Jump to content

Transit-oriented development

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A subtopic ofsustainability
Sustainable transport
Public transport, goods delivery, private transport and pedestrians in Leidsestraat, Amsterdam
Also relevant to:
Aspects of sustainable transport:
Sustainable transport toolbox
iconTransport portal
The local government ofArlington County, Virginiaencourages transit-oriented development within1⁄4to1⁄2mile (400 to 800 m) from the county'sWashington Metrorapid transitstations, withmixed-use development,bikesharingandwalkability.

In urban planning,transit-oriented development(TOD) is a type ofurban developmentthat maximizes the amount ofresidential,businessandleisurespace withinwalkingdistance ofpublic transport.[1][2]It promotes a symbiotic relationship between dense, compact urban form and public transport use.[3]In doing so, TOD aims to increasepublic transportridership by reducing the use of private cars and by promoting sustainable urban growth.[4]

TOD typically includes a central transit stop (such as atrain station,orlight railorbusstop) surrounded by ahigh-densitymixed-usearea, with lower-density areas spreading out from this center. TOD is also typically designed to be morewalkablethan otherbuilt-up areas,by using smallerblock sizesand reducing the land area dedicated toautomobiles.[5][6]Areas that center a transit station as a hub while building residential-focused TOD development in the immediate area are known astransit villages.

The densest areas of TOD are normally located within a radius of1⁄4to1⁄2mile (400 to 800 m) around the central transit stop, as this is considered to be an appropriate scale forpedestrians,thus solving thelast mile problem.

Description

[edit]
Transit Oriented Development

Many of thenew townscreated afterWorld War IIinJapan,Sweden,andFrancehave many of the characteristics of TOD communities. In a sense, nearly all communities built onreclaimed landin theNetherlandsor asexurbandevelopments inDenmarkhave had the local equivalent of TOD principles integrated in their planning, including the promotion ofbicyclesfor local use.

In the United States, a half-mile-radius circle has become the de facto standard for rail-transit catchment areas for TODs. A half mile (800 m) corresponds to the distance someone can walk in 10 minutes at 3 mph (4.8 km/h) and is a common estimate for the distance people will walk to get to a rail station. The half-mile ring is a little more than 500 acres (2.0 km2) in size.[7]

Transit-oriented development is sometimes distinguished by some planning officials from "transit-proximate development"because it contains specific features that are designed to encourage public transport use and differentiate the development fromurban sprawl.A few examples of these features include mixed-use development that will use transit at all times of day, excellentpedestrian facilitiessuch as high qualitypedestrian crossings,narrow streets, and tapering of buildings as they become more distant from the public transport node. Another key feature of transit-oriented development that differentiates it from "transit-proximate development" is reduced amounts ofparkingfor personal vehicles.

Transit-oriented development has many benefits including but not limited to:

  • Easy access to transit, making it easy to get around without a car.
  • Dense, due to TODs being made for getting around transportation, other than private vehicles, allowing access to stores and private business.
  • Improved access to jobs and city services.
  • Increased population near transit stops, such as a commuter rail stop, which ultimately increases transit ridership across the board.[8]

Opponents of compact, or transit oriented development typically argue that Americans, and persons throughout the world, prefer low-density living, and that any policies that encourage compact development will result in substantialutilitydecreases and hence large social welfare costs.[9]Proponents of compact development argue that there are large, often unmeasured benefits of compact development[10]or that the American preference for low-density living is a misinterpretation made possible in part by substantial local government interference in the land market.[11][12]

In cities

[edit]

Many cities throughout the world are developing TOD policy.Toronto,Portland,Montreal,San Francisco,andVancouveramong many other cities have developed, and continue to write policies and strategic plans, which aim to reduceautomobile dependencyand increase the use of public transit.

Latin America

[edit]
Curitiba'sRITin Praça do Japão

Curitiba, Brazil

[edit]

One of the earliest and most successful examples of TOD isCuritiba,Brazil.[13] Curitiba was organized into transport corridors very early on in its history. Over the years, it has integrated its zoning laws and transportation planning to place high-density development adjacent to high-capacity transportation systems, particularly itsBRT corridors.Since the failure of its first rather grandiose city plan due to lack of funding, Curitiba has focused on working with economical forms of infrastructure, so it has arranged unique adaptations, such as bus routes (inexpensive infrastructure) with routing systems, limited access and speeds similar to subway systems. The source of innovation in Curitiba has been a unique form of participatory city planning that emphasizes public education, discussion and agreement.[14]

Guatemala City, Guatemala

[edit]

In an attempt to control the rapid growth ofGuatemala City,the long-time mayor,Álvaro Arzú,implemented a plan to control growth based on transects along important arterial roads and exhibiting transit-oriented development (TOD) characteristics. The plan adopted POT (Plan de Ordenamiento Territorial) aims to allow the construction of taller mixed-use building structures right by large arterial roads. The buildings would gradually decrease in height and density as distance would increase from arterial roads.[15]That is being implemented simultaneously with abus rapid transit(BRT) system, calledTransmetro.

Mexico City, Mexico

[edit]

Mexico City has battled pollution for years. Many attempts have been made to orient citizens towards public transportation. Expansion of metro line, both subway and bus, have been instrumental. Following the example of Curitiba, many bus-lines were created on many of Mexico City's most important streets. The bus-line has taken two lanes from cars to be used only by the bus-line, increasing the flow for bus transit. The city has also made great attempts at increasing the number of bike lanes, including shutting down entire roads on certain days to be used only by bikers.

Car regulations have also increased in the city. New regulations prevent old cars from driving in the city, other cars from driving on certain days. Electric cars are allowed to be driven every day and have free parking. Decreasing the public space allocated to cars and increasing regulations have become a great annoyance among daily car users. The city hopes to push people to use more public transport.

North America

[edit]

Canada

[edit]
Marine Drive stationin Vancouver on opening day (2009)
High-rises have since been built around the station (2018).
Calgary, Alberta
[edit]

Calgary's Transit Oriented Development (TOD) has been evolving largely around stations along Calgary's Light Rail Transit (LRT) system, also known as theCTrainnetwork. Although Calgary's CTrain system has been around since 1981, TOD activity has been fairly recent, with much of development taking place since 2010. Most of the transit oriented development has taken place along the LRT system'sRed Lineespecially around stations of the northwest leg with areas around stations at Brentwood, Dalhousie, and Banff Trail having seen the most development.Brentwood Stationfor example, with multi-building developments such as University City, has seen almost 900 residential units[16][17]built in the last eight years within the 600m radius of Brentwood station, as well as proposed developments that are in the works. On the south leg of the Red Line the massive Midtown Station proposal is a reversal from previous TOD builds where development is built around existing stations. In the case of Midtown Station,[18]the proposal is along the CTrain line, but includes building a new station solely for the purpose of serving the development.

For The City of Calgary, TOD's are an ongoing process, but the city has published policy guidelines and implementation strategies for Transit Oriented Development.[19][20]

Edmonton, Alberta
[edit]

Most of the suburban high rises were not along major rail lines like other cities until recently, when there has been incentive to do so.Century Parkis a growing condo community in southern Edmonton at the south end of theEdmonton LRTsystem. It will include low to high rise condos, recreational services, shops, restaurants, and a fitness centre. Edmonton has also had a transit-proximate development for some time in the northeastern suburbs atClareviewwhich includes a large park and ride, and low rise apartments among big box stores and associated power center parking. Edmonton is also looking into some new TODs in various parts of the city. In the northeast, there are plans to redevelop underutilized land at two sites around existing LRT, Fort Road andStadium station.[21][22]In the west, there is plans to have some medium density condos in theGlenora neighborhoodalong a future LRT route as well as a TOD in the southeast in theStrathearn neighborhoodalong the same future LRT on existing low rise apartments.

Montreal, Quebec
[edit]

According to the Metropolitan Development and Planning Regulation[23]as of late 2011, 40% of new households will be built as TOD neighborhoods.

Ottawa, Ontario
[edit]

Ottawa's City Council has established transit-oriented development (TOD) priority areas in proximity to Ottawa'sLight Rail Transit.These priority areas are a mix of moderate to high-density transit-supportive developments within a 600-metre walking distance of rapid transit stations.[24]

Toronto, Ontario
[edit]

Toronto has a longstanding policy of encouraging new construction along the route of its primaryYonge Street subway line.[25]Most notable are the development of theYonge and Eglintonarea in the 1960s and 1970s; and thepresent developmentof the 2 km of the Yonge Street corridor north of Sheppard Avenue, which began in the late 1980s. In the period since 1997 alone the latter stretch has seen the appearance of a major newshopping centreand the building and occupation of over twenty thousand new units ofcondominiumhousing. Since the opening of theSheppard subway linein 2002, there is acondominiumconstruction boom along the route on Sheppard Avenue East between Yonge Street and Don Mills Road.

Vancouver, British Columbia
[edit]

Vancouver has a strong history of creating new development around itsSkyTrainlines[26]and building regional town centres at major stations and transit corridors.[27]Of note is theMetrotownarea of the suburb ofBurnaby,British Columbianear theMetrotown SkyTrain Station.The areas around stations have spurred the development of billions of dollars of high-density real estate, with multiple high-rises near the many stations,[26][27]prompting concerns about rapidgentrification.[28]

Winnipeg, Manitoba
[edit]

There is currently one TOD being built in Winnipeg beside therapid transit corridor.It is known as The Yards at Fort Rouge,[29]and was spearheaded by the developer Gem Equities. In phase two of the southwest rapid transit corridor, there will be four more TODs.[30]This phase is an interesting example of the use of fine arts in parallel with transit planning, making several of the stations sites for public art related to the social history of the area.[31]

United States

[edit]
Arlington County, Virginia
[edit]
Aerial view ofRosslyn-Ballston corridorinArlington County, Virginia.High density, mixed use development is concentrated within ¼–½ mile from theRosslyn,Court HouseandClarendonWashington Metrostations (shown in red), with limited density outside that area.
Street-level view of the area around theBallston–MU station,also in Arlington County, Virginia. Note the mixed-use development (from left to right: ground floorretailunder apartment building, office buildings, shopping mall (at the end of the street), apartment building, office building with ground floor retail),pedestrianoriented facilities including wide sidewalk, andbus stopfacility in the center distance.Parkingin this location is limited, relatively expensive, and located underground.

For over 30 years, the government has pursued adevelopment strategyof concentrating much of its new development within1⁄4to1⁄2mile (400 to 800 m) from the county'sWashington Metrorapid transitstations and the high-volume bus lines ofColumbia Pike.[32]Within the transit areas, the government has a policy of encouragingmixed-useandpedestrian-and transit-oriented development.[33]Some of these "urban village"communities includeRosslyn,Ballston,Clarendon,Courthouse,Pentagon City,Crystal City,Lyon Village,Shirlington,Virginia Square,andWestover.

In 2002, Arlington received theEPA's National Award for Smart Growth Achievement for "Overall Excellence inSmart Growth"— the first ever granted by the agency.[34]

In September 2010,Arlington County, Virginia,in partnership withWashington, D.C.,openedCapital Bikeshare,abicycle sharing system.[35][36][37]By February 2011, Capital Bikeshare had 14 stations in thePentagon City,Potomac Yard,andCrystal Cityneighborhoods in Arlington.[35]Arlington County also announced plans to add 30 stations in fall 2011, primarily along the densely populated corridor between theRosslynandBallstonneighborhoods, and 30 more in 2012.[38]

New Jersey
[edit]

New Jerseyhas become a national leader in promotingTransit Villagedevelopment through a program known as theTransit Village initiative.TheNew Jersey Department of Transportationestablished the Transit Village Initiative in 1999, offering multi-agency assistance and grants from the annual $1 million Transit village fund to any municipality with a ready to go project specifying appropriate mixed land-use strategy, available property, station-area management, and commitment to affordable housing, job growth, and culture. Transit village development must also preserve the architectural integrity of historically significant buildings.[39]Transit Village districts are defined by the half mile radius surrounding the transit station. To become a Transit Village, towns must meet the following criteria: have existing transit, demonstrate a willingness to grow, adopt a transit-oriented-development redevelopment plan or zoning ordinance, identify specific TOD sites and projects, identify bicycle and pedestrian improvements, and identify "place making" efforts near the transit station, such as community events, celebrations, and other cultural or artistic events.[40]

Since 1999 the state has made 35 Transit Village designations, which are in different stages of development:

Pleasantville(1999),Morristown(1999),Rutherford(1999),South Amboy(1999),South Orange(1999),Riverside(2001),Rahway(2002),Metuchen(2003),Belmar(2003),Bloomfield(2003),Bound Brook(2003),Collingswood(2003),Cranford(2003),Matawan(2003),New Brunswick(2005),Journal Square/Jersey City(2005),Netcong(2005),Elizabeth/Midtown(2007),Burlington City(2007), theCity of Orange Township(2009),Montclair(2010),Somerville(2010),Linden(2010),West Windsor(2012),East Orange(2012),Dunellen(2012),Summit(2013),Plainfield(2014),Park Ridge(2015),Irvington(2015),Hackensack(2016),Long Branch(2016),Asbury Park(2017),Newark(2021), andAtlantic City(2023).[41]

Long Island City, a transit-oriented community with theQueensboro Plazasubway station shown, one of the many subway stations in Long Island City
New York City
[edit]

Many neighborhoods in New York City are close to a New York City Subway station, this allows easy transport throughout the cities’ neighborhoods and central business districts. To maximize the usage of the New York City Subway, many subway stations are surrounded by transit-oriented development, with high-density residential and commercial buildings surrounding the subway station. Neighborhoods include, but are not limited to,Downtown Brooklyn,Midtown Manhattan,Long Island City,andSunnyside.[42]Many downtowns in theGreater New York Areaalso are walkable with a centralregional railstation.

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
[edit]

TheEast Libertyneighborhood is nearing completion of a $150 million Transit Oriented Development centered around the reconfigured East Liberty Station on the city'sMartin Luther King Jr. East Busway.[43][44]The development included improved access to the station with a new pedestrian bridge and pedestrian walkways that increase the effective walkshed of the station. The East Busway is a fixed guideway route that offers riders an 8-minute ride from East Liberty to Pittsburgh's Downtown.

Salt Lake City Metro Area, Utah
[edit]

TheSalt Lake City Metro Areahas seen a strong proliferation of transit-oriented developments due to the construction of new transit lines within theUtah Transit Authority'sTRAX,FrontRunnerand streetcar lines. New developments inWest Valley,Farmington,Murray,Provo,Kaysville,Sugarhouseanddowntown Salt Lake Cityhave seen rapid growth and construction despite the economic downturn. The population along theWasatch Fronthas reached 2.5 million and is expected to grow 50% over the next two decades. At 29.8%, Utah's population growth more than doubled the population growth of the nation (13.2%), with a vast majority of this growth occurring along the Wasatch Front.

Transportation infrastructure has been vastly upgraded in the past decade as a result of the2002 Olympic Winter Gamesand the need to support the growth in population. This has created a number of transit-oriented commercial and residential projects to be proposed and completed.

San Francisco Bay Area, California
[edit]

TheSan Francisco Bay Areaincludes nine counties and 101 cities, includingSan Jose,San Francisco,OaklandandFremont.Local and regional governments[45]encourage transit-oriented development to decrease traffic congestion, protect natural areas, promote public health and increase housing options. The region has designatedPriority Development AreasandPriority Conservation Areas.Current population forecasts[46]for the region predict that it will grow by 2 million people by 2035 due to both the natural birth rate and job creation, and estimate that 50% of this growth can be accommodated in Priority Development Areas through transit-oriented development.

Major transit village projects have been developed over the past 20 years at several stations linked to theBay Area Rapid Transit(BART) system. In their 1996 book,Transit Villages in the 21st Century,Michael BernickandRobert Cerveroidentified emerging transit villages at several BART stations, includingPleasant Hill / Contra Costa Centre,Fruitvale,HaywardandRichmond.[47]MacArthur Stationis a relatively new development, with construction beginning in 2011 and scheduled for completion after 2019.[48]

Chicago
[edit]

Chicago passed its first TOD ordinances in 2013. The city of Chicago started building TODs around rail stations throughout the metropolitan area. There have been concerns that these TODs were excluding minorities since most of the TODs were built in mainly white areas therefore leaving minorities out of the picture when it came to access to transit oriented development neighborhoods.[49]The 2020 eTOD Policy Plan was created to fix the issues from the previous TOD plans, by creating more TOD developments in minority areas.[50]

Asia and Oceania

[edit]

Hong Kong

[edit]
Union Square,a transit-oriented development centred onKowloon station,Hong Kong
Sha Tintown centre, built around theSha Tin railway station

Compared to other developed economies, the car ownership rate in Hong Kong is very low, and approximately 90% of all trips are made by public transport.[51]

In the mid-20th century, no railway was built until an area was well developed. However, in recent decades,Hong Konghas started to have some TODs, where a railway is built simultaneously with residential development above or nearby, dubbed the "Rail plus Property" (R+P) Model.[52]Examples include:

The Rail plus Property model, which captures thevalue captureof land surrounding new public transport, allows Hong Kong to be one of the world's few profitable public transit systems, generating a profit of $1.5 billion in 2014.[53]

Malaysia

[edit]
Main article:Bandar Malaysia

Bandar Malaysiais an upcoming development by1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB).[54]

Indonesia

[edit]

Transit oriented development (TOD) areas are urban areas designed to integrate transit functions with people, activities, buildings and public spaces that aim to optimize access to public transportation. In Jakarta,PT MRT Jakarta(Perseroda) will build TOD areas at five points along the south-north corridor ofMRT Jakarta.The five points areBlok M,Lebak BulusandFatmawatiinSouth Jakarta,as well asDukuh AtasandIstora SenayaninCentral Jakarta.Each area has its own theme and concept according to the characteristics and needs of the local community. The TOD area is expected to provide benefits to the community, such as reducing congestion and air pollution, increasing a healthy and active lifestyle, expanding employment and economic opportunities, and creating added value for property.

One example of theDukuh Atas TODis the transport hub that is being built by PT Moda Integrasi Transportasi Jabodetabek (MITJ) on Jalan Blora, in front of Sudirman Station. Transport hubs are vehicle exchange points and transit points where there is community interaction using transit. This transport hub will be a 20-storey building containing the Jakarta MRT office and other facilities. This transport hub will also be connected to the 250-meter Multipurpose Crossing Bridge (JPM) which connects various modes of public transportation in the Dukuh Atas area. The transport hub is expected to be operational in 2023.

Many TOD are now being constructed inGreater Jakartametro area such asCitra Sentul RayaandDukuh Atas TOD.TOD are also being constructed in cities likeSurabaya,Medan,andPalembang.[55]

Thailand

[edit]

There has been a proposal to develop Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) aroundmass transit stationsin Bangkok, as well as around high-speed rail stations in cities such as Ayutthaya, Khon Kaen,Makkasan,Pattaya, and Si Racha. In addition, there have been proposals for TOD around main regional railway stations. The TOD proposal aims to create walkable, mixed-use communities centered around transit stations, taking advantage of their convenient transportation access. This development is expected to bring a range of benefits, including increased economic activity, reduced traffic congestion, and improved quality of life for residents.[56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64]

Australia

[edit]
Melbourne, Victoria
[edit]
Chatswood StationinSydney.Trains run through the integrated station, shopping and apartment complex
Main article:Melbourne 2030

Melbourne,Victoriais expected to reach a population of 5 million by 2030 with the overwhelming majority of its residents relying on private automobiles. Since the turn of the century, sporadic efforts have been made by various levels of government to implement transit-oriented development principles. However, a lack of commitment to funding public transport infrastructure, resulting to overcrowding and amending zoning laws has dramatically slowed progress towardsustainable developmentfor the city.[65]

Milton, Queensland
[edit]

Milton,an inner suburb ofBrisbane,has been identified as Queensland's first transit-oriented development under the Queensland Government'sSouth East Queensland Regional Plan.Milton railway stationwill undergo a multimillion-dollar revamp as part of the development ofThe Milton Residencesto promote and encourage residents to embrace rail travel. This will include a new ticketing office, new public amenities, increased visibility across platforms and new and improved access points off Milton Road and Railway Terrace.[66]

Sydney, New South Wales
[edit]

TheNew South Walesstate government has actively encouraged developments around stations on theSydney TrainsandSydney Metronetworks through its Priority Precincts plan.[67]Several stations such asChatswood,Burwood,ParramattaandRhodeshave large scale apartment developments built within close proximity during the 2010s. New apartment and office tower developments along the future Sydney Metro stations are being planned as integrated developments with the stations themselves. Examples of this includeVictoria Cross StationandCrows Nest Stationwhilst existing stations such asCastle HillandEppinghave also had intensified development.[68]

Newcastle, New South Wales
[edit]
Honeysuckle Station, part of theNewcastle Light Rail,in front of new mixed-use urban developments

Honeysuckleis anurban renewaldeveloped on 50 hectares of former industrial land inNewcastle,NSW.[69]This project, carried out by theHoneysuckle Development Corporation,has at its core the emerge of mixed residential and commercial areas commutable to theNewcastle Light Railand other alternative transport methods.[69]

Europe

[edit]
Karen Blixen Park,Ørestad(Copenhagen), Denmark

The term transit-oriented development, as a US-born concept, is rarely used in Europe, although many of the measures advocated in US transit-oriented development are also stressed in Europe. Many European cities have long been built around transit systems and there has thus often been little or no need to differentiate this type of development with a special term as has been the case in the US. An example of this is Copenhagen'sFinger Planfrom 1947, which embodied many transit-oriented development aspects and is still used as an overall planning framework today. Recently, scholars and technicians have taken interest in the concept, however.[70]

Paris, France

[edit]
La Défensedistrict, west of central Paris

Whereas the city of Paris has a centuries-long history, its main frame dates to the 19th century. Thesubway networkwas made to solve both linkage between the five main train stations and local transportation assets for citizens. The whole area of Paris City has metro stations no more than 500 metres apart. Recent bicycle and car rental systems (VelibandAutolib) also ease travel, in the very same way that TOD emphasizes. So do the new trams linking suburbs close to Paris proper, and tramline 3 around the edge of the city of Paris.

TheLa Défensearea is an example of a large scale transit-oriented district.[71][72]

Stedenbaan, Netherlands

[edit]

In the southern part of theRandstada neighborhood according to the principles of TOD will be built.[73]

Iran

[edit]

InIsfahanthe subway is used for a TOD program.[74]

Impacts

[edit]

Environmental

[edit]

TOD has been shown to reduce multiple types of emissions in Los Angeles during life-cycle assessments; greenhouse gasses, respiratory irritants, and smog forming emissions can be reduced by approximately 30% in TOD when compared to lower density areas. This is attributed to various factors including residents having more travel options, reduced travel distances for everyday activities, and higher density housing reducing energy use per residence.[75]In Dhaka TOD can also aid in reducing travel related CO2emissions on a community level, specifically for work and school trips, due to residents traveling less distance to these locations. And it is suggested that the improvements in public transportation, pedestrian, and bicycle infrastructure that are associated with TOD and related policies may improve these reductions within Dhaka and other developing cities.[76]However, TOD has also been found to be a major contributor to the urban heat island effect in Brisbane both having higher temperature and more rapidly increasing temperatures than non-TOD areas. This difference has been linked to TOD having a larger portion of non-porous land and less natural spaces, which must be considered when planning TOD.[77]

Economic

[edit]

TOD, specifically along light rail transit lines, have been seen to increase the amount of new businesses in Phoenix within one mile of a station, with businesses in the knowledge, service, and retail industries experiencing 88%, 40%, and 24% more new starts respectively than non-TOD areas. However, a decrease in manufacturing facilities has also been noted in TOD; similar results are likely to be seen in other U.S. cities.[78]The value of condominiums in San Diego generally increases with decreasing distance from light rail transit stations, increasing walkability of neighborhoods, and increasing available services. This points to TOD as a preferable style of neighborhood to people, showing that market-driven creation of TOD neighborhoods may be possible in U.S. metropolitan areas.[79]Resident expenses in TOD have been shown to be lower in well developed areas in spite of the generally higher rental costs due to lower energy use and travel costs, in Los Angeles the savings are around $3100 per year for one household.[75]

Social

[edit]

The studies on social impacts of TOD can be classified into three aspects. Behavioral impacts, psychological impacts and social impacts related to TOD induced gentrification and social inequality The social impact of TOD is categorized into three aspects:[80]

  • Behavioral impacts that are related to the effect on car use and travel behavior. First, since lowering car dependency and car ownership is one of the major goals of TOD, the existing studies consistently showed that TOD was negatively associated with car ownership.[81][82][83][84]Other studies focus on the influence of TOD on residents’ travel behaviors. Though it seems self-evident that residents living in TOD areas are easier and thus more likely to travel by public transport, the existence of residential differences and the TOD-reduced gentrification make the linkages between TOD and public travel trips complex.[85][86][87]
  • Psychological impacts related to the subjective well-being and other sentiments. Studies on the psychological impacts of TOD mainly focus on subjectivewell-being,especially satisfaction with the travel domain and the life in general. First, a series of studies have examined the effects of TOD on travel satisfaction. While traveling by public transit is usually less pleasant compared with driving or active travel, TOD as a well-defined transit area is likely to generate more comfortable traveling experiences.[88][89][90]Likewise, residents living within the TOD area tended to be more satisfied with public commuting.[91]Nonetheless, since travel is an important life domain, satisfaction with public transport system is expected to significantly contribute to overall wellbeing.
  • Impacts related to social inequality and TOD-induced gentrification. TOD is usually associated with regeneration of the old urban land use and increasing housing values, it may crowd out the low-income groups and cause large-scale residential mobility, significant neighborhood change and considerable upgrading of the TOD areas.[92][93]Accordingly, TOD-induced gentrification is an emerging topic in transportation research in the recent decade.[94][95]

Reception

[edit]

One criticism of transit-oriented development is that it has the potential to spurgentrificationin low-income areas. In some cases, TOD can raise the housing costs of formerly affordable neighborhoods, pushing low- and moderate-income residents farther away from jobs and transit. When this happens, TOD projects can disrupt low-income neighborhoods.[96]This can be very concerning due to the fact that lower income people tend to use (and need) transit more than higher income people.[97]

When executed with equity in mind, however, TOD has the potential to benefit low- and moderate-income (LMI) communities: it can link workers to employment centers, create construction and maintenance jobs, and has the potential to encourage investment in areas that have suffered neglect and economic depression.[98]Moreover, it is well recognized that neighborhood development restrictions, while potentially in the immediate neighborhood's best interest, contribute to regional undersupply of housing and drive up the cost of housing in general across a region. TOD reduces the overall cost of housing in a region by contributing to the housing supply, and therefore generally improves equity in the housing market. TOD also reduces transportation costs, which can have a greater impact on LMI households since they spend a larger share of their income on transportation relative to higher-income households. This frees up household income that can be used on food, education, or other necessary expenses. Low-income people are also less likely to own personal vehicles and therefore more likely to depend exclusively on public transportation to get to and from work, making reliable access to transit a necessity for their economic success.[99]

History

[edit]
"Transit city" redirects here. For the Canadian public transport development plan, seeTransit City.

TOD began in 1993 with the publication ofPeter Calthorpe's bookThe Next American Metropolis.Calthorpe and his colleagues based their theory on the ideals of theGarden city movement.[100]

Atransit cityis a type of city designed around the use ofpublic transport.In such cities, urban development is centered around rail stations or tramlines.[101]

The transit city emerged in the industrial world around 1850, due to the advent of new transport technologies - thesteam trainandelectric tram.This facilitated faster travel, leading to larger cities, although most locations still remained within walking or bicycle distance.[101]During the period from 1850 to 1940, it was the dominant type of city in industrialized countries. In less-developed parts of the world, however, mass transit technology was not adopted as greatly, with many cities remainingwalking citiesup until the 1970s onwards, when they transformed directly intoautomotive cities.[101]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
  1. ^Calthorpe, Peter(1993).The Next American Metropolis: Ecology, Community, and the American Dream.New York: Princeton Architectural Press.ISBN9781878271686.
  2. ^Cervero, Robert;et al. (2004).Transit Oriented Development in America: Experiences, Challenges, and Prospects.Washington: Transit Cooperative Research Program, Report 102.ISBN978-0-309-08795-7.[1]ArchivedFebruary 6, 2021, at theWayback Machine
  3. ^Caves, R. W. (2004).Encyclopedia of the City.Routledge. p. 676.ISBN978-0415862875.
  4. ^Robert Cervero, Chris Ferrell and Steven Murphy (2002).Transit-Oriented Development and Joint Development in the United States: A Literature Review,Research Results Digest Number 52, Transit Cooperative Research Program.
  5. ^"Transit-Oriented Development (TOD)".sustainablecitiesinstitute.org.Archived fromthe originalon December 20, 2016.RetrievedDecember 15,2016.
  6. ^"What is TOD?".Institute for Transportation and Development Policy.July 24, 2014.
  7. ^Guerra, Erick;Cervero, Robert(Spring 2013)."Is a Half-Mile Circle the Right Standard for TODs?".ACCESS,University of California, Berkeley.No. 42. Archived fromthe originalon August 4, 2013.RetrievedJune 7,2013.
  8. ^Mudigonda, Sandeep; Ozbay, Kaan; Ozturk, Ozgur; Iyer, Shrisan; Noland, Robert B. (January 1, 2014)."Quantifying Transportation Benefits of Transit-Oriented Development in New Jersey".Transportation Research Record.2417(1): 111–120.doi:10.3141/2417-12.ISSN0361-1981.S2CID110775275.
  9. ^Moore, Adrian.T.; Staley, Samuel.R.; Poole, Robert.W. (2010). "The role of VMT reduction in meeting climate change policy goals".Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice.44(8): 565–574.Bibcode:2010TRPA...44..565M.doi:10.1016/j.tra.2010.03.012.
  10. ^Winkelman, S.; Bishins, A. (2010). "Planning for economic and environmental resilience".Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice.44(8): 575–586.Bibcode:2010TRPA...44..575W.doi:10.1016/j.tra.2010.03.011.
  11. ^Levine, Jonathan (2006).Markets and Choices in Transportation and Metropolitan Land Use.Washington: Resources for the Future.ISBN978-1933115153.
  12. ^Boarnet, Marlon (Summer 2011). "A Broader Context for Land Use and Travel Behavior, and a Research Agenda".Journal of the American Planning Association.77(3): 197–213.doi:10.1080/01944363.2011.593483.S2CID153346863.
  13. ^"Citizine Information, Zoning and Land Use in Curitiba (Ingles)".January 2006.RetrievedFebruary 28,2018.[permanent dead link]
  14. ^Cervero, Robert (1998).The Transit Metropolis: A Global Inquiry.Washington: Island Press.ISBN9781559635912.
  15. ^":::... Plan de Ordenamiento Territorial - Tú eres la Ciudad, Municipalidad de Guatemala, cumple..."(in Spanish). Pot.muniguate. Archived fromthe originalon July 21, 2009.RetrievedJuly 8,2009.
  16. ^"University City".Calgary.skyrisecities.RetrievedMarch 3,2021.
  17. ^"Brio".Calgary.skyrisecities.RetrievedMarch 3,2021.
  18. ^"Midtown Station".Calgary.skyrisecities. September 28, 2020.RetrievedMarch 3,2021.
  19. ^"Transit Oriented Development Implementation Strategy"(PDF).City of Calgary.RetrievedMarch 3,2021.
  20. ^"Transit Oriented Development Policy Guidelines"(PDF).City of Calgary.RetrievedMarch 3,2021.
  21. ^"Old Town Fort Road Redevelopment".City of Edmonton. Archived fromthe originalon September 22, 2010.RetrievedOctober 21,2010.
  22. ^"Stadium Station Transit Oriented Development".City of Edmonton. Archived fromthe originalon November 22, 2010.RetrievedOctober 21,2010.
  23. ^Un premier plan d’aménagement durable pour le Grand Montréal | Voir vert - Le portail du bâtiment durable au Québec.Voirvert.ca. Retrieved on December 6, 2013.
  24. ^"Transit-Oriented Development Guidelines".City of Ottawa.RetrievedSeptember 26,2007.
  25. ^Cervero, Robert (1986). "Urban Transit in Canada: Integration and Innovation at its Best".Transportation Quarterly.40(3): 293–316.ISSN0278-9434.
  26. ^ab"Why TransLink is a Leader in Transit-Oriented Development".BC Business.April 15, 2016.RetrievedMarch 6,2018.
  27. ^abBula, Frances."Vancouver's Canada Line Is a Model of Transit-Oriented Development".CityLab.Citiscope.RetrievedMarch 6,2018.
  28. ^Jones, Craig (July 2015)."Transit-Oriented Development and Gentrification in Metro Vancouver's Low-Income SkyTrain Corridor"(PDF).Neighbourhood Change.RetrievedMarch 6,2018.
  29. ^"Archived copy"(PDF).Archived fromthe original(PDF)on April 27, 2018.RetrievedApril 27,2018.{{cite web}}:CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
  30. ^"Transportation Master Plan"(PDF).Archived fromthe original(PDF)on April 12, 2015.RetrievedJuly 27,2014.
  31. ^"News in brief: City seeking public art for southwest rapid transitway".Winnipeg Free Press.February 6, 2017.RetrievedApril 27,2018.
  32. ^"Smart Growth: Planning Division: Arlington, Virginia".Arlingtonva.us. March 7, 2011.RetrievedNovember 4,2011.
  33. ^"Archived copy"(PDF).Archived fromthe original(PDF)on September 24, 2011.RetrievedJune 8,2013.{{cite web}}:CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
  34. ^"Arlington County, Virginia – National Award for Smart Growth Achievement – 2002 Winners Presentation".Epa.gov. June 28, 2006.RetrievedNovember 4,2011.
  35. ^abMatt Martinez (September 20, 2010)."Washington, D.C., launches the nation's largest bike share program".Grist.RetrievedApril 14,2011.
  36. ^J. David Goodman (September 20, 2010)."Bike Sharing Expands in Washington".The New York Times.RetrievedApril 14,2011.
  37. ^"Arlington Joins DC in Bike-Sharing Program".MyFoxDC. September 20, 2010.RetrievedApril 14,2011.
  38. ^"Arlington votes (sort of) to expand CaBi; more places likely to follow".TheWashCycle.RetrievedOctober 17,2011.
  39. ^"Transit Village Initiative Overview, Community Programs".state.nj.us.RetrievedSeptember 17,2023.
  40. ^"Criteria and Scoring Guide, Transit Village Initiative, Community Programs".state.nj.us.RetrievedSeptember 17,2023.
  41. ^"Frequently Asked Questions, Transit Village Initiative, Community Programs".state.nj.us.RetrievedSeptember 17,2023.
  42. ^"NYC Subway Neighborhoods: Which Have Best and Worst Access? | StreetEasy".StreetEasy Blog.January 25, 2018.RetrievedDecember 1,2021.
  43. ^"Welcome".
  44. ^"New busway platforms at East Liberty Station to open tomorrow".
  45. ^San Francisco Bay Area Vision ProjectArchivedJune 7, 2009, at theWayback Machine.Bayareavision.org. Retrieved on December 6, 2013.
  46. ^Projections 2009ArchivedMarch 13, 2016, at theWayback Machine.Abag.ca.gov (May 15, 2008). Retrieved on 2013-12-06.
  47. ^Bernick, Michael; Cervero, Robert (1997).Transit Villages in the 21st Century.New York: McGraw Hill.ISBN9780070054752.
  48. ^"Master Plan".MacArthur Station.RetrievedJune 2,2017.
  49. ^"Chicago Hopes to Center Equity in Its Transit-Oriented Development".nextcity.org.
  50. ^"Chicago releases first-ever equitable transit-oriented development plan".Streetsblog Chicago.September 15, 2020.RetrievedDecember 8,2021.
  51. ^"Provision of Public Transport Services".The Third Comprehensive Transport Study.Transport Department.
  52. ^"The 'Rail plus Property' model: Hong Kong's successful self-financing formula".McKinsey & Company.RetrievedSeptember 6,2018.
  53. ^"The 'Rail plus Property' model: Hong Kong's successful self-financing formula | McKinsey".mckinsey.RetrievedDecember 10,2022.
  54. ^"Hiatus for Bandar Malaysia project".The Star.RetrievedDecember 10,2021.
  55. ^"Developers see 2019 as good year for building near transit stops".The Jakarta Post.RetrievedAugust 8,2019.
  56. ^A Study on Transit Oriented Development in Thailand Executive Summary Report Chon Buri (Pattaya) TOD Prototype(PDF),May 2021
  57. ^A Study on Transit Oriented Development in Thailand Executive Summary Report Khon Kaen TOD Prototype(PDF),May 2021
  58. ^A Study on Transit Oriented Development in Thailand Executive Summary Report Phra Nakhon Si Ayutthaya TOD Prototype(PDF),May 2021
  59. ^Makkasan TOD Thailand - Aravia,February 8, 2021
  60. ^Si Racha TOD Thailand - Aravia,February 8, 2021
  61. ^High Speed Rail Project Construction In Chonburi Linked To Three Major Airports Expected To Start This October,June 8, 2021
  62. ^Thailand TOD
  63. ^ร่างแผนแม่บท TOD ประเทศไทย(PDF),Thailandtod, September 28, 2020
  64. ^ส่องแนวคิดพัฒนาเมืองด้วย 5 สถานีรถไฟฟ้าต้นแบบ TOD,September 16, 2020
  65. ^Planning (March 8, 2017)."Melbourne 2030: Planning for sustainable growth".Planning.RetrievedDecember 10,2021.
  66. ^Transit Oriented Development, Sustainable City LivingThe Milton. Retrieved on November 20, 2013.
  67. ^"More density around rail stations and new schemes for renters: NSW housing plan".March 19, 2017.
  68. ^"Sydney stations chosen for mass-transit-oriented developments".November 3, 2017.
  69. ^ab"Honeysuckle, Newcastle".Hunter and Central Coast Development Corporation.RetrievedJanuary 20,2024.
  70. ^"Buftod 2012".Archived fromthe originalon July 15, 2012.RetrievedFebruary 21,2012.
  71. ^https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01138076/document[bare URL PDF]
  72. ^"How Paris is Like Los Angeles (Via New York)".July 23, 2009.
  73. ^http:// thinkdeep.nl/documents/Papers/Hoeven.pdf[permanent dead link]
  74. ^"پروژه Tod برای نخستینبار در شهر اصفهان اجرا میشود".January 3, 2024.
  75. ^abNahlik, Matthew J.; Chester, Mikhail V. (September 2014)."Transit-oriented smart growth can reduce life-cycle environmental impacts and household costs in Los Angeles".Transport Policy.35:21–30.doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2014.05.004.hdl:2286/R.I.25791.
  76. ^Ashik, F.R.; Rahman, M.H.; Kamruzzaman, M. (April 2022)."Investigating the impacts of transit-oriented development on transport-related CO2emissions ".Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment.105:103227.doi:10.1016/j.trd.2022.103227.S2CID247431376.
  77. ^Kamruzzaman, Md.; Deilami, Kaveh; Yigitcanlar, Tan (January 2018)."Investigating the urban heat island effect of transit oriented development in Brisbane".Journal of Transport Geography.66:116–124.Bibcode:2018JTGeo..66..116K.doi:10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2017.11.016.S2CID76650660.
  78. ^Credit, Kevin (October 2018)."Transit-oriented economic development: The impact of light rail on new business starts in the Phoenix, AZ Region, USA".Urban Studies.55(13): 2838–2862.Bibcode:2018UrbSt..55.2838C.doi:10.1177/0042098017724119.ISSN0042-0980.S2CID158281230.
  79. ^Duncan, Michael (January 2011)."The Impact of Transit-oriented Development on Housing Prices in San Diego, CA".Urban Studies.48(1): 101–127.Bibcode:2011UrbSt..48..101D.doi:10.1177/0042098009359958.ISSN0042-0980.PMID21174895.S2CID22511401.
  80. ^Wang, Fenglong; Zheng, Yuya; Wu, Wenjie; Wang, Donggen (December 1, 2022)."The travel, equity and wellbeing impacts of transit-oriented development in Global South".Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment.113:103512.Bibcode:2022TRPD..11303512W.doi:10.1016/j.trd.2022.103512.ISSN1361-9209.S2CID253516615.
  81. ^Combs, Tabitha S.; Rodríguez, Daniel A. (November 1, 2014)."Joint impacts of Bus Rapid Transit and urban form on vehicle ownership: New evidence from a quasi-longitudinal analysis in Bogotá, Colombia".Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice.69:272–285.Bibcode:2014TRPA...69..272C.doi:10.1016/j.tra.2014.08.025.ISSN0965-8564.
  82. ^Huang, Xiaoyan; Cao, Xinyu (Jason); Yin, Jiangbin; Cao, Xiaoshu (May 1, 2017)."Effects of metro transit on the ownership of mobility instruments in Xi'an, China".Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment.Land use and transportation in China.52:495–505.Bibcode:2017TRPD...52..495H.doi:10.1016/j.trd.2016.09.014.ISSN1361-9209.
  83. ^Huang, Xiaoyan; (Jason) Cao, Xinyu; Yin, Jiangbin; Cao, Xiaoshu (September 1, 2019)."Can metro transit reduce driving? Evidence from Xi'an, China".Transport Policy.81:350–359.doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2018.03.006.ISSN0967-070X.S2CID158433875.
  84. ^Zhang, Yingjie; Zheng, Siqi; Sun, Cong; Wang, Rui (May 1, 2017)."Does subway proximity discourage automobility? Evidence from Beijing".Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment.Land use and transportation in China.52:506–517.Bibcode:2017TRPD...52..506Z.doi:10.1016/j.trd.2016.11.009.ISSN1361-9209.
  85. ^Cao, Xinyu (Jason) (October 1, 2015)."Heterogeneous effects of neighborhood type on commute mode choice: An exploration of residential dissonance in the Twin Cities".Journal of Transport Geography.48:188–196.Bibcode:2015JTGeo..48..188C.doi:10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2015.09.010.ISSN0966-6923.
  86. ^Kamruzzaman, Md.; Baker, Douglas; Washington, Simon; Turrell, Gavin (December 1, 2013)."Residential dissonance and mode choice".Journal of Transport Geography.33:12–28.Bibcode:2013JTGeo..33...12K.doi:10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2013.09.004.ISSN0966-6923.S2CID153613438.
  87. ^Kumar, Santosh; Vijay Kumar, T V (October 2018)."A novel quantum-inspired evolutionary view selection algorithm".Sādhanā.43(10).doi:10.1007/s12046-018-0936-5.ISSN0256-2499.S2CID255485307.
  88. ^Majumdar, Bandhan Bandhu; Jayakumar, Malavika; Sahu, Prasanta K.; Potoglou, Dimitris (September 1, 2021)."Identification of key determinants of travel satisfaction for developing policy instrument to improve quality of life: An analysis of commuting in Delhi".Transport Policy.110:281–292.doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2021.06.012.ISSN0967-070X.S2CID236234705.
  89. ^Olsson, Lars E.; Gärling, Tommy; Ettema, Dick; Friman, Margareta; Fujii, Satoshi (March 1, 2013)."Happiness and Satisfaction with Work Commute".Social Indicators Research.111(1): 255–263.doi:10.1007/s11205-012-0003-2.ISSN1573-0921.PMC3560964.PMID23378683.
  90. ^Wang, Fenglong; Wang, Donggen (2020)."Changes in residential satisfaction after home relocation: A longitudinal study in Beijing, China".Urban Studies.57(3): 583–601.Bibcode:2020UrbSt..57..583W.doi:10.1177/0042098019866378.ISSN0042-0980.S2CID203274610.
  91. ^Wu, Wenjie (2014)."Does Public Investment Improve Homeowners' Happiness? New Evidence based on Micro Surveys in Beijing".Urban Studies.51(1): 75–92.Bibcode:2014UrbSt..51...75W.doi:10.1177/0042098013484530.ISSN0042-0980.S2CID154641432.
  92. ^Cervero, Robert; Murakami, Jin (2009)."Rail and Property Development in Hong Kong: Experiences and Extensions".Urban Studies.46(10): 2019–2043.Bibcode:2009UrbSt..46.2019C.doi:10.1177/0042098009339431.ISSN0042-0980.S2CID155004592.
  93. ^Yang, Linchuan; Chau, K. W.; Szeto, W. Y.; Cui, Xu; Wang, Xu (August 1, 2020)."Accessibility to transit, by transit, and property prices: Spatially varying relationships".Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment.85:102387.Bibcode:2020TRPD...8502387Y.doi:10.1016/j.trd.2020.102387.ISSN1361-9209.S2CID225520960.
  94. ^Dawkins, Casey; Moeckel, Rolf (September 2, 2016)."Transit-Induced Gentrification: Who Will Stay, and Who Will Go?".Housing Policy Debate.26(4–5): 801–818.doi:10.1080/10511482.2016.1138986.hdl:1903/21508.ISSN1051-1482.S2CID35874559.
  95. ^Delmelle, Elizabeth C. (January 1, 2021), Pereira, Rafael H. M.; Boisjoly, Geneviève (eds.),"Chapter Six - Transit-induced gentrification and displacement: The state of the debate",Advances in Transport Policy and Planning,Social Issues in Transport Planning, vol. 8, Academic Press, pp. 173–190,doi:10.1016/bs.atpp.2021.06.005,retrievedJuly 7,2023
  96. ^"Equitable Development Toolkit: Transit Oriented Development"(PDF).2008. Archived fromthe original(PDF)on April 6, 2013.RetrievedOctober 12,2010.
  97. ^Paul, Julene; Taylor, Brian D. (June 1, 2021)."Who lives in transit-friendly neighborhoods? An analysis of California neighborhoods over time".Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives.10:100341.Bibcode:2021TrRIP..1000341P.doi:10.1016/j.trip.2021.100341.ISSN2590-1982.S2CID233580126.
  98. ^Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco (2010)."Community Investments: Transit-Oriented Development".
  99. ^Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco (2010)."Equipping Communities to Achieve Equitable Transit-Oriented Development".
  100. ^Carlton, Ian (2007)."Histories of Transit-Oriented Development: Perspectives on the Development of the TOD Concept"(PDF).RetrievedMay 25,2022.{{cite journal}}:Cite journal requires|journal=(help)
  101. ^abcSchiller, Preston L. (2010).An introduction to sustainable transportation: policy, planning and implementation.Bruun, Eric Christian., Kenworthy, Jeffrey R., 1955-. London: Earthscan.ISBN978-1-84977-502-1.OCLC659549750.
[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transit-oriented_development&oldid=1231421278"