Notas TOD-Transit Oriented Development by impostergable

An Appraisal of Trends and Opportunities for Latin America

Prepared by: Daniel A. Rodríguez, Ph.D.

Date: September, 2021

Editors: Mario Duran-Ortiz, Jason Anthony Hobbs and Francisca Rojas

A report prepared for the Inter-American Development Bank

Peer Reviewer: Gilberto E. Chona Contributions from: Annie Hudson Editorial design by: impostergable

Table of contents

Introduction

Current trends in TOD implementation: main risks and challenges

Innovative responses

Trends regarding TOD impacts

2.1.

An evolving definition of TOD

2.2.

Defining de “T” in TOD 2.2.1. Tension between TOD as a place 2.2.2. and TOD as a node

The challenge of TOD and 2.2.3. redevelopment 2.2.4. Inducing peripheral growth: Is TOD a recipe for sprawl? Emerging trends in planning for TOD

2.3

Usefulness of TOD typologies 2.3.1. When to TOD? 2.3.2. The timing challenge of TOD TOD incentives and funding 2.3.3.

Institutional coordination and 2.3.4. familiarity with TOD

4 Recommendations and implications for TOD strategy and practice

Seoul: a tight integration between mass transit and land development reflected in a TOD typology

3.1.

The Colombian experience with partial plans for TOD

3.2.

Regional institutions and local coordination: the case of TOD in Vancouver

3.3.

Adapting and improving current land management and value capture tools

A tool for assessing market readiness and planning support

3.4.

Including locally-differentiated TOD strategies

Promoting inclusive TOD

4.1.

Avoiding TOD that displaces residents

4.2.

Supporting active transport

4.3. 4.4.

4.5.

Involving the private sector

4.6.

Leveraging opportunities for regional leadership and a regional strategy

4.7.

Addressing the need for coordination

4.8.

Abstract In recent years, Transit Oriented Development (TOD) is increasingly accepted due to its great potential for leading cities towards more sustainable futures. This fruitful coordination between a city’s investments in mass transit and its land development strategy has enabled better accessibility, increased walkability and mixed land use around transit areas. This technical note reviews TOD at several scales in order to comprehend the trends, opportunities and challenges for its development and implementation, with a focus on yielding lessons for Latin America. First, the document discusses the global experience with TODs, including its characteristics and impacts such as traveler behavior, ridership, and environmental benefits, as well as areas for improvement. The identified challenges include controversy around the definition of TOD itself; possible displacement of vulnerable residents and commercial

tenants; the timing of development; the absence of legal framework to enable TOD regulations and tools; the effective use of incentives and land value capture; and the unintentional push to sprawl. The review is followed by four case studies highlighting innovative responses to some of the discussed conﬂicts; these are Seoul, Bogotá, Vancouver, and a multi-city approach for assessing TOD market readiness. Some cases were successful, while others revealed missed opportunities. Finally, having identiﬁed key attributes of the successful TODs – and successful approaches to achieve TOD-, the technical note provides eight recommendations for effective TOD implementation targeted at Latin American cities.

Even though challenges remain, the evidence reviewed suggests that the coordination of land development and transportation should be combined with the coordination of public and private institutional leadership in the effort to achieve a sustainable city.

Key words: TOD; BRT; Latin America; Urban development; Sustainability; Mobility; Tools; Trends; Urban regeneration; Seoul; Bogotá; Vancouver

Executive Summary Transit Oriented Development (TOD) represents an increasingly attractive alternative for improving the quality of life for people all around the world. By definition, TOD describes the coordination between a city’s transport investments and land development. This can be mutually beneficial as the investments in mass transit increase accessibility which is likely to be reflected in higher property values. The emergent experience of TOD in Latin American cities has heightened the need to understand proactive steps that can be followed for a successful TOD implementation.

The purpose of this technical note is to evaluate TOD at multiple scales, from a global perspective to more speciﬁc implementation in particular cities, in order to collect information useful for the Latin American context. As a result, the document concludes with eight recommendations for effective TOD implementation. The global experience with TODs builds upon the accumulated knowledge from the last decades. All around the world, TOD has encouraged more sustainable forms of mobility by concentrating demand, capitalizing on economies of density,

better accessibility, increasing walkability, and mixing land uses. This has presented positive outcomes like increased property values and related property tax revenues, reduced greenhouse gas emissions, lower levels of air pollution and, in some cases, neighborhood regeneration. However, the maturation of TODs has been accompanied by several unexpected impacts; some of these include concentration of housing and jobs around transit, induced gentriﬁcation and the displacement of vulnerable populations. Those impacts prompt the need for tools to increase the supply of affordable housing and to

protect the community as a part of TOD implementation. For the Latin American context, issues like redevelopment, the need for congruence between investments, institutional coordination, the absence of legal framework and the possibility to induce peripheral growth present an even greater challenge. Afterwards, the document provides four case studies that highlight tools, instruments, and interventions which have played an important role in successful TOD projects; these are Seoul, Bogotá, Vancouver, and a multi-city approach to TOD market readiness.

The ﬁrst case study, Seoul, serves as an example of a tight integration between multimodal transportation and land development at varying levels of intensity and with multiple transportation modes. Moreover, it exempliﬁes application of station area typologies that takes into consideration the diversity and evolving characteristics of land development and transportation. The case of Bogotá and its experience with urban partial plans has presented strengths and challenges, particularly for suburban redevelopment

For greenfield development, partial plans have been successful in encouraging development that is oriented around transit. In infill areas, difficulties around permitting, negotiation with land owners and residents, and concerns about gentrification have limited the efficacy of the partial plan approach. The Vancouver case embodies the efficacy of a planning legacy focused on reducing auto-centric development coupled with strategic initiatives at the regional and station-area levels. Vancouver is an example of how a successful coordination and cooperation between transportation in its multiple scales and land use is necessary in order to maintain a high level of urban livability, even in the face of rapid population growth.

The last case study focuses on a tool for assessing market readiness for TOD and planning support. The tool focuses on real estate market appetite and determining the degree of transit orientation and land availability at existing locations, addressing the need to assess market conditions and develop locally differentiated TOD strategies that are coherent to each of the stations’ circumstances. Even though the cases are diverse, they provided insights into emerging TOD trends and innovative responses when faced with challenges.

Finally, building on the ﬁndings of the review, the technical note concludes with eight recommendations for effective TOD implementation targeted at Latin American cities:

Promote

Avoid

Support

Adapt and Improve

Develop

Involve

Leverage

Address

TOD that is inclusive of various land uses, types of residences, and levels of affordability.

TOD that results in the displacement of local residents.

active transportation as a strategy that helps achieve other TOD objectives around inclusion, connectivity, accessibility, and environmental improvements.

current urban land management and value capture tools in order to defray the costs of TOD.

TOD strategies that are reflective of local market conditions and community priorities, and that take into account the challenges of the timing of transit investments and the timing of land development or redevelopment.

the private sector as a way to enhance the financial, political, and market support for TOD.

opportunities to develop regional leadership to support TOD in concert with a regional TOD strategy.

the need for institutional coordination across sectors, levels of administration, and private, public, and non-profit sectors.

Introduction What is Transit Oriented Development?

Transit oriented development (TOD) has emerged as a concept to describe the coordination of land development with investments in mass transit. This integrated approach is mutually beneficial because certain patterns of land development increase the demand and the attractiveness of sustainable travel options in which mass transit is included, along with pedestrian and bicycle modes. Simultaneously, mass transit supports urban development that is compact and dense.

Often coupled with changes in land development regulations, TOD can be viewed as a market response to the accessibility advantages provided by mass transit investments which, based on the land rent theory1,2, are likely to be reflected in higher property values. Accordingly, recent reviews focussed on Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) have suggested possible property value increases when this system is implemented3,4. Higher values then generate increased interest from developers and investors to develop land more intensely resulting in what Levinson and Krizek5 have deemed a seemingly-virtuous cycle of compact, walkable development and transit accessibility.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 Introduction

Curitiba is one of the most emblematic cases of coordination between land development and BRT. Through deliberate upzoning of areas alongside BRT corridors, downzoning of non-corridor areas, and mixing of land uses, Curitiba was able to successfully guide dense development along the axes outlined by its BRT system. Curitiba followed a transit-first approach – initially investing in mass transit to shape future urban development. Although Curitiba’s was an early and path-breaking example of BRT-based TOD, recent research has highlighted important areas for improvement. For example, the environment around many of Curitiba’s BRT stops provides limited support for active transport6; there is ample on- and off-street parking, often free7; motorization and auto use continue to rise8; and welllocated housing affordability remains a challenge9. The lessons of Curitiba can serve as an example for other Latin

American cities as they experiment with TOD as an explicit way to strengthen mass transit investments while providing opportunities for pedestrian and bicycle mobility, short trips, and more sustainable development patterns. In addition to a deliberate approach to coordinating land development around mass transit, recent research has also identified TODs that have resulted from a development-first approach. In these TODs, mass transit investments follow pre-existing land development that is dense and with a high mixture of uses. The challenge is to retrofit nodal urban districts and fill gaps in order to further improve the TOD orientation of development, often by improving the environment for active transportation, the quality of public spaces, and the connectivity of stops’ surrounding areas. Although historically receiving less recognition as TOD than the more ambitious and expansive example

of Curitiba, there are other cases of BRTbased TOD that have garnered increased attention. For example, in 2017 the Institute for Transport Policy and Development developed a rating of mass transit stop areas (“The TOD Standard”) based on the stops’ performance on several TOD criteria10. It awarded a gold rating to a BRT stop in Bogotá (Centro Internacional) and a silver rating for a BRT stop in Mexico City (Reforma 222) both of which followed a development-first approach. Elsewhere in Latin America (e.g. Quito, Guatemala City) researchers have shown that existing development around BRT stops may come close to exhibiting key characteristics often attributed to TOD11. In these instances, mass transit investments leveraged pre-existing development to reinforce development that is transitfriendly and sustainable.

Regardless of whether a transit-first or a development-first approach is followed, there is a growing need to understand proactive steps that can be taken to encourage the planning for and adoption of TOD at multiple scales – the region, the urban district, the station and the corridor, while addressing implementation challenges.

Figure 1. Graphic synthesis of the definition of TOD.

The next section begins with a review of the current global experience with TODs, including its characteristics and impacts such as traveler behavior, ridership, and environmental benefits, as well as areas for improvement. For example, the growing TOD experience has revealed emerging tensions surrounding the identity of TOD itself: the conundrum of TOD as a place where activity concentrates versus TOD as a gateway to regional mass transit12-15. Other pertinent challenges include the potential for displacement of vulnerable residents and commercial tenants; the lack of congruence between the timing of transit investments and the timing of urban development; institutional coordination; the absence of a legal framework to support tools and regulations that enable TOD; the application of TOD typologies for regional planning; and the effective use of incentives and land value capture. The review is followed by four case studies highlighting innovative responses to some of the emerging TOD challenges; these are Seoul, Bogotá, Vancouver, and a multi-city approach to TOD market readiness. Seoul’s TOD efforts serve as an example of the seamless integration of multiple modes of 10

mass transit (rail, light rail, BRT, taxis, and active transportation) accompanied by a long-term differentiated TOD strategy. The Bogotá case highlights specific examples attempting to foster TOD around key stops of its BRT, highlighting strengths and challenges of urban partial plans as tools for value capture and land readjustment, especially for redevelopment. Vancouver underscores the importance of local, regional, and provincial transportation, and land use coordination and cooperation with mixed success in developing a pedestrian-friendly environment in areas of redevelopment. Finally, the multi-city case study focuses on a tool that has been applied in cities such as Portland, Oregon, and Washington for the development of a regional TOD strategy. The tool addresses the need to assess market conditions and develop locally differentiated TOD strategies that are consistent and complementary to the realities of each of the stations’ surroundings. Although varying in scope, these four cases confirm some of the emerging trends and challenges of TOD and how to plan for it.

The final section of the report reflects on the aforementioned findings and offers eight recommendations for effective TOD implementation targeted at Latin American cities: (1) Promote TOD that is inclusive of various land uses, types of residences, and levels of affordability. (2) Avoid TOD that results in the displacement of local residents. (3) Support active transportation as a strategy that helps achieve other TOD objectives around inclusion, connectivity, accessibility, and environmental improvements. (4) Adapt and improve current urban land management and value capture tools in order to defray the costs of TOD. (5) Develop TOD strategies that are reflective of local market conditions and community priorities, and that take into account the challenges of the timing of transit investments and the timing of land development or redevelopment. (6) Involve the private sector as a way to enhance the financial, political, and market support for TOD. (7) Leverage opportunities to develop regional leadership to support TOD in concert with a regional TOD strategy. (8) Address the need for institutional coordination across sectors, levels of administration, and private, public, and non-profit sectors.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 Introduction

Chapter 1 References 1. Alonso, W. Location and land use; toward a general theory of land rent. (Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1964., 1964).

9. Freitas Miranda, H. d. & Rodrigues da Silva, A. N. Benchmarking sustainable urban mobility: The case of Curitiba, Brazil. Transp. Policy 21, 141-151 (2012).

2. Muth, R. F. Cities and Housing. (University of Chicago Press, 1969).

10. ITDP. The TOD Standard. (Institute for Transportation Development and Policy New York, NY, 2017).

3. Zhang, M. & Yen, B. T. H. The impact of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) on land and property values: A meta-analysis. Land Use Policy 96, doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104684 (2020).

11. Rodriguez, D. A. & Vergel-Tovar, C. E. Urban development around bus rapid transit stops in seven cities in LatinAmerica. Journal of Urbanism: International Research on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability 11, 175-201 (2018).

4. Stokenberga, A. Does Bus Rapid Transit Influence Urban Land Development and Property Values: A Review of the Literature. Transp. Rev. 34, 276-296, doi:10.1 080/01441647.2014.902404 (2014). 5. Levinson, D. M. & Krizek, K. J. Planning for place and plexus : metropolitan land use and transport. (Routledge, 2008). 6. Vergel-Tovar, C. E. & Rodriguez, D. A. The ridership performance of the built environment for BRT systems: Evidence from Latin America. Journal of Transport Geography 73, 172-184, doi:10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2018.06.018 (2018). 7. Zeimann, C. Parking management in Curitiba, Brazil Masters of City and Regional Planning thesis, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, (2006).

15. Vale, D. S. Transit-oriented development, integration of land use and transport, and pedestrian accessibility: Combining node-place model with pedestrian shed ratio to evaluate and classify station areas in Lisbon. Journal of Transport Geography 45, 70-80, doi:10.1016/j. jtrangeo.2015.04.009 (2015).

12. Bertolini, L. Spatial development patterns and public transport: the application of an analytical model in the Netherlands. Planning Practice and Research 14, 199-210 (1999). 13. Huang, R., Grigolon, A., Madureira, M. & Brussel, M. Measuring transit-oriented development (TOD) network complementarity based on TOD node typology. Journal of Transport and Land Use 11, 305-324, doi:10.5198/ jtlu.2018.1110 (2018). 14. Lyu, G., Bertolini, L. & Pfeffer, K. Developing a TOD typology for Beijing metro station areas. Journal of Transport Geography 55, 40-50, doi:10.1016/j. jtrangeo.2016.07.002 (2016).

8. Lindau, L. A., Hidalgo, D. & Facchini, D. Bus Rapid Transit in Curitiba, Brazil A Look at the Outcome After 35 Years of Bus-Oriented Development. Transp. Res. Record, 17-27, doi:10.3141/2193-03 (2010).

Current trends in TOD implementation: main risks and challenges Building on the accumulated experience of the last decades, this section summarizes trends, common risks, and emerging opportunities for TOD. It begins with a summary of key transportation, urban development, environmental, and community impacts; followed by a discussion of the changing definition of TOD based on its function, its form, and the types of transportation modes considered. It subsequently summarizes procedural challenges around TOD implementation including institutional support, local incentives, planning knowledge, and the timing of development.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 Current trends in TOD implementation; main risks and challenges

2.1. Trends regarding TOD impacts Global research on TOD has largely focused on documenting its direct impacts, with evidence on its indirect impacts only now beginning to emerge. The direct impacts of TOD relate to transportation and mobility, urban accessibility, land development, and urban design. Pertinent indirect impacts include environmental performance and an improvement in the tax base. Evidence of TOD’s social impacts, meanwhile, is mixed. Despite the possibility for more public space and chance encounters, there is limited evidence about changes in social capital. Furthermore, concerns around displacement of both original residents and local commercial businesses continue to emerge. By concentrating demand, capitalizing on economies of density, better accessibility, increasing walkability, and mixing land uses, TOD has been shown to encourage more sustainable forms of mobility. Studies conducted in a variety of cities worldwide including Bogotá16, Curitiba11,

Hong Kong17, New York, Portland, San Francisco, Sao Paulo11, Seoul18,19, Shanghai20, Taipei, Washington21, and Wuhan22 among others, have shown positive associations between TODs and mass transit ridership. To be clear, not all station areas in these systems qualify as TODs. However, some do exhibit attributes that qualify them as well-performing TODs. Others have documented increases in transit use over time23-25 and changes in kilometers traveled21,26 even after attempting to account for residential self-selection— those individuals who move to TODs because of their pre-existing proclivities for transit27. The effects on travel behavior also extend to non-work trips14 and to longer-term mobility decisions such as whether to own a car20, 21, 28.

Figure 2. All around the world: Some of the cities with positive associations between TODs and mass transit ridership.

Indirect TOD benefits include increased property values and related property tax revenues29-31, reduced emissions as a result of shorter distances traveled and higher transit ridership32, 33, 34 and lower levels of air pollution35, 36. However, it is important to note that there are documented increases in localized congestion and emissions hotspots due to heightened economic activity related to TODs as destinations. The concentration of housing and jobs around transit, meanwhile, supports the fiscal health of local governments.

On a per-unit-of-area basis, TODs produce more fiscal revenue than development that is more widely distributed in space37. Other evidence regarding TOD’s economic, environmental, and social benefits is more ambiguous. For example, while there is evidence that TOD does indeed spur economic development, it is unclear whether that economic activity is a net increase or merely displaced from elsewhere in the metropolitan area38. Regardless of its regional effects, at the local level TOD is frequently seen as a potential catalyst

for neighborhood redevelopment and in some cases presented as a tool for neighborhood regeneration. Similarly, energy usage appears to decrease due to lower automobile use and shorter trips; however, other research has shown that under particular circumstances, energy use from cooling and heating actually increases39. For social capital, some studies have hypothesized that chance encounters and proximity to social destinations may create opportunities for increased interaction and social inclusion.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 Current trends in TOD implementation; main risks and challenges

Although some research has shown increased social ties among TOD residents (relative to residents of other types of developments)24, others have failed to find such an association31. Concerns around induced gentrification and the displacement of vulnerable populations follow from an expansion in local economic activity and increases in property values. In some ways, the essence of TOD lies in encouraging densification to engender the social and private benefits of clustering and agglomeration.

Furthermore, TODs often rely on heightened market interest in the area to encourage developers to build more intensely40. Yet, high land values decrease the viability of affordable housing or mixed income housing projects. As a result, tools to increase the supply of affordable housing, such as inclusionary zoning and deed-restricted affordable housing should be considered as part of the TOD planning process41.

Related tools to protect population displacement are also relevant because maintaining or increasing the supply of affordable housing does not mean that pre-existing residents will not be displaced. Tools such as community land trusts* and Sao Paulo’s ZEIS (Zonas Especiais de Interesse Social)** could be helpful in protecting vulnerable residents at risk of displacement42.

Issues of displacement are particularly acute for infill TOD projects, precisely because current land is likely occupied by lower income residents. The difficulty of managing the process of land redevelopment in areas with existing activity is an important reason why most recent TOD in Latin America is located in peripheral, greenfield areas mostly though not exclusively located in peripheral locations23. Echoing concerns about displacement, a recent global review suggested that the “D” in TOD has taken a very narrow meaning focused on physical development, while community development in TOD has languished30.

* In a community land trust, ownership between land and structural improvements to the land (buildings) are separate. Land is collectively owned whereas building titles can be held by individuals, business owners, cooperatives, non-profits, or others. Titles to land parcels are held by a not-for-profit owner that manages the lands on behalf of dwellers. Land is thus removed temporarily or permanently from the market. ** In Sao Paulo, ZEIS are zoning overlays to identify favelas in need of physical upgrading, favelas in environmentally sensitive zones, undeveloped peripheral areas, welllocated areas that have been disinvested, and more recently, well-located areas with land availability to attract affordable housing. ZEIS have been relatively successful in increasing investments, but they have been less successful in keeping the housing affordable or in expanding affordable housing in those locations.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 Current trends in TOD implementation; main risks and challenges

2.2. An evolving definition of TOD Both the “T” and “D” of TOD are being contested and redefined. This in itself can be interpreted as a harbinger of success, as localities adapt TOD to fit their localized priorities and needs. Yet critics contend that this may end up diluting the value of TOD: if the density, active transport orientation, mixing of land uses, quality of transit service, or diversity of housing are compromised, is it still TOD? This concern spurred the development of TOD standards10.

Keeping in mind that a monolithic definition of TOD is appropriate, this section explores emerging trends surrounding what constitutes TOD, including debates surrounding the “T” of TOD, the tension between node and place, the challenges of implementing TOD in redevelopment areas, and the potential of TOD to induce peripheral growth.

2.2.1. Defining the “T” in TOD The breadth of modes represented by the “T” in TOD has undergone re-examination and revision. Even though the concept of TOD emerged mostly from rail transit investments, which are highly site-specific and durable, there is increased evidence of the usefulness of TOD for bus-based services, particularly Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)29. This is premised on the view that most development or redevelopment stems from the accessibility improvements that transportation infrastructure

investments provide, regardless of the specific transportation mode. By contrast, supporters of a narrower, mode-specific definition of “Transit” suggest that the perception of developers is important in determining whether TODs succeed or not. For example, the lack of permanence of bus systems, the stigma of buses as a mode of transportation inferior to rail, the allure of rail as a novel and ‘modern’ mode of transportation, and the political commitment implied in

the higher cost of rail may contribute to perceptions, accurate or not, that rail-based TOD is more desirable than bus-based TOD43. These concerns are magnified for regular bus service; by contrast, they are ameliorated to the extent that bus-based systems become more rail-like in their asset-specificity, location, and operations. Indeed, the emerging experience from Asia and Latin America suggests that these concerns are more likely to apply to regular bus-based services than BRT44, 45.

BRT and aerial trams are two examples of the expansion of the conceptualization of the “T” in TOD. Although BRT has a distinguished trajectory as a mode of transportation that is complementary to, and sometimes competitive with rail service, and Curitiba’s experience notwithstanding, it has only emerged within the past two decades as a mode considered to fall under the TOD’s umbrella29, 46.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 Current trends in TOD implementation; main risks and challenges

The impacts of TOD attributes on BRT ridership6, auto ownership28, property values43,47,48, and land development and redevelopment49,50 have been welldocumented. More recently, there has been renewed interest in investing in aerial trams to serve low income populations living in steep hillsides in many Latin American cities; and accompanying this renewed interest have been efforts to link the aerial tram with the concept of transitoriented development.

The travel time, environmental, public space, property value, and walkability benefits of these investments are largely consistent with the benefits attributed to TODs51-54. Even in the absence of high-quality transit service, it may be justifiable to encourage development that is consistent with many of the land development attributes of TOD. This includes encouraging development that is high density, more walkable, with a high mixture of land uses, and with

quality public spaces; more directly, a TOD without the “T”. Although using US evidence only, Chatman concludes that broadening the effort to encourage TOD-like attributes beyond station areas is desirable and likely to yield significant benefits55.

From this perspective, relaxing regulations that have centrifugal effects on urban form could be appropriate even when there are no mass transit stops close by.

Thus, density caps, parking requirements, limited public spaces, and separation of land uses are all policies that may be artificially suppressing compact, walkable environments.

2.2.2. Tension between TOD as a place and TOD as a node The maturation of TODs has been accompanied by a number of unexpected impacts. Prominent among them is the tension that exists between TOD as a destination and TOD as a gateway from the rest of the city, or in other words, the tension between TOD as a place and TOD as a node within a transportation network. This tension emerges from the need of TODs to function as destinations –as a place that people want to visit for work, entertainment, commercial activities or other purposes, as well as the function of TOD as nodal gateways into the regional transportation system. Not everyone

going to the TOD does so by transit and therefore the concentration of activities has sometimes led to pedestrian-vehicle conflicts and spot congestion. This, in turn, has resulted at times in higher localized tailpipe emissions. By contrast, the nodal aspect of the TODs support the ability of travelers to get to other transit lines and modes and to connect to the rest of the region. And conversely, some travelers use transit to access destinations at this node. This gateway function of TOD requires high multimodal accessibility that eases access and egress functions, sometimes

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 Current trends in TOD implementation; main risks and challenges

in conflict with the place-based functions related to employment and other activities that create conflicts between transit users and non-users. Automobile parking is a prominent example where the nodal and place functions of TOD come to a head. Providing ample parking at a low price (or free) is sometimes seen as a way to enhance access to the destinations within a TOD. Unfortunately, this undermines the gateway function of the TOD as it reduces incentives to take transit and makes navigating the TOD environment more challenging for walkers and cyclists.

Beyond parking, the broader management of automobiles is a relevant aspect of the management of urban space around mass transit station areas. Although less common in Latin America, zonal charges related to emissions and congestion (such as cordon charges) have begun to emerge as possible policy instruments to curb car use. Latin American cities have a stronger track record with the use of automobile circulation bans aimed at improving air quality and decreasing congestion60. Increasing the space devoted to other uses is another way of dissuading car use and raising the perceived cost of driving.

node

place Figure 3. TOD as a node versus TOD as a place.

2.2.3. The challenge of TOD and redevelopment Since in many cases development in Latin American cities has occurred before mass transit, redevelopment can be a critical step in unlocking the benefits of TOD. Yet, the process is much more complex than greenfield development given the diverse land ownership, current users of the space (residents, workers, visitors), and the need to mitigate impacts on neighboring areas and pass-through users. For these reasons, land management tools like urban partial plans and development master agreements are poorly suited for infill development. This may partly explain why a recent review found a paucity of cases of infill TOD23. Two Asian cases stand out as noteworthy with respect to successful infill development for TOD. In Hong Kong infill sites were able to attract employment 22

growth and new population, and a higher degree of land use mix61. By contrast, in greenfield sites the planning was more tabula rasa, with comprehensive and whole-cloth interventions broadly altering the greenfield landscape. In Seoul, the introduction of BRT led to strengthening the first and second-ring suburban areas followed by significant infill redevelopment. Nowhere are the challenges of redevelopment versus infill development more prominent than in the placement of affordable housing. Throughout Latin America, much of the affordable housing developed in the late 20th and early 21st centuries associated with transit was peripherally located with low regional accessibility.

Although cities such as Bogotá, Quito, and Rio de Janeiro used innovative tools, the resulting housing was nonetheless poorly located50, 62. Finally, a related challenge around infill development for TOD is that the redevelopment is most likely to take place in places where there is a significant gap between existing and potential development value. These places, however, may be characterized by dilapidated structures, poor public infrastructure, and therefore more likely to be occupied by vulnerable populations and the opportunity to redevelop in these areas is likely to displace them.

Addressing the needs of existing marginalized populations in areas that are undergoing accessibility-enhancing investments is probably one of the most vexing challenges of TOD. As discussed previously, Sao Paulo’s experience with ZEIS is mixed, with some antidisplacement protections working well, particularly when complemented with additional policies and programs, but with increases in affordable housing rarely occurring63.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 Current trends in TOD implementation; main risks and challenges

2.2.4. Inducing peripheral growth: Is TOD a recipe for sprawl? The centrifugal forces associated with TOD may also propel additional uncontrolled growth in the periphery of cities, close to outlying stops. This development might cause more of the spot congestion around TOD, may increase trip lengths, and may challenge the emissions benefits of TOD. It is this type of growth that can be remediated through the coordination of transit investments and land development. However, in the absence of a thoughtful effort to control peripheral growth, TOD may end up inducing it. These peripheral growth trends may also be exacerbated by the effects of gentrification. This has been documented for Bogotá64 and Quito50 among others. As areas close to stations improve their accessibility due to the mass transit investments, property values tend to increase. Renters -and to some extent, owners- may be displaced over time, moving instead to more affordable, outlying areas.

Over time, in the search for affordable housing conditions vulnerable populations end up located in more distant locations. This not only reduces their accessibility to job opportunities, but also reinforces social segregation. Thus, this process not only magnifies the challenges of peripheral growth, but fails to address the affordable housing problem. A regional vision of growth may help to counteract growth trends towards peripheral expansion. For example, Vancouver benefits from a greenbelt that limits expansion beyond its borders. Thus, it is important to consider the implementation of a regional framework that facilitates and manages the growth along the full corridor and elsewhere. In Curitiba, the BRT corridors were upzoned while growth in areas away from the corridor was deliberately limited by zoning regulations.

Policy tools such as the transfer of development rights, conservation easements, and greenbelts may be necessary to complement a policy of concentrated growth along mass transportation corridors. Brazilian cities like Curitiba have used the transfer of development rights to enable owners of environmentally- or agriculturally-valued lands to remain in those uses. In exchange, developers of land in specific areas (in this case, TOD areas) pay for the right to develop more intensely. Part of the payment is used to compensate the owners of undeveloped land creating a dual win: more intense development along mass transit corridors and the preservation of desired areas.

2.3 Emerging trends in planning for TOD 2.3.1. Usefulness of TOD typologies Station area typologies that describe current or future characteristics of these areas have become common practice in the planning and implementing of TODs. Typologies are descriptive in nature—that is, they provide a summary of current or envisioned conditions and can be a useful step in promoting and implementing policies that support transit-oriented development65. Higgins 66 and Kanaragolou label these typologies as “normative”; they express an aspirational vision of what the region can achieve, and the strategies required to do so. Typologies can be a useful step in promoting and implementing policies that support transit development65. They can assist local planners in considering the type of stops in their systems and the potential similarities and differences with other stops in the region. Typologies reflect priorities in terms of what ought to be measured and the end goal.

Each type contains a set of stations that share commonalities; however, no two stations will be the same. Planning and policy actions to achieve a type are based on an assessment of existing conditions, as well as of local community and planning objectives. For example, policymakers can help adjust local land management policies by identifying areas where land is over or undersupplied. Similarly, planners can help support transit ridership by encouraging the development of improved multimodal connections, as well as by focusing on land uses that both attract travelers and serve as destinations in chained trips. While typologies do not cast value judgments of what is good or bad, they do reflect priorities in terms of what ought to be measured and what a typology is expected to achieve40. This section outlines the wide range of TOD typologies as well as the current thinking on the station area characteristics that can be measured in developing a typology.

The literature now identifies attributes of place, location, integration, and value as four complementary domains useful in developing station area typologies. Place describes many of the built environment characteristics of a station, including its land uses, development intensity, and functional orientation12,67. Examples of TOD typologies include Calthorpe’s early definition of two types, urban and neighborhood TODs, based on each site’s land uses, development intensity, and urban design characteristics68. More recently, the Center for Transit Oriented Development and other US-based organizations have developed typologies with a regional orientation40. Integration measures the degree to which other modes of transportation are incorporated into the station’s surrounding area. Recent station area typologies have acknowledged the importance of the local physical environment in supporting other transportation modes69,

, including, in particular, walkability71. Place and integration are two domains that are well-described in current literature on TOD10.

Beyond place and integration, location recognizes where the stop is relative to other stops in the transportation network. This is related to the node function of a stop, as it measures the position of a station in the hierarchy of stops and lines within a transportation system. However, it also measures the ability and ease with which an individual can reach broader destinations from that station. For example, Salat and Olliver72 use location—defined as major hubs in central locations, urban stations at fringe locations that are close to the urban core but not located at the most central locations, and end of line suburban locations—in their station area types.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 Current trends in TOD implementation; main risks and challenges

The concept of value attempts to measure the dynamic interplay between land supply and demand around stations in order to understand land market trends, quantify the current performance of urban development and transit, and identify future opportunities. Development occurs through the complex interplay between various actors, including developers, landowners, lenders, community members, and planners. Therefore, a balanced way of understanding and describing stations should account for the achieved and expected development potential of a station. This is important because land supply constitutes one of the main barriers to the better integration of transit and land development.

Toolbox

04 complementary attributes useful for developing station area typologies

Location

Position of a station relative to the network

Integration

Place

Incorporated modes of transportation into the station’s surrounding area

Built environment characteristics of a station

Value

Achieved and expected potential of a station

Figure 4. Place, integration, location and value as the complimentary domains.

Station types are dynamic, reflecting the supply and demand forces of the market. A station area that is peripheral but with significant greenspace may densify and enhance its land use mix and pedestrian amenities. As the city grows, those peripheral locations become more central both in terms of access to destinations and in becoming destinations themselves. Thus, stations change over time and that change may also be reflected in a changing set of typologies. Finally, station typologies can also be evaluated relative to their transit ridership performance. Stations with characteristics that are most consistent with TOD have been shown to have higher ridership11, 19. Furthermore, the ridership performance of a type also reflects potential policy changes that may be necessary.

For example, end of line stations with significant intermodal passenger transfers are likely to see significant ridership but a limited transit orientation in their development. Unless policies are deliberately introduced to encourage development that is transit oriented, these intermodal terminals will remain largely oriented towards their function as a transfer hub.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 Current trends in TOD implementation; main risks and challenges

2.3.2. When to TOD? The timing challenge of TOD Prevailing planning practice routes transit through the most developed areas of the city to maximize transit demand. With notable exceptions, like Curitiba’s transitfirst approach, this practice aims at rightsizing transit service to current or nearfuture passenger demand. However, the Colombian experience suggests that this decision impacts the timing of TOD because existing development reduces the degrees of freedom and “locks in” future development in a way that makes the implementation of TOD principles more difficult73.

This decreases the potential to increase density along key corridors and may limit the yield of additional passengers. The other critical aspect of when should TOD happen is market readiness. From an institutional perspective, readiness for TOD includes an understanding of the current market and of the regulatory actions that may support it. Market readiness implies that TOD is a long-term proposition. Although it often appears as if infrastructure itself takes a long time to be built, urban development is likely to take much longer partly due to the atomized nature of land ownership and development proposals.

Whereas the planning and implementation of mass transit may take upwards of a decade to execute, the experience of Washington, Vancouver, and the San Francisco Bay Area suggest that TOD is a 30- to 40-year proposition38. Because urban land markets are variegated, there are considerable differences with respect to market readiness within a metropolitan area. As noted in a recent review of how to plan and implement TOD, most planners tend to consider TOD as a blanket regional strategy74.

However, within a region, some areas are more conducive and have a higher readiness for TOD, whereas others may take decades to become ready. This phasing of TOD, focusing on areas that are ready and where successful projects are more likely, can also build momentum for future TOD elsewhere in the region.

2.3.3. TOD incentives and funding Although not always necessary, the need to raise revenues to offset transportationrelated infrastructure costs amplifies the benefits of a TOD strategy. Many successful TOD cases employ land-based financing tools to partially or totally defray the cost of the public investment associated with TOD. Approaches such as density bonuses, joint development rights, tradable development rights, and land value capture from infrastructure investments and changes in regulation, all rely on private actors in the land market to share their windfall gains from public decisions and investments. Often the funds collected with some of these approaches are used to finance the infrastructure. A common misconception is that land value capture increases the cost of urban development and raises prices for prospective buyers. Absent land value capture, and given an existing investment in mass transit, for example, developers will be paying the land owner for the increase in property value. 28

Thus, contrary to what is commonly believed, these instruments can facilitate development by supporting and catalyzing public investments in infrastructure. In principle, land value capture works well for TOD in areas that are accessible and where there is an appetite for TOD. The public sector investment increases land values for property owners. With no value capture, developers pay for the increased land prices and land owners earn windfall profits solely due to public investments. Still, the government is responsible for paying for the infrastructure improvement, so the windfall earnings are a transfer from taxpayers to land owners. With land value capture, government action recovers some of those increases, often to finance the infrastructure improvements. The more the government captures, the lower the (unearned) windfall earning for landowners. If all value is recovered, developers end up paying the same price for the land as before the infrastructure was built, but the government has now

internalized the benefit of the public action and is able to cover part or all of the costs. The situation is more complex if developers are proactively banking land, because the developer and the land owner become one. Although attempts to recapture some of the price increase resulting from infrastructure investments are relevant, most financing approaches have yielded revenues that are relatively small in comparison with the capital costs involved. Similar attempts at value capture for policy changes that are complementary to TOD have set important precedents, but tend to yield limited funding. For example, Curitiba now charges density bonuses depending on the type of land use (for example housing or commercial uses) and funds go to affordable housing, social facilities (such as libraries and community centers), or the preservation of green spaces and historic properties. Formulae vary by type of land use, lot coverage, and floor-area-ratio75.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 Current trends in TOD implementation; main risks and challenges

Furthermore, as part of its Linha Verde project, Curitiba raised $7 million of building rights (Certificados de Potencial Adicional de Construção –CEPACS) along the corridor in five auctions, a small amount for the $150 million of capital improvements and regulatory changes involved. Similarly, Bogotá raised $40 million in three years from value capture linked to development regulation changes (not necessarily tied directly to the BRT systems), including changes in allowed land uses, in the area of the lot built, and/ or in the floor area ratio76. In Washington, D.C., the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) has a lucrative joint development program, yet revenues are still modest relative to the capital investments and operating costs involved77. WMATA’s joint development program has focused on key stations by creating revenue sharing agreements (among others, by leasing air rights to private developers of a mix of office, hotel, residential, and institutional land) as well as cost-sharing agreements for capital expenses related to station access and

station operations costs (e.g., heating and cooling)78. Although it was not directly related to TOD efforts or to cover infrastructure investments, Sao Paulo’s Outourga Onerosa has been a successful attempt at capturing some of the increased value from changing land use regulations that allow for more intense development or land use changes79. Belo Horizonte recently approved a similar approach of lowering the as-of-right floorarea-ratio for the entire city and then asking landowners to share on land value increases from changed regulations80. Strong public institutions enable more strategic and comprehensive TOD projects accompanied by significant value capture components. For example, Copenhagen created a specific redevelopment agency (Ørestad Development Corporation) and Singapore created the Urban Redevelopment Authority, which in both cases acquired and improved stateowned land and sold it to developers at a handsome profit81.

They also benefited from a strong vision of a polycentric settlement pattern that guided transportation investments and were closely coordinated with transit agencies65. Funds raised from land improvements were used to partially cover the cost of the infrastructure improvements. Copenhagen is expected to fully cover its transportation-related infrastructure investment debts through the proceeds of property sales in Ørestad, its most recent comprehensive TOD growth area in the city. Effective negotiation is essential in order for public institutions to effectively capture the value generated by their capital investments. Furthermore, when a private party has control of the land, as in Portland or the NoMa district in Washington, D.C., master development agreements have been used effectively to offset infrastructure costs.

2.3.4. Institutional coordination and familiarity with TOD There is increased recognition that a heightened level of institutional coordination is necessary to successfully carry out TOD projects. From the public sector vantage point, a wide range of public agencies invariably have a role to play in either transportation or land development. Some, however, will have a larger stake in the process—either because it entails a significant increase in capital expenditures (e.g. for water, sewerage, roads, etc.), unique challenges for development (e.g. zoning, permit issuing, environmental impacts and remediation, etc.), and/or novel service requirements (e.g. police, fire protection, refuse collection, etc.). Ibraeva et. al.23 summarize recent responses related to institutional coordination challenges of TOD planning as:

Integration of land use planning and transportation planning responsibilities within an authority82-84

committee85

Institutional coordination challenges

Staff sharing across agencies83

se ct or pa rtic ipa tion

Creation of a cross-agency coordinating

Creation of a new regional authority for land and

Figure 5. Institutional coordination challenges and participation of sectors

ub lic

transportation planning82

te iva Pr

d an

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 Current trends in TOD implementation; main risks and challenges

Private sector participation, particularly land developers, is critical. Developers have seasoned judgment about the kinds of development likely to be attracted to particular sites. In identifying success factors that increase the chances of effective TODs, Thomas and Bertolini84 suggest that relationships between actors in the region, interdisciplinary implementation teams, and certainty for developers are essential. While relationships between public and private sectors may begin with a cautious sense of distrust, the inherent interdependence is often quickly recognized.

Given the diversity of actors, a lack of familiarity with key TOD concepts among these actors can often be a significant barrier. Carlton74 recently reviewed the TOD implementation experience in several North American cities, noting that many agencies had a limited understanding of TOD. In addition, other agency employees had a very simplified understanding of the concept, one that frequently got in the way of successful implementation and planning of TOD.

Chapter 2 References 16. Estupinan, N. & Rodriguez, D. A. The relationship between urban form and station boardings for Bogota’s BRT. Transportation Research Part A-Policy and Practice 42, 296-306, doi:DOI 10.1016/j.tra.2007.10.006 (2008). 17. Loo, B. P. Y., Chen, C. & Chan, E. T. H. Rail-based transitoriented development: Lessons from New York City and Hong Kong. Landscape and Urban Planning 97, 202-212, doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2010.06.002 (2010). 18. Cervero, R. & Kang, C. D. Bus rapid transit impacts on land uses and land values in Seoul, Korea. Transp. Policy 18, 102-116, doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2010.06.005 (2011). 19. Rodriguez, D. A. & Kang, C. D. A typology of the built environment around rail stops in the global transitoriented city of Seoul, Korea. Cities 100, doi:10.1016/j. cities.2020.102663 (2020). 20. Cervero, R. & Day, J. Suburbanization and transitoriented development in China. Transp. Policy 15, 315323, doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2008.12.011 (2008). 21. Nasri, A. & Zhang, L. The analysis of transit-oriented development (TOD) in Washington, DC and Baltimore metropolitan areas. Transp. Policy 32, 172-179, doi:10.1016/j. tranpol.2013.12.009 (2014). 22. Guo, R. & Huang, Z. Mass Rapid Transit Ridership Forecast Based on Direct Ridership Models: A Case Study in Wuhan, China. Journal of Advanced Transportation 2020, doi:10.1155/2020/7538508 (2020).

28. Combs, T. S. & Rodriguez, D. A. Joint impacts of Bus Rapid Transit and urban form on vehicle ownership: New evidence from a quasi-longitudinal analysis in Bogota, Colombia. Transportation Research Part a-Policy and Practice 69, 272-285, doi:10.1016/j.tra.2014.08.025 (2014).

24. Karnruzzaman, M., Shatu, F. M., Hine, J. & Turrell, G. Commuting mode choice in transit oriented development: Disentangling the effects of competitive neighbourhoods, travel attitudes, and self-selection. Transp. Policy 42, 187-196, doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2015.06.003 (2015).

29. Cervero, R. & Dai, D. BRT TOD: Leveraging transit oriented development with bus rapid transit investments. Transp. Policy 36, 127-138 (2016).

25. Pan, H. X., Li, J., Shen, Q. & Shi, C. What determines rail transit passenger volume? Implications for transit oriented development planning. Transportation Research Part D-Transport and Environment 57, 52-63, doi:10.1016/j.trd.2017.09.016 (2017). 26. Kumar, P. P., Sekhar, C. R. & Parida, M. Identification of neighborhood typology for potential transit-oriented development. Transportation Research Part D-Transport and Environment 78, doi:10.1016/j.trd.2019.11.015 (2020). 27. Nasri, A., Carrion, C., Zhang, L. & Baghaei, B. Using propensity score matching technique to address selfselection in transit-oriented development (TOD) areas. Transportation 47, 359-371, doi:10.1007/s11116-018-9887-2 (2020).

30. Jamme, H.-T., Rodriguez, J., Bahl, D. & Banerjee, T. A Twenty-Five-Year Biography of the TOD Concept: From Design to Policy, Planning, and Implementation. Journal of Planning Education and Research 39, 409428, doi:10.1177/0739456x19882073 (2019). 31. Rodriguez, D. A., Khattak, A. J. & Evenson, K. R. Can new urbanism encourage physical activity? Comparing a new urbanist neighborhood with conventional suburbs. Journal of the American Planning Association 72, 43-54 (2006). 32. Liu, Y.-Y., Wang, Y.-Q., An, R. & Li, C. The spatial distribution of commuting CO2 emissions and the influential factors: A case study in Xi’an, China. Advances in Climate Change Research 6, 46-55, doi:10.1016/j. accre.2015.09.001 (2015). 33. Chatman, D. G., Xu, R. Y., Park, J. & Spevack, A. Does Transit-Oriented Gentrification Increase Driving? Journal of Planning Education and Research 39, 482495, doi:10.1177/0739456x19872255 (2019).

34. Chen, F., Wu, J. R., Chen, X. H. & Wang, J. J. Vehicle kilometers traveled reduction impacts of TransitOriented Development: Evidence from Shanghai City. Transportation Research Part D-Transport and Environment 55, 227-245, doi:10.1016/j.trd.2017.07.006 (2017). 35. Appleyard, B. S., Frost, A. R. & Allen, C. Are all transit stations equal and equitable? Calculating sustainability, livability, health, & equity performance of smart growth & transit-oriented-development (TOD). Journal of Transport & Health 14, doi:10.1016/j.jth.2019.100584 (2019). 36. Gu, P. Q., He, D. X., Chen, Y. L., Zegras, P. C. & Jiang, Y. Transit-oriented development and air quality in Chinese cities: A city-level examination. Transportation Research Part D-Transport and Environment 68, 10-25, doi:10.1016/j. trd.2018.03.009 (2019). 37. Urban Land Institute. Fiscal Impacts of TransitOriented Development Projects. (Urban Land Institute, Washington DC, 2016). 38. Cervero, R. & Landis, J. Twenty Years Of The Bay Area Rapid Transit System: Land Use And Development Impacts. Transportation Research, Part A 31, 309-333 (1997). 39. Trepci, E., Maghelal, P. & Azar, E. Effect of densification and compactness on urban building energy consumption: Case of a Transit-Oriented Development in Dallas, TX. Sustainable Cities and Society 56, doi:10.1016/j.scs.2019.101987 (2020).

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 Current trends in TOD implementation; main risks and challenges

40. CTOD. Performance-based transit-oriented development typology guidebook. (Reconnecting America, Washington DC, 2010). 41. Chapple, K. & Loukaitou-Sideris, A. Transit-Oriented Displacement or Community Dividends? Understanding the Effects of Smarter Growth on Communities. (MIT Press, 2019). 42. Santoro, P. F. Inclusionary housing policies in Latin America: São Paulo, Brazil in dialogue with Bogotá, Colombia. International Journal of Housing Policy 19, 385-410 (2019). 43. Rodriguez, D. A. & Targa, F. Value of accessibility to Bogota’s bus rapid transit system. Transp. Rev. 24, 587610, doi:10.1080/0144164042000196000 (2004). 44. Yap, J. B. H. & Goh, S. V. Determining the potential and requirements of transit-oriented development (TOD) The case of Malaysia. Property Management 35, 394-413, doi:10.1108/pm-06-2016-0030 (2017). 45. Vergel-Tovar, C. E. Understanding barriers and opportunities for transit-oriented development with bus rapid transit in Bogotá and Quito. Journal of Urban Affairs, 24 pages (Under review). 46. Gakenheimer, R., Rodriguez, D. A. & Vergel, E. Planning for BRT-Oriented Development: Lessons and Prospects from Brazil and Colombia. (Clean Air Institute, Washington DC, 2011).

47. Munoz-Raskin, R. Walking accessibility to bus rapid transit: Does it affect property values? The case of Bogota, Colombia. Transp. Policy 17, 72-84, doi:10.1016/j. tranpol.2009.11.002 (2010). 48. Perdomo, J. A. A methodological proposal to estimate changes of residential property value: case study developed in Bogota. Applied Economics Letters 18, 1577-1581, doi:10.1080/13504851.2011.554360 (2011). 49. Bocarejo, J. P., Portilla, I. & Pérez, M. A. Impact of Transmilenio on density, land use, and land value in Bogotá. Research in Transportation Economics 40, 7886, doi:10.1016/j.retrec.2012.06.030 (2012). 50. Rodriguez, D. A., Vergel-Tovar, E. & Camargo, W. F. Land development impacts of BRT in a sample of stops in Quito and Bogota. Transp. Policy 51, 4-14, doi:10.1016/j. tranpol.2015.10.002 (2016). 51. Biberos-Bendezu, K. & Vazquez-Rowe, I. Environmental impacts of introducing cable cars in the Andean landscape: A case study for Kuelap, Peru. Science of the Total Environment 718, doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.137323 (2020). 52. Bocarejo, J. P. et al. An innovative transit system and its impact on low income users: the case of the Metrocable in Medellin. Journal of Transport Geography 39, 49-61, doi:10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2014.06.018 (2014).

Chapter 2 References 53. Garsous, G., Suarez-Aleman, A. & Serebrisky, T. Cable cars in urban transport: Travel time savings from La PazEl Alto (Bolivia). Transp. Policy 75, 171-182, doi:10.1016/j. tranpol.2017.05.005 (2019). 54. Sarmiento, O. L. et al. Urban Transformations and Health: Methods for TrUST-a Natural Experiment Evaluating the Impacts of a Mass Transit Cable Car in Bogota, Colombia. Frontiers in Public Health 8, doi:10.3389/fpubh.2020.00064 (2020). 55. Chatman, D. G. Does TOD Need the T?: On the Importance of Factors Other Than Rail Access. Journal of the American Planning Association 79, 17-31, doi:10.10 80/01944363.2013.791008 (2013). 56. Ríos Flores, R. A., Vicentini, V.L., Acevedo-Daunas, R. M. ractical Guidebook: Parking and Travel Demand Management Policies in Latin America. (InterAmerican Development Bank, 2013). 57. Shoup, D. C. The high cost of free parking., (Planners Press, American Planning Association, 2005). 58. Ewing, R., Tian, G., Lyons, T. & Terzano, K. Trip and parking generation at transit-oriented developments: Five US case studies. Landscape and Urban Planning 160, 69-78, doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.12.002 (2017). 59. Cervero, R., Adkins, A. & Sullivan, C. Are Suburban TODs Over-Parked? Journal of Public Transportation 13, 47-70 (2010).

60. Wang, X., Rodriguez, D.A., Majenra, A. Support for Market-Based and Command-and-Control Congestion Relief Policies: Evidence from Eleven Latin American Cities. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 51 pages (In Press).

66. Higgins, C. D. & Kanaroglou, P. S. 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, 6172, doi:10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2016.02.012 (2016).

61. Loo, B. P. Y., Cheng, A. H. T. & Nichols, S. L. Transitoriented development on greenfield versus infill sites: Some lessons from Hong Kong. Landscape and Urban Planning 167, 37-48, doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2017.05.013 (2017).

67. Cervero, R. & Murakami, J. Rail and Property Development in Hong Kong: Experiences and Extensions. Urban Stud. 46, 2019-2043, doi:10.1177/0042098009339431 (2009).

62. Barandier, J. R., Jr., Bodmer, M. & Lentino, I. Evidence of the impacts of the national housing programme on the accessibility of the low-income population in Rio de Janeiro. Natural Resources Forum 41, 105-118, doi:10.1111/1477-8947.12124 (2017). 63. Ribeiro, S. C. L., Daniel, M. N. & Abiko, A. ZEIS maps: Comparing areas to be earmarked exclusively for social housing in Sao Paulo city. Land Use Policy 58, 445-455, doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.08.010 (2016). 64. Hurtado, A. Portales de Transmilenio: revitalización de espacios e integración social. Revista de Asuntos Públicos 3, 39-43 (2009). 65. Suzuki, H., Cervero, R. & Iuchi, K. Transforming Cities with Transit. Transit and Land-use Integration for Sustainable Urban Development,. (The World Bank, 2013).

68. Calthorpe, P. The New American Metropolis: Ecology, Community, and the American Dream. (Princeton Architectural Press, 1993). 69. Kamruzzaman, M., Baker, D., Washington, S. & Turrell, G. Advance transit oriented development typology: case study in Brisbane, Australia. Journal of Transport Geography 34, 54-70, doi:10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2013.11.002 (2014). 70. Sung, H. & Oh, J. T. Transit-oriented development in a high-density city: Identifying its association with transit ridership in Seoul, Korea. Cities 28, 70-82, doi:10.1016/j. cities.2010.09.004 (2011). 71. Renne, J. L., Tolford, T., Hamidi, S. & Ewing, R. The Cost and Affordability Paradox of Transit-Oriented Development: A Comparison of Housing and Transportation Costs Across Transit-Oriented Development, Hybrid and Transit-Adjacent Development Station Typologies. Housing Policy Debate 26, 819-834, doi:10.1080/10511482. 2016.1193038 (2016).

72. Salat, S. & Ollivier, G. Transforming the Urban Space through Transit-Oriented Development -The 3V Approach. (The World Bank, 2017). 73. Rodriguez, D. A., Vergel-Tovar, C.E., y Gakenheimer, R. in Desafíos del desarrollo urbano sostenible en el transporte y la movilidad (ed O. Figueroa, Valenzuela, L.M., Brasileiro, A.) (El Colegio Mexiquense, 2020). 74. Carlton, I. Transit Planners’ Transit-Oriented Development-Related Practices and Theories. Journal of Planning Education and Research 39, 508-519, doi:10.1177/0739456x19878867 (2019). 75. Curitiba, P. M. d. (ed Secretaria Municipal do Urbanismo) (Curitiba, 2020). 76. Bogota, A. M. d. Vol. Decreto 803 del 2018 (ed Alcaldia Mayor de Bogota) (Bogota, 2018). 77. Suzuki, H., Murakami, J., Hong, Y.-H. & Tamayose, B. Financing Transit-Oriented Development with Land Values. (The World Bank, 2015). 78. Cervero, R., Ferrell, C. & Murphy, S. Transit-Oriented Development and Joint Development in the United States: A Literature Review. (Transit Cooperative Research Program, Washungton, DC, 2002). 79. Furtado, F., Rezende, V. F., Oliveira, T. C. & Jorgensen Jr., P. Outorga Onerosa do Direito de Construir Panorama e Avaliação de Experiências Municipais. (Lincoln Institute for Land Policy, Cambridge, 2010).

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 Current trends in TOD implementation; main risks and challenges

80. Horizonte, P. B. Vol. LEI 11.181/19 (ed Subsecretaria Planejamento Urbano) (Belo Horizonte, 2020).

88. Seoul Metropolitan Government. Public Transit Use in Seoul. (Seoul, Korea, 2016).

81. Cervero, R. The Transit Metropolis: A Global Inquiry. (Island Press, 1998).

89. Seoul Metropolitan Government. Bus Rapid Transit Notice. (Seoul, Korea, 2015).

90. Metropolitan Transportation Authority. Seoul Metropolitan Region O/D Report. (Seoul, Korea, 2018).

83. Tan, W., Bertolini, L. & Janssen-Jansen, L. Identifying and conceptualising context-specific barriers to transit-oriented development strategies: the case of the Netherlands. Town Planning Review 85, 639-663, doi:10.3828/tpr.2014.38 (2014). 84. Thomas, R. & Bertolini, L. Defining critical success factors in TOD implementation using rough set analysis. Journal of Transport and Land Use 10, 139-154, doi:10.5198/ jtlu.2015.513 (2017). 85. Mu, R. & de Jong, M. A network governance approach to transit-oriented development: Integrating urban transport and land use policies in Urumqi, China. Transp. Policy 52, 55-63, doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2016.07.007 (2016). 86. Kim, H. M. & Han, S. S. Seoul. Cities 29, 142-154 (2012). 87. Sung, H. & Choi, C. G. The link between metropolitan planning and transit-oriented development: An examination of the Rosario Plan in 1980 for Seoul, South Korea. Land Use Policy 63, 514-522, doi:10.1016/j. landusepol.2017.01.045 (2017).

Innovative responses Four case studies

This section offers four case studies that highlight tools, instruments, and interventions that have played an important role in successful TOD projects. They are intended as complements to reviews that have focused on other cases elsewhere.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 Innovative responses

The first case study, Seoul, exemplifies the application of station area typologies in a manner reflective of both the diversity and evolving characteristics of land development and transportation. As a transit metropolis, Seoul embodies the coordination of multimodal transportation and land development at varying levels of intensity and with multiple transportation modes. This is followed by the Colombian experience with urban partial plans, which evinces both the promise and perils of such an approach, especially for TOD-related urban redevelopment. For greenfield development, partial plans have been successful in encouraging development that is oriented around transit. In infill areas, difficulties around permitting, negotiation with land owners and residents, and concerns about gentrification have limited the efficacy of the partial plan approach.

Vancouver serves as the third case study, embodying the efficacy of a planning legacy focused on reducing auto-centric development coupled with strategic initiatives at the regional and station-area levels. Vancouver established a “wedges and corridors” planning framework in the 1970s, replicated decades later in Charlotte, NC, underscoring the fact that TOD is a long-term proposition. The regional nature of Vancouver’s transit agency and provincial leadership, meanwhile, proved critical in enabling development that was connected to, and oriented towards the growth poles in the city. The final case outlines a tool assembled by the Center for Transit Oriented Development to assist regions in considering how and where to encourage TOD. The tool focuses on real estate market appetite and determining the degree of transit orientation and land availability of existing locations.

Seoul

Bogotá

Vancouver

Multi-city case study

SEOUL, SOUTH KOREA 3.1. Seoul: a tight integration between mass transit and land development reflected in a TOD typology With an area of 605.2 km2 and a 2017 population density of 16,288 people per km2, Seoul offers a compact, mixeduse, transit-supportive environment*. Seoul is the most densely populated city in Asia, followed by Tokyo; it boasts more than twice the density of Singapore or Hong Kong. It also has the highest proportion of private car owners among large Asian cities, at 222 cars per 1000 residents. Moreover, Seoul has a density of metro lines (31.3 km of rail length per million residents) comparable to Tokyo, Singapore, and Hong Kong SAR. Seoul’s existing strong connection between the built environment and the metro system has its roots in the city’s 1997 Comprehensive Plan. The plan’s pillars encouraged density, diversity, design, distance to transit, destination accessibility, and demand management for pedestrian streets, as well as reduced auto use. Of note is the inclusion of transportation goals as part of a comprehensive plan.

This meant that the performance of the land use planning function for the city was measured, in part, based on transportation performance indicators. Policies were aimed at encouraging higher density and mixed land use near metro stations, with more residents and employment concentrated in these areas. The results, as outlined above, have been positive even though housing affordability remains a common concern. * The development of typologies in Seoul and background context is summarized by work the author and collaborators presented in: Rodriguez, D. A. & Kang, C. D. A typology of the built environment around rail stops in the global transit-oriented city of Seoul, Korea. Cities 100, doi:10.1016/j.cities.2020.102663 (2020).

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 Innovative responses

BOGOTÁ, COLOMBIA 3.2. The Colombian experience with partial plans for TOD This case documents the experience of Colombian cities with urban partial plans for TOD** in Bogotá. The early success of Bogotá’s BRT (TransMilenio) compelled the national government to develop a policy for implementing BRTs as a mass transportation strategy in medium- and large-sized cities. Up to that point, public transportation in Colombian cities was dominated by owner operators and small and medium-sized firms whose drivers compete with each other for passengers. This curbside competition had led to an oversupply of public transportation service, low vehicle utilization rates, and congestion and air quality problems. In 2003, a national policy for urban mass transportation infrastructure was adopted91. It aimed at reorganizing public transportation service in Colombian cities with more than 600,000 residents through BRT investments and changes in how transit service is planned and provided. A unique feature of the national policy was that it viewed BRT investments as catalysts for metropolitan

redevelopment along the BRT axis, while encouraging the use of value capture techniques and betterment levies. In addition, the central government agreed to cover 70% of the capital cost of building a BRT system, with local governments covering the remaining92. While the plans for BRT systems were coalescing as a new approach to mass transit, local land planning was undergoing a tectonic shift. In 1997, a law to revamp the way urban development was managed was approved by the national legislature. The aim of the law was to strengthen the ability of local governments to manage urban development. The legislation gave cities the authority to plan, manage, and apply instruments to shape and to modify the urban built environment93, while simultaneously enhancing community participation and private sector involvement. The legislation also enabled -and in some cases, mandated- the formulation of a hierarchy of plans and tools to manage urban development.

** Key information in this case was updated from earlier material developed by the author and collaborators and presented in: Gakenheimer, R., et al. (2011). Planning for BRT-Oriented Development: Lessons and Prospects from Brazil and Colombia. Washington DC, Clean Air Institute.

BOGOTÁ, COLOMBIA The Colombian experience coordinating land development with BRT investments has been mixed:

difficulties of preparatory work

Using partial plans for redevelopment has been difficult, mostly due to the preparatory work required to coordinate with residents, land owners, and prospective developers. From the plans reviewed by Gakenheimer et. al.46, those that were already implemented and built out were more likely to involve greenfield development.

variable role of planning officials

The role of city planning officials in coordinating transportation and land development activities has varied. One distinguishing feature of partial plans is that they can be led by either a public agency or a private party. The latter is akin to a master development agreement. Among the cases in Bogotá, both private and public-led plans involved redevelopment and greenfield development, although the privateled developments were not entirely integrated with BRT service.

early lack of proactive involvement

In the absence of an early proactive and agile public sector involvement, the private sector capitalized on the accessibility benefits of mass transit investment. This is true not only of the changes in office supply around the Estación Metro 26 project, but also for BRT stops with high passenger movements, such as terminal and transfer stations, where big box retailers have located such as Portal Suba. They did so by purchasing individual properties and consolidating them into larger lots without the use of a partial plan. The city has learned from these early missed opportunities and is much more seasoned in proactively planning for TOD, as evidenced by the current activities regarding TOD around future metro stops. Institutionally, both the agency in charge of planning the metro system and TransMilenio now have the power to acquire land for development and redevelopment in order to strengthen their ability to coordinate their transit investments with land development. This choice remains contested as some planners believe these powers should lie within an agency with development expertise.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 Innovative responses

innovation in coordination

The sheer complexity of the planning process and institutions involved requires innovation in coordination. In Bogotá, the successful cases had a small group of key agencies involved with clear roles: ownership and responsibility for projects was transparent.

lack of political contrinuity

One drawback of plans that involve long-term implementation is the lack of political continuity. Ownership and leadership change when a new mayor comes into office, and in the case of Bogotá, this has resulted in shifting political priorities placed on key TOD-related projects. Strategies to provide project continuity despite political shifts are critical. For example, involvement of the private developers may increase the chances of continuity. Similarly, the experience with projects around bicycle lanes and open streets in Bogotá suggest that involvement of mid-level technical agency staff can also help in providing project continuity. Finally, Curitiba’s example of creating a separate research and support agency to inform planning-decision making (Instituto de Pesquisa e Planejamento Urbano de Curitiba - IPPUC) is yet another policy option to increase the chance of project continuity.

VANCOUVER, CANADA 3.3. Regional institutions and local coordination: the case of TOD in Vancouver Over the past 40 years, Vancouver has strategically utilized land planning techniques to maintain a high level of urban livability even in the face of rapid population growth*. The city has employed various organizational techniques throughout its planning history and is considered an international example for regional transportation development101. The city is located on the western coast of Canada and boasts a population of 2.4 million, growing approximately 1.5% a year since 2011. The city’s physical location contributes greatly to a high quality of life as it is nestled between the Pacific Ocean to the west and the impressive North Shore Mountains to the north. Partly due to the natural beauty of the area, an overall culture of sustainability and livability has thrived

since the 1960’s. Some of the most fertile agricultural land in Canada is located east of Vancouver, and 30% of the total Vancouver region is protected by the British Columbia Agricultural Land Reserve program – a form of strict provincial zoning. The land reserve has contributed to a much denser city than otherwise typical in North America; the population of Vancouver is roughly equal to that of Seattle, Washington, yet Vancouver houses its residents in an area half the size of its American counterpart102. Located in the city of Burnaby, within the Greater Vancouver Regional District yet just outside of the urban core, the Regional Transit Center, Metrotown is perhaps the most established example of TOD in the area.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 Innovative responses

Examining the area’s initial investments, expansion of high-capacity transit service, and the subsequent growth guided by a long-term strategic plan can all contribute to inform transit-oriented development efforts elsewhere. Overall, the case of Metrotown is one of successful densification and redevelopment but with an environment that is not fully supportive of pedestrian activity. Existing development does contain a healthy mix of land uses, including various types of residential development (high-rise, mid-rise, and low-rise buildings, townhouses, and some single- and two-family dwellings), with office space and a variety of commercial spaces. From 1990 to 2001, the population in Metrotown grew 43% whereas the region grew by 24%114.

Since then Metrotown has grown an additional 15%. Growth in occupied office space has increased at a similar pace. FARs range from 1 (in the neighborhood commercial designation) to 11 (for areas of mixed uses containing residential and commercial uses)114.

* This case was adapted and updated from earlier material developed by the author and collaborators and presented in: Rodriguez, D. A., et al. (2015). A review of the experience of seven world cities with transit-oriented development Chapel Hill, NC, USA, Report submitted to the Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations.

3.4. A tool for assessing market readiness and planning support As it was previously stated, the question of when to encourage TOD is also one of market readiness. From an institutional perspective, readiness for TOD includes an understanding of the current market and of the regulatory actions that may affect it. Several case studies included here underscore the importance of public sector market intelligence. For example, in the case of Copenhagen’s Ørestad, planners failed to account for the impacts of the 2008 global recession on the speed with which Ørestad would develop. Similarly, in its latest attempt to auction development rights along its Linha Verde, Curitiba planners did not account for the fact that the market was flooded with development rights.

The supply of rights was plentiful, and, as a result, success of the auction was only moderate as interest among bidders was relatively low (and hence the price of new development rights also was low)116.

Meanwhile, zoning strategies in places like Curitiba and Seoul channeled growth along the transit trunk lines and away from other areas. This required strong coordination with developers and land owners.

A vigorous land market is the result of public and private actions, and physical and social constraints and priorities. By definition, the growth boundaries in Bogotá or Portland restrict land supply, elevating prices. In both cases, developers thus sought to build more densely. Absent regulations allowing such densification, prices would have increased at higher rates. In this way, the density implied by TOD acts as a pressure valve that can help alleviate potential market pressures.

To highlight the importance of market readiness and how to plan for it, the Center for Transit Oriented development created a TOD station area readiness index for Portland (Figure 6). Variations of this theme have been applied to other cities. Although the typology is helpful in identifying how prepared current stops of a system may be, its ultimate purpose is to define the role that planners have in cultivating regional TOD appetite.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 Innovative responses

Toolbox

Tool for assessing market readiness and planning support

On the X-axis, the typology defines the varying strengths of the real estate market for a particular region, from limited to strong. On the Y-axis are the different levels of transit orientation: from transit adjacency to transit-oriented. In other applications, the Y-axis is replaced by land availability. Places with land available and a strong market (upper right-hand side) have highest priority, whereas places with no land available and limited real estate market strength have lower priority.

Figure 6. TOD tyopologies and regional planning functions. Source: http://www.ctod.org/portal/ Portland-Metros-TOD-Strategic-Plan

These stations deserve attention either because they need better connectivity to transit, or because the real estate market is weak. Prototype developments and improvements in connectivity to the transit system are key strategic activities in these cases.

These stations have limited market interest and are close to transit but not well integrated with it. Community visioning strategies, partnering with municipal and community partners, providing technical assistance for local planning, and assisting in land banking are possible strategies for these areas.

These stations deserve active support and enhancement because they are in a strong market and are transitoriented. Activities include promoting different uses that can benefit from TOD (office employment, mixed income, and affordable housing), assisting with parcel assembly, and supporting implementation studies.

Chapter 3 References 91. Departamento Nacional de Planeacion. Política nacional de transporte urbano y masivo. (Bogota, DC, 2003). 92. Departamento Nacional de Planeacion. Sistema integrado del servicio público urbano de transporte masivo de pasajeros del Área Metropolitana del Centro Occidente AMCO – seguimiento y modificación. (Bogota, DC, 2007). 93. Giraldo, F. Ciudad y Crisis. (Tercer Mundo Editores, 1999). 94. Secretaria de Planeacion. Planes Parciales de Desarrollo, <http://www.sdp.gov.co/gestion-territorial/ planes-parciales-de-desarrollo/seguimiento> (2020). 95. Bogota, R. in El Espectador

(Bogota, 2015).

96. Torres Tovar, C. A. & Robles Joya, S. Estrategias de inclusión-exclusión de la ciudad colombiana autoproducida mediante políticas de reasentamiento barrial. Bulletin de l’Institut français d’études andines 43, 587-609 (2014). 97. Metro, E. Plan de Reasentamiento Inicial -PLMB. (Convenio Empresa Metro de Bogotá - IDU, Bogota, 2018).

98. Cervero, R. Progressive Transport and the Poor: Bogotá’s Bold Steps Forward. Access 27, 24-30 (2007). 99. Borrero O., Rodríguez, J. F. & Vejarano, M. C. Impacto del Sistema Público de Transporte Transmilenio en los Precios de la tierra en áreas de vivienda de población de bajos ingresos en Bogotá, Colombia. (Lincoln Institute for Land Policy, Cambridge, MA, 2007). 100. Boarnet, M. & Crane, R. L.A. Story: A Reality Check for Transit-Based Housing. Journal of the American Planning Association 63, 189-204 (1997). 101. Siemiatycki, M. in Managing and Financing Urban Public Transport Systems: An International Perspective (ed G. Guess) 223-258 (Central European University Press, 2008). 102. Hornell, M. Vancouver’s transit success explained. Journal of the American Planning Association 65, 223224 (1999). 103. Gordon, P. & Richardson, H. W. Farmland Preservation and Ecological Footprints: A Critique. Planning & Markets 1 (1999).

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 Innovative responses

104. Yearwood-Lee, E. History of the Agricultural Land Reserve. (Legislative Library of British Columbia, Victoria, B.C., 2008).

111. Translink. History of SkyTrain, < http://www.translink. ca/en/About-Us/Corporate-Over view/OperatingCompanies/BCRTC/History-of-SkyTrain.aspx> (2014).

105. Kopystynski, A. & Pawlowski, S. in Light Rail Transit in Vancouver - Costs, Potential and Alternatives (ed M.C. Poulton) (The Center for Transportation Studies. University of British Columbia, 1980).

112. Funk, C. Wakability of Transit-Oriented Development: Evaluating the Pedestrial Environment of Metro Vancouver’s Regional City Centres Master’s of Urban and Regional Planning thesis, Queen’s University (2012).

106. BC Transit. BC Transit History <http://www.bctransit. com/corporate/general_info/history.cfm> (2014).

113. Spillar, R. Public Policy and Transit Oriented Development: Six International Case Studies. (Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, 1996).

107. Krawchenko, T. Regional Special Purpose Bodies for Transportation and Transit in Canada: Case Studies of Translink and Metrolinx. Canadian Journal of Regional Science 34, 1-8 (2011). 108. CBC. Major TransLink overhaul going ahead, <https:// www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/majortranslink-overhaul-going-ahead-1.674793> (2007). 109. BC Ministry of Community Services. Summary of Local Government Legislation. (Victoria, B.C., 2007). 110. Hutton, T. A. Vancouver. Cities doi:10.1016/0264-2751(94)90027-2 (1994).

11,

219-239,

114. Burnaby, C. o. Metrotown Downtown Plan. (Planning and Building Department, Burnaby, BC, 2017). 115. Jacobson, J. & Forsyth, A. Seven American TODs: Good practices for urban design in Transit-Oriented Development projects. Journal of Transport and Land Use 1, 51-88 (2008). 116. Mobiliarios, C. d. V. Relatorio 1o Trimestre de 2020 da Operacao Urbana Consorciada Linha Verde. (OUC-LV, Curitiba, Brasil, 2020). 117. Davis, J. E. The Community Land Trust Reader. (Lincoln Institute for Land Policy, 2010).

Recommendations and implications for TOD strategy and practice Building on the previous case studies, this section offers 08 recommendations to support TOD development and implementation, with a focus on Latin America. Some strategies are focused on the short-term, while others require a longer-term approach. Together, they represent a set of actions that respond to emerging challenges related to TOD and that increase the likelihood of TOD success.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 Recommendations and implications for TOD strategy and practice

Promote

Avoid

Support

Adapt and Improve

Develop

Involve

Leverage

Address

TOD that is inclusive of various land uses, types of residences, and levels of affordability.

TOD that results in the displacement of local residents.

active transportation as a strategy that helps achieve other TOD objectives around inclusion, connectivity, accessibility, and environmental improvements.

current urban land management and value capture tools in order to defray the costs of TOD.

the private sector as a way to enhance the financial, political, and market support for TOD.

opportunities to develop regional leadership to support TOD in concert with a regional TOD strategy.

the need for institutional coordination across sectors, levels of administration, and private, public, and non-profit sectors.

Promote TOD that is inclusive of various land uses, types of residences, and levels of affordability.

In many ways, the emergent experience of TOD in Latin American cities such as Curitiba, Bogotá, Quito, and Guatemala City has mimicked spatially segregated development patterns prevalent in many urban areas11,45. Often TOD is aimed at a narrow and homogenous group of residents. TOD that provides a vibrant environment for residents and workers of many incomes and lived experiences will be one step in achieving greater integration—and reaping some of the benefits that social integration brings. This means that when TOD is aimed at wealthier residents, it should be accompanied by on-site affordable housing, for example. Thus, whether affordable housing is required is often a matter of degree and specificity.

Vibrant environment at Bryant Park, New York

If a station area is extremely attractive and there is strong private sector demand, then inclusionary housing ordinances are a more natural and effective fit. Critics of such ordinances argue that the cost of providing affordable housing in those circumstances is extremely high and that a cashin-lieu program would allow the public sector to provide more affordable housing at lower cost. Nonetheless, the Latin American experience with cash-in-lieu programs to support inclusionary housing has been mixed, because developments built with this funding have been spatially and socially isolated. This has undermined the core purpose of inclusionary housing policies—and, at its core, runs against transit-oriented development principles10.

Bogotá’s initiative for the use of public space and integration

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 Recommendations and implications for TOD strategy and practice

Avoid TOD that displaces residents

There are many aspects of gentrification and neighborhood change, some of which are opposed by residents and others that are welcome. Even the same change may be perceived differently by different residents. For example, changes that attract upscale retail may be valued by some and decried by others. For real estate specialists, increases in property values tied to gentrification are seen as signs of valuable location-based amenities. By contrast, for some residents those increases may mean higher rents and potentially the need to move elsewhere.

Planners should look at ways in which part of the value that TOD brings is transferred to those that need it most. In addition, innovative strategies to preserve affordability while improving the built environment need to be considered. For example, community land trusts (defined earlier) are increasingly being used as instruments that achieve inclusion while addressing displacement concerns117. Similarly, the experience with ZEIS shows that Brazilian cities have a solid foundation upon which to build protections that decrease the chance of displacement, although the challenge of increasing affordable housing in situ remains.

Comuna 13’s infrastructure improvements benefit the low-income settlements10

Support active transport

Bykeway in Medellín, Colombia

Environments that are supportive of pedestrians and cyclists are integral to effective TOD efforts. Active transport is critical in advancing health, climate, and social integration goals that are integral to TOD. To acknowledge the importance of active transportation, for example, the Institute for Transportation Development and Policy developed a scorecard that includes active transportation in several critical dimensions of TOD10. The scorecard can be used as a tool to help assess, plan, and shape urban development towards greater inclusion and TOD-friendliness. It measures eight dimensions: walk, cycle, connect, transit, mix, densify, compact, and shift. The inclusion of active transportation at the heart of several scorecard categories underscores the importance of active

transportation in achieving important TOD goals around equity and sustainability. Capturing the land and real estate value in TOD. TOD requires the provision of upgraded public facilities (an inviting pedestrian environment, connectivity to transit, and public amenities like public spaces, benches, trees, and transit stops) that are costly to provide. Such improvements often increase property (land and buildings) values. It is imperative to require those benefiting from public investments (such as the transit infrastructure or changes in land development regulations) to return part of those value increases to the community.

Without this, some would argue that TOD is a way of passing on subsidies to wealthy developers. On the other hand, detractors suggest that value capture negatively affects land owners. Planners are thus faced with a conflicting situation: either attend to the fiscal demands for recapturing some of the value created by their actions and potentially antagonize land owners, or ignore the fiscal prospects of land-based financing instruments and keep land owners satisfied. The answer is that pragmatic knowledge about the impacts, who is impacted, and local conditions are likely to dictate the best course of action. In conjunction with land-based financing instruments, TOD is increasingly seen as an option to at least partially defray infrastructure costs.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 Recommendations and implications for TOD strategy and practice

Adapt and Improve current land management and value capture tools

Discussions of land value capture are invariably accompanied by debates over what instruments or tools are best to achieve its goals. Countries like Brazil and Colombia have a well-recognized trajectory of using value capture techniques, including CEPACS, density bonuses, transfer development rights, and Outourga Onerosa, to name a few. While it is tempting to look to new policy tools to attempt to more effectively capture property values, there remains immense promise in existing tools when there is local experience and knowledge. Building on the Brazilian experience with these instruments, adapting them based on the lessons

learned from prior attempts to use them and taking advantage of what worked and what didn’t work seems to be the most promising strategy to support future value capture activities. New instruments often require changes to institutional and legal frameworks. They bring with them uncertainties regarding implementation and interpretation for both public and private sectors. Nonetheless, in some cases, new instruments may be necessary to address particular challenges. Colombia’s experience with urban partial plans, for example, was a response to address concerns regarding land readjustment and value capture in suburban areas of growth and areas of redevelopment.

Linha Verde project. It raised $7 million of building rights

Include locally-differentiated TOD strategies Curitiba’s Bus Rapid Transit vehicles

The evidence reviewed underscores the importance of public sector market intelligence to time TOD efforts with a robust land market. It is imperative to understand the current land and real estate market and the regulatory actions that may affect them. This may imply a phased approach to TOD, beginning with demonstrative projects that highlight institutional interest (or lack thereof) and can act as a signal for future TOD in the region.

Consideration of when TOD should occur also reveals a fundamental problem in TOD development: the limited congruence between the timing of transit investments and the timing of land development. Transportation investments have a fairly short implementation time—mostly between two and five years. Land development, by contrast, can take two or three decades. In all cases, transit investments occurred first and acted as triggers for the subsequent development.

This transit-first approach is a direct challenge to conventional transportation engineering, but it allows for the accessibility benefits to be capitalized into property values, which, in conjunction with regulatory changes to allow development intensities, are likely to stimulate developer appetite for TOD. This was precisely Curitiba’s innovation. Medium-sized cities or parts of larger cities that are undergoing rapid growth may more readily adopt this transit-first strategy46,81.

For consolidated cities, mass transit improvements may be more likely to follow existing development. Although these cases could also result in successful TOD, interventions will focus more on redevelopment, densification, and retrofitting in order to make the environment around stops more consistent with TOD principles.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 Recommendations and implications for TOD strategy and practice

Involve the private sector A private party has control of the NoMa district, Washington

The success of TOD hinges in part on the co-orchestration and coordination of activities between the public and private sectors. In a market economy, any effort to encourage TOD after limited participation and outreach to the private sector is unlikely to succeed. By contrast, early collaboration with representatives of developers and builder associations is likely to increase the likelihood of success. Clarity on the process for TOD reduces uncertainty and developer risk.

WMATA has a lucrative joint development program

Leverage opportunities for regional leadership and a regional strategy

Common across many successful TOD cases is the strong presence of institutions and a robust land market. In many cases, the public sector led by contributing land, making infrastructure improvements and regulatory changes, or providing subsidies to increase TOD interest. The more successful case of Bogotá (Nuevo Usme) showed the importance of clear institutional responsibilities and leadership, whereas cases yetto-materialize, such as Estación Metro 26, have seen agency leadership reassigned over time. In Vancouver’s Metrotown the provincial investment in the rail infrastructure as well the location of the provincial water agency in the area played a decisive role in invigorating redevelopment.

Estación Metro 26 project in Bogotá, Colombia

In other cases, the private sector led after identifying business opportunities. Regardless of the specific agent leading TOD, however, a distinguishing feature across many successful TOD cases is the relative proactive approach taken by planners and government agencies. It is clear that successful TOD requires strong institutional capacity from the public sector. Many of the regional priorities and actions across agencies can be summarized and described in a regional TOD plan. A regional TOD plan is a document that summarizes the short-, medium-, and long-term regional and local actions around transportation, land use, and institutional design to support TOD.

It identifies TOD policy and market strategies tailored to the varying conditions in the area and the rationale for them. As a document that will change over time, a regional TOD plan also contributes to policy stability in the face of local and regional political change. This continuity also provides desirable certainty for the private sector. In the USA, requiring and funding regional TOD plans as a condition for mass transit infrastructure funding is a strategy frequently used at the state and federal levels to support this approach that offers a wider lens on metropolitan development.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 Recommendations and implications for TOD strategy and practice

Address the need for coordination

Leadership may be insufficient if the different sectors involved in TOD are not aligned in their support. Seoul’s success was in the strong connection between the built environment and the metro system through land use policies that support transit, and transportation policies that encourage compact development, and in a regional plan that set clear expectations about development priorities around transit. Furthermore, measuring the performance of land use planning function based on transportation indicators was not only innovative but also encouraged coordination between the two. Successful TOD requires strong coordination across sectors and levels of administration—from

the municipal to the federal/central. Stakeholders for TOD include municipal land regulators, urban redevelopment agencies, developers, builders, transit agencies, land owners, occupants (residents, offices, retailers, manufacturers, etc.), lenders, advocacy groups, and other municipal institutions such as environmental agencies, utilities, and public works agencies. These areas represent many key sectors of the regional economy. Although all of the aforementioned parties are not needed to be integrally involved in TOD, they all play a role in supporting the effort around TOD. This coordination represents a shift from isolated strategies to support TOD, to a set of interactive and concerted actions that build trust and are mutually reinforcing.

Internal government coordination in particular is an important ingredient for successful TOD. Municipalities often manage land development and land use through urban master plans and zoning. Local or regional agencies plan for transportation investments and operate transit agencies. Regional, state, and federal agencies are involved in funding, evaluating, and supporting aspects of mass transit investments and planning. Coordination across these different levels is essential in successful TODs, particularly when support and approval of a particular aspect of the project (e.g., funding or environmental permitting) is critical for project success. Seoul’s streets

Although the concept of TOD has been in implementation for almost half a century, a clearer idea of the great potential of TOD is only now emerging. TOD is the embodiment of fruitful coordination between a city’s transportation investments and its land development strategy. With a mix of some successful cases and other cases that reveal missed opportunities, this report identified key characteristics of successful TODs –and successful approaches to achieve TOD. Taken together, the review of trends and case studies suggests that a sustainable city based on transportation and land development coordination can be achieved through a deliberate mix of public and private institutional leadership. Although challenges remain, the coordination of land use and transit investments in support of TOD represents an increasingly attractive development trajectory available to improve the lives of residents of the cities in Latin America.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 Recommendations and implications for TOD strategy and practice

References

1. Alonso, W. Location and land use; toward a general theory of land rent. (Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1964., 1964).

9. Freitas Miranda, H. d. & Rodrigues da Silva, A. N. Benchmarking sustainable urban mobility: The case of Curitiba, Brazil. Transp. Policy 21, 141-151 (2012).

2. Muth, R. F. Cities and Housing. (University of Chicago Press, 1969).

10. ITDP. The TOD Standard. (Institute for Transportation Development and Policy New York, NY, 2017).

3. Zhang, M. & Yen, B. T. H. The impact of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) on land and property values: A meta-analysis. Land Use Policy 96, doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104684 (2020).

4. Stokenberga, A. Does Bus Rapid Transit Influence Urban Land Development and Property Values: A Review of the Literature. Transp. Rev. 34, 276-296, doi:10.1080/0144 1647.2014.902404 (2014). 5. Levinson, D. M. & Krizek, K. J. Planning for place and plexus : metropolitan land use and transport. (Routledge, 2008). 6. Vergel-Tovar, C. E. & Rodriguez, D. A. The ridership performance of the built environment for BRT systems: Evidence from Latin America. Journal of Transport Geography 73, 172-184, doi:10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2018.06.018 (2018). 7. Zeimann, C. Parking management in Curitiba, Brazil Masters of City and Regional Planning thesis, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, (2006). 8. Lindau, L. A., Hidalgo, D. & Facchini, D. Bus Rapid Transit in Curitiba, Brazil A Look at the Outcome After 35 Years of Bus-Oriented Development. Transp. Res. Record, 17-27, doi:10.3141/2193-03 (2010).

16. Estupinan, N. & Rodriguez, D. A. The relationship between urban form and station boardings for Bogota’s BRT. Transportation Research Part A-Policy and Practice 42, 296-306, doi:DOI 10.1016/j.tra.2007.10.006 (2008). 17. Loo, B. P. Y., Chen, C. & Chan, E. T. H. Rail-based transitoriented development: Lessons from New York City and Hong Kong. Landscape and Urban Planning 97, 202-212, doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2010.06.002 (2010). 18. Cervero, R. & Kang, C. D. Bus rapid transit impacts on land uses and land values in Seoul, Korea. Transp. Policy 18, 102-116, doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2010.06.005 (2011). 19. Rodriguez, D. A. & Kang, C. D. A typology of the built environment around rail stops in the global transitoriented city of Seoul, Korea. Cities 100, doi:10.1016/j. cities.2020.102663 (2020). 20. Cervero, R. & Day, J. Suburbanization and transitoriented development in China. Transp. Policy 15, 315-323, doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2008.12.011 (2008).

14. Lyu, G., Bertolini, L. & Pfeffer, K. Developing a TOD typology for Beijing metro station areas. Journal of Transport Geography 55, 40-50, doi:10.1016/j. jtrangeo.2016.07.002 (2016).

21. Nasri, A. & Zhang, L. The analysis of transit-oriented development (TOD) in Washington, DC and Baltimore metropolitan areas. Transp. Policy 32, 172-179, doi:10.1016/j. tranpol.2013.12.009 (2014).

22. Guo, R. & Huang, Z. Mass Rapid Transit Ridership Forecast Based on Direct Ridership Models: A Case Study in Wuhan, China. Journal of Advanced Transportation 2020, doi:10.1155/2020/7538508 (2020).

23. Ibraeva, A., Correia, G. H. D., Silva, C. & Antunes, A. P. Transit-oriented development: A review of research achievements and challenges. Transportation Research Part a-Policy and Practice 132, 110-130, doi:10.1016/j. tra.2019.10.018 (2020). 24. Karnruzzaman, M., Shatu, F. M., Hine, J. & Turrell, G. Commuting mode choice in transit oriented development: Disentangling the effects of competitive neighbourhoods, travel attitudes, and self-selection. Transp. Policy 42, 187-196, doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2015.06.003 (2015). 25. Pan, H. X., Li, J., Shen, Q. & Shi, C. What determines rail transit passenger volume? Implications for transit oriented development planning. Transportation Research Part D-Transport and Environment 57, 52-63, doi:10.1016/j.trd.2017.09.016 (2017). 26. Kumar, P. P., Sekhar, C. R. & Parida, M. Identification of neighborhood typology for potential transit-oriented development. Transportation Research Part D-Transport and Environment 78, doi:10.1016/j.trd.2019.11.015 (2020). 27. Nasri, A., Carrion, C., Zhang, L. & Baghaei, B. Using propensity score matching technique to address selfselection in transit-oriented development (TOD) areas. Transportation 47, 359-371, doi:10.1007/s11116-018-9887-2 (2020). 28. Combs, T. S. & Rodriguez, D. A. Joint impacts of Bus Rapid Transit and urban form on vehicle ownership: New evidence from a quasi-longitudinal analysis in Bogota, Colombia. Transportation Research Part a-Policy and Practice 69, 272-285, doi:10.1016/j.tra.2014.08.025 (2014).

29. Cervero, R. & Dai, D. BRT TOD: Leveraging transit oriented development with bus rapid transit investments. Transp. Policy 36, 127-138 (2016). 30. Jamme, H.-T., Rodriguez, J., Bahl, D. & Banerjee, T. A Twenty-Five-Year Biography of the TOD Concept: From Design to Policy, Planning, and Implementation. Journal of Planning Education and Research 39, 409-428, doi:10.1177/0739456x19882073 (2019). 31. Rodriguez, D. A., Khattak, A. J. & Evenson, K. R. Can new urbanism encourage physical activity? Comparing a new urbanist neighborhood with conventional suburbs. Journal of the American Planning Association 72, 43-54 (2006).

35. Appleyard, B. S., Frost, A. R. & Allen, C. Are all transit stations equal and equitable? Calculating sustainability, livability, health, & equity performance of smart growth & transit-oriented-development (TOD). Journal of Transport & Health 14, doi:10.1016/j.jth.2019.100584 (2019). 36. Gu, P. Q., He, D. X., Chen, Y. L., Zegras, P. C. & Jiang, Y. Transit-oriented development and air quality in Chinese cities: A city-level examination. Transportation Research Part D-Transport and Environment 68, 10-25, doi:10.1016/j. trd.2018.03.009 (2019). 37. Urban Land Institute. Fiscal Impacts of TransitOriented Development Projects. (Urban Land Institute, Washington DC, 2016).

32. Liu, Y.-Y., Wang, Y.-Q., An, R. & Li, C. The spatial distribution of commuting CO2 emissions and the influential factors: A case study in Xi’an, China. Advances in Climate Change Research 6, 46-55, doi:10.1016/j.accre.2015.09.001 (2015).

38. Cervero, R. & Landis, J. Twenty Years Of The Bay Area Rapid Transit System: Land Use And Development Impacts. Transportation Research, Part A 31, 309-333 (1997).

33. Chatman, D. G., Xu, R. Y., Park, J. & Spevack, A. Does Transit-Oriented Gentrification Increase Driving? Journal of Planning Education and Research 39, 482-495, doi:10.1177/0739456x19872255 (2019).

39. Trepci, E., Maghelal, P. & Azar, E. Effect of densification and compactness on urban building energy consumption: Case of a Transit-Oriented Development in Dallas, TX. Sustainable Cities and Society 56, doi:10.1016/j. scs.2019.101987 (2020).

42. Santoro, P. F. Inclusionary housing policies in Latin America: São Paulo, Brazil in dialogue with Bogotá, Colombia. International Journal of Housing Policy 19, 385410 (2019).

49. Bocarejo, J. P., Portilla, I. & Pérez, M. A. Impact of Transmilenio on density, land use, and land value in Bogotá. Research in Transportation Economics 40, 78-86, doi:10.1016/j.retrec.2012.06.030 (2012).

43. Rodriguez, D. A. & Targa, F. Value of accessibility to Bogota’s bus rapid transit system. Transp. Rev. 24, 587610, doi:10.1080/0144164042000196000 (2004).

50. Rodriguez, D. A., Vergel-Tovar, E. & Camargo, W. F. Land development impacts of BRT in a sample of stops in Quito and Bogota. Transp. Policy 51, 4-14, doi:10.1016/j. tranpol.2015.10.002 (2016).

44. Yap, J. B. H. & Goh, S. V. Determining the potential and requirements of transit-oriented development (TOD) The case of Malaysia. Property Management 35, 394-413, doi:10.1108/pm-06-2016-0030 (2017). 45. Vergel-Tovar, C. E. Understanding barriers and opportunities for transit-oriented development with bus rapid transit in Bogotá and Quito. Journal of Urban Affairs, 24 pages (Under review). 46. Gakenheimer, R., Rodriguez, D. A. & Vergel, E. Planning for BRT-Oriented Development: Lessons and Prospects from Brazil and Colombia. (Clean Air Institute, Washington DC, 2011). 47. Munoz-Raskin, R. Walking accessibility to bus rapid transit: Does it affect property values? The case of Bogota, Colombia. Transp. Policy 17, 72-84, doi:10.1016/j. tranpol.2009.11.002 (2010). 48. Perdomo, J. A. A methodological proposal to estimate changes of residential property value: case study developed in Bogota. Applied Economics Letters 18, 15771581, doi:10.1080/13504851.2011.554360 (2011).

51. Biberos-Bendezu, K. & Vazquez-Rowe, I. Environmental impacts of introducing cable cars in the Andean landscape: A case study for Kuelap, Peru. Science of the Total Environment 718, doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.137323 (2020). 52. Bocarejo, J. P. et al. An innovative transit system and its impact on low income users: the case of the Metrocable in Medellin. Journal of Transport Geography 39, 49-61, doi:10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2014.06.018 (2014). 53. Garsous, G., Suarez-Aleman, A. & Serebrisky, T. Cable cars in urban transport: Travel time savings from La PazEl Alto (Bolivia). Transp. Policy 75, 171-182, doi:10.1016/j. tranpol.2017.05.005 (2019). 54. Sarmiento, O. L. et al. Urban Transformations and Health: Methods for TrUST-a Natural Experiment Evaluating the Impacts of a Mass Transit Cable Car in Bogota, Colombia. Frontiers in Public Health 8, doi:10.3389/fpubh.2020.00064 (2020). 55. Chatman, D. G. Does TOD Need the T?: On the Importance of Factors Other Than Rail Access. Journal of the American Planning Association 79, 17-31, doi:10.1080/0 1944363.2013.791008 (2013).

56. Ríos Flores, R. A., Vicentini, V.L., Acevedo-Daunas, R. M. ractical Guidebook: Parking and Travel Demand Management Policies in Latin America. (InterAmerican Development Bank, 2013).

63. Ribeiro, S. C. L., Daniel, M. N. & Abiko, A. ZEIS maps: Comparing areas to be earmarked exclusively for social housing in Sao Paulo city. Land Use Policy 58, 445-455, doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.08.010 (2016).

70. Sung, H. & Oh, J. T. Transit-oriented development in a high-density city: Identifying its association with transit ridership in Seoul, Korea. Cities 28, 70-82, doi:10.1016/j. cities.2010.09.004 (2011).

78. Cervero, R., Ferrell, C. & Murphy, S. Transit-Oriented Development and Joint Development in the United States: A Literature Review. (Transit Cooperative Research Program, Washungton, DC, 2002).

57. Shoup, D. C. The high cost of free parking., (Planners Press, American Planning Association, 2005).

64. Hurtado, A. Portales de Transmilenio: revitalización de espacios e integración social. Revista de Asuntos Públicos 3, 39-43 (2009).

71. Renne, J. L., Tolford, T., Hamidi, S. & Ewing, R. The Cost and Affordability Paradox of Transit-Oriented Development: A Comparison of Housing and Transportation Costs Across Transit-Oriented Development, Hybrid and TransitAdjacent Development Station Typologies. Housing Policy Debate 26, 819-834, doi:10.1080/10511482.2016.11930 38 (2016).

79. Furtado, F., Rezende, V. F., Oliveira, T. C. & Jorgensen Jr., P. Outorga Onerosa do Direito de Construir Panorama e Avaliação de Experiências Municipais. (Lincoln Institute for Land Policy, Cambridge, 2010).

72. Salat, S. & Ollivier, G. Transforming the Urban Space through Transit-Oriented Development -The 3V Approach. (The World Bank, 2017).

81. Cervero, R. The Transit Metropolis: A Global Inquiry. (Island Press, 1998).

58. Ewing, R., Tian, G., Lyons, T. & Terzano, K. Trip and parking generation at transit-oriented developments: Five US case studies. Landscape and Urban Planning 160, 69-78, doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.12.002 (2017). 59. Cervero, R., Adkins, A. & Sullivan, C. Are Suburban TODs Over-Parked? Journal of Public Transportation 13, 47-70 (2010). 60. Wang, X., Rodriguez, D.A., Majenra, A. Support for Market-Based and Command-and-Control Congestion Relief Policies: Evidence from Eleven Latin American Cities. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 51 pages (In Press). 61. Loo, B. P. Y., Cheng, A. H. T. & Nichols, S. L. Transitoriented development on greenfield versus infill sites: Some lessons from Hong Kong. Landscape and Urban Planning 167, 37-48, doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2017.05.013 (2017). 62. Barandier, J. R., Jr., Bodmer, M. & Lentino, I. Evidence of the impacts of the national housing programme on the accessibility of the low-income population in Rio de Janeiro. Natural Resources Forum 41, 105-118, doi:10.1111/1477-8947.12124 (2017).

65. Suzuki, H., Cervero, R. & Iuchi, K. Transforming Cities with Transit. Transit and Land-use Integration for Sustainable Urban Development,. (The World Bank, 2013). 66. Higgins, C. D. & Kanaroglou, P. S. A latent class method for classifying and evaluating the performance of station area transit-oriented development in the Toronto region. Journal of Transport Geography 52, 61-72, doi:10.1016/j. jtrangeo.2016.02.012 (2016). 67. Cervero, R. & Murakami, J. Rail and Property Development in Hong Kong: Experiences and Extensions. Urban Stud. 46, 2019-2043, doi:10.1177/0042098009339431 (2009). 68. Calthorpe, P. The New American Metropolis: Ecology, Community, and the American Dream. (Princeton Architectural Press, 1993). 69. Kamruzzaman, M., Baker, D., Washington, S. & Turrell, G. Advance transit oriented development typology: case study in Brisbane, Australia. Journal of Transport Geography 34, 54-70, doi:10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2013.11.002 (2014).

73. Rodriguez, D. A., Vergel-Tovar, C.E., y Gakenheimer, R. in Desafíos del desarrollo urbano sostenible en el transporte y la movilidad (ed O. Figueroa, Valenzuela, L.M., Brasileiro, A.) (El Colegio Mexiquense, 2020). 74. Carlton, I. Transit Planners’ Transit-Oriented Development-Related Practices and Theories. Journal of Planning Education and Research 39, 508-519, doi:10.1177/0739456x19878867 (2019). 75. Curitiba, P. M. d. (ed Secretaria Municipal do Urbanismo) (Curitiba, 2020). 76. Bogota, A. M. d. Vol. Decreto 803 del 2018 (ed Alcaldia Mayor de Bogota) (Bogota, 2018). 77. Suzuki, H., Murakami, J., Hong, Y.-H. & Tamayose, B. Financing Transit-Oriented Development with Land Values. (The World Bank, 2015).

80. Horizonte, P. B. Vol. LEI 11.181/19 (ed Subsecretaria Planejamento Urbano) (Belo Horizonte, 2020).

82. Staricco, L. & Vitale Brovarone, E. Promoting TOD through regional planning. A comparative analysis of two European approaches. Journal of Transport Geography 66, 45-52, doi:10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2017.11.011 (2018). 83. Tan, W., Bertolini, L. & Janssen-Jansen, L. Identifying and conceptualising context-specific barriers to transit-oriented development strategies: the case of the Netherlands. Town Planning Review 85, 639-663, doi:10.3828/tpr.2014.38 (2014). 84. Thomas, R. & Bertolini, L. Defining critical success factors in TOD implementation using rough set analysis. Journal of Transport and Land Use 10, 139-154, doi:10.5198/ jtlu.2015.513 (2017). 85. Mu, R. & de Jong, M. A network governance approach to transit-oriented development: Integrating urban transport and land use policies in Urumqi, China. Transp. Policy 52, 55-63, doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2016.07.007 (2016).

86. Kim, H. M. & Han, S. S. Seoul. Cities 29, 142-154 (2012). 87. Sung, H. & Choi, C. G. The link between metropolitan planning and transit-oriented development: An examination of the Rosario Plan in 1980 for Seoul, South Korea. Land Use Policy 63, 514-522, doi:10.1016/j. landusepol.2017.01.045 (2017). 88. Seoul Metropolitan Government. Public Transit Use in Seoul. (Seoul, Korea, 2016). 89. Seoul Metropolitan Government. Bus Rapid Transit Notice. (Seoul, Korea, 2015). 90. Metropolitan Transportation Authority. Seoul Metropolitan Region O/D Report. (Seoul, Korea, 2018). 91. Departamento Nacional de Planeacion. Política nacional de transporte urbano y masivo. (Bogota, DC, 2003). 92. Departamento Nacional de Planeacion. Sistema integrado del servicio público urbano de transporte masivo de pasajeros del Área Metropolitana del Centro Occidente AMCO – seguimiento y modificación. (Bogota, DC, 2007). 93. Giraldo, F. Ciudad y Crisis. (Tercer Mundo Editores, 1999). 94. Secretaria de Planeacion. Planes Parciales de Desarrollo, <http://www.sdp.gov.co/gestion-territorial/ planes-parciales-de-desarrollo/seguimiento> (2020). 95. Bogota, R. in El Espectador (Bogota, 2015).

104. Yearwood-Lee, E. History of the Agricultural Land Reserve. (Legislative Library of British Columbia, Victoria, B.C., 2008).

113. Spillar, R. Public Policy and Transit Oriented Development: Six International Case Studies. (Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, 1996).

97. Metro, E. Plan de Reasentamiento Inicial -PLMB. (Convenio Empresa Metro de Bogotá - IDU, Bogota, 2018).

114. Burnaby, C. o. Metrotown Downtown Plan. (Planning and Building Department, Burnaby, BC, 2017).

98. Cervero, R. Progressive Transport and the Poor: Bogotá’s Bold Steps Forward. Access 27, 24-30 (2007).

106. BC Transit. BC Transit History <http://www.bctransit. com/corporate/general_info/history.cfm> (2014).

99. Borrero O., Rodríguez, J. F. & Vejarano, M. C. Impacto del Sistema Público de Transporte Transmilenio en los Precios de la tierra en áreas de vivienda de población de bajos ingresos en Bogotá, Colombia. (Lincoln Institute for Land Policy, Cambridge, MA, 2007).

107. Krawchenko, T. Regional Special Purpose Bodies for Transportation and Transit in Canada: Case Studies of Translink and Metrolinx. Canadian Journal of Regional Science 34, 1-8 (2011).

100. Boarnet, M. & Crane, R. L.A. Story: A Reality Check for Transit-Based Housing. Journal of the American Planning Association 63, 189-204 (1997). 101. Siemiatycki, M. in Managing and Financing Urban Public Transport Systems: An International Perspective (ed G. Guess) 223-258 (Central European University Press, 2008).

108. CBC. Major TransLink overhaul going ahead, <https:// www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/majortranslink-overhaul-going-ahead-1.674793> (2007). 109. BC Ministry of Community Services. Summary of Local Government Legislation. (Victoria, B.C., 2007). 110. Hutton, T. A. Vancouver. Cities doi:10.1016/0264-2751(94)90027-2 (1994).

11,

219-239,

102. Hornell, M. Vancouver’s transit success explained. Journal of the American Planning Association 65, 223-224 (1999).

111. Translink. History of SkyTrain, < http://www.translink. ca/en/About-Us/Corporate-Over view/OperatingCompanies/BCRTC/History-of-SkyTrain.aspx> (2014).

103. Gordon, P. & Richardson, H. W. Farmland Preservation and Ecological Footprints: A Critique. Planning & Markets 1 (1999).

115. Jacobson, J. & Forsyth, A. Seven American TODs: Good practices for urban design in Transit-Oriented Development projects. Journal of Transport and Land Use 1, 51-88 (2008). 116. Mobiliarios, C. d. V. Relatorio 1o Trimestre de 2020 da Operacao Urbana Consorciada Linha Verde. (OUC-LV, Curitiba, Brasil, 2020). 117. Davis, J. E. The Community Land Trust Reader. (Lincoln Institute for Land Policy, 2010).

Image References [In order of appearance] Cover: Group of young men cycling [Edited]. Retrieved from: https://www.c40knowledgehub.org/s/article/Howto-achieve-a-walking-and-cycling-transformation-inyour-city?language=en_US Group of people walking [Edited]. Credit: Cameron Casey. Retrieved from: https://www.pexels.com/es-es/foto/ personas-en-la-foto-focal-selectiva-de-la-acera-1687093/ Group of people crossing the street [Edited]. Credit: Kaique Rocha. Retrieved from: https://www.pexels.com/ es-es/foto/gente-caminando-por-el-carril-peatonaldurante-el-dia-109919/ Urban mobility in Mexico [Edited]. Credit: Audi Urban Future Award (AUFA). Retrieved from: https://www. archdaily.com/569728/audi-urban-future-award2014-transforming-urban-mobility-through-datadonors/546400a3e58eceb71f0000fa-award2014_mexicocity_traffic-jam7-jpg

Curitiba, Brasil [Edited]. Credit: Rodrigo Faustini. Retrieved from: rodrigofaustini.net People walking in San Nicolas, Argentina [Edited]. Credit: Rafael Guimarães. Retrieved from: https://www.pexels. com/es-es/foto/gente-de-pie-en-la-carretera-junto-almercado-y-edificios-de-gran-altura-1060803/ São Paulo Museum of Art [Edited]. Credit: Eduardo Dutra. Retrieved from: https://www.pexels.com/es-es/foto/ gente-parada-al-lado-de-la-carretera-3044565/ T of “TOD” edit [Edited]. Credit: Dimitry Zub. Retrieved from: https://www.pexels.com/es-es/foto/ciudad-genteentrenar-camino-6851957/ O of “TOD” edit [Edited]. Credit: Samson Katt. Retrieved from: https://www.pexels.com/es-es/foto/pareja-joven-depie-delante-del-tren-en-la-plataforma-de-la-estacionde-metro-5225449/

Chapter 1 Cover: Train passing by [Edited]. Credit: H. Emre. Retrieved from: https://www.pexels.com/es-es/foto/trenpasando-773471/

D of “TOD” edit [Edited]. Credit: Mathias P.R. Reding. Retrieved from: https://www.pexels.com/es-es/foto/ ciudad-cielo-nublado-edificio-7108780/

Outside tables [Edited]. Credit: Nataliya Vaitkevich. Retrieved from: https://www.pexels.com/es-es/foto/ ciudad-banador-calle-edificios-5352691/

Man biking through the urban intervention “Calle Consciente” [Edited]. Credit: Alejandro Arango. Retrieved from: https://www.archdaily. pe/pe/950554 /intervencion-calle-consciente-unj a rd i n - d e - c o l o re s - t a l l e r- a rq u i u r b a n o - p l u s - i a a studio/5f9b8acf63c017839500002e-intervencion-calleconsciente-un-jardin-de-colores-taller-arquiurbanoplus-iaa-studio-foto

References image: Building top [Edited]. Credit: Laura Tancredi. Retrieved from: https://www.pexels.com/es-es/ foto/ciudad-calle-edificio-construccion-7077970/ Chapter 2 Cover: Bryant Park [Edited]. Credit: Colin Miller Photography. Retrieved from: h t t p s : // w w w. f a c e b o o k . c o m / b r y a n t p a r k n y c / photos/a.10150659883638606/10158563454488606

People working [Edited]. Credit: Marley Clovelly. Retrieved from: https://www.pexels.com/es-es/foto/mujer-adultacon-netbook-en-cafe-contemporaneo-3768236/

People on a bus [Edited]. Credit: Lukas Hartmann. Retrieved from: https://www.pexels.com/es-es/foto/blusasin-mangas-blanca-para-mujer-1435222/ A Translohr car of Medellín’s Tranvía de Ayacucho system turning from Carrera 29 onto Av. Ayacucho in May 2016 [Edited]. Credit: Secretaría de Movilidad de Medellín. Retrieved from: https://www.flickr.com/photos/ transitomedellin/26737821670/

Multi-city case study miniature: Buildings’ top [Edit]. Credit: “cottonbro”. Retrieved from: https://www.pexels. com/es-es/foto/vista-aerea-de-los-edif icios-de-laciudad-4979419/ Seoul case study, background image [Edit]. Credit: Markus Winkler. Retrieved from: https://www.pexels.com/ es-es/foto/ciudad-carretera-trafico-restaurante-5059929/

Cheonggyecheon Stream of Seoul. Credit: Markus Winkler [Edited]. Retrieved from: https://www.pexels.com/ es-es/foto/ciudad-edificios-canal-arquitectura-5176030/

Bogotá case study, background image [Edit]. Credit: Educación Bogotá. Retrieved from: http://www.fce.unal. edu.co/media/files/PEC/Reto_a_la_U/BOLETIN_INF_04. pdf

New York street [Edited]. Credit: Nout Gons. Retrieved from: https://www.pexels.com/es-es/foto/foto-de-la-callede-la-ciudad-378570/

Vancouver case study, background image (left): Vancouver Downtown [Edit]. Credit: EligeCanada.com. Retrieved from: https://eligecanada.com/vancouver/

Chapter 3 Cover: Vancouver [Edit]. Credit: Lukas Kloeppel. Retrieved from: https://www.pexels.com/es-es/foto/ persona-vestida-con-blue-jeans-ademas-de-valla-deacero-gris-2416602/

Vancouver case study, background image (right): Vancouver Downtown [Edit]. Credit: Nattipat Vesvarute. Retrieved from: https://www.pexels.com/es-es/foto/ ciudad-agua-panorama-urbano-edificio-4680431/

Seoul miniature image [Edit]. Credit: Ann Danilina. Retrieved from: https://unsplash.com/photos/ Y2JQGXUM1iU

Multi-city tool case study, background image: Buildings’ facades [Edit]. Credit: Charles Parker. Retrieved from: https://www.pexels.com/es-es/foto/fachada-de-edificiosresidenciales-en-el-centro-5847568/

Bogotá miniature image [Edit]. Credit: Luis Cont. Retrieved from: https://www.pexels.com/es-es/foto/ ciudad-edificios-rascacielos-urbano-6604309/ Vancouver miniature image: Grant Thornton Place, 333 Seymour St [Edit]. Credit: Aditya Chinchure. Retrieved from: https://unsplash.com/photos/AZsbSLujE20

Chapter 4 Cover: People biking [Edit]. Credit: Carlos Felipe Pardo. Retrieved from: https://www.archdaily. p e /p e / 9 3 8 6 1 1 /c i u d a d e s - c o n t e m p l a n - i m p u l s a r el-uso-de-bicicletas-f rente-a-la-crisis-del-covid19/5ea9736ab35765ec210001f0-ciudades-contemplanimpulsar-el-uso-de-bicicletas-f rente-a-la-crisis-delcovid-19-foto

Recommendation No. 1 (up): Vibrant environment at Bryant Park, New York [Edit]. Credit: Bryant Park’s Facebook Page. Retrieved from: https://www.facebook. com/bryantparknyc/photos/10158034864738606

Recommendation No. 6 (down): WMATA [Edit]. Credit: Bill Clark. Retrieved from: https://www.rollcall.com/2016/08/16/ metro-adds-weekend-shutdowns-to-maintenanceplan/

Recommendation No. 1 (down): Bogotá’s initiative for the use of public space and integration [Edit]. Credit: Julián Rodríguez Sastoque. Retrieved from: https://www. facebook.com/eljulisastoque/photos/pcb.16786739723150 96/1678673858981774

Recommendation No. 7: Estación Metro 26 project in Bogotá, Colombia [Edit]. Retrieved from: http://www.eru. gov.co/es/proyectos/estacion-metro-26

Recommendation No. 2: Comuna 13’s infrastructure improvements benefit the low-income settlements [Edit]. Credit: Bernard Gagnon. Retrieved from: https:// commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Comuna_13,_ Medell%C3%ADn_07.jpg Recommendation No. 3: Bykeway in Medellín, Colombia [Edit]. Retrieved from: https://www.bicyclescreatechange. com/ciclovia-de-los-domingos/ Recommendation No. 4: Linha Verde project [Edit]. Credit: Mariordo (Mario Roberto Duran Ortiz) Retrieved from: https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archivo:Linha_Verde_ Curitiba_BRT_02_2013_Est_Marechal_Floriano_5970.JPG Recommendation No. 5: Curitiba’s Bus Rapid Transit vehicles [Edit]. Retrieved from: https://urbanizehub.com/ curitiba-brazil-worlds-first-sustainable-city/ Recommendation No. 6 (up): NoMa district, Washington [Edit]. Retrieved from: https://washington.org/es/dcneighborhoods/noma

Recommendation No. 8: Seoul’s streets [Edit]. Credit: “Mania for Beatles” Retrieved from: https://www.reddit. com/r/CityPorn/comments/dhu34x/rain_drenched_ street_at_night_full_of_umbrellas/?utm_source=ifttt Conclusion: Crowds in the city center of Mexico City [Edit]. Credit: Alex Cimbal. Retrieved from: https://www. fodors.com/world/mexico-and-central-america/mexico/ mexico-city/experiences/news/everything-you-thoughtyou-knew-about-mexico-city-is-wrong Chapter 5 Cover: Peru Station, Buenos Aires Metro [Edit]. Credit: Evelyn Proimos. Retrieved from: https://commons. wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Peru_Station,_Buenos_Aires_ Metro.jpg

An Appraisal of Trends and Opportunities for Latin America