XU Junping

( College of Architecture， Huaqiao University， Xiamen 361021， China )

?

Multi Level Measurement and Evaluation Method of the TOD

XU Junping

( College of Architecture， Huaqiao University， Xiamen 361021， China )

Abstract：Two evaluation methods of indicators and visualization platform are investigated at the multiple levels. Combining the two methods together， the multi level measurement and evaluation method of the transit oriented development (TOD) is proposed. Obtaining the primary indicators and applying them on the visualization platform, the comprehensively quantitative and visual evaluating methods are built. The results indicate that this evaluation system can solve effectively the urban problems, utilize the urban land intensively and realize the sustainable urban development.

Keywords：transit oriented development； evaluation system； factor； visualization； multiple levels； measure criterion

Transit oriented development (TOD) was proposed as a planning tool to face these challenges， which integrated the land use and the transport system to create sustainable， livable， and pedestrian friendly neighborhoods[1-2]. A TOD community or neighborhood should have the characteristics with high density， mixed and diverse land use， walking distance to the transit stations， and the friendly walking environment[1，3]. Concerning with the area of a TOD neighborhood or community， centered with the transit station， quarter mile (400 m) to half mile (800 m) buffer area is widely accepted as a TOD neighborhood or community[4-5].

During the past two decades of practices in the United States， many studies have demonstrated the remarkable effects on the increasing transit ridership and reducing driving from the TOD policies. As many researchers stated， the TOD neighborhoods or TOD communities not only increased the transit ridership， but improved the revival of the old communities through the economic interests from the commercial development[5-6].There have been many successful TOD cases worldwide， such as Stockholm in Sweden， Copenhagen in Denmark， Madrid in Spain， Hong Kong in China and Seoul in South Korea[7-9]. The TOD concept was introduced to China in year 2000 and has been under hot discussions with the appeal of low carbon development and mass construction of the rapid transit lines in many Chinese cities.

The traditional TOD areas are often in the high density areas， such as central business district (CBD)， however， with the monocentric urban pattern transferring to the polycentric urban pattern， the urban form has been re-configured[10-11]. Up to date， there is no unanimous criteria to evaluate the TOD areas or projects. To fill the gap， this paper is trying to review and conclude the indicators that might be useful for evaluating the TOD projects.

1Review of Existing Multiple Criteria of TOD

1.1Classical 3D/5D Principle in United States and the 5D2 Principle in China

The famous transportation researchers Cervero and Kockelman concluded the characteristics of the TOD areas as “3D” principle， and then they extend the “3D” to “5D”： density， diversity， design， distance to transit and destination accessibility，see table 1[12].

For design， it was given the priority to walking and cycling， but limited the parking space around the transit stations. Concerning with the diversity， Cervero and colleagues explained that it would be better if there are diverse land uses along the transit lines， which could avoid the heavy transportation flow[12]. Other “3Ds” represent the core idea of TOD concept: increasing the density， walking distance to the transit station， and good accessibility to various destinations.

Tab.1　3D/5D principle[12]

Through survey in Hong Kong and Taipei， references [13-14] have concluded five aspects of TOD characteristics in the two cities: differentiated density， dockized district， deluxe design， diverse destination and distributed dividends， see table 2.

Since the five aspects are all two words beginning with “D”， they are also called as “5D2” principle. The “metro+property” mode of Hong Kong MTR is the most successful case of “Distributed Dividends”， whose goal is to combine the subway construction with property development along the subway lines，using the interests from the property development to pay for the fees of the rail construction and operation[13-14]. The TOD community area in “5D2” principle is planned or considered at the city or region level and the balance of land use could be solved across the communities， not only limited in one community[13-14].

Tab.2　5D2 principles[13-14]

1.2TOD Index/Indicators

Renne and Wells the proposed “TOD Index” and they did a national survey[15]， in which they hired 30 professionals to evaluate all the indicators listed. Then， they screened 15 indicators that were at least 50% professionals marked “very useful”. Later， they posted these indicators online to get further evaluation from the public.

In the result， the transit ridership was supported as the most important indicator for evaluating a TOD area. The following important indicators: density， the quality of environment design， land use mixture， and others are listed in the Table 3. This TOD index includes the socio-economic characteristics and residents activities， which are important as the characteristics of the built environment[15].

Tab.3　TOD index[15]

Loo and colleagues investigated the built environment surrounding the subway stations in New York and Hong Kong[16]. They also the proposed indicators for evaluating TOD and divided them into five categories: ridership， land use， station characteristics， socio-economic characteristics and inter-modal competition (Table 4).

Tab.4　TOD indicators[16]

This evaluation placed an emphasis on the socio-economic， demographic and station characteristics rather than only focused on the built environment characteristics. In their survey and analysis results， more commercial area (COM) increased the ridership； years of operation of the station (YRS_OP) was proportional to the ridership； bigger population size (POP_S) increased the ridership； the number of the bus stops was proportional to the ridership.

In their study results， there was an interesting conclusion that more vehicles one household owned more possibility to take the transit since the residents might take their vehicles to the transit stations. The result was different with other studies， such as the studies in Los Angeles and other cities. We should pay attention that the TOD principles encourage people to walk or cycle to the transit stations and limit the parking spaces around the stations.

1.3Visual Evaluation Methods from the Walkability Indicators to the Spatial Multiple Criteria Analysis

Schlossberg and colleagues used walkability indicators to evaluate 11 TOD areas in Portland， Oregon through ArcGIS platform[17]. This is a great case to evaluate TOD by using GIS spatial analysis platform， however， only used one indicator. “Walkability” as a popular indicator refers to the walking ability in built environment. Although there had been various definitions， several ones were accepted as below. Abley′s[18]group defined “walkability” as the ability to provide friendly walking environment for people′s daily life. Gebel′s group[19]pointed out that “walkability” means compact， mixed land use， good connectivity and accessibility. Frank′s group[20]gave the quantitative method to measure the walkability and it has been accepted widely now. The formula is as follow:

Walkability=(2×ZI+ZN+ZR+ZL).

ArcGIS used the formula above to calculate the “walkability” and reflected different level of walkability of all the TOD areas on the GIS map， which could more readable than the numbers or tables. However， only using “walkability” is not enough to evaluate TOD areas comprehensively since many socio-economic and other factors have been ignored. Depending on GIS platform and using spatial multiple criteria analysis (SMCA) is more reasonable to evaluate the TOD areas. SMCA is a multiple evaluation criteria， whose indicators are evaluated and decided through the ILWIS platform[13].

These indicators consist of a comprehensive target system to evaluate the TOD areas， which also reflects the results on the GIS maps. The policy makers and other stakeholders could help decide the weight for each indicator. The following researches are the primary ones that successfully employed the SMCA to evaluate the TOD projects. Keshkamat′s group[21]， Beukes′s group[22]and Singh′s group[23]concluded the indicators in the SMCA: 1) density； 2) diverse land use； 3) friendly walking environment； 4) economic development.

2Conclusions and Suggestions

The TOD concept was proposed and has developed over two decades in the States United， and there has been an accumulated abundant practice experience. This concept has been introduced to our country for almost 15 years and based on the characteristics of our cities， we are exploring the proper mode of the TOD in China. Hong Kong and Taiwan introduced TOD concept earlier than us and both of them developed their own successful TOD styles. However， until now， there is no standard criteria to evaluate the TOD projects or areas and the related literature is quite limited. This study is trying to fill this gap through concluding the existing multiple criteria， which has focused on the characterisitcs of built environment and socio-economic indicators in the TOD neighborhoods.

Firstly， it is widely accepted that the area of TOD community is often centered by the transit station with 400 m (quarter mile) to 800 m (half mile) radius， which is decided by the walking time (5 to 10 minutes) from any point in the TOD community to the transit station.

Secondly， the following criteria (including indicators) are suggested by this study to measure the TOD projects:

1) Built environment characteristics around transit stations (including residential density， block size， intersection density of street， the size of business/service， walking facilities， good accessibility to various destinations， diverse land use and mixture， the parking spaces around stations， etc.)；

2) Socio-economic characteristics(including population density， employment density，vehicle number per household，housing value， etc.)；

3) Station characteristics (including station type， seamless transportation connection，years of station operation， etc.).

Sometimes， the population density and employment density are also included into the categories of built environment characteristics. Meanwhile， according to the released data from center of transit oriented development (CTOD)， it should consider the activities of residents as the important indicators to evaluate the effect of the TOD projects[3]. The aim of TOD is to encourage residents taking transit and reducing driving， thus the following indicators of residential activities should include: transit ridership， household vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per month， and household vehicle hours traveled (VHT) per month. These indicators could verify the real effect of TOD projects and test if the projects achieve their final goal.

Finally， the visual evaluation method has many advantages compared with the traditional methods， such as readable. In the GIS maps， it is convenient to identify the levels of TOD communities from the best to the worst and locate which communities should be improved based on the evaluation criteria.

References：

[1]CALTHORPE P.The next American metropolis: Ecology， community， and American dreams[M].Princeton: Princeton Architectural Press，1993:10-19.

[2]Center for Transit Oriented Development.Performance-based transit-oriented development typology guidebook[R].Los Angeles: Center for Transit Oriented Development，2011.

[3]Center of Transit Oriented Development.New smart growth in communities[R].Los Angeles: Center of Transit Oriented Development，2013.

[4]BERNICK M，CERVERO R.Transit villages in the 21st century[M].New York: Central Business Districts，1997:21-22.

[5]CERVERO R.Built environments and mode choice: Towards a normative framework[J].Transportation Research D，2002，7(4):265-284.

[6]PAN Haixiao，REN Chunyang.The review of experience， challenge and expectation[J].Urban Planning International，2004，19(6):61-65.

[7]CERVERO R，MURAKAMI J.Rail and property development in Hong Kong: Experiences and extensions[J].Urban Studies，2009,46(10):2019-2043.

[8]KNOWLES R D.Transport impacts of the ?resund (Copenhagen to Malm?) fixed link[J].Geography，2006，91(3):227-240.

[9]KNOWLES R D.Transit-oriented development in Copenhagen， Denmark: From the finger plan to ?restad[J].Journal of Transport Geography，2012，22:251-261.

[10]ARRINGTON G B，CERVERO R.Effects of TOD on housing， parking， and travel[R].Los Angeles: Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP)，2008.

[11]GAO Tao，WANG Jinping，LIU Qing.Study on low carbon evaluation index system of urban residential district[J].Journal of Huaqiao University (Natural Science)，2015，36(3):348-353.

[12]CERVERO R，KOCKELMAN K.Travel demand and the 3Ds: Density， diversity， and design [J].Transportation Research Part D，1997，2(3):199-219.

[13]ZHANG M，LIU J.The principles adapt for China′s characteristics[J].Urban Planning Forum，2007，1:91-96.

[14]ZHANG F，LIN L.The further discussion of China TOD: Based on the view of the transportation results[C]∥Proceeding on the China Urban Planning Annual Conference.Nanjing:[s.n.],2011:6069-6079.

[15]RENNE J L，WELLS J S,BLOUSTEI E J.Transit oriented development: Developing a strategy to measure success[J].Transport Research Board，2005，3(1):21-24.

[16]LOO B，CHEN C，CHAN E.Rail-based transit-oriented development: Lessons from New York City and Hong Kong[J].Landscape and Urban Planning，2011，97(3):202-212.

[17]SCHLOSSBERG M，BROWN N，BOSSARD E G，et al.Using spatial indicators for pre- and post-development analysis of TOD areas: A case study of portland and the Silicon Valley[J].Brit J Appl Phys,2004,10(10):26-32.

[18]ABLEY S.Walkability scoping paper[R].New Zealand:[s.n.]，2005.

[19]GEBEL K，BAUMAN A E，PETTICREW M.The physical environment and physical activity: A critical appraisal of review articles[J].Am J Preb Med，2007,32(5):361-369.

[20]FRANK L D，SCHMID T L，SALLIS J F，et al.Linking objectively measured physical activity with objectively measured urban form: Findings from SMARTRAQ[J]. American Journal of Preventive Medicine，2005， 28(2):117-125.

[21]KESHKAMAT S S，LOOIJEN L M，ZUIDGEEST M H P.The formulation and evaluation of transport route planning alternatives: A spatial decision support system for the Via Baltica project[J]. J Transp Geogr，2009， 17(1):54-64.

[22]BEUKES E A，VANDERSCHUREN M J W A，ZUIDGEEST M H P.Context sensitive multimodal road planning: A case study in Cape Town， South Africa[J].J Transp Geogr，2011，19(3):452-460.

[23]SINGH Y J，ZUIDGEEST M H P，MAARSEVEEN M，et al.A design framework for measuring transit oriented development[J].Wit Transactions on the Built Environment,2012,128(1):719-730.

(責(zé)任編輯： 黃仲一英文審校： 方德平)

公共交通導(dǎo)向型城市發(fā)展模式的多層次測量評估方法

許俊萍

(華僑大學(xué) 建筑學(xué)院， 福建 廈門 361021)

摘要：對因子類評估方法和可視化評估方法進(jìn)行多層面的對比，提出結(jié)合兩種評估方法，建立公共交通導(dǎo)向的城市發(fā)展模式(TOD)多層次測量評估模型.即提煉出因子類評估方法中的主要因子，然后通過在可視化平臺上的實例應(yīng)用，提出基于可視化平臺的評估因子，從而建立綜合定量的可視化評價體系.結(jié)果表明：該評價體系能夠有效地解決城市弊病，集約利用土地，實現(xiàn)城市的可持續(xù)發(fā)展.

關(guān)鍵詞：公共交通導(dǎo)向型城市發(fā)展模式； 評價體系； 因子類； 可視化； 多層次； 測度標(biāo)準(zhǔn)

CLC Number：U 491.17

Document Code：A

通信作者：許俊萍(1980-)，女，講師，博士，主要從事低碳城市、可持續(xù)發(fā)展和健康城市的研究.E-mail:ggxxxu@126.com.

收稿日期：2016-01-29

doi:10.11830/ISSN.1000-5013.2016.03.0369

文章編號：1000-5013(2016)03-0369-06

基金項目：福建省自然科學(xué)基金面上資助項目(2015J01637)； 華僑大學(xué)高層次人才科研啟動項目(Z15Y0012)