Comparative Analysis of Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Types in the Metropolitan Region Along the Middle Reaches of the Yangtze River

Abstract

Currently, with the acceleration of urbanization, traditional transportation modes are increasingly causing congestion, pollution, and resource waste, drawing widespread attention to Transit-Oriented Development (TOD). TOD is an urban development concept that advocates the implementation of high-density, mixed-use land utilization around transit stations to encourage the use of public transportation, reduce reliance on private vehicles, and achieve more sustainable urban growth. The ‘node–place’ model is a classic analytical framework in TOD typology, forming the foundation for assessing TOD effectiveness. However, this model requires expansion due to its limited adaptability. This study aims to bridge this gap by proposing an innovative, network-based ‘node–place–convenience (NPC)’ model to enhance insights on the overall assessment of metro networks. Using a combination of CRITIC weighting and K-means++ clustering, this study evaluates TOD in cities with metros in the middle reaches of the Yangtze River. By assessing node, place, and convenience values of metro stations, this study compares how different urban structures, population distributions, and metro network configurations impact travel behavior, economic vitality, and regional sustainability. The results show that TOD degree in Wuhan decreases from urban to suburban areas, presenting ‘center to sub-center’ pattern in Changsha, and presenting ‘ring-radial’ distribution across the city center in Nanchang. The clustering results divide TOD benefits into six groups, with Changsha performing the best, followed by Wuhan, while Nanchang still has room for improvement. The average TOD benefits for Wuhan, Changsha, and Nanchang are 0.28, 0.35, and 0.28.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 5 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.