The first challenge could simply be that the notion of
living next to, above or as part of a train station relies a lot on where that
train takes people. In all our major capitals, the legacy train network is
typically a hub and spoke model, with the CBD as the hub. This is changing to a
degree, and Melbourne’s suburban rail loop is perhaps the most ambitious if not
Quixotic challenge to that design. The Sydney-Paramatta light rail is another
more useful innovation. But in the main,
the assumption is that ‘most people want to commute to inner city jobs’ and
that therefore living next to a station that takes you there is a good thing.
Which it is, for the roughly 10% of people in a metro area who work in the city
centre. What that means in effect though is that a train station based TOD can
only appeal to a relatively finite market. The great majority of people have
employment destinations which are not CBDs and which are not near a train
station.
This hasn’t stopped politicians recently announcing
significant policy changes to further support more transit-oriented (rail) development.
In Victoria, Premier Jacinta Allen surprised many with her announcement of 25
“activity centres” around train and tram stops, with a further 25 to come.
These 50 areas will allow high rise residential buildings close to the station
infrastructure, scaling down to less intensive heights further away. The move
has been welcomed by development industry groups but not by local residents who
live in the affected areas and who were not consulted. Instead, they have been
attacked as NIMBYs.
In NSW, Premier Chris Minns took a big swig of the kool-aid
earlier this year and announced 37 rail station based precincts across the
wider Sydney metro area that would be rezoned to permit high density housing
next to the station. The hope is that the initiative will lead to 170,000 more
“well-located, well-designed and well-built homes” across the region. The
announcement came without community consultation and so far – other than
promises – there’s no budget for improved infrastructure in these precincts:
things like schools, medical and other things we humans tend to need.
“So, don’t we just need to get on with building more
housing?” you might ask.
True, but consider that it will be left to the market (also
known as ‘the real world’) to develop this product. Building high density
housing is now the most expensive form of housing per square metre. Which means
it will be expensive for people to buy. That limits the purchaser pool, whether
as investors or owner occupiers. Investors paying more for a product will want
a higher rate of rental return, so the idea that building more of the most
expensive housing product is in any way going to improve affordability is
actually quite bizarre.
It can also be difficult building near or on and especially
over train lines. Rail authorities tend to have their own views about how much
development should take place next to their rail lines. They don’t want
residents moving into these new developments then complaining about noise, dust
or vibrations. They can prove obstructive if their approval is required for
development to proceed.
It's also worth asking why our policy makers seem to think
that development oriented around transport infrastructure must just be housing.
There are genuine opportunities to locate assets like schools, offices, medical
centres and shopping centres in and around train stations, but these get scant
attention in Australia – if any. Yet being big generators of people traffic, it
would make sense to co-locate transport infrastructure that can move a lot of
people with land uses that also generate a lot of traffic.
A recent visit to Tokyo highlighted for me what is possible.
Under an elevated Tokyo expressway were strips of ground floor shops and
restaurants, with offices above (immediately below the expressway). And a
nearby elevated rail line made full use of the space underneath the line to
house a variety of restaurants in what would otherwise be a void.
Tokyo expressway above, shops and offices below.
Rail lines above, restaurants below.
In Kyoto, the line between where the rail station begins and
where the hotel, full department store, supermarket and shopping centre begin
are indistinguishable. It’s a full integration.
This is also transit oriented development because it makes
better use of the infrastructure. Sadly though I suspect we won’t see much of
this alternative dialogue in Australia. We seem locked into thinking that
transit oriented development is one thing and one thing only: high density
towers offering high cost housing clustered around train stations which don’t
necessarily take people where they want to go.
That might explain why TODs will remain something much
talked about in planning and political circles, but when it comes to the
market, there may be a less enthusiastic response.