ATRF2015_FINAL

Australasian Transport Research Forum 2015 Proceedings
30 September - 2 October 2015, Sydney, Australia
Publication website: http://www.atrf.info/papers/index.aspx
1
The performance and potential of rail stations in and
outside freeway medians: the application of a node/place
model to Perth
Courtney Babb1
, Anthony Duckworth-Smith2
, Ryan Falconer3
, Richard Isted4
, Doina Olaru5
,
Sharon Biermann5
1
Planning and Transport Research Centre (PATREC), Curtin University
2
Australian Urban Design Research Centre, University of Western Australia
3
ARUP, Perth, Western Australia
4
Jacobs, Perth, Western Australia
5
PATREC, University of Western Australia
Email for correspondence: c.babb@curtin.edu.au
Abstract
In some global cities new rail infrastructure is located within freeway medians. This is primarily
due to spatial constraints inherent in existing urban areas and the opportunity to avoid land
resumption for major transport infrastructure. In Perth, WAthe opening of the Joondalup (1991)
and Mandurah (2007) railway lines delivered 22 new stations, most located within the freeway
median. The historic Midland, Armadale/Thornlie and Fremantle lines were not constructed in
freeway medians. State Government planning policy has identified many of the new stations
as activity centres for future higher residential development and land-use intensity. A planning
challenge for development in these precincts is to address the current and future conflict
between the mobility needs of the car, and those of public transport, walking, and cycling.
Many of the precincts have remnant low-density development, feature fragmented land tenure
and represent the effects of past auto-centric policy. The Node/Place model developed by
Bertolini (1996) has been used to analyse the land-use and transport functions of rail station
precincts in several cities around the world. This paper reports on a new application of an
extended node/place model to 13 rail stations in the Perth metropolitan area, identified by WA
State planning policy as activity centres. A tri-dimensional analysis – Node, Place and
Background Traffic – was conducted of stations located within and outside freeway medians,
and of stations on heritage lines for the purpose of comparison. Performance was captured
using 43 indicators. The findings suggest that achieving the balance of Node and Place
function associatedwith stations in freeway medians is problematic and a moreeffective policy
setting may be to emphasise Node functions. The work also makes a unique contribution to
TOD research by assessing how background traffic conditions influence node/ place
functionality and related policy opportunities.
1. Introduction
The mutual benefits of co-locating public transport nodes and areas of higher intensity, mixed
use and walkable development, traditionally termed Transit-Oriented Development (TOD),
have been well recognised and studied in the literature (Bertolini 1999, Cervero et al. 2002).
Achieving transport and land use integration through TODs has been a popular planning policy
in Australian cities in the last decade (Curtis et al. 2009), including Perth. The strategic planning
agenda for metropolitan Perth and Peel is strongly predicated on a hierarchy of more broadly
termed, activity centres, most but not all of which are spatially associated with train stations.
Despite this strong planning tradition, while rail patronage has escalated in the last two
decades in response to the construction of northern Joondalup (early 1990’s) and southern
Mandurah (2007) rail lines, development of activity centres around stations in most cases, has
not materialised to anywhere near planning expectations. A number of contributing factors

2
have been postulated, not least of which is the location of stations within or adjacent to freeway
medians. This paper examines the performance and potential of transport and land use
function of 13 rail stations in the Perth metropolitan area, identified by WAState planning policy
as activity centres.
2. Background
2.1 Station precinct development
Rail stations play a defining role in the form and function of urban land use and transport
systems. Given the accessibility gains generated by new and existing rail stations, planners
have increasingly sought to intensify density within station precincts in order to capture greater
public transport mode share through increased walk-on ridership. Transit oriented
developments (TODs) are “development near or oriented to mass transit facilities, areas of
compact, mixed-use developments and a high quality walkable public realm, located within
proximity to well-connected public transport stops” (Cervero et al. 2002). As with other models
of urban development such as Smart Growth, (Outwater et al. 2014), Urban Villages (Li et al.
2014), and compact cities (Jenks et al. 1996), TODs are now widely part of urban planning
policy, as public agencies are driven by concerns for the sustainability of urban regions,
particularly in securing a good quality urban life within an energy and resource limited future.
The Node Place model, developed by Bertolini (1999), draws on earlier theories of the land-
use and transport feedback cycle to provide a means of analysing station precincts.
Figure 1: Node/Place model (Chorus and Bertolini 2011)
According to Bertolini, stations are both “node of networks” and “places in the city” (Bertolini
1996, p. 332). The model outlines five types of relationships between Node and Place: Stress,
Dependence, Balance, Unbalanced place and Unbalanced node. The Node/Pace model has
been adapted and used to analyse stations in several international regions (see Peek et al.
(2006) for a review of several applications in the Netherlands; Chorus and Bertolini (2011) in
Japan; Kamruzzaman et al. (2014) in Brisbane). The wide applicability of the model and the
development of a number of other typology approaches to station precinct development
support the view that TODs take a number of forms depending on local and urban regional
contexts (CTOD 2013; Falconer 2014). One application of the model highlights the importance
of distinguishing between potential and performance (Brand-van Tujin et al. 2001, cited in Gert-
Joost Peek et al. 2006). The distinction between current performance as TODs and potential
to become TOD is important, as TODs may establish over time and require ongoing strategic
planning and management. For this reason, Dittmar and Ohland (2004) cautioned against

The performance and potential of rail stations in and outside freeway medians
3
defining or evaluating TODs based purely on physical factors and identified other factors that
are important including location efficiency, value capture, place making and regional
accessibility. These are important considerations for cities such as Perth with historic patterns
of sprawl and emerging compact growth agendas.
2.2 Station in freeway medians
Despite the interest in developing typologies of TODs, there has been little recognition of
opportunities and constraints associated with TODs located at stations in freeway medians. In
San Francisco, several lines of the Bart System are partly co-located with major interstate
highways. Built at the height of auto-dominance in city planning and in a region containing one
of the highest rates of car ownership in the world at the time (Webber 1976), the BART line
stations were originally designed for park-and-ride (PnR), to capture ridership within the low-
density urban catchment.Current policy direction is in line with transitioning many PnR facilities
at BART stations to TODs (Willson and Menotii 2007). These aspirations tend to require long-
term commitment from government because land proximate to major transport infrastructure
is not always valued highly by the market and at-grade PnR is often considered highest and
best use. The densities required at BART stations to generate ridership levels equivalent to
existing park and ride are significant and may not be deliverable by the market. This creates
disincentive for BART, who have prerogatives to maintain (or grow) transit mode share and
not disadvantage current patrons (Duncan 2012). Some TODs at stations located near
freeways are achieving modest success such as Mockingbird Station in Dallas Texas (Dittmar
and Ohland 2004) and Pleasant Hill, San Francisco (King 2012). Other stations located within
major road reserves have developed in very different regional and cultural contexts that limit
the transferability of policy lesson for Australian cities. Stations at Zuid, Amsterdam (Bertolini
and Spit 1998) and Orestad,Denmark (Knowles 2012) have developed adjacent to motorways
but have high levels of regional accessibility. New stations in China (Cervero and Day 2008)
and Hong Kong (Xue et al. 2010) have very different institutional factors and very high levels
of urban density.
In Perth, Western Australia (WA), rail infrastructure was built in the late 1800s linking the port
city of Fremantle to central Perth, Guildford and Armadale (PTA n.d.). The station precincts
along these heritage lines developed largely independent of majorroad infrastructure, although
for some of its length the Armadale line runs parallel to a highway. Since the early 1990s two
additional major rail lines have been built linking Perth to Joondalup (1991) and beyond, and
Mandurah (2007). The Joondalup line has been extended since and now extends to Butler.
The two lines feature twenty-two stations. Two more stations are proposed on the Mandurah
line (Karnup and Aubin Grove) while the Joondalup line is anticipated to extend as far north as
Yanchep by 2031. The Mandurah line is situated within the median of Kwinana Freeway as far
south as Anketell Road and the Joondalup line in the Mitchell Freeway median as far north as
Burns Beach Road (excepting a deviation to the Joondalup City Centre).
Since the early 2000s, strategic metropolitan planning in WAincluding the Network City (2004),
Directions 2031 (2009) and Perth@3.5million (2015) growth paradigms have emphasised a
degree of urban polycentrism. They have acknowledged the need for the city to make better
use of metropolitan rail assets including accessibility to stations. In 2009, State government
planning policy 2.4 (SPP2.4) was released specifying design criteria for activity centres and
corridors. Activity Centres are Western Australian vernacular for TOD and their hinterland and
are intended to be:
“community focal points …includ[ing] activities such as commercial, retail, higher
density housing, entertainment, tourism, civic/community, higher education, and
medical services. Activity centres vary in size and diversity and are designed to be
well-serviced by public transport” (State Planning Policy 4.2 Activity Centres for
Perth and Peel, Government Gazette 2010 p. 4139).

4
State Government planning policy has defined many existing stations within the freeway
median as Activity Centres and therefore contexts appropriate for higher density residential
development and greater land-use intensity. A planning challenge for development in these
precincts is the resolution of current and future conflict between development intensity and
local access needs, interchange functions (car/ bus-to-transit) and background traffic (district
traffic movements). The latter variable is particularly important in the context of freeway
median stations but has been subject to little research. Many of the precincts feature legacies
of earlier auto-centric policy such as remnant low-density development and fragmented land
tenure. Station precincts also function in different ways contingent on their role within the
greater urban system with respect for their distance from the Perth CBD and local land use.
On these bases, uniform growth policy is inappropriate: stations should be evaluated for their
current performance and potential, especially as constituents of a much greater city system.
2.3 Station functions – Place, Node and Background Traffic
The selection of relevant criteria is critical to establish the function of stations as Nodes and
Places, and to assess the impact of Background Traffic within the station precinct. Station
precincts need to be compact, support a range of activities and have a high quality pedestrian
realm to function as successful Places (Cervero 2005). There needs to be adequate
employment opportunities to support some self-containment and attract trips from other
stations on the public transport network.
Quality of place is also important. Places should be comfortable and easy to walk around, with
limited impact from vehicle noise or emissions. The impact of road infrastructure and traffic on
the quality of everyday urban life has been well documented (Appleyard 1972). There needs
to a good supply of developable land to ensure future development opportunities. Without
these features, stations are a risk of becoming Transit Adjacent Developments (TADs) rather
than TODs, where development is present yet has a poor relationship with transport nodes
(Renne 2008).
Interchange functions are important for stations to perform as successful Nodes. These
functions can be both road (e.g. kiss-and-ride and park-and-ride) and feeder transit-based.
Stations in low-density cities such as Perth can serve large residential catchments and Node
functionality is particularly important. Access for bicycle trips also contributes to the Node
function of stations.
Background traffic can confound both Node and Place functions, and this is relationship is of
primary interest to the current research. In TODs, residential car ownership is lower generally
than in non-TODs while actual vehicle trip rates are significantly lower (Arrington and Cervero,
2008). Nevertheless, high densities of land use can still generate relatively high intensities of
vehicle trips. The orientation of the street network in TODs is therefore towards local traffic
access at managed speeds. Furthermore, agglomerated economic activity can yield relatively
high freight traffic flows where again, local access is of principal importance.
Access to the station by feeder modes is critical at Nodes. Node and Place functions often
conflict because the former relies on transport interchange and the latter on walkability and co-
location of land use activity with the station. Arguably, there are means to reconcile both
objectives for station precincts through definition of sub-precincts, traffic calming and
rationalisation of park-and-ride within spatially efficient decked structures.
In contrast, high levels of background traffic would seem to denude both Place and Node
functionality. Co-location of train stations with major road interchanges and within freeway
medians leads to mixing of through-traffic and traffic trying to access the station. It also
compromises both opportunities to co-locate land use with the station and quality-of-place.
Costly grade-separation may be able to reconcile background traffic and Node functions (at
least partly), but is unlikely to benefit Place functionality

5
The research reported on in this paper involved the development of a Place, Node and
Background Traffic model to address the question: how do stations located in freeway median
compare to other stations with regard to their current performance and potential of transport
and land-use function? The research incorporated a sample of 13 stations on Perth’s
metropolitan rail network.
3. Methodology
3.1 Station sample
The 13 stations in our sample were selected through application of a typological framework.
The variables in the framework were:
 Rail line (heritage or recent construction)
 Co-location of stations with or separation from major roads or freeways
 Co-location of stations with or separation from major road interchanges.
Figure 2 illustrates the four examples of station types included in the study.
Figure 2: Example stations (Source: AUDRC)
Heritage line stations Freeway Interchange Freeway midblock Divergent stations
Although the research question is concerned with stations located within freeway medians or
adjacent to freeways, we also included for comparison stations along the heritage lines.
Stations included in the study were Subiaco, Cannington, Maddington and Midland (Heritage
line stations); Murdoch, Cockburn Central and Stirling (Freeway Interchange stations);
Warwick, Glendalough and Leederville (Freeway Midblock stations); Joondalup and Wellard
(Divergent stations); and Greenwood (a control site; freeway median station with no activity
centre). Each station precinct, excepting Wellard and Greenwood, has been identified as an
Activity Centre in Western Australian State Planning 2.4. There are expectations that the
station precinct at Wellard will become more transit-oriented in the future (Curtis et al. 2009).
The station locations within the Perth metropolitan region are illustrated in Figure 3.

6
Figure 3: Station locations
3.2 Analysis
Multi-criteria analysis (43 measures) was used to assess the performance of the selected
stations. Secondary data obtained from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the WA Public
Transport Authority and Department of Planning, and modelling outputs from the Strategic
Transport Model developed by the WA Department of Planning was applied. The Node/Place
framework was used to guide the selection of data. To allow disaggregated analysis, Node
and Place indicators were further categorised as domains. These domains reflected either
current performance or potential Node and Place functionality. To better reflect the interaction
(and potential conflict) between car mobility and public transport traffic, an additional indicator,
Background Traffic, was included. Data was processed using ArcGIS and Microsoft Excel. A
summary table of raw individual indicators was created and then the 43 criteria were
transformed/standardised to a value between 0 and 1 (see the Appendix for the criteria). For
criteria hypothesised to represent a positive relationship with either the Node, Place, or
Background Traffic functions, 0 was attributed to the station with the lowest raw data value and
1 attributed to the station with the highest value. Conversely, for criteria hypothesised to have
negative association with the Place, Node, or Background Traffic function (e.g., longer travel
time to a station means lower access; higher values for hardscape/shade balance and
noisescape indicate poorer amenity and comfort; higher Volume/Capacity ratio means higher
congestion conditions) the opposite was applied; a value of 0 was attributed to the station with
the highest value. A linear interpolation method was applied to determine the values for the
remaining stations/activity centres within the range 0-1. The benefit of the method is in

7
providing a measure to easily compare the stations relative to each other. The disadvantage
is that the magnitude of the metrics is ignored.
The Background Traffic indicator consists oftwo domains representing the degree of constraint
in the station precinct, encompassing total vehicle movement including station access in the
morning and afternoon peak period times. The first domain captures the Traffic Function in
vehicle capacity and level of service measures. The second domain measures the Capacity of
the road network including vehicle lanes and regional road network features. The aggregation
of scores provides a rudimentary indication of Background Traffic and it is important to consider
each of the two domains separately when evaluating the station precincts for Node/Place
performance and potential. For example, there may be more potential for TOD in Heritage line
station precincts with busy local roads than for TOD at stations located near busy major arterial
roads.
3.3 Scenario weightings
The analysis presented in this paper compares two scenarios. The first scenario (Figure 4)
contains weightings determined by the research group, reflecting the observed importance
allocated to station precinct development in the Perth metropolitan region. For Place function
the weighted model places higher value on Urban Density and Land Use, relative to the Quality
of Place. For Node function, Public Transport Access and Roads Access were identified as
having more importance compared to Cycling. For example, potential demand for access to
the station by car received the lowest weighting, compared to current performance as a PnR
interchange, reflecting a vision of multi-modal station access within the current car-dominant
cities. The lesser weighting for cycling access is particular to Perth and does not reflect the
significance of cycling access in the Node function of stations in other geographies.
International experience, as in The Netherlands demonstrates that cycling access to stations
can be a major, if not the dominant, access function of some stations. Thus, this weighting
reflects the current low rate of cycling mode share characteristic of Perth and other Australian
cities.
Figure 4: Scenario A – research team weighted indicators and domains
In the second scenario (Figure 5) the domains representing Node and Place potential were
given highest weightings, and other performance domains received lowest weightings. The
comparison assesses the capacity for stations to develop Node and Place functionality. The
indicators included are development potential; urban structure; potential demand for public
transport access; and potential demand for road access. No potential indicators were included
for cycling access or background traffic indicators. Also, there was no change in weighting for
the indicators of Background Traffic.

8
Figure 5: Scenario B – potential Place and Node domains weighted
4. Findings
Figure 6 illustrates the Node/Place matrix for Scenario A and Scenario B. Place function is
recorded on the x axis, Node function recorded on the y, and Background Traffic function is
reflected by the size of the sphere representing the station. A larger sphere represents higher
Background Traffic function. As noted above there are two components to the Background
Traffic indicator and these should be also interpreted individually, rather than relying on the
aggregated score. A discussion of the Background Traffic function at stations is at the end of
this section.
Figure 6: Example Node/Place/Background Traffic Scenarios
The first scenario yields three identifiable clusters of stations. Murdoch, Cockburn Central and
Warwick, all stations on the freeway median, are relatively Unbalanced Nodes according to
Bertolini’s model. The three stations’ Node function are shaped by average metrics overall,
with high metrics in PnR supply at all stations, and good public transport supply at Murdoch.
The station precincts at Murdoch and Cockburn central are identified as Activity Centres under
the State’s spatial planning framework, so a more balanced Node/Place score would be more
in keeping with strategic policy. For Warwick, the activity centre is outside the walkable
Scenario A: Node and Place matrix Scenario B: Node and Place matrix

9
catchment of the station and a balanced Node/Place function is less critical. Subiaco,
Leederville and Joondalup are relatively Unbalanced Places, the latter being a primary
metropolitan regional centre and the two former stations inner city stations. The remaining
stations display relative balance between Node and Place function, with some (Stirling,
Midland and Glendalough) exhibiting a stronger overall degree of functionality than others
(Maddington and Wellard).
Scenario B, emphasising the Node and Place potential, shows less distinctive clusters of
stations. Although Murdoch and Warwick remain the most Unbalanced Nodes and Joondalup,
the most unbalanced Place, the other stations form a big common cluster. The potential for
each of the station precincts to develop Node and/or Place functionality can be illustrated by
comparing the aggregate Node/Place scores in Scenario A with those in Scenario B. Table 1
illustrates the difference between aggregated Node and Place metrics for Scenario A and B.
Higher Difference (Diff_) scores meanimproved function when potential factors are given more
weight, indicating more potential for improved Place or Node function.
Table 1: Differences between Scenario A and Scenario B Node and Place metrics
Stationtype Station Place A Place B Diff_ Node A Node B Diff_
Heritage Cannington 0.371 0.438 0.067 0.391 0.591 0.200
Maddington 0.401 0.596 0.195 0.223 0.387 0.164
Midland 0.461 0.530 0.069 0.417 0.456 0.040
Subiaco 0.780 0.691 -0.089 0.243 0.529 0.286
Interchange CockburnCentral 0.276 0.270 -0.006 0.571 0.512 -0.059
Murdoch 0.279 0.209 -0.070 0.694 0.672 -0.022
Stirling 0.440 0.468 0.027 0.504 0.586 0.082
Freewaymidblock Glendalough 0.492 0.528 0.036 0.377 0.620 0.243
Leederville 0.691 0.633 -0.058 0.285 0.604 0.319
Warwick 0.347 0.271 -0.076 0.669 0.659 -0.009
Divergent Wellard 0.277 0.340 0.063 0.264 0.190 -0.074
Joondalup 0.550 0.591 0.041 0.274 0.284 0.010
Control Greenwood 0.354 0.274 -0.081 0.339 0.365 0.026
Stations on the heritage lines, excepting Subiaco - Maddington, Cannington and Midland –
improve both their functions when the potential/capacity for stations to develop is enhanced.
Divergent station configurations also demonstrate improvements. This suggests that there is
extra capacity to develop Place function in all stations away from freeway medians. Of the
stations located in Freeway medians, data indicate that Glendalough and Stirling are
underperforming Places relative to their potential. Data for other freeway stations indicates that
there may be limited potential for enhanced Place function without major investment in
infrastructure such as land bridges (e.g. Leederville). For Node function, Leederville, Subiaco
and Glendalough demonstrate the most improvement in Scenario B compared to Scenario A.
These stations are also the closestin proximity to the CBD,indicating that regional accessibility
is a relevant factor for their performance. Freeway stations at Cockburn Central, Murdoch and
Warwick were the worst performers, with negative Node potential compared to Scenario A.
These stations are already performing well as Nodes, therefore further developing their
function my move them in the zone of Unbalanced Node, according to the model. Wellard was
the worst performing stations, indicative of its location in the regional context, being the most
distant station to the Perth CBD.
Aggregated Node and Place measures provide a general sense of a station’s role of its
potential within the broader urban system. Disaggregated analysis allows us to develop a
more thorough understanding of the opportunities and challenges for each station in the

10
sample; particularly with respect for strategic policy direction. Figure 7 illustrates the individual
indicator scores for each of the stations for Scenario A.
Figure 7: Scenario A Place and Node indicators
Scenario A: Place indicators Scenario A: Node indicators
Place was measured by two domains: Density and Diversity and Quality of Place. In Scenario
A, Subiaco, Leederville and, to a lesser extent Joondalup, functioned well across both
indicators, whereas Cockburn Central and Murdoch scored poorly against the Place indicators.
Together with Stirling, the freeway interchange stations are amongst the poorest performing
Places with respect for both Density and Diversity, and Quality of Place. Other stations not
located on the Freeway, such as Maddington and Cannington also display a poor Place
function, suggesting that location relative to freeways is not the only factor shaping Place
metrics. Other stations including Wellard, Midland, Warwick and Greenwood, perform well for
Quality of Place, yet not in Density and Diversity, This has clear implications for strategic
planning policy and leads us to question if these station precincts are true TODs. High urban
quality-of-place is of limited value when there simply is not a critical mass of residents and jobs
benefitting from it. In contrast, Glendalough has better Density and Diversity, reflecting mixed
land-use and urban intensity; however, it has poor Quality of Place because of high
Background Traffic and the influence of nearby, light industrial land-use.
The freeway interchange stations and Warwick perform well overall across Node indicators
(except for Stirling, which has limited cycling access) reflecting the supply of feeder bus
services and park-and-ride. Subiaco, Leederville and Maddington demonstrate limited Node
functionality because of the limited feeder bus services and PnR supply, expected considering
the spatial constraints. In contrast, the implications of the low Node function of Maddington
should be considered in a broader policy context. Intuitively, Maddington could have a stronger
interchange function and by implication, a wider catchment. Increased feeder bus operations
and park-and-ride could yield higher transit patronage. Greenwood and Cannington both
exhibit high performing cycling access relative to other indicators. Stations with varying
indicator performance include Glendalough, Joondalup and Wellard (good public transport
access but limited car access), and Midland and Wellard (good car access and limited public
transport access).Forthese stations, where feasible, policy could be targeted towards different
modes of station access in order to raise the Node function overall.

11
Figure 8: Scenario B Place and Node indicators
Scenario B: Place indicators Scenario B: Node indicators
Scenario B Place and Node indicators are illustrated in Figure 8. A comparison with Scenario
A shows that Cannington and Maddington increase their overall Place function when potential
indicators are given more weight. Although, performing well as Places already, the results for
this scenario indicate that Subiaco and Leederville have very good urban design frameworks
from which additional place function could be leveraged. The results reflect the dense and
diverse inner urban context where the stations are located, yet the criteria used to capture the
Place potential are based on lot sizes and do not reflect the full potential for vertical density in
station precincts. In Scenario B, the Vehicle access indicator reveals that stations in proximity
to the CBD and the freeway stations at Murdoch and Warwick have high vehicle access, due
to their central location and regional accessibility. Stations on the periphery have limited
Vehicle access. Subiaco and Leederville, the most unbalanced Places, have limited capacity
to for station vehicle access through providing PnR.
Table 2 illustrates the average Background Traffic, and separate Traffic Function and Road
Capacity domains for each of the station types (a lower score indicates a more constrained
Background Traffic function).
Table 2: Background Traffic Function
Heritage Interchange Freeway
midblock
Divergent Control
Average .449 .460 .342 .741 .500
Traffic Function .73 .57 .55 .89 .42
Road Capacity .26 .39 .20 .64 .56
Overall, Divergent stations had the highest Background Traffic metric, primarily reflected in
their Traffic Function, indicating lower volumes of vehicles and less congestion at major
intersections, and also more Road Capacity. Heritage stations scored well in Traffic Function,
relative to Road Capacity. The lower Road Capacity measure is due to constrained road widths
and railway crossing in older Heritage station precincts. For stations located in freeway
medians – both interchange and midblock – the Traffic Function was similar (busy roads, more
delays), yet road capacity varied. Overall, Midblock stations had the lowest score for
Background Traffic, having a combination of both busy roads and limited capacity. The
Interchange stations had busy roads and major arterials with more lanes and less traffic from
feeder roads. Some of these measures reflect recent road widening projects, for example at
Murdoch station.

12
5. Discussion and Conclusions
For TODs to contribute to genuine multi-modal transport systems,aninvestigation of the trade-
offs between different station functions is required (Mees 2014). To achieve an understanding
of the trade-offs between land use and transport functions of stations, the research in this
paper presents an evaluation of the Node, Place and Background Traffic function at a variety
of station types in the Perth metropolitan area. A key research objective is to understand these
trade-offs within station precincts co-located with major road infrastructure, particularly stations
located in the freeway medians. The findings presented here illustrate that there is a variety of
station types when considering current performance and potential of the stations to function as
a Node or a Place. The function of Background Traffic and limited potential for Place
development is problematic for future development at stations in freeway medians.
The WA State Government strategic plan, Directions 2031, directs development to Activity
Centres located at accessible nodes within the public transport network. The stations included
in this research display varying performance and capacity for development. Stations located
away from the freeway median – on Heritage lines or Divergent configurations – performed
better overall as Places. The inner city station, Subiaco, and the major regional sub-centre of
Perth’s north-eastern sub-region, Joondalup, were the densest, most diverse and had the best
quality of urban environment. Cannington and Maddington, although having poor Place
function for Scenario A, showed the most potential to develop as Places in Scenario B. This is
due to an intrinsically strong urban structure which could be leveraged toward meeting the
goals of more intense and diverse land use development. TOD in these precincts may be
realised with a combination of strategic land assembly, incentive schemes and urban design
interventions (Tan et al. 2014). However, Leederville, which is located on the freeway but away
from a major interchange, also performed well as a Place, suggesting that proximity to the
CBD is an important factor in determining Place function.
The findings suggest that station precinct planning is not currently aligned with the underlying
performance and potential functionality of stations located in freeway medians. In general the
precincts located at freeway interchanges are not performing well as Places. WA State
Government planning objectives are focused on developing these stations as Activity Centres,
high density, employment centres with good quality walkable environments. However, the
capacity for developing places in freeway precincts is constrained. The potential Place metrics
in Scenario B indicate a shortage of developable land and poor urban structure for enhancing
the quality of place around stations in freeway medians. In many instances the surrounding
area is either dominated by road reserves or consists of fragmented ownership of single
residential estates. This poses problems both in terms of amalgamation and being able to
introduce higher density development within a generally resistant suburban context. Stations
on the freeway that are close to central Perth with large lots, such as is the case with
Glendalough, have some potential for urban development.
There are opportunities for planners to advance development at stations in freeway medians.
For example, internationally PnR spaces are being seen as a means of land assembly for
future TOD. Many of the stations located in freeway medians in Perth have substantial land
areas devoted to PnR that could be used to consolidate urban development adjacent to the
station. However, this approach will contribute to realising multi-modal urban transport systems
only with careful consideration of the potential consequences for conversion of land. One
potential consequence is a reduction in ridership at stations that are currently well served by
PnR. Although there is research that suggests reduction in supply of PnR at stations in favour
of TODcan maintain or increase public transport ridership levels (Wilson2005), Duncan (2010)
found that stations in San Francisco transitioning from park-and-ride to TODs do not have the
capacity to develop at densities where current ridership levels are maintained. This is an
important consideration for stations such as Murdoch that currently have the highest levels of
ridership in the Perth metropolitan area, a significant proportion that do come from PnR. To
maintain ridership Mees (2014) argues that conversion of PnR to TOD should occur when

13
demand for PnR is reduced by improved secondary transit access to the station, by feeder bus
services for example.
For stations in freeway medians, the presence of major regional road infrastructure will remain
an ongoing barrier to development. High vehicle movements, wide carriageways and regional
road infrastructure interfere with the potential to develop the kind of urban structure which can
be used to attract mixed use high density development. Research in Perth has found that at
stations co-located with the freeway the positive effect on land prices due to proximity to rail is
negated by the presence of major road infrastructure and large areas of PnR (McIntosh et al.
2014). The conflict evident between land use and transport functions at stations in freeway
medians suggests that future station planning in freeway medians should prioritise services
and infrastructure that captures ridership from regional district catchments, rather than
developing high density activity centres. The research findings indicate that stations located at
major freeway interchanges, such as Murdoch and Cockburn Central, are characterised by
conflict between Place, Node and Background Traffic function and that future stations should
be located away from these sites.
A number of strategies could be employed to facilitate station planning that better reflects the
underlying Node and Place functions identified in this research. Firstly, an assessment of
economic and market readiness of stations for urban development would help identify stations
best positioned as TODs in the short term. International examples have shown that
development potential is a key factor in successful implementing TODs (Dittmar and Ohland
2004). A second strategy is the use of station performance metrics to better understand the
role of stations within a broad urban transport system. Station evaluation based on the
indicators used in this research or other methods such as station access performance
indicators (Hale and Eagleson 2014) should inform station and infrastructure planning, rather
than a presumption that the accessibility provided by rail will alone lead to the development of
successful transit oriented precincts.
There are a number of limitations of the analysis and findings presented in this paper that
indicate fruitful future directions for research. We have not included data capturing station-to-
station travel in this study and this is an important consideration of stations’ Place/Node
function within the regional transport network. The findings indicate that trains arriving at
stations in freeway median located near the CBD – Glendalough as an example – are at
capacity. With careful planning, the development of Place functionality at these stations,
importantly economic activity and employment opportunities, could alleviate capacity issues
on city bound trains by attracting trips. Furthermore, the method of evaluation of stations
reflected performance and potential Node and Place functionality relative to other stations
included in the study. The results therefore do not encompass best practice of TODs and
station precinct developments reflected in other national and international cities.
Acknowledgments
Thank you to the project steering committee for feedback and the Public Transport Authority,
Department of Planning and Main Roads Western Australia for data. Also, thanks to Professor
David Gordon from Queens University, Ontario, for a review of an earlier version of the project
report.

14
References
Appleyard, D. 1972. The environmental quality of city streets, Journal of the AmericanPlanning
Association, 35, 84-101.
Arrington, G. B. & Cervero, R. 2008. Effects of TOD on Housing, Parking, and Travel. In:
BOARD, T. R. (ed.) Transportation Cooperative Research Program. Washington D.C.
Bertolini, L. 1996. Nodes and Places: Complexities of Railway Station Redevelopment.
European Planning Studies 4 (3), 331-345.
Bertolini, L. 1999. Spatial Development Patterns and Public Transport: The Application of an
Analytical Model in the Netherlands. Planning Practice & Research, 14, 199-210.
Bertolini, L. & Spit, T. 1998. Cities on rails: the redevelopment of railway station areas, London,
New York: E & FN Spon.
Cervero, R., Ferrell, S., & Murphy, S. 2002. Transit Oriented Development and Joint
Development in the United States: A Literature Review. Transit Cooperative Research
Program Research Results Digest 52, available at
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_rrd_52.pdf, 1-144.
Cervero, R. & Day, J. 2008. Suburbanization and transit-oriented development in China.
Transport Policy, 15, 315-323.
Chorus, P. & Bertolini, L. 2011. An application of the node place model to explore the spatial
development dynamics of station areas in Tokyo. Journal of transport and land use, 4, 45-58.
CTOD 2013. Downtowns, Greenfields and Places in Between. Centre for Transit Oriented
Development. http://www.ctod.org/ctod-research.php [Accessed: 12/10/2014]
Curtis, C., Renne, J. L. & Bertolini, L. 2009. Transit oriented development: making it happen,
United Kingdom, Farnham, United Kingdom: Ashgate.
Dittmar, H. & Ohland, G. (eds). 2004. New transit town: best practices in transit-oriented
development, Washington, DC: Island Press.
Duncan, M. 2010. To Park or To Develop: Trade-Off in Rail Transit Passenger Demand.
Journal of Planning Education and Research, 30(2), 162.
Falconer R. 2014. Smarter Centres: lessons from Perth regarding assessmentoftransport and
access contexts, in Australian Planner, published online 29 May.
Hale, C., & Eagleson, S. 2013. Passenger rail in Melbourne - new challenges in a new century.
Australian Planner. doi:10.1080/07293682.2013.764910.
Jenks, M., Burton, E. & Williams, K. 1996. (eds.) The Compact City: A Sustainable Urban
Form?, Spon Press.
Kamruzzaman, M., Baker, D., Washington, S. & Turrell, G. 2014. Advance transit oriented
development typology: case study in Brisbane, Australia. Journal of Transport Geography, 34,
54-70.
King, J. 2012. Density Dare: A look at BART's long-term efforts to build transit-oriented
development. Planning, 78(5), 41-46.
Knowles, R.D. 2012. Transit Oriented Development in Copenhagen, Denmark:from the Finger
Plan to Ørestad. Journal of Transport Geography, 22, 251-261.
Li, L.H., Lin, J., Li, X. & Wu, F. 2014. Redevelopment of urban village in China – A step towards
an effective urban policy? A case study of Liede village in Guangzhou. Habitat International,
43, 299-308.

15
McIntosh, J., Trubka, R., & Newman, P. 2014. Can value capture work in a car dependent city?
Willingness to pay for transit access in Perth, Western Australia. Transportation Research A,
67, 320-339.
Mees, P. 2014. TOD and Multi-modal Public Transport. Planning Practice and Research,
29(5), 461-470. doi:10.1080/02697459.2014.977633.
Outwater, M., Smith, C., Walters, J., Welch, B, Cervero, R., Kockelman, K., Kuzmyak, J.R.
2014. Effect of Smart Growth Policies in Travel Demand. Report S2-C16-RR1, Transportation
Research Board, Washington DC, available at
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/shrp2/SHRP2_S2-C16-RR-1.pdf.
Peek, G.J., Bertolini, L., & de Jonge, H. 2006. Gaining Insight in the Development Potential of
Station Areas: A Decade of Node-Place Modeling in The Netherlands. Planning Practice &
Research, 21(4), 443-462.
Public Transport Authority (n.d.) http://www.pta.wa.gov.au/. [Accessed 27 April 2015].
Renne, J. L. 2008. From transit-adjacent to transit-oriented development. Local Environment,
14, 1-15.
Tan, W. G. Z., Janssen-Jansen, L. B. & Bertolini, L. 2013. The Role of Incentives in
Implementing Successful Transit-Oriented Development Strategies. Urban Policy and
Research, 32, 33-51.
Xue, C., Zhai, H. & Roberts, J. 2010. An urban island floating on the MTR station: A Case
study of the West Kowloon development in Hong Kong. Urban Design International, 1-17.
Webber, M. 1976. The BART experience: what have we learned? Berkeley, California,
University of Berkeley.
Western Australian Government. 2010. State Planning Policy 4.3: Activity Centres for Perth
and Peel. No 167. Available at: http://www.planning.wa.gov.au/.
Willson, R. 2005. Parking policy for transit-oriented development: lessons for cities, transit
agencies, and developers. Journal of Public Transportation, 8(5), 79.
Willson, R., & Menotti, V. 2007. Commuter parking versus transit-oriented development:
evaluation methodology. Transportation Research Record, 2021(1), 118-125.

ATRF2015_FINAL

More Related Content

What's hot

Similar to ATRF2015_FINAL

ATRF2015_FINAL