Submitted Successfully!
To reward your contribution, here is a gift for you: A free trial for our video production service.
Thank you for your contribution! You can also upload a video entry or images related to this topic.
Version Summary Created by Modification Content Size Created at Operation
1
Lee Beattie
 -- 1469 2023-10-24 04:31:14 |
2 update references and layout
Rita Xu
 Meta information modification 1469 2023-10-24 04:54:19 |

Video Upload Options

Do you have a full video?
Send video materials Upload full video

Confirm

Are you sure to Delete?
Yes No
Cite
If you have any further questions, please contact Encyclopedia Editorial Office.
Chuang, I.; Beattie, L.; Feng, L. Transit Stations and Local Living Patterns. Encyclopedia. Available online: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/50702 (accessed on 16 May 2024).
Chuang I, Beattie L, Feng L. Transit Stations and Local Living Patterns. Encyclopedia. Available at: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/50702. Accessed May 16, 2024.
Chuang, I-Ting, Lee Beattie, Lei Feng. "Transit Stations and Local Living Patterns" Encyclopedia, https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/50702 (accessed May 16, 2024).
Chuang, I., Beattie, L., & Feng, L. (2023, October 24). Transit Stations and Local Living Patterns. In Encyclopedia. https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/50702
Chuang, I-Ting, et al. "Transit Stations and Local Living Patterns." Encyclopedia. Web. 24 October, 2023.
Transit Stations and Local Living Patterns
Edit
This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/urbansci7040105

Urban planning and transportation policies are vital to creating sustainable and liveable cities. Transit-orientated development (TOD) has emerged as a prominent approach that emphasises the establishment of neighbourhoods with convenient access to public transportation, thereby promoting car-free lifestyles.

transit-orientated development (TOD) transit proximity human mobility

1. Introduction

In the face of the formidable challenge of climate change, the urgency of transitioning to a more sustainable lifestyle has become a top priority for numerous cities worldwide. Central to this transformation is the concept of transit-orientated development (TOD), first proposed by Peter Calthorpe in the 1990s as a strategic approach to sustainable urban land development. After decades of experimentation and improvement, TOD has been recognised and widely adopted worldwide. It aims to create a multi-functional urban space within a 5–10 min walk (400–800 m) of a transit hub, coordinating transportation and land use to improve urban structure and enhance residents’ quality of life [1][2][3]. However, many developments fall short of integrating diverse facilities and walkability, serving more as ‘bedroom communities’ than true TODs [4].
As TOD gains attention for its potential to address urban sprawl, significant research has followed [5][6]. Bertolini’s node–place model (NPM) has offered a particularly useful framework for evaluating the sustainability of developments near public transit nodes. Before NPM, tools for such assessments were limited. Subsequent studies have expanded the model to incorporate comprehensive measures such as ‘design,’ centring on pedestrian accessibility [7], and ‘spatial functionality’, which takes into account distances to public amenities [8]. These enhancements deepen the understanding of TOD and facilitate cross-city comparisons [9].
While these developments have enriched the comprehension of TOD’s physical and spatial aspects, a gap remains in terms of understanding how these factors influence human behaviour, especially mobility patterns. For example, key questions persist about how proximity to transit nodes shapes daily commuting decisions and personal mobility behaviour. This research aims to explore these questions by focusing on individuals who live within a 15 min walk of rail stations in Auckland, New Zealand. Unlike traditional TOD studies, which usually set a ¼-mile radius as the benchmark for proximity to transit stations, the research adopts a wider lens centred on local mobility. This broader focus includes accessibility not only to transit but also to essential services. By doing so, the study aligns with the “15 min city” concept, where all essential amenities are accessible within a 15 min walk. As a result, researchers have chosen a buffer radius of 1200 m—approximately a 15 min walk—as a more inclusive metric for evaluating local living conditions. Specifically, the research aims to determine whether this proximity to rail stations is associated with reduced annual travel distances and more localised mobility patterns, such as increased frequency of trips likely taken on foot.
Auckland City is known for its significant dependence on cars but is aiming for more sustainable future growth. Auckland is confronted with a pressing challenge of urban development growth, leading to significant traffic congestion due to the predominant reliance on private cars as the primary mode of transportation among its residents. To better manage the enormous pressure on Auckland’s urban growth, the Auckland Council has developed the ‘Unitary Plan’ operative in 2016, a comprehensive framework for managing the city’s natural and physical resources, including land development [10]. As an embodiment of this plan, the City Rail Link (CRL) project brought electric trains and significant station upgrades starting in 2014.

2. Transit Stations and Local Living Patterns

The literature on transit-oriented development (TOD) has grown significantly over the years, reflecting the increasing interest and attention to the concept among researchers, practitioners, and policymakers. TOD, which emerged as early as the mid-1800s in England and the US, gained popularity due to Peter Calthorpe’s pioneering work in the 1990s [1]. His application of TOD principles to cities like Portland, Sacramento, and San Diego helped establish the importance of creating compact, mixed-use, and walkable urban environments around transit stations to reduce car dependency and improve the quality of urban life.
The success and effectiveness of TOD depend on various factors, such as the quality of transit services, diverse land uses, well-designed streets and public spaces, affordable housing, and supportive policies. Among these multifaceted critical dimensions, proximity is one of the most vital factors. Early researchers laid the foundation for TOD evaluation with the ‘3D’ principles proposed by Cervero [11], which emphasised density, diversity, and pedestrian-friendly spatial design. Later, Cervero expanded on this with the ‘5D’ principle, adding ‘destination accessibility’ and ‘distance to transit’ as critical factors [12].
Various methodologies have been employed to measure the effectiveness of TOD, but one model stands out for its comprehensive approach: the node–place model introduced by Bertolini [13]. This model focuses on the interaction between traffic and land development in the areas around rail stations. The node–place model provides a framework for assessing the balance between transportation accessibility (node) and urban vitality (place) [13], underscoring the criticality of both elements. Subsequent research has embraced and extended this model to include different contexts. For example, Peek et al. applied it to evaluate the development potential of station areas in the Netherlands [14]. In another significant development, Pezeshknejad et al. found that street network connectivity, spatial structure density, and human activity intensity showed a positive relationship in BRT station areas in Tehran [15]. The node–place model has also been combined with other methodologies to provide richer insights. Vale integrated it with walkability assessments to evaluate pedestrian accessibility in Lisbon [7]. This incorporation of the node–place model adds a methodologically rigorous layer to the broader discussion of what constitutes an effective TOD.
Proximity in this context is the distance between transit stations and various destinations, such as residential, commercial, employment, recreational and civic uses. Several studies have found that proximity affects travel behaviour, mode choice, and trip generation of TOD residents, workers, and visitors [16][17][18]. It also affects the value of land, properties, and the development potential of TOD areas [19][20]. However, there is yet to be a consensus on the optimal or standard proximity, as different studies have used different definitions and proximity measurements depending on the context, data availability, and research objectives.
The literature on TOD and proximity can be categorised into three main themes: the impact of proximity on (1) travel behaviour and mode choice, (2) planning and development, and (3) value of land and property value. Studies focussing on travel behaviour and mode choice have consistently found a positive relationship between proximity to transit stations and transit use and a negative relationship between proximity and car use [21]. This means that people living or working closer to transit stations are more inclined to use public transit and are less likely to drive for their trips. However, several factors influence the strength and significance of this relationship. These include the type of transit service available (e.g., heavy rail, light rail, bus rapid transit), the purpose of the trip (e.g., work-related or non-work-related), the surrounding land use (e.g., residential or commercial), the density and diversity of land use around transit stations, the availability and quality of pedestrian and bicycle facilities, parking supply and pricing, the sociodemographic characteristics of travellers (e.g., income, age), and the overall regional context (e.g., urban form and travel behaviour) [22][23][24]. Another line of research focuses on TOD’s objective of promoting compact, mixed-use, and walkable urban forms around transit stations to create liveable, sustainable, and equitable communities. Critical factors like market demand, policy incentives, institutional coordination, public participation, and social equity shape the land use planning and development of TOD areas [25].
Lastly, many studies explore TOD’s goal of capturing the value of transit access and generating revenue for transit agencies, local governments, and private developers. These studies consistently report a positive relationship between proximity to transit stations and land or property value [26]. In simpler terms, land or properties closer to transit stations generally have higher values than those farther away. As with travel behaviour and mode choice, the magnitude and significance of the proximity-land value relationship are influenced by various factors. These include the type of transit service available, the property type (e.g., residential, commercial, industrial), the density and diversity of land use around transit stations, the quality and availability of pedestrian and bicycle facilities, parking supply and pricing, the sociodemographic characteristics of buyers or renters (e.g., income, age), and the regional context (e.g., urban form and market conditions) [16][27][28][29].
Based on the existing literature, much has been understood about the various dimensions that contribute to the success of TODs, from travel behaviour and mode choice to land-use planning. However, a notable gap remains in the extent to which ‘locality’ or ‘local engagement’ plays a role in TOD effectiveness. While the literature delves into the broad issues of mobility patterns, property value, and planning aspects, it rarely focuses on how local factors and community engagement within a walkable buffer around a station contribute to the success or shortcomings of a TOD.

References

  1. Peter, C. The Next American Metropolis: Ecology, Community, and the American Dream; Princeton Architectural Press: New York, NY, USA, 1993.
  2. Liu, C.; Pan, H.; Jia, X. The Influence of Rail Transit on the Planning and Development of Metropolitan Peri-urban Areas. Urban Plan. Forum 2011, 6, 60–67.
  3. Singh, Y.J.; Flacke, J.; Zuidgeest, M.; Van Maarseveen, M. 5 Planning for Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Using a TOD Index. In GIS in Sustainable Urban Planning and Management, 1st ed.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2018.
  4. Irvine, S. Transit Oriented Development: When is a TOD not a TOD? In Proceedings of the 4th State of Australian Cities National Conference, Perth, Australia, 24–27 November 2009.
  5. O’Sullivan, S.; Morrall, J. Walking distances to and from light-rail transit stations. Transp. Res. Rec. 1996, 1538, 19–26.
  6. Fruin, J. Public transportation: Planning, operations and management. Transp. Res. Part A Gen. 1979, 13, 188–204.
  7. Vale, D.S. 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. J. Transp. Geogr. 2015, 45, 70–80.
  8. Su, S.; Zhang, H.; Wang, M.; Weng, M.; Kang, M. Transit-oriented development (TOD) typologies around metro station areas in urban China: A comparative analysis of five typical megacities for planning implications. J. Transp. Geogr. 2021, 90, 102939.
  9. Staricco, L.; Brovarone, E.V. Promoting TOD through regional planning. A comparative analysis of two European approaches. J. Transp. Geogr. 2018, 66, 45–52.
  10. Auckland Unitary Plan. Available online: https://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/plans-projects-policies-reports-bylaws/our-plans-strategies/unitary-plan/Pages/default.aspx (accessed on 29 July 2023).
  11. Cervero, R.; Kockelman, K. Travel demand and the 3Ds: Density, diversity, and design. Transp. Res. D Transp. Environ. 1997, 2, 199–219.
  12. Cervero, R.; Murakami, J. Rail + Property Development: A model of Sustainable Transit Finance and Urbanism; eScholarship: Oakland, CA, USA, 2008.
  13. Bertolini, L. Spatial development patterns and public transport: The application of an analytical model in the Netherlands. Plan. Pract. Res. 1999, 14, 199–210.
  14. Peek, G.J.; Bertolini, L.; De Jonge, H. Gaining insight in the development potential of station areas: A decade of node-place modelling in The Netherlands. Plan. Pract. Res. 2006, 21, 443–462.
  15. Pezeshknejad, P.; Monajem, S.; Mozafari, H. Evaluating sustainability and land use integration of BRT stations via extended node place model, an application on BRT stations of Tehran. J. Transp. Geogr. 2020, 82, 102626.
  16. Nasri, A.; Zhang, L. How Urban Form Characteristics at Both Trip Ends Influence Mode Choice: Evidence from TOD vs. Non-TOD Zones of the Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Area. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3403.
  17. Park, K.; Ewing, R.; Scheer, B.C.; Khan, S.S.A. Travel Behavior in TODs vs. Non-TODs: Using Cluster Analysis and Propensity Score Matching. Transp. Res. Rec. 2018, 2672, 31–39.
  18. Olaru, D.; Curtis, C. Designing TOD precincts: Accessibility and travel patterns. Eur. J. Transp. Infrastruct. Res. 2015, 15, 6–26. Available online: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:59490482 (accessed on 15 August 2023).
  19. Kay, A.I.; Noland, R.B.; DiPetrillo, S. Residential property valuations near transit stations with transit-oriented development. J. Transp. Geogr. 2014, 39, 131–140.
  20. Sim, E.; Krause, A.; Winson-Geideman, K. The impact of transit-oriented development (TOD) on residential property prices: The case of Box Hill, Melbourne. Pac. Rim Prop. Res. J. 2015, 21, 199–214.
  21. Kwoka, G.J.; Boschmann, E.E.; Goetz, A.R. The impact of transit station areas on the travel behaviors of workers in Denver, Colorado. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2015, 80, 277–287.
  22. Hess, D.B.; Almeida, T.M. Impact of Proximity to Light Rail Rapid Transit on Station-area Property Values in Buffalo, New York. Urban Stud. 2007, 44, 1041–1068.
  23. Lund, H. Reasons for Living in a Transit-Oriented Development, and Associated Transit Use. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 2006, 72, 357–366.
  24. Nasri, A.; Zhang, L. The analysis of transit-oriented development (TOD) in Washington, DC and Baltimore metropolitan areas. Transp. Policy (Oxf.) 2014, 32, 172–179.
  25. Jacobson, J.; Forsyth, A. Seven American TODs: Good practices for urban design in Transit-Oriented Development projects. J. Transp. Land Use 2008, 1, 51–88. Available online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/26201614 (accessed on 15 August 2023).
  26. Utami, C.F.; Mizuno, K.; Hasibuan, H.S.; Soesilo, T.E.B. Modeling Land Value in Peripheral Metropolitan: An Empirical Study in Jakarta Metropolitan Area. Archit. City Environ. 2022, 16.
  27. Dziauddin, M.F. Estimating land value uplift around light rail transit stations in Greater Kuala Lumpur: An empirical study based on geographically weighted regression (GWR). Res. Transp. Econ. 2019, 74, 10–20.
  28. Berawi, M.A.; Miraj, P.; Saroji, G.; Sari, M. Impact of rail transit station proximity to commercial property prices: Utilising big data in urban real estate. J. Big Data 2020, 7, 71.
  29. Higgins, C.; Kanaroglou, P. Rapid transit, transit-oriented development, and the contextual sensitivity of land value uplift in Toronto. Urban Stud. 2018, 55, 2197–2225.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
Upload a video for this entry
Information
Subjects: Regional & Urban Planning
Contributors MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to https://encyclopedia.pub/register :
I-Ting Chuang
,
Lee Beattie
,
Lei Feng
View Times: 224
Revisions: 2 times (View History)
Update Date: 24 Oct 2023
Table of Contents
    1000/1000
    Hot Most Recent
    Feedback