Professor Carey Curtis Curtin University

Integrating Land Use with Public Transport: the use of a discursive accessibility tool to inform metropolitan spatial planning Professor Carey Curtis Curtin University

Approach... Local Policy Context and LUTI practices The SNAMUTS tool Using SNAMUTS to inform future metropolitan growth Using SNAMUTS to inform future public transport options Comparing Perth, Melbourne and Sydney

'land use transport integration' is not new; part of planning ideology for decades Reality check... >100 activity centres (defined by non-home based trip destinations Some planned but many unplanned the possibility of supplying a high frequency public transport system to serve these centres represents a significant and expensive challenge Source: C.Curtis, 2001

1990 s new approach emerging policy context Mode Share Target by trips (1995): Perth 2000 15% 5 80% Perth 2029 26% 13% 61% Non-motorised modes Public transport Private vehicle...targets imply that public transport patronage needs to grow four-fold between 2000 and 2030...

Network City spatial framework did not determine which centres should perform which role within the goal of sustainable accessibility demanded a multi-dimensional perspective which centres have or could have mixed use development also which have or could have more sustainable accessibility centres must not be considered in isolation from each other the way in which they are networked which forms an important component

compiling a base network... Our focus is on measuring the ease of movement on a public transport network in ways that come close to user perceptions and motivations... Public transport users are only marginally interested in geographical distance: the main factors of travel impediment (or spatial separation) are travel time, and the ubiquity of travel opportunities (service frequency).

compiling a base network... Our network model: -applies a minimum service standard - a 30-minute frequency (or better) during the weekday inter-peak period - determines a transfer point according to intersections of routes that offer a level of convenience that is functionally and visually co-located, with signposting as required and (relatively) barrier-free access between modes.

SNAMUTS Indicators 1. Impediment: what is the ease of movement between adjacent network nodes expressed by time and frequency? 2. Degree centrality: How many transfers separate a node from the rest of the network? 3. Closeness centrality: What is the ease of movement between a node and the rest of the network? 4. Efficiency centrality: By how much does ease of movement across the network improve? 5. Catchment size of 30-minute travel time contour: How many residents and jobs are accessible within half an hour? 6. Betweenness centrality: How are travel opportunities geographically distributed across the network? 7. Speed comparison: How competitive is public transport travel with road travel? 8. Connectivity Index: How well integrated is a node within the web of travel opportunities? Full explanation see: Progress in Planning Vol 74 (2010), pp.53-106

project1

Activity Centres Walkable Catchme nt Populatio n 2008 Walkable Catchme nt Employm ent 2008 Walkable Catchment Activities 2008 30 min Catchme nt Populatio n 2008 30 min Catchment Employmen t 2008 Composite Public Transport Accessibility Ran Value k project 2 High Accessibility Perth Central- Northbridge 9,992 50,987 60,979 352,512 245,786 31.3 1 (could do with more housing) Perth Esplanade 4,011 30,589 34,600 328,179 233,050 27.9 2 (could do with more housing) Bull Creek 14,462 2,019 16,481 215,569 182,530 20.4 3 (could do with more jobs) Claisebrook-East Perth 5,305 6,514 11,819 215,102 194,974 20.0 4 (could do with more housing) Oats Street 5,825 12,430 18,255 176,996 177,829 18.7 9 (could do with more housing) Unbalanced Node: Intensify Canning Bridge 8,353 1,653 10,006 227,962 190,196 17.8 10 Land Use Medium Accessibility Cottesloe-Mosman Park 12,497 1,205 13,702 142,927 157,303 17.2 12 (could do with more jobs) Gosnells 6,687 1,219 7,906 161,131 164,651 16.6 Unbalanced Node: Intensify 14 Land Use Subiaco 11,355 4,073 15,428 145,324 178,868 15.1 Unbalanced Place: Improve 16 Accessibility Thornlie 16,828 1,803 18,631 131,001 164,672 14.5 Unbalanced Node: Intensify 18 Land Use Low Accessibility Balcatta 16,828 1,803 18,631 131,001 164,672 14.5 Unbalanced Place: Improve 18 Accessibility Unbalanced Place: Improve

Project 3... research questions: What is the contribution land use-transport integration can make towards the Metro Land Use Planning and Metro Transport Strategy goals? How can SNAMUTS help assess and inform this process......which development scenario provides for greatest public transport accessibility potential?

Research Approach...test a range of scenarios to assist in the development of a hierarchy of activity centres by exploring and measuring the effect of : Changes in public transport accessibility resulting from service improvements Comparative accessibility by car and by public transport (to examine how and where public transport can be more competitive) Exploring potential changes in activity levels (different patterns of jobs/residents defined by regional/local catchments) in each activity centre

The testing of these types of scenarios enables key Network City questions to be examined Which Activity Centres and Corridors can best be intensified? Which Centres should perform a regional role and which a local role? Where should public transport investment (infrastructure, service improvement) go? Answers to these questions will provide a robust basis for decisions about the future metropolitan structure.

Scenario development Discursive process... Model development... Phase 1: Game 1 - Strategic development priorities Phase 1: Game 2 Urban growth trends 20 yrs on Building 2031 network and designation of growth areas and type; Modelling scenarios Phase 2: Game 1 strategic development priorities (within each scenario) Phase 2: Game 2 developing a composite scenario Building Composite network and designation of growth areas and type; Modelling CWB scenario

scenarios for testing - 2006-2031 Status Quo: Public transport network in early 2008. Frequency Boost: Public transport network after a comprehensive package of service improvements, achievable in the short term. Future land use-transport integration scenarios with a 2031 horizon: Light Rail Corridors Middle Ring Centres Fringe Expansion

summary of findings: contour catchments Service Intensity: Service hours per hour (weekday interpeak) on the minimum-standard network Average 30-minute contour catchment (number of residents and jobs) STQ 279 STQ 249,800 FRB 355 FRB 279,200 LRC 382 LRC 577,500 MRC 371 MRC 649,900 FEX 446 FEX 342,800 CWB 430 CWB 601,600 STQ = Status Quo FRB = Frequency Boost LRC = Light Rail Corridors MRC = Middle Ring Centres FEX = Fringe Expansion CWB = Composite Wishbone

summary of findings: network coverage Service Intensity: Service hours per hour (weekday interpeak) on the minimum-standard network Network Coverage: Percentage of residents and jobs in metropolitan area within walking distance of minimum-standard service STQ 279 STQ 62.7% FRB 355 FRB 63.4% LRC 382 LRC 75.3% MRC 371 MRC 76.3% FEX 446 FEX 66.6% CWB 430 CWB 79.5% STQ = Status Quo FRB = Frequency Boost LRC = Light Rail Corridors MRC = Middle Ring Centres FEX = Fringe Expansion CWB = Composite Wishbone

Phase 2 - Game 2 Creating a meaningful composite scenario Re-group (drawing one from each scenario group) Each group develops a composite scenario: land use strategy; public transport network.

scenario composite wishbone Incorporates the best-performing elements of the three previous scenarios while allowing for all three forms of urban growth to continue concurrently. Contains heavy rail extensions between Clarkson and Yanchep (northern corridor) and along a southern orbital between Bayswater and Fremantle via the airport (approx. 60 km), and a 109-km mixed light rail network centred on a wishbone-shaped orbital between Fremantle and Scarborough, a north-eastern radial including a short CBD tunnel and several branch lines. Also includes a bus transitway along South Street (15 km) as well as several new orbital and diagonal bus routes to link the growth areas. Urban consolidation and growth to occur in the 400/800-metre catchments of all new public transport facilities, at an average target density of 75 residents and jobs per hectare [say 30du/ha] (except in Perth s CBD and in the activity centres of Armadale, Fremantle, Joondalup, Midland, Murdoch, Rockingham and Stirling-Glendalough where the target density is 150 res + jobs per ha).

Indicator Scenario Status Quo (STQ) Scenario Frequency Boost (FRB) 177 km, 67 stations Scenario Light Rail Corridors (LRC) Scenario Middle Ring Centres (MRC) 209 km, 79 stations Scenario Fringe Expansion (FEX) Scenario Composite Wishbone (CWB) 237 km, 86 stations Heavy Rail route length and number of stations 177 km, 67 stations 177 km, 68 stations 287 km, 102 stations Light Rail route length - - 120 km 55 km 20 km, 6 stations 109 km Service Intensity (veh hrs/hr - 279 (30 rail, 248 355 (35 rail, 320 381 (35 HR, 372 (39 HR, 446 (61 HR, 430 (52 HR, weekday interpeak period) bus) bus) 99 LR, 247 B) 32 LR, 301 B) 3 LR, 383 B) 85 LR, 293 B) Coverage of residents/jobs metro area >29 min service 62.7% 63.4% 75.3% 76.3% 66.6% 79.5% Degree Centrality (average per node) 1.10 1.05 1.01 0.98 1.05 0.97 Closeness Centrality (average per node) 65.0 51.9 45.5 44.1 46.1 40.9 Efficiency Change (weighted) - +28% +120% +130% +67% +173% 30-min Catchment in residents and jobs (av/per node) 249,800 279,200 577,500 649,900 342,800 601,600 30-min Catchment (av/per node in % of tot. resids & jobs) Betweenness Centrality (weighted by combined catchment size and cumulative impediment), activity nodes ranked 1-10 WHERE IS THE ENERGY IN THE NETWORK Betweenness Centrality (segments per mode - % trav. time) Betweenness Centrality at CBD cordon Speed Comparison pub trspt/congested road (av per node) Connectivity Score in Activity Nodes 13.6% 15.3% 22.2% 24.8% 13.1% 23.1% 1 Perth Central (46.8%) 2 Perth Esplanade (39.3%) 3 Murdoch (19.7%) 4 Bull Creek (19.3%) 5 Leederville (18.8%) 6 Claisebrook (18.5%) 7 Glendalough (17.6%) 8 Stirling (15.8%) 9 Oats Street (13.0%) 10 Warwick (11.1%) 1 Perth Central (49.5%) 2 Perth Esp ade (29.6%) 3 Canning Bridge (25.5%) 4 Claisebrook (22.3%) 5 Leederville (19.8%) 6 Murdoch (18.0%) 7 Bull Creek (17.4%) 8 Burswood (17.3%) 9 Glendalough (17.0%) 10 Oats Street (14.5%) Rail 43%, Bus 57% Rail 50%, Bus 50% 1 Perth Central (41.5%) 2 Canning Bridge (21.4%) 3 Perth Esplanade (17.2%) 4 Claisebrook (15.8%) 5 South Perth (14.3%) 6 Burswood (13.6%) 7 Glendalough (13.0%) 8 Subiaco (12.1%) 9 Leederville (11.9%) 10 Bull Creek (11.1%) HR 35%, LR42%, Bus 23% 1 Perth Central (42.7%) 2 Perth Esplanade (22.5%) 3 Canning Bridge (20.1%) 4 Murdoch (18.1%) 5 Concert Hall (15.5%) 6 Bull Creek (15.4%) 7 South Perth (14.6%) 8 Northbridge (14.1%) 9 Leederville (13.8%) 10 Claisebrook (13.0%) HR 44%, LR 22%, Bus 34% 1 Perth Central (49.2%) 2 Perth Esplanade (28.9%) 3 Claisebrook (28.6%) 4 Canning Bridge (26.2%) 5 Murdoch (22.6%) 6 Leederville (20.1%) 7 Bull Creek (20.1%) 8 Glendalough (18.4%) 9 Bayswater (18.3%) 10 Stirling (15.8%) HR 63%, LR 1%, Bus 37% 1 Perth Central (40.4%) 2 Canning Bridge (22.3%) 3 Perth Esplanade (20.5%) 4 Murdoch (17.6%) 5 South Perth (16.3%) 6 Claisebrook (15.9%) 7 Glendalough (15.4%) 8 Bull Creek (15.3%) 9 Leederville (13.2%) 10 Concert Hall (12.6%) HR 50%, LR 28%, Bus 21% 54.7% 48.3% 41.3% 44.8% 50.8% 39.4% 1.73 1.68 1.52 1.38 1.37 1.32

Land use assumptions and service input per scenario (2009 = Status Quo, Scenario 2031) 2009 2031 Service Intensity: Train 44 80 (+81%) Service Intensity: Bus 587 915 (+56%) Service Intensity: Ferry 1 3 (+118%) Service Intensity: 632 997 (+58%) Total Number of Nodes 46 49 Activities in 2,629,497 3,655,399 metropolitan area Activities in serviced 2,528,198 (96%) 3,513,548 (96%) area 24th Aesop Annual Conference Finland 7-10 July 2010 29

our evaluation of the network we focussed on the following objectives: The extent to which potential accessibility of quality public transport was expanded to a larger proportion of metropolitan residents; The extent to which accessibility was enhanced across fourteen key activity centres (defined by PTA); The public transport effort (performance of different transport modes and across corridors). 30

Composite Accessibility Index for key centres 2009 2031 AC1 (outer region) 12.5 15.4 (+2.9) AC2 (middle region) 16.5 19.5 (+3.0) AC3 (inner region major employment centre) 16.3 20.5 (+4.2) AC4 (inner region) 19.6 21.9 (+2.3) AC5 (outer region) 20.0 24.0 (+4.0) this shows our Composite SNAMUTS Accessibility Index for the metro area as whole and for the 14 centres...higher figures indicate better accessibility, up to a theoretical maximum of 45. AC6 (outer region) 16.0 17.8 (+1.8) AC7 (outer region) 17.0 19.0 (+2.0) AC8 (middle region large employment centre) 24.9 28.8 (+3.9) AC9 (Airport) 7.3 19.9 (+12.6) AC10 Perth Central 33.5 37.7 (+4.2) AC11 (outer region) 16.2 18.6 (+2.4) On average accessibility across the network goes up by about 3 points on the 45-point scale...but does not reach 45. AC12 (middle region major employment centre) 25.6 29.0 (+3.4) AC13 (inner region major employment centre) 17.1 22.4 (+5.3) AC14 (outer region) - 15.4 Average Key Centres 18.7 22.1 (+3.4) Standard Deviation Key Centres 6.5 6.1 Average Network Standard Deviation Network 14.9 24th Aesop Annual Conference Finland 7-10 July 2010 6.2 18.0 (+3.1) 31 6.5

Contour catchment change for key activity centres 2009 2031 AC1 (outer region) 17.1% 26.6% In relation to access to individual activity centres... this contour catchment index shows the percentage of total metropolitan activities (residents, jobs and students) that can be reached from the reference node within a public transport travel time of 45 minutes or less AC2 (middle region) 28.2% 31.9% AC3 (inner region major employment centre) 36.1% 46.1% AC4 (inner region) 45.2% 45.9% AC5 (outer region) 35.2% 49.4% AC6 (outer region) 14.1% 15.9% AC7 (outer region) 37.8% 40.1% AC8 (middle region large employment centre) 62.0% 80.0% AC9 (Airport) 12.2% 56.8% These centres have a metropolitan-wide function so it is desirable to be very well served by public transport... But the output here shows that they have not benefitted from the proposed measures to the extent necessary. AC10 Perth Central 77.8% 83.6% AC11 (outer region) 23.3% 26.4% AC12 (middle region major employment centre) 66.8% 72.9% AC13 (inner region major employment centre) 35.9% 59.9% AC14 (outer region) - 15.8% Average Key Centres 37.8% 46.5% Standard Deviation Key Centres 20.5% 22.2% Average Network 24th Aesop Annual Conference 30.0% 32 40.2% Standard Deviation Network Finland 7-10 July 2010 19.4% 21.7%

Issue 1: incremental change results in lost opportunity

towards a solution bus re-routing

towards a solution higher performing mode

SNAMUTS tool applied to deliberate over Perth s future public transport network

24th Aesop Annual Conference Finland 7-10 July 2010 39

24th Aesop Annual Conference Finland 7-10 July 2010 40

24th Aesop Annual Conference Finland 7-10 July 2010 41

To conclude There is an important need to plan for the integration of land use and public transport Tools that can demonstrate the extent of public transport accessibility have an important role in planning decision support Important questions remain as to what the benchmark for public transport access should be for Australian cities

c.curtis@curtin.edu.au Curtis C (2011) Integrating Land Use with Public Transport: The Use of a Discursive Accessibility Tool to Inform Metropolitan Spatial Planning in Perth. Transport Reviews Vol 31 (2) pp. 179-197. Curtis C and Scheurer J (2010) Planning for Sustainable Accessibility: Developing tools to aid discussion and decision-making. Progress in Planning Vol 74 (2010), pp.53-106 Curtis C, Renne J L, Bertolini L (eds) (2009) Transit Oriented Development: Making it Happen Ashgate, Aldershot Curtis C (2008) The evolution of the TOD model for low density cities: A case study of Perth s new railway corridor. Planning Practice and Research Vol. 23, No. 3 pp.285-302 (Special Edition: Integrating Rail and Land Use Investment) Curtis C (2008) Planning for Sustainable Accessibility: the implementation challenge. Transport Policy Vol 15 (2) pp. 104-112