Interdisciplinary analysis of spatial distribution via node-place-design model in the context of London's Underground Tube Network: Elizabeth Line, through the lens of Quality Public Open Spaces and Transitoriented Development.
Research Dissertation | 31st August, 2023
Key Words:
Node-Place-Design Model | Transit-oriented Development | Quality Public Open Spaces | Land use | Urban Design Principles | Elizabeth Line
Summary:
This study investigates the viability of Node-Place-Design model at 17 stations in the context of London’s Underground Network: Elizabeth Line
1. Introduction and principles of TOD
2. Definition and notion of “Quality Public Open Spaces”
3. Node-Place-Design model at the local scale
4. Analysis of 17 transit stations on London’s Elizabeth Underground Line.
5. 3-axis triangular graph with 6 TOD categories.
Interdisciplinary analysis of spatial distribution via node-place-design model in the context of London's Underground Tube Network: Elizabeth Line, through the lens of Quality Public Open Spaces and Transit-oriented Development.
Submitted in partial fulfilment of the Degree of MSc Urban and Regional Planning, Department of Urban Studies and Planning,
Dissertation TRP6406
Student ID: 220227517
August 2023
University of Sheffield
Acknowledgement:
Foremost, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my guide Prof. Tim Neal Brian for his continuous support and throughout guidance for my research dissertation, and for his patience, motivation and enthusiasm. His guidance helped me throughout the period of this research dissertation.
Besides my advisor, I would like to thank the University of Sheffield for all the insightful knowledge and opportunities given to me I would like to thank Transport for London (TFL) especially Nahuel MainardSardon for responding to my query and providing me with the necessary crowding data made publicly available by TFL, to carry out secondary data collection for this research.
I would like to thank my brother for hosting me at his place during the data collection process in London, my friends and seniors for an insightful early-stage discussion regarding the topic of research and for helping me with my doubts and confusion regarding the topic.
I would like to thank my family, my parents and my sister for supporting me in all possible ways throughout my life and my overseas friend for the stimulating discussions throughout the sleepless nights by virtually being there with me. Also, I thank my fellow classmates from the University of Sheffield. In particular, I am grateful to Prof. Malcolm Tait for enlightening the first root idea of this research during one of the teaching modules of Transport Planning.
Last, but not least, I would like to thank “me” who believed in myself and kept myself motivated, eager and energised to conduct and complete this journey of my master's dissertation.
Thank you.
Abstract:
This study endeavours to interpret Transit-oriented Development (TOD) as a sustainable urban planning methodology, dissecting its application within transit corridors and examining the design attributes of public open spaces to enhance user satisfaction. TOD aims to create vibrant, accessible, and pedestrianfriendly neighbourhoods centred around public transport hubs by accounting for “D” factors. An essential component of successful TOD is the provision of quality public open spaces, which play a substantial role in enhancing the overall liveability and well-being of urban residents. This study investigates the spatial distribution of land use at 17 stations along London’s Elizabeth Underground Line through a node-placedesign model to evaluate the transit accessibility, distribution of land use and quality of public open spaces within the transit-oriented corridor.
To validate this study an appropriate review of literature has been taken into account as a part of this research, ranging from transit-oriented development, quality of public open spaces, the original node-place model and background on the development of London’s underground network with a focus on Elizabeth Line. Three separate methodologies have been used to analyse the key information/data set. The research exploits a node-place-design model with significant adaptations to analyse the half-mile radius of selected transit stations, containing node index (analysis of underground stations), place index (analysis of land use and spatial distribution) and design index (analysing the quality of public open spaces via Urban Design Principles). By utilizing data governed by local authorities (Transport for London), Open Trip Map/GIS, and on-site observations, the study determines and plots the degree of TOD via a triangular graph method
Our study yielded three main conclusions: First, the majority of station sites in Central London exhibit balanced circumstances for both land use growth and transportation. Secondly, Policymakers may find it easier to locate an intensification-diversification TOD group if they consider the promising transport link and less developed conditions of those station regions. Third, the outcome supports the need for the thirddimension design to be added to the TOD evaluation of stations at the local scale. The findings reveal the accessibility of transit nodes, the spatial distribution pattern of land use and the quality of public open spaces within the transit corridor. Key factors influencing node, place and design index were the distribution of underground network and its connectivity, distribution of land use in close vicinity (800m) of stations and urban design of public open spaces. This study assesses the level of “quality” in public open spaces through on-site observations which provide valuable insight into the perception of urban design principles in open spaces and their role in supporting the surrounding development. Moreover, it talks about the importance of choosing a catchment area and its relation with the node index (for transit accessibility) and place index (for defining the number of points of interest - POIs)
The results of this research classify all 17 stations into 6 different categories of TOD based on its interrelation with the node-place-design index. It also talks about how the limitations of this research can turn the outcomes by comprehending the selected data in a certain direction. By understanding a small and selective picture presented here this research opens up a possibility for broader future analyses encompassing various catchment areas with densely woven networks of other modes of transport.
In conclusion, this study contributes to sustainable urban development discussions, emphasizing the integration of public open areas, diversified land use, and improved transit access to foster healthier, happier, and more resilient communities in the United Kingdom.
CBD: Central Business District
DP: Development Plan
LAP: Land Accusation Plan
QPOS: Quality Public Open Space
POS: Public Open Space
TFL: Transport for London
TOD: Transit-oriented Development
UGL: Underground Line
List of Figures
3.1:
List of Tables
2.1:
Table 2.2: The strategies to achieve sustainable development.
Table 2.3: Dimension of Quality in Public Open Spaces
Table 3.1: Indicators used to calculate node, place and design indexes by Dane. S. Vale. (2018)
Table 3.2: Updated indicators to calculate node, place and design indexes.
Table 4.1.1: Node Index Calculation
Table 4.1.2: Node Index
Table 4.2.1: Place Index Calculation
Table 4.2.2: Place Index
Table 4.3: Design Index Calculation
Table 5.1: The comparative indexes for Node-Place-Design
List of Graphs
Graph 01: Bond Street
Graph 02: Liverpool Street
Graph 03: Paddington
Graph 04: Canary Wharf
Graph 05: Whitechapel
Graph 06: Southall
Graph 07: Hanwell
Graph 08: West Ealing and Custom House
Graph 09: Custom House
Graph 10: Emailing Broadway
Graph 11: Tottenham Court Road
Graph 12: Farringdon
Graph 13: Woolwich
Graph 14: West Drayton
Graph 15: Hays and Harlington
Graph 16: Acton Main Line
Graph 17: Abbey wood
1. Introduction
In recent years, urbanization and population growth have driven the demand for liveable, and wellconnected and sustainable urban environments, forcing cities to adopt innovative planning strategies that enhance quality of life and livability. The TOD strategy is one such approach that has gained considerable traction. It is the centralization of activities and endeavours around metro/underground stations in order to maximise passenger access and promote greater utilisation of public transportation, improving social inclusion, economic efficiency, and health and well-being. Metro/underground systems are becoming more and more crucial for ensuring accessibility to public transit, reducing traffic pollution and congestion, and creating prospects for urban regeneration and revitalization (Conticelli, 2011). Furthermore, metro/underground stations are no longer merely transportation hubs for mobility but rather "activity engines" for influencing urban shifts in the areas around them (Chorus and Bertolini, 2011). This is because metro systems play a significant role in urban development. It has emerged as a promising urban planning paradigm, addresses the intricate challenges posed by rapid urbanization, traffic congestion, and ecological apprehensions At the nucleus, TOD strives to create neighbourhoods that are sustainable, vibrant, and pedestrian-friendly. This is orchestrated by orienting these neighbourhoods around proficient public transportation systems, which seeks to create compact, mixed-use communities that prioritize pedestrianfriendly design, reduce automobile dependency, and foster a sense of community engagement. Up to 5 million passenger travels per day, or around 12% of all daily journeys in Greater London, are carried out by the London Underground, often known as the London Tube system (Transport for London, 2017; 2018). Due to London's current population growth wave, which is expected to reach 10.8 million in 2041 (GLA, 2018), the metro utilisation is expected to rise. The introduction of TOD has been viewed as a potential method to allow growth while maintaining the Green Belt. However, there is a knowledge gap in Greater London regarding TOD of metro station regions.
Integral to the achievement of TOD's objectives is the provision of "Quality Public Open Spaces" (QPOS), a facet that profoundly influences the triumph of TOD and enhances the overall urban experience. These spaces encompass a spectrum of public spaces extending beyond the conventional notion of parks, green corridors, and recreational areas while incorporating plazas, squares, greenways, waterfronts, pocket parks, and other accessible, well-conceived open areas that seamlessly integrate into the urban tapestry. Their provision and inclusion within TOD can significantly contribute to mitigating the challenges posed by urban densification and population expansion, while concurrently fostering a sense of place and communal identity.
This dissertation aims to delve into the interdisciplinary analysis of spatial distribution via a node-placedesign model within the context of London’s Underground network, specifically along the Elizabeth Line London, characterized by its rich history, cultural diversity, and evolving urban landscapes, offers a compelling setting to investigate the various factors that influence the design, allocation, and utilization of public open spaces. By scrutinizing the interplay between public transport approachability, diverse infrastructure patterns and the design quality of POS, this research endeavours to cast illumination upon the mechanisms through which a city can efficaciously propagate the ethos of sustainable, vibrant, and inclusive urban environments. By comprehensive analysis of the intricate nexus among land utilisation, transit-oriented development and quality public open spaces, this study can provide valuable insights to urban planners and policymakers. Through a foundation rooted in evidence-based analysis, the research strives to demarcate distinct categories of TOD zones.
1.1.1. Background Study
Due to a noticeable increase in population, urban migration patterns, and a heightened demand for effective transport systems, London's urban landscapes are currently undergoing a notable metamorphosis. Transit-oriented development, which coordinates higher-density, multifaceted urban developments that are carefully placed around essential public transportation nodes, emerges as a compelling proposition in this situation. This strategy has the potential to mitigate reliance on private vehicles, improve accessibility to daily fundamental needs and conveniences, and take into account evolving urban dynamics.
Quality Public Open Spaces are of paramount significance within the TOD framework which wields pivotal influence in enhancing the appeal and utilitarian aspect of TOD precincts. These spaces operate as hubs for social interactions, recreational pursuits, and repose, offering a refuge from urban concretization while also substantially contributing to psychological as well as physical well-being. the availability and ease of access to verdant expanses assume an increasingly pivotal role in fostering a wholesome and harmonious urban way of life as urban environs grow denser In fact, these public open spaces are integral components of urban environments, bearing a significant impact on the overall quality of life for city dwellers. Their role becomes particularly pronounced in overall habitability of urban communities and augmenting the well-being.
Central to this discussion is the Node-place-design model, a conceptual framework that permits a multifaceted analysis of transit stations from distinct perspectives. This approach highlights the importance of spatial planning in fostering a communal fabric of vibrancy, that arises from the amalgamation of heterogeneous functional land uses within the vicinity. Simultaneously, the evaluation of transit hub accessibility is integral, taking into account factors like the frequency of underground tubes, the existence of multiple lines, and the reachability spanning diverse city sectors. This comprehensive assessment provides an accurate appraisal of a node/transit station's operational effectiveness within the current urban milieu.
1.1.2. Research Gap
While transit-oriented development has been extensively studied and embraced in urban planning, there remains a gap in the comprehensive understanding of linkage between the spatial distribution and characteristics of quality public open spaces within TOD corridors. Existing research focuses on transit accessibility, spatial distribution of land use and design quality in public open spaces in the city of London, by overlooking at the intricate play between the concept of node-place-design model.
1.1.3. Research Aim
• Define the attributes that constitute "Quality Public Open Spaces" within the context of Transitoriented Development.
• Analyse the historical development and evolution of London's Underground Tube Network and its impact on urban spatial distribution within ½ -mile walkable radius.
• Examine the spatial distribution/inequalities of these spaces along different station areas of any one underground tube line.
• Investigate the relationships between the transport accessibility and quality of public open spaces
1.1.4. Research Questions
1) Explore the concept of TOD and analyse how the integration of the “D” factors shape the effectiveness and sustainability of transit-oriented development in urban areas?
2) Define the notion of QPOS and How can the aspects of quality in public open spaces be effectively integrated into areas surrounding London's Underground Tube Network: Elizabeth Line.
3) Define the concept of the original Node-Place model and define the adaptations and customisations required to apply it at a local scale in the city of London.
4) How can the integration of the 'Design' dimension into the original node-place model enhance the understanding of urban development and transport interactions by addressing the urban design principles within station areas?
1.1.5. Significance of Research
This research bears substantial implications for the realm of urban planning and sustainable development as applied to London's underground network, specifically along the Elizabeth Line. By bridging the gap through effectively amalgamating the principles of transit-oriented development with the intrinsic design attributes of public open spaces, the investigation endeavours to present inventive perspectives on fostering urban milieus that are more conducive to pedestrian mobility, inclusivity, well-being, and resilience. The outcomes of this inquiry stand to furnish valuable insights for urban planners, policy formulators, and authoritative determinants in the delineation of forthcoming developmental frameworks that accord priority to verdant expanses within transit-oriented development corridors. Invariably, this will contribute to the enhancement of the welfare and comprehensive quality of life for denizens of these urban landscapes. Moreover, the cross-disciplinary complexion of this study augments our comprehension of the intricate interplays among urban planning, environmental psychology, and landscape architecture, thus fostering an all-encompassing stance toward sustainable urban advancement.
2. Literature Review
1. Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) and “D” factors in Urban Planning
2.1.1. Definition and Principles of Transit-Oriented Development
Overview of Transit-oriented Development
Peter Calthorpe, an architect and proclaimed urbanist, is recognised for one of the original concepts of transit-oriented development. Since his publication in “The New American Metropolis” in the late 1980s, he has garnered recognition among urban planners in Europe, the Americas, and Asian cities, drawing their focus to the resolution of urban challenges arising from expansive settlement patterns within urban areas.Carlton provides an extensive historical account of TOD's evolution, tracing its origins to Ebenezer Howard's influential works "Tomorrow: A Peaceful Path to Real Reform" (Howard 1898) and "Garden Cities of Tomorrow" (Howard 1965).
Perhaps the earliest precedent for TOD dates as far back as John Nash’s 1811 masterplanned Blaise Hamlet for estate workers in Bristol, England. Subsequent British worker housing in extremely close proximity to factories was another form of compact, master-
planned development, with transportation at the core of mind. The transit-oriented character of contemporary TOD was not adopted by a master-planned community until Jonathan Carr's construction of Bedford Park in the vicinity of 1875. The railroad network was connected from Bedford Park to Charring Cross Station in London. Where stores, an inn, and schools were all placed in the close vicinity of the station so that middle-class commuters to London could benefit from their proximity to their daily commute to work.
Definition of TOD
According to Calthorpe (1993):
“Mixed-use communities within an average 2,000-foot walking distance of a transit stop and a core commercial area. TODs mix residential, retail, office, open space, and public uses in a walkable environment, making it convenient for residents and employees to travel by transit, bicycle, foot or car” (p. 56).
In addition, the transportation hub should be located in the heart of the neighbourhood, within a 400 metre, or 10-minute walk from residents. This central location reflects the importance of transit in the community and in the region as a whole. (Calthorpe, 1993)
Authors
Calthorpe (1993)
Cervero et al. (2004)
Definition
Mixed-use community within an average 2,000-foot walking distance of a transit stop and a core commercial area that mixes residential, retail, office, open space, and public uses in a walkable environment, making it convenient for residents and employees to travel by transit, bicycle, foot or car.
TOD is a tool for promoting smart growth, leveraging economic development, and catering for shifting housing market demands and lifestyle preferences.
Still (2002) A mixed-use community that encourages people to live near transit services and to decrease their dependence on driving
Maryland Department of Transportation
A place of relatively higher density that includes a mixture of residential, employment, shopping and civic uses and types located within an easy walk of a bus or rail transit centre.
Bernick and Cervero (1997)
A compact, mixed-use community, centred on a transit station that, by design, invites residents, workers, and shoppers to drive their cars less and ride mass transit more.
Source: CEPT, Transit-Oriented Development: Lessons from Indian Experiences
The term “transit-oriented development” evolved from the notions of “transit-supportive development” and “development-oriented transit” (Carlton, 1993; Cervero, 2002). TOD encompasses an amalgamation of residential, commercial, and institutional structures designed to bolster transportation hubs and foster alternative non-motorized mobility modes like walking and cycling. The expanse of a TOD zone can span from 0.5 to 1 mile radius from a transit station (Cervero, 2002).
Principles of Transit-oriented development:
By meticulously integrating transportation systems with urban planning and development, transit-oriented development constitutes a comprehensive urban planning paradigm that aims to build liveable, connected, and sustainable communities. In order to create urban environments that support effective mobility and lively social interactions, TOD fundamentally emphasises proximity to public transport nodes. This strategy is by its very nature concentrated on reshaping the urban fabric to reduce reliance on automobiles while fostering alternate modes of transportation, thereby promoting more sustainable and equitable urban environments. Given the inherent diversity of urban contexts, formulating an efficacious TOD strategy necessitates the identification of pivotal constituents or principles for gauging the degree of TOD integration.
The key principles of TOD listed by Calthorpe (1993) are as follows:
• Growth organized on a regional level to be compact and transit-supportive
• Commercial, housing, jobs, parks, and civic uses within walking distance of transit
• Pedestrian-friendly Street networks that directly connect local destinations
• A mix of housing types, densities, and costs
• Preservation of sensitive habitat, riparian zones, and high-quality open space
• Public spaces become the focus of building orientation and neighbourhood activity.
Additionally, that list followed with the inputs by Transit Oriented Development Institute
• Walkable design with pedestrians as the highest priority
• Transit station as a prominent feature of the town centre
• Nodes containing a mixture of high-density, diverse land-uses in close walkable proximity of 15 minutes (1-mile)
• One place efficient transit system including rail, tram/tube, buses etc
• Designed to include the easy use of bicycles as daily support transport with managed parking areas within stations
• Specialized retail at stations serving commuters and locals including cafes, and grocery with efficient green spaces.
2.1.2. Integration of spatial distribution, land-use and “D” variables in TOD
Spatial distribution in TOD
In the context of urban planning, spatial distribution is referred as the arrangement and distribution between a variety of land uses, activities, resources, infrastructure, and amenities within a city or metropolitan region. It encompasses the physical arrangement of urban components and how they are put together, which collectively shapes the form and character of the built environment. How a city functions, evolves and adheres to the demands and aspirations of its inhabitants is significantly influenced by its spatial distribution.
Spatial distribution essentially refers to the distribution of land among various uses, including residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, mix-use, recreational, green space, and other uses. It encompasses the physical positioning of building structures, streets, parks, and public spaces, alongside transportation systems. This configuration has profound effects on how people interact with their environment and participate in different activities. The practicality of a city is significantly impacted by the spatial distribution of urban components. Citizens can have straightforward access to schools, hospitals, parks, and shopping centres if amenities and services are evenly distributed. Thoughtfully designed spatial arrangements can contribute to the visual appeal of urban areas, by establishing recognisable landmarks and neighbourhoods Importantly, spatial distribution plays a crucial role in determining the quality of life experienced by urban dwellers.
Land-use in TOD
The symbiotic relationship between land-use planning and transportation integration holds significant recognition for its influence on urban evolution, substantiated by both, conceptually and empirically (Acheampong & Silva, 2015). These elements are commonly referred to as confounding factors due to their simultaneous impact on both land-use patterns and travel behaviours. (Litman, 2018). The intricate relationship between urban morphology and traffic dynamics inside a city was demonstrated by Newman and Kenworthy in their study of thirty-two cities in 1991.They assert that, prominent in its influence on transportation are targeted policy interventions, exemplified by infrastructure provisions, high urban densities, and the deliberate curbing of automobile reliance and so on. The imperative of establishing a linkage between land-use configurations and transportation systems arises from its capacity to shape the travel behaviours exhibited by individuals. When land-use patterns are not integrated with the public transit system, awful effects are registered in terms of heavy congestion, longer travel time and lack of productivity (Dittmar & Ohland, 2004).
The strategies for integrating land-use and transport are transit-oriented development, smart growth, new urbanism and access management (Litman, 2018). Access Management pertains to the concentrated arrangement of retail establishments within a shopping complex, enhancing convenience for shoppers, in contrast to their dispersion along a specific highway route. While Smart Growth emphasises the infilling of housing and employment in an urban environment to boost the effectiveness of the transportation system, New Urbanism accentuates the positioning of a variety of uses within a neighbourhood to enhance access for residents and workers and to improve their quality of life. TOD encompasses the concept of pedestrian-friendly neighbourhoods, surrounding regional planning, urban rejuvenation, and the revitalization of suburban areas in a
cohesive framework. It is a cross-cutting approach to development that is not only focused on diversifying transportation systems but also offers a new range of development patterns for housing, commerce and other activities (Dittmar & Ohland, 2004).
“D” variables in TOD
The notion of the land use determinants of travel demand that includes “D” factors Cervero and Kockelman (1997) explored density, diversity, and design as the 3D’s that characterise TOD. Ewing and Cervero (2010) added two other D’s, i.e., destination accessibility (daily work accessibility by transit to the city centre) and distance to transit (to gauge the level of TOD of an area and the innate qualities of a transit station and its adjoining development). TOD demands an area to be rich in diversity, high in density and supported by urban design techniques that promote walking and the use of other non-motorized transport systems over automobiles. A region's balance is created by the vertical and horizontal diversity of its land uses, which also improves interactions between various locations and decreases the need for long-distance travel. A saturated street design supports greater walking and cycling to and from a transit station whereas high densities (population or employment) enable a higher usage of transport.
Density
The most significant land-use predictor of ridership rates is density. The concentration of people, activities, and land uses in a specific region is referred to as density. Density is crucial in determining the effectiveness and feasibility of transportation systems in TOD. According to Cervero and Kockelman, the effectiveness of TOD depends on increasing densities in the vicinity of transit stations. Additionally, Kockelman discovered a connection between the preferred mode of transportation and density. According to studies, there is an inverse relationship between density and automobile use and a direct correlation between congestion and density. Higher residential and employment densities create a strong market for public transportation, as more people live and work within walking distance of transit stops. In turn, this reduces dependency on automobiles and promotes eco-friendly transportation methods. High densities also support a vibrant mix of land uses, allowing for a diverse range of amenities, services, and employment opportunities within close proximity.
Diversity:
In TOD, diversity refers to the range of land uses, pursuits, and population groups found in a transitoriented area. Cervero and Kockelman emphasise that people can fulfil a variety of needs within a compact space by establishing a diverse mix of land uses, including residential, commercial, retail, and entertainment. Because people have easy access to their daily needs, this mixed land use pattern encourages walking, cycling, and the utilisation of public transport. This reduces the need for long trips and supports a vibrant, pedestrian-friendly urban environment without relying on automobiles. Social diversity is also crucial. TOD areas should be inclusive and accommodate a variety of income levels, age groups, and cultural backgrounds. A diverse population fosters social interaction, supports local businesses, and contributes to a lively and vibrant neighbourhood.
Design:
The design of a TOD area plays a pivotal role in its functionality, attractiveness, and overall success. There are 7 urban design principles that enhance the effectiveness of transit-oriented neighbourhoods: Ease of moment, diversity, community and enclosure, legibility, adaptability, quality of public realm and urban character
Destination Accessibility:
Robert Cervero and Reid Ewing established a strong emphasis on the value of destination accessibility in determining TOD's efficacy. Destination accessibility is the ease with which people can use the transit system to get to different locations, such as places of employment, shopping centres, recreational areas, and other essential amenities. Destination accessibility is a crucial factor in determining transit ridership in the context of TOD. TOD areas can be rendered more enticing and practical for residents and commuters by incorporating a wide range of destinations close to transit stations. This cuts down travel distances and encourages people to use public transportation.
An important aspect of destination accessibility is the concept of the "15-minute city," where essential services and amenities are within a 15-minute walk (1-mile radius). By creating neighbourhoods that fulfil this principle, TOD can contribute to reduced travel times, increased transit ridership, and improved overall quality of life.
Distance to travel:
The concept of distance to transit is another critical element discussed by Ewing and Cervero. This concept acknowledges that the proximity of transit stations to people's residences and destinations significantly influences travel behaviour.
Public transport becomes a more practical and appealing option for daily commuting when the distances to transit stations are shorter. Ewing and Cervero emphasise that concentrating on compact development and mixed land uses when designing TODs minimises distances to transit. When people can easily walk or cycle to transit stations, they are more likely to choose public transportation over private vehicles. By encouraging energy-efficient modes of transportation, easing traffic congestion, and minimising environmental effects, reducing distances to transit also complies with sustainability principles.
2.1.3. Linking TOD and Quality of Urban Life with sustainable urban development
A key strategy for reshaping urban environments that significantly affect residents' quality of life is transit-oriented development. TOD reduces commute times and promotes sustainable travel choices, which in turn can lead to reduced traffic congestion, lower air pollution, and improved public health. These factors collectively contribute to a higher quality of life for residents. Public open spaces are integral components of sustainable urban development. They contribute to environmental, social, and economic sustainability. From an environmental perspective, welldesigned open spaces can act as green lungs, mitigating urban heat island effects (UHI) and supporting biodiversity. Socially, these spaces foster a sense of belonging, provide platforms for community engagement, and address issues of social equity. Economically, they enhance property values, attract investment, and contribute to local businesses.
The whole concept of quality of urban life and sustainable development is linked with the previously mentioned 5 D’s. Table 2.2 shows some of the strategies for achieving sustainable development linked to TOD.
Strategy
Land-use and community development
Transportation
Description
Prevention, rehabilitation and redevelopment of central cities and highdensity inner suburbs
Infill in cities and suburbs – increased density, mixed-use
Reusing brownfields, recycling buildings
TODs and QPOS as the paradigm for new developments
Quality of like: Attention to crime, schools, services and other amenities
Recycling and composting programs
Access vs mobility – basic concepts
Bicycle and pedestrian-friendly cities
Transit, paratransit and ridesharing
Telecommuting and teleconferencing
New technologies for improved efficiency: EVs, traffic control systems, transportation information systems
Prices and subsidies aligned with sustainability
Housing and other building designs
Business/job creation
Social equity
A range of choices
Energy-efficient buildings
Eligible landscaping
Natural/indigenous plants
Business leadership
Community economic development
Clean and safe technologies
Aligning taxes and subsidies with sustainable development
Equitable distribution of resources
Source: Srikanth Shastry, Spatial assessment of TOD in Ahmedabad, India.
2. Importance of Quality Public Open Spaces in Urban Planning
Urban environments are shaped by a complex interplay of factors, and the concept of "quality" in public open spaces transcends mere physical attributes. Exploring various components that contribute to the holistic understanding of quality in urban contexts is vital to understanding the essence of this multifaceted concept.
2.2.1. Defining the notion of “Quality” in public open space
Quality is a subjective and dynamic concept that encompasses more than just the tangible aspects of a space. In the context of public open spaces, quality extends beyond the visual aesthetics and incorporates the emotional, psychological, and even ecological dimensions. A quality open space not only provides functionality but also triggers positive emotions and contributes to the overall
well-being of individuals. Understanding the diverse ways in which quality is perceived and experienced by different individuals is essential for creating spaces that resonate with the community.
Perceptions of quality in public open spaces are inherently subjective, and influenced by individual experiences, preferences, and cultural backgrounds. These spaces can evoke positive emotions, foster relaxation, and serve as sanctuaries amidst the urban hustle. The definition of quality in public open spaces is not static; it is moulded by cultural values, historical contexts, and evolving societal needs. Quality can evolve over time, as new social, technological, and environmental challenges emerge.
Quality public open spaces are characterized by their ability to foster social interactions, accommodate various recreational activities, and serve as sites for community events. They play a pivotal role in shaping local identity and facilitating a sense of belonging among residents. The focus lies on curating experiences that engage the senses, emotions, and behaviours of users, resulting in spaces that leave a lasting positive impression. When well-designed and thoughtfully integrated into the urban fabric, these spaces become nodes of community life, acting as common ground where diverse demographics converge.
The choices made during the design and planning phases of public open spaces have enduring consequences for their quality and functionality. This synergy ensures that open spaces not only meet the present demands but also withstand the test of time for the long-term sustainability goal of the urban environment enriching the urban fabric for generations to come.
2.2.2. Physical and Aesthetic Dimension of Quality
Public open spaces play a pivotal role in enhancing the quality of urban life, and their aesthetic and physical attributes are crucial in shaping the overall user experience. The interplay between visual appeal and aesthetics significantly influences how people perceive, utilize, and connect with these spaces. In this section, we delve into the importance of visual aesthetics and the design principles that contribute to enhancing the aesthetic quality of public open spaces.
Dimension Key Points
Visual Appeal and Aesthetics
Aesthetics are essential for public open spaces, influencing emotions and a sense of place.
The visual allure of a space evokes emotions, creates memorable experiences, and establishes a sense of place.
Cultural influences key factors that shape the design and perception of open spaces.
Aesthetics contribute to the overall user experience which is essential for crafting inviting and engaging environments.
Design Principles for Aesthetic Quality
Quality in public open spaces requires thoughtful integration of urban design principles.
Principles of visual harmony, balance, and proportion guide to create visually pleasing environments.
The strategic use of color, texture, and materiality adds depth and character to spaces.
Role of Landscaping, Architecture, and Urban Elements
Functionality and Usability in Design
Harmonizing natural and built elements create captivating spaces with a lasting impression.
Landscaping molds the natural environment into a canvas of beauty with flora and hardscape which evokes different moods and spatial experiences.
Integrating architectural features and urban elements, such as pavilions, plazas, and seating arrangements, add layers of visual interest, functionality, and identity to the space.
Aesthetics should not come at the expense of functionality.
Public open spaces must cater to the needs and activities of diverse user groups.
Designing for usability involves spaces that are easily navigable, accessible, and comfortable by understanding how people interact with them.
User-centred design guide the placement of amenities, furniture, and recreational facilities, fostering engagement and a sense of ownership among users.
Inclusive and Sustainable Aesthetics
Public Perception of Aesthetic Quality
Aesthetic quality includes inclusivity and sustainability. Designing for inclusivity means accommodating a wide spectrum of users, including children, the elderly, and people with disabilities. Sustainable aesthetics integrate eco-friendly design elements, such as native plantings, renewable materials, and energy-efficient lighting. Creation of beautiful and environmentally responsible design is essential.
The perceptions and preferences of the public are instrumental in evaluating the success of aesthetic design in POS Gathering feedback through surveys, interviews, and observations helps gauge the effectiveness of the design choices.
A strong correlation exists between the aesthetic appeal of a space and the sense of pride and ownership that the public develops. Understanding these dynamics informs design decisions that resonate with the community.
Source: Taking Planning Forward, PhD community 2017-18, Bartlett school of Planning
2.2.3. Social and Cultural Dimension of Quality
Public open spaces are integral components of urban landscapes that extend beyond their physical attributes, encompassing rich social and cultural dimensions. Historically, these spaces were crucial meeting points for residents, enabling communal events, celebrations, and interactions. In contemporary urban contexts, they continue to play a pivotal role in fostering social cohesion and engagement. Public open spaces are reflective of a community's cultural values, heritage, and aspirations. Through the integration of art, architecture, and cultural elements, these spaces become platforms for expressing and celebrating local culture. This blend of cultural significance and contemporary design creates spaces that resonate with both tradition and modernity. A hallmark of quality public open spaces lies in their ability to cater to diverse individuals from different age groups, abilities, and cultural backgrounds. User experiences are closely linked to perceptions of safety within these spaces. Design strategies that address lighting, visibility, and clear pathways can enhance safety perceptions and encourage more frequent use. Achieving social and cultural sustainability in public open spaces necessitates the active involvement of the community.
Collaborative approaches that incorporate cultural practices and traditions into the design can lead to spaces that are both meaningful and relevant to the community's identity.
2.2.4. Environmental and Ecological Dimensions of Quality
Urbanization presents a dual challenge: catering to the needs of a growing population while simultaneously safeguarding the environment. The Environmental and Ecological Dimensions of Quality in public open spaces are pivotal in achieving this equilibrium. Strategies such as lowimpact development, use of locally sourced materials, and efficient resource management contribute to creating sustainable spaces that thrive without compromising the surrounding ecosystem. As urbanization intensifies, urban ecosystems often suffer from reduced biodiversity. Open spaces provide opportunities for conserving and enhancing biodiversity within the urban fabric. These spaces can serve as refuges for native plant landscaping (flora & fauna), wildlifefriendly design, and restoration of natural habitats contributing to urban ecological diversity. Public open spaces, as integral components of green infrastructure, play a crucial role in providing ecosystem services like management, air purification, and carbon sequestration. Green spaces equipped with features like permeable pavements, rain gardens, and vegetated swales not only enhance ecological quality but also contribute to a healthier urban environment. Incorporating tree canopies, green roofs, and water features can significantly mitigate the Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect, reducing the absorption of solar heat energy and resulting in lower temperatures in urban areas (depending on the local climate). Vertical greening systems, such as living walls, present innovative solutions for maximizing greenery in constrained urban environments. Moreover, integrating renewable energy sources like solar panels into open-space design showcases the potential for sustainability synergy.
3. Methodology
1. Node-Place-Design Model
According to Bertolini (1996), a node place theory was established for Lisbon's station areas in order to evaluate integrated land use and transportation. A corresponding analysis of each component is required to plan the development of the station areas towards TOD. By conceiving TOD as being an urban design archetype, its principles can be implemented consistently throughout all station areas of a city or metropolitan area to encourage (a certain degree of) density while simultaneously increasing diversity and facilitating pedestrian-oriented designs surrounding both current and future public transport stations. However, although all station areas are themselves feasible locations for TOD, not all offer the same multimodal accessibility, therefore their land use features should be planned adequately.
In order to properly define the framework of a TOD project for any given station area, three different integral aspects need to be considered: (1) multimodal accessibility of the station; (2) spatial distribution of surrounding land use of the station area; and (3) a good quality of urban design in surrounding public open spaces so that the station can be accessed and egressed by walking (or cycling). These threebranched approaches have been applied previously in an extension of the node-place model of Bertolini (1999) to include the design.
3.1.1. Original Node-Place model
The objective of original node-place model in the fundamental premise is to strike an equilibrium between land use and transportation. (Bertolini, 1996, 1999). Five different types of station areas can be identified using this model proposed by Bertolini, which is based on a dual axis of node and place indexes. (See Figure 3.1).
Source: Bertolini (1999)
That original model distinguishes that equilibrium is manifested through a discernible incongruence between node and place attributes, thereby delineating three distinct scenarios: dependence, equilibrium, and strain. By calculating these two indexes, it is also feasible to identify station areas that need to increase their place dimension (unbalanced nodes) and station areas that need to increase their node dimension (unbalanced places).
Based on the feedback cycle of land use and transportation (Wegener and Fürst, 1999), station areas can be anticipated to eventually evolve into a balanced situations (which still has to be supported by an appropriate land use regulation to promote this equilibrium). These several rhythms might clarify why there is an imbalance between a station's node and place, but they also present an opportunity to appropriately direct urban expansion and transportation supply to bring about the desired balance.
The original model was initially put forth as an approach for classifying each station area into a category based on these two indices, thereby determining the degree of balance and relevant typology. Delimiting a station is essential in order to think of it as a place, and there are four primary approaches to accomplish this: walkable radius, functional-historical, topographic, or development perimeter (Bertolini and Spit, 1998). The most commonly adopted approach is the walkable radius It is defined by assuming a maximum walking distance (normally 700 or 800 m) or by a maximum walking time (normally 10-15 min). The pedestrian-accessible radii of the station vicinities will
consequently interact in situations when two stations are located within a proximity of 1400 (or 1600) metres, implying a degree of ambiguity in defining the spatial periphery of the place dimensions of the stations. Finally, once the node and place indexes for all station areas of a metropolitan area are calculated, the node-place system of the entire metropolitan area can be determined from the overall mean value, which can be useful for comparing different cities and assessing the evolution of a system over time (Vale, 2015).
3.1.2. Extended Node-Place model
By considering the “D” factor which evaluates the effectiveness of TOD we can say that the Design dimension is as necessary as diversity and density. This “Design” dimension with Urban Design Principles could be specifically incorporated into the assessment of the original node-place model provided by Bertolini which was missing for this evaluation of spatial analysis of TOD nodes.
Three main dimensions can be evaluated under the extension of the original model to include urban design evaluations of the station areas (Lyu et al., 2016; Vale, 2015): 1) A Node Index, reflecting accessibility of the station area by several transportation modes; 2) A Place Index, reflecting the land use features of the station areas (namely their density and diversity); and 3) A Design Index, reflecting the urban design conditions of the station areas that influence pedestrian accessibility and overall quality surrounding public open spaces of the station itself. This approach nevertheless elevates the original node-place model, probably hindering the straightforward yet effective twoaxis visualization of equilibrium between node (X-axis) and place (Y-axis) indexes for each station along with an addition of the Z-axis for the design index. This visualization of equilibrium can be obtained by this second triple-index approach whereby the position of each dimensional unit under analysis can be viewed in a triangular graph. Where a graph can be created for each transit node along the designated transit route.
Although we acknowledge that illustration of the balanced situation in a triangular chart is not as straightforward as for a dual-axis chart, but yet this study believes that it is important to include the third “design” dimension in the node-place model so that the model explicitly incorporates design aspects of the built environment as well as the importance of the urban design principles for public transport patronage and overall sustainable urban mobility. Therefore, in line with previous research (Lebanon’s subway network, Dane. S. Vale. 2018), we argue that extending the node-place model to include this third “design” dimension better distinguishes between “balanced” situations compared to the original node-place model. In other words, assessing the urban design of station areas makes it more straightforward to evaluate both the station's (the node index) and the area's (the design index) accessibility, both of which are known to have a significant impact on the utilisation of public transport, which is a key goal of TOD.
3.1.3. Application of Node-place-Design model at the local scale
The railway network and railway stations were the primary focal point for the development of the node-place model as a regional (metropolitan) scale model, with a focus on how to organise spatial distribution of a city in a way that balances the node and place dimensions. This approach neglects the potential existence of other transport networks and leaves several of city areas unclassified. As an example, if subway, tram or other light rail systems is present with the same rigidity and associated reliability of a rail network, so their stations may have node and place functions but at a
local scale. Therefore, the base theories and principles of the node-place model are also applicable at the local scale.
The indexes must be modified to correspond with the urban transit mode in order to apply this model locally. It is acknowledged that defining the catchment area might not be particularly relevant when the focus of the analysis is a prediction of transport use, but it is extremely important for regulating land use (Guerra et al., 2011). Typically, a 700m (1/2 mile) radial buffer is used (Chorus and Bertolini, 2011; Lyu et al., 2016; Reusser et al., 2008; Vale, 2015; Zemp et al., 2011), which can be appropriate for such transport modes as it translates into a 10-15 min walk to a transit station. The 10-15 min walk threshold has been applied in studies of subway networks (Lyu et al., 2016; Monajem and Nosratian, 2015), it is known that willingness to walk to a station/stop which is related to the available transportation mode(s) at that station/stop (Walker, 2012). The same has been applied to this study to analyse London’s Elizabeth Line.
2. Content Selection: London's Underground Tube Network (Elizabeth Line)
3.2.1. Early Origins and Development
Midway through the 19th century, the world's first underground railway system was designed and built, bringing in an unprecedented transformation in both urban planning and transportation. London's Metropolitan Railway, which inaugurated its doors in 1863, stands as the revolutionary project that laid the foundations for the present-day Tube Network. It emerged from of the Industrial Revolution's demand for the efficient movement of goods and people. Spearheaded by forward-thinking engineers like Sir John Fowler and Charles Pearson, this early underground route linked Paddington and Farringdon using steam-powered trains, overcoming the difficulties of surface congestion and revolutionising urban transportation.
3.2.2. Expansion and Growth
The Tube Network expanded in phases over the years, evolving from its fundamental beginnings into a complex labyrinth of interconnecting lines. With each extension and line addition, the network's complexity grew, necessitating innovative approaches to design and engineering. Notably, the development of deeper, longer underground lines was made possible by the introduction of electric traction in the late 19th century, which symbolised a new era of efficiency and safety. As London's urban boundaries expanded, the Tube became an essential component of the city's growth, catering not only to commuters but also fostering suburbanization, fundamentally altering the spatial dynamics of the metropolis.
3.2.3. Socio-economic impact
The Tube Network has had a significant and long-lasting impact on the socioeconomic structure of London. The symbiotic relationship between transportation accessibility and urban development became evident as population centres shifted along the Tube lines. Central areas experienced intensified land use, accommodating commercial and financial districts, while the suburbs blossomed as residential havens. It is impossible to exaggerate how important the Tube has been for boosting industries like manufacturing and retail. A significant factor in determining London's reputation as a dynamic metropolis around the world has been the correlation between economic vitality and transit accessibility.
3.2.4. The Elizabeth Line Project: Goals and Overview
The Elizabeth Line, a significant addition to London's Underground’s deep Tube Network, originates from proposals dating back to the early 20th century. Initially suggested in 1919 by Frank Pick, the Underground's Commercial Manager, the idea of an east-west tube railway linking major termini resurfaced in the 1943 County of London Plan. Post-World War II, London Transport examined rail projects including a configuration resembling the present Elizabeth Line, but these remained unrealized.
Distinguished by its utilization of surface stock trains like the Metropolitan and District lines' S stock, the Elizabeth Line stands apart by operating in tube tunnels under London and on the surface, extending to Berkshire and Essex. Commencing in 2011, an extensive four-year endeavour involving eight Tunnel Boring Machines (TBMs) resulted in the construction of 42km of tunnels. From 2016 to 2021, the primary phase focused on station construction and systems integration, yielding ten stations with distinct architectural influences united by consistent design in their underground sections. An attempt to get Parliamentary approval for what had become known as Crossrail (now Elizabeth Line) failed in the 1990s, but a new scheme was presented in 2005 and was finally passed in 2008.
Aesthetic features such as curved white glass fiber-reinforced cladding (GFRC) and clear "totems" for wayfinding define these subterranean spaces, prioritizing visibility, safety, and accessibility. The impending Elizabeth Line garners attention from researchers and urban planners for its potential to reshape spatial dynamics, catalyse urban growth, and adhere to Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) principles, positioning it as a pivotal element within contemporary urban discourse.
3. Implementation
Considering the specificities needed to apply the Node-Place model at a local scale (London’s Elizabeth Line), the original node-place methodology has undergone some adaptations by incorporating a “Design” element as a part of the analysis. (Refer to the original node-place-design index used by Dane. S. Vale. 2018 to study Lebanon’s subway network – Table 3.1)
Number of workers in education/health/culture
Number of workers in administration and services
Number of workers in industry and distribution
Degree of functional mix
Number of POIs
Variety of POIs
Design Index:
no. of workers within 700m in education/health/culture
= no. of workers within 700m in administration/services
of workers within 700m in industry and distribution
no. of points of interest (POIs) within 700m
= variety of points of interest (POIs) within 700m (0 to 6)
Pedshed Ratio w1 = pedestrian shed ratio
Intersection density w2 = density if intersections per hectare
Accessible network length w3 = length of the accessible network (in km/mile)
Source: The original node-place-design index by Dane. S. Vale. 2018)
This research has been conducted by modifying a few parameters from the above indicators to focus on the specified objectives of this research and to avoid further complications of the data collection and analysis.
Table 3.2: Updated indicators to calculate node, place and design indexes.
Indicator description
Node Index:
Place Index: (type of land use) Number
Degree of
Number of POIs
Variety of POIs
Design Index:
Urban Character
Community and Enclosure
Quality of public realm
Ease of moment
Legibility
Adaptability
Diversity
x7 = no. of points of interest (POIs) within 700m
x8 = variety of points of interest (POIs) within 700m (0 to 6)
W1 = quality of Urban Character on a 5-point scale
W2 = quality of Community and Enclosure on a 5-point scale
W3 = quality of Public Realm on a 5-point scale
W4 = quality of Ease of Movement on a 5-point scale
W5 = quality of Legibility on a 5-point scale
W6 = quality of Adoptability on a 5-point scale
W7 = quality of Diversity on a 5-point scale
Source: Author
This methodology is divided into 3 sections. (Node-Place-Design) and it is based on 22 indicators; 6 for the node index (y1, y2…y6), 9 for the place index (x1, x2…x9) and 7 to measure the design index (w1, w2…w7) for the chosen underground stations.
4. Data collection
Data for the node index have been collected from the secondary data made available by the transport operator of London (TFL, National Public Transport Data Repository -NPTDR). Data for the place index have been collected from the secondary data made available by Transport for London, Colouring London, Open Trip Map and Google Earth followed by primary data collected by the author by analysing all 17 stations to validate the current scenario of land use. Data for the design index have been collected via primary data collection method using 7 Urban Design principles to analyse all 17 stations with a 5-point method. (Very bad-bad-average-good-very good)
5. Determination of the size of the catchment area
In order to identify the best dimensions for the catchment area of the underground stations, the two most commonly applied thresholds in the literature have been considered: 700m (half-mile) and 1600 m (1 mile), representing a 10- and 15-20-minute walk, respectively. Due to how the underground system of London has been designed, the larger threshold (1 mile) generated numerous boundary overlaps between station areas, whereas the smaller threshold seemed feasible enough for the station’s land-use analysis.
6. Limitations of data collection and research
London’s Elizabeth line comprises a total of 41 stations from west to east amongst which 17 stations have been taken into study for this research by limiting them to the boundary of “The Greater London”. Starting from West Drayton to Abbey Wood. The remaining stations are excluded from this analysis due to the various sub-routes of the Elizabeth line towards the north and south and other stations which fall outside the boundary of the Greater London.
The incorporation of multiple underground lines can lead to confusion and over-complicated data analysis. Hence, the focus of this research has been on one specified underground line: the Elizabeth Line For the node index data collection, DLR and Overground Lines have been considered as a part of
London’s underground network. Other modes of transport like buses, trains, trams and ferries are excluded from this research.
4. Data Analysis
An interdisciplinary analysis via the extended node-place model to the city of London’s Elizabeth Line revealed substantial differences among the three indexes All 3 have distinct and different parameters that have been taken under consideration during this analysis.
1. Node Index
The data provided in Table 4.1.1 have been collected by referring to the indicators of calculation for the Node Index (Table 3.2).
After Normalising the Node Index values.
The calculation for normalising the index value has been done by dividing all the values with the highest value from that column. As the highest will get a score of 1 other remaining nodes will be equally proportionate to it.
Here the final Node Index varies from 0.18 to 1. A station where the node index value is near to 1 has good transit connectivity. That means the number of available underground lines, frequency, number of stations reachable and availability of different kinds of public transport is higher towards 1.0 and opposite for the stations near towards 0.
Source: Google Earth + GIS (OSM) + Analysis by Author
2. Place Index
The data provided in Table 4.2.1 have been collected by referring to the indicators of calculation for the Place Index (Table 3.2).
After Normalising the Place Index values.
The calculation for normalising the index value has been done by dividing all the values with the highest value from that column. As the highest will get a score of 1 other remaining places will be equally proportionate to it.
Here the final Place Index varies from 0.13 to 1. A station where the place index value is near to 1 has a diverse spatial distribution of land use. That means the variety of different and multi-functional buildings, number of landmarks or places of interest and their overall diversity is higher towards 1.0 and opposite for the places near towards 0.
3. Design Index
The data provided in Table 4.3 have been collected by referring to the indicators of calculation for the Design Index (Table 3.2).
The collected data here doesn’t require normalising the index value because it has been collected and transformed between 0-1 via primary analysis of all the stations.
The final Design Index varies from 0.47 to 1. A station where the design index value is near to 1 has a good implementation of Urban Design Principles. That means the value of Urban character, community
and enclosure, quality of public realm, ease of movement, adaptability and legibility is higher towards 1.0 and opposite for the places near towards 0.
*(Here the value 1 does not mean perfection but it suggests that amongst all the stations this particular one can be counted as the best in terms of node/place/design. Considering there is “always” a space for improvement no matter the node/place/design.)
5. Findings and Results
If we look at the median value of all 3, the average value of the node index is 0.513, for the place index it is 0.526 and for the design index is 0.635. Therefore, in general terms, the average node index for the Elizabeth Line's stations has a lower value than the average place index, suggesting that their land use patterns are not being fully incorporated with adjoint accessibility. Furthermore, by looking at the intensity (red, orange, yellow and green) of images 4.1 and 4.2 it is observable that stations in the central part of the city or in an urban area are performing better in terms of node and place which means better transit accessibility and diverse land use pattern but as we move further into the suburban areas, the accessibility and diversity is being deteriorated. With regard to design attributes, the findings elucidated a notable spectrum of urban contexts, underscoring the underground system's capability to cater to a diverse array of urban configurations. (Image 4.3)
In a spatial context, transfer stations exhibited higher node values, indicative of their greater accessibility to public transportation networks due to increased travel frequencies and broader destination coverage originating from these specific points. (Table 4.1.2 and Image 4.1). Station areas in the city centre also possessed the highest place, followed by station areas along the fringe of the city (Table 4.2.2 and Image 4.2). In terms of design, it follows the overall same rule but certain areas like Canary Wharf which have been newly developed outside of the city centre also hold a good Design Index along with the other range of Design Indexes varying gradually from higher in the city centre areas and lowering towards the urban fringe of the Greater London.
In order to determine the typologies of station areas, we segregated all the stations into 6 different categories of development based on their high/low/average values of node, place and design index. (Original six categories were found in a previous analysis of the Lisbon metropolitan area where Lyu et al. (2016) simply designated them C1 to C6, but Vale, (2015) proposed a description for each in his paper, Evaluating the integration of land use and transport for Lisbon's subway network - David S. Vale, Cláudia M. Viana, Mauro Pereira, 2018)
1. Urban TOD:
This typology corresponds to the stations with high node, place and design indexes. Areas in the city with higher transport connectivity, the diverse spatial distribution of land use with high-quality design open spaces are considered as Urban TODs.
Our observations from Table 5.1 suggest that stations like Bond Street and Liverpool Street fall under this category. Where all 3 indexes correspond without major fluctuation between each of them. Both of the mentioned stations are a perfect example of that, amongst which Liverpool Street station is considered as CBD area or financial district with high-rise skyscraper development with some of the iconic architectural structures in the city like The Gherkin, Lloyd’s building, Leadenhall Market and Barbican estate.
This typology corresponds to the stations with high node and design indexes but a relatively low place index. Areas in the city with higher transport connectivity and high-quality design of public open spaces are found but the diverse spatial distribution of land use is not up to the mark and is considered as Underbalanced urban TODs.
Our observations from Table 5.1 suggest that stations like Paddington and Canary Wharf fall under this category. Where high node and design indexes correspond with each other but the place index shows a downside with less diversity of land use and fewer places of interest/landmarks for a diverse community of people to function. Because Paddington has a railway station along with 5 underground lines passing by it is an easily accessible area for tourists therefore majority of the surrounding streets are designed in a linear pattern with both sides filled with hotels and other residential facilities, resulting in less diverse land use and low place index.
The same goes for Canary Wharf where in spite of having good transit connectivity and designed public open spaces, the area does not propose adequate diversity of land use as it is a highly commercial area, a 2nd CBD of the city with high-end land use. Canary Wharf Station stands out as an anomaly since, although being far from the city centre, it nevertheless received good numbers for node and design value along with average place value. This 'discrepancy' may be linked to its unique function in strategic planning: the Canary Wharf region was purposefully built to be in effect a new Central Business District for London; it comprises many financial institutions and so has a considerable intensity and diversity of land use. Along with the standard surface streets, Canary Wharf's extensive and interconnected network of underground roads may have contributed to the design score's inaccuracy.
3. Unbalanced TOD
This typology corresponds to the stations with high node and place indexes but a relatively low/average design index. Areas in the city with higher transport connectivity and diverse spatial distribution of land use but the designed quality of public open spaces are not adequate enough are considered Unbalanced urban TODs.
Our observations from Table 5.1 suggests that station like Whitechapel where transit connectivity and diversity of land use can be found but the quality of the public open space are poorly treated. Most of the area is haphazardly occupied by certain groups of communal behaviours resulting in the deterioration of the surrounding space. Chaotic activities with improper planning and handling of land use with almost no good quality public spaces can be the resulting phenomena.
4. Suburban TOD
This typology corresponds to the stations with average design indexes with a relatively low node and place index. Areas in the city with lower transport connectivity and less diverse land use with average fulfilling quality design of public open spaces are considered Suburban TODs.
Our observations from Table 5.1 suggest that most stations that are on the outer periphery of the city, away from any strong urban development fall under this category. i.e., Southall, Hanwell, West Ealing, and Custom House. These are the areas with lower transit connectivity with monotonous land use with average design quality of public spaces.
5. Undersupplied-transit TOD
This typology corresponds to the stations with high/average place and design indexes with a comparatively small node index. Areas in the city where enough diversity of land use with
good/average fulfilling quality design of public open spaces exists but the transport connectivity is low are considered Suburban TODs.
Our observations from Table 5.1 suggests that station like Ealing Broadway, Tottenham Court Road, Farringdon, and Woolwich comes under this typology. These are the stations that are most likely not far from the city centre of urban areas hence they have great land use diversity and design qualities but the amount of transit accessibility is not enough and there is always a chance to increase frequency or availability of mode of transport. Just with a hint of increased transport services these stations can do wonders by reducing the overall traffic congestion of the city to a significant extent.
Especially Tottenham Court Road and Farringdon which serves a huge number of commuters daily in the city of London via multiple underground lines but they are still not equipped with either enough frequency of transit to serve the need or the number of services made available at the station. Moreover, some of London’s underground stations like these two act as transfer stations where multiple underground lines are meeting at one place and people use them as a changing point to switch the lines for a different route. Given that our underground system analysis is explicitly limited to underground lines, therefore other modes of transport like bus, rail and ferry accessibility are not part of this study, These disparities imply that the expanded node-place model displays a certain degree of responsiveness to the selection of the catchment area dimensions that define the surrounding proximity of each station area (i.e., the “station neighbourhood”), especially when the place and design indexes shows higher value and not the node Hence, our catchment area of 700m can act as a limitation of this research because both of these stations have other multiple stations in the close vicinity which could be serving as the need of transport for different directions of the city but have not been accounted here along with other modes of transport.
6. Future TOD
This typology corresponds to the stations with small node, place and design indexes. Areas in the city with lower transport connectivity, less diverse spatial distribution of land use and lower quality design open spaces are considered Future TODs. Based on the station's geographical positioning, these locales have the potential to evolve into viable Transit-Oriented Developments (TODs) in the future and should be given increased focus in contrast to other locations reliant on automobiles and lacking access to public transportation services. Mostly the stations at the far end or the outermost reach from the city centers are accounted as Future TODs. Our observations from Table 5.1 suggests that station like West Drayton, Hayes & Harlington, Acton main line and Abbey Wood are considered Future TODs. They offer plenty of room in all directions for improvement. As they have limited transit accessibility which can be increased along with the incorporation of diverse land use can be taken into account and at last a certain focus can be given to the quality of public open space design so that these stations can serve the upcoming generation via TOD.
This study provides a demonstration of how network analysis may be useful in determining how closely station areas adhere to the objective of transit-oriented development. In order to study the performance of the Elizabeth Line's station areas at both the local and system levels, this method expands on and complements the node-place-design model. Three primary findings emerged from this investigation. First, the analysis indicates that central London station locations typically feature well-integrated land use, transportation, and walking environments. But as we move afar the diversity of land use is deteriorating. Therefore, it can be believed that planners have already planned while taking into account the TOD principles however there is still a lot of room for improvement. Peripheral station areas are in need of improvement. Second, our analysis discovers that the criticality of station areas along the same underground route varies significantly. Third, the correlation analysis shows positive correlations between any pair of node, place, and design indexes, (Table 5.1) the relatively good correlation between node and design values in this study supports that a high-performance node always has a station area that is favourable to suitable design conditions and functionality.
6. Conclusion and Future Directions
The initial node-place model, characterized by its directness and consequent efficacy in assessing the distribution of land use and transportation, can be further enriched in comprehension and representation through the incorporation of an additional design index, augmenting the original dual node and place indexes. Indeed, the original node-place methodology's earlier implementations seem to have been rather insufficient in distinguishing a strong important quality of design that takes account of public open spaces. The integration of the design index within the extended node-place model facilitates enhanced discrimination of the diverse scenarios inherent to a public transportation network. This incorporation leads to a finer-grained classification of individual station areas, yielding a more comprehensive understanding. By incorporating urban design principles as an additional dimension, the potential emerges to ascertain whether the station area embodies good urban character, a sense of community and feeling of enclosure, ease of movement through the urban fabric, public open spaces, adaptability, legibility and diversity with pedestrian accessibility, as advocated by TOD. Understanding the difference and classification between an urban and a suburban TOD is also important.
The examination centred on the local scale has brought forth supplementary considerations concerning the applicability of this model as a tool to steer urban and transportation planning endeavours within the context of London, particularly in light of the Elizabeth Line's implementation. Methodological issues arise when the model is scaled down to the local level, such as determining the size of each station's catchment area and modifying some node indicators in accordance with the transport mode under consideration. Based on the reported average walking distance to stations in London, we created catchment regions of 700 metres as most of the stations show 1 to 1.5 mile of distance between each Due to our concentration on the local scale, which allowed us to evaluate a significant portion of the city that would have been ignored if the focus had been solely on the rail network, the expanded node-
place-design model is becoming increasingly valuable as a tool for municipal as well as metropolitan planning. As the design tool being a guide in the study of the quality of public open space it was possible to classify all the stations into 6 different categories as discussed in this research.
It is observed that the catchment area is directly linked with place index. When the catchment area increases, the number of points of interest (POIs) also increases significantly if the station is in the centre of the city (considering more tourist places and landmarks) but the same isn’t true if the stations that are in the suburban areas (because suburban areas have fewer POIs than a city centre). Hence it creates an unequal distribution of percentage when we increase the catchment area. In the case of major interchange stations, Lower index values will be the outcome of selecting a small catchment area as the transit flow is actually divided between other nearby surrounding stations. This is a drawback of the methodology used here, and we think more reliable results might come from a combined multimodal evaluation of the station areas that take varied catchment area sizes into account according to the various transport modes available at each station. Alternately, each station could potentially be categorised based on its multiple catchment areas, as done by Jun et al. (2015) in their definition of core and secondary catchment areas. (Shown in Image 5.18 with ½ mile and 1 mile catchment area).
In the future, an integrated analysis including TFL data for the entire region should be tested (½ mile and 1 mile from each station) for Greater London if available considering all modes of transport are accountable in the practical scenario. In addition, it will be crucial to carry out a sensitivity analysis of the three indexes' inputs, as equally weighting each of them may not be the most appropriate strategy for implementation. It is okay to believe that sensitivity analyses might not be sufficiently appreciated for the node index, as public transport accessibility provided by the station might be undervalued compared to other node indicators and the same goes for point of interest and land use diversity.
We believe that our classification of station areas at a local scale might be significant for three primary reasons, despite the differences in classifications of underground transportation stations depending on whether the focus is metropolitan or local. First, it is assumed that the underground/subway network is just as important as the rail network in order to provide accessibility for public transport and to transform the land use around stations, as previously acknowledged by other authors (Cascetta and Pagliara, 2008; Lyu et al., 2016; Monajem and Nosratian, 2015). To put it another way, we argue that in cities with underground/subway systems (or other light rail or bus rapid transit systems), the respective stations are just as significant as rail stations in the city and should be given the same consideration when applying TOD concepts. Second, characterising the station regions surrounding underground stations enables evaluations to be expanded from the constrained and tiny catchment areas surrounding each transportation station (the 15-minute or 800 m/half-mile catchment area) to a much broader review of the city. Accordingly, in order to broaden the envisioned integration of land use and public transport accessibility to a larger metropolitan area, sites far from the station should be adequately examined and taken into consideration for the implementation of TOD principles.
Last but not least, the classification that results from the node-place-design framework has the potential to support urban planning initiatives, especially in the creation of standards for the distribution of activities and parking options. Additionally, it might make it easier to implement financial and budgetary policies that are tailored to certain environments or situations. This classification also helps with the identification of the precise actions required to accomplish the long-desired combination of land use diversity, intensity, and urban design. Importantly, these interventions must be tailored to the distinctive characteristics of each station, not be a “one-size-fits-all” city-wide solution.
Word Count:
Introduction: 1288
Literature Review: 3792
Methodology: 2939
Analysis and Findings: 3315
Conclusion: 998
Total word count: 12,332
7. Bibliography
1. Aston, L., Currie, G. and Pavkova, K. (2016). Does transit mode influence the transit orientation of urban development? – An empirical study. Journal of Transport Geography, 55, pp.83–91. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2016.07.006. [Accessed 16 Aug. 2023].
2. Barker, N. (2022). Elizabeth Line ‘more mannered’ than Jubilee predecessor says head of architecture. [online] Dezeen. Available at: https://www.dezeen.com/2022/05/10/elizabeth-line-crossrail-architectureinterviews/ [Accessed 16 Aug. 2023].
3. Bertolini, L. (1999a). Spatial Development Patterns and Public Transport: The Application of an Analytical Model in the Netherlands. Planning Practice and Research, 14(2), pp.199–210. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/02697459915724 [Accessed 16 Aug. 2023].
4. Bertolini, L. (1999b). Spatial Development Patterns and Public Transport: The Application of an Analytical Model in the Netherlands. Planning Practice and Research, 14(2), pp.199–210. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/02697459915724. [Accessed 10 Aug. 2023].
5. BRINKLOW, A. (2010). TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT - PDF Free Download. [online] docplayer.net. Available at: http://docplayer.net/46077993-Transit-oriented-development.html [Accessed 12 Aug. 2023].
6. Byju's (2023). Gist of EPW February Week 3, 2023 - Economic & Political Weekly. [online] BYJUS. Available at: https://byjus.com/free-ias-prep/gist-of-epw-february-week-3-2023/ [Accessed 12 Aug. 2023].
7. Cao, Z., Asakura, Y. and Tan, Z. (2020). Coordination between node, place, and ridership: Comparing three transit operators in Tokyo. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 87, p.102518. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2020.102518. [Accessed 10 Aug. 2023].
8. Carlton, I. (2009). Histories of Transit-Oriented Development: Perspectives on the Development of the TOD Concept. [online] Available at: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/59412/1/609256262.pdf [Accessed 10 Aug. 2023].
9. Carmona, M. (2009). Sustainable urban design: principles to practice. International Journal of Sustainable Development, 12(1), p.48. doi: https://doi.org/10.1504/ijsd.2009.027528. [Accessed 10 Aug. 2023].
10. Centre for Urban Equity, CEPT University (2014). Towards an Inclusive and Low-carbon Transit Oriented Development in Indian Cities. [online] Available at: https://shaktifoundation.in/wpcontent/uploads/2014/02/CEPT_TOD_REPORT.pdf [Accessed 9 Aug. 2023].
11. Chen, X. and Lin, L. (2015). The node-place analysis on the ‘hubtropolis’ urban form: The case of Shanghai Hongqiao air-rail hub. Habitat International, 49, pp.445–453. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2015.06.013. [Accessed 10 Aug. 2023].
12. College of Design, Architecture, Art and Planning2007 (2007). Housing and Community for Aging Baby Boomers Research. [online] present5.com. Available at: https://present5.com/housing-and-community-foraging-baby-boomers-research/ [Accessed 18 Aug. 2023].
13. Commission for Architecture and Built Environment (2021). Urban design in the planning system: Towards better practice by design. [Accessed 10 Aug. 2023].
14. Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE) (2011). UK Government Web Archive. [online] webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk. Available at: https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20110118103740/http:/www.cabe.org.uk/councillors/pri nciples#character [Accessed 21 Aug. 2023].
15. Currie, G. (2006). Bus Transit Oriented Development — Strengths and Challenges Relative to Rail. Journal of Public Transportation, 9(4), pp.1–21. doi: https://doi.org/10.5038/2375-0901.9.4.1. [Accessed 10 Aug. 2023].
16. Eizaguirre-Iribar, A., Grijalba, O. and Hernández-Minguillón, R.J. (2020). An Integrated Approach to Transportation and Land-Use Planning for the Analysis of Former Railway Nodes in Sustainable Transport Development: The Case of the Vasco-Navarro Railway. Sustainability, 13(1), p.322. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/su13010322. [Accessed 10 Aug. 2023].
17. Elizabeth Line, T. for L. | E.J. (2022). Elizabeth line. [online] Transport for London. Available at: https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/about-tfl/culture-and-heritage/londons-transport-a-history/elizabethline#:~:text=Detailed%20plans%20for%20what%20became [Accessed 10 Aug. 2023].
18. Ghosh, M. (2020). Perception, Design and Ecology of the Built Environment. Springer Geography. Cham: Springer International Publishing. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-25879-5. [Accessed 10 Aug. 2023].
19. Groenendijk, L., Rezaei, J. and Correia, G. (2018). Incorporating the travellers’ experience value in assessing the quality of transit nodes: A Rotterdam case study. Case Studies on Transport Policy, 6(4), pp.564–576. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cstp.2018.07.007. [Accessed 10 Aug. 2023].
20. Higgins, C.D. and 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, pp.61–72. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2016.02.012. [Accessed 10 Aug. 2023].
21. Ibraeva, A., Correia, G.H. de A., Silva, C. and Antunes, A.P. (2020). Transit-oriented development: A review of research achievements and challenges. Transportation Research P [Accessed 10 Aug. 2023]. art A: Policy and Practice, 132, pp.110–130. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2019.10.018. [Accessed 10 Aug. 2023].
22. Ibrahim, S.M., Ayad, H.M., Turki, E.A. and Saadallah, D.M. (2023). Measuring Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) levels: Prioritize potential areas for TOD in Alexandria, Egypt using GIS-Spatial Multi-Criteria based model. Alexandria Engineering Journal, 67, pp.241–255. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2022.12.053 [Accessed 10 Aug. 2023].
23. Intern, E. (2023). A Brief History of the Elizabeth Line. [online] Whitechapel LDN. Available at: https://whitechapellondon.co.uk/elizabeth-line-history/ [Accessed 16 Aug. 2023].
24. Knowles, R.D., Ferbrache, F. and Nikitas, A. (2020). Transport’s historical, contemporary and future role in shaping urban development: Re-evaluating transit-oriented development. Cities, 99, p.102607. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2020.102607 [Accessed 10 Aug. 2023].
25. Levinson, D. and Lahoorpoor, B. (2019). Catchment if you can: The effect of station entrance and exit locations on accessibility. [online] Available at:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338313208_Catchment_if_you_can_The_effect_of_station_entra nce_and_exit_locations_on_accessibility [Accessed 10 Aug. 2023].
26. Li, Z., Han, Z., Xin, J., Luo, X., Su, S. and Weng, M. (2019). Transit-oriented development among metro station areas in Shanghai, China: Variations, typology, optimization and implications for land use planning. Land Use Policy, 82, pp.269–282. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.12.003 [Accessed 10 Aug. 2023].
27. Linde-Arias, E., Lemmon, M. and Ares, J. (2019). Development of a ground model, targeted ground investigation and risk mitigation for the excavation of an open-face cross passage on the underground Elizabeth Line, London. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 86, pp.209–223. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2019.01.004 [Accessed 10 Aug. 2023].
28. London Transport Museum (2022). The Elizabeth lines. [online] London Transport Museum. Available at: https://www.ltmuseum.co.uk/collections/stories/transport/elizabeth-line#:~:text=Origins [Accessed 18 Aug. 2023].
29. Lyu, G., Bertolini, L. and Pfeffer, K. (2016). Developing a TOD typology for Beijing metro station areas. Journal of Transport Geography, 55, pp.40–50. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2016.07.002 [Accessed 10 Aug. 2023].
30. Ma, X., Chen, X., Li, X., Ding, C. and Wang, Y. (2018). Sustainable station-level planning: An integrated transport and land use design model for transit-oriented development. Journal of Cleaner Production, 170, pp.1052–1063. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.09.182 [Accessed 10 Aug. 2023].
31. Maheshwari, R. (2019). Evaluating Local Area Plans and Their Effects on Transit Oriented Development. [online] Available at: https://library.itc.utwente.nl/papers_2019/msc/upm/maheshwari.pdf [Accessed 12 Aug. 2023].
32. Makworo, M. and Mireri, C. (2011). Public open spaces in Nairobi City, Kenya, under threat. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 54(8), pp.1107–1123. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2010.549631 [Accessed 18 Aug. 2023].
33. Monajem, S. and Ekram Nosratian, F. (2015). The evaluation of the spatial integration of station areas via the node place model; an application to subway station areas in Tehran. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 40, pp.14–27. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2015.07.009 [Accessed 10 Aug. 2023].
34. Nigro, A., Bertolini, L. and Moccia, F.D. (2019). Land use and public transport integration in small cities and towns: Assessment methodology and application. Journal of Transport Geography, 74, pp.110–124. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2018.11.004 [Accessed 10 Aug. 2023].
35. Papa, E. and Bertolini, L. (2015). Accessibility and Transit-Oriented Development in European metropolitan areas. Journal of Transport Geography, 47, pp.70–83. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2015.07.003 [Accessed 10 Aug. 2023].
36. Phani Kumar, P., Ravi Sekhar, Ch. and Parida, M. (2020). Identification of neighbourhood typology for potential transit-oriented development. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 78, p.102186. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2019.11.015 [Accessed 10 Aug. 2023].
37. Rabon, J. (2022). What Makes the Elizabeth Line Different from Other Underground Lines? [online] Londontopia. Available at: https://londontopia.net/travel/transport/what-makes-the-elizabeth-line-differentfrom-other-underground-lines/#:~:text=This%20Crossrail%20line%20has%20its [Accessed 15 Aug. 2023].
38. Rangwala, L., Mathews, R. and Sridhar, S. (2014). Shifting Discourse about Transit-Oriented Development in Mumbai, India. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2451(1), pp.60–67. doi: https://doi.org/10.3141/2451-07 [Accessed 18 Aug. 2023].
39. Ratner, K.A. and Goetz, A.R. (2013). The reshaping of land use and urban form in Denver through transitoriented development. Cities, 30, pp.31–46. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2012.08.007 [Accessed 12 Aug. 2023].
40. S.J, B. (2017). Users’ preferences with regard to Transit Oriented Development characteristics in relation to transport mode choices. [online] Available at: https://pure.tue.nl/ws/files/91920350/Borger_0808262.pdf [Accessed 10 Aug. 2023].
41. Scribd. (2023). Singh TOD Measurement | PDF | Public Transport | Bus. [online] Available at: https://www.scribd.com/document/331248484/Singh-TOD-Measurement# [Accessed 12 Aug. 2023].
42. Shafiei, S. and H.N, N. (2018). Transit oriented development: a strategy for an effective urban growth. [online] 1library.net. Available at: https://1library.net/document/qok048my-transit-oriented-developmentstrategy-effective-urban-growth.html [Accessed 10 Aug. 2023].
43. Shatu, F., Aston, L., Patel, L.B. and Kamruzzaman, Md. (2022). Chapter Ten - Transit oriented development: A bibliometric analysis of research. [online] ScienceDirect. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2543000921000238?via%3Dihub [Accessed 12 Aug. 2023].
44. SIAM, A. (2018). FACTORS AFFECTING BUS RIDERSHIP IN QATAR. [online] Available at: https://qspace.qu.edu.qa/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10576/11356/Abdulla%20Siam%20OGS%20Approved%2 0Thesis%20.pdf?isAllowed=n&sequence=1 [Accessed 12 Aug. 2023].
45. Singh, Y.J., Lukman, A., Flacke, J., Zuidgeest, M. and Van Maarseveen, M.F.A.M. (2017). Measuring TOD around transit nodes - Towards TOD policy. Transport Policy, 56, pp.96–111. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2017.03.013 [Accessed 10 Aug. 2023].
46. Srikanth Shastry, Spatial assessment of transit-oriented development in Ahmedabad, India. August, 2010 http://essay.utwente.nl/59707/1/MA_thesis_R_Shastry.pdf [Accessed 18 Aug. 2023]
47. Taking Planning Forward, Third Edition 2017 – 2018, PhD Community Highlights and Research Projects at the Bartlett School of Planning
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/bartlett/planning/sites/bartlett/files/1807_tpf_3_publication.pdf [Accessed 16 Aug. 2023]
48. Thailand Rail Academic Symposium (TRAS) (2021). Urban Rail Transit: Proceedings of the 6th Thailand Rail Academic Symposium [1st ed.] 9789811559785, 9789811559792. [online] dokumen.pub. Available at: https://dokumen.pub/urban-rail-transit-proceedings-of-the-6th-thailand-rail-academic-symposium-1sted-9789811559785-9789811559792.html [Accessed 12 Aug. 2023].
49. Toufexi, I. and Correspondent, N.L., PA Transport (2022). The difference between Crossrail and the Elizabeth Line. [online] Berkshire Live. Available at: https://www.getreading.co.uk/whats-on/differencebetween-crossrail-elizabeth-line-23232964 [Accessed 2 Aug. 2023].
50. Tucker, W. (2017). Crossrail project: the execution strategy for delivering London’s Elizabeth line. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Civil Engineering, [online] 170(5), pp.3–14. doi: https://doi.org/10.1680/jcien.16.00021 [Accessed 10 Aug. 2023].
51. Universita Degli Study Mediterranea Reggio Calabria (1016). TOD: From conceptualization to the urban agenda in Europe 2020. [online] Available at: https://85efabf7-b835-40ee-8ce69be7672974e5.filesusr.com/ugd/34b8a7_9a2c2001898943e8b15768c01f9d1061.pdf [Accessed 28 Jul. 2023].
52. Vale, D.S., Viana, C.M. and Pereira, M. (2018). The extended node-place model at the local scale: Evaluating the integration of land use and transport for Lisbon’s subway network. Journal of Transport Geography, [online] 69, pp.282–293. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2018.05.004 [Accessed 10 Aug. 2023].
53. Wey, W.-M., Zhang, H. and Chang, Y.-J. (2016). Alternative transit-oriented development evaluation in sustainable built environment planning. Habitat International, 55, pp.109–123. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2016.03.003 [Accessed 10 Aug. 2023].
54. Worldbank.org. (2017). Available at: https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/433621581930100479/text/Assessing-Physical-Environmentof-TOD-Communities-around-Metro-Stations-Using-Big-Data-and-Machine-Learning.txt [Accessed 18 Aug. 2023].
55. Yogi, R., Kavina, J., Darji, P. and Darji, V. (2017). Transit-Oriented Development: Lessons from Indian Experiences. [online] Kasturbhai Lalbhai Campus, University Road, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009. Available at: https://cept.ac.in/UserFiles/File/CUE/Working%20Papers/Revised%20New/36CUEWP36_TOD%20Lessons%20from%20Indian%20Experiences.pdf [Accessed 10 Aug. 2023].
56. Zhang, M. and Lee, J. (Brian) (2023). Make TOD More Bicycling-Friendly: An Extended Node-Place Model Incorporating a Cycling Accessibility Index. Buildings, [online] 13(5), p.1240. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13051240 [Accessed 10 Aug. 2023].
57. Zhang, Y., Marshall, S. and Manley, E. (2019). Network criticality and the node-place-design model: Classifying metro station areas in Greater London. Journal of Transport Geography, 79, p.102485. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2019.102485 [Accessed 18 Aug. 2023].