|

Towards Safer Streets: Reviewing the Impact of Transit-oriented Development on Road Safety in North American Cities

Hours Posted on Hours Updated on

By:

Phani Kumar Patnala, Ph.D.
Urban Mobility and Transportation Informatics Group, Faculty of Engineering, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada

Babak Mehran, P.Eng.
Urban Mobility and Transportation Informatics Group, Faculty of Engineering, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada

Jonathan Regehr, Ph.D., P.Eng.
Urban Mobility and Transportation Informatics Group, Faculty of Engineering, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada

Abstract

Promoting walking and cycling yields diverse benefits, yet pedestrians and cyclists remain vulnerable due to the lack of safety considerations in transit-oriented development (TOD) policies. While numerous studies focus on improving active transportation, safety analysis within TODs is often overlooked. This study addresses this gap by reviewing the impacts of TOD characteristics on safety, along with analyzing traffic crash data from North American cities, which are prominently recognized as TODs. High transit ridership cities significantly outperform low-ridership ones in minimizing pedestrian and cyclist fatalities. Notably, existing studies indicate that population density, number of intersections, and number of transit stops have positive correlation with pedestrian or cyclist-involved collisions. These findings inform the development of a long-term safety management process for active modes in future TODs.

Keywords: Transit oriented development, road safety, pedestrian and cyclists, North America

Introduction

Every city aspires to provide sustainable and efficient transportation options while enhancing affordable housing, efficient land-use, and well-connected streets to improve the overall quality of life of its residents. Cities like Copenhagen in Denmark, Seoul in Korea, Hong Kong, Tokyo in Japan, and Paris in France have showed that achieving such a vision transforms the city landscape into a competitive, efficient, economically vibrant, safe, and resilient urban environment. In those cities, neighborhoods can sustain higher population and employment densities, providing increased accessibility to opportunities through non-motorized transport (NMT) modes. A well-designed road network in these areas can reduce traffic congestion and greenhouse gas emissions, enabling investments in high-quality public spaces and neighborhoods that capture land values. It highlights the myriad benefits of integrating urban structure and transportation, particularly essential in rapidly expanding cities of North America.

For the past three decades, transit-oriented development (TOD) emerged as a strategic urban development and transportation planning approach capable of realizing the vision for rapidly expanding cities. TODs are characterized with high density, mixed land uses, pedestrian-friendly streets, accessible opportunities, and affordable housing structures near transit facilities (1). This approach is rooted in the belief that strategically locating urban elements around transit facilities encourages the use of transit, walking, and cycling in its neighborhoods (2, 3). Successful TOD implementation at the city level is inclusive and often proves effective in creating land values at the neighborhood level, fostering a legible place, promoting a sense of enclosure, human linkage, and an overall improved quality of life (4).

The concept of TOD dates to the 1990s when Calthorpe (1) introduced the term in his book The Transit Metropolis. Since then, numerous researchers in North America have explored the possible outcomes of TOD (5, 6, 3). Research indicates that building TODs around transit facilities leads to various benefits in individual, environmental, and policy aspects. Figure 1 emphasizes the numerous benefits of implementing TODs in urban areas. TODs contribute to the value uplift of neighborhoods (7). TOD neighborhoods could reduce car ownership by 44% and vehicle miles travelled (VMT) by 38% (8). They provide a significant ridership increase to transit systems (3). Residing in TOD neighborhoods alleviates traffic congestion and carbon emissions (4). Growing evidence suggests that TOD promotes social equity and improves public health (9, 10).

In the last two decades, numerous American cities have adopted TOD principles to achieve the benefits of “positive” travel behaviour, i.e., reduced travel distances and alleviated traffic congestion in urban settings (11, 8). Expectation is that increased investments in TOD will lead to a rise in pedestrian and cyclist activities centered on transit facilities. However, a significant challenge arises when road safety principles are not routinely integrated into TOD projects, particularly the case in North American cities. This deficiency contributes to increased traffic incidents around transit facilities, primarily due to resistance from existing car-centric road transportation systems. Hence, enhancing road safety in TODs necessitates not only addressing the prevalence of automobiles but also acknowledging the safety of pedestrians, cyclists, and other sustainable modes in shaping a safe road transportation system. However, there is limited evidence regarding how TODs impact pedestrian and cyclist safety at the local level. This prompts the crucial question: 

“Can the influence of TODs on road safety be considered "positive" in urban areas?”

This study aims to address this question through a comprehensive review of studies examining the influence of TODs on pedestrian and cyclist safety in North American cities. The focus is on revealing the intricate connections between TOD characteristics and road traffic safety outcomes, with a specific emphasis on cities in the United States (US) and Canada. The study findings will be valuable for road safety professionals and public agencies striving for vision zero, guiding them towards the implementation of safety-centric TOD policies.


Figure 1. Major Benefits of TOD Implementation

TODs in North America

Appendix A provides a summary of TODs in North America and their development strategies. Since the 1980s, North America has played a pivotal role as a global leader in advancing TOD in conjunction with different transit systems such as light rail, metro rail, and rapid bus. In the US, TODs were incorporated with a significant focus on increasing density, mixed-use developments, and pedestrian-friendly design within half-mile radius (or 800m) around transit stations to tackle private motorization and carbon emissions (12). Moreover, in Canadian urban planning, TOD is recognized as a valuable approach to seamlessly blend mixed land use around transit hubs, ensuring regular and dependable access for all (13). While planners in Vancouver, Canada, have undertaken various standalone TOD initiatives, they have also enforced the incorporation of diverse developments into their public transit network (14). Several key policy aspects have been instrumental in the successful execution of TODs in the North American cities:

  1. Institutional Coordination: Cities such as Baltimore, San Francisco, and Denver have encouraged collaboration through interagency working groups, overseeing and coordinating stakeholders to facilitate effective decision-making.
  2. Visionary Planning: Regions with proven TOD success stories, like Arlington, Portland, and Montgomery Counties, have demonstrated long-term commitment to station-area planning over the span of 30 years or more.
  3. Zoning Overlays for Developers: Progressive cities like Seattle, San Diego, and Atlanta have employed zoning overlays to enhance permissible densities, promote diversified land uses, and curtail car-dependent sprawl.
  4. Place-making Strategies: Exemplified by cities such as Dallas, Portland, and Arlington, the deliberate creation of vibrant and engaging environments around emerging transit station areas has been a focal point. This approach includes the incorporation of diverse amenities such as restaurants, entertainment venues, shopping malls, and cultural offerings.

Notably, there exist inherent risks and uncertainties of TOD implementation on the ground, stemming from existing policies, governance, development feasibility, and community acceptance, while reflecting the above policy aspects (15, 16). Despite these challenges associated with TOD implementation, North America has consistently demonstrated leadership in orchestrating TOD initiatives. Currently, more than 100 downtowns and 3,300 rail station areas in North America are TODs (17). As highlighted by Cervero and Arrington (8), the insights gained from this experience of TODs in American cities has significantly contributed to successful adaptation of TODs in other parts of the world. 

Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety in North American Cities

As recognized in the literature, the benefits of TODs in terms of walkability and bikeability contributes to healthier, more sustainable, and socially vibrant urban communities (6, 18, 19). By prioritizing these non-motorized modes, TODs foster social interactions, encourage physical activity, and provide people-centric environments (20). 

Despite the evident advantages of walking and cycling, a substantial number of pedestrians in urban areas of North America experience traffic collisions which may result in fatalities or serious injuries. Figure 2 illustrates the trends in pedestrian and cyclist fatalities and injuries in North America between 2011 and 2020. In the US, recent collision data indicates that pedestrian and cyclist fatalities constitute approximately 19% of the total annual traffic fatalities, with approximately 6,000 pedestrian deaths and 850 cyclist deaths. Moreover, an alarming number of individuals—76,000 pedestrians and 47,000 cyclists—sustain injuries in roadway crashes each year (21). The economic impact of pedestrian fatalities alone in 2019 was estimated to be $66 billion (22). Over the past decade, there has been a significant surge of 53% in pedestrian fatalities and 36% in cyclist fatalities, while vehicle occupant fatalities decreased by 3% (21).


Figure 2. Number of Injuries and Fatalities of Pedestrians and Cyclists in North America (Source data retrieved from NHTSA (21))

In Canadian cities, pedestrian and cyclist safety remains a pressing concern, particularly in urban areas, with motor vehicle collisions ranking among the leading causes of accidental death. Annually, nearly 2,000 people lose their lives, and an additional 165,000 suffer injuries (10,000 serious), in traffic-related incidents, costing Canadians an estimated $37 billion (23). Although pedestrians and cyclists constitute only about 7% of commuter trips, they contribute to nearly 20% of traffic fatalities in Canada, with pedestrian deaths increasing by 6% since 2014 (23), aligning with trends observed in the U.S. The vulnerability of pedestrians and cyclists underlines the urgency of prioritizing safety enhancements for these road users.

Figure 3 depicts the correlation between transit trips per capita and the total number of pedestrian and cyclist fatalities within a given year for major North American cities (populations exceeding 500,000). Notably, cities recording more than 100 annual transit trips per capita, exhibit lower rates of pedestrian and cyclist fatalities, such as 11 total fatalities in Washington DC, 26 in Toronto, 11 in Ottawa, and 13 in San Francisco. Similarly, cities with 50-100 annual trips per capita, also possess comparatively low crash rates such as 32 total fatalities in Montreal, 6 in Boston, 6 in Calgary, 13 in Seattle, 23 in Portland, and 6 in Vancouver. These findings align with previous research emphasizing the positive impact of diverting trips from personal cars to transit (24, 25), thus contributing to reduced traffic fatalities in these regions. Most cities with high transit ridership and low fatality rates are characterized as compact TODs, having successfully attained substantial gains in ridership and traffic safety through the implementation of transit improvements and supporting strategies.


Figure 3. Number of Fatalities of Pedestrians and Cyclists in Large North American Cities (Source data retrieved from NHTSA (21), APTA (26), and Singer and Burda (27))

With the rise in transit usage, there is a noticeable decrease in pedestrian and cyclist fatalities in cities with over 100 annual transit trips per capita demonstrate an approximately 50% lower average traffic fatality rate compared to regions with less than 50 annual trips per capita. This suggests that even moderate increases in transit travel are linked to substantial improvements in traffic safety. Notably, this linkage can also be associated with other factors such as length and type of walking and cycling facilities around transit stations. For instance, Cho (6) highlighted that improved walking and cycling infrastructure has decreased perceived and actual collision risk in TOD areas. These safety enhancements go beyond what could be solely attributed to a shift from car to transit use, underscoring the role of high-quality transit as a catalyst for altering travel patterns. This transformation includes the development of safer NMT streets characterized by lower vehicular speeds and reduced driving among higher-risk groups like youths, seniors, individuals under the influence, and substance users, all contributing significantly to an enhanced safety environment. 

On the flip side, cities like New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles, despite boasting transit ridership (> 50 annual trips per capita), display increased fatality rates. Conversely, cities with low transit ridership levels, such as Houston and Austin, grapple with elevated fatality rates. These characteristics often define communities termed as transit-adjacent developments or TADs. A distinction emerges between cities with pro-Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) policies, including Montreal, Ottawa, Washington DC, Boston, and Portland, and those leaning towards TADs, such as Philadelphia, Austin, Houston, and Los Angeles. Figure 4 portrays the correlation between changes in VMT and Ridership in US cities from 2002 to 2012. Pro-TOD cities have witnessed a more than twofold increase in transit ridership over the past two decades, concurrently reducing average traffic fatality rates to nearly half of the national average and those observed in car-centric cities (26). This implies that embracing pro-TOD policies can contribute to improved traffic safety in evolving urban areas.

The notable differences in crash rates and VMT linked to modest increases in transit ridership can be attributed to various factors such as increased pedestrian, and bicycle mode shares, as well as higher speed roads and industrial areas within a TOD zone. Despite similarities in elements between TODs and TADs such as infrastructure design, transit opportunities, and commercial establishments across North American cities, the observed variation challenges conventional assumptions of TODs. Besides, factors like weather conditions may also influence traffic casualties. Contrary to expectations, traffic fatality rates appear to be higher in U.S. cities with milder weather as compared to denser Canadian cities with more challenging conditions (Figure 3). Hence, the actual interrelationship between safety of pedestrians and cyclists and TODs remains unclear (28).


Figure 4. Changes in VMT and Transit Ridership in US Cities between 2002 and 2012 (Source data retrieved from Litman (25))

TOD and Road Safety – Interrelationship 

The existing body of evidence concerning the impact of TODs on pedestrian and cyclist safety presents a paradox in two distinct ways: (i) a set of studies indicates a negative relationship between TODs and pedestrian/cyclist safety (24, 29), while (ii) an alternative perspective asserts a negative association between characteristics of TOD and pedestrian/cyclist crashes (30, 31). It is noteworthy that assessing pedestrian and cyclist risks can be intricate due to the various measures involved (25). For example, traffic incidents can be gauged by the number of fatalities, involving transit passengers, pedestrians, other road users, and vehicle occupants. Similarly, crime statistics may include incidents involving violence, attacks, and passengers under influence, thefts, and transit-related crimes. Figure 5 illustrates potential safety measures that can be pertinent to different levels of TOD planning. 


Figure 5. Road Safety Measures across Levels of TOD Planning

TODs diminish safety risks

Several research studies highlight the significant correlation between TODs and notable reductions in pedestrian and cyclist crash rates (32, 2, 33). For example, Hamidi and Ewing (34) revealed that compact communities in U.S. cities with higher transit ridership experienced lower traffic fatalities compared to sprawled communities. Their findings suggested that a 10% increase in community compactness correlated with an 11.5% rise in transit usage and a substantial 13.8% decrease in fatal crash rates. Litman (25) analysis of traffic fatalities in 35 major U.S. cities indicated that an increase in transit mode shares led to a reduction per capita VMT and crash rates in TOD cities. Duduta (24) emphasized the safety advantages of transit service improvements, indicating potential reductions of up to 50% in injuries and fatalities. 

Stimpson (35) conducted an analysis covering 29 years of traffic data for 100 U.S. cities, revealing that a 10% increase in transit mode share correlated with a 1.5% reduction in traffic fatalities. Given that transit represents only about 2% of total person-miles, a 1% rise in transit mode share translated to a substantial 2.75% decrease in fatalities per 100,000 residents. This amounts to a noteworthy 5% reduction in overall traffic fatalities across all U.S. cities. Similarly, Farhan10 analyzed the impact of TOD initiatives on the frequency of collisions on local roads in Calgary, Canada. Their findings revealed that alterations in fuel price, transit headway, transit fare, and parking cost resulted in a reduction of fatal and injury collisions by 6%, 4%, 2%, and 5%, respectively. Moreover, TOD zones exhibited a 13%, and 21% lower likelihood of experiencing property damage-only and fatal/injury collisions as compared to non-TOD zones, respectively.

Broyles (36) demonstrated that university students in Phoenix, Arizona, residing close to the commercial districts of a light rail transit system exhibited a reduced likelihood of engaging in impaired driving behaviours. Enhanced transit options can particularly benefit high-risk groups such as youth, seniors, and individuals under the influence (25). Notably, the extension of late-night services in the Washington DC Metro system significantly reduced instances of driving under the influence and fatal collisions near Metro stations (37). These studies collectively point out the multifaceted benefits of investing in TODs, particularly in mitigating road safety risks and thus improving safety for both individuals and communities.

Rising walking/cycling increases traffic risks

TODs generally feature high transit ridership, and increased pedestrian activity in neighborhoods. However, concerns regarding road safety in TODs are notable. TOD characteristics such as higher population densities, commercial uses, NMT streets, and proximity to transit stops, influence pedestrian and cyclist collisions. 

Transit stops in proximity to pedestrian crossings pose an increased risk of collisions, often observed in high-collision locations situated within 300 meters of intersections (28, 38). Despite being strategically positioned for accessibility, safety concerns arise due to their near side placement and sharing curb access with crosswalks. This arrangement may elevate the risk of multiple-threat collisions involving pedestrians or cyclists, attributed to visual obstructions (e.g., obstructions due to traffic signs or blind spots in transit vehicles), opportunities for vehicle passing, and potential collisions with exiting or entering passengers (19, 39). Additionally, the adverse impact of transit stops on general traffic yielding to pedestrians was noted (31). Three plausible explanations emerge from this effect. First, the increased pedestrian footprints near transit stops may expose individuals to increased risks, contributing to elevated collision rates (40). Second, psychological factors may contribute to suboptimal yielding at crosswalks near transit stops, encompassing confusion about pedestrians' intentions and driver distraction induced by extra signage at these stops (30). Third, external factors such as vehicle blind spots, driving behaviour, weather conditions, etc., can also pose safety concerns for pedestrians and cyclists.

TOD design promoting walkability, characterized by pedestrian-oriented streetscapes act as a potential mediator of collision risk (38). The type of land uses within neighborhoods may influence collision incidence, with positive associations found between residential areas, parks, schools, and bars. These correlations may stem from land use characteristics affecting both pedestrian exposure and human behavior. Higher speeds of drivers approaching non-signalized crossings correlate with decreased pedestrian yield, while studies on pedestrian and driver behaviour at marked crosswalks yield mixed results (31, 40). Some studies also observed gender differences in pedestrian collisions, and children and elderly vulnerability while crossing in TOD areas. At the county level in Texas, Bernhardt and Kockelman (41) found a positive correlation between pedestrian crashes and walk-mile traveled by children (less than age 17) and homeless people. Using data from 59,038 metropolitan areas in the US, Wali and Frank (38) showed that female commuters have significant negative correlation with pedestrian and bicyclist fatality rates. 

Gentrification is often concentrated in TOD neighborhoods. Gentrification is a phenomenon that occurs due to rapid changes in the form of new commercial and residential developments replacing old ones. It impacts historical urban landscapes and transit patterns, leading to increased traffic volumes, diverse travel modes, and heightened collision risks in the transit station vicinity. For instance, Gonzalez (42) found that commercially gentrified transit station areas exhibit greater pedestrian and cyclist risks, as compared to non-gentrified areas of Los Angeles and San Fransisco. Commercial gentrification, introducing varied establishments like bars, restaurants, and professional services, generates increased traffic and diverse travel patterns. Some studies indicate that higher occurrences of alcohol-involved pedestrian collisions in areas with greater bar or liquor stores associated with higher population densities (18). Besides, the process of residential gentrification, characterized by the revitalization of housing complexes near transit hubs, fosters hikes in rental prices, consequently displacing low-income inhabitants from the vicinity of these stations (19). This phenomenon has the potential to impact pedestrian and cycling patterns, potentially sparking conflicts between non-motorized and motorized traffic (39, 43). Further studies have found a significant correlation between commercial land uses, potential pedestrian traffic generators, and vehicle-pedestrian collisions (28, 30). 

Discussion and Conclusion

Overall, a review of findings from several studies related to TOD and road safety in North American cities has revealed complex inter-relationships. Table 1 and Figure 6 provides a summary of interrelationships between TOD and road safety across various influencing factors. The rise in transit usage within TODs is expected to catalyze walking and cycling activities, leading to an increased presence of non-motorized road users in the station area premises (12, 28). This surge in pedestrian and cyclist traffic highlights the crucial need to prioritize safety within TOD areas. Consequently, cities with improved public transit services witnessed substantial reductions in traffic casualties compared to less transit-supportive counterparts. Pro-transit policies are now gaining recognition as effective traffic safety measures and aligning with evolving sustainability preferences for reduced driving and increased reliance on integrated alternative modes.

In conclusion, the success of TOD cities underscores the effectiveness of reallocating resources and implementing smart growth policies rather than solely relying on increased transit funding or car travel restrictions (43). While these changes were not primarily aimed at enhancing safety, they have yielded significant traffic safety benefits, highlighting road safety as a crucial metric in TOD planning and modal shift promotion towards Non-Motorized Transport (NMT) and public transit. Therefore, it is imperative for government authorities committed to initiatives like Vision Zero to integrate robust road safety considerations into TOD policies. This signifies a transformative shift from conventional TOD approaches towards a new TOD-safety paradigm. In future research, it would be valuable to investigate the impact of traffic calming measures within TODs on the severity of pedestrian and cyclist crashes, further enriching our understanding of how TOD design can contribute to safer and more sustainable communities.

 

Table 1. Interrelationships between TOD and Road Safety

Influencing Factors Benefits of TOD Road Safety Considerations
Densification and Mixed Land-use Encourage higher density and mixed land-use, urging people to reside in proximity to transit stations, boosting public transit usage. Densification would lead to congestion in transit, traffic, and pedestrian areas
Traffic Congestion Decrease traffic congestion by reducing car ownership and vehicle kilometers traveled. Concentrating development around transit stations may increase passenger congestion inside transit stations, and overcrowding inside transit may lead to increased accidents, crime, and theft in those vicinities. Besides, increased pedestrian and cyclist movements in the road facilities outside transit stations may increase traffic accidents.
Crime and Safety Larger populations around transit stations could provide cover for criminal activity. Increased presence of people may enhance overall safety by maintaining a constant "eyes on the street”. Conversely, a dearth of enforcement in densely populated regions may exacerbate criminal activity.
Modal Shift Reduce private motorized trips by promoting public transit, walking, and biking. Exposes pedestrians and cyclists to potential conflict areas with other road users.
New Developments Increased number of households, jobs, and transit stops. Potential increase in pedestrian and cyclist-involved crashes due to increased traffic exposure.
Property values Capture land values, however, low-income residents move to farther places due to high rental prices close to transit stations. Increase walking and biking distances for transit passengers could increase exposure to high-speed intersections.


Figure 6. Influencing Factors of TOD and Road Safety

References

  1. Calthorpe P. The next American metropolis. New York: Princeton Architectural Press; 1993.
  2. Mehta PV, Behera A, Mascarehnas B, Dhindaw J, Pai M, Sodaye C, Ashar D, Kapoor H, Malagi R, Ollivier GP, Burlacu FA. Integration of Road Safety Considerations in Transit-Oriented Development projects: Good Practice Note; 2020.
  3. Nasri A, Zhang L. The analysis of transit-oriented development (TOD) in Washington, DC and Baltimore metropolitan areas. Transport policy. 2014 Mar 1;32:172-9.
  4. Renne JL, Bartholomew K, Wontor P. Transit-oriented and joint development: case studies and legal issues. 2011 Aug.
  5. Cervero R, Duncan M. 'Which reduces vehicle travel more: jobs-housing balance or retail-housing mixing?. Journal of the American planning association. 2006 Dec 31;72(4):475-90.
  6. Cho GH, Rodríguez DA. The influence of residential dissonance on physical activity and walking: evidence from the Montgomery County, MD, and Twin Cities, MN, areas. Journal of Transport Geography. 2014 Dec 1;41:259-67.
  7. Cao XJ, Wang D. Environmental correlates of residential satisfaction: An exploration of mismatched neighborhood characteristics in the Twin Cities. Landscape and urban planning. 2016 Jun 1;150:26-35.
  8. Cervero R, Arrington GB. Vehicle trip reduction impacts of transit-oriented housing. Journal of public transportation. 2008 Jul 1;11(3):1-7.
  9. Laaly S, Jeihani M, Lee YJ. A multiscale, transit-oriented development definition based on context-sensitive paradigm. Transportation research record. 2017;2671(1):31-9.
  10. Farhan A, Kattan L, Tay R. Collisions on local roads: model development and policy level scenario analysis. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering. 2020;47(1):77-87.
  11. Cervero R. Built environments and mode choice: toward a normative framework. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment. 2002 Jun 1;7(4):265-84.
  12. Mudigonda S, Ozbay K, Ozturk O, Iyer S, Noland RB. Quantifying transportation benefits of transit-oriented development in New Jersey. Transportation Research Record. 2014 Jan;2417(1):111-20.
  13. Edmonton Council. Marketing Transit Oriented Development. 2012; 1–84. https://www.edmonton.ca/sites/default/files/public-files/assets/PDF/C565_TOD_Guidelines.pdf?cb=1625034046
  14. TransLink. Transit-oriented communities: A literature review on the relationship between the built environment and transit ridership. 2010 September 14.
  15. Hrelja R, Olsson L, Pettersson-Löfstedt F, Rye T. Challenges of delivering TOD in low-density contexts: the Swedish experience of barriers and enablers. European transport research review. 2022 Dec;14(1):20.
  16. Parida M, Patnala PK, Hrelja R, Chalumuri RS. Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) as a Sustainable Transport Strategy for Metropolitan Cities. InTransportation Research in India: Practices and Future Directions 2022 Mar 24 (pp. 183-202). Singapore: Springer Singapore.
  17. Chava J, Renne JL. Transit-induced gentrification or vice versa? A study of neighborhoods around light rail stations from 1970–2010. Journal of the American Planning Association. 2022 Jan 2;88(1):44-54.
  18. Frank LD, Fox EH, Ulmer JM, Chapman JE, Braun LM. Quantifying the health benefits of transit-oriented development: Creation and application of the San Diego Public Health Assessment Model (SD-PHAM). Transport policy. 2022 Jan 1;115:14-26.
  19. Robillard A, Boisjoly G, van Lierop D. Transit-oriented development and bikeability: Classifying public transport station areas in Montreal, Canada. Transport Policy. 2024 Mar 1;148:79-91.
  20. Singh M, Zhang Y, Cheng W, Li Y, Clay E. Effect of transit-oriented design on pedestrian and cyclist safety using bivariate spatial models. Journal of safety research. 2022 Dec 1;83:152-62. 
  21. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Traffic Safety Facts. Annual Reports. 2024. https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/#!/PublicationList/36
  22. National Safety Council. Roadway Safety. The future of Mobility Report. Mobility, Technology and Safety: The Next 20 Years. 2024. https://www.nsc.org/road/future-of-mobility
  23. Transport Canada. National Collision Database Online 1.0. 2024. https://wwwapps2.tc.gc.ca/Saf-Sec-Sur/7/NCDB-BNDC/p.aspx?l=en&c=100-1-0
  24. Duduta N, Adriazola C, Hidalgo D, Lindau LA, Jaffe R. Understanding road safety impact of high-performance bus rapid transit and busway design features. Transportation research record. 2012 Jan;2317(1):8-14.
  25. Litman TA. Safer Than You Think: Revising the Transit Safety Narrative. 2013.
  26. American Public Transportation Association. Ridership Report. (2024). https://transitapp.com/apta
  27. Singer, G., & Burda, C. Fast cities: A comparison of rapid transit in major Canadian cities. Pembina Institute. (2014). https://www.pembina.org/reports/fast-cities-summary.pdf
  28. Wallace M, Kitson C, Ormstrup M, Cherian J, Saleh JH. Pedestrian and light transit accidents: An examination of street redesigns in Atlanta and their safety outcomes. Case studies on transport policy. 2021 Jun 1;9(2):538-54.
  29. Ewing R, Tian G, Lyons T, Terzano K. Trip and parking generation at transit-oriented developments: Five US case studies. Landscape and Urban Planning. 2017 Apr 1;160:69-78.
  30. Miranda-Moreno LF, Morency P, El-Geneidy AM. The link between built environment, pedestrian activity and pedestrian–vehicle collision occurrence at signalized intersections. Accident Analysis & Prevention. 2011 Sep 1;43(5):1624-34.
  31. Craig CM, Morris NL, Van Houten R, Mayou D. Pedestrian safety and driver yielding near public transit stops. Transportation research record. 2019 Jan;2673(1):514-23.
  32. Dittmar H, Poticha S. Defining transit-oriented development: The new regional building block. The new transit town: Best practices in transit-oriented development. 2004:19-40.
  33. C40 Cities. Good Practice Guide: Transit Oriented Development. Climate Leadership Group. (2022). https://www.c40.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/C40-Good-Practice-Guide-Transit-Oriented-Development.pdf
  34. Hamidi S, Ewing R. A longitudinal study of changes in urban sprawl between 2000 and 2010 in the United States. Landscape and urban planning. 2014 Aug 1;128:72-82.
  35. Stimpson JP, Wilson FA, Araz OM, Pagan JA. Share of mass transit miles traveled and reduced motor vehicle fatalities in major cities of the United States. Journal of urban health. 2014 Dec;91:1136-43.
  36. Broyles J. Drinking and driving and public transportation: A test of the routine activity framework. Arizona State University; 2014.
  37. Jackson CK, Owens EG. One for the road: public transportation, alcohol consumption, and intoxicated driving. Journal of Public Economics. 2011 Feb 1;95(1-2):106-21.
  38. Wali B, Frank LD. Redefining walkability to capture safety: Investing in pedestrian, bike, and street level design features to make it safe to walk and bike. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice. 2024 Mar 1;181:103968.
  39. Zandiatashbar A, Laurito A. An empirical analysis of the link between built environment and safety in Chicago’s transit station areas. Journal of the American Planning Association. 2023 Apr 3;89(2):225-39.
  40. Schneider RJ, Diogenes MC, Arnold LS, Attaset V, Griswold J, Ragland DR. Association between roadway intersection characteristics and pedestrian crash risk in Alameda County, California. Transportation Research Record. 2010 Jan;2198(1):41-51.
  41. Bernhardt M, Kockelman K. An analysis of pedestrian crash trends and contributing factors in Texas. Journal of Transport & Health. 2021 Sep 1;22:101090.
  42. González SR, Loukaitou-Sideris A, Chapple K. Transit neighborhoods, commercial gentrification, and traffic crashes: Exploring the linkages in Los Angeles and the Bay Area. Journal of transport geography. 2019 May 1;77:79-89.
  43. Jacobson J, Forsyth A. Seven American TODs: Good practices for urban design in transit-oriented development projects. Journal of transport and land use. 2008 Oct 1;1(2):51-88.
  44. The City of Calgary. Green Line: Framework for a TOD Implementation Strategy. (2023). https://pub-calgary.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=13247
  45. Soliz A, Rodrigue L, Peaker C, Bernard I, El-Geneidy A. Zoning In on Transit-Oriented Development: Understanding Bylaw Reform as Critical Policy Groundwork. Journal of the American Planning Association. 2023 Sep 13:1-8.
  46. Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Transit-oriented development (TOD) Canadian case studies. (2009).
  47. City of Aurora. Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) District. (2008). https://www.auroragov.org/UserFiles/Servers/Server_1881137/File/Business%20Services/Development%20Center/Transit%20Oriented%20Development/012622.pdf
  48. Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART). Transit Oriented Development Guidelines. (2003). https://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/docs/BART_TODGuidelinesFinal2017_compressed_0.pdf
  49. City of Los Angeles. Transit Oriented Communities Affordable Housing Incentive Program Guidelines (TOC Guidelines). (2018). https://planning.lacity.gov/odocument/39fae0ef-f41d-49cc-9bd2-4e7a2eb528dd/TOCGuidelines.pdf
  50. Metropolitan Area Planning Council. Growing Station Areas. The Variety and Potential of Transit Oriented Development in Metro Boston. (2012). https://www.mapc.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/MAPC-TOD-Report-FINAL-web-reduced-size.pdf
  51. City of Chicago. Equitable Transit Oriented Development Projects. (2024). https://www.chicago.gov/city/en/sites/equitable-transit-oriented-development/home/development-application.html
  52. Denver. Transit Oriented Development Strategic Plan. (2014). https://www.denvergov.org/files/assets/public/v/1/transit-oriented-development/documents/tod_strategic_plan_executive_summary.pdf
  53. Dill J, McNeil N. Transit-Oriented Development in Portland: Multiyear Summary Report of Portland State University Surveys. Portland State University, Portland, Oregon. 2020;13:14.
  54. Seattle Planning Commission. Integrating Neighborhoods with Transit. (2010). https://www.seattle.gov/documents/Departments/SeattlePlanningCommission/SeattleTransitCommunities/STCFinalLayout.pdf
  55. Maryland Transit Administration. Designing for Transit. Transit-Oriented Development Guidelines. (2024). https://s3.amazonaws.com/mta-website-staging/mta-website-staging/files/Transit%20Projects/TOD/TOD_Design_Guidelines_Jan2020.pdf
  56. City of Minneapolis. Transit Oriented Development. (2023). https://www2.minneapolismn.gov/government/departments/cped/transit-oriented-development/

Bios:
Phani Kumar Patnala, Ph.D., is a post-doctoral fellow in the Urban Mobility and Transportation Informatics Group, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada. His current research areas include traffic safety, freight transportation vulnerability, network resilience and reliability, and driving behavior in adverse weather conditions. Dr. Phani has around 3.5 years of teaching and industrial experience in various Indian institutes. 

Babak Mehran, P.Eng., is an Associate Professor of Civil Engineering at the University of Manitoba. His research program focuses on optimization of transportation operations and safety. He is Co-Director of the Urban Mobility and Transportation Informatics Group (UMTIG) at the University of Manitoba. Dr. Mehran is a member of the Transportation Research Board’s Standing Committee on Passenger Intermodal Facilities – AP045 and the former co-chair of Special Interest Group (SIG) C4: Traffic Safety and Analysis of the World Conference on Transport Research Society.

Jonathan Regehr, Ph.D., P.Eng., is a Professor of Civil Engineering at the University of Manitoba and works as a private transportation consultant. His research and consulting experience involves transportation information systems and analysis, freight transportation, railway engineering, traffic engineering, and road safety. He is Co-Director of the Urban Mobility and Transportation Informatics Group (UMTIG) at the University of Manitoba. Dr. Regehr currently serves on the Boards of the International Society for Weigh-in-Motion and the Heavy Vehicle Transport and Technology Forum. He is Past-Chair of the Education Committee of the Transportation Association of Canada and former Chair of the Transportation Research Board Committee on Highway Traffic Monitoring.

Appendix A. Summary of Successful TODs in North America

Country/ State City Transit System Development Strategy Source
Alberta Calgary Light Rail The Bridges Community (44)
Alberta Edmonton Light Rail Redevelopment of underutilized land units  (13)
Quebec Montreal Light Rail Building 40% new households in TODs  (45)
Ontario Toronto Metro Rail and Light Rail Condominium construction (46)
British Columbia Vancouver Urban Rail Regional Town Centers  (14)
Ontario Ottawa Light Rail Transit-supportive and “intensified” land developments (46)
Virginia Arlington Metro Rail Bulls-eye Concept  (32)
Colorado Aurora Rapid Bus Street design according to transit distance (47)
New Jersey Jersey Metro Rail Transit Villages (12)
Pennsylvania Pittsburgh Metro Rail Improved pedestrian access  (48)
California San Francisco Metro Rail Transit Villages  (48)
New York New York Metro Rail NYC Zoning Resolution (12)
California Los Angeles Metro Rail Transit-oriented communities (49)
Massachusetts Boston Rapid Bus 25% of housing units and 37% of employment in TODs (50)
Illinois Chicago Metro Rail Equitable TODs (51)
Colorado Denver Urban Rail Transit-oriented communities (52)
Oregon Portland Light Rail High density, affordable, and mixed-income housing (53)
Washington Seattle Light Rail Walkable neighborhoods centered on frequent transit stations (54)
Maryland Baltimore Metro Rail and Light Rail Multimodal access to transit stations (55)
Minnesota Minneapolis Metro Rail Access to housing and employment (56)