Journal of Transport Geography 45 (2015) 70–80

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Transport Geography

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jtrangeo

Transit-oriented development, integration of land use and transport, and

pedestrian accessibility: Combining node-place model with pedestrian
shed ratio to evaluate and classify station areas in Lisbon
David S. Vale
CIAUD, Faculty of Architecture, University of Lisbon, Rua Sá Nogueira, 1349-055 Lisbon, Portugal

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Transit-oriented development is being actively promoted as an urban design model for areas around
Received 7 November 2014 transit stations. In addition, planning for accessibility is being promoted, which requires integrating land
Revised 4 March 2015 use with transportation planning, and to match the transportation features with the intensity and diver-
Accepted 28 April 2015
sity of land use of the station areas. Nevertheless, and despite the evident similarities between the two
approaches, an integrated evaluation tool of a station area in terms of its transportation, land use, and
urban design features is missing. In this paper, we bring into the literature on integration of land use
Keywords:
and transport a key feature of the transit-oriented development literature: the urban design features
Transit-oriented development
Node-place model
of the station areas, in particular their pedestrian friendliness. By complementing the node-place model
Walkability with an evaluation of the pedestrian connectivity of station areas of Lisbon, we combine these two per-
Pedestrian connectivity spectives in order to evaluate and classify station areas in three different aspects: land use, transporta-
Lisbon tion, and walkability conditions. Our results show that a balanced node-place is not necessarily a
transit-oriented development, and vice versa, and so a complementary analysis of both is useful to
identify and classify a station area. Therefore, we suggest a typology of station areas based on the three
components, which might be used as a planning tool for the development of the station areas into bal-
anced transit-oriented development areas.
Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction approach, in which the main focus is physical proximity, with a

Transit Oriented Development (TOD) is being promoted for
more than 20 years in several cities of the world as a sustainable
urban mobility policy (Barton, 1998; Calthorpe, 1993). In particu-
lar, with TOD it is intended to increase transit patronage, active tra-
vel and reduce car travel, raising revenues, enhance livability and
widen housing choices, by increasing the multimodal access condi-
tions of the city, considering the transit network as the key trans-
portation infrastructure of the city (Cervero et al., 2004). Despite
there is not a single universally accepted definition of a TOD, it is
often described in a purely physical description way: a
mixed-use place, with a certain urban density and high-quality
walking environment, located within half-mile (800 m), i.e.
10 min walk, of a transit stop. However, the physical characteris-
tics of these places are essential but not sufficient to achieve the
extensive goals of TOD, which are not focused in creating physical
forms but instead in creating vibrant, rich and livable urban places
(Dittmar and Poticha, 2004). Indeed, there is a clear distinction
between a TOD and a transit-adjacent development (TAD)
E-mail address: dvale@fa.ulisboa.pt
simple objective of capturing the value of the land adjacent to
the transit stop, not necessarily with a pedestrian friendly built
environment and a functional connectivity between land uses
and the transit stop (Renne, 2008), which will translate into a
higher mode share of walking, cycling and transit (Hale, 2012).
Transit joint development (TJD) can constitute an important strat-
egy to implement TODs, as the cost-sharing or revenue-sharing
agreements between transit operators and private developers that
are the base of TJDs, might produce win–win arrangements that
will create benefits not only for the public and private sectors
but also for the transit user (Landis et al., 1991; Renne et al.,
2011). Therefore, unlike TADs, TODs are seen as planned, balanced
communities, with wider objectives and benefits than simple value
capture, as increase transit patronage, increase investment in rail
and transit, reduce congestion and sprawl, reduce greenhouse
gas emissions, and even health benefits by increasing the amount
of active travel and physical activity.
Implicitly incorporated in the TOD definition and objectives is
the existence of a balance between transportation supply and land
use driven demand, i.e. a balance between the node and place func-
tion of these places. Note that this does not mean that all TODs will

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2015.04.009
0966-6923/Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 D.S. Vale / Journal of Transport Geography 45 (2015) 70–80
be equal. Indeed, it assumes that they will constitute a diverse
group of places with the common feature of matching transport
supply with demand. Bertolini (1996, 1999)’s node-place model
can be used as a conceptual and methodological framework to
identify and classify the TODs of a metropolitan area
(Kamruzzaman et al., 2014). By comparing the node and place
functions of sites located around train stations, the model allows
the identification of the level of integration of land use and trans-
port, although focused specifically in quantitative evaluations of
land use and transport supply. However, the model does not allow
evaluating if the balanced node-place site is a TOD or simply a TAD.
Nevertheless, despite the node-place model is mainly focused on
the balancing of the node and place characteristics of TODs, by
incorporating other variables as the evaluation of the walking envi-
ronment within the TOD it can also provide additional information
regarding the location efficiency of the TOD sites (Schlossberg and
Brown, 2004). In this paper, we want to increase the usefulness of
the node-place model as a TOD planning tool, by complementing it
with an evaluation of the pedestrian network of each site, as a
proxy for the walkability friendliness of each site, and presenting
an original clustering of node-places based on node-, place- and
pedestrian indexes. In line with the ‘seven Ds’ framework (Ewing
and Cervero, 2010), with this evaluation we are expanding the
node-place model that explicitly evaluates density and diversity,
and implicitly evaluates destination accessibility and distance to
transit, to explicitly include the design dimension. Therefore, from
the seven Ds, only demographics and demand management poli-
cies are not included, but these last two are not explicit built envi-
ronment dimensions. We applied the node-place model in Lisbon,
Portugal, in order to contribute to the discussion of its utility as a
planning tool for TOD identification and implementation.
The paper is organized as follows. It starts by a presentation of
the node-place model and the methodology for its calculation. An
evaluation of the pedestrian network is proposed as a complemen-
tary evaluation variable. The case study and the results of the
application of the model are presented, with and without the
pedestrian network evaluation. Based on a cluster analysis we cre-
ate a TOD typology based on the three components: node index,
place index and pedshed ratio. The paper concludes with a discus-
sion of the findings and an analytical evaluation of the advantages
and limitations of the node-place model as a TOD planning tool.
2. Theory
2.1. The node-place model
The node-place model was presented by Bertolini (1996, 1999)
as a territorial organization model based on the public transport
network, based on the transport and land use feedback cycle where
changes in land use and transport both influence each other
(Wegener and Fürst, 1999). The model conceives station areas
simultaneously as ‘nodes’ of the transportation network and
‘places’ of the city, and assumes that by improving transportation
supply (the node value) in a station area will create conditions
favorable to improve its intensity and diversity of land uses (the
place value) and vice versa (Bertolini, 2005, 2008). Therefore, it
becomes possible to identify if these conditions for development
of both land use and/or transport are actually realized or are still
only revealed as potential for development. Being realized, it is
assumed that a balanced-situation between node and place will
occur, although this balance will reflect a hierarchy of station areas
in line with the transport supply and land use intensity and diver-
sity of each one.
Measuring the node and place index for each station, it is pos-
sible to identify five archetypal situations (Fig. 1). Along the middle
71
Fig. 1. The node-place model (after Bertolini, 2005).
line of the diagram are ‘‘balanced’’ situations, in which the node
index equals the place index. These are the places where the land
use driven conditions for improving transport supply have been
realized and the transportation driven condition for intensifying
and diversifying land use have also been realized. They can there-
fore be considered land use and transportation integrated sites. On
the top end of the middle line are ‘‘under stress’’ areas, where the
node and place index reach the maximum value. Although they are
also balanced places, there is a strong competition for space and a
great probability for conflicts between transport and land use
needs. On the lower end of the line are ‘dependence’ areas, where
the transportation supply and the land use intensity and diversity
are minimum. Consequently, competition for space is also very
small. Besides these three situations, two ‘‘unbalanced’’ situations
can be identified (originally designated as ‘unsustained’). At the
top end of the diagram one finds ‘‘unbalanced nodes’’, in which
transportation supply is significantly higher than urban activities
of station areas. At the bottom end of the diagram one finds ‘‘un-
balanced places’’, in which the land use intensity and diversity is
higher than the required transportation supply.
It is expected that these two unbalanced situations tend to
evolve into a more balanced state, which might happen in three
different ways (Reusser et al., 2008). An unbalanced node might
increase its place index, for instance by attracting urban develop-
ment, it might decrease its node index, for instance by reducing
the transportation supply, or pursue both strategies at the same
time. An unbalanced place might increase its node index, decrease
its place index (probably more difficult and unlikely) or pursue
both at the same time. In any case, the node-place model can be
used as an analytical framework to guide urban and transportation
planning to promote more balanced, integrated, and
transit-oriented sites (Bertolini, 2008; Chorus and Bertolini, 2011).
2.2. Previous applications of the node-place model
Besides being a strategic framework for urban and transporta-
tion planning, the application of the node-place model to a specific
case study has two main utilities. First, it allows classifying the
overall transport (node) and land use (place) equilibrium of a
region, based on the interpretation of the mean value of the node
and place indexes of all station areas, and therefore to compare dif-
ferent places to each other. Second, it allows identifying categories
72 D.S. Vale / Journal of Transport Geography 45 (2015) 70–80
of stations, either being the original five categories or to propose
other categories based on the land use and transport features of
the station areas.
Regarding the classification of the overall land use-transport
equilibrium, the initial application of the model to the station areas
of Amsterdam and Utrecht revealed that the majority of places were
located in the balanced area, with a tendency to predominate depen-
dent node-places (Bertolini, 1999). In Switzerland, the application of
the model to nearly 1700 station areas revealed that the majority of
station areas were located in the ‘unbalanced place’ category, sug-
gesting that the majority of station areas are dense and diverse
(Reusser et al., 2008; Zemp et al., 2011). In Rio de Janeiro, Brazil,
Gonçalves and Portugal (2008) applied the model to a new train line
with 14 station areas, and were able to classify them in the five orig-
inal categories, but the majority were located in the ‘balanced’ and
‘dependent’ category. In Tokyo, Japan, on the contrary, the vast
majority of station areas are located close to the middle line of the
node-place model, revealing a good equilibrium for a large number
of station areas, and very few ‘unbalanced nodes’ or ‘unbalanced
places’ (Chorus and Bertolini, 2011). In Ostrava, Czech Republic,
the application of the model revealed several distinct situations,
but as the city has only 11 station areas, the model is probably very
unlikely to provide a clear image of the city (Ivan et al., 2012). Finally,
Kamruzzaman et al. (2014) applied the model to Brisbane, Australia
in order to develop a Transit-oriented Development typology. As this
research was applied to the entire city it is not possible to directly
compare with the other studies, but through the analysis of the spa-
tial distribution of the TOD types it appears that the majority of sta-
tion areas were classified as ‘Potential TODs’, revealing therefore an
unbalanced situation.
A straightforward method to classify the equilibrium of the
entire system is to plot in the node-place model diagram the mean
value for the node- and place-index, and calculate its distance to
the middle line. This will be an important indicator to compare dif-
ferent cities, revealing if the system is located toward the unsus-
tained node or toward the unsustained place typology.
Unfortunately, the previous applications of the node-place model
did not provide the mean value of the indexes, making it impossi-
ble to compare the cities. However, from the reviewed literature, it
becomes clear that the model is capable of distinguish among sta-
tion areas, revealing different situations of unbalance between land
use and transport features of the station areas.
In terms of typologies of station areas, the literature is not so
straightforward in using the five-cases typologies suggested by
Bertolini (1999). Indeed, based on a cluster analysis, Reusser
et al. (2008) suggest a five-cluster solution that do not coincide
with Bertolini’s original typologies. Kamruzzaman et al. (2014)
suggests four categories of TODs – Residential TODs, Activity
Centre TODs, Potential TODs and Non-TODs – although the authors
applied the model to the entire city at the Census Collection
Districts (CCD) level, and so a direct comparison with the other
studies is not straightforward. Therefore, these differences suggest
that the model is methodologically robust to express the land
use-transport equilibrium, but the proposed 5-classes solution is
subject to further refinement.
2.3. Walking environments of station areas
One possible enhancement of the node-place model, if used as a
framework to guide urban and transportation planning to promote
TOD, is to combined it with an evaluation of the urban design fea-
tures of the station areas, as urban design is pointed as a key fea-
ture of TODs (Dittmar and Poticha, 2004; Renne, 2008) and is
one important dimension to explain travel behavior (Ewing and
Cervero, 2010). This explicitly assumes that a TODs is not simply
an urban place designed to support and explore the presence of a
transit station and associated transportation supply, but it is neces-
sarily a balanced node-place, in which the development potential
conditions have been realized. Indeed, as argued by Calthorpe
(1993), if a TOD is more than a simple land-use transportation bal-
anced site located around a transit station, the walking environ-
ment is a key component of any TOD, allowing the convenient,
comfortable and safe walking from and to the station (Jacobson
and Forsyth, 2008). Therefore, we argue that by combining the
node-place model with an evaluation of the walkability of each sta-
tion area a deeper TOD evaluation can be performed, as not only it
is possible to identify the balance between transport (mainly tran-
sit supply) and land use (as a surrogate of demand), but also the
walking accessibility to the station. We this we intend to bring into
the literature on integration of land use and transport a key feature
of the TOD and travel behavior literature: the urban design fea-
tures of the station areas, in particular their pedestrian friendli-
ness, i.e. their walkability.
Supporting the importance of urban design of TODs, research
has been developed to identify the TOD’s urban design features
that have a key importance in the promotion of active travel, liv-
ability and place making. Among other important urban design
features like variety, complexity and safety, a human scale design
is being pointed as a key feature of a TOD, which is clearly associ-
ated with a walkable environment (Jacobson and Forsyth, 2008).
Several indicators are found in the literature to measure the walk-
ability of a place, from each the walkability index is probably the
most used (Leslie et al., 2007). In general terms, most walkability
indicators include three main components: density, land use mix,
and connectivity (Frank et al., 2006, 2005). The place-index of
the node-place model also measures density and land use mix,
and so it is likely that the use of a three-measure walkability index
would be highly correlated with it. Pedestrian connectivity how-
ever is absent from the model, and so we suggest evaluating it as
a possible indicator of the walking accessibility to the station.
Operational walkability evaluations of TODs have been devel-
oped for several cases, revealing a great diversity of pedestrian
environments of TODs. Schlossberg and Brown (2004) measured
the connectivity of the walking environment, as given by the
pedestrian shed ratio, to classify TODs in Portland, Oregon.
Results revealed a considerable variation in pedestrian friendliness
of the sites. Nawrocki et al. (2014) calculated a walkability index
for LRT station areas in Japan and USA, and revealed a positive
association with LRT usage in USA but not in Japan. A possible
explanation for the absence of statistical relationship in Japan is
that the walkability of the majority of LRT stations in Japan is
already successfully established, which is visible in the higher
walkability score and lower dispersion for the Japanese LRT
Station areas in comparison with the values for USA. Park et al.
(2014) measured street segments walkability (path walkability)
to transit stations in Mountain View, California. Four factors were
extracted from the data, revealing a statistically significant relation
between walkability to the station and mode choice. Finally, Jiang
et al. (2012)’s analysis of the walkable conditions of BRT station
areas revealed that the size of the walking distance is influenced
by their built environment, suggesting the use of a flexible-size
catchment area in accordance with the walkability features of
the station area. Overall, all these research findings reveal a great
variety of TODs in terms of pedestrian friendliness, and suggest
that this is an important factor in explaining walking and transit
usage.
3. Methodology
In this paper we complement the node-place model methodol-
ogy with an evaluation of the walkability environment of each site.
 D.S. Vale / Journal of Transport Geography 45 (2015) 70–80
The original node-place model methodology is based on a group of
15 normalized indicators, 9 of which to measure the node-index
and 6 to measure the place-index (see Table 1). Node and place
indexes are simply the equal weight mean value of all correspond-
ing indicators. However, all additional applications of the model
had methodological alterations, justified by absence of available
data, by local specificities and/or by intentions to improve the
methodology itself. In our case, we have made the following adap-
tations to the original methodology: (i) the concept of station was
extended to include not only train stations but also ferryboat sta-
tions, due to the importance of ferryboat traveling in Lisbon; (ii)
the accessibility by bicycle component was excluded as commut-
ing by bicycle is still residual (less than 1% of modal share); (iii)
we used 20 min as threshold to calculate the number of stations
reached; and (iv) we have log-transformed several indicators in
order to increase the normality of the variables, as done in some
of the other reviewed case studies (Chorus and Bertolini, 2011;
Reusser et al., 2008).
Therefore, our methodology is based on 13 indicators, 7 to mea-
sure the node-index of the station areas and 6 to measure the
place-index (see Table 2). We have checked all variables for nor-
mality, and log-transformed 9 variables, significantly increased
the normality parameters of the indicators. All indicators had the
same weight in the calculation of the final node- and
place-index. Node data was collected in May/June 2013, directly
from the transport operators of Lisbon Metropolitan Area (LMA),
and represent the transportation supply of a typical winter season
working day. Place data was calculated at the urban block level
(Sub-Secção Estatística), which is the most fine-grained level of cen-
sus data available in Portugal. As suggested by Bertolini (1999), we
have used a maximum of 700 m straight-line distance from the sta-
tion to identify the blocks that constitute the influence area of each
station. Due to the absence of employment data at the block level,
we used LMA employment data at the parish level (Quadros de
Pessoal do Ministério da Solidariedade, Emprego e Segurança Social),
and then estimated the proportion of jobs in each block by match-
ing the total number of jobs with the proportion of
non-exclusively-residential buildings in each block. In total, 83 sta-
tion areas compose our case study, 7 of each are ferryboat stations
(see Fig. 2).
The pedestrian shed ratio (pedshed ratio) of each node-place
site was calculated with OpenStreetMap data. Pedestrian networks
were calculated for each site, by removing the motorways and
other non-walking segments, and checking the network with satel-
lite data from Google Earth. Pedshed ratios were calculated for
each site, dividing the 700 m pedestrian catchment area calculated
with ArcGIS Network Analyst 10.2 with the maximum theoretical
area given by a circle with 700 m radius. Resulting pedshed ratios
vary between zero and one. Road centerlines were used to model
the pedestrian network. Examples of results are shown in Fig. 3.
We acknowledge the limitations of using road centerlines
instead of sidewalk paths, but this data was not available for
LMA. Moreover, we acknowledge that walkability is much more
that simple connectivity and straightness, as given by the pedshed
ratios, and includes several other important aspects like the attrac-
tiveness of the routes, functional mix, esthetics, the safety and
security of places, and also other physical aspects such as slope
and the existence of barriers, among other important and very
detailed features (Ewing and Handy, 2009; Talen and Koschinsky,
2013). Nevertheless, pedshed ratios are useful indicators of the
overall pedestrian friendliness of an area, providing the size of
the real accessible area in comparison with the maximum theoret-
ical one. Future work could be done to improve the evaluation of
walking conditions of node-places with other complementary
walkability indicators.
73
4. Results
4.1. The node-place model for Lisbon Metropolitan Area
Our analysis of the node-places of LMA revealed that overall the
vast majority of sites has a place index higher than the node index
(59 out of 83 sites), with a mean value for LMA as a whole of 0.456
for node and 0.543 for place. Analyzing the placement of the sites
in the node-place chart (Fig. 4), most places can be classified as bal-
anced node-places, followed by unsustained places and stressed
sites. Only one site (CRR-Carregado) can be classified as dependent
or unsustained node, being the farther away site of the Northern
suburbs of Lisbon, in which the train station is indeed located far
away from the existent small urban places. Stressed places match
two of the most important multimodal transport interchanges of
the city of Lisbon (Oriente and Entrecampos), with train, metro
and several urban and suburban buses. The most unsustained
places identified by the model (ROS-Rossio and PQU-Praça do
Quebedo) are two significant situations. On one hand, Rossio is
located in the historic city center of Lisbon, and used to be one of
the most important transport interchanges of Lisbon.
Nevertheless, the transport policies of the 1990s and 2000s had
significantly reduce the train supply to Rossio, and reinforcing
other places in the periphery of city as the main transportation
interchanges, as the before mentioned Oriente and Entrecampos.
Praça do Quebedo is a similar situation located in Setúbal, one of
the most important cities located in South LMA. Here, the develop-
ment of a new suburban train line connecting Lisbon with Setúbal
obliged to the construction of a new train station to the north of
PQU (SET-Setúbal), as the existent urban fabric around the old sta-
tion would make the extension of the station extremely expensive.
Spatially, the two suburban lines to the West of Lisbon (Cascais
in the Southwest and Sintra in the Northwest) are the ones with
more balanced situations, as given by the squared difference of
the node and place values (Fig. 5). The majority of station areas
of the city of Lisbon reveal high values of node and place, despite
several are somehow unbalanced, with place indexes higher than
node indexes. In the South bank, the Southwestern line
(Fertagus) is predominantly constituted by areas with node
indexes higher than place indexes, reflecting the late construction
of this line in the 1990s, when the suburban area has already
developed significantly. The other two lines, to the Southeast and
to the Northeast reveal predominantly balanced node-place areas,
but with small values. They constitute therefore possible future
urban development areas for both urban and transportation
planning.
4.2. The pedshed ratios of the station areas
As mentioned before, the node-place model says nothing
regarding the walking accessibility conditions of each station area.
The calculated pedshed ratio of each site varies significantly, from
0.147 to 0.768, revealing distinct situations in terms of walkable
access to the train stations. In LMA, all ferryboat stations and a sig-
nificant group of train stations (in the Cascais and North lines)
reveal small pedshed ratios due to the proximity of the station to
the Tagus River. The Sintra line (to the Northwest) has the station
areas with the overall largest pedshed ratios, from which
AGU-Algueirão is the highest of LMA, followed by the Cascais line
(to the West) – see Fig. 6.
In LMA, pedshed ratios show a small but significantly positively
correlation with node (r = .385, p < .001, n = 83) and with place
(r = .564, p < .001, n = 83) indexes. As could be expected, the corre-
lation index is higher for place index, once this index is capturing
the ‘urbanity’ of the station area. Nevertheless, the correlation
74 D.S. Vale / Journal of Transport Geography 45 (2015) 70–80

Table 1
Comparison of the indicators used in the reviewed literature to measure node and place index.

Bertolini (1999)a Reusser Gonçalves and Chorus and Zemp et al. Ivan et al. Kamruzzaman Our
et al. Portugal (2008)c Bertolini (2011)e (2012) et al. (2014) methodology
(2008)b (2011)d
Node-index: accessibility of the node
(a) Accessibility by train
Number of directions x x x x y1
served
Daily frequency of services x x x x x y2
Number of stations within x
45 min of travel
Number of stations within x x x y3
20 min of travel
Type of train connections x
(b) Accessibility by bus, tram and underground
Number of directions x x x x y4
served
Daily frequency of services x x n.a. x x y5
Daily frequency of x
suburban buses
(c) Accessibility by car
Distance from the closest x x n.a. y6
motorway access
Car parking capacity x n.a. n.a. x y7
(d) Accessibility by bicycle
Number of free-standing x
bicycle paths
Bike path length within x n.a.
2 km
Bicycle parking capacity x n.a. n.a.
(d) Other measures
Public Transport x
Accessibility Level
(PTAL)

Place-index: intensity and diversity

(a) Residents
Number of residents x x x x x x x1
Net residential density x
(b) Workers
Number of workers in x x x2
retail/hotel and catering
Number of workers in x x x3
education/
health/culture
Number of workers in x x x4
administration and
services
Number of workers in x x x5
industry and
distribution
Number of workers in x x x
secondary sector
Number of workers in x x x
tertiary sector
Number of jobs x
Net employment density x
(c) Functional mix
Degree of functional mix x x x x x x6
(d) Other place-index variables
Core urban area x
Number of flats x
Land prices x
Intersection density x
Cul-de-sac density x
Rate of unemployed with x
basic education

Case study Amsterdam and Switzerland Rio de Janeiro, Tokyo, Japan Switzerland Ostrava, Brisbane, Lisbon,
Utrecht, Brasil Czech Rep. Australia Portugal
Netherlands
 D.S. Vale / Journal of Transport Geography 45 (2015) 70–80 75

Table 1 (continued)

Bertolini (1999)a Reusser Gonçalves and Chorus and Zemp et al. Ivan et al. Kamruzzaman Our
et al. Portugal (2008)c Bertolini (2011)e (2012) et al. (2014) methodology
(2008)b (2011)d
Number of cases (station 31 1684 14 99 1700 11 1734f 83
areas)
Buffer size 700 m 700 m 700 m 700 m 700 m 700 m 800 m 700 m
Total indicators 15 11 8 9 6 11 6 13
a
Zweedijk (1997) and Serlie (1998) operationalized the indicators.
b
All indicators were log-transformed except bike path length and degree of functional mix.
c
Gonçalves and Portugal (2008) followed Reusser et al. (2008), but due to data limitations had to exclude some indicators.
d
The indicators ‘number of train connections’ and ‘workforce’ were log-transformed.
e
A total of 10 indicators were used to compute a density-use model, but only 6 were used to compute the node-place model.
f
This study was applied at the Census Collection District (CCD) level, for the entire city.

Table 2
Indicators used to measure node- and place-index.

Indicator description Calculation Transformation

Node index
Number of directions served by train and/or ferry y1 = number of train and/or ferry services offered at station Log(y1)
Daily frequency of train and/or ferry services y2 = number of trains and/or ferries departing from station on working day
Number of stations within 20 min of travel y3 = number of stations reachable within 20 min by direct trains and/or
ferries
Number of directions served by other public transport (bus, tram and y4 = number of public transport services offered at station Log(y4)
underground)
Daily frequency of services by other public transport y5 = number of buses, trams and underground trains departing from station Log(y5)
on working day
Distance from the closest motorway access y6 = distance to next highway or freeway exit Log(y6)
Car parking capacity y7 = number of car places at station (free or paid) Log(y7)
Place index
Number of residents x1 = number of
residents within 700 m
Number of workers in retail/hotel and catering x2 = number of
workers within 700 m in retail/hotel and catering group Log(x2)
Number of workers in education/health/culture x3 = number of
workers within 700 m in education/health/culture Log(x3)
Number of workers in administration and services x4 = number of
workers within 700 m in administration and services Log(x4)
Number of workers in industry and distribution x5 = number of
workers within 700 m in industry and distribution Log(x5)
8
Degree of functional mix > a ¼ maxfx1; x2; x3; x4; x5g
>
< b ¼ minfx1; x2; x3; x4; x5g
ðð Þð ÞÞ
ab ac
x6 ¼ 1  d 2 d with
>
> c ¼ ðx1þx2þx3þx4þx5Þ
: 5
d ¼ ðx1 þ x2 þ x3 þ x4 þ x5Þ

values are small, revealing that the pedshed ratios show a great useful to distinguish among ‘balanced’ places, once in this group
variability, especially for station areas with intermediate node is possible to identify very diverse situations, in which the node
and place indexes. and place indexes are not related with the pedshed ratio.

4.3. Cluster analysis of station areas

We have developed a cluster analysis in order to identify the
usefulness of including an evaluation of the walkability features
of station areas in conjunction of the node-place model. Several
hierarchical cluster analyses were developed, using squared
Euclidean distance as dissimilarity measure, and changing the clus-
ter method: minimum distance, maximum distance,
between-groups distance and Ward’s method. In all methods seven
clusters was the optimum solution, in accordance with a visual
analysis of the scree plot and the R2 criterion. A subsequent
non-hierarchical k-means cluster analysis was performed for seven
clusters, explaining 75.9% of the total variance (R2 = 0.759).
In accordance to the values of the cluster centers and
F-statistics (Table 3), the place index is the variable that more
allows to identify the clusters (F = 47.4), followed by PedShed
(F = 42.0). The node index is the variable that less identifies the
clusters (F = 32.5). The seven clusters show some consistency in
the three variables, and they are placed in a certain order in accor-
dance with the node and place chart (Fig. 7). Indeed, ‘stressed’
places show above average pedshed ratios (cluster 4), and ‘depen-
dent’ places show very small pedshed ratios (cluster 3).
Nevertheless, the pedshed ratio analysis of the node-places is
5. Discussion and conclusions
From a strictly land use and transportation balance point of
view, the node-place model adequately identifies and classifies
the station areas of LMA. It clearly suggests that, for the vast major-
ity of station areas, the transportation supply is not enough to
match the potential demand created by the existent land uses
around the stations (mean node index = 0.456; mean place
index = 0.543). Indeed, in LMA, and especially in the North Bank,
the suburban growth was mainly structured by the train, which
has lead to the creation of urban ‘‘areolas’’ located around the sta-
tions. The car-driven suburbanization started only after the begin-
ning of the 1990s following significant public investments in the
road network (Barata Salgueiro, 2001). However, the node-place
model is revealing the actual land use and transport conditions
favoring car travel, once the public transportation supply is clearly
insufficient and does not take advantage of the urban development
concentrated in the sites around the stations. The results can there-
fore be considered adequate to classify the node-place equilibrium
of the urban system, and accurately identify the unbalanced
situations.
76 D.S. Vale / Journal of Transport Geography 45 (2015) 70–80

Fig. 2. Location of train and ferryboat stations of Lisbon Metropolitan Area.

Fig. 3. Examples of calculated pedestrian shed ratios for station areas of Lisbon Metropolitan Area.

However, it appears that the node-place model is somehow in terms of urban form, land use and activities, and also travel con-
insufficient to distinguish among the ‘balanced’ areas, as this bal- ditions. Indeed, our results show that a fine-grain analysis of the
ance can represent a variety of distinct built environment realities, pedestrian accessibility of the node-places is an important addition
 D.S. Vale / Journal of Transport Geography 45 (2015) 70–80 77

Acronym Sta Name Acronym S Name

1.00 ACA Agualva-Cacém MON Mon jo
AGU Algueirão MOS Moscavide
ALC Alcainça - Moinhos MSM Mira Sintra-Meleças
ALG Algés OEI Oeiras
ALH Alhandra ORI Oriente (Lisboa)
ALV Alverca PAL Palmela
ORI AMA Alcântara Mar PAR Paço de Arcos
.80 AMD Amadora PBA Porto Brandão
ATE Alcântara-Terra PDE Parede
MAB AVE Alhos Vedros PEN Penalva
BAR ENT BAA Barreiro-A PET Penteado
SRI REB AMD BAR Barreiro PFU Pedra Furada
BLM
COR QUE ROM BBA Baixa da Banheira PNV Pinhal Novo
ACA BFC Benfica POV Póvoa
CARPSI
.60 BPR BLM Belém PQU Praça do Quebedo (Setubal)
PRA SAC VFX SCD CSD
OEIFAM CAM BMA Barcarena-Massamá PRA Pragal
FOG BOB Bobadela PSA Praias do Sado
PAL
Node

POV BFCALG BPR Braço de Prata PSI Portela de Sintra

RMO
SET
COI CAC ALV PDEMER AMA
CAC Cacilhas QUE Queluz-Belas
mean = 0.456
SIR EST SAN CAM Campolide REB Reboleira
CAX ALH BBA MSM BMA CAR Carcavelos RMO Rio de Mouro
ALC BOB AGU MOS ROS
STA
.40 MAF VAL SEICRI SJE CHE MARSIN CAS
CAX
Cascais
Caxias
ROM
ROS
Roma-Areeiro
Rossio
PFU AVE PNV PAR ATE CHE Chelas SAB Sabugo
CQU SPE SAO TPC COI Coina SAC Sacavém
PEN MON TRF PSA MOI MAL BAA COR Corroios SAN Santos
CRR SAB CQU Cruz Quebrada SAO Santo Amaro de Oeiras
PET TEL LAV
MES CRI Castanheira do Ribatejo SCD Santa Cruz Damaia
CRR Carregado SEI Seixal
.20 CSD Cais do Sodré SET Setúbal
PBA ENT Entrecampos (Lisboa) SIN Sintra
PQU
EST Estoril SIR Santa Iria
FAM Foros de Amora SJE S. João do Estoril
FOG Fogueteiro SPE S. Pedro do Estoril
LAV Lavradio SRI Sete Rios
mean = 0.543 MAB Monte Abraão STA Santa Apolónia (Lisboa)
.00 MAF Mafra TEL Telhal
.00 .20 .40 .60 .80 1.0 MAL
MAR
Malveira
Marvila
TPC
TRF
Terreiro do Paço
Trafaria
Place MER Mercês VAL Venda do Alcaide
MES Monte Estoril VFX Vila Franca de Xira
MOI Moita

Fig. 4. Node-place values of the station areas of Lisbon Metropolitan Area, 2013.

Fig. 5. Node index, place index and squared differenced of the station areas of LMA, 2013.

to the evaluation of the station areas of a metropolitan area. This is
particularly useful to distinguish among the balanced node-places,
and therefore to provide a framework that can more easily relate to
Transit Oriented Development, by explicitly evaluating the physi-
cal characteristics of station areas, i.e. the design dimension of
the seven Ds framework, and not only physical proximity.
Our cluster analysis results suggest a six categories typology of
station areas based on node index, place index and pedshed ratio.
The first group comprises ‘pedestrian friendliness balanced
node-places’ (cluster 4), in which not only there is a balance
between node and place, but also the walking accessibility is high.
We designated this group as ‘Urban TODs’, as they have high
78 D.S. Vale / Journal of Transport Geography 45 (2015) 70–80

Fig. 6. Pedshed ratios of the station areas of Lisbon Metropolitan Area.

Table 3
Final cluster centers and F statistic for each dimension.

Dimension Cluster center

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 F statistics
Node (z score) 0.863 0.318 1.323 1.153 0.160 0.472 0.994 32.5
Place (z score) 0.785 0.076 2.521 0.753 0.935 0.208 1.397 47.4
PedShed (z score) 0.048 0.928 0.558 0.831 0.192 0.884 1.377 42.0

1.00
‘‘Balanced TADs’’, corresponding to places revealing node-place
Cluster
Number balance, but with poor pedestrian accessibility (cluster 6). There
1 is physical proximity between the station and the destinations,
2
.80 3 but walking conditions are poor. We identify a third group as
4
5 ‘Suburban TODs’, and is constituted by areas with very high ped-
6 shed ratios and average node and place index (cluster 2). They
7
.60
are places with good walking accessibility to the station and pre-
sent a balance of node and place indexes, but with values lower
Node

than the ones of ‘‘Urban TODs’’. Group four is designated as

‘Undersupplied transit TODs’, with high pedshed ratios and place
.40 index, but low node index (cluster 1). These are mainly ‘unbal-
anced places’ with good walking accessibility, in which the
increase in transit supply could easily lead to an increase in transit
.20 patronage. We designated the fifth group as ‘‘Unbalanced TODs’’, as
they contain station areas with average node index and pedshed
ratio, but small place index (cluster 5). Although located in
Bertolini’s ‘balanced’ category, we believe these constitute the ‘un-
.00
balanced node’ type, in which the node index is clearly superior to
.00 .20 .40 .60 .80 1.00
the place index. The final group (clusters 3 and 7) is constituted by
Place
‘Car dependent node-places’, in which all variables show very low
Fig. 7. Final clusters of the node-place areas of LMA. values. Although the clusters are different in very low place index
(cluster 3) and very low place and pedshed ratio (cluster 7), they
can be conceived as a single category, representing isolated sta-
multimodal accessibility conditions and also present a diverse tions with poor transit supply. Nevertheless, they can also be con-
urban realm, in which people can walk from/to their destinations ceived as ‘‘Future TODs’’, as the transit infrastructure already exists
within the station area. A second group can be described as but with little transit supply and urban development.
 D.S. Vale / Journal of Transport Geography 45 (2015) 70–80
This typology can be used as a strategic framework for urban and
transportation planning of the station areas. In general terms, the
typology suggests that ‘Urban TODs’ and ‘Suburban TODs’ are
already balanced node-places with good walking accessibility con-
ditions, in which the transportation supply should not decrease.
Likewise if new major activities or urban facilities are to be located
in these places, a transportation impact assessment is suggested.
For ‘Balanced TADs’, an improvement of the walking conditions is
suggested. ‘Undersupplied transit TODs’ need an increase in transit
supply, and therefore the main intervention should come from
transportation planning. For these two categories, the impact of
urban and/or transportation measures on transit patronage and
active travel can be significant, as these places are already balanced
node-places. ‘Unbalanced TODs’ should be given special attention
from urban planning, as new travel generating activities could be
guided to these locations, realizing the available transit
over-supply. Nevertheless, new transportation supply and/or
improvement of walking conditions should be required as the result
of these new activities. Finally, ‘Car dependent node-places’ require
an improvement in transportation supply, land use mixing and also
walking conditions to become transit-oriented development. A clear
articulation and integration of land use and transportation planning
is particularly relevant if these places are to be developed.
Nevertheless, especially in a suburban context in which the train is
a key transportation mode for commuting, they constitute better
urban development places than other places located farther away
from stations, in which travel is strictly dependent on the car and
mass transit will require major financial investments.
5.1. Limitations and further developments
Despite the usefulness of the addition of the walking environ-
ment evaluation to the node-place model as an urban planning
tool, we recognize some limitations in our results. First, the model
seems very sensitive to the normality of the distribution of the
variables used to measure node and place indexes. Nevertheless,
we argue that, if necessary, the variables should be
log-transformed to increase their normality, because they are
measured at different scales, and all have the same weight in the
calculation of the indexes. However, this option, also done by other
researchers (Chorus and Bertolini, 2011; Reusser et al., 2008),
seems to increase the number of places being classified as ‘bal-
anced’. Therefore, in order to precisely understand the impact of
the data transformation on the classification of station areas, a sen-
sitivity analysis of the results of the node-place model applied to
distinct metropolitan areas is suggested as future research, which
can bring some external validity of these findings. Second, as
shown in our research and in other previous applications of the
node-place model, it seems that a correlation between node and
place indexes is somehow present, leading to a vast majority of sta-
tion areas being located in the ‘balanced’ category and/or along the
middle line. Although theoretically the five typologies might exist,
the previous results suggest that probably unbalanced nodes are
very hard to identify in practice, suggesting that the influence of
transportation supply is higher than the influence of the land use
demand. An alternate explanation is that the balance between
transport (node) and land use (place) might not be given by the
middle line, but instead by a concave curve representing the best
fit regression line (Reusser et al., 2008). This solution would how-
ever decrease the usefulness of the node-place model to compare
different territories, and so we suggest, as an alternative simple
solution, to include and reveal the mean node index and place
index values as two essential features of the urban system being
analyzed. Third, the model uses 700 m straight-line catchment
areas for each station to measure the place index, and network dis-
tance catchment areas could lead to a reduction of the place index.
79
Nevertheless, we consider that the inclusion of the pedestrian shed
ratio will in some extent compensate for this lack of detail, keeping
the node-place model fast and simple to compute. Fourth, our TOD
typology should be used with care, as it reflects only the situation
of LMA and an external validation is needed before any final con-
clusion. A further validation of typologies based on performance
indicators such as modal share data is needed, as well as the appli-
cation of this three-component methodology to other cases. The
use of experts can also be a useful validation tool for the proposed
typology. Finally, we recognize that the use of the pedshed ratio as
an indicator of the walkability of an urban area does not fully
incorporates the diverse built environment features that can influ-
ence walking (Ewing and Handy, 2009; Lee and Moudon, 2004,
2006; Talen and Koschinsky, 2013). Therefore, other variables
should be tested to measure the pedestrian friendliness of a
node-place balanced station area, which might constitute a real
transit-oriented development site.
Acknowledgments
We would like to acknowledge the financial support given to
CIAUD by the Portuguese Funding Agency for Science, Research
and Technology (project reference PEst-OE/EAT/UI4008/2013),
and a special recognition to Miguel Saraiva and Mauro Pereira for
their help in collecting the transit supply data.
References
Barata Salgueiro, T., 2001. Lisboa, Periferia e Centralidades [Lisbon, Periphery and
Centralities]. Celta Editora, Oeiras.
Barton, H., 1998. Eco-neighbourhoods: a review of projects. Local Environ. 3, 159–
177.
Bertolini, L., 1996. Nodes and places: complexities of railway station
redevelopment. Eur. Plan. Stud. 4, 331–345.
Bertolini, L., 1999. Spatial development patterns and public transport: the
application of an analytical model in the Netherlands. Plan. Pract. Res. 14,
199–210.
Bertolini, L., 2005. Cities and transport: exploring the need for new planning
approaches. In: Albrechts, L., Mandelbaum, S.J. (Eds.), The Network Society: A
New Context for Planning. Routledge, London and New York, pp. 67–80.
Bertolini, L., 2008. Station areas as nodes and places in urban networks: an
analytical tool and alternative development strategies. In: Bruinsma, F., Pels, E.,
Priemus, H., Rietveld, P., Van Wee, B. (Eds.), Railway Development: Impacts on
Urban Dynamics. Physica-Verlag Heidelberg, Leipzig, pp. 35–57.
Calthorpe, P., 1993. The Next American Metropolis: Ecology, Community and the
American Dream. Princeton Architectural Press, New York.
Cervero, R., Murphy, S., Ferrell, C., Goguts, N., Tsai, Y.-H., 2004. Transit-Oriented
Development in the United States: Experiences, Challenges and Prospects –
TCRP Report 102. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
Chorus, P., Bertolini, L., 2011. An application of the node place model to explore the
spatial development dynamics of station areas in Tokyo. J. Transp. Land Use 4,
45–58.
Dittmar, H., Poticha, S., 2004. Defining transit-oriented development: the new
regional building block. In: Dittmar, H., Ohland, G. (Eds.), The New Transit
Town: Best Practices in Transit-Oriented Development, pp. 19–40.
Ewing, R., Cervero, R., 2010. Travel and the built environment: a meta-analysis. J.
Am. Plan. Assoc. 76, 265–294.
Ewing, R., Handy, S., 2009. Measuring the unmeasurable: urban design qualities
related to walkability. J. Urb. Des. 14, 65–84.
Frank, L.D., Schmid, T.L., Sallis, J.F., Chapman, J., Saelens, B.E., 2005. Linking
objectively measured physical activity with objectively measured urban form:
findings from SMARTRAQ. Am. J. Prev. Med. 28, 117–125.
Frank, L.D., Sallis, J.F., Conway, T.L., Chapman, J.E., Saelens, B.E., Bachman, W., 2006.
Many pathways from land use to health: associations between neighborhood
walkability and active transportation, body mass index, and air quality. J. Am.
Plan. Assoc. 72, 75–87.
Gonçalves, J.A.M., Portugal, L.d.S., 2008. Classificando estações metro-ferroviárias
como pólo promotor do desenvolvimento socioeconômico, 4° Concurso de
Monografia CBTU 2008 – A Cidade nos Trilhos. Companhia Brasileira de Trens
Urbanos, Rio de Janeiro.
Hale, C., 2012. TOD versus TAD: the great debate resolved. . .(?). Plan. Pract. Res., 1–
16
Ivan, I., Boruta, T., Horák, J., 2012. Evaluation of railway surrounding areas: the case
of Ostrava city. In: Longhurst, J.W.S., Brebbia, C.A. (Eds.), Urban Transport XVIII
– Urban Transport and the Environment in the 21st Century. WITPress, pp. 141–
152.
Jacobson, J., Forsyth, A., 2008. Seven American TODs: good practices for urban
design in transit-oriented development projects. J. Transp. Land Use 1, 51–88.
80 D.S. Vale / Journal of Transport Geography 45 (2015) 70–80
Jiang, Y., Christopher Zegras, P., Mehndiratta, S., 2012. Walk the line: station
context, corridor type and bus rapid transit walk access in Jinan, China. J.
Transp. Geogr. 20, 1–14.
Kamruzzaman, M., Baker, D., Washington, S., Turrel, G., 2014. Advance transit
oriented development typology: case study in Brisbane, Australia. J. Transp.
Geogr. 34, 54–70.
Landis, J., Cervero, R., Hall, P., 1991. Transit joint development in the USA: an
inventory and policy assessment. Environ. Plan C: Govern. Pol. 9, 431–452.
Lee, C., Moudon, A.V., 2004. Physical activity and environment research in the
health field: implications for urban and transportation planning practice and
research. J. Plan. Lit. 19, 147–181.
Lee, C., Moudon, A.V., 2006. The 3Ds+R: quantifying land use and urban form
correlates of walking. Transport. Res. D: Transp. Environ. 11, 204–215.
Leslie, E., Coffee, N., Frank, L.D., Owen, N., Bauman, A., Hugo, G., 2007. Walkability of
local communities: using geographic information systems to objectively assess
relevant environmental attributes. Health Place 13, 111–122.
Nawrocki, J., Nakagawa, D., Matsunaka, R., Oba, T., 2014. Measuring walkability and
its effects on Light Rail usage: a comparative study of the USA and Japan. In:
Brebbia, C.A. (Ed.), Urban Transport XX. Wessex Institute of Technology, UK, pp.
305–316.
Park, S., Choi, K., Lee, J.S., 2014. To walk or not to walk: testing the effect of path
walkability on transit users’ access mode choices to the station. Int. J. Sustain.
Transport.
Renne, J.L., 2008. From transit-adjacent to transit-oriented development. Local
Environ. 14, 1–15.
Renne, J.L., Bartholomew, K., Wontor, P., 2011. Transit-oriented and joint
development: case studies and legal issues. Transit Cooperative Research
Program, Legal Research Digest 36. National Research Council, Washington, D.C.
Reusser, D.E., Loukopoulos, P., Stauffacher, M., Scholz, R.W., 2008. Classifying
railway stations for sustainable transitions – balancing node and place
functions. J. Transp. Geogr. 16, 191–202.
Schlossberg, M., Brown, N., 2004. Comparing transit-oriented development sites by
walkability indicators. Transp. Res. Rec. 1887, 34–42.
Serlie, Z., 1998. Stationslocaties in vergelijkend perspectief. Master Thesis,
Universiteit Utrecht.
Talen, E., Koschinsky, J., 2013. The walkable neighborhood: a literature review. Int. J.
Sustain. Land Use Urban Plan. 1, 42–63.
Wegener, M., Fürst, F., 1999. Land-use Transport Interaction: State of the Art.
Institut für Raumplanung, Universitat Dortmund, Dortmund.
Zemp, S., Stauffacher, M., Lang, D.J., Scholz, R.W., 2011. Classifying railway stations
for strategic transport and land use planning: context matters! J. Transp. Geogr.
19, 670–679.
Zweedijk, A., 1997. Knoop of Plaats? Naar een operationalisering van het begrip
stationslocatie. Master thesis. Universiteit Utrecht.