“Transit-oriented development”的意思、由来-开放百科全书

In urban planning, a transit-oriented development (TOD) is a type of urban development that maximizes the amount of residential, business and leisure space within walking distance of public transport.^[1]^[2] In doing so, TOD aims to increase public transport ridership by reducing the use of private cars and by promoting sustainable urban growth.^[3]

A TOD typically includes a central transit stop (such as a train station, or light rail or bus stop) surrounded by a high-density mixed-use area, with lower-density areas spreading out from this center. A TOD is also typically designed to be more walkable than other built-up areas, through using smaller block sizes and reducing the land area dedicated to automobiles.^[4]^[5]

The densest areas of a TOD are normally located within a radius of ¼ to ½ mile (400 to 800 m) around the central transit stop, as this is considered to be an appropriate scale for pedestrians, thus solving the last mile problem.

Description

Many of the new towns created after World War II in Japan, Sweden, and France have many of the characteristics of TOD communities. In a sense, nearly all communities built on reclaimed land in the Netherlands or as exurban developments in Denmark have had the local equivalent of TOD principles integrated in their planning, including the promotion of bicycles for local use.

In the United States, a half-mile-radius circle has become the de facto standard for rail-transit catchment areas for TODs. A half mile (800 m) corresponds to the distance someone can walk in 10 minutes at {{Convert|3|mph|abbr=on}} and is a common estimate for the distance people will walk to get to a rail station. The half-mile ring is a little more than {{Convert|500|acres|km2|abbr=on}} in size.^[6]

Transit-oriented development is sometimes distinguished by some planning officials from "transit-proximate development" (see, e.g., comments made during a Congressional hearing ^[7]) because it contains specific features that are designed to encourage public transport use and differentiate the development from urban sprawl. A few examples of these features include mixed-use development that will use transit at all times of day, excellent pedestrian facilities such as high quality pedestrian crossings, narrow streets, and tapering of buildings as they become more distant from the public transport node. Another key feature of transit-oriented development that differentiates it from "transit-proximate development" is reduced amounts of parking for personal vehicles.

Opponents of compact, or transit oriented development typically argue that Americans, and persons throughout the world, prefer low-density living, and that any policies that encourage compact development will result in substantial utility decreases and hence large social welfare costs.^[8] Proponents of compact development argue that there are large, often unmeasured benefits of compact development^[9] or that the American preference for low-density living is a misinterpretation made possible in part by substantial local government interference in the land market.^[10]^[11]

TOD in cities

Many cities throughout the world are developing TOD policy. Toronto, Portland, Montreal, San Francisco, and Vancouver among many other cities have developed, and continue to write policies and strategic plans, which aim to reduce automobile dependency and increase the use of public transit.

Latin America

Curitiba, Brazil

One of the earliest and most successful examples of TOD is Curitiba, Brazil.^[12]

Curitiba was organized into transport corridors very early on in its history. Over the years, it has integrated its zoning laws and transportation planning to place high-density development adjacent to high-capacity transportation systems, particularly its BRT corridors. Since the failure of its first, rather grandiose, city plan due to lack of funding, Curitiba has focused on working with economical forms of infrastructure, so it has arranged unique adaptations, such as bus routes (inexpensive infrastructure) with routing systems, limited access and speeds similar to subway systems. The source of innovation in Curitiba has been a unique form of participatory city planning that emphasizes public education, discussion and agreement.^[13]

Guatemala City, Guatemala

In an attempt to control rapid growth of Guatemala City, the long-time Mayor of Guatemala City Álvaro Arzú implemented a plan to control growth based on transects along important arterial roads and exhibiting transit-oriented development (TOD) characteristics. This plan adopted POT (Plan de Ordenamiento Territorial) aims to allow the construction of taller, mixed-use building structures right by large arterial roads; the buildings would gradually decrease in height and density the farther they are from arterial roads.^[14] This is simultaneously being implemented along with a bus rapid transit (BRT) system called Transmetro.

Mexico City, Mexico

Mexico City has battled pollution for years. Many attempts have been made to orient citizens towards public transportation. Expansion of metro line, both subway and bus, have been instrumental. Following the example of Curtiba, many bus-lines were created on many of Mexico City's most important streets. The bus-line has taken two lanes from cars to be used only by the bus-line, increasing the flow for bus transit.

The city has also made great attempts at increasing the number of bikelanes, including shutting down entire roads on certain days to be used only by bikers.

Car regulations have also increased in the city. New regulations prevent old cars from driving in the city, other cars from driving on certain days. Electric cars are allowed to be driven everyday and have free parking. Decreasing the public space allocated to cars and increasing regulations have become a great annoyance among daily car users. The city hopes to push people to use more public transport.

North America

Canada

Edmonton, Alberta

Most of the suburban high rises were not along major rail lines like other cities until recently, when there has been incentive to do so. Century Park is a growing condo community in southern Edmonton at the south end of Edmonton's LRT. It will include low to high rise condos, recreational services, shops, restaurants, and a fitness centre. Edmonton has also had a transit-proximate development for some time in the northeastern suburbs at Clareview which includes a large park and ride, and low rise apartments among big box stores and associated power center parking. Edmonton is also looking into some new TODs in various parts of the city. In the northeast, there are plans to redevelop underutilized land at two sites around existing LRT, Fort Road and Stadium station.^[15]^[16] In the west, there is plans to have some medium density condos in the Glenora neighbourhood along a future LRT route as well as a TOD in the southeast in the Strathearn neighbourhood along the same future LRT on existing low rise apartments.

Montreal, Quebec

According to the Metropolitan Development and Planning Regulation^[17] of late 2011, 40% of new households will be built as TOD neighbourhoods.

Ottawa, Ontario

Ottawa's City Council has established transit-oriented development (TOD) priority areas in proximity to Ottawa's Light Rail Transit. These priority areas are a mix of moderate to high-density transit-supportive developments within a 600-metre walking distance of rapid transit stations.^[18]

Toronto, Ontario

Toronto has a longstanding policy of encouraging new construction along the route of its primary Yonge Street subway line.^[19] Most notable are the development of the Yonge and Eglinton area in the 1960s and 1970s; and the present development of the 2 km of the Yonge Street corridor north of Sheppard Avenue, which began in the late 1980s. In the period since 1997 alone the latter stretch has seen the appearance of a major new shopping centre and the building and occupation of over twenty thousand new units of condominium housing. Since the opening of the Sheppard subway line in 2002, there is a condominium construction boom along the route on Sheppard Avenue East between Yonge Street and Don Mills Road.

Vancouver, British Columbia

Vancouver has a strong history of creating new development around its SkyTrain lines^[20] and building regional town centres at major stations and transit corridors.^[21] Of note is the Metrotown area of the suburb of Burnaby, British Columbia near the Metrotown SkyTrain Station. The areas around stations have spurred the development of billions of dollars of high-density real estate, with multiple highrises near the many stations,^[20]^[21] prompting concerns about rapid gentrification.^[22]

Winnipeg, Manitoba

There is currently one TOD being built in Winnipeg beside the rapid transit corridor. It is known as The Yards at Fort Rouge,^[23] and was spearheaded by the developer Gem Equities. In phase two of the southwest rapid transit corridor, there will be four more TODs.^[24] This phase is an interesting example of the use of fine arts in parallel with transit planning, making several of the stations sites for public art related to the social history of the area.^[25]

United States

Arlington County, Virginia

For over 30 years, the government has pursued a development strategy of concentrating much of its new development within {{convert|1/4|to|1/2|mi|m}} from the County's Washington Metro rapid transit stations and the high-volume bus lines of Columbia Pike.^[26] Within the transit areas, the government has a policy of encouraging mixed-use and pedestrian- and transit-oriented development.^[27] Some of these "urban village" communities include: Rosslyn, Ballston, Clarendon, Courthouse, Pentagon City, Crystal City, Lyon Village, Shirlington, Virginia Square, and Westover

In 2002, Arlington received the EPA's National Award for Smart Growth Achievement for "Overall Excellence in Smart Growth" — the first ever granted by the agency.^[28]

In September 2010, Arlington County, Virginia, in partnership with Washington, D.C., opened Capital Bikeshare, a bicycle sharing system.^[29]^[30]^[31] By February 2011, Capital Bikeshare had 14 stations in the Pentagon City, Potomac Yard, and Crystal City neighborhoods in Arlington.^[29] Arlington County also announced plans to add 30 stations in fall 2011, primarily along the densely populated corridor between the Rosslyn and Ballston neighborhoods, and 30 more in 2012.^[32]

Aurora, Colorado

The city has developed within its plan as of 2007 standardization measures. For instance, streets' width has been set according to the position of the site.^[33]^[34]

New Jersey

New Jersey has become a national leader in promoting transit oriented development. The New Jersey Department of Transportation established the Transit Village Initiative in 1999, offering multi-agency assistance and grants from the annual $1 million fund to any municipality with a ready-to-go project specifying appropriate mixed land-use strategy, available property, station-area management, and commitment to affordable housing, job growth, and culture. Transit village development must also preserve the architectural integrity of historically significant buildings. Since 1999 the state has made 30 Transit Village designations, which are in different stages of development:

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

The East Liberty neighborhood is nearing completion of a $150 million Transit Oriented Development centered around the reconfigured East Liberty Station on the city's Martin Luther King Jr. East Busway.^[37]^[38] The development included improved access to the station with a new pedestrian bridge and pedestrian walkways that increase the effective walkshed of the station. The East Busway is a fixed guideway route that offers riders an 8-minute ride from East Liberty to Pittsburgh's Downtown.

Salt Lake City Metro Area, Utah

The Salt Lake City Metro Area has seen a strong proliferation of transit-oriented developments due to the construction of new transit lines within the Utah Transit Authority's TRAX, FrontRunner and streetcar lines. New developments in West Valley, Farmington, Murray, Provo, Kaysville, Sugarhouse and downtown Salt Lake City have seen rapid growth and construction despite the economic downturn. The population along the Wasatch Front has reached 1.7 million and is expected to grow 50% over the next two decades. At 29.8%, Utah's population growth more than doubled the population growth of the nation (13.2%), with a vast majority of this growth occurring along the Wasatch Front.

Transportation infrastructure has been vastly upgraded in the past decade as a result of the 2002 Olympic Winter Games and the need to support the growth in population. This has created a number of transit-oriented commercial and residential projects to be proposed and completed.

San Francisco Bay Area, California

The San Francisco Bay Area includes nine counties and 101 cities, including San Jose, San Francisco, Oakland and Fremont. Local and regional governments ^[39] encourage transit-oriented development to decrease traffic congestion, protect natural areas, promote public health and increase housing options. The region has designated [https://web.archive.org/web/20100126212409/http://www.bayareavision.org/pda/ Priority Development Areas] and [https://web.archive.org/web/20100126212349/http://www.bayareavision.org/pca/ Priority Conservation Areas]. Current population forecasts ^[40] for the region predict that it will grow by 2 million people by 2035 due to both the natural birth rate and job creation, and estimate that 50% of this growth can be accommodated in Priority Development Areas through transit-oriented development.

Major transit village projects have been developed over the past 20 years at several stations linked to the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) system. In their 1996 book, Transit Villages in the 21st Century, Michael Bernick and Robert Cervero identified emerging transit villages at several BART stations, including Pleasant Hill / Contra Costa Centre, Fruitvale, Hayward and Richmond.^[41] MacArthur Station is a relatively new development, with construction beginning in 2011 and scheduled for completion after 2019.^[42]

Asia and Oceania

Hong Kong

Compared to other developed economies, the car ownership rate in Hong Kong is very low, and approximately 90% of all trips are made by public transport.^[43]

In the mid-20th century, no railway was built until an area was well developed. However, in recent decades, Hong Kong has started to have some TODs, where a railway is built simultaneously with residential development above or nearby, dubbed the "Rail plus Property" (R+P) Model.^[44] Examples include:

Malaysia

Bandar Malaysia is an upcoming development by 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB).

Melbourne, Victoria

Melbourne, Victoria is expected to reach a population of 5 million by 2030 with the overwhelming majority of its residents relying on private automobiles. Since the turn of the century, sporadic efforts have been made by various levels of government to implement transit-oriented development principles. However, a lack of commitment to funding public transport infrastructure, resulting to overcrowding and amending zoning laws has dramatically slowed progress toward sustainable development for the city.

Milton, Queensland

Sydney, New South Wales

The New South Wales state government has actively encouraged developments around stations on the Sydney Trains and Sydney Metro networks through it's Priority Precincts plan.^[46] Several stations such as Chatswood, Burwood, Parramatta and Rhodes have large scale apartment developments built within close proximity within the past decade. New apartment and office tower developments along the future Sydney Metro stations are being planned as integrated developments with the stations themselves. Examples of this include Victoria Cross Station and Crows Nest Station whilst existing stations such as Castle Hill and Epping have also had intensified development. ^[47]

Europe

The term transit-oriented development, as a US-born concept, is rarely used in Europe, although many of the measures advocated in transit-oriented development are also stressed here. Many European cities have long been built around transit systems and there has thus often been little or no need to differentiate this type of development with a special term as has been the case in the US. An example of this is Copenhagen's Finger Plan from 1947, which embodied many transit-oriented development aspects and is still used as an overall planning framework today. Recently, scholars and technicians have taken interest in the concept, however.^[48]

Paris, France

Whereas the city of Paris has a centuries-long history, its main frame dates to the 19th century. The subway network was made to solve both linkage between the five main train stations and local transportation assets for citizens. The whole area of Paris City has metro stations no more than 500 metres apart. Recent bicycle and car rental systems (Velib and Autolib) also ease travel, in the very same way that TOD emphasizes.So do the new trams linking suburbs close to Paris proper, and tramline 3 around the edge of the city of Paris.

Stedenbaan, The Netherlands

In the Southern part of the Randstad will be built a neighbourhood according to the principles of TOD.^[49]

Equity and housing cost concerns

One criticism of transit-oriented development is that it has the potential to spur gentrification in low-income areas. In some cases, TOD can raise the housing costs of formerly affordable neighborhoods, pushing low- and moderate-income residents farther away from jobs and transit. When this happens, TOD projects can disrupt low-income neighborhoods.^[50]

When executed with equity in mind, however, TOD has the potential to benefit low- and moderate-income (LMI) communities: it can link workers to employment centers, create construction and maintenance jobs, and has the potential to encourage investment in areas that have suffered neglect and economic depression.^[51] Moreover, it is well recognized that neighborhood development restrictions, while potentially in the immediate neighborhood's best interest, contribute to regional undersupply of housing and drive up the cost of housing in general across a region. TOD reduces the overall cost of housing in a region by contributing to the housing supply, and therefore generally improves equity in the housing market. TOD also reduces transportation costs, which can have a greater impact on LMI households since they spend a larger share of their income on transportation relative to higher-income households. This frees up household income that can be used on food, education, or other necessary expenses. Low-income people are also less likely to own personal vehicles and therefore more likely to depend exclusively on public transportation to get to and from work, making reliable access to transit a necessity for their economic success.^[52]

See also

References

1. ^{{cite book|last1=Calthorpe|first1=Peter|authorlink=Peter Calthorpe|title=The Next American Metropolis: Ecology, Community, and the American Dream|date=1993|publisher=Princeton Architectural Press|location=New York|isbn=9781878271686}}
2. ^{{cite book|title=Transit Oriented Development in America: Experiences, Challenges, and Prospects|last1=Cervero|first1=Robert |display-authors=etal |authorlink=Robert Cervero|date=2004|publisher=Transit Cooperative Research Program, Report 102|isbn=978-0-309-08795-7|location=Washington}} [https://www.valleymetro.org/sites/default/files/legacy-images/uploads/general_publications/TCRP-Report-102_TOD-in-the-US-Experiences-Challenges-and-Prospects_10-04.pdf]
3. ^Robert Cervero, Chris Ferrell and Steven Murphy (2002). Transit-Oriented Development and Joint Development in the United States: A Literature Review, Research Results Digest Number 52, Transit Cooperative Research Program.
4. ^{{Cite web|url=http://www.sustainablecitiesinstitute.org/topics/land-use-and-planning/transit-oriented-development-(tod)|title=Transit-Oriented Development (TOD)|website=www.sustainablecitiesinstitute.org|access-date=December 15, 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161220173407/http://www.sustainablecitiesinstitute.org/topics/land-use-and-planning/transit-oriented-development-(tod)|archive-date=December 20, 2016|dead-url=yes|df=mdy-all}}
5. ^{{Cite web|url=https://www.itdp.org/library/standards-and-guides/transit-oriented-development-are-you-on-the-map/what-is-tod/|title=What is TOD?|last=|first=|date=|website=Institute for Transportation and Development Policy|publisher=|access-date=}}
6. ^{{cite news|url=http://www.uctc.net/access/42/access42_halfmiletods.shtml|title=Is a Half-Mile Circle the Right Standard for TODs?|last=Guerra|first=Erick|last2=Cervero|first2=Robert|authorlink2=Robert Cervero|work=ACCESS, University of California, Berkeley|date=Spring 2013|number=42|accessdate=June 7, 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130804141425/http://www.uctc.net/access/42/access42_halfmiletods.shtml|archive-date=August 4, 2013|dead-url=yes|df=mdy-all}}
7. ^Clean Air and Transportation: Vital Concerns for TEA-21 Reauthorization {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20040723081816/http://edf.org/documents/2698_Testimony03_03.pdf |date=July 23, 2004 }}
8. ^{{cite journal|last1=Moore|first1=Adrian.T.|last2=Staley|first2=Samuel.R.|last3=Poole|first3=Robert.W.|title=The role of VMT reduction in meeting climate change policy goals|journal=Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice |date=2010|volume=44|issue=8|pages=565–574|doi=10.1016/j.tra.2010.03.012}}
9. ^{{cite journal|last1=Winkelman|first1=S.|last2=Bishins|first2=A.|title=Planning for economic and environmental resiliance|journal=Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice|date=2010|volume=44|issue=8|pages=575–586|doi=10.1016/j.tra.2010.03.011}}
10. ^{{cite book|last1=Levine|first1=Jonathan|title=Markets and Choices in Transportation and Metropolitan Land Use|date=2006|publisher=Resources for the Future|location=Washington|isbn=978-1933115153}}
11. ^{{cite journal|last1=Boarnet|first1=Marlon|title=A Broader Context for Land Use and Travel Behavior, and a Research Agenda|journal=Journal of the American Planning Association|date=Summer 2011|volume=77|issue=3|pages=197–213|doi=10.1080/01944363.2011.593483}}
12. ^{{cite web |url = http://www.ippuc.org.br/pensando_a_cidade/index_zoneamento_ingles.htm |title = Citizine Information, Zoning and Land Use in Curitiba (Ingles) |date = January 2006 |accessdate = 28 February 2018}}{{Dead link|date=July 2018 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=no }}
13. ^{{cite book |last1=Cervero|first1=Robert|title=The Transit Metropolis: A Global Inquiry |date=1998 |publisher=Island Press |location=Washington|isbn=9781559635912}}
14. ^{{cite web|url=http://pot.muniguate.com/ |title=:::... Plan de Ordenamiento Territorial - Tú eres la Ciudad, Municipalidad de Guatemala, cumple ...: |language=Spanish|publisher=Pot.muniguate.com |date= |accessdate=July 8, 2009}}
15. ^{{cite web |url=http://www.edmonton.ca/city_government/planning_development/old-town-fort-road-redevelopment.aspx |title=Old Town Fort Road Redevelopment |publisher=City of Edmonton |accessdate=October 21, 2010 |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20100922103220/http://edmonton.ca/city_government/planning_development/old-town-fort-road-redevelopment.aspx |archivedate=September 22, 2010 |df=mdy-all }}
16. ^{{cite web |url=http://www.edmonton.ca/city_government/planning_development/stadium-station-transit-oriented-development.aspx |title=Stadium Station Transit Oriented Development |publisher=City of Edmonton |accessdate=October 21, 2010 |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20101122075058/http://edmonton.ca/city_government/planning_development/stadium-station-transit-oriented-development.aspx |archivedate=November 22, 2010 |df=mdy-all }}
17. ^Un premier plan d’aménagement durable pour le Grand Montréal | Voir vert - Le portail du bâtiment durable au Québec. Voirvert.ca. Retrieved on December 6, 2013.
18. ^{{cite web|url=https://ottawa.ca/en/transit-oriented-development-guidelines |title=Transit-Oriented Development Guidelines |publisher=City of Ottawa |accessdate=September 26, 2007}}
19. ^{{cite journal|last1=Cervero|first1=Robert|title=Urban Transit in Canada: Integration and Innovation at its Best|journal=Transportation Quarterly|date=1986|volume=40|issue=3|pages=293–316|issn=0278-9434}}
20. ^¹{{cite web|title=Why TransLink is a Leader in Transit-Oriented Development|url=https://www.bcbusiness.ca/why-translink-is-a-leader-in-transit-oriented-development|website=BC Business|accessdate=6 March 2018}}
21. ^¹{{cite web|last1=Bula|first1=Frances|title=Vancouver's Canada Line Is a Model of Transit-Oriented Development|url=https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2014/02/vancouvers-canada-line-model-transit-oriented-development/8437/|website=CityLab|publisher=Citiscope|accessdate=6 March 2018}}
22. ^{{cite journal|last1=Jones|first1=Craig|title=Transit-Oriented Development and Gentrification in Metro Vancouver's Low-Income SkyTrain Corridor|journal=Neighbourhood Change|date=July 2015|url=http://neighbourhoodchange.ca/documents/2015/07/vancouvers-skytrain-corridor.pdf|accessdate=6 March 2018}}
23. ^http://winnipeg.ca/ppd/planning/Secondary_Plans/FortRougeYards/BackgroundStudy-FortRougeYards-June-04.pdf
24. ^{{cite web|title=Transportation Master Plan|url=http://transportation.speakupwinnipeg.com/files/2011/11/2011-11-01-TTRWinnipegTMP-Final-Report.pdf|accessdate=July 27, 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150412194703/http://transportation.speakupwinnipeg.com/files/2011/11/2011-11-01-TTRWinnipegTMP-Final-Report.pdf|archive-date=April 12, 2015|dead-url=yes|df=mdy-all}}
25. ^{{Cite news|url=https://www.winnipegfreepress.com/our-communities/souwester/News-in-brief-City-seeking-public-art-for-southwest-rapid-transitway-412915793.html|title=News in brief: City seeking public art for southwest rapid transitway|last=Staff|date=2017-02-06|work=Winnipeg Free Press|access-date=2018-04-27}}
26. ^{{cite web|url=http://www.arlingtonva.us/Departments/CPHD/planning/CPHDPlanningSmartGrowth.aspx |title=Smart Growth : Planning Division : Arlington, Virginia |publisher=Arlingtonva.us |date=March 7, 2011 |accessdate=November 4, 2011}}
27. ^http://www.arlingtonva.us/departments/CPHD/planning/powerpoint/rbpresentation/rbpresentation_060107.pdf
28. ^{{cite web|url=http://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/arlington.htm|title=Arlington County, Virginia – National Award for Smart Growth Achievement – 2002 Winners Presentation|publisher=Epa.gov |date=June 28, 2006 |accessdate=November 4, 2011}}
29. ^¹{{cite web|url=http://www.grist.org/article/2010-09-20-washington-d.c.-launches-the-nations-largest-bike-share-program/|title=Washington, D.C., launches the nation's largest bike share program|author=Matt Martinez|date=September 20, 2010|publisher=Grist|accessdate=April 14, 2011}}
30. ^{{cite news|work=New York Times|url=http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/20/bike-sharing-expands-in-washington/|title=Bike Sharing Expands in Washington|author=J. David Goodman|date=September 20, 2010|accessdate=April 14, 2011}}
31. ^{{cite news|url=http://www.myfoxdc.com/dpp/traffic/arlington-joins-dc-in-bike-sharing-program-092010|title=Arlington Joins DC in Bike-Sharing Program|publisher=MyFoxDC.com|date=September 20, 2010|accessdate=April 14, 2011}}
32. ^{{cite web|title=Arlington votes (sort of) to expand CaBi; more places likely to follow|url=http://www.thewashcycle.com/2011/10/arlington-votes-to-add-more-cabi-stations-sort-of.html|work=TheWashCycle|accessdate=October 17, 2011}}
33. ^[https://web.archive.org/web/20050207142055/http://www.auroragov.org/stellent/idcplg?IdcService=SS_GET_PAGE&nodeId=621 Missing Page or Old Bookmark @]. Auroragov.org. Retrieved on December 6, 2013.
34. ^Examples of Codes That Support Smart Growth Development | Smart Growth | US EPA. Epa.gov. Retrieved on December 6, 2013.
35. ^{{cite web | title = FAQ | work = Transit Village Initiative | publisher = NJDOT | date = February 25, 2009 | url = http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/community/village/faq.shtm | accessdate = August 8, 2012}}
36. ^http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/about/press/2014/032814.shtm
37. ^http://triblive.com/news/allegheny/9263121-74/east-liberty-center
38. ^http://www.post-gazette.com/local/east/2015/01/09/New-platforms-at-East-Liberty-Station-to-open-tomorrow/stories/201501090226
39. ^San Francisco Bay Area Vision Project {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090607015259/http://www.bayareavision.org/index.html |date=June 7, 2009 }}. Bayareavision.org. Retrieved on December 6, 2013.
40. ^Projections 2009. Abag.ca.gov (May 15, 2008). Retrieved on 2013-12-06.
41. ^{{cite book |last1=Bernick|first1=Michael|last2=Cervero|first2=Robert|title=Transit Villages in the 21st Century |date=1997 |publisher=McGraw Hill |location=New York|isbn=9780070054752}}
42. ^{{Cite web|url=http://macarthurstation.com/masterplan.php|title=Master Plan|last=|first=|date=|website=MacArthur Station|access-date=June 2, 2017}}
43. ^{{cite web|title=Provision of Public Transport Services|url=http://www.td.gov.hk/en/publications_and_press_releases/publications/free_publications/the_third_comprehensive_transport_study/5_coordination_of_different_transport_modes/|website=The Third Comprehensive Transport Study|publisher=Transport Department}}
44. ^{{Cite web|url=https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/capital-projects-and-infrastructure/our-insights/the-rail-plus-property-model|title=The 'Rail plus Property' model: Hong Kong's successful self-financing formula|website=McKinsey & Company|language=en|access-date=2018-09-06}}
45. ^Transit Oriented Development, Sustainable City Living The Milton. Retrieved on November 20, 2013.
46. ^https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/more-density-around-rail-stations-and-new-schemes-for-renters-nsw-housing-plan-20170319-gv19u2.html
47. ^https://infrastructuremagazine.com.au/2017/11/03/sydney-stations-chosen-for-mass-transit-oriented-developments/
48. ^{{cite web |url=https://www.colloquium.fr/ei/cm.esp?id=565&pageid=_3ET0UVLVD |title=Archived copy |accessdate=2012-02-21 |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://archive.is/20120715054755/https://www.colloquium.fr/ei/cm.esp?id=565&pageid=_3ET0UVLVD |archivedate=July 15, 2012 |df=mdy-all }}
49. ^http://www.thinkdeep.nl/documents/Papers/Hoeven.pdf{{dead link|date=December 2017 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}
50. ^{{cite web | url = http://www.dialogue4health.org/pdfs/wf1/transit-oriented-policylink.pdf | title = Equitable Development Toolkit: Transit Oriented Development | year = 2008}}
51. ^{{cite web | url = http://www.frbsf.org/publications/community/investments/1008/index.html | title = Community Investments: Transit-Oriented Development | year = 2010 | author = Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco }}
52. ^{{cite web | url = http://www.frbsf.org/publications/community/investments/1008/pdf_soursourian.html | title = Equipping Communities to Achieve Equitable Transit-Oriented Development | year = 2010 | author = Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco }}