Rail Analysis India June Digital Magazine 2018 - Page 30

32 | Exclusive Interview Exclusive Interview | 31 A transport service is meant to cater to travel demand generated by urban development. But on the other hand, urban development cannot start on its own without proper transport system. For new developments, a Transit is a must that may call for Transit Oriented Development (TOD).But in existing areas for old developments, Transit comes in mind only when there is enough travel demand to justify its need. So in this case transit comes in existing development.It is to necessitate to develop transit development where travel demand warrants for a transit service, it is called Development Oriented Transit (DOT).This practice must be adopted for cities such as Delhi and Mumbai in India. EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW WITH AR. PRIYANKA KUMAR & DR. P K SARKAR Image Credit : pixels Dr. P K Sarkar Former Head of Department of Transport Plannning, School of planning and Architecture, New Delhi Ar. Priyanka Kumar Urban Planner, Regional Centre for Urban & Environmental Studies, Lucknow www.railanalysis.com Please brief us more about the difference in Transit Oriented Development (TOD) & Development Oriented transit (DOT)? What drives this change and How Indian transport will gain from it? Transit Oriented Development (TOD) is a nodal development which focuses more around Metro / BRTS Station where as Development Oriented Transit (DOT) is an area based approach which may include road, rail, and metro / BRTS depending upon the existing development pattern/form. Transit Oriented Development means developing the transit first which means TOD to be appropriate for Greenfields areas or newly develop areas where as Development Oriented Transit means the development to take place first. It means this shall be appropriate for existing areas such as Brownfield areas, areas with very high density, very old areas etc. Both Transit Oriented Development and Development Oriented Transit focus on creating vibrant, livable, and sustainable communities. The communities living in mixed land use which should influence to Pedestrian and Non-Motorized Development. But Development Oriented Transit shall more focus on sustainable mobility, use of public transport, non- motorized transport incorporated in existing developed patterns. Transportation and Urban Development both follow each other as like the chicken and egg story as same TOD and DOT shall follow each other. What is the major difference between Transit Oriented Development (TOD) and Development Oriented transit (DOT) concepts? Please share some examples? Transit decides the spatial structure of the urban area in Transit Oriented Development whereas spatial structure of the urban area decides the mode of Transit in case of DOT. Although it’s an old practice but need for policy development to be formulated for current scenario. Portland is the largest city in the U.S. state of Oregon.The Portland Streetcar is great example of DOT initiated by the city of Portland to connect two major redevelopment areas. Around 70 acres of abandoned rail yards and neglected brownfield site just north of Downtown (the river District) with another 128 acres of largely underused or vacant industrial land requiring environmental up gradation at the opposite end of downtown (the south waterfront). How are other countries successfully adopting DOT and what do they manage to achieve from it? The experience of Portland explains the value of DOT model. As it is very clear that residential, employment and mixed use development responds to transit investment, it has become even more apparent that the alignment of transit for best investments are intentionally located, designed and operated to better facilitate property owner and development authorities. E. D. Hovee & Company, LLC stated “In effect, this public-private feedback loop shifts the emphasis from transit as the sole driver to a development-first paradigm - as the most opportune mechanism to maximize public and private return on investment” Jackson and Levitt presented a contrasting example of development that allows transit expansion in the U.S. in the form of impressive “Development-Oriented Transit” model. The strategic error of conventional TOD is that the business model often completely neglects the importance of creating a built-in, long-term customer base for the taxpayers’ massive capital investment. Instead, project sponsors often cave to the pressure of a small minority of vocal individuals, rather than looking out for the good of the transit ballot community and the economy at large. The result of this surprisingly short- term focus for such massive, long-term public investments is an unrecoverable, lost economic opportunity. Communities spending billions of dollars in new rail investments are left with few ways to finance the non-transit infrastructure required to make the necessary new density at transit nodes livable www.railanalysis.com