Transit-oriented developments are usually perceived as large-scale but smaller projects qualify too

By Joseph Wong

Transit-oriented developments (TODs) have gained prominence in urban planning discourse as cities seek to promote sustainable, efficient and vibrant living environments. Characterised by their proximity to public transit facilities, TODs are often associated with large-scale, mixed-use projects that encompass residential, commercial and recreational spaces. However, this association can lead to several misconceptions about the nature and definition of TODs, particularly when it comes to smaller-scale developments. This question looms: Does size matters?

The term TOD has become somewhat of a catch-all phrase in modern urban development. As Veritas Design Group president Ng Yiek Seng pointed out, the original intention behind TODs was to facilitate mixed-use developments that utilise transit effectively.

“The original purpose of transit oriented development is meant for mixed development because it is the best way to utilise public transportation whether it be the mass rapid  transit (MRT), light rail transit (LRT), monorail, railway (KTM) or bus rapid transit (BRT),” he said.

At its core, a TOD is a mixed-use community designed to maximise access to public transportation. The idea is to create a compact, walkable environment where residents can easily access transit options, thereby reducing reliance on personal vehicles and promoting a more sustainable urban lifestyle. Ideally, the development is situated within 400m to 600m to a transit station, making it accessible to pedestrians and cyclists. 

“However, the term TOD has been bandied all over the place and it has become an overused keyword,” he said, pointing out that this has led to confusion about what constitutes a TOD, particularly in smaller-scale projects that may not fit the traditional mold.

Misconception 1: TODs must be large-scale

One of the most common misconceptions about TODs is that they must be large-scale mixed-use developments. While larger projects may be more visible and often more celebrated, smaller-scale developments can also qualify as TODs if they effectively integrate residential, commercial and recreational spaces within walking distance of public transit.

Larger mixed-use developments allow for greater density and can support a more extensive range of services and amenities. However, smaller developments that prioritise accessibility to transit can still contribute significantly to the principles of TOD. For example, a smaller mixed-use building with residential units above retail spaces can fulfill the criteria of being transit-oriented, provided it is located within a reasonable distance from a transit station. 

Kuala Lumpur City Council (DBKL), when approached, confirmed that single purpose developments like condominiums, serviced apartments and other high-rise residential towers can qualify as a TOD. According to a DBKL officer, a development is considered a TOD when the site is located within the radius of 400m from the MRT, LRT or monorail stations. “Both commercial and residential are allowable,” he said, which clarifies the second misconception.

Misconception 2: TODs must include residential components

A prevalent misconception is that all TODs must include a residential component. While residential spaces are often a crucial aspect of TODs, they are not a mandatory feature. In some urban contexts, particularly in city centres or commercial districts, a TOD may prioritise office space, retail or cultural facilities over residential units.

The definition of a TOD can be flexible, depending on the specific needs and character of the surrounding area. For instance, in a bustling commercial hub, the focus of a TOD might be on creating office spaces and retail environments that attract workers and visitors, while the residential component may take a back seat or be entirely absent. This flexibility allows cities to tailor their TODs to the specific dynamics of their urban landscape, facilitating the overall urban mix that Ng Yiek Seng refers to.

TODs does not need to have a residential component nor a residential one needs
a commercial portion.

Misconception 3: TODs must be self-sufficient 

A further misconception about TODs is the belief that these developments can be entirely self-sufficient, eliminating the need for transit. While the goal of a TOD is to create a vibrant, accessible community, the very essence of a TOD is its relationship with transit systems. If a TOD were entirely self-contained, the rationale for developing around transit would diminish, as residents would not need to travel for work, leisure or shopping.

In reality, effective TODs facilitate a balance between residential, commercial and recreational spaces, encouraging residents to utilise transit options for longer journeys or for activities outside their immediate neighbourhood. This interconnected approach not only enhances the livability of the area but also supports the overall transit network by increasing ridership and promoting a culture of public transportation use.

Misconception 4: TODs are a new concept

Many people mistakenly believe that TODs are a recent innovation in urban planning. In fact, the principles of transit-oriented development have been practiced for decades, with successful examples dating back to the early 20th century. Cities like Hong Kong and many European urban centres have long embraced the idea of creating walkable communities centred around transit.

The term TOD may be relatively new but the underlying concepts are rooted in historical practices of urban design that prioritise accessibility and sustainable development. As urban areas continue to grow, revisiting and adapting these time-tested principles can play a crucial role in addressing modern challenges such as congestion, pollution and housing shortages.

Misconception 5: The TOD is not the silver bullet

Many think that TODs are the panacea but this is far from the truth. For example, a miracle diet pill will not cure the problems of overweight persons. They need to alter their diet, incorporate a regular exercise routine and even take some medication. Similarly, many of our cities are unhealthy, clogged with heavy traffic and pollution. If more people turn to public transportation, this would help lower unhealthy levels but TODs are not the miracle cure-all although they are a crucial component of the solution. 

Understanding the misconceptions surrounding transit-oriented developments is essential for urban planners, developers and the public. While large-scale mixed-use projects can be exemplars of TOD principles, smaller developments can also embody the core tenets of accessibility and sustainability. Recognising that TODs are not limited to residential components, that they rely on transit for their success and that their concepts are not new can help us create more effective and adaptable urban environments.

As we move forward with urban planning and development, it is crucial to embrace a broader interpretation of TODs that considers the unique characteristics of each community. By incorporating diverse uses, fostering connectivity and enhancing transit accessibility, we can create vibrant, sustainable communities that truly reflect the needs and aspirations of their residents. Understanding the flexibility of TODs allows us to tailor developments that not only improve transit ridership but also contribute positively to the urban fabric, making our cities more livable and enjoyable for everyone.

In summary, acknowledging and addressing the misconceptions about transit-oriented developments can lead to more effective urban planning strategies. By moving beyond the narrow definitions and embracing the multifaceted nature of how people interact with their environments, we can maximise the benefits of TODs and create thriving urban areas that serve a variety of needs.

(Sidebar)

The TOD's evil twin

Another form of urban growth that is sometimes referred to as the transit-oriented development’s evil twin is the transit-adjacent development, also known as TAD.

Most people cannot tell them apart but there is a fundamental difference. TODs are designed specifically around a transit station but a TAD is a development that just happens to be near or next to a transit station that the developer, agent or real estate negotiator promotes or takes advantage of transit ridership. Unlike TODs, a TAD could be an existing building prior to the construction of the transit station or a new building that is built, not as a part of the transit station, nor a specially built connecting walkway to it.

Several criteria, such as a 400m radius from the transit station or a sheltered connecting walkway, must be met before a development is classified as a TOD. Sadly many TADs have been marketed as TODs even though they are not. Tell-tale signs of a TAD include a further distance to the transit station, a non-functional and unsheltered walkway, a lack of effort to encourage ridership and a disconnection between the development and the transit station, among others.

MRT commuters crowded at Tun Razak Exchange (TRX) station. —YAP CHEE HONG/The Star

Stay ahead of the crowd and enjoy fresh insights on real estate, property development and lifestyle trends when you subscribe to our newsletter and follow us on social media.