Measuring transit-oriented development (TOD) network complementarity based on TOD node typology
Keywords:Transit-oriented development, 5D built form indicators, TOD Typology
AbstractRecent research on the assessment of transit-oriented development (TOD) has focused on individual transit nodes. However, we argue that having such a TOD level value is not sufficient to understand the role each transit node plays within a TOD network. In other words, a transit node may have a low performance when evaluating its individual TOD level, but it may serve an important role within the TOD network, for example, as a feeder node. In this paper, a TOD typology was developed based on built-form indicators to identify the roles different types of nodes play within the transit network and to discuss complementarity effects between TOD nodes within the TOD network. The study area is the Arnhem-Nijmegen city region in the Netherlands, which has a TOD network of 22 train stations. Results identified three types of roles: suburban residential, characterized by low population and job densities; urban residential, marked by low destination accessibility and low diversity of land-uses; and urban mixed core, which featured higher densities of jobs, population, and diversity of land uses. Based on the TOD typology, a correspondence analysis was conducted to measure the potential complementarity effect of the TOD network system, i.e., the extent to which nodes in different typologies can complement each other to strengthen the characteristics of the TOD as a network. The results illustrated that differentiation among the TOD nodes in terms of residential housing prices and building uses contributed to a more diversified offer in terms of activities and functions of the TOD region and indicates complementarity between stations. Thus, TOD should be assessed and planned in a network system perspective, with the understanding that the nodes are pieces that contribute to the performance of the network.
Arnhem Nijmegen City Region (2018). Retrieved from https://www.denvergov.org/content/dam/denvergov/Portals/193/documents/TOD_Plan/TOD_Strategic_Plan_FINAL.pdf
Atkinson-Palombo, C., & Kuby, M. J. (2011). The geography of advance transit-oriented development in metropolitan Phoenix, Arizona, 2000-2007. Journal of Transport Geography, 19 (2), 189–199.
Austin, M., Belzer, D., Benedict, A., Esling, P., Haas, P., Miknaitis, G., Wampler, E., Wood, J., Young, L., & Zimbabwe, S. (2010). Performance-based transit-oriented development typology guidebook. Oakland, CA: Center for Transit-Oriented Development.
Baker, D., Washington, S., & Turrell, G. (2014). Advance transit-oriented development typology: Case study in Brisbane, Australia. Journal of Transport Geography, 34, 54–70.
CBS. (2017). Bevolking; ontwikkeling in gemeenten met 100 000 of meer inwoners, Statline online database, Netherlands Central Bureau of Statistics. Retrieved from http://statline.cbs.nl/StatWeb/?LA=nl
Calthorpe, P. (1993). The next American metropolis: Ecology, community, and the American dream. New York: Princeton Architectural Press.
Capineri, X. & Kamann. X. (1998). Synergy in Networks: Concepts. In K. Button, P. Nijkamp, and H. Priemus (Eds.) Transport networks in Europe: Concepts, analysis, and policies (pp. 35–56). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Cervero, R., & Day, J. (2008). Suburbanization and transit-oriented development in China. Transport Policy, 15 (5), 315–323.
Cervero, R., & Kockelman, K. (1997). Travel demand and the 3Ds: Density, diversity, and design. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 2(3), 199–219.
Cervero, R., & Murakami, J. (2009). Rail and property development in Hong Kong: Experiences and extensions. Urban Studies, 46, 2019–2043.
Cervero, R., Murphy, S., Feerell, C., Goguts, N., & Tsai, Y.-H. (2004). Transit-oriented development in the United States: Experiences, challenges, and prospects. Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Report 102. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board.
Dittmar, H., & Poticha, S. (2004). Defining transit-oriented development: The new regional building block. In H. Dittmar & G. Ohland (Eds.), The New Transit Town: Best Practices in Transit-Oriented Development (pp. 20–55). Washington, DC: Island Press.
Ewing, R., & Cervero, R. (2001). Travel and the built environment — a synthesis. Transportation Research Record, 1780, 87–114.
Ewing, R., & Cervero, R. (2010). Travel and the built environment: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of the American Planning Association, 73(6), 265–294.
Ewing, R. H. (2008). Characteristics, causes, and effects of sprawl: A literature review. Urban Ecology, 21(2), 519–535.
Frank, D. L. (2000). Land use and transportation interaction: Implications on public health and quality of life. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 20(1), 6–22.
Guerra, E., Cervero, R., & Tischler, D. (2013). Half-mile circle: Does it best represent transit station catchments? Transportation Research Record, 2276, 101–109.
Hancock, M. M. B., Shepherd, D. S., Faatz, D. J., Lopez, D. P. D., Lehmann, D. P., Burns, A., … Duffany, B. (2014). Transit Oriented Denver, Tod Strategic Plan 2014. Denver: City of Denver. https://www.denvergov.org/content/dam/denvergov/Portals/193/documents/TOD_Plan/TOD_Strategic_Plan_FINAL.pdf
Higgins, C. D., & Kanaroglou, P. S. (2016). A latent class method for classifying and evaluating the performance of station area transit-oriented development in the Toronto region. Journal of Transport Geography, 52, 61–72.
Kamruzzaman, M., Baker, D., Washington, S., & Turrell, G. (2014). Advance transit-oriented development typology: Case study in Brisbane, Australia. Journal of Transport Geography, 34, 54–70.
Masyn, K. E. (2013). Latent class analysis and finite mixture modeling. The Oxford Handbook of Quantitative Methods, 2, 551–611.
Meijers, E. (2005). Polycentric urban regions and the quest for synergy: Is a network of cities more than the sum of the parts? Urban Studies, 42(4), 765–781.
Musterd, S., & van Zelm, I. (2001). Polycentricity, households and the identity of places. Urban Studies, 38(4), 679–696.
Pojani, D., & Stead, D. (2014). Dutch planning policy: The resurgence of TOD. Land Use Policy, 41, 357–367.
Ritsema van Eck, J., & Koomen, E. (2008). Characterizing urban concentration and land-use diversity in simulations of future land use. Annals of Regional Science, 42(1), 123–140.
Singh, Y. J., Fard, P., Zuidgeest, M. H. P, Brussel M., & van Maarseveen, M. F. A. M. (2014). Measuring transit-oriented development: a spatial multi-criteria assessment approach for the City Region Arnhem and Nijmegen. Journal of Transport Geography, 35, 130–143.
Zhang, Y., & Guindon, B. (2006). Using satellite remote sensing to survey transport-related urban sustainability. Part 1: Methodologies for indicator quantification. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation, 8(3), 149–164.
How to Cite
Authors who publish with JTLU agree to the following terms: 1) Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial License 4.0 that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal. 2) Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal. 3) Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.