De La Salle University

Gokongwei College of Engineering

Civil Engineering Department

TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT (TOD)

In Partial Fulfillment of the

Requirements for the Course
Transportation Engineering (CIVTREN)

Submitted by:
Lao, Angel Lisette S. (Section EI)

Submitted to:
Dr. Alexis M. Fillone

April 3, 2018
 CONTENTS

1 BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................... 3

Defining TOD 3

Key Principles 3

What is Not a TOD 4

2 BENEFITS .............................................................................................................................. 4

Environmental Benefits 5

Economic/Fiscal Benefits 5

Social Benefits 5

3 ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLES............................................................................................ 5

Copenhagen: Transit Oriented and Bike Friendly 6

Singapore: TOD Empowered by Transport Demand Management 6

4 CHALLENGES ...................................................................................................................... 7

5 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ................................................................................................. 7

6 REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................... 8

7 DEFINITION OF TERMS ................................................................................................... 9

2
1 BACKGROUND

Due to improper management of rapid economic growth and increasing wealth, many cities today
face the challenges of automobile congestion, pollution, pedestrian-hostile neighborhoods, and
sprawl. Poor coordination between urban planning and transport infrastructure has reduces of the
quality of life and overall productivity in the city. To address this, cities like New York and
Stockholm have resorted to Transit Oriented Development (TOD) as key to sustainable planning.

Defining TOD. The TOD concept was first introduced by architect Peter Calthrope, who defines
it as a “mixed-use community within an average 2000 ft (600 m) walking distance of a transit stop
and a core commercial area that mixes residential, retail, office, open space, and public uses in a
walkable environment, making it convenient for residents and employees to travel by transit,
bicycle, foot or car.” (Calthorpe, 1993) (Fig. 1.1a). Additionally, the transport hub should be at the
heart of the neighborhood, within 400 m or 10 minute walk from residents (Fig. 1.1b).

(a) (b)
Figure 1.1 (a) Diagram based on Calthorpe's definition (Brinklow, 2010). (b) TOD
typically occurs within 800 m of a station, with the area within 400 m containing the
greatest intensity and mix of uses (City of Edmonton, 2012).

Key Principles. Since every city is different and there are multiple definitions of TOD, there is no
one-size-fits-all TOD strategy. Hence, it is important to list guiding principles for the
implemention of TOD. Calthorpe (1993) lists the key components of TOD as follows:
1. Growth organized on a regional level to be compact and transit-supportive.
2. Commercial, housing, jobs parks, and civic uses within walking distance of transit stops.
3. Pedestrian-friendly street networks that directly connect local destinations.
4. A mix of housing types, densities, and costs.
5. Preservation of sensitive habitat, riparian zones, and high-quality open space.
6. Public spaces become the focus of building orientation and neighbourhood activity.
3
To measure the success of a TOD post-development, several authors (Renne and Wells, 2005; Bae,
2002; Niles and Nelson, 1999) have identified TOD key performance indicators (Fig 1.2).

Fig 1.2 Description of TOD success indicators (adapted from Brinklow, 2010).

What is Not a TOD. TOD is not to be confused with Transit Adjacent Development (TAD) and
Transit Joint Development (TJD). TAD is a development that is physically near transit. It fails to
leverage on such proximity to promote transit riding and walking as it lacks key TOD
characteristics, such as pedestrian-friendly development or mixed use (Renne et al., 2011). By
contrast, TJD involves the synergy of public and private entities to create a successful development
around transit stations (Renne et al., 2011). While it may be a catalyst for TOD, TJD in itself may
become problematic as it is often aimed at maximizing revenue rather than a wider vision of how
transit could work in tandem with the surrounding environment (Dittmar & Ohland, 2004).

2 BENEFITS

By improving the safety and access to transit, TOD increase use of transit and non-motorized
transport – thus reducing the number of vehicle miles travelled or VMT. As people drive less, the
environmental, economic, and social well-being of the city is enhanced (Brinklow, 2010).

4
Environmental Benefits. Energy efficiency and better air quality: Compared to automobiles,
transit requires less energy to move a person. With less energy consumption, these transit vehicles
emit smaller amounts of pollutants, thus reducing air pollution. Land conservation and reduced
urban sprawl: Providing compact patterns of urban growth at urban infill sites conserves
agricultural and natural lands that would otherwise be consumed by sprawling development.

Economic/Fiscal Benefits. Reduced road and infrastructure costs: For local governments,
compact infill development help reduce new infrastructure costs (like water, sanitary, sewer, and
roads). Increased land values: For land owners and developers, access to transit significantly
increases both property demand and price. Savings in time and money: For individuals, public
transit offers a low-cost alternative to automobile, which entails expensive fuel, parking and annual
maintenance costs. Affordable housing near transit stations also enhance access to job
opportunities and reduces transport expenditure. Increased competitiveness: Due to
agglomeration, TOD cities are more competitive than other cities. In New York, the world’s most
competitive city, 60% of office space is agglomerated on only 9 sqm. This offers opportunities to
reinvent urban spaces with high-quality public green areas. Copenhagen and Stockholm rank
among the world’s top cities in terms of per capita GDP, the Green City Index, and UN-Habitat
City Prosperity Index (The World Bank, 2017).

Social Benefits. Increased sense of community, public safety and security: With pleasant streets
and diverse public spaces and community centers, TOD brings people from diverse social
backgrounds into one vibrant community (Brinklow, 2010). The 24-hour pedestrian traffic, in turn,
enhances the overall sense of safety and security in the area. Increased health benefits. TOD
promotes a healthy lifestyle by encouraging people to walk and cycle. Increased mobility choices
for all. Compact, walkable communities linked by transit increase mobility choices particularly
for young people, elderly, and those who do not own cars or prefer not to use a car. Increased
housing choices for all. TOD encourages high quality diverse housing projects (mixed income,
owner occupied, rental and workforce housing). (Ministry of Urban Development, 2016).

3 ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLES

The first steps in turning TOD concepts into reality involve creating a vision and transforming it
into a conceptual image of the future metropolis. Prime examples are Copenhagen’s “Finger Plan”
and Singapore’s “Constellation Plan”.

5
 (a) (b)
Fig. 3.1. (a) Evolution of Copenhagen’s plan. (b) Singapore’s “Constellation Plan”. (Suzuki et
al., 2013)

Copenhagen: Transit Oriented and Bike Friendly. At the onset, planners identified corridors for
channeling overspill growth from urban centers. Rail infrastructure was built in advance to steer
growth along desired growth axes. Greenbelt wedges were designated and major infrastructure
directed away from districts from these. On the periphery are towns that are bike and pedestrian
friendly. Suburban towns of 10,000–30,000 inhabitants, are laced by greenways that connect
neighborhoods, schools, retail centers, and parks to inviting rail stops. (Suzuki et al., 2013).
Furthermore, Copenhagen values the rights and needs of pedestrians and cyclists. They have
expropriated car lanes and curbside parking for their exclusive use. Between 1980 and 2005, the
inventory of bike lanes increased from 210 to 410 km within an area of about 90 sqm. They also
introduced a short-term bike lease program, City Bikes, in 1995. Copenhagen’s “access shed” are
also well-articulated for transit riding. A 2002 survey found that people walked 38-100% of access
trips up to 1 km; for trips 1–2 km away, cycling accounted for 40% of access trips. Apart from
boosting cycling, national policies that aim to moderate car ownership and usage are implemented,
such as adding taxes that typically triple the retail price of a new car. (Suzuki et al., 2013).

Singapore: TOD Empowered by Transport Demand Management. Singapore’s plan has radial
corridors that interconnect the central core with master-planned new towns. The “Constellation
Plan” looks like a constellation of satellite towns that surround the central core, interspersed by
protective greenbelts and interlaced by high-capacity, high-performance rail transit (Fig 3.1b).
(Suzuki et al., 2013). To complement this, Singapore implements transit-first policies. They
introduced a three-tier fiscal program wherein the first tier is subscription fees for owning a car.
The second is fuel taxes and parking fees. The third is in the form of real-time electronic road
pricing, which forces motorists to internalize the externalities they impose when using their cars
during peak hours. These policies have reduced the annual growth of the vehicle population from
6% in 1997 to less than 3% in 2010. (Curtis et al., 2009).

6
4 CHALLENGES

Despite the potential benefits of TOD, its innate complexity entails that it faces many challenges.
In adopting TOD, cities in developing countries, in particular, need to overcome multiple
challenges: (1) the urgency of short-term demands for improving mobility, which often override
long-term visions for sustainable urban development; (2) fragmented institutional frameworks,
which make regional collaboration, city-level, and cross-sector coordination difficult; (3)
regulatory constraints that hinder the capacity of real estate markets to respond to the economic
value created by investments in transit; (4) problematic management of urban densities, as these
cities often adopt uniformly regulated floor area ratios (FARs) instead of reflecting location
premiums; (5) inadequate policies and regulations; (6) redevelopment of built-up areas; (7)
neglected urban districts; and (8) the financial challenge of funding large, lumpy transit
investments requires innovative solutions, especially given the many competing demands for fiscal
resources and limits on government spending. (Suzuki et al., 2013). On the flip side, another barrier
may also come from social inacceptance of the receiving stakeholders (Irvine, n.d.).

5 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

Transit Oriented Development is a promising strategy towards sustainable urban growth and
development. While there is no exact definition of TOD, it may be characterized by: its
compactness, pedestrian- and cycle-friendly environments, public mixed-use developments near
stations, and stations being community hubs. Its primary goal is to decrease the dependency on
automobile and maximize the use of transit and non-motorized transport as the means of access. It
is not an instantaneous and single-development project – but a 360-degree plan around transit
stations, that is founded on a long-term vision that is redeveloped over time to adapt to changing
needs and demands, and involves the collaboration of multiple sectors, both private and public.

By effectively integrating transportation and land use, TOD not only increases transit ridership,
but can potentially solve other pressing urban issues as well – from environmental sustainability
and housing affordability to the need for healthy, resilient, adaptable communities – thus
improving the overall quality of city life. Nonetheless, despite the multiple benefits that TOD
purports, its application is currently limited to developed countries. In order to successfully
implement TOD, cities in developing countries must overcome complex barriers that TOD entails
in terms of political, organizational, institutional, fiscal, and social factors.

7
6 REFERENCES

Braswell, A. (2013). Transit-Oriented Development: An Urban Design Assessment of Transit

Stations in Atlanta. Environment and Planning A, 39, 2068–2085.
https://doi.org/10.1068/a38377

Brinklow, A. (2010). Transit Oriented Development: A Policy Implementation Strategy,

(September).

Cervero, R., Murphy, S., & Ferrell, C. (2004). TCRP Report 102 - Transit Oriented Development
in the United States: Experiences, Challenges, and Prospects. Washington, DC:
Transportation Research Board.

City of Edmonton. (2012). Transit Oriented Development Guidelines, 1(December), 1–22.

Curtis, C., Renne, J. L., & Bertolini, L. (2009). Transit Oriented Development: Making It
Happen (Vol. 1). Ashgate.

Dittmar, H., & Ohland, G. (2004). The New Transit Town: Best Practices in Transit Oriented
Development.

Illinois Regional Transportation Authoroty. (2011). Transit - Oriented Development Basics.

Irvine, S. (n.d.). Transit Oriented Development : When is a TOD not a TOD ?, 1–28.

Joshi, R., Joseph, Y., Patel, K., & Darji, V. (2017). Transit-Oriented Development : Lessons
from Indian Experiences, (January).

Ministry of Urban Development. (2016). TOD Guidance Document. India.

Renne, J. L., Bartholomew, K., & Wontor, P. (2011). Transit-Oriented and Joint Development:
Case Studies and Legal Issues. https://doi.org/10.17226/14588

Suzuki H., Cervero R., I. K. (2013). Transforming Cities with Transit. Washington, DC: The
World Bank.

The World Bank. (2017). Transforming the Urban Space through Transit-Oriented Development
The 3V Approach, 1–268.

8
7 DEFINITION OF TERMS

Corridor. A generally linear area that is defined by one or more modes of transportation like
highways, railroads or public transit which share a common course.

Floor area ratio (FAR). The ratio of a building’s total floor area to the size of the land on which it
is built.

Greenbelt. An area of open land around a city, on which building is restricted.

Infill development. The process of developing vacant or under-used parcels within existing urban
areas that are already largely developed.

Mixed use. Pattern of development characterized by a mixture of diversified land uses, typically
including housing, retail activities, and private businesses, either within the same building space
(for example, vertical mixing) or in close proximity (for example, horizontal mixing).

Sprawl. Pattern of development characterized by uniform low density, lack of a distinctive core,
poor accessibility, dependence on automobiles, and uncontrolled and noncontiguous land
expansion.

Transportation demand management. Policy and incentive measures to reduce demand for travel,
particularly by automobile, and induce use of nonmotorized transport or public transit.