Strengths and Weakness of Bus in Relation to Transit Oriented Development Professor Graham Currie Chair of Public Transport, Institute of Transport Studies, Monash University Tel: +61 3 9905 5574 Fax: +61 3 9905 4944 Email: [email protected] ABSTRACT While Transit Oriented Development (TOD) has almost exclusively concerned rail based modes there has been a recent interest in bus related TOD with an emphasis on new bus rapid transit (BRT) developments in North/ South America and Australia. This paper takes a critical look at the strengths and weakness of bus based transit systems in relation to TOD through a review of the literature and an assessment of TOD related developments. The performance of BRT systems in relation to TOD are considered with specific reference to BRT systems in Australia. In addition TOD related to local suburban or ‘low order’ bus service is considered. The paper describes the general concept of TOD and how this relates to features of transit modes, outlines the literature relevant to bus based TOD and identifies the strengths and weakness of bus based transit systems in relation to TOD. It concludes by using the findings of the review to identify ways in which bus based TOD might be better planned and implemented. 1. INTRODUCTION Focusing urban development around transit facilities is now recognised as a significant way of improving the effectiveness of our public transport systems as well supporting community goals and improving accessibility (Transportation Research Board, 2004). Termed ‘Transit Oriented Development’ (TOD) this approach is associated with higher density mixed use development near transit with high quality walking environments to assist access. In general TOD initiatives have focussed on rail based TOD (or RTOD). Bus based TOD (or BTOD) is clearly a minor subset of TOD implementation (Transportation Research Board, 2004) and is not well covered in the research literature. Dittmar and Poticha (2004) have suggested that the raging light rail vs bus debate is to blame for an unhelpful blurring of the issues associated with BTOD. However they go on to suggest a commonly held view within the development industry that ‘rail transit, all other things being equal, attracts more intense development and increases return on investment’. There is evidence of an increase in the somewhat low profile which BTOD has in the TOD literature. BTOD is seen as an important feature of the growing Bus Rapid Transit field (Transportation Research Board, 2003). Almost 8% of the TOD initiatives identified in a recent survey of the United States were bus based initiatives in predominantly smaller communities (Transportation Research Board, 2004). So what is the potential for TOD in relation to bus services? How far can TOD be realistically applied in the bus industry? 1 This paper aims to identify the strengths and weakness of bus based transit oriented development through a review of the literature and an assessment of service developments in Australia. The emphasis of this review is to provide an objective assessment of the capabilities problems and issues of bus in relation to TOD rather than advocating bus in preference to rail (or vice versa). It also aims to identify ways to better plan and implement TOD in relation to bus based on these findings. The paper starts with a background overview of literature associated with BTOD. Weaknesses of BTOD compared to rail based modes are then discussed. This is followed by a discussion of strengths of bus in relation to TOD. Finally the conclusion summarises the key findings of this review and discusses ways in which BTOD might be better planned and implemented based on these findings. 2. BACKGROUND A casual reader of the TOD literature might be forgiven for thinking that bus services play no role in the field. However bus based TOD has been identified in typologies TOD characteristics. Calthorpe (1993) identified both an ‘Urban TOD’ associated with a rail stations and a ‘Neighbourhood TOD’ associated with bus. This concept is expanded by Dittmar and Poticha (2004) into the framework identified in Table 1. Table 1 : Typology of TOD and Associated Transit Modes TOD Type Transit Frequency Land Use Minimum Housing Mode/s Mix Housing Types Density (units/hectare) Urban All Modes <10 mins Primary office >60 Multifamily Downtown Entertainment Loft Multi Family Housing Urban Light rail 10 mins peak Residential >20 Multifamily Neighbourhood Streetcar 20 mins off- Retail Loft Rapid bus peak Class B Townhome Local bus Commercial Single Family Suburban Centre Rail 10 mins peak Primary office >50 Multifamily Streetcar 10-15 mins centre Loft Rapid bus off-peak Entertainment Townhouse Local bus Multi family Paratransit housing Retail Suburban Light rail 20 mins peak Residential >12 Multifamily Neighbourhood Rapid bus 30 mins off- neighbourhood Townhome Local bus peak Retail Single family Paratransit Local office Neighbourhood Local bus 25-30 mins Residential >7 Multifamily Transit Zone Paratransit Demand Neighbourhood Single family responsive retail Commuter Commuter Peak service Retail centre >12 Multifamily Town Centre rail Demand Residential Townhome Rapid bus responsive Single family Source: Dittmar and Poticha (2004) 2 In general a hierarchy of transit modes is suggested. While bus services are provided at every level, rail based modes are more closely related to higher density and larger scale development while bus based modes with lower frequencies predominate at the lower density end of development. The link between bus and lower density development is repeated in much of the literature. A review of TOD residential density thresholds (Transportation Research Board, 2004) identified consistently lower density expectations for bus based schemes than light rail in San Diego, Washington and Portland. The co-location of bus services and bus terminals at some major rail stations has been suggested as a potential spur for TOD (Transportation Research Board, 1997). The same source suggested that BTOD is commonly associated with cities without rail. Encouraging development around bus stations is a major feature of BTOD in these cities. The most common association between TOD initiatives and bus has been related to bus based mass transit systems such as busways or Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) systems. The ability of large scale bus transit systems to encourage land development has been identified as a major benefit of these forms of transit technology (Transportation Research Board, 2003). Table 2 shows some selected examples. Table 2 Land Use Benefits of Selected BRT Systems System Land Development Benefits Pittsburgh East Busway 59 new developments within 1,500 ft radius of station. $302M in land development benefits of which $275m was construction. 80% clustered at station. Ottawa Transit System $1Can Billion ($US 675M) in new construction at transitway stations Adelaide Busway Tea Tree Gully Area becoming an urban village Brisbane South East Busway Up to 20% gain in property values near the busway. Property values in area within 6 miles of station grew by 2 to 3 times faster than those at greater distance Source: Transportation Research Board (2003) The Ottawa transit system is a major icon of bus based TOD. Ottawa’s policy of combining integration of land use and transport planning with an emphasis on public transit development over road construction are to be admired regardless of the transit modes involved. Nevertheless it was an integrated high frequency busway which achieved substantial increases in transit patronage and which has been associated with densification of development around busway stations (Bonsall, 1997). The Curitiba and the Bogata TransMilenio system in South America are the other major icons of both BRT and associated BTOD. A direct link between the accessibility benefits of the Bogata system and land values was identified in Rodriguez and Targa (2004). The integrated land use policy associated with the Curitiba busway has been associated with its significant impact on land development (Smith and Raemaekers, 1998). 3 While the association of TOD with these large scale bus transit systems is relatively well developed, the relevance of these examples to American (and Australian) circumstances has been questioned. Henry (1989) has stressed the strength of land use controls in Ottawa as a major factor influencing successful land use and transport outcomes. This level of control is considered “formidable” and “most unlikely” in US land use planning (Henry, 1989). So what is the practical and realisable potential for BTOD? The next sections consider the weakness and strengths of bus in relation to TOD. 3. WEAKNESSES The following discussion concerns potential weakness of bus in relation to TOD. In each case the significance of the issues raised are assessed on a scale from ‘low’, ‘medium’ to ‘high’ to understand the scale and importance of the weaknesses identified. 3.1 Permanence, Magnitude and Implications for Development Risk A number of sources question the permanence of bus compared to rail: “Developers and home buyers alike seem to be attracted to the permanence of rail transit” Dittmar and Poticha (2004) “Because the locations of bus routes are not fixed or permanent, this greatly increases the risk of investing in transit-supportive land use development” California Department of Transportation (2002) The scale and magnitude of rail development is also purported to be significantly higher than for bus and is suggested as a major spur for rail based development compared to bus, (California Department of Transportation, 2002). Certainly significant investment suggests a significant commitment. Commitment and taking development risks are clearly linked. However as Hensher (1999) puts it “What makes for permanence?”. The same source questions wether busway based schemes are less permanent than light rail since no evidence is available that any busway systems have been removed. This theme is taken up by Niles and Nelson (1999) “It is not easy to draw the conclusion that rail transit is both more permanent and a greater attractor of development than is bus transit”.