Regional Science Association International- The Israeli Section
Joint Development of Land Use
and Light Rail Stations
The Case of Tel Aviv
Daniel Shefer, Shlomo Bekhor, Avigail Ferdman
Centre for Urban and Regional Studies
Transportation Research Institute
Technion – Israel Institute of Technology
Beer Sheva University
“New Direction in Urban and Regional Development”
6/6/04
Structure of the presentation
• Introduction
• Literature Review
• Purpose of the Study
• Hypotheses
• Methodology
• Findings
• Conclusions
Introduction
•
The land-use transportation interaction
•
Empirical evidence of the built environment’s
impact on travel demand
•
Land-use intensification and mixed land uses –
their impact on transit use
•
The role and function of Light Rail Transit - LRT
What can light rail transit do?
LRT is perceived as a powerful mode for
transferring ridership from private to public
transportation
at the micro level
•
•
Enhancing accessibility
“Getting people out of their cars”
at the macro level
• Relieving traffic congestion
• Reducing emissions
• Rejuvenating urban centres
• Stimulating economic growth
Literature Review
Purpose of the study
exploring various scenarios of the built environment around
planned LRT stations
Tel Aviv as a case study
•
1st light rail line in Tel Aviv, due to open in 2010.
•
Connects 4 major cities
•
The stations location was based on travel demand
Purpose of the Study
The built environment and travel demand
Impacts on daily travel demand:
• Intensified areas attract trips
• Mixed land uses around LRT stations
induce transit use and walking/cycling
• Trip generation is not affected by land use
Hypotheses
Land uses and travel demand
Parameters of land use scenarios:
•
population densities,
•
commercial densities,
•
degree of land use mix
•
workforce-population ratio
Methodology
Land Use Scenarios
workforce-population ratio
Methodology
Alternative scenarios produce differential trip
Trip Generation
generation demand
percent differencee from base scenario
Total Trip Generation
1.06
1.04
1.02
1.00
0.98
0.96
base
scenario 1
scenario
base sub models
scenario 2
scenario 3
scenario 4
retroffited sub models
No difference between NTA models & retrofitted models, save for
scenario 4
Findings – trip generation
Mixed and intensified land uses
Trip attraction
attract more trips
percent difference from base
submodel
total trip attraction per workplace
1.14
1.12
1.10
1.08
1.06
1.04
1.02
1.00
0.98
base
scenario
scenario 1 scenario 2 scenario 3 scenario 4
Findings
Job–population ratios affect home-base-work trips
Home-base-work trip attraction
Job-population ratio
1.70
1.20
1.65
1.00
1.60
0.80
1.03
1.00
job-population ratio
daily hbw trips
0.81
1.55
1.50
1.45
0.74
0.68
0.60
0.40
0.20
1.40
0.00
base scenario
scenario 1
nta sub model
scenario 2
scenario 3
scenario 4
base
scenario 1
scenario 2
scenario 3
scenario 4
retrofitted sub model
Higher job–population rates – attract more motorized home-base-work trips
Scenarios 1-2-3 have a greater concentration of jobs
Findings – trip attraction
Intensified commercial areas attract less
motorized home-base commuting trips
More trip attraction at the outer stations
Less trip attraction
Findings – trip attraction
Mixed land uses attract more trip chaining
Non-home-base trip attraction per workplace
1
daily nhb trips
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
base
scenario
scenario 1
scenario 2
scenario 3
scenario 4
Findings
Main findings
• Intensified land uses tend to generate
more motorized trips per household than
mixed land uses or the base scenario
• Intensified and mixed land uses attract
more trips per worker
Findings
Conclusions
Alternative land use scenarios generate and attract
differential trip rates
Mixed land uses are different from intensified land
uses, in terms of travel demand
High density & mixed land uses can serve as
strategic decision variables in locating
transit stations
Conclusions
Joint Development of Land Use
and Light Rail Stations
Thank you
Further research
• Metropolitan level forecasts
• Exploring the most conducive land use mix for lrt
ridership » Before and after lrt introduction
» Comparison to other lrt systems
» Trip mode share
• Exploring station location by trip demand and
land use characteristics
Trip generation with same workforce ratio for all the
scenarios
percent differencee from base scenario
Total Trip Generation
1.00
0.98
0.96
0.94
0.92
0.90
scenario 0 scenario 1 scenario 2 scenario 3 scenario 4
base sub models
retroffited sub models
Planned LRT red line in Metropolitan Tel Aviv
Differences in population densities
percent difference from base scenario
200
169
175
155
150
142
125
110
100
100
75
50
base
scenario 1 scenario 2 scenario 3 scenario 4
Differences in job densities
percent difference from base scenario
120.00
112
112
112
110.00
106
100
100.00
90.00
80.00
base
scenario 1
scenario 2
scenario 3
scenario 4