Chapter 1: Introduction

The construction industry around the globe accounted for a third of the global
carbon emissions in 2019, according to a United Nations report (UNEP 2020). The
severity of this situation, combined with the constant growth in development and
urbanization, warrants the global industry to move more prominently in the direction of
sustainable development. These are projects that are focused towards meeting
developmental goals whilst still maintaining the ecological balance and preventing the
depletion of natural resources. The idea is to provide for the needs of the present
without jeopardizing the ability of the future generations to do so. The goals of
sustainably, as identified by the United Nations include addressing issues associated
with poverty, inequality, human rights, climate change, natural resource depletion and
environmental degradation (UN-SDG 2015).

Sustainability encompasses a variety of fields, including engineering, economics

and environmental sciences. Within the urban infrastructure domain, sustainable
practices range from sustainable energy development to sustainable construction
methodologies, with benefits in the form of clean energy production, environmental
conservation and reduced emissions, while also aiming to remain cost effective in their
implementation and functioning (Ferrer et al. 2016).

Transit Oriented Developments (TODs) are one of the major proponents of these
sustainable infrastructure developments. These are compact public spaces that are
designed to promote a well-integrated community, with ease of access to pedestrians
and proximity to transit services (Singh et al. 2020). Location decision plays an important
role in the development of these infrastructural projects. TODs that are developed in
the city outskirts or suburban areas with low residential density provide a scope for
possible future development in the surrounding area, whereas TODs developed in urban
areas and city centers have access to a high residential density, existing built
environment and pre-defined land use (Ibraeva et. al 2020). Given the contrast between
the two, it is important to assess the impact of location decision on TODs.

Chapter 2: Literature Review

Transit Oriented Developments – A Brief Overview

Transit Oriented Developments (TODs) are an urban planning strategy that are
aimed at creating a mixed land-use, high density community, with close proximity to
transit services. These developments are significantly different from the traditional
urban planning principles, which are focused majorly towards a road-based
transportation system. The traditional urban sprawl has been known to contribute
significantly towards the degradation of air quality levels due to vehicular pollution.
They also contribute towards reduced mobility and congestion, especially in the nodal
areas of cities due to over-dependence on vehicular transit (Singh et al. 2020).

TODs, on the other hand, are developed with much more focus on walkability,
cycling and public transportation. The proximity to transit services is aimed towards
reducing the over-dependence on vehicular transportation and therefore reducing
congestion levels. It has been found that TODs with good transportation capabilities and
a well-designed, walkable environment provide sustainable travel patterns (Ibraeva et
al. 2020). According to Thomas & Bertolini (2017), the provision of these multiple
modes of transportation, along with the presence of transit services allows for
maximizing the efficiency of these systems by focusing on urban development in the
surrounding area. However, as per Brussel et al. (2014), the process of planning for
TODs must not just be associated with creating developments with the sole purpose of
encouraging transit use, but must also be focused on bringing transit services to
communities that share all the characteristics of a TOD without the transit aspect, hence
providing a two-sided planning approach.
 The overall idea of TODs is to create transit nodes that are at the centre of urban
settlements, and connect these nodes across the urban landscape in order to create a
sustainable transportation network. The development of these transit nodes is
dependent on three major factors, mainly the socio-economic factors of the surrounding
area, the preference of the population and the level of regional accessibility available
(Ibraeva et al. 2020).

It is important to note that TODs must not be confused with TADs (Transit
Adjacent Developments). These developments, while although having the provision of a
mass transportation system in close proximity, are not designed in such a manner so as
to provide functionality or connectivity with the surrounding urban infrastructure
(Duncan 2011).

In terms of feasibility, TODs can be hampered by large initial investment

expenses. Various value capture mechanisms can be implemented to help cover some of
these costs. Planning authorities and transit agencies can profit by leasing publicly
owned land to private investors for development, increasing floor-area ratios and
renting office and commerce spaces near stations. While these techniques typically aid
in the raising of funding for TODs, the evidence for their effectiveness is mixed (Ibraeva
et al. 2020).

TODs also have an impact on the real estate prices in the surrounding area. In
theory, it is clear that the presence of transportation systems integrated with the urban
form to improve connectivity and accessibility would demand a price premium.
However, it has been found that these prices can be influenced by factors such as the
type of transportation, the type of urban development in the surrounding area and the
income level of the neighbourhood (Bowes & Ihlanfeldt 2001). A study in Atalanta
showed that other factors such as congestion, noise level and crime rates also play a
significant role in affecting the price premium, with results indicating that prices in areas
surrounding the transit station were likely to decrease, but tend to increase as you
moved farther away (Bowes & Ihlanfeldt 2001). Kay et al. (2014) identified that the
service coverage and destinations attainable via the transit station also played a
significant role in impacting the real estate prices.

Apart from providing improved mobility and ease of accessibility, TODs have also
been known to have a positive impact on the community life. As stated by Currie &
Stanley (2007), TODs can "address problems associated with social exclusion and social
capital through creating proximate opportunities for access to activities and social
networks." TODs provide communities with the provision of a vivid street life, which
subsequently helps in developing neighbourhood links amongst the members of the
community.

Furthermore, given the scope and complexity of TOD projects, there are
significant number of challenges associated with its implementation. These projects can
be challenging to execute due to the numerous stakeholders, public and private entities,
and levels of government involved. Some of these hurdles, as identified by Ibraeva et al.
(2020) in a literature review of academic research in the field of TODs, are as follows:

1. Requirement of high initial costs (Yang et al. 2016).

2. Uncertainty associated with levels of ridership, which is dependent of the
location of development (Yang et al. 2016).
3. Lack of stakeholder coordination.
4. Long period of project maturity (Yang et al. 2016).
5. Lack of land availability/potential for development due to existing built
environment (Yang et al. 2016).

Criterion associated with Transit Oriented Developments

TODs can have several characteristics that are strongly associated with their
design, functionality, evaluation and success. The Institute for Transportation &
Development Policy (ITDP), which is a non-governmental non-profit global organization
aimed towards the promotion and development of sustainable transportation systems
and non-motorized transport infrastructure, has identified a set of eight core principles
associated with TODs. These principles are as follows:

Walk: TODs with compact settlements and mass transit systems are to be
designed in such a manner so as to promote walkability to and from the hub of
transportation and within the development. These pedestrian networks must be
designed with importance afforded towards safety, mobility and accessibility.

Cycle: Cycling provides an effective transportation option, being easy to use,

environment friendly and requiring few resources. TODs that are spread out over a
larger area must prioritise non-motorized transport, which can be done by creating a
dedicated cycling path, providing a network and provided ample parking space at transit
stops and junctions.

Connect: TODs must create a dense network of pathways in order to better

improve the mobility within the settlement. It is suggested to provide better, shorter
connectivity for non-motorized means of transport such as walking and cycling as
compared to motorized transport.

Transit: The core idea of TODs is to provide close proximity to a public transit
system within the settlement. This would promote the use of these transportation
systems and reduce the over-dependence on motorized transport. It is recommended
that high-capacity transportation systems are located at a maximum distance of one
kilometre within the development.

Mix: TODs must be the hub of a mixed land use development, such as residential,
commercial and industrial, in a balanced mix. The diversity in the land-use combined
with the convenience in transit would require more people to visit the area and
encourage them to use the public transportation systems while doing so. The presence
of mixed land-use would also result in shorter, quicker trips for people residing within
the community, and also provide a lot of scope for activities and engagement.
 Density: TODs must be able to serve a community with high density, and have a
public transit system optimised to serve at the required capacity. It is also
recommended that, in order to avoid an urban sprawl, cities must grow vertically, while
still maintaining ease of accessibility.

Compact: TODs be able to find the right balance in terms of the size of
development. It should be able to serve a population of high density while having
reduced congestion but still being compact enough to require short commutes. The
presence of compact developments within a mixed land-use community can provide
benefits in terms of proximity and connectivity.

Shift: TODs must focus on mobility within the settlement by introducing

regulations and policies related to road-use and parking that limit the use of motorized
vehicles.

Alternatively, the TOD Institute, which is an evaluation and endorsement

program towards the development of TODs, has provided a set of judging criteria, based
on which certifications to projects are provided. Developers, transportation agencies,
design companies, city councils, and others can submit projects for formal assessment
and grading through the certification program. Certificates are provided on the basis of
the fulfillment of the criteria. A project that fulfils all the criteria is provided with three
stars, a project that fulfils at least eight of the criteria is awarded with eight stars, and a
project that fulfils at least six of the criteria is awarded with one star.

The criteria for assessment are as follows:

1. Close proximity to a railway station (mandatory requirement).

2. Well defined public spaces.
3. Availability of mixed land-use characteristics.
4. Good pedestrian infrastructure in place.
5. Presence of human scale architecture.
6. Provision of ground floor retail spaces.
7. Presence of green spaces.
 8. Availability of quality cycling infrastructure.
9. Reduced and hidden parking.
10. Affordability.
11. Potential for development

Furthermore, based on a literature review conducted in the field of academic

research on TODs, Singh et al. (2020), identified six main criteria which could be used to
estimate the success of TOD in any area. The criteria are as follows:

1. Institutional Support
2. Quality of Cityscape
3. Health, Safety and Environment
4. Economic Development
5. Travel Behaviour
6. Socio- Cultural Impact

Thomas & Bertolini (2017) also identified factors such as national political
stability, relationships between associated stakeholders in the region, interdisciplinary
teams used to implement TOD, and public involvement as some of the most significant
success factors in the implementation of TODs.

Additionally, Renne et. al (2005), via an extensive literature review across various
case studies, concluded by identifying 9 evaluation criteria that could be used as basis to
assess the performance of TODs, which are as follows,

1. Transit levels
2. Density
3. Quality of design
4. Land mixed-used characteristics
5. Pedestrian activity & walkability
6. Property value increase
7. Connectivity to transit station
 8. Public perception
9. Parking configuration

Examples of TOD Implementation

The C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group, which is an organization consisting of

ninety-seven cities around the world, and aimed at combating climate change and
promoting sustainable urban development, published a report in 2016 that discussed
some of the various cases of implementation of TOD projects all around the world.
Some of these cases are detailed below:

The Broadway Boulevard Project in New York City is a great example of the
implementation of pedestrian systems. This famous street used to be heavily congested,
with very little space for pedestrians to maneuver, creating an unsafe and unpleasant
environment. A redevelopment project undertaken by the New York City Department of
Transportation (NYC-DOT) in 2009 sought to overhaul the existing system, by
introducing dedicated pedestrian zones and networks, and imposing regulation on
vehicles and parking. This resulted in reduced accidents, traffic density and improved
pedestrian volumes, traffic flow, commercial activity, environmental quality and
aesthetics, which was corroborated by NYC-DOT after tracking data before and after the
completion of the project (Project for Public Spaces 2012).

Cities such as Singapore have also provided pedestrian walkways in key

developments within the city to encourage the use of non-motorized transport. The
provision of a comprehensive network of walkways provides better connectivity to
nodal points within the city, while ensuring a comfortable walking experience.

Copenhagen, on the other hand, is a city that is popular for its cycling culture. It
has transport policies in favour of cycling and has built a strong infrastructure to
encourage it. The city has close to 350 kilometres of dedicated cycling tracks, which
provides a vast network and great connectivity. The design is focused on simplicity,
functionality and safety. In some areas, bicycles are allowed to share the roadways with
motor vehicles instead of having a dedicated path, and speed restrictions are imposed
on the motor vehicles (Thoem n.d.). A majority of the population in the city perceive
cycling to be the cheapest, easiest and most effective means of transportation, along
with the added benefit of it being environment friendly.

Hammarby Sjöstad is a village in Stockholm, with mixed land-use characteristics,

that is home is 20,000 residents. It is home to residential, office, urban and commercial
developments, which employ a quarter of the town's population. The majority of the
commute in the city is through public transport systems, bicycle and foot. The high
percentage of use of these transport systems can be attributed to the presence of great
infrastructure and policies that promotes their use.

This is similar to the Olympic Village in Vancouver, which is home to 13,000

people, having a mixed-use community. The development, which sits on an 80-acre site,
has a variety of uses, including shops, offices, and community amenities, as well as
mixed-income housing. The buildings, which are mostly mid-rise, are constructed in such
a manner so as to provide enough space to promote walkability and have open spaces.
Several transport options are available, including mass transit systems, cycling
infrastructure and pedestrian friendly pathways (Benfield n.d.). This development was
awarded the LEED Platinum certification by the USBGC (U.S. Green Building Council) in
2010, which is the high level of certification possible, making it one the most
sustainable, energy efficient communities on Earth (CTV News 2010).

Transit Oriented Development Typologies

TODs can be classified into various groups based on their performance in some
pre-defined criteria, with the help of a typology model. According to Cervero et al.
(1997), the major characteristics of a TOD could be classified as the 3D's, namely Design,
Diversity and Density. Based on this concept, TODs could be classified into various
typologies on the basis of their implementation of these aspects.
 Bertolini et al. (1996) developed the node-place model which uses an XY-
diagram, with the Y-axis representing the accessibility of the node, known as the node
index, which is associated with the frequency and variety of transit, and the X-axis
representing the characteristics of the place, known as the place index, which is
associated with the mixed land-use characteristics of the area. This allowed TODs to be
positioned on the model based on their performance in both indexes and therefore be
classified into groups such as balanced (0.5 on both indexes), stressed (high on both
indexes), dependent (low on both indexes), unsustained places (high on X but low on Y)
and unsustained nodes (high on Y but low on X).

Fig 1: Node-Place Model (Bertolini et al. 1996)

Further additions were subsequently made to this model in order to factor in

features such as walkability, pedestrian comfort and design characteristics, which were
also closely associated with the defining features of a TOD.

Vale (2015), identified the need to include the characteristic of pedestrian

comfort, and subsequently provided a ratio that factored in the walking area within a
seven-hundred-meter radius of the transit station. This addition helped in identifying
stations positioned in the node-place model that would be more inclined towards the
TAD classification given their lack of pedestrian-friendly features.

Singh et al. (2014) introduced an actual and potential TOD index to this model.
The actual index was meant for existing sites with the defining characteristics of TODs,
whereas the potential index was focused on urban agglomerations with all the defining
features of TODs without the transit element, allowing the identification of potential
future TOD sites.

Furthermore, Song et. al (2021), based on a cluster analysis of the metro stations
in Ningbo City, China with the help of the node-place model, developed a set of four
typologies, namely,

1. NTOD (no TOD) – Station without the defining TOD characteristics

2. ATOD (already TOD) – Station with all the defining TOD characteristics
3. ITOD (improvable TOD) – Station with all the defining TOD characteristics
with shortcomings in at least one aspect.
4. PTOD (potential TOD) – Station with a majority of the defining TOD
characteristics, but lacking in terms of connectivity.

Additionally, Yang et al. (2016), based on the location of development of TODs,

introduced a two-dimensional model of categorization. TODs developed in suburban
areas or city outskirts were categorized "Development Oriented Transit Investments"
and TODs developed in urban centres were categorized as "Density Oriented Transit
Investments".

Impact of Location Decision on TODs

Location is one of the major deciding factors of urban development. It is

associated with factors such as ease of access, resource availability, climate, topography
and development potential. Several models and theories, such as the 'Least Cost
Location Theory' by Alfred Weber, have been developed which show the influence
location decision has in urban development. The cluster theory, which is a subset of
game theory, explains how businesses locate themselves near the centre of their
potential customer population in order to attract the greatest number of customers. If a
competitor is doing well in a particular location and is attracting a lot of customers,
other competitors soon crop up in the surrounding area to share a piece of the pie, a
process which is known as clustering. Each competitor will simultaneously make the
same decision to move to the best possible location, hence reaching the Nash
Equilibrium, which occurs at "the point where neither of you can improve your position
by deviating from your current strategy" (THE IFOD 2018).

As per Lumbwe et. al (2018), the objective of location decision is to maximize the
benefit of an enterprise, while also reducing the cost of operations at the location. It has
been identified as an important aspect of operations managements, with long term
implications associated with both good and bad location decisions. Furthermore, given
the minimal possibility associated with relocation given the high costs involved, location
decision has a considerable impact on the profit and risk of an enterprise. The factors
affecting a location decision have also been laid out following a literature review, which
are as follows, (Lumbwe et. al 2018)

1. Labour
2. Electricity
3. Proximity to customer
4. Proximity to competitor
5. Proximity to supplier
6. Safety requirements

In the case of TODs, location decision also plays an important role. TODs that are
developed in the city outskirts or suburban areas with low residential density provide a
scope for possible future development in the surrounding area. This allows the
authorities to avoid potential NIMBY opposition, and still control urban growth. On the
other hand, TODs developed in urban areas and city centers have access to a high
residential density, existing built environment and pre-defined land use. Research has
shown that these areas experience higher levels of transit use, but have low scope for
further development (Ibraeva et al. 2020).

Yang et al. (2016) assessed this situation from two pathways. Either a station is
constructed to service pre-existing high-density neighbourhoods, or high-density
development has been attracted by the presence of the station. It is clear that the
presence of stations in pre-existing neighbourhoods provides the advantage of high
ridership. The American government's favour towards this approach was made apparent
by the grants that were passed out by the Federal Transit Administration (as of 2012),
with more of a preference towards projects in high density corridors. Cities like Hong
Kong, on the other hand, took a different approach, choosing to build stations near new
towns, and then work on developing the surrounding area.

It must be noted that the difference in these approaches in terms of value

capture is a choice between real estate revenue and commuter revenue. In the case of
the density-oriented approach, the potential of boosting land sector revenue is lost, and
in the case of development-oriented approach, the station must operate with low
density ridership at the beginning on the basis of the potential of future development.
Yang et al. (2016) also notes that in the case of the development-oriented approach,
project prioritization shifts away from ridership concerns and toward future land
development.

Yang et al. (2016) also provides, by comparing these two typologies of TODs, one
of the few pieces of research in terms of location choice and its various impacts on TOD
projects. The present literature review process has identified that there is a lack of
academic study in this field. Searches across literary databases such as Google Scholar
and ProQuest with keyword phrases such as "Transit Oriented Developments",
"Location", "Comparison", "Impact", "Typology" have yielded insignificant results.
 Chapter 3: Literature Summary
This section provides a basic summary of the most important sources referred to
during the literature review process.
PAPER
Transit-oriented development: A review of
research achievements and challenges;
Ibraeva, A., de Almeida Correia, G.H., Silva, C.
and Antunes, A.P.; 2020.
A systematic literature on application of
transit oriented development; Jain, A., Singh,
E. and Ashtt, R.; 2020.
Defining critical success factors in TOD
implementation using rough set analysis;
Thomas, R. and Bertolini, L.; 2017.
SUMMARY
This paper provides a comprehensive
literature review of the scholarly work in the
field of TODs as of 2020. It provides an
overview of the major research areas of
TODs, its concepts, and identifies the areas
where potential future research may be
necessary. This paper was utilized for its
extensive research into all the major
concepts TODs.
This paper provides an understanding on the
research done in the field of TODs and its
implementation, and divides them into
various categories. It also identifies the
factors behind successful TODs all over the
world, and provides insight in terms of
potential future research areas. This paper
was utilized in order to gain an understanding
of the TOD concept and TOD implementation
trends.
This paper utilized a rough set analysis on
eleven case studies of TODs all over the
world in order to identify the critical success
factors in the implementation of TODs. The
paper was utilized to gain an understanding
of these factors and the role they play in TOD
implementation.
Density-oriented versus development-
oriented transit investment: Decoding metro
station location selection in Shenzhen; Yang,
J., Chen, J., Le, X. and Zhang, Q.; 2016.
GOOD PRACTICE GUIDE Transit Oriented
Development; C40 Cities Climate Leadership
Group; 2016.
Nodes and places: complexities of railway
station redevelopment; Bertolini, L.; 1996.
Transit-oriented development, integration of
land use and transport, and pedestrian
accessibility: Combining node-place model
with pedestrian shed ratio to evaluate and
classify station areas in Lisbon; Vale, D.S.;
2015.
This paper studies the differences associated
in terms of development and implementation
of TODs based on their location of
development. It categorizes TODs into two
types based on the location of development
and uses the case study of the city of
Shenzhen to lay out the factors involved in
each category. This paper was utilized to gain
an understanding of the role of location
decision in TOD development.
This report lays out the concept of TODs, its
defining criteria and principles, and highlights
some case studies of successful
implementation of TODs all over the world.
This paper was focused on creating a
framework for the development of TOD
typologies. It introduces a model that uses
two variables. The node represents the
accessibility of the station and the place
represents the mixed-use characteristics of
the station area. Based on their performance
on these two indices, stations could be
placed on the model and categorized. The
paper was used to gain an understanding as
to how TOD typologies could be developed.
This paper combines the node-place model
with the characteristic of pedestrian
friendliness by including a pedestrian-shed
ratio. The subsequent model was used to
assess station areas in Lisbon. This model
allowed for a more accurate and balanced
categorization of TODs.
Measuring transit oriented development: a
spatial multi criteria assessment approach for
the City Region Arnhem and Nijmegen; Singh,
Y.J., Fard, P., Zuidgeest, M., Brussel, M. and
van Maarseveen, M.; 2014.
Transit-oriented development: Developing a
strategy to measure success; J.L., Renne;
2005.
TOD Typology Based on Urban Renewal: A
Classification of Metro Stations for Ningbo
City; Yang, L. and Song, X., 2021.
The paper introduced a TOD index, which
could be used for TOD planning purposes. An
actual index and potential index were
developed, with each providing a scale to
identify the TOD level of any existing TOD site
based on the degree to which it conforms to
the defining characteristics of a TOD or
identify sites with the potential for future
TOD development.
This paper, via a comprehensive literature
review, provides a set of evaluation
indicators that can be used as a basis to
measure the success of any given TOD. Nine
indicators are identified that can be used as
measurement criteria towards evaluating
TODs.
This research involves using the node-place
model and a cluster analysis to develop a set
of typologies and categorize the metro
stations of Ningbo City in China into four sets.
 Chapter 4: Objectives

1. To conduct a literature review in the field of Transit Oriented Developments.

2. To evaluate the impact of location decision on TODs.
3. To define a set of identification criteria and TOD typologies.
4. To allocate a TOD Index to projects across the defined typologies.
5. To provide a qualitative analysis of TOD projects across the defined
typologies.

Chapter 5: Research Methodology

The methodology of this research study will involve a case study analysis.
Secondary data will be collected from the internet via literary databases such as Google
Scholar and ProQuest. Given that the research explores the relationship between
location decision and TODs, case studies would provide real world examples that would
provide insight in terms of implementation and planning, whose TOD Index can then be
evaluated with the help of pre-defined identification criteria. A subsequent spatial
analysis would be conducted that would help in the mapping of the terrain and thus
analyzing the spatial information for each case study.

The methodology of this research would be as follows:

1. A literature review in the field of Transit Oriented Developments will be
conducted in order to gain an understanding of the concept as a whole and
to determine the role of location decision in the development of TODs.
2. A set of identification criteria associated with TODs will be defined via a
literature review.
3. A set of TOD typologies will be defined via a literature review, with the
location of development being one of the main variables of classification.
4. Eligible case studies will be selected and categorized for analysis based on
the identification criteria and the typologies defined.
 5. A spatial analysis will be conducted using QGIS, and a TOD Index will be
awarded to each case study.
6. The case studies will then each be analyzed qualitatively.
Following this procedure, data analysis, assessment, and discussion will be offered in
response to the objectives of the research study.

Chapter 4: Conclusion and Future Work

This literature review provided an overview of Transit Oriented Developments in

terms of planning, value capture, implementation and effects to the community. The
major criterion associated with TODs across several sources were identified and listed.
Real world examples incorporating various approaches to TODs were discussed, and the
typologies and categorizations associated with TODs was defined. Furthermore, the role
of location decision in infrastructure development and TODs was discussed, including the
role it plays in terms of planning and implementation of TODs was detailed. Through this
review, the deficiencies in academic literature of this area of study was highlighted and
the requirement of a more detailed exploration, with the inclusion of multiple case
studies and scenarios was identified.

In the following semester, the methodology of defining the identification criteria

and typologies of TODs for this research would be commenced. This would be followed
by the selection of eligible case studies that would be put through a spatial analysis via
the open-source software QGIS. The purpose of this analysis is to award a TOD Index to
case studies, hence provide a measure that indicates the degree to which they conform
to the identification criteria. The idea is to show the impact of location decision on the
defining characteristics of TODs, across the identified typologies. The case studies would
further be analyzed qualitatively in order to identify the differences in term of planning,
implementation and value captures across TOD projects in different locations.
 References

1. Jain, A., Singh, E. and Ashtt, R., 2020. A systematic literature on application of
transit oriented development. International journal of engineering and
advanced technology, 9(3), pp.2542-2552.
2. Cervero, R. and Dai, D., 2014. BRT TOD: Leveraging transit oriented
development with bus rapid transit investments. Transport Policy, 36,
pp.127-138.
3. Yang, J., Chen, J., Le, X. and Zhang, Q., 2016. Density-oriented versus
development-oriented transit investment: Decoding metro station location
selection in Shenzhen. Transport Policy, 51, pp.93-102.
4. C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group, GOOD PRACTICE GUIDE Transit
Oriented Development, 2016.
5. Bertolini, L., 1996. Nodes and places: complexities of railway station
redevelopment. European Planning Studies, 4(3), pp.331-345.
6. Ibraeva, A., de Almeida Correia, G.H., Silva, C. and Antunes, A.P., 2020.
Transit-oriented development: A review of research achievements and
challenges. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 132, pp.110-
130.
7. Cervero, R. and Kockelman, K., 1997. Travel demand and the 3Ds: Density,
diversity, and design. Transportation research part D: Transport and
environment, 2(3), pp.199-219.
8. Su, S., Zhang, H., Wang, M., Weng, M. and Kang, M., 2021. Transit-oriented
development (TOD) typologies around metro station areas in urban China: A
comparative analysis of five typical megacities for planning
implications. Journal of Transport Geography, 90, p.102939.
9. 2018, Why Do Competitors Often Put Their Stores Next to Each Other? THE
IFOD.
10. IEA, 2020. 2020 Global status report for buildings and construction. United
Nations Environment Programme.
11. Thomas, R. and Bertolini, L., 2017. Defining critical success factors in TOD
implementation using rough set analysis. Journal of Transport and Land
Use, 10(1), pp.139-154.
12. Bowes, D.R. and Ihlanfeldt, K.R., 2001. Identifying the impacts of rail transit
stations on residential property values. Journal of urban Economics, 50(1),
pp.1-25.
13. Kay, A.I., Noland, R.B. and DiPetrillo, S., 2014. Residential property valuations
near transit stations with transit-oriented development. Journal of Transport
Geography, 39, pp.131-140.
14. Currie, G. and Stanley, J., 2008. Investigating links between social capital and
public transport. Transport Reviews, 28(4), pp.529-547.
15. Vale, D.S., 2015. Transit-oriented development, integration of land use and
transport, and pedestrian accessibility: Combining node-place model with
pedestrian shed ratio to evaluate and classify station areas in Lisbon. Journal
of transport geography, 45, pp.70-80.
16. Singh, Y.J., Fard, P., Zuidgeest, M., Brussel, M. and van Maarseveen, M.,
2014. Measuring transit oriented development: a spatial multi criteria
assessment approach for the City Region Arnhem and Nijmegen. Journal of
Transport Geography, 35, pp.130-143.
17. Renne, J.L., 2005. Transit-oriented development: Developing a strategy to
measure success (No. 294). Transportation Research Board.
18. Yang, L. and Song, X., 2021. TOD Typology Based on Urban Renewal: A
Classification of Metro Stations for Ningbo City. Urban Rail Transit, 7(3),
pp.240-255.
19. Jacobson, J. and Forsyth, A., 2008. Seven American TODs: Good practices for
urban design in transit-oriented development projects. Journal of transport
and land use, 1(2), pp.51-88.
20. Furlan, R., Petruccioli, A., Major, M.D., Zaina, S., Zaina, S., Al Saeed, M. and
Saleh, D., 2019. The urban regeneration of west-bay, business district of
 Doha (State of Qatar): A transit-oriented development enhancing livability.
Journal of Urban Management, 8(1), pp.126-144.
21. Lumbwe, A.K., Anyadiegwu, E.N. and Mbohwa, C., 2018. The Impact of
Location Decision on Small, Micro, and Medium Enterprises’ Performance in
Johannesburg. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Industrial
and Operations management, Paris, France, July (pp. 26-27).
22. Lund, H., 2006. Reasons for living in a transit-oriented development, and
associated transit use. Journal of the American Planning Association, 72(3),
pp.357-366.
23. Ferrer, A.L.C., Thomé, A.M.T. and Scavarda, A.J., 2018. Sustainable urban
infrastructure: a review. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 128, pp.360-
372.
24. Coolbaugh, D.T., 2016. Evaluating the potential locations for transit-oriented
development (TOD): A case study of Mecklenburg County, NC. The University
of North Carolina at Greensboro.
25. Xu, W., Guthrie, A., Fan, Y. and Li, Y., 2017. Transit-oriented development in
China: Literature review and evaluation of TOD potential across 50 Chinese
cities. Journal of Transport and Land Use, 10(1), pp.743-762.
26. Glass, C., Appiah-Opoku, S., Weber, J., Jones Jr, S.L., Chan, A. and Oppong, J.,
2020. Role of Bikeshare Programs in Transit-Oriented Development: Case of
Birmingham, Alabama. Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 146(2),
p.05020002.
27. Dumbaugh, E., 2004. Overcoming financial and institutional barriers to TOD:
Lindbergh Station case study. Journal of Public Transportation, 7(3), p.3.
28. Project for Public Spaces 2012, Broadway Boulevard: Transforming
Manhattan’s Most Famous Street viewed 9th November 2021,
https://www.pps.org/
29. Thoem, J n.d., What makes Copenhagen the world’s most bicycle friendly
city? viewed 9th November 2021, https://www.visitcopenhagen.com/
30. Benfield, K n.d., Vancouver's medal-worthy Olympic Village, one of the
greenest neighborhoods anywhere viewed 9th November 2021,
https://www.smartcitiesdive.com/
31. CTV News 2010, Olympic Village hailed world's greenest neighbourhood
viewed 9th November 2021, https://bc.ctvnews.ca/
32. The IFOD 2018, Why Do Competitors Often Put Their Stores Next to Each
Other? viewed 9th November 2021, https://www.theifod.com/