A thread on TODs, TADs and value capture.
What exactly qualifies as a ‘TOD’?
This paper by Dr Chris Hale is behind a paywall. It proposes a performance-based standard for what a TOD is and is not. This is different to other definitions which focus on built form or presentation.
A performance based standard aligns much better with our own goals, as at the end of the day, we want patronage to increase as well as mode share.
Bolding added to the original.
Abstract
This paper discusses the distinction between transit-oriented development (TOD) and so-called ‘transit-adjacent development’ (TAD)—a label sometimes applied to less-successful TOD efforts. It is suggested that transport performance is the key factor distinguishing between the two outcomes—and that despite complexities, clearer quantitative benchmarks are needed. Much of the literature and discussion on TOD centres around a perceived failing of many TOD project attempts to deliver a ‘genuine transit-oriented outcome’. Often, this discussion has remained at a thematic level, or has rested on subjective qualitative appraisal, or critique of design or built-form outcomes. With a few exceptions, researchers and experts have generally been reluctant to provide a clear benchmark for TOD success or failure—perhaps because so many well-intentioned TOD efforts fall short of initial expectations.
This paper puts forward a proposal that mode share should be the apex metric for determining TOD project success or failure. It is suggested that a majority (50%+) of travel movements need to be accommodated by the sustainable modes (walking, cycling, and public transit) for a location to assume the label of ‘genuine TOD’.
Equally, other locations that attempt TOD, but do not deliver a sustainable travel majority, might be placed in the ‘TAD’ category. Benchmark figures from international precincts and locales are used to sustain this argument—with reference to the broader planning, urban development, and design contexts in which these ideas sit.
Notes
TOD Versus TAD: The Great Debate Resolved…(?)
Planning Practice & Research Volume 29, 2014 - Issue 5
Chris Hale
Pages 492-507 | Published online: 14 Dec 2012
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02697459.2012.749056
The transit transformation Australia needs
This paper explores different options for supplementary financing of new PT infrastructure and potentially services.
The infrastructure ‘wishlist’ is long and very expensive. The following table was published in 2019:
Hale sets out five ways to capture value from development around stations. This is significant, because a new PT authority could be empowered with planning powers for redeveloping areas around station precincts.
1. Mechanism A: Value capture through the existing, mainstream taxation system
Readers should note that by the ‘existing tax system’ we mean ‘with no change intended or required’. This should immediately differentiate TIF from other options and mechanisms that involve new or special levies and fees (see below) in the minds of funding policy stakeholders.
2. Mechanism B: Special fees or levies
Special fees or levies target a very specific and clearly delineated beneficiary or ‘customer’ base. In beneficiary funding and project delivery environments they are essentially a ‘fee for service’ utilised directly and solely for improving transport conditions. They should never be confused with taxes.
3. Mechanism C: Sale or auction of development rights
In practice, value realisation in a transit context usually means the sale of ‘air rights’ development opportunity above rail corridors or properties. Or it may involve the sale of some larger landholding around a new or upgraded station – on the presumption that the sale revenues go back into the infrastructure funding need, or that the incoming bidder is obliged to deliver station facilities and associated infrastructure according to appropriate specifications and standards.
4. Mechanism D: a comprehensive TOD and urban renewal agency (with value capture capabilities)
These include: precinct master planning; land rezoning; achieving value through design; public realm amenity and urban design; subdivision and property sale; as well as embedding a comprehensive and intelligent strategic vision in precinct plans, with clear leadership and accountability. All of these aspects impact on value creation. A planning ‘authority’ seems well-placed to marshal resources and carry out such complex tasks under a robust governance umbrella.
5. Mechanism E: Direct property – with rail agency as developer
A transit operator or agency proactively involved in developing and trading property holdings associated with stations and precinct or corridor-scale projects on a commercial basis, with the intent to use some of the profit from those activities for transit infrastructure and facility funding.
Notes
Authored by Chris Hale CEO & Founder – Hale Infra Strategy Pty Ltd. PO Box 440 Brunswick VIC 3056 PhD – Civil Engineering (transport strategy) Master of Property Economics Bachelor of Arts (Economics)
Interesting view that people prioritise other factors such as living near water etc over locating next to a train station.
Similar views have been put by other community organisations.
2 Likes