai-Virar, 13 municipal councils and 996 villages. It has a population of over 20.7 million and is one of the most populous metropolitan areas in the world (PIB, 2015). The two big cities of this metropolitan of Mumbai and Navi Mumbai support the densest suburban railway network in this region.

The city of Navi Mumbai (New Bombay) is separated from Mumbai by the bay. It was conceptualised in 1970s with a strategic focus on decongesting Mumbai’s population, port operations and industries. Even though the average population density of Navi Mumbai is considerably less (about 4167 persons/sq.km) as compared to Mumbai (about 20,000 persons/sq.km), its net residential density is very close to the threshold (5000 persons/sq.km) needed for sustaining transit systems.

Railway Guided Development

The case of Mumbai Metropolitan Region illustrates that efficient urban transport systems are critical elements of the sustainable urban development. An incredible 88% of all travel in Greater Mumbai is by bus and rail; this illustrates the popularity and necessity of having an effective and efficient public transport system, particularly the railways (Sehgal & Surayya, 2011). Suburban rail system is the primary commuting mode in Mumbai metropolitan region, with over 52% of the total daily trips to work made by this mode of transport. Railways in Mumbai Metropolitan Region perform the dual function of connecting the multiple CBDs in Mumbai city and extending connectivity to the suburbs. The high average trip length of 24 km (LEA Associates, 2008) for this mode indicates the regional connectivity provided by the network. Railway has guided and continues to guide the growth of Mumbai in several ways:

• City form: The key driver of Mumbai’s compactness is its physical geography (Rode, 2007). The linear form of Mumbai city was lent to the railway corridors and growth is seen around the station nodes on all the three main lines. TOD principles suggest intensification activities around transit stations; in case of Mumbai, this began organically.

• Affordable Housing: Firstly, the high cost of housing in Greater Mumbai invariably forces people, mostly the middle income population who can afford it, to move to distant suburbs in the north and east. The suburban rail network offers a feasible option for their work commute needs. Secondly, the urban poor, who cannot afford the suburban housing end up squatting on the derelict land along railway lines, along canals and under bridges. The slums are in the city core (eg Dharavi, Mankhurd) because of proximity to eastern and western suburban lines and new slums have now proliferated on the urban fringes along the railway lines (eg. Mankhurd). In Mumbai, access dictates location, proximity and daily routines more than in most other cities, particularly for the urban poor (Rode, 2007) and the middle income group.

• Affordable transport: The average monthly expenses (Rs. 400) for suburban rail commuting are the second lowest (just higher than company bus) amongst all modes available in Metropolitan Mumbai (LEA Associates, 2008). This indicates the affordability of railways for majority of households, with median household income of Rs. 7000 in Mumbai.

• Multiple CBDs: Mumbai was predominantly a monocentric city, with a tidal pattern of commuting with a directional ratio as high as 80: 20 southbound in the mornings and reverse in the evenings (Balakrishnan). But, the city has now turned poly-centric with new business centres in suburbs such as Bandra-Kurla (diamond bourses and government jobs), Lower Parel (finance, insurance, television and print media), Andheri-Kurla (hospitality, airport), SEEPZ (electronics manufacture and export, IT and BPO) Malad (film production and media houses) and Goregoan (film production), coordinated under the strong railways network.

• Station and station area planning: Station areas in Greater Mumbai, like all older cities in India, are predominantly occupied by street vendors, parking for auto-rickshaw, drop off, parking for two wheelers and bus stops for feeder modes such as buses. In a study on Ghatkopar station precinct , EMBARQ found that on an average, 50% people walk or use NMT, 15% use IPT and 34% use buses to reach the station (EMBARQ India, 2014). Also, 12% land is under commercial use and over 29% of the land-use is under mixed use, inviting higher footfall. These figures are representative of most station areas in Mumbai. To alleviate the issues arising from unplanned commercial use and conflict for road space, the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) developed a Station Area Traffic Improvement Schemes (SATIS), whereby skywalks, foot over bridges, separate parking areas for auto-rickshaws and taxis were built at four crowded suburban railway stations. In Navi Mumbai, where stations and station areas were planned and implemented much later, the stations were scientifically designed for quick discharge of passengers that improve the experience of commuters. The station buildings are designed to leverage the commercial space above, and also provide adequate parking facilities, which invites more activities to the station than only commute needs.

• Feeder systems and last mile connectivity: Intermodal connections with feeder buses and rickshaws for last mile connectivity are integrated into the development and design of stations. Close to 50% of the operational routes of the biggest bus operator in Mumbai, Bombay Electric Supply and Transport (BEST), pertain to the feeder routes providing last mile connectivity between the suburban rail network and the residential and office areas (Vasudevan & Mulukutla, 2014). Nearly 34% of the trips to Ghatkopar railway station are on BEST buses (EMBARQ India, 2014).

• Other transport modes: Given that the median walking time for household in Greater Mumbai to the nearest bus stop is 5 minutes as compared to between 10-20 minutes to the nearest suburban train station (Baker, Basu, Crooper, Lall, & Takeuchi, 2005), the bus network acts not only as feeders, but also as a primary mode of commute. Buses carry volumes (4,000,000 passengers in Greater Mumbai (Vasudevan & Mulukutla, 2014)) similar to the suburban rail network in the city. Other mass transit modes in Greater Mumbai include metro and monorail. One metro corridor with a current average weekday ridership of 263,000 is complete (out of the nine corridors proposed). A 20 km monorail corridor is also planned in Greater Mumbai for connecting the other island nodes (other than railway inter-changes) with eastern suburbs. These additional corridor aim to fill in the transportation linkage gaps that exist in the east-west direction of the metro region to reduce redundant travel in the north south direction for accessing interchange terminals, in the case of Navi Mumbai as well, other modes share commuters. City’s Buses carry 150,000 passengers daily on an average. Navi Mumbai is also in the implementation phase of its own metro network with four corridors. The city is also expanding the suburban railway system with three new suburban rail corridors and doubling the capacity of an existing corridor.

Suburban railway system played significant role in the growth pattern of Mumbai Metropolitan Region. The heavy demand on the system has prompted the planning authorities and the Railways of the region to invest in continuous upgrades and augmentation to the system. Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA), the regional development authority, formulated the Mumbai Urban Transport Project (MUTP) to guide the development of transportation infrastructure in Mumbai Metropolitan Region. The Mumbai Development Plan 2014-34 proposed to tap into the influence of the rail network further and to adopt TOD principles for the development of all station areas on the three suburban lines, metro and monorail corridors in the city of Greater Mumbai (UDRI, 2015). The stations are classified into 3 categories (Order 1, 2 and 3) and varying influence areas respectively (1000m, 500m and 300m) for intense development and value capture of the transit networks. The classification is based on the number of the passenger boarding and alighting at the stations and possible interchange connections with other transit modes. The station areas are to be developed as mixed commercial-residential zones to decrease the need for commuting and encourage walk and bike trips. (Shah, et al., 2014).

Lessons Learnt

The cities of Mumbai and Navi Mumbai along with the rest of the Mumbai Metropolitan Region typify regional transit oriented development ever since the first railway line. The total passenger traffic growth in this suburban rail network has grown 6 times since its early beginnings; but the capacity augmentation has been slow (2.3 times).

Consequently the trains are crowded beyond capacity, some estimates tipping it at 16 persons/sq.m (UDRI, 2015) in a Mumbai train. Also, in Greater Mumbai, the traditional north-south transportation profile now has started transforming into east-west transportation profile thereby necessitating new investments to connect the eastern and western suburbs. Some important lessons to be learned from the rail story of Mumbai are:

• More than 50% of trips to work in Mumbai are made by walk alone. Such high shares of pedestrian volumes can be retained only with suitable parking reforms that reduce off-street parking minimums to zero near nodes on the suburban network and impose parking maximums, and thereby provide safe and connected walking environment.

• Mumbai’s existing densities are high enough to offer financial sustainability to public transportation investments. Within the existing nodes, the focus is on the “shift and improve” mechanisms by improving public transportation operations. It is currently pursued by prioritising allocation for public transport, NMT and pedestrian facilities, and supporting usage of roadways for public transport (buses) through signal prioritisation, roadway allocation etc.

• Affordable housing stock is being built in the northern suburbs and satellite towns of Mumbai (Kalyan-Dombivali, Thane) resulting in longer commutes.

While in American cities, the transit to suburbs focus on reducing automobile usage of the rich, in Mumbai, middle and lower income groups reside in suburbs and already use public transportation as the main mode of commute; thereby requiring a focus on improving the quality of public transport.

The Slum Rehabilitation Scheme (SRS) in Mumbai in 16 years (1995- 2011) was able to house at least 350,000 slum dwellers in formal housing and 100, 000 in transit housing, mostly in situ. But the SRS model of rehabilitation consumes too much time due to implementation in a plot-by-plot manner, and is practical only in areas with high land value (Banerjee, 2011). The pace of development required is much higher in Mumbai where 40% of the population is still residing in slums covering only 9% of land (MCGM, 2014).

Mumbai Development Plan 2014-2034 proposed to increase FAR in the city; but without rationalising the values to the existing densities and provision of urban amenities. TOD presents opportunity in the city to develop the low density newer nodes on the global TOD norms of density and diversity while also managing people densities in the highly dense older nodes without worsening the urban experience.

• Housing and transportation are bundled goods in an economic sense that have to be matched with the demand in the market. 130 thousand luxury tenements lie vacant in Mumbai (Frank Knight Real Estate Research Report) while 1.1 million affordable housing units are required in Mumbai (MCGM, 2014). The oversupply of type of houses that do not match the demand indicate the need to rethink the housing strategy for Mumbai. If densification is the objective through a TOD policy, then the rationale for limiting the tenement sizes and retaining some component for affordable and rental housing is unavoidable in TOD projects. TOD enablers such as overlay zones will grant provisions for modifications to DCRs to allow separate provisions/norms for affordable housing in Mumbai.

The Comprehensive Transportation Study (CTS) conducted by the Mumbai Metropolitan Regional Development Authority (MMRDA) recorded an increase of private vehicle ownership over a period between 1996 to 2005 for cars and two-wheelers per 1000 persons, to the tune of 52 to 82 and 50 to 97, respectively (LEA Associates, 2008). Compared to other Asian cities like Hong Kong, Singapore and Delhi, Mumbai shows very low car ownership ratios and very little modal share of cars (2%); but very high off-street parking norms (EMBARQ India, 2014). This is primarily done to reduce on-street congestion due to parking; however, in effect is encouraging car dependency; thereby inviting more cars on-street. High norms for off-street parking compete for land in presence of pressing issues like housing. Travel demand management mechanisms such as congestion charging, parking maximums and increasing on-street parking prices in CBD areas will push people to use public transportation.

Stations around the suburban, metro and monorail corridors in Mumbai suffer from lack of proper design of streets and sidewalks infrastructure, competing demands by pedestrians, street vendors and intermediate personal transport (IPT), lack of information about feeder systems and lack of street furniture and other public amenities; factors that greatly influence the attractiveness of walking to the transit stations (EMBARQ India, 2014). Attempts to implement SATIS in Mumbai did not achieve the intended outcomes of facilitating pedestrian movements through the construction of elevated pedestrian walkways. The Mumbai Development Plan 2014-34 now makes the intent to prioritise pedestrian movement at grade, through segregated, comfortable, car-free zones in the immediate vicinity of the transit or intended TOD stations clear.

The TOD policy has been formulated in the Development Plan, but the specific development control regulations (DCRs) are yet to be framed to address parking, urban form and inclusionary housing needs within the influence zones of these target stations (Shah, et al., 2014). Going forward, pro-active interventions will only retain the high public transit share in the city and region.

Datasheets

Tokyo : Collaboration between Rail and Land Development

Context

Tokyo is the capital and most populous city of Japan. Its population is estimated to be 13.49 million in 2015 which is about 11% of Japan’s total population. At 2,191 sq.km, the area of Tokyo is 0.6% of the total area of Japan and the city has a population density of 6,158 persons/sq.km (Tokyo Metropolitan Government, 2016).

Rail is a major mode of transportation in the city with 48% of the trips carried out on trains. The city has a substantial rail network that includes two loop lines in the central area. Most of central Tokyo is within walking distance from a station, 23% trips are walk trips and 14% are by bicycle, making the trains and subways indispensable to economic and human activity. Tokyo’s railway system is considerably advanced with respect to railway density and development of the subway network. In Tokyo’s ward area, 9.18 million people a day use this subway network to move around the city.

Trains are operated on a precise, high frequency schedule, including trains operating on time at intervals of 2-3 minutes during peak commuting hours. A daily 2.46 million of these people use Toei Subway (operated by TMG Bureau of Transportation) (Tokyo Metropolitan Government, 2016)

 

Source 34: JR Group Services Region
(Source: Japan-guide.com)

Post World War II Japan government privatised the Japan National Railway (JNR). JNR then operated every network except the monorail and city metro. Tokyo’s metropolitan government granted exclusive franchises to private railway conglomerates so as to transfer the financial burden to the private sector. This created a close collaboration of railway and real estate. Post privatisation the JNR was able to pay its debt and make profit. Following the success of this integration in railways, the metro within the city was also privatised.

The Japan Railway (JR) Group lies at the heart of Japan’s railway network, operating a large proportion of intercity rail service (including the Shinkansen - high-speed rail lines) and commuter rail service. JR East is the biggest operator of railway passenger lines in the city. It is also the largest passenger railway company in the world. Besides the Shinkansen and the Monorail, the most prominent line of JR East is the JR Yamanote Line, a circle line which connects Tokyo’s multiple city centres. It also operates JR East commuter lines that radiate from Tokyo to its suburbs. There are several other private railway networks that also operate in Tokyo. Among these are Keikyu with 5 lines, Keio with 6 lines, Keisei with 7 lines, Odakyu with 3 lines, Seibu with 13 lines, Tobu with 12 lines, Tokyu with 8, for a total of 55 non-JR lines serving Tokyo Prefecture.

The Tokyo subway network has a total of 13 lines operated by two companies – the Tokyo Metro and Toei (Tokyo Metropolitan Bureau of Transportation). In 2015, the combined subway network of the Tokyo and Toei metros comprised of 285 stations over a total system length of 304.1 km and carried a combined average of over 8 million passengers daily (Tokyo Metropolitan Bureau of Transportation).

Collaboration between Rail and Real estate

Tokyo is transit-oriented in both regional and station area terms. TOD in Tokyo is characterised by private transit operators building high density suburbs along their transit lines to boost ridership; and in Tokyo commuters from each station can access most daily services on foot. They used land consolidation techniques to assemble farmlands at cheap prices ahead of rail construction to finance neighbourhood infrastructure. Under this, the landowners formed cooperatives that consolidate land (often irregular shaped) and the developers returned a small (almost rectangular) but developed and fully serviced parcel to the land owners. Roads, drainage, sewerage, parks and other facilities were funded by selling the extra reserved land contributed by the cooperative members. This technique reduced the risk of acquiring land.

A major reason behind the success of Tokyo’s private rail lines is the diversification of the business beyond transportation into real estate holdings and retail outlets. This means both profitability for the company and better transportation for city residents. Government regulation of fares coupled with limited subsidies for railway operations pushed the private railways to innovate and diversify into a wide variety of related businesses. Due to long-term interest in the communities they built along their rail lines, the private railways provided valuable social benefits through public transportation while still capturing the profits. High quality frequent rail service to dense, mixed-use, safe, pedestrian-friendly developments allowed Tokyo to achieve enviable rates of public transit usage and given its citizens the freedom to view automobile ownership as a lifestyle choice rather than a necessity.

Currently, 8 private companies are operating the rail network in Tokyo. The integration of real estate has been expanded into construction and operation of department stores at terminal stations as well as putting in tourist attractions along the route.

Other measures that support TOD in Tokyo

• Tokyo adopts a unique set of parking policies which have helped to restrain vehicle growth. The proof-of parking rule requires car-buyers to first secure a night time parking place before registering a car. The minimum parking requirements in the city is set at very low. Also, the policy exempts small buildings from parking requirement if limited on-street parking is available (Barter, 2010). Since parking is scarce and costly, (as parking rates are commercially priced) it is harder for people to meet the proof-of-parking-rule and own a car (LOH, September 2013).

• Expanding urban and regional transit involved subsidies amounting to 35% of the capital cost provided for by both central and local governments. Even the expansion of the high-speed rail service is subsidised partially by the local governments because they eventually benefit from improved accessibility resulting in higher local tax revenues.

• Tokyo also plans to revive its bus industry. Buses account for about 3% (Tokyo Metropolitan Bureau of Transportation) of total travel mode share (including non-motorised modes) within Central Tokyo. It mainly complements the rail network or provides feeder services. In terms of improving bus service levels, efforts are being made to increase passenger convenience by improving speed and comfort, using intelligent transport systems that increase reliability and access to information.

• Tokyo is currently reviewing its 2000 Expansion Rail Master Plan. The city is also promoting barrier-free access by retrofitting rail stations. As of 2009, more than 75% of stations in Tokyo have introduced barrier-free routes. It has also increased the number of direct-through commuter-rail entering subway lines and provides rail travel information for smart-phone users to reduce service delays of urban rail due to passengers transferring between commuter rail and subways (Kato, 2012, Smith, 2011).

• Tokyo engages in continuous renewal process of enabling policies in order to run the system efficiently. The Current Japan Rail policy (Transport Analysis, 2014) supports TOD with several initiatives such as the Traffic Policy Basic Act, the Priority Plan for Social Infrastructure Development and the High-Speed Rail Basic Plan and Development Plan.

Lessons Learnt

Two things are critical for successful urban transit in Tokyo: First, seamless integration of service between different transit operators. Second, encouraging private firms to operate urban transit along with state-owned transit operators (Murtaza, 2013). Japan has a completely free transportation market. The private companies even receive low-interest construction loans, subject to price controls and rolling stock protection. The strategy of allowing rail operators to venture into real estate helped the operators to make profits in spite of price control and thereby provide the commuters with good quality mobility options at affordable rates.

The privatisation worked well for the Tokyo metropolis region but the regional cities are facing a declining demographic trend (Smith, 2011). Since late 1990’s, the land ownership pattern has changed and the changing demographic pattern shows fall in birth rate and an aging population. This has reduced the demand for new construction. To share the risk of the real estate market, the private rail developers now partner with the third parties for large scale development. They are also entitled to receive significant subsidies of the capital cost for rail development. These subsides further reduce the risk involved in large scale investment and helps the developers to enter the Rail market.

In the parts of railway shared by government and private operators in partnership, they share tracks, transit stations, fares, and fare collection systems. A hassle free transition from one system to another makes the functioning smooth in Tokyo.

Availability of a free market for the rail sector encouraged the private players to enter in to the system. Even though subsidies are prevalent for construction, most private operators in Japan do not receive any operating subsidy from the government, while price controls are exercised by the government. Land development along the rail corridor and transit stations for residential and recreational use has helped keep private transit operators profitable and free of government subsidies for operation.

Datasheets

Portland: Combining Growth Management with Strategic Planning

Context

Portland is the largest city in the state of Oregon in US. It covers an area of 376 sq.km and as per 2015 figures has an estimated population of 6,32,309, making it the 26^th most populous city in the United States. The city has an average density of 1,689.2 persons/sq.km. It lies on the two banks of the Willamette River, which flows north through the city center and consequently separates the east and west neighbourhoods of the city.

Portland’s’ first Light Rail (LRT) line was introduced in 1986 in the eastern part of the city using the funds allocated for a cancelled freeway project (Arrington & Brinckerhoff). Transit oriented development was not a central part of this project, although limited transit-oriented design was undertaken in the form of station-area planning in some parts of the LRT corridor. This took the form of densification by redevelopment of low-density areas, but due to a poor regional economy in the early 1980s and a shift of growth from the eastern part of the region to the western, this did not reach it full potential. While planning for Portland’s west side LRT line in late 1980’s, a stronger demand for real estate and a larger amount of vacant land allowed for a greater focus on transit-oriented development. The New Urbanism movement which called for walkable, mixed use areas, and the refinement of the TOD concept coincided with the planning and construction of the west side LRT line (Dueker & Bianco, 1999). With the establishment of the west side line, TOD in its complete meaning was adopted in Portland. Today, Portland LRT has five separate lines serving the Metropolitan area. The existing bus network support and share the commutes. Streetcars serve to complete the network of public transit in Portland city. Additionally, Portland commuter rail extends regional connectivity to the city.

Strategic Planning by Empowered Agencies

Portland has had a very strong planning culture through different planning organisations in the Oregon region. Planning and implementation programs for TOD are being actively pursued by TriMet-Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon (the transit agency), and Metro (the regional government) (Arrington & Brinckerhoff). The Metro Council in 1995 suggested “concentrating development in urban growth boundaries, with some extent of satellite development”. Based on this, Portland prepared its growth management strategy called “2040 Growth Plan”. It features a tight Urban Growth Boundary that focuses on growth in transit centers and corridors, and requires local governments to limit parking and adopt planning and zoning changes in order to comply with the plan (Center for Transit-Oriented Development, 2016). Under this strategy, the Metro proposed the following strategy, which guided TOD in Portland (Metro Portland, 2014):

• Putting more than 40% of all newcomers into “town centres” and in other densified and mixed-use neighbourhoods

• Developing 20,000 acres of vacant land inside the growth boundary into relatively dense residential areas with smaller plots with an average size of 6,200 sq.ft as compared to the current average of 8,000 sq.ft

• Encouraging redevelopment close to 9,000 acres of existing neighbourhoods and to ‘infill’ vacant lots and take advantage of higher-density zoning

• Increasing the share of multi-family housing from under 30% to 35%

• Adding up to 14,500 acres to the urban-growth boundary, of which about 10,000 would be residential or mixed use

• Developing new freeways, 145 km of light rail, and at least 97 km of commuter rail or some other “high-capacity transit” system connecting satellite cities to Portland to accommodate the anticipated 42,000 people in satellite cities.

European cities such as Paris and Copenhagen used mass transit as a tool to connect regions and develop suburbs. Mass transit in UK cities was more of a tool to develop dense neighborhoods within the city region. Portland’s case is an amalgamation of both these features. Using the dense network of public transit in the city including LRT, streetcars and buses, the city region is well connected within, while the commuter rail extends the connectivity to the suburbs.

Under the broad strategy defined by Growth Plan 2040, several policy, fiscal and regulatory tools by the TriMet and the Metro enabled Portland achieve its TOD goals through LRT. Most significant of them are-

• Legally binding station area plans funded by TriMet and adopted by local governments and communities well before the LRT lines opened for service.

• The city instituted an overlay zone called the Light Rail Transit Zone, which called for increased permitted densities, restricted auto-oriented uses, parking maximums, and promoted pedestrian-oriented development in LRT station areas.

• An Oregon Legislature meant to preserve farmland and the environment, pushed through a law requiring Oregon cities to create “urban growth boundaries.” That in turn encouraged the development community to build multistory, dense housing and undertake infill development within those boundaries.

• Portland region uses a series of incentives to achieve higher density, a greater mix of uses, better design, and lower parking ratios than the market would otherwise provide in TODs.

• The Metro, planning body in Portland, is the only level of government at the regional scale in the United States with a directly elected council with authority to implement policies.

• The Metro Council works in close partnership with other bodies such as JPACT (Joint Policy Advisory Committee on Transportation) to approve all decisions.

• Portland Development Commission helped in financially sustaining the development through formation of urban renewal areas collecting property taxes growing from the increased land and building values in those areas.

• The State of Oregon has a vertical housing property tax exemption program that allows local governments to designate areas in which multi-story mixed-use projects receive tax abatements for 10 years.

Portland has a TOD strategic plan called “Metro TOD Program”. It ensures that the program maximises the opportunities for catalysing TOD throughout the region and effectively leverages additional resources to comprehensively advance TOD in all station areas and frequent bus corridors. By focusing compact growth around transit stops with various land-use policies, legislations and fiscal tools, TOD in Portland capitalises on transit investments by bringing potential riders closer to transit facilities and increasing ridership.

Lessons Learnt

The transit systems in Portland has enabled development of dense settlements in the city. The study of Portland streetcar found that properties located closest to the streetcar were developed at 90% of permitted density compared to 43% in the ones 3 or 4 blocks away (Reconnecting America). One measure of benefit of a transportation investment is an increase in property values in areas of impact. In a study on impact of light rail on single-family home values in the outer part of the eastside rail corridor, a positive price gradient was identified with respect to station accessibility (Duekar & Bianco, 1998). In 2005, CBD employment in Portland went down to 7.8% of the metropolitan total (Thompson & Brown, 2012). But, despite the decline in relative CBD importance between 1990 and 2005, Portland’s transit system has increased its ridership and improved its productivity. Several characteristics are associated with Portland’s success in this scenario:

• Portland has a dispersed transit network that serves an array of major destinations throughout the entire metropolitan area, as opposed to just one in which service is concentrated on a single major destination (usually the CBD) and/or constrained to serve just a portion of the metropolitan area.

• Portland overlays a high-speed regional LRT network atop the local bus and street car network and the system allows travellers to quickly access a wide array of major destinations throughout the metropolitan area. Portland’s combined bus-rail network provides relatively quick travel with easy transfers between the metropolitan area’s activity centres, and this makes transit more attractive to prospective riders.

• Metro views LRT not just as a form of transit but also as a development tool. While, critics accuse the Metro for high expenditure in LRT, the Metro considers LRT as a means to encouraging development communities with higher densities and improved quality of life. By 2002, more than $3 billion investment in new developments occurred within walking distance of the stations along Portland’s light rail lines (TriMet, 2002).

• Citizens of Portland supported the Metro throughout the process. It is the citizens’ protest of the freeway that first introduced the idea of LRT in Portland. Even with tax increments, citizens continue to support the transit systems in the city (Wear, 2016, Trimet, 2010).

Datasheets

King’s Cross : Transit Oriented Development for Regeneration of Inner City Neighbourhood

Context

King’s Cross is being built on a 67 acre (27 ha) piece of inner-city land in central London, making it the largest area of city-centre redevelopment in Europe. The redevelopment involves restoration of historic buildings as well as new construction, with the entire plan organised around internal streets and 26 acres (10.5 ha) of open space to form a new public realm for the area. Principal uses include 3.4 million sq.ft (316,000 sq.m) of office space, close to 2,000 residential units, 500,000 sq.ft (46,400 sq.m) of retail and leisure space, a hotel, and educational facilities. The site is also a major transport hub for the city, having the highest public transport accessibility in London and being served directly by six London underground lines, two national mainline train stations, and an international high-speed rail connecting to Paris, making it a European passenger gateway.

It is situated 2.5 miles (4 km) north of Charing Cross and 2.8 miles (4.5 km) northwest of Liverpool Street. The teardrop-shaped site slopes upwards from Euston Road to the Regent’s Canal, which runs east to west through the middle of the site. The site is largely determined by three boundaries: the existing East Coast Main Line railway leading out of King’s Cross; York Way, a road marking the division between Camden and Islington boroughs; and the new railway line, High Speed 1 (HS1), formerly known as the Channel Tunnel Rail Link, which curves around the site to the north and west. It is also bordered to the south by St. Pancras and King’s Cross rail stations. Before development began, the site consisted of disused buildings, railway sidings, warehouses, and contaminated land, as well as a variety of historic buildings, structures, and surfaces that had survived the site’s former existence as a Victorian townscape. The south half of the site was densely occupied with structures from the transport hub, including gasworks, gasholders, railways, and storage and interchange buildings.

Transit Oriented Development for Regeneration of Inner City Neighbourhood

King’s Cross/St Pancras is served by six London Underground lines (the Northern, Piccadilly, Victoria, Circle, Metropolitan, and Hammersmith and City), two national mainlines (Midland Main Line and East Coast Main Line), and an international high-speed rail connecting to Paris (the Eurostar). These services, coupled with the ability to access each of the four main airports in the South East (Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted, and Luton airports), make King’s Cross the most accessible transport interchange in London. Moreover, the Thameslink Upgrade, expected to be completed by 2018, will connect north and south of London, linking King’s Cross, Blackfriars and London Bridge. Moreover, twelve bus routes serve the area. King’s Cross is being transformed from a disused industrial area into a vibrant mixed-use city quarter. The project was set as a fully mixed-use scheme including old and new buildings assembled around public spaces. New public squares and streets will deliver an accessible, high-quality mixed-use environment with a strong focus on art, culture, and heritage. One quarter of the scheme is dedicated to culture and leisure uses, and the first phases are already open to the public. When completed in 2020, 45,000 people a day will benefit from it. Proximity to one of the busiest transport interchanges in the city provides major appeal to global firms and offers a great location for residences.

The public realm is available to both pedestrians and cyclists, and efforts have been made to improve access for individuals with disabilities. The routes that link different elements of the site have been enhanced with storage facilities for bicycles in every residential block and a 900-space bicycle interchange between the two rail terminals. In addition, the London cycle hire scheme (Barclays Cycle Hire) has docking stations in the area, and new stations area planned across the development. Effective links between stations have also been fostered, with an emphasis on easy navigation. In order to segregate non motorised and motorised trips, goods and services, a below-ground shared-access routes is provided to keep the at grade streets mostly free from delivery vehicles, making them safer for cyclists and pedestrians. At the top of the site, two main arteries will be accessible by delivery vehicles and taxis. Ultimately, little parking is allowed on the site in order to deter car use: only 865 car parking spaces are scattered across the scheme (the majority contained in an underground car park).

Institutional Mechanism

The King’s Cross Central Limited Partnership (KCCLP) is developing the mixed-use scheme. KCCLP is the collective name for the single landowner that comprises three groups: property developer Argent (50% share), the U.K. state-owned London and Continental Railways Limited (LCR) (36.5% share), and DHL Supply Chain, formerly Exel (13.5% share). The master planners for the development are Allies and Morrison, Demetri Porphyrios, and Townshend Landscape Architects. The overall developer is Argent Group PLC. Outline planning permission for the main site was finally granted in December 2006, after six years of negotiations with the two London boroughs of Camden and Islington, as well as stakeholders, such as the mayor of London, the Greater London Authority, English Heritage, and local residents. The development team carried out interviews with people in the streets, consulted with youth groups, and staged many pop-up events to test ideas and a website. Exhibitions also provided an opportunity for the general public to engage with the process.

More than half the potential development and commercial space was sold or committed by early 2013. Starting values for the first residential units were above £700 per sq.ft, today, the blended average is around £1,400 per sq.ft and is still changing. Since land injection in 2009, King’s Cross has been funded through a combination of equity, senior debt, and recycled receipts. Development commenced in May 2007 after the land was freed from the Channel Tunnel Rail Link works and will continue until 2020. In April 2014, detailed planning approval has been secured on more than 60% of the main development.

Land-Use & Urban Form

Before the master plan was drafted, Argent drew up its vision for King’s Cross in a document titled Principles for a Human City in 2001. The document outlined Argent’s intention to provide the “conditions to improve and enhance urban life” as the key for economic development. Thus, the project was set as a high density, mixed-use development of 50 new and 20 historic buildings and structures assembled around 26 acres (10.5 ha) of public space, representing 40% of the area. Ten new public squares and 20 new streets will deliver an accessible, high-quality mixed-use environment with a strong focus on art, culture, and heritage. Overall, one-quarter of the scheme is dedicated to culture and leisure uses, in addition to 2,000 homes, 650 student accommodation units, and education and health care facilities.

Total permissible mixed-use development floor space use was 8 million sq.ft (740,000 sq.m) across the site. The development team wanted to avoid appealing only to the “8 a.m. to 7 p.m.” audience of workers and commuters. They wanted the site to be a busy, lively space with a mix of people who used the site for a variety of reasons, invited people to linger, and offered a place to live. Thus, the south half of the site contains mostly offices and a hotel building, whereas the majority of retail, leisure, and housing units, as well as the University of the Arts campus, are to the north of the Regent’s Canal. A key aspect of design was the use of ground-floor units to keep the scheme lively throughout. For example, the majority of Pancras Square will have restaurants, cafés, and wine bars at ground level.

The site provides 23 new and refurbished prime office buildings, with a variety of unit sizes. In January 2013, Google announced its move to King’s Cross as the base for its London operations. Several thousand staff will occupy the bespoke low-rise structure which includes 50,000 sq.ft (4,650 sq.m) of ground- floor retail and a staff cycle store offering 500 spaces. The site has several listed buildings and structures which date from the mid-1800s. Recognising that the rich and varied history of King’s Cross could provide the new scheme with a “distinct identity” and sense of place and character, KCCLP worked with the London boroughs of Camden and Islington, English Heritage, and the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment to ensure the historic environment was integrated into the spatial master plan. The design is therefore heritage-led, with contemporary structures built around a mix of older buildings renovated to house new uses. Buildings will range in height across the site from one storey to up to 28 storeys such that protected views of St Paul’s from Parliament Hill and Kenwood House will not be affected.

Urban Design

The master plan establishes a structure and layout based on principles of connectivity, permeability, successful urban design, presenting a network of public open spaces, streets, lanes, squares, and parks that permeate the urban blocks and make connections beyond the site into the wider city. Therefore, the development proposes to creates 20 new major routes and 10 new public spaces. With almost 40% of the site dedicated to open spaces, the users are never far from a lively square or street. Five of these public spaces are major new squares - Granary Square, Station Square, Pancras Square, Cubitt Square, and North Square - which together total 8 acres (3.2 ha). In addition, the proposals include 6.5 acres (2.6 ha) of new public realm along the Regent’s Canal (the Gas Holders Zone and Coal Drop Yard) and within a new “Cubitt Park”. The towpath connects the site to local attractions such as Camden Market, Regent’s Park, London Zoo, and the shops along Upper Street. Camley Street Natural Park, an urban nature reserve, and areas of Camden to the west will be connected to the site via a footbridge crossing over the canal, one of three new crossings over the Regent’s Canal. Although the project boundaries do not include those sites, the developer has aspired to engage positively with these neighbours, adopting a “blurred boundary” approach that complements the King’s Cross public realm and green-space offering.

Both Regent’s Canal and the Camley Street Park, have been integrated into the new scheme, as has been a seven-acre (2.8 ha) playground and park for young people. The Global Generation Skip Garden, an award-winning vegetable community garden, creates social links and teaches people how to grow, market, sell sustainable food and build skills in social enterprise. Water is also used in a variety of ways across the site. For example, King’s Cross includes water fountains and resting places on canal side steps. These are part of the 86,000 sq.ft (8,000 sq.m) Granary Square, which drew 175,000 visitors in 2012 and 2013. At night, the fountains turn into multicoloured sculptures. King’s Cross is also London’s largest outdoor, free public wi-fi zone. The high street of King’s Boulevard is a thoroughfare that links the transport hubs of King’s Cross and St. Pancras to Granary Square and the area north of Regent’s Canal. Here, the development team plans to mix big global brands alongside unique boutiques in ground floor retail spaces. The developers also tried out street-food vendors, which became an instant hit with the lunchtime traffic of students and office workers. These occupants have helped create an active and vibrant street. In addition, the traffic-free Coal Drops Yard is to be occupied by retailers, galleries, boutiques, and music venues in repurposed Victorian arch-ways units.

Sustainable Neighbourhood & Buildings

King’s Cross regeneration involves several energy-efficient initiatives including the reuse of heritage buildings, green transport policies, and BREEAM “Outstanding” rated buildings. Buildings have been constructed with dense materials that help combat seasonal temperature extremes. Waste segregation at the source enabled diversion of 81% of estate waste from landfill in 2013.The site also has 97,000 sq.ft (9,000 sq.m) of green or brown roofs and 656 feet (200 m) of green walls, providing space for wildlife and fauna habitats as well as offering natural cooling and insulation. Therefore, every housing building has a roof garden for its residents featuring bird and bat boxes. As part of a focus on energy efficiency on site, an Energy Centre, combining heat and power generation, will provide most of the development’s heat demand, contributing to the developer’s aims to create one of the more sustainable developments in the United Kingdom. This dispenses with the need for boilers in the buildings themselves and aims to reduce energy bills by 5%. The centre will eventually be powered by three gas-powered engines. The engines offset about 80% of the scheme’s power demand. Heat is being captured as a by-product and is used to provide heating and water across the development. Solar panels, ground-source heat pumps, and solar thermal systems are also being used to meet a 50% reduction in carbon emissions, relative to the average levels in the surrounding boroughs in 2005.

Housing

There are thirteen different residential developments in the scheme. The tenure will be mixed, with some units sold for owner occupation outright, some to shared-ownership buyers, and some rented, including affordable housing tenants. The site will have 391 three to four bedroom units and 1,309 single-family units. Student housing consists in a 27 storey tower for 650 students. Developers’ planning permission agreement with Camden Borough council included a commitment to provide 750 affordable units in the 2,000 constructed (40%). This is intended to include lower and middle range rents and joint ownership properties. However, as final figures are yet to be determined—and in the event that policy on affordable homes may change—that proportion could vary. One Housing Group is KCCLP’s affordable housing partner on the first phase of residential development. It owns and manages the 250 affordable homes for rent across three buildings on site and provides rented and joint ownership housing units.

Deprivation in the surrounding areas, as well as antisocial behaviour, crime, street robbery, drug use, and prostitution, were all issues that the developers wanted to address through the scheme’s design. Health care and education facilities and busy public spaces were drafted into the plan to tackle these issues. Moreover, a Community and Regeneration Programme helps improve socio-economic opportunities for those in the surrounding area. This has provided the Construction Skills Centre, a £2 million purpose-built facility, which helps local people access employment, and the King’s Cross schools programme, which supports nearby schools with work experience and work-based learning.

Datasheets

Canary Wharf : Public Private Partnership for Brownfield Redevelopment

Context

Canary Wharf is located on the West India Docks on the Isle of Dogs, which itself is situated on the River Thames, approximately 4 km from the Central Business District of the City of London. A part of the London Borough of Tower Hamlets, it adjoins, to the north, the predominantly residential community of Poplar. Across the River Thames to the south and east lies the London Borough of Greenwich, and to the west are the London Boroughs of Lewisham and Southwark. Canary Wharf now makes a significant contribution to London’s role as a world business and financial centre, characterised by the large-scale, high-rise office blocks ranging from 12 to 50 stories in height.

Canary Wharf contains around 16,000,000 sq.ft (1,500,000 sq.m) of office and retail space, in 35 office buildings and shopping malls spread over 97 acres (39 ha). Around 105,000 people work in Canary Wharf and it is home to headquarters of numerous major banks, professional services firms and media.

The site is served by the Docklands Light Railway, the Jubilee underground line through Canary Wharf tube station, several bus routes and Cycle Superhighway CS3. Canary Wharf Pier is also served by two commuter oriented river ferry services. Moreover, Canary Wharf railway station is under construction.

Public Private Partnership for Brownfield Redevelopment

Canary Wharf site benefits from very good public transportation connectivity, being served by the Docklands Light Railway, the Jubilee underground line through Canary Wharf tube station, several bus and cycle tracks. Canary Wharf Pier is also served by two commuter oriented river ferry services. As a result, more than 90% of Canary Wharf commuters now travel by means other than private car. This excellent connectivity is a major benefit to the neighbourhood which stimulates economic growth.

The developers played a pro-active role in improving transport links, which they recognised as essential to the success of the project. Beginning in 1985,

they proposed extension of the Docklands Light Railway (DLR) to Bank, and upgrading of frequencies and capacity. The DLR now serves three stations in the area: West India Quay, Canary Wharf, Heron Quays. The Canary Wharf tube station is a two platform station designed by Norman Foster and opened in 1999 as part of the Jubilee Line Extension from Charing Cross to Stratford. Canary Wharf station has increasingly become one of the busiest stations on the network, serving the ever-expanding Canary Wharf business district. In 1988, they proposed construction of a second rail line to Docklands, which ultimately became the Jubilee Line Extension, providing 30 trains per hour at peak times.

CWG is continually monitoring the use of personal vehicles or public transportation of Canary Wharf users. There is a strong network of pedestrian routes through the area, which has been permitted by the creation of vibrant and active walkways. Cycle Superhighway CS3 between Tower Gateway and Barking passes to the north of Canary Wharf near Westferry station and the National Cycle Route passes to the west on the Thames Path. Ample bicycle storage facilities encourage some 4,000 people to cycle to work at Canary Wharf. Over 300 docking stations were installed at Canary Wharf in 2012 as part of the Barclays Cycle Hire Scheme. However, the conditions necessary to achieve an increase in walking and cycling on the Isle of Dogs include the creation of a safe, convenient, accessible and direct movement network which connects major activity nodes to existing and new communities. The existing movement network does not meet these conditions owing in some part to the geography of the Isle of Dogs, including the docks and the River Thames, which create barriers to movement.

Canary Wharf is served by several bus routes that provide a very good connectivity within the area and with the rest of Greater London. The Canary Wharf Pier is a London River Services pier on the River Thames located to the west of Canary Wharf. It is connected by the Thames Clipper river boat service to central London and Greenwich. London City Airport is linked to both Canary Wharf and the City of London via the Docklands Light Railway, and an interchange to the London Underground. In addition to this, the Vanguard helipad serves a parcel service by helicopter to Heathrow Airport.

Canary Wharf railway station began construction in May 2009 and will be completed in 2018 as part of the £17 billion Crossrail project. This new station will add resilience and capacity to the transport network and dramatically cut transport times across the capital.

Institutional Mechanism

These 8.5 sq.mi of abandoned docklands posed a huge financial risk for the investors, but as many of the properties were under reorganisation (a version of bankruptcy), certain risks were mitigated. However, the need for a new centralised financial district with adequate office space drove the creation of this new development and its surrounding infrastructure. The project was sold to the Canadian company Olympia & York, which was to become the Canary Wharf Group (CWG), and construction began in 1988.

Canary Wharf Group plc is a British property company headquartered in London, England. It is the owner and developer of Canary Wharf business district in London, under a Public-Private Partnership (PPP). The revenue of the group comes from the office space rental. The development of traditional high-rise structures was coupled with intense facility management technology and a pronounced desire to create a sustainable urban space. CWG worked with engineers, architects, facility managers, and consultants from around the globe to create the perfect blend of green, high tech, and economically vibrant development project.

The Group operates under Greater London Authority planning framework and deals with many stakeholders, such as tenants and occupiers, shoppers, the local community, and local and central governments. It handles urban issues through regular meetings with them. The Group has engaged with the local residential community to help meet their needs in terms of employment and business opportunities, reducing impact from construction and creating inclusive social, recreational and cultural facilities for the surrounding areas. It also engages in consultation meetings or forums as part of the planning process for every new development to discuss the plan – and their aspirations – for the development.

Land-Use & Urban Form

Canary Wharf primarily serves an employment function, and the Borough Council protects the area defined by the Isle of Dogs Major Centre for non-residential uses only. However, in March 2014 planning permission was granted for the second residential building on the Canary Wharf estate, a 58-storey tower including 566 apartments plus shops and a health club, bringing a more diverse mix of use to the business district. With its 690,000 sq.ft of retail space, Canary Wharf is also a primary shopping, cultural and entertainment centre for local residents, many of whom are also attracted by parks and inviting public areas. It also has over 70 restaurants, bars, cafes and clubs and making it as much a food destination as it is a business district.

It is served by four general practitioner surgeries/health centres (approximately 11 general practitioners), four dental practices (approximately 13 dentists) and 8 pharmacies. The Isle of Dogs also contains 6 primary schools and one secondary school. Non-school educational facilities include the Cubitt Town Library, Canary Wharf Recruitment and Training Centre and the Canary Wharf Idea Store. Idea Stores are a Council initiative to better locate library services where the community can get to them more easily, and they include skills and training information and courses offered on site.

Canary Wharf on the Isle of Dogs was also home to the 2012 Olympic Delivery Authority and the London Organising Committee of the 2012 Olympic Games and the Paralympics. As a result, more jobs, more homes, more opportunities and facilities for recreation and sport, and better transport infrastructure were created in the Borough that provides a lasting legacy since 2012.

Urban Design

The built form of the Island of Dogs is extremely mixed. The southern part is generally characterised by mid to low-rise development, which helps to provide the setting for the dramatic height of the Canary Wharf towers. Canary Wharf Group’s policies reflect their commitment to environmental and social issues. This earned them the City of London’s “Livable City 2003” award. About a fifth of Canary Wharf complex – some 20 acres – consists of open spaces including landscaped green spaces (parks), hard spaces (squares and plazas), walkways and water (and waterside) spaces. These spaces welcome workers, local residents and other visitors. Extensive Wi-Fi service is available across key areas of the site. The current provision of publicly accessible open space on the Isle of Dogs is 1.2 hectares per 1,000 population. The Isle of Dogs is strongly characterised by water, including the River Thames and the docks. These water spaces not only serve a flood amelioration role, but they also provide a focus for leisure activities along the dock and water edges. More active leisure uses, such as sailing, also take place on these water spaces.

Sustainable Neighbourhood & Buildings

Canary Wharf Group pursued the BREEAM assessment for the development. Their goal was to achieve a “Very Good” or “Excellent” rating. CWG has a Key Performance benchmark that is helping other developers determine what energy performance can be expected from high-rise office space. As a result, CWG leases space to tenants and offers their service to provide environmental training and reporting, in addition to setting specific goals and agendas. Canary Wharf power supplies are composed exclusively of renewable energy, including power from hydro, biomass and wind. In terms of water use, measures have been put in place throughout developments to minimise water use. Many of these focus on plumbing, including the use of processed greywater in toilets, non-flush urinals and showerheads with controlled flows. Management of solid waste has also been well thought of, leading to 0% waste landfill and more than 75% recycling of all office and retail waste. Oil used in Canary Wharf restaurants is recycled as biofuel. The rest of the waste is either incinerated in waste to energy plant, composted or bio-digested.

CWG’s Business Biodiversity Action Plan integrates a nearby hamlets’ Action Plan into the fabric of Canary Wharf. By linking existing tree, shrub and plant species, larger wildlife habitats are developing. Also increased education of specific species habitats within the green roof space has yielded very useful biodiversity data. Setting specific benchmarks and reporting on CWG’s performance to the community keeps communication about biodiversity and wildlife transparent. As a result, in 2005, Canary Wharf ranked 3rd in the BiC Environmental Index Report (Business in the Community Environmental Index report) in the sector of Real Estate: Financials. This index assesses environmental performance and impact, environmental management, waste and resource management, climate change, biodiversity and employee environmental programme.

Housing

Canary Wharf is the workplace for over 100,000 people – approximately one in four of whom lives in Tower Hamlets and the neighbouring East London boroughs. Indeed the only Isle of Dogs is currently home to around 27,500 people, a population increase of 50% since 1991. In only 20 years, the Isle of Dogs has changed from redundant docklands into a location which hosts a globally important commercial centre. It has created new employment opportunities which are not necessarily accessible to those with ‘old’ economy skills, and has put pressure on all facilities from transport to education. A consequence of the high value employment uses focused on Canary Wharf has been the creation of some of the most affluent residential areas in UK in this area. This contrasts with the reality that other parts of the Island’s population are more like those traditionally found in other inner London areas, and include a number of social housing estates and areas of deprivation.

Canary Wharf development has the ambition to be more than just a place where people work, shop and spend leisure time. CWG has a firm commitment to the neighbouring communities. There are multiple strategies to link this area with the surroundings. Thus, education, sport and cultural activities have been developed in the local area in ways that enhance aspiration and opportunity, improve social cohesion and help to alleviate poverty. Developers initiate education, training and brokerage programmes to maximise opportunities for local job seekers, open up the supply chain to nearby small businesses and encourage community involvement.

Datasheets

New Street Station Birmingham Station Area Planning to improve Neighbourhood

Context

Birmingham New Street station is named after New Street, which runs parallel to the station, in the very centre of Birmingham. The former station, rebuilt in 1967, was designed to cater for 650 trains and 60,000 passengers per day, which was usage it experienced at that time. It was then believed that demand for rail travel would decrease. However, it now caters to 1,350 trains and over 140,000 passengers per day: more than twice its design capacity. Moreover, passenger usage of New Street has increased by 50% since 2000 and is predicted to increase by another 57% by 2020. New Street Station is the eighth busiest railway station in the UK and the busiest outside London. Thus, the project aimed to enhance the station to accommodate the increased passenger numbers as well as expected future growth in traffic. It is expected to accommodate passenger growth until 2046, depending on the accuracy of the growth predictions.

The Birmingham Gateway Plus project included: a new concourse three and half times the size of its predecessor enclosed by a giant light-filled atrium, a 16,000 sq.m steel external façade, more accessible, brighter and clearer platforms, reached by new escalators and new public lifts, new station exterior, and better links for pedestrians to and through the station with eight entrances. The redevelopment scheme also includes regeneration of the decayed Pallasades Shopping Centre above it (renamed Grand Central). Its construction started in 2010 and the new station fully reopened in late 2015.

The Birmingham Gateway Plus project is part of the Birmingham Big City Plan, alongside with the Birmingham City Centre Extension (BCCE) project which took the Midland Metro from its current terminus at Snow Hill and extended it into the heart of the city to the newly redeveloped New Street Station, with trams operational by the end of 2015. This route ensures that high quality public transport links serve and support the Gateway Plus scheme and maximise the benefits of the regeneration of the station and the surrounding area. A further extension to the Metro network, from New Street to Centenary Square is also considered.

The redevelopment will act as a major stimulus for the physical regeneration of the areas surrounding the station. The new station is an improved transport destination for tourists and is a key part of the redevelopment of Birmingham by improving the city’s image. The project is expected to generate over £2 billion in transport and it is claimed that the redevelopment of the station would result in another £2.3 billion being invested into the West Midlands region. Up to 3,200 permanent jobs will also be created as a result in addition to those created during the construction work at the station.

Station Area Planning to improve Neighbourhood

As for every project of this scale, the Gateway Plus project involved several stakeholders, from conception to delivery. The New Street Gateway Steering Committee worked to materialise the plans. Network Rail also set up an entrepreneurial team to work with developers and investors working on the project. The Business Case was written by representatives from Network Rail, Birmingham City Council, Advantage West Midlands, and the West Midlands Passenger Transport Authority (WMPTA). During July and August 2006, Warner Estates, the owners of the Pallasades Shopping Centre, now Grand Central shopping centre, owned by Hammerson & CPPIB, were in negotiations with the developers.

The whole project cost over £750 million. The financing for the project depends upon a mixture of public and private funding. Private funding accounted for £150 million and the rest was publicly funded. The four key funding partners for the project were: Network Rail (public body of the Department for Transport and owner and infrastructure manager of most of the rail network in Great Britain), Birmingham City Council, Advantage West Midlands (regional development agencies whose goal is to drive sustainable economic development and social and physical regeneration through a business-led approach) and Centro (government executive body responsible for transport services in the West Midlands county). The Government spent a total amount of £388 million on the project, £100 million were given by Advantage West Midlands, £128 million from Network Rail and £10 million from Centro. Network Rail is also invested £350 million in renewing the signalling systems through New Street station and the West Midlands over the next ten years.

Mace was both delivery partner and principal contractor for the project. Working in partnership with Network Rail, the group was responsible for construction and logistics management. London-based Foreign Office Architects (FOA) were selected as the concept architects for the New Street redesign and are responsible for the station’s contemporary façade. FOA worked on the project in cooperation with BDP and Atkins, the lead consultants on the project.

Mobility

The project aimed at promoting greater pedestrian priority and public transport use, while creating more attractive, sustainable modes of travel into and out of the city centre which has long been dominated by the private motor vehicle. Moreover, to support the growth and regeneration of the city centre, focus was set on improving the quality, legibility and choice of sustainable transport modes along major routes into the city, and their interchange to key destinations. Thus, major improvements are planned for Birmingham’s transport networks, according to Birmingham Mobility Action Plan. In the longer term high speed rail and the runway extension at Birmingham Airport will enhance international access to the city. Transport schemes proposed over short and medium terms will deliver the first step in changing the travel in out and around the city centre.

The first phase of the High Speed 2 (HS2) planned high-speed railway in the

United Kingdom linking London, Birmingham, the East Midlands, Leeds, Sheffield and Manchester is scheduled to begin in 2017, reaching Birmingham by 2026. This line will arrive at Birmingham Moor Street Railway Station. Improvements in passenger journey times to London are only part of the benefits that HS2 could bring to Birmingham. The new line ease the pressure on the existing rail network, improving service reliability/punctuality.

In general, by undertaking the above and redeveloping stations and rail infrastructure to cope with longer and more frequent trains it is hoped that the suburban rail network can move towards a more ‘metro’ like service (extremely frequent, no timetable). These will be integrated with other parts of the overall mass transit network; providing fast and reliable interchanges from one mode to another to facilitate movement across the city.

Metro is also a very important part of the transportation network as it provides links across and within the City Centre. The Birmingham City Centre Extension (BCCE) project took the Midland Metro Line 1 from its current terminus at Snow Hill and extended it into the heart of the city to the newly redeveloped New Street Station. Since May 30, 2016, New Street Station is served by the newly extended metro rail line, following the opening of the £130 million city-centre extension from Birmingham Snow Hill. This route ensures that high quality public transport links to serve and support the Gateway Plus scheme and maximises the benefits of the regeneration of the station and the surrounding area.

Birmingham Mobility Action Plan (BMAP) also recommends completing and expanding the metro network. A further extension to the Metro network, from New Street to Centenary Square is thus considered. Should this proposal gather appropriate support and approvals, works could start in 2016 and be open for public use in 2018. Further down the road, the Metro network could be expanded up to Five Ways. With the whole network in place, Metro will create opportunities to connect directly with HS2’s city centre station, New Street Station and Birmingham International Station for Birmingham Airport.

One of the failings identified for Birmingham’s current public transport system was that it provides very few opportunities for getting across the city centre. BMAP has sought ways to address that when developing the Sprint network, a new BRT bus-tram service. Sprint is intended to offer a higher level of service quality than standard bus services, and will feature some bus priority measures, like bus lanes and priority signalling to speed up service. Sprint should stimulate demand, and improve connectivity in areas which do not yet fully justify Metro access. A number of the Sprint Lines will provide a very high frequency service connecting New Street Station, Moor Street Station and the proposed HS2 stations, whilst other Sprint lines will operate across the city centre via Corporation Street to provide a thorough service from the south west of Birmingham to the north east.

In order to segregate cars out of the city centre, Birmingham Mobility Action Plan includes reduction in road capacity and in access and availability to car parking in the City Core, through the expansion of Controlled Parking Zones (CPZs) and on-street parking controls and installation of electric charging points. Birmingham Mobility Action Plan also proposes to place 20 mph speed limits on the majority of the city’s streets. Indeed it is proven that by reducing speeds to 20 mph there are fewer collisions and casualties, and where collisions do occur, there is a far lower risk of fatality. Other important benefits of 20 mph schemes include quality of life and community benefits, and encouragement of more sustainable transport modes such as walking and cycling by discouraging the systematic use of private vehicles.

New Street station sits underneath the Pallasades Shopping Centre and this block formerly was a physical barrier to pedestrian access beyond. Transformation of the station and its surrounding area created a number of new squares, enhancing the public realm and the arrival experience. New Street station now has six access points, and a pedestrian route around the entire perimeter. The route through the station concourse from north to south is open 24 hours giving easy connection from the retail and civic core to the surrounding neighbourhoods. The project also included the improvement of the quality, safety and security of the walking environment through introduction of activity, improved lighting and street furniture so that walking becomes the most enjoyable and convenient way of getting around the city centre. A new way finding system will soon create an easy to interpret and consistent means for users to find their way around the city centre. The system will consist of easy to interpret and access maps, utilise digital and mobile technology and create a single system of on-street signage.

Birmingham also aims for a transformational change in the level of cycling over the next ten years. Policies and strategies such as BMAP and the Cycle Revolution demonstrate this commitment to promote cycling and walking. The city was recently successful in winning a £17 million funding from the Department for Transport to launch its vision for cycling in the city. The initial investment will focus on delivering and supporting a cycling network infrastructure within a 20 minute cycling time from the city centre; regarded as an attractive cycle distance to encourage modal shift. The investment will provide a cycle network and associated facilities designed to improve people’s access to workplaces, schools and other key hubs. Its aims will be to improve mobility, health and well-being, and better connect people to public transport. The package includes: junction improvements, better street design and segregated or partially segregated cycle infrastructure, better infrastructure to link up schools, businesses, hospitals, shops, and key services people need to get to as well as links between green space and roll out of more 20 mph zones and limits, and improved interchange hubs and parking with better facilities to enable and encourage better door to door journeys. New Street Station is to be one of those cycling hubs, being served by cycling infrastructure and including bicycle parking facilities.

Urban Design

As part of the Gateway Plus project, the design of New Street Railway Station was completely transformed. The new design now incorporates a large atrium which allows the new concourse to “flood with light”, given that a major complaint surrounding the current station was its lack of natural light. Holes were cut in the floor of the concourse and filled with glass to allow light to pass from the concourse to platform level. Three elongated glass domes were constructed, reaching 26 m (85 ft) in height, with four glass skylights inserted between them. The internal concourse has been reconfigured and enlarged so that it is 45 m (148 ft) long from east to west. The new atrium has an area of 2,800 sq.m (30,139 sq.ft). The number of escalators was increased to 31, and lifts to 16, improving connectivity between the platforms and station concourse. The exterior was covered in a gently curved, stainless steel reflective façade, said to be inspired by Birmingham’s undulating skyline. High-technology eye-shaped LED screens were installed on three of the corners of the building to provide travel information. The southern station plaza will provide a substantial public space as well as an active arrival and departure space, looking on the station entrance ‘electronic eye’. A grand staircase, lift and ramp gives access to Station Street and Hill Street, and new granite paving, wall treatments, street furniture and lighting to the surrounding streets are part of the station renewal programme.

The Core of Birmingham is densely built up with its historic street layout largely intact. New Street Station area in particular has a fine traditional frontage with some listed buildings, which needs to be retained and enhanced by a sensitive design and active frontage to the station side. Improvements to transform the streetscape and activities in order to create high-quality, well connected and unique environments in the surroundings of the station have been included in the Gateway Plus project and in Birmingham Big City Plan. Distinctive character areas have been identified within the retail core where the focus will be to promote their individual characteristics and opportunities as part of a diverse retail offer.

Land-Use & Urban Form

Even though the Gateway Plus project only includes the renovation of the railway station, the shopping mall and their immediate surroundings, it will bring economic drives in the area and impact its urban form by increasing its density. In fact, Birmingham’s City Core is already the biggest economic driver of the regional economy. It is the centre of the region’s retailing, banking and financial services and the civic and cultural heart of the city. Birmingham Plan aims to make the heart of the city centre alive at all times with a greater mix and choice of activities and uses within distinctive streets and spaces. The transformation of New Street station (Gateway Project) will generate and support investment and greater visitor and commuter numbers, as it is the first location visitors see when they step off the train and more than 50 million people are expected to pass through the building each year. This will be capitalised to boost the city’s profile and grow the economy.

Immediately to the south of New Street station, redevelopment of large-scale office and hotel took place between the 1950s and 1970s. However 50 years on the blocking of pedestrian access by the New Street station resulted in several vacant and underused sites. The redevelopment of New Street station will create new links in the city centre, the project will enable the regeneration of the station’s southern neighbourhood. A small number of local sites and buildings will be subject to new mixed development or redevelopment. Within this area uses that create greater activity throughout the day and night will be supported, with retail space for over 40 new premium fashion and lifestyle shops and more than 20 new concept cafes and restaurants inside Gateway Plus only. The new centre will create up to 1,000 jobs for local people and high-value retail locations.

Birmingham Plan defines zones where tall buildings are appropriate. The New Street Station South is one of those suitable locations for such high rise clusters, with a potential for tall buildings between 16 and 20 storeys on several sites in the area, such as the Stephenson Tower, a 20 storey tower block on New Street station.

Datasheets

Case Study Summary

In all the international case studies discussed in this document, strategic planning is a common exercise that cities conducted before the introduction of TOD. City and regional strategies, such as ‘Urban Growth Boundary’ in Portland, linear model of city proposed in Curitiba, long term vision to house 90% of the population within 2 km of a transit station in Paris, all preceded the implementation of TOD in these cities. Such a strategic planning process is clearly missing in the Indian cities. Ahmedabad, a pioneer of BRT system in the country, Delhi whose Metro system matches Paris in terms of scale and length, or Mumbai, with its node based development around suburban railway stations, all of them have been more ad-hoc in nature instead of being part of a larger visioning process. This limits their potential of benefitting from the investments in their public transit system.

Institutional mechanisms and organisational support is another significant element in the implementation of a TOD. All the cities studied show use of regulatory/legal, process based and financial mechanisms in their implementation. Master Plan (Curitiba, Ahmedabad, Tokyo), Overlay Zone (Portland), Station Area Plan (Portland, Mumbai), TOD Influence Zone Plan (Delhi), Land Legislations (Portland) etc. enabled the development of TOD. Along with these tools, empowered institutions are very important to build and implement TODs. The Metro in Portland, The Metropole du Grand Paris in Paris and The Kings Cross Central Limited Partnership are such bodies that coordinated and played greatest role in TOD in the respective cities. Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority in Mumbai and National Capital Region Planning Board in Delhi are agencies created with the motive of enabling inter-departmental co-ordination and regional strategic planning, but have not been able to perform as compared to such agencies in Portland or Curitiba. The formation of Special Purpose Vehicles (SPVs) for implementation of projects under the Smart Cities Mission of India is a progressive measure undertaken by the Government for better inter-departmental coordination and faster and easier implementation of projects.

Lessons from Case Studies

Indian cities discussed in this publication, Ahmedabad, Delhi and Mumbai can learn much from the international cities and station areas discussed. As mentioned previously, the international cases were chosen for this study based on their similarities with these Indian cities.

• Both Ahmedabad and Curitiba have Bus Rapit Transit System at the heart of their TOD. While both the cities increase densities by increasing FSI adjacent to transit corridor, Ahmedabad is yet to enforce strict parking regulations and higher parking charges, already in place in Curitiba, which is required to drive a mode shift from private to public transportation. With the TOD policy in place in Ahmedabad, several significant interventions such as creation of pedestrian only streets, introduction of bike share schemes at bus stations etc. are anticipated in the coming years. In Curitiba neighbourhoods that are not in immediate proximity of the BRT stops are well connected to the system with city buses and easy inter-modal transfers. Feeder and last mile connectivity to affordable housing in Ahmedabad is an unresolved question in Ahmedabad.

• Delhi and Paris are comparable in terms of land area, population and length of metro network, but differ greatly when it comes to access to last mile connectivity and integration of multiple modes. Low densities near to transit stations in Delhi help little in addressing the pressing issues of housing shortage and gentrification in the city. Both these capital cities have similar trends of demographics with significant annual migration, but the absence of growth management strategies in Delhi had lead the transit to follow development.

• Mumbai as well as Tokyo have a railway guided node based development. The institutionally supported collaboration between rail and land development in Tokyo helps to improve quality of transit while making it financially sustainable. Such an integration is missing in Mumbai, which causes transit to operate in loss, while the quality of transit system degrades due to the inhuman density in trains. In Tokyo, strict regulations on parking, such as parking maximums, ‘proof-of parking’ etc., co-ordinate the conflicting and competing land-uses in the city to facilitates better pedestrian movement, access to housing and creation of public spaces. In case of Mumbai high parking provision continue to exists in spite of over 40% of the population living in slums.

• Portland, a TOD based on light rail transit is a good example of using growth management strategy with regional planning and coordination for success of a TOD. Even though very different in size and population from Portland, the implementation of TOD by way of station area plans and overlay zones are important lessons for Mumbai to take in the context of failed station area planning by way of only skywalks.

• The UK case studies of station area plans are lessons for Indian cities to transform station areas to vibrant spaces. Kings Cross, Canary wharf show the transformation in a city with creation of such area and the role of private players in this transformation. New street station is an example where improvements in a transit station made changes to the local area and improved the quality of life and economic productivity of the area. TOD in Indian cities especially as seen in Delhi, Ahmedabad and Mumbai are yet to learn the two pronged approach of ‘city level strategy and local area solution’. Such station area planning is the next important step for Indian Smart cities that are proposing TOD.

A successful TOD is a result of many factors. As the Indian Smart Cities Mission stimulates unprecedented development, mostly in tier 2 and tier 3 cities. These cities have an opportunity now to learn from the success stories and avoid from the mistakes of other cities.

Table 12 summarises the TOD components (Density, Diversity, Design, Housing and Mobility) in the cases studies in this publication. The comments on the components of TOD in the table are limited to information shared in the case study focusing on the theme of each city, and not a comprehensive review of TOD in the city/case.