Is transit-oriented development (TOD) an internationally transferable policy concept?

Figures & data

Table 1. Critical success factors in the implementation of transit-oriented development (TOD).

Critical success factor		Increases success	Decreases success
Plans and policies
1	Policy consistency	Very consistent over time in planning policy supporting TOD, e.g., specific station areas, transit corridors, and other transit-supportive and non-motorized-supportive land-use planning	Very inconsistent planning policy supporting TOD, major changes over time
2	Vision stability	Very stable vision, e.g., city-regional vision for land use-transportation planning or urban sustainability	Very unstable vision, major changes over time
3	Government support	Very good support of higher levels of government, e.g., provincial tax on petrol/gasoline to support public transit, national station location or regeneration policy, provincial funding for cycling infrastructure	No support of higher levels of government, no policies or funding
4	Political stability (national)	Very stable national political agenda supporting TOD	Very unstable national political agenda supporting TOD, major changes over time
5	Political stability (local)	Very stable local (municipal or regional) political agenda supporting TOD	Very unstable local (municipal or regional) political agenda supporting TOD, major changes over time
Actors
6	Actor relationships	Very good relationships between municipal actors at a regional scale, e.g., communication, overlap in goals and vision, roles	Poor or no relationships between municipal actors at a regional scale
7	Regional land use-transportation body	Presence of a regulatory regional land use-transportation planning body	No regional land use-transportation-planning body (advisory or regulatory)
8	Intermunicipal competition	No competition among municipalities for new developments/funding	Very intense competition among municipalities for new developments/funding
9	Multidisciplinary implementation teams	Widespread presence of multidisciplinary teams implementing TOD	Sector-specific teams (e.g., solely planners or engineers) implementing TOD
10	Public participation	Very high public participation in land use-transportation planning processes	No public participation, public not engaged or interested
11	Public acceptance	Very high public acceptance of high densities and public transit	No public acceptance of high densities and public transit
12	Key visionaries	Many influential key visionaries over time, e.g., elected, citizen or business leaders	No key visionaries over time
Implementation
13	Site-specific planning tools	Widespread use of site-specific planning tools, e.g., floor area ratio (FAR) bonuses, leasing of air rights, density targets	No use of site-specific tools
14	Regional-level TOD planning	Corridor-level planning, e.g., coordination of land use and transport in widespread transit corridors	No corridor-level or station-area planning
15	Certainty for developers	High degree of certainty for developers, e.g., plans and policies supporting higher densities, tools to enable mixed uses at station areas, and designation of areas for development/transit corridors	Uncertainty; developers are unaware of policies, tools and sites encouraging TOD
16	Willingness to experiment	Actors are very willing to experiment with new policies, practices and tools	Actors are unwilling to experiment with new policies, practices, and tools

Table 2. Financial, legal and governance instruments that can apply in the implementation of transit-oriented development (TOD), with four investigated instruments highlighted.

Governance instruments	Financial instruments	Legal instruments
Design competitions Area concessions Organic development Urban land readjustment (ULR)^a Building claim model Private maintenance of public space Collective actions for housing development Public developer Regional development company Alliance/coalition model Area development company Supply chain arrangements	Assessment districts Tax increment financing (TIF)^b Owner shareholder constructions Owners association on location level Transportation utility fees Co-financing Development fees/impact fees Funding constructions Business-improvement district (BID)^c	Unbundled parking Long land lease Temporary lease/functions Vacancy legislation Guarantee requirements Open zoning plan Transferable development rights (TDRs)^d Transferable CO2-emission rights Design–build–finance–maintain(–operate) contracts (DBFM(O) Building envelopes Exploitation permit

Notes: ^aULR is a tool commonly applied around the world to deal with inefficient ownership and land positions, but its application in the Netherlands is limited (Van der Krabben & Needham, 2008; Louw, 2008). It involves owners of land to exchange and readjust parcels in order to come to more efficient plots. The instrument can be considered for stimulating TOD because existing station areas often have to deal with inefficient ownership positions as, over the years, they have been transformed from a mainly industrial character to stations that provide services and residential functions.

^bTIF considers financing an investment by projected income from taxes generated in future, and has been widely applied in Anglo-Saxon countries from the 1950s onwards (Weber, 2003; Klemanski, 1990). The instrument is interesting to consider for stimulating TOD because it can help to make large pre-investments possible. Such pre-investments are often required in (re-)developing station areas where road and railway infrastructure are to be fitted properly in the urban tissue to enable property (real estate) development.

^cBIDs are a local financing arrangement that can be introduced by business and property owners to small investments (Houstoun, 1997; Hoyt, 2004). These can be, but are not limited to, investments in security, public space, park management and advertising. A BID can be interesting to consider for improving TOD because it completely revolves around businesses: they initiate and finance the investment taking over the role of local government. Because BIDs can finance local improvements, they can be easily applied to increase the attractiveness of a station area as a destination for customers and as a place to locate businesses.

^dTDRs involve the introduction of a market system with sending and receiving areas to enable the trading of development rights (Levinson, 1997; Machemer & Kaplowitz, 2002). Such development rights can take various forms, from the rights to build additional stories on buildings (so-called air rights) to mineral rights and access rights. The introduction of TDRs could be interesting for TOD because it could stimulate governments to focus on station areas as focal points for future developments. In order for TDRs to work, a scarcity in rights needs to be created, limiting the possibilities in non-TOD areas. In addition, a functioning TDR system can introduce market forces to choose between TOD locations, and thereby prioritize the developments.

Source: Adapted from Van der Krabben et al. (2013).

Table 3. Urban design characteristics of transit-oriented development (TOD) areas.

Dimension	Recommended guideline or approach
Place-making
Scale and density	Ensure comfortable walking distances between points (i.e., TOD encompassing a 0.5 km or a five-minute walk radius, doubled for major stops, with placement of homes near transit at sufficient density)
	Place commercial uses, jobs, parks and civic uses within walking distance of transit stops to allow for trip linking or consolidation
	Taper densities with distance from a station (i.e., a ‘wedding cake’ density)
	Provide sufficient densities to sustain transit investments (i.e., set minimum floor-area ratios, and do not exclude tall buildings and intensive development)
Public spaces for human use	Design individual parts of the overall plan with human activity in mind
	Make public spaces the focus of building orientation and pedestrian activity (i.e., cluster benches and sitting ledges, provide special public art, allow for flexible use, accommodate outdoor dining, encourage water features and discourage large setbacks, i.e., more than 6 m from the street edge)
	Add human-scale details, such as architectural features and textures on buildings, street furniture, colourful vegetation, public seating, a mix of building colours and plantings
	Design public spaces for a sense of ‘an outdoor room’; a recommended minimum height-to-width ratio is 1:3
	Ensure that main entrances and windows face the street
	Provide large shade trees that form continuous canopies over the street
	Create attractive landmarks and gateways to the development
Safety	Provide physical measures such as good lighting at night
	Control access in non-public spaces through fencing, lighting and landscape
	Avoid blank facades (provide transparent facades with non-reflective glass)
	Ensure adequate sight lines
	Avoid tunnels, narrow paths and other entrapment spots or isolated areas
	Encourage a variety of uses to ensure round-the-clock activity
Variety and complexity	Break up long streets with parks and other diverse, colourful and interesting public spaces
	Avoid monotony, in terms of either appearance or use
	Avoid uniform planning regulations
	Create a sense of identity (i.e., have a common vocabulary for buildings and public spaces)
	Encourage every price point to live around transit, i.e., provide affordable housing options
Connections	Design relatively small blocks (i.e., a proposed average block perimeter limits is 400–450 m)
	Provide pedestrian-friendly street networks that directly connect local destinations (i.e., pedestrian cut-through paths)
	Avoid cul-de-sacs
	Avoid barriers such as highways or large parking lots
	Prefer grid street networks
Facilities/logistics
Pedestrian/cyclist orientation	Apply traffic-calming devices such as signal timing, speed bumps/tables, medians, undulating roads (chicanes), small curb radii, lower speeds and narrow roadways. Provide buffers that separate moving traffic from pedestrians (i.e., through landscaping elements such as trees, flower boxes or grass strips, or special features such as different materials or curb bulb-outs)
	Provide a continuous network of pavements/sidewalks
	Set maximum and minimum pavement/sidewalk widths (to accommodate pedestrian traffic but not appear empty); a recommended range is 1.5–7 m
	Provide bicycle stations at major stops
	Provide secure bicycle parking at more minor stops
	Allow two- or four-lane streets maximum (with rare exceptions)
Transit in the urban pattern	Locate transit stops in the centre of the community rather than on the periphery
	Ensure high-quality design of the main transit stop
	Provide attractive, comfortable, informative and sheltered transit stops
	For underground stations: open up stairs and escalator area for easy and pleasant access
	Ensure modal integration, i.e., connections between buses and trains
Car movement and parking	Eliminate minimum parking requirements and require maximum parking requirements (up to 9% of the surface area)
	Apply flexible parking standards
	Move parking away from the platform to open prime real estate for development
	Provide shared/pooled parking facilities
	Prefer enclosed parking over surface parking lots
	Wrap parking structures with service and entertainment establishments
	Place surface parking in the back of buildings and wrap with walls or hedges
	Allow on-street parking
	Allow park-and-ride lots to be used for other activities past business hours
Process
Timeframe	Design with short- and long-term timeframes in mind
	Take an ‘evolutionary’ approach to development, with layering and infill over time
	Factor in the possibility of future growth
	Allow uses (functions) to change easily over time
Public engagement	Include various stakeholders in the design stage
	Use visioning and communication processes to elicit design ideas and create the design plan
Programming	Plan events and activities in public spaces (i.e., concerts, flea markets, farmers’ markets, art shows, outdoor theatre etc. occurring at different times of the day, week and year)
Maintenance	Budget for maintenance requirements, especially landscaping and greenery

Notes: Dimensions (left column) are adapted from Jacobson and Forsyth (2008). Guidelines or approaches (right column) are adapted from Calthorpe (1993); Ewing (1996); Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) (1997, 2002); Dunphy et al. (2003); Siegman (2003); Ditmarr and Ohland (2004); and Ewing and Bartholomew (2013).

Van der Krabben, E., & Needham, B. (2008). Land readjustment for value capturing: A new planning tool for urban redevelopment. Town Planning Review, 79(6), 651–672. doi: 10.3828/tpr.79.6.4

 Google Scholar

Louw, E. (2008). Land assembly for urban transformation – The case of ‘s-Hertogenbosch in the Netherlands. Land Use Policy, 25(1), 69–80. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2006.09.002.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Weber, R. (2003). Tax increment financing in theory and practice. In R. Bingham, E. Hill, & S. White (Eds.), Financing economic development (pp. 53–69). Newbury Park: Sage.

 Google Scholar

Klemanski, J. S. (1990). Using tax increment financing for urban redevelopment projects. Economic Development Quarterly, 4(1), 23–28. doi: 10.1177/089124249000400103

 Google Scholar

Houstoun, L. O. (1997). BIDs: Business improvement districts. Washington, DC: Urban Land Institute.

 Google Scholar

Hoyt, L. (2004). Collecting private funds for safer public spaces: An empirical examination of the business improvement district concept. Environment and Planning B, 31(3), 367–380. doi: 10.1068/b29124

 Google Scholar

Levinson, A. (1997). Why oppose TDRs?: Transferable development rights can increase overall development. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 27, 283–296. doi: 10.1016/S0166-0462(96)02163-1

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Machemer, P., & Kaplowitz, M. (2002). A framework for evaluating transferable development rights programmes. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 45(6), 773–795. doi: 10.1080/0964056022000024334

 Google Scholar

Van der Krabben, E., Lenferink, S., Martens, K., Portier, J., & Van der Stoep, H. (2013). Onderzoek innovaties bij integrale gebiedsontwikkeling en knooppuntontwikkeling. Nijmegen: Radboud Universiteit.

 Google Scholar

Jacobson, J., & Forsyth, A. (2008). Seven American TODs: Good practices for urban design in transit-oriented development projects. Journal of Transport and Land Use, 1, 51–88. doi: 10.5198/jtlu.v1i2.67

 Google Scholar

Calthorpe, P. (1993). The next American metropolis: Ecology, community, and the American dream. New York: Princeton Architectural Press.

 Google Scholar

Ewing, R. (1996). Pedestrian- and transit-friendly design (Report prepared for the Public Transit Office, Florida Department of Transportation). Washington, DC: American Planning Association.

 Google Scholar

Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP). (1997). The role of transit in creating livable metropolitan communities (TCRP Report No. 22). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

 Google Scholar

Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP). (2002). Transit oriented development and joint development in the United States: A literature review. Research Results Digest, 52.

 Google Scholar

Dunphy, R., Myerson, D., & Pawlukiewicz, M. (2003). Ten principles for successful development around transit. Washington, DC: Urban Land Institute (ULI).

 Google Scholar

Siegman, P. (2003). Is it really TOD? Planning, 69(5), 17.

 Google Scholar

Ditmarr, H., & Ohland, G. (2004). The new transit town: Best practices in transit-oriented development. Washington, DC: Island.

 Google Scholar

Ewing, R., & Bartholomew, K. (2013). Pedestrian- and transit-oriented design. Washington, DC: Urban Land Institute (ULI) and American Planning Association.

 Google Scholar