Quote:
Originally Posted by Truenorth00
This is an assumption of yours: And I am suggesting that Y = ¬Y for the given ¬X. A completely fair assertion given that you are assuming that X =/= ¬X. You have any evidence at all that sprawl will not occur near Moose's stations?
|
Truenorth00,
I expect you'll agree that the reality is nuanced.
Permit me to table evidence here in two parts (a) a formal external study; and (b) some of the specific design strategy of our Property-Powered Rail Open Market Development Model.
(a) A Formal External Study
I'll pick just one. Perhaps you'll offer one too.
Does public transportation encourage suburban sprawl?
Effets spatiaux du S-Bahn 2 Zurich
Full report (in French)
Here is part of their conclusion from the full report: (original text reproduced in French, followed by a quick English translation)
L’objectif général de la présente recherche était de déterminer s’il existe un effet mesurable et démontrable entre l’évolution de l’accessibilité d’une localité donnée vers le centre d’une métropole et le développement de cette localité. Pour le cas du projet 2G à Zurich, la réponse est clairement positive, même si les effets territoriaux restent modestes à l’échelle du Canton de Zurich. Ainsi, le projet S-Bahn 2 G n’aura probablement que peu d’impact sur la structure du territoire cantonal zurichois, même s’il contribue à une certaine redistribution de la croissance. Au vu de nos analyses, deux éléments sont décisifs dans l’impact modeste du projet 2G sur la croissance urbaine du Canton de Zurich : (1) Le fait que le développement territorial dans le Canton de Zurich est fortement contraint par le Plan directeur cantonal qui détermine la localisation et le rythme de croissance des zones à bâtir. (2) Le fait que les transports publics, s’ils peuvent favoriser un étalement vers la périphérie, tendent néanmoins à favoriser un développement plus dense autour des gares. En conséquent, les effets du S-Bahn 2 G risquent de se faire sentir de manière plus forte dans certains cantons voisins qui possèdent de plus grandes réserves de zones à bâtir à meilleur prix. Ces périphéries plus éloignées ont le plus fort potentiel de croissance tout en offrant suite au développement des transports aussi un gain de temps de parcours.
The general objective of this research was to determine whether there is a measurable and demonstrable effect between the evolution of accessibility from a given peripheral locality to the centre of a metropolitan area and the growth of that locality. In the case of the 2G project in Zurich, the answer is clearly positive, although the territorial effects remain modest throughout the Canton of Zurich. Thus, the S-Bahn 2 G project will probably have little impact on the structure of Zurich's cantonal territory, even if it contributes to a certain redistribution of growth. In view of our analysis, two factors are decisive in the modest impact of the 2G project on sprawl in the Canton of Zurich: (1) The fact that territorial development in the Canton of Zurich is strongly constrained by the Cantonal Master Plan, which determines the location and rate of growth of building zones. (2) The fact that public transport, while capable of encouraging sprawl towards the periphery, nevertheless tends to favor a more dense development around stations. Consequently, the effects of the 2G S-Bahn are likely to be felt more strongly in some neighbouring cantons which have larger reserves of low-cost building zones. These more distant peripheries have the greatest potential for growth while offering transport development further a saving of travel time.
I chose that study for my reply because it supports your statement that:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Truenorth00
Generally, when you lower the cost of a commute, in the absence of prevailing regulation prohibiting it, you do see sprawl.
|
Fine, but what about the regulation part?
(b) The Specific Design Strategy of the Property-Powered Rail Open Market Development Model
Let me now refer you to Section 3.3 of “
Preliminary Development Concept Review: Moose Rail Linked Localities” by MTBA Associates Inc. In there, we speak of "Form-Based Codes", and keep in mind, this is in the context of condition-based subscription contracts for train service. Here's a useful excerpt:
3.3 Planning Process and Urban & Rural Design for Typical Sites
This section provides a review of best practices for planning process opportunities and constraints and urban and rural design considerations that may be applied against typical site(s) in the proposed MOOSE Rail system.
...
MOOSE is offering an immensely positive opportunity for these communities to simply reuse their abandoned rail lines and in return get highly sought-after driving-free transit throughout the Region; as well, through best-practice planning and form-based codes and community direction, they will receive the opportunity to have incremental, character-supporting, context-sensitive mixed-use development that suits their particular community. This message will help engage participants in the process.
Generally, the typical process that development of the lands around most of the proposed station stops would require all or some of the following: - Stakeholder and public consultation process;
- Application for Official Plan Amendment (OPA) and zoning amendments;
- Application for development, site plan control, plan of subdivision, etc.;
- Application for participation in community design plan;
- Application for building permits, including any applicable specific elements such as demolition, heritage, brownfield remediation, etc.
This list would need to be verified against each location within each Municipality, before a planning statement and rationale could be developed. Also, as we are proposing “form-based codes” there will be a step in most Municipalities for reviewing applicability of, and expediting, the form-based code process.
Form-based codes can help curb sprawl and help provide opportunity for a place to grow and evolve in a more organic and context-sensitive way. Form-based land use guidelines work well with, and reflect, proactive locally-driven efforts to improve quality-of-life and become more economically competitive. They tend to be customized to reflect local context, character and goals by strongly addressing the physical form of building and development.
Form-based development planning codes and multi-modal transportation are both particularly appropriate to urban fringe and urban shadow communities (like the population centers to be served by MOOSE Rail) due to their reliance on access to the large urban centers they lie outside of, their rootedness in their community or heritage village origins and, in the case of rural locations, their lack of infrastructure and development precedents. Because the generally-accepted “unit” of urban design is the neighborhood, form-based codes (which are becoming very popular in cities across North America) have also been applied to as small as 100-person populations and 35 acres.
That's to say, regulations do apply, and the PPR even adds an additional layer of contract-based quasi-regulation, referred to as form-based codes. You can read about this more here:
http://formbasedcodes.org/definition/
Now, let's go yet one step further: What direction does the financial pressure push? When 100% of the financial value relevant to MOOSE is inside the 0.8 km radius circle, should one expect that to be enhanced or eroded by densification outside that circle? We think the answer will depend on context. However it is easy to imagine that a semi-rural locality surrounded by productive farmland and/or a semi-wilderness recreational landscape would likely be more valuable when those un-built areas are protected, than if paradise gets paved over.
This raises different issues, to be sure -- such as access to affordable residential and commercial space. Planning is terribly complex, sure. Matters can be addressed in municipal/provincial regulations, and MOOSE's own form-based codes, and in additional ways.
When you say "Generally, the typical process", it appears you are suggesting that MOOSE is pursuing that typical process. You're entitled to your opinion, and you can distrust anything we say. But I hope we've provided some insight into why and how we reckon we're planning something quite different.
Joseph Potvin
Director General | Directeur général
Moose Consortium (Mobility Ottawa-Outaouais: Systems & Enterprises) |
www.letsgomoose.com
Consortium Moose (Mobilité Outaouais-Ottawa: Systèmes & Enterprises) |
www.onyvamoose.com
Prev
Linear Mode
