Commenced in January 2007
Frequency: Monthly
Edition: International
Paper Count: 32579
Enabling the Physical Elements of a Pedestrian Friendly District around a Rail Station for Supporting Transit Oriented Development

Authors: Dyah Titisari Widyastuti


Rail-station area development that is based on the concept of TOD (Transit Oriented Development) is principally oriented to pedestrian accessibility for daily mobility. The aim of this research is elaborating how far the existing physical elements of a rail-station district could facilitate pedestrian mobility and establish a pedestrian friendly district toward implementation of a TOD concept. This research was conducted through some steps: (i) mapping the rail-station area pedestrian sidewalk and pedestrian network as well as activity nodes and transit nodes, (ii) assessing the level of pedestrian sidewalk connectivity joining trip origin and destination. The research area coverage in this case is limited to walking distance of the rail station (around 500 meters or 10-15 minutes walking). The findings of this research on the current condition of the street and pedestrian sidewalk network and connectivity, show good preference for the foot modal share (more than 50%) is achieved. Nevertheless, it depends on the distance from the trip origin to destination.

Keywords: Accessibility of daily mobility, pedestrian friendly district, rail-station district, Transit Oriented Development.

Digital Object Identifier (DOI):

Procedia APA BibTeX Chicago EndNote Harvard JSON MLA RIS XML ISO 690 PDF Downloads 792


[1] C. Curtis, “Evolution of the Transit-oriented Development Model for Low-density Cities: A Case Study of Perth's New Railway Corridor,” Journal of Planning Practice and Research, Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 285-302, August 2008.
[2] H. Sung, J. T. Oh, “Transit-Oriented Development in a High-Density City: Identifying its Association with Transit Ridership in Seoul, Korea,” Journal of Cities, Vol. 28, pp. 70–82, 2011.
[3] P. Calthorpe, “The Next American Metropolis: Ecology, Community and the American Dreams,” Princeton Architectural Press, New York, 1993.
[4] F. R. Steiner, K. Butler, “Planning and Urban Design Standards,” John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New Jersey, 2007.
[5] R. Ewing, R. Cervero, “Travel and the Built Environment: a Meta-Analysis,” Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol 76 No.3, pp. 265-294, 2010.
[6] M. Southworth, “Designing the Walkable City,” Journal of Urban Planning and Development, Vol. 131, pp. 246-257, 2005.
[7] J. F. Sallis, L. D. Frank, B. E. Saelens, M. K. Kraft, “Active Transportation and Physical Activity: Opportunities for Collaboration on Transportation and Public Health Research,” Journal of Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 38 No. 4, pp. 249-268, May 2004.
[8] L. Yin, “Assessing Walkability in the City of Buffalo: Application of Agent-Based Simulation,” Journal of Urban Planning and Development, Vol. 139, Issue 3, pp. 166-175, September 2013.
[9] L. Aurbach, Laurence, “The Power of Intersection Density,” Ped Shed Blog,, 20/10/2013.
[10] J. Dill, “Measuring Network Connectivity for Bicycling and Walking,” Transportation Research Board 2004 Annual Meeting.
[11] T. A. Randall, B. W. Baetz, “Evaluating Pedestrian Connectivity for Suburban Sustainability,” Journal of Urban Planning and Development, Vol 127, pp. 1-15, 2001.