Land Use To Support Public Transport

This measure was fully updated by THE URBAN PLANNING INSTITUTE OF THE REPUBLIC OF SLOVENIA (UIRS) in 2014 under the CH4LLENGE project, financed by the European Commission.


Encouraging public transport use through land use planning involves the planning of new land development and the management of existing land in such a way as to:

  • Improve conditions for the efficient operation of public transport;
  • Improve the accessibility of urban areas and enable people to travel more by alternative modes;
  • Increase the demand for public transport, particularly by encouraging mode change from the private car.

This is normally done by organising the location and/or mix of land use types to suit public transport use. Public transport nodes, including rail stations, can serve as a catalyst for more accessible land use by creating pedestrian- and cyclist-orientated centres. Households living in such neighbourhoods will tend to travel less by car compared to households in lower density less mixed areas. Similarly, workers in such areas are more likely to commute to work using alternative modes and carry out lunchtime errands by foot or by bicycle. These factors can lead to higher levels of public transport commuting, increased non-motorised travel for non-commuting trips (such as shopping and trips to school), and a reduction in car travel. In effect a ’multiplier' effect may be in evidence since the addition of one commuter bus mile may lead to a reduction in several car miles (i.e. not using the car at lunchtime).

In practical terms there are two specific, inter-related ways in which land use planning can encourage the use of public transport:

  1. By locating trip origins and destinations near public transport routes, or by ensuring that new developments are served by efficient PT service from their first day of use.
  2. By ensuring trip densities are sufficiently intense to establish an efficient service.

With both, the general principle is thus to ensure that trip origins and destinations are arranged in nodal or linear patterns which are compatible with the demand patterns needed to ensure that public transport services, both bus and rail, are viable and efficient. In addition major activities, employment nodes and higher density residential areas should be encouraged near stations, significant stops and interchanges along public transport routes.

By its very nature land use planning means that several years will pass before developments are in place and so it will take a similar length of time before the impact upon public transport use to occur. In addition the size of the response will also depend upon the scale of the land use changes implemented and the design and type of those changes, in terms of density and mix.

Definition

Encouraging public transport use through land use planning involves the planning of new land development and the management of existing land in such a way as to:

  • improve conditions for the efficient operation of public transport, 
  • Improve the accessibility of urban areas and enable people to travel more by alternative modes;  and 
  • increase the demand for public transport, particularly by encouraging mode change from the private car. 

This instrument is now globally recognized as public transport- or transit-oriented development (TOD). It refers to compact, mixed-use, pedestrian and cycling friendly development that is ‘oriented’ to public transport and not just adjacent to rail and bus stations (UN HABITAT, 2013). By concentrating a mix of pedestrian- and cyclist-oriented development around public transport nodes, residents, visitors and workers are more likely to catch a train or a bus for out-of-neighbourhood trips, and walk or bike for shorter within-neighbourhood trips (Cervero et al, 2005). Public transport stops are a logical place to concentrate urban development. Of course, high-quality, well connected public transport service must exist to draw passengers to the station area in the first place, thus TOD relies on and implicitly assumes public transport is safe, reliable and time-competitive with the private car (UN HABITAT, 2013, citing Vuchic, 2007; Walker, 2011).

Renne (2009) defines specific factors required for true Transit-Oriented Development, so residents own fewer cars, drive less, rely more on alternative modes (walking, cycling, public transit, carsharing and taxi), and have a high level of local accessibility, as opposed to Transit Adjacent Development, which is conventional, automobile-oriented development located near transit stations (VTPI, 2013, citing Renne 2009).

Transit Oriented Development

Transit Adjacent Development

  • Grid street pattern
  • Higher densities   
  • Limited surface parking and efficient parking management
  • Pedestrian- and bicycle–oriented design
  • Mixed housing types, including multi-family
  • Horizontal (side-by-side) and vertical (within the same building) mixed use
  • Office and retail, particularly on main streets.
  • Suburban street pattern
  • Lower densities
  • Dominance of surface parking
  • Limited pedestrian and cycling access
  • Mainly single-family homes
  • Segregated land uses
  • Gas stations, car dealerships, drive-through stores and other automobile-focused land uses.

Table 1: Transit Oriented Versus Adjacent Development (VTPI, 2013, citing Renne 2009)

This instrument is closely related to the use of land use planning to reduce the need for personal motorised travel and public transport services.

How can land use planning encourage the use of public transport?

Several studies indicate that if development is planned specifically to encourage public transport there can be a significant reduction in per capita car travel. Public transport nodes, including rail stations, serve as a catalyst for more accessible land use by creating higher density, mixed-use, pedestrian- and cyclist-orientated centres. Households living in such neighbourhoods tend to own fewer cars, and people working in such areas are more likely to commute by alternative modes (partly because they do not need a car for lunchtime errands) (Cambridge Systematics, 1994).

These factors result in higher levels of public transport commuting, increased non-motorised travel for non-commuting trips (such as shopping and trips to school), and reduced car travel. As a result of these various factors, there tends to be a "leverage" to much greater reductions in vehicle travel than that which is directly shifted from car to public transport. International research summarised by Newman and Kenworthy (1998, p. 87) indicates that each passenger-kilometre of rail travel appears to be associated with a reduction of 5 to 7 kilometres of car travel through these various mechanisms.

Badoe and Miller (2000), in summarising the work of previous researchers, concluded that public transport service can facilitate land use development patterns, but is only one of many factors, and will not cause significant land use or travel behaviour change by itself. If an area is ready for development, improved transit service (such as a rail station) can provide a catalyst for higher density development and increased property values, but it will not by itself stop urban decline or change the character of a neighbourhood (VTPI, 2002).

In practical terms, this means that there are two specific but inter-related ways in which land use planning can encourage the use of public transport:

  • by locating trip origins and destinations near public transport routes or by ensuring that new developments are served by efficient PT service from their first day of use; 
  • by ensuring trip densities are sufficiently intense to establish an efficient service.

The general principle is thus to ensure that trip origins and destinations are arranged in nodal or linear patterns which are compatible with the demand patterns needed to ensure that public transport services, both bus and rail, are viable and efficient.

It is important to note that the effects of land use planning on public transport use are likely to be greatest where sufficiently strong regulation of land use is in place.

In its guide 'Shaping Up', the state government of Queensland (Government of Queensland, undated) offers guidance on the design of public-transport-friendly development, in the form of idealised 'how to do it' and 'how not to do it' examples, one set of which is shown below, for transport corridors in urban regions.

Regional transport corridorsregional transport corridors

The Guide describes the principles involved in the design of transport corridors for improved public transport as follows:

"Urban growth often takes place along corridors created by major highways or railway lines. The way in which these transport corridors are planned and designed at the regional level can have major implications for public transport use. Corridor planning and the distribution of land uses also impacts significantly on public transport costs, operational efficiency and funding requirements".

The Guide suggests the following approaches to good practice: 

  • Public transport is more cost effective and efficient if organized along a linear corridor with highly accessible activity nodes, so development should be concentrated along major corridors based on a main 'line haul' public transport route (with feeder routes wherever appropriate).
  • Major activities, employment nodes and higher density residential areas should be encouraged near stations and significant stops and interchanges along public transport routes (preferably within 800 metres of a railway station).
  • Urban development should be compact, concentrated along public transport corridors, and focused on key business and activity nodes which incorporate public transport interchanges.
  • The overall road network should ensure that 90 per cent of the urban area is within 400 metres of public transport stops located on the arterial and collector road network. (This also supports faster public transport services and enables stops to be 250 metres apart).
  • A mix of business and residential land uses should be concentrated at clearly defined nodes located at the intersection of local arterials where 'line haul' public transport services converge. This concentrates trips at a discrete number of locations which allows multi-purpose trips and increases public transport passenger loadings.
  • Public transport interchanges should be integrated into these mixed-use business and activity nodes. This increases public transport use and enables easy and convenient passenger transfers between bus, rail and taxi services." ('Shaping Up': Government of Queensland)

The UN Habitat report includes a diagram illustrating similar concepts, based on earlier work by Calthorpe (1993).

Figure 2

Neighbourhood-scale TOD site design, with mixed-use development within a walkshed (650 metres) of a public transport stop, with densities tapering with distance from the station (UN HABITAT, 2013, citing Calthorpe, 1993).

It should be noted that large scale park and ride facilities can conflict with accessibility and liveability benefits: a railway station that is surrounded by large parking areas and by main roads with heavy traffic is unlikely to provide the best environment for residential development or for pedestrian access. As part of land use planning, it is thus important that such facilities be properly located, designed and managed to minimise such conflicts.

Technology

Other than the rail and bus infrastructure and vehicles, this policy instrument is not dependent upon technology.

Why use land use planning to encourage public transport use?

From the traveller's point-of-view, a journey starts with a point of origin and finishes with a point of destination. If there is a need for long walking distances at either end, lengthy waiting in exposed places, unpredictability of a seat, changing routes with the prospect of waiting and then losing one's seat, then even the most appealing form of public transport cannot compete with the car, unless passengers are captive (i.e. have no access to a car for the journey). From the public transport operator's point-of-view, the provision of public transport is costly and cannot be efficient unless there is guaranteed patronage. In low-density areas, a public transport-friendly service cannot be guaranteed, certainly not at off peak periods.

Public transport use may be encouraged through land use planning, by locating trip origins and destinations near public transport routes (or by providing efficient PT service to new developments) and ensuring trip densities are sufficiently intense to establish an efficient service.

Conversely, new or improved public transport routes and services should be linked with existing or planned concentrations of trip origins and destinations.

The separate topic of planning public transport routes is dealt with elsewhere, under the general heading of Public transport service levels and patterns. 

Demand impacts

Increasing development densities and altering the development mix to encourage public transport can have an effect on demand in three ways:

  • Encouraging public transport use by improving conditions to enable public transport to operate more efficiently;
  • Reducing walking and waiting times for public transport;
  • Reducing the need for motorised travel (especially private motorised travel) by ensuring origins and destinations are closer together (dealt with separately under ‘Reducing the demand for personal motorised travel through land use planning').

It is the demand impact of the first of these which is the subject of the following table and the remainder of this section.

Responses and situations
Response Reduction in road traffic Expected in situations

Change of departure time is not an effect of this instrument

Change of route is not an effect of this instrument, except where the public transport route is different from that of the car trip it replaced.

Use of public transport will cause the ‘best’ destinations to in which undertake particular activities to be re-appraised, making shorter journeys possible.

Better public transport accessibility will encourage shift to walk or cycle (destinations are now closer)and cause the number of car trips to be reduced.

Change of mode to public transport is expected to occur (the main objective of the instrument) and cause the number of car trips to be reduced.

Better public transport will make the ownership of a car (or a second car) less important. Also, where the instrument makes a greater range of destinations available within a short distance, a car may become less necessary.

Encouraging moving house is not a specific objective of this instrument, but some may want to move house to new, public transport orientated developments

= Weakest possible response = Strongest possible positive response
= Weakest possible negative response = Strongest possible negative response
= No response

Short and long term demand responses

Though appropriate land use changes can potentially be a very effective way of promoting a modal shift to public transport, land use instruments are also the ones which take the longest to implement and thus to bear fruit. The greatest opportunities for change are in the circumstances of entirely new development, when land use densities and mixes may be specified in advance. Even in these conditions however, results will take years to materialise, as shown in the table. In the table, the time is taken to be from when the land use change is started, so generally there will be almost no response in the short term and very little in the medium term, as can be seen.

Demand responses
Response - 1st year 2-4 years 5 years 10+ years
-
  -
  Use facilities which are now closer
- Use public transport (or walk or cycle where destinations are now closer)
  To bus or rail, which are now more viable, so provide better service.
- Less need for a car
- No response
= Weakest possible response = Strongest possible positive response
= Weakest possible negative response = Strongest possible negative response
= No response

Level of response

The amount of mode shift to public transport in response to land use instruments will depend on:

  • the scale of the land use changes;
  • the design and type of the changes, in terms of density and mix;
  • the speed with which the changes are effected; and
  • the quality of public transport service available.

One study of travel patterns in a North American suburb found the elasticity of transit (public transport) travel with respect to land use density to be +0.10 to +0.51, depending on type of land use. This means that each 1.0% increase in density increases public transport use by 0.1 to 0.51% (VTPI, 2002).  This is illustrated in the tables below.

TBL1

Typical Mode Share By Trip Purpose For Various Transport Systems (VTPI, 2013)

Travel Impact

Rating

Comments

Reduces total traffic.

3

Reduces per capita vehicle travel.

Reduces peak period traffic.

2

"

Shifts peak to off-peak periods.

0

 

Shifts automobile travel to alternative modes.

3

Encourages transit and nonmotorized travel.

Improves access, reduces the need for travel.

3

Increases density and land use mix.

Increased ridesharing.

0

 

Increased public transit.

3

 

Increased cycling.

2

 

Increased walking.

3

 

Increased Telework.

0

 

Reduced freight traffic.

0

 

TOD Travel Impact Rating from 3 (very beneficial) to –3 (very harmful). A 0 indicates no impact or mixed impacts (VTPI, 2013).

Supply impacts

The direct and indirect supply implications of this instrument are as follows:

  • Higher density and appropriately planned development should improve conditions for public transport and thus encourage greater public transport supply;
  • There will not be an increase in the supply of road space from land use instruments per se; 
  • If the land use policies are implemented on a regional scale, there could be a net reduction in the need for road space (compared with doing nothing) in line with the decrease in the amount of travel;
  • Reduction in private motorised travel could encourage an increase in the supply of cycle and pedestrian facilities;
  • Any increase in public transport use and reduction in car ownership would reduce the need for residential parking supply; 
  • Increase in the use of public transport would reduce the need for non-residential parking supply.

Financing requirements

Though the costs of new development are considerable and land use solutions are, at their most extreme, the most expensive of the policy instruments contained in these pages, the cost usually falls in the main on the private sector (through investors, developers and occupiers). However, local authorities may have to bear some additional indirect costs (provision of extra traffic control, parking, public transport interchanges, etc).

Though it is difficult to cost this instrument, the range of possibilities being so large, some comments on cost can nevertheless be made.

Firstly, regarding individual developments, it has been estimated (Lucas, Marsh and Jones (2000), p.19) that if development conforms to a standard to reflect sustainable development, construction costs will rise typically between 5 per cent and 20 per cent. Unfortunately the proportion of this extra cost related solely to the planning needed for better public transport is not known but it is likely that there would be some additional cost.

The main way of financing the extra costs of achieving a transport-friendly development policy, particularly where the extra cost would normally fall on the local authority, is through developer contributions.

VTPI (2002) refers to work by Kockelman (1997), Lewis and Williams (1999), Diaz (1999) and Weinberger (2001), who indicate that public transport friendly land use planning can often increase property values in an area. As a result, such projects can often be funded through "value capture" strategies, in which the costs of improvements are paid through the additional tax revenue or a special local tax assessment in the affected area.

If development costs are looked at region-wide, an alternative picture on costs, in which costs are actually lower overall, may occur. This is illustrated in the following table (costs in Canadian dollars) (VTPI, 2002)

Estimated 25 Year Public Costs for Three Development Options 
(Blais, 1995)

Form of development 

Spread

Nodal

Central

Residents per Ha

66

98

152

Capital Costs (billion Canadian $ 1995)

54.8

45.1

39.1

Op & Maint Costs (billion C$ 1995)

14.3

11.8

10.1

Total Costs

69.1

56.9

49.2

Percent Savings over status quo option

0

17%

29%

The table shows substantial public savings for higher density land use patterns associated with transport-friendly development.

Expected impacts on key policy objectives

Increasing land uses densities and modifying development mix encourage people to use public transport and walking and cycling more and so to travel less by car, through the mechanisms explained earlier. The resulting increase in use of these modes at the expense of car travel can have significant effects on various objectives as shown in the table below. Once again, these impacts are approximate, as the scale of the effects depends largely on the scale of land use changes.

Contribution to objectives

Objective

Scale of contribution

Comment

  By reducing motor traffic
  By higher standard development
  By reducing motor traffic
  Through increased accessibility
  By reducing motor traffic and creating less car-intensive neighbourhoods
  By developing more attractive locations
  - Uncertain effect
= Weakest possible response = Strongest possible positive response
= Weakest possible negative response = Strongest possible negative response
= No response

Expected impact on problems

The expected impacts of land use planning to increase public transport use are summarised in the following table.

Contribution to the alleviation of key problems

Problem

Scale of contribution

Comment

Congestion

By encouraging modal shift to public transport and so reducing motor traffic

Community impacts

By encouraging modal shift to public transport and so reducing motor traffic

Environmental damage

By encouraging modal shift to public transport and so reducing motor traffic and congestion in local centres. Includes reduction in "cold starts" from fewer car trips.

Poor accessibility

By encouraging a situation for more viable public transport and by easier movement in newly-designed centres

Social and geographical disadvantage

By encouraging a situation for more viable public transport, social and geographical groups are made more "accessibility equal"

Accidents

By encouraging modal shift to public transport and so reducing motor traffic in local centres (pedestrian safety) in particular

Economic growth

If land use planning increases accessibility, the area should become more attractive; the accompanying improved amenity will help enhance this effect

= Weakest possible response = Strongest possible positive response
= Weakest possible negative response = Strongest possible negative response
= No response

Expected winners and losers

It is difficult to see how there can be any losers if policies of land use density and mix are wisely applied. This is because there should be a wider range of destinations within a given distance and public transport operations are made easier. There is no discouragement per se to any motorised mode: the reduction in traffic by encouraging public transport will in fact benefit all motorised modes.

Winners and losers

Group

Winners/losers

Comment

Large scale freight and commercial traffic

Reduced congestion

Small businesses

Reduced congestion, better public transport access for employees and customers

High income car users

Reduced congestion

Low income car users with poor access to public transport

Public transport access will improve

All existing public transport users

Public transport access will improve

People living adjacent to the area targeted

Reduced congestion

Cyclists including children Reduced car traffic, improved conditions for non-motorised users
People at higher risk of health problems exacerbated by poor air quality Improved air quality
People making high value, important journeys Bus access improved (and for car as congestion is reduced)
The average car user Reduced congestion
= Weakest possible response = Strongest possible positive response
= Weakest possible negative response = Strongest possible negative response
= No response

Barriers to implementation

There are potentially severe barriers to implementation, particularly financial and related to feasibility. Legal barriers may also exist in cases where the current planning legislation would need amendment for this instrument to be implemented (e.g. if proposed development densities exceeded current standards).

Barriers to implementation

Barrier

Scale

Comment

Legal

But only if legislation is not already in place

Finance

Unless developers can be persuaded to pay in some way for "sustainability upgrade" of their developments

Governance Divided responsibility between the transport authority and the planning authority can make this instrument difficult to implement

Political acceptability

Time needed to effect changes may make the instrument politically unattractive

Public and stakeholder acceptability Public may oppose further densification.  Developers may be unwilling to act.

Technical feasibility

Not infeasible per se but amount of time needed may reduce feasibility.

= Minimal barrier = Most significant barrier

Transit Oriented Development

By concentrating a mix of pedestrian-oriented development around public transport nodes, residents and workers are more likely to catch a train or a bus for out-of-neighbourhood trips, and walk or bike for shorter within-neighbourhood trips (Cervero et al, 2005). Evidence on how transit-oriented development (TOD) has influenced travel and environmental quality comes mainly from the US. There, studies show that TOD housing produced considerably less traffic than is generated by conventional development (UN HABITAT, 2013, citing Arrington and Cervero 2008). TODs can reduce car use per capita by half, thus saving households around 20 per cent of their income since they have, on average, one less car or often none (UN HABITAT, 2013, citing Cervero, 2008). Typically, TOD residents in the US commute by transit four to five times more than the average commuter in a region (UN HABITAT, 2013, citing Lund et al, 2006; Arrington and Cervero 2008). Similar ridership bonuses have been recorded for TOD projects in Toronto, Vancouver, Singapore and Tokyo (UN HABITAT, 2013, citing Cervero, 1998; Yang and Lew, 2009; Chorus, 2009).

In China, a recent study found smaller differentials of around 25 per cent in rail commuting between those living near versus away from suburban rail stations (UN HABITAT, 2013, citing  Cervero and Day, 2008). While TOD planning tends to focus on residences, experience from the US shows that concentrating jobs around rail stops in well-designed, pedestrian-friendly settings can exert even stronger influences on the choice of travel mode (UN HABITAT, 2013, citing Cervero, 2007; Kolko 2011; Guerra et al, 2012). The location of TOD in a region and the quality of connecting public transport services can strongly influence the choice of travel mode. A TOD as an island in a sea of auto-oriented development will have little influence on travel (UN HABITAT, 2013).

Stockholm – a long tradition in encouraging public transport use through land use planning

On the global stage, encouraging public transport use through land use planning has the longest tradition and is most developed in Europe, and in particular in Scandinavian cities such as Copenhagen and Stockholm. According to Cervero (2006) there is no better example of the efficiency and sustainability gains that come from balanced growth than Stockholm, Sweden. The last half-century of strategic regional planning has given rise to a regional settlement and commuting pattern that has substantially lowered car-dependency in suburbs. Stockholm planners have created jobs-housing balance along rail-served axial corridors. This in turn has produced directional-flow balances. During peak hours, 55 percent of commuters are typically traveling in one direction on trains and 45 percent are heading in the other direction. Stockholm's transit modal share is nearly twice that found in bigger rail-served European cities like Berlin and even higher than inner London’s modal shares. Between 1980 and 1990, it was the only city in a sample of 37 global cities that registered a per capita decline in car (Cervero, 2006).

As reported by Cervero (2010) Hammarby Sjöstad, a 160 hectares brownfield development in the city of Stockholm, is a new great example of Stockholm’s integrated transport and urban planning. The combination of high quality public transport services, car-sharing, and bike-sharing has dramatically reduced vehicle-kilometres travelled by Hammarby Sjöstad’s residents and correspondingly greenhouse gas emissions and energy consumption.

A tramway runs through the heart of the community along a 3-km boulevard. Taller buildings (mostly 6-8 storeys) cluster along the transit spine, and building heights taper with distance from the rail-served corridor. Trams run every 7 minutes in the peak and provide 5-minute connections to Stockholm’s metro underground network and commuter trains. Rail stations are well-designed, fully weather protected, and provide real-time arrival information. Hammarby Sjöstad’s buses, moreover, run on biogas produced by local wastewater processing. Parks, walkways and green spaces are also prominent throughout Hammarby Sjöstad. Where possible, the natural landscape has been preserved. Bike lanes run along major boulevards, ample bike parking can be found at every building, and bike and pedestrian bridges cross waterways.

The project achieved impressive mobility results - in 2002 modal splits were: public transport (52%), walking/cycling (27%), and private car (21%) (Cervero, 2010, citing Grontmij, 2008). Non-car travel shares are thought to be considerably higher today and even in 2002 well exceeded that of comparison suburban neighbourhoods of Stockholm with similar incomes. Residents’ transit modal splits even exceed those of inner-city Stockholm. Also, 62% of Hammarby Sjöstad’s households had a car in 2007, down from 66% in 2005 and in line with averages for the denser, core part of Stockholm city (Cervero, 2010, citing Grontmij, 2008).

Contribution to objectives

The two case studies reinforce the performance predicted in the first principles assessment, which are replicated below.

Contribution to objectives
Objective Scale of contribution Comment
By reducing motor traffic and increases use of sustainable modes.
By higher standard development, lower speeds, increased non-motorised traffic, less cars parked.
By reducing motor traffic in the area and reduced vehicle-kilometres travelled by residents.
Through increased accessibility and improved liveability of streets.

By reducing motor traffic and its speeds, and creating less car-intensive neighbourhoods.
By developing more attractive locations.
By reducing car ownership.
= Weakest possible response = Strongest possible positive response
= Weakest possible negative response = Strongest possible negative response
= No response

Contribution to problems

Contribution to allevaition of key problems
Problem Scale of contribution Comment
Congestion By encouraging modal shift to public transport and non-motorised modes and so reducing motor traffic.
Community impacts By encouraging modal shift to public transport and non-motorised modes and so reducing motor traffic.
Environmental damage By encouraging modal shift to public transport and non-motorised modes and so reducing motor traffic and congestion in local centres. Includes reduction in "cold starts" from fewer car trips.
Poor accessibility By encouraging a situation for more viable public transport, cycling and walking, and by easier movement in newly-designed centres.
Social and geographical disadvantage
By encouraging a situation for more viable public transport, social and geographical groups are made more "accessibility equal".
Accidents By encouraging modal shift to public transport and so reducing motor traffic and its speeds in local centres (pedestrian safety) in particular.
Economic growth The area became more attractive; the accompanying improved amenity will help enhance this effect.
= Weakest possible response = Strongest possible positive response
= Weakest possible negative response = Strongest possible negative response
= No response

Appropriate contexts

Appropriate area-types
Area type Suitability
City centre
Dense inner suburb
Medium density outer suburb
Less dense outer suburb
District centre
Corridor
Small town
Tourist town
= Least suitable area type = Most suitable area type
  • Arrington, G. and R. Cervero. (2008) Effects of TOD on housing, parking and travel, Transit Cooperative Research Program, Report 128, Washington, DC. (http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_128.pdf)
  • Banister, D. and S.Marshall. (2000) Encouraging transport alternatives: good practice in reducing travel. The Stationery Office. London.
  • Calthorpe, P. (1993) The New American Metropolis:Ecology, Community, and the American Dream. Princeton Architectural Press, New York.
  • Cervero, R. (1998) The Transit Metropolis: A Global Inquiry. Island Press, Washington, DC.
  • Cervero, R. (2007) Transit oriented development’s ridership bonus: A product of self selection and public policies. Environment and Planning A 39: 2068–2085.
  • Cervero, R. (2008) Transit-oriented development in America: Strategies, issues, policy directions. In T. Hass (ed) New Urbanism and Beyond: Designing Cities for the Future, Rizzoli, New York: 124–129.
  • Cervero, R., G. Arrington, J. Smith-Heimer and R. Dunphy. (2005) Transit Oriented Development in America: Experiences, Challenges, and Prospects, Report 102, Transit Cooperative Research Program, Washington, DC.
  • Cervero, R. and J. Day (2008) Suburbanization and transit oriented development in China, Transport Policy 15: 315–323.
  • Chorus, P. (2009) Transit oriented development in Tokyo: The public sector shapes favourable conditions, the private sector makes it happen. In C. Curtis, J. Renne and L. Bertolini (eds). Transit Oriented Development: Making It Happen. Ashgate, Surrey, England: 225–238.
  • Coombe, D and Simmonds, D. (1997) Transport effects of land use change. Traffic Engineering and Control 38(12).
  • COST Transport (1998). Transport and Land-use Policies: Resistance and Hopes for Coordination (COST 332). Proceedings of the Launching Seminar of the Action COST 332, 24-25 October 1996. Barcelona, Spain. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
  • CPRE (undated) Planning more to travel less. Council for the Preservation of Rural England. London.
  • DETR (2000) A good practice guide for the development of local transport plans. Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. London.
  • DETR (2001) Planning policy guidance note 13: transport. Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. London.
  • DoE (undated) PPG 13: A guide to better practice: reducing the need to travel through land use and transport planning. Department of the Environment Department of Transport. HMSO, London.
  • Guerra, E., Cervero R. and Tischler D. (2012) The half-mile circle: Does it best represent transit station catchments?. University of California Transportation Center, UCTCFR-2011-09, Berkeley, California.http://www.uctc.net/research/papers/UCTC-FR-2011-09.pdf,
  • IHT (1977) Transport in the urban environment. The Institution of Highways and Transportation. London.
  • Knight, RL and Trygg, L.L. (1977) Evidence of land use impacts of rapid transit. Transportation 6(3).
  • Kolko, J. (2011) Making the most of transit: Density, employment growth, and ridership around new stations. Public Policy Institute of California, San Francisco.http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_211JKR.pdf
  • Lucas, K., C. Marsh and P. Jones. (2000) Implementing sustainable property development. University of Westminster. Landor. London.
  • Lund, H., R. Willson and R. Cervero (2006) A re-evaluation of travel behavior in California TODs. Journal of Architecture and Planning Research 23(3): 247–263.
  • May, AD, Matthews, B and Jarvi-Nykanen, T (2001) Decision making requirements for the formulation of sustainable urban land use-transport strategies. Paper presented at 9th World Conference on Transport Research, Seoul. Korea.
  • Renne, J. (2009) From Transit-Adjacent to Transit-Oriented Development. Local Environment, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 1-15.
  • Queensland Transport (undated) Shaping up: A guide to the better practice and integration of transport, land use and urban design techniques: Shaping urban communities to support public transport, cycling and walking in QueenslandQueensland Transport. Brisbane.
    (www.transport.qld.gov.au/home.nsf/projects/shapingup)
  • Still, BG (1996) The importance of transport impacts on land use in strategic planning. Traffic Engineering and Control 37(10)
  • TRB (2001) Making transit work. Transportation Research Board Special Report 257. Transportation Research Board, Washington D.C.
  • VTPI (2001) Online TDM Encyclopedia. Victoria Transport Policy Institute, B.C.
    (www.vtpi.org/tdm/)
  • VTPI (2013) Transit Oriented Development: Using Public Transit to Create More Accessible and Livable Neighborhoods. Online TDM Encyclopedia. Victoria Transport Policy Institute, B.C.
    (http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm45.htm)
  • Vuchic, V.R. (2007) Urban Transit Systems and Technology. John Wiley and Sons, Hoboken, NJ.
  • Wachs, M (1990) Regulating traffic by controlling land use. Transportation 16(3).
  • Walker, J. (2011) Human Transit: How Clearer Thinking about Public Transit Can Enrich Our Communities and Our Lives. Island Press, Washington, DC.
  • Westerman, Hans L. (1998) Cities for Tomorrow: Integrating Land Use, Transport and the Environment. AUSTROADS.
  • Yang, P.P. and S.H. Lew (2009) An Asian model of TOD: The planning integration in Singapore. In C. Curtis, J. Renne and L. Bertolini (eds) Transit Oriented Development: Making It Happen, Ashgate, Surrey, England: 91–106.