sustainability

Article
Optimizing Land Use Allocation of Transit-Oriented
Development (TOD) to Generate Maximum Ridership
Mohammed Ali Berawi 1 , Gunawan Saroji 2, *, Fuad Adrian Iskandar 2 ,
Bernard Elpetino Ibrahim 2 , Perdana Miraj 3 and Mustika Sari 2
1 Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Universitas Indonesia 16424, Indonesia;
[email protected]
2 Center for Sustainable Infrastructure Development, Universitas Indonesia 16424, Indonesia;
[email protected] (F.A.I.); [email protected] (B.E.I.); [email protected] (M.S.)
3 Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Pancasila University, DKI Jakarta 12640, Indonesia;
[email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]




Received: 25 March 2020; Accepted: 30 April 2020; Published: 7 May 2020


Abstract: Transit-oriented development (TOD) is based around transit stations, with the emphasis on
high population density and multifunctional areas in promoting sustainable mobility. This study
aimed to develop a TOD model that could achieve an optimum land use allocation to maximize
transit ridership. A critical literature review, an analysis of value engineering through function and
benchmarking studies were conducted in order to develop a baseline plan for a TOD model, which was
then optimized using linear programming. A total of four light rail transit (LRT) stations located in
Jakarta were used as the case study to represent model implementation, ridership evaluation and
optimal design. The optimization results showed that office workers constituted the highest number
of transit passengers, followed by those working in hotels and commercial/retail and residential
users. It was also found that optimizing the design of the TOD can increase the number of daily LRT
passengers by up to 55%.

Keywords: transit-oriented development; light rail transit; ridership; land use; optimization;
mixed-use

1. Introduction
The provision of train-based mass transportation systems, also known as transit systems, is an
effective way to tackle the challenges faced by cities such as traffic jams, air pollution, greenhouse gas
emissions and other social problems which straightforwardly affect the quality of city life [1], as it
alters the use of private vehicles [2,3]. Furthermore, those problems are intensified by the absence of
land use integration and effective transportation systems [4].
Transit is an important means for improving the regional economy by providing affordable access
to employment, education and health, especially for those coming from low-income homes unable to
afford private transportation [5]. Nowadays, the governments of many countries in the world have
made a significant investment in urban transit infrastructures such as metrorail, mass rapid transit
(MRT), light rail transit (LRT) and bus rapid transit (BRT) [6]. Likewise, the Indonesian government has
also prepared the development of the LRT system in Jakarta in order to alleviate its traffic congestion
issues that keep worsening as the population grows.
However, the development of the mass transportation system needs huge investment, which turns
out to be one of the challenges for the government, i.e., meeting the project funding demand involving
the initial, operational and maintenance costs. According to Zhang and Xue [7], almost all of the

Sustainability 2020, 12, 3798; doi:10.3390/su12093798 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2020, 12, 3798 2 of 20

operating companies of transit services in the world still depend on the subsidies provided by the
government for the system operation and maintenance. The MTR Corporation that manages train
transit in Hong Kong only receives 34% annually of its total income from its operations [1], which means
that the income generated from the ticket sales cannot cover the total project investment. However,
since the urban rail system can capture a large share of the overall public transport market [8],
optimizing high rail transit ridership can increase the operating income from farebox revenue.
There are numerous factors related to the rail transit farebox revenue. A key problem-causing
factor is the interaction between the transit infrastructure and its surrounding area. Bertolini introduced
this notion through the node-place model [9], in which an area with land use diversity and population
density can attract people to use the transit more often [10]. Transit-oriented development (TOD) as a
built environment intervention is believed to be able to accommodate such interaction [3].
TOD in Hong Kong through the Rail Plus Property (R+P) program has increased the feasibility of
transit projects. This is seen from the continuous rise in the number of passengers and the increase in
property prices [11]. The concept of TOD has been implemented in many countries, but it is relatively
new in Indonesia. However, it has started to gain popularity recently by the construction of the light
rail transit (LRT) and mass rapid transit (MRT) in Jakarta, as well as its adoption as a strategy to
improve project feasibility through real estate development.
Several studies have focused on TOD planning in regard to the increase of transit ridership.
Li et al. [12] established the decision tree approach to forecast the number of boarding and alighting
passengers based on land use acreage inputs in Chongqing, China. The correlation between the
percentage of land use in areas within a 500-m radius around rail stations and diurnal rail ridership
patterns in the Seoul Capital Area using the ridership-based station clustering approach has been
investigated by Kim et al. [13]. In addition, Suzuki et al. [1] discussed several successful TOD cases
with regard to the rail ridership in Japan, Hong Kong and China. Cervero and Murakami [11],
in their analysis of Hong Kong’s rail and property development model, investigated its performance
in increasing rail transit ridership. The allocation of different land arranged through increased
ridership was studied by Ma et al. [2,10] and Li et al. [2,10] using a genetic algorithm to generate
non-dominated alternatives of land use in a station located in China, while Lin and Li [14] utilized
the grey linear programming technique for regional transit-oriented development planning. Lin and
Gau [15] conducted model development to obtain alternatives to the optimum floor area ratio (FAR)
as input into the policymaking process regarding the use of TOD in Taiwan. However, these studies
focused only on station area-level planning, not on parcel-level, which deals with the gross floor area
of land use development as its decision variable.
Linear programming has been extensively used to resolve planning and other land management
problems [16,17]. Winokur et al. [18] employed it to obtain a land development strategic plan for a
real estate development project by maximizing the expected present value of its future cash flows.
Linear and nonlinear programming optimizations have also been utilized to determine the best strategy
in a mixed-use development value [16,17]. Both studies aimed to determine the optimal area for
each property type to maximize the income of the development as the highest and with the best use.
However, neither was in the TOD context.
This paper intended to fill the gap of previous research by offering a linear programming-based
optimization model of land use allocation at the parcel-level of rail-based TOD to maximize rail
transit ridership. As mixed-use development is the main characteristic of TOD, its planning should
involve several different property developments to be built in the area around the transit. Therefore, a
mixed-used development in the TOD context means that it is not only a practice of residential land use
development but also the provision of complementary public uses, jobs, retail and services [19].
This research is a typical choice task of a linear programming problem, aimed at obtaining an
optimum gross floor area (GFA) for each property development as an alternative approach to transit
operation and property development planning in order to achieve the maximum rate of passenger
trips. Therefore, the explorations that will be done in this research include developing the baseline
Sustainability 2020, 12, 3798 3 of 20

model for the development of the TOD ridership mode and finding out how mixed-use TOD optimally
raises ridership by maximizing its rate.

2. Literature Study

2.1. The Concept of TOD

TOD is a developed area that focuses on transit as its basic principle, the development of which is
expected to fulfill the purpose of sustainability both in transport and urban planning [8]. It occupies a
dense area with multifunctional strategies concentrating on the availability of mass transportation.
TOD planning does not have a definitive or particular area [20]. Calthorpe and Fulton [21] defined
TOD as a mixed-use, compact and workable system that fits with mass-transit stations or centers
developed to support and encourage public transport usage (transit), thus promoting sustainable
mobility concerning the environment aspect by reducing traffic congestion, fuel consumption, pollution,
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and other urban effects [22,23], as well as the financial aspect by
bringing in more fare-paying passengers and increasing the land value around the transit [10,19],
and also the social aspect by revitalizing the neighborhood and improving access to basic needs such
as work, education and health [24,25].There are certain principles also included in the design of TOD,
such as a retail shop, residential, employment, park and civilian uses within a walking distance of about
2000 feet or 10 min of transit stops, creating a pedestrian-friendly road network that directly connects
local destinations, providing a mixture of housing types, densities and costs, encouraging development
and redevelopment along existing transit corridors in the environment [26,27].
Cervero and Kockelman [28] divided the built environment into three main criteria, known as
the ‘3D’ (density, diversity, and design), that affect transportation patterns. However, developing an
area with density, land use diversity and a pedestrian-oriented design generally reduces trip rates
and encourages non-auto travel in statistically significant ways. Ewing and Cervero [29] further
divided these criteria into five by adding the destination accessibility and the distance to transit, thus
becoming ‘5D’.
Many definitions consider TOD as a concept applied in areas with high multi-functionalities,
including residential areas [30,31], retail areas [30], offices [32,33], hotels [30,34] and public facilities [35].
Wey et al. [20] arranged the focus of TOD by correlating it with sustainable development, which is
known as sustainable transportation. It is divided into three purposes, namely economic efficiency,
sustainable environment and social justice [36]. Even though this technique has a clear concept,
its implementation should consider the specific conditions of the area involved.
Occasionally, land use development has worked in line with the transit system, yet they failed
to connect morphologically. Therefore, the term ‘’oriented” only meant ‘’adjacent” (Transit Adjacent
Development/TAD) [37]. Similarly, Li et al. [38] proposed an additional parameter, a ‘tie,’ in the
node-place model, which became the node-tie-place. This made the identification of TOD clearer,
as shown in the model displayed in Figure 1. Easy access to public facilities and commercial buildings
along the road (to the station) would encourage people to utilize transit more often [38]. A robust
model is capable of optimizing the tie bond between the land use and the transit needed to maximize
TOD planning.
TOD can make a contribution towards the achievement of sustainable development goals (SDGs)
with the improved connectivity and mobility to increase employment opportunities in order to escape
poverty and end food hunger (SDG 1 and SDG 2), and increase access to education and health services
(SDG 3 and SDG 4) as well [39]. Rail transit, one of the key elements in TOD, can reduce private vehicle
dependence hence improving energy efficiency in transportation (SDG 7) and reducing the impacts of
pollution and GHG emissions on the climate (SDG 13) [40]. Moreover, the increased mobility offered by
TOD is also crucial to the achievement of sustainable cities (SDG 11) [41,42]. Furthermore, TOD is also
a solution to achieve the New Urban Agenda (NUA), which emphasizes the need for well integrated
transport-land-use planning to reduce travel and transport needs and enhance connectivity between
Sustainability 2020, 12, 3798 4 of 20

Sustainability 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 20

areas in cities and its surroundings [43]. However, to achieve those goals, TOD planning should
achieve those
consider goals, and
the density TODtheplanning should
diversifying landconsider
uses sothe density
that and the diversifying
those sustainable goals can land uses so [44].
be achieved that
thoseThis
sustainable goals can be
paper investigated achieved
three [44].
TOD properties as the benchmark, which were selected due to their
relative success in implementing Cervero’sproperties
This paper investigated three TOD as in
‘D variables’ theeach
benchmark, which
development, as were selected
well as due to
their different
their relative success in implementing Cervero’s ‘D variables’ in each development,
development scales and data availability. The first was Union Square, a 13.54-hectare mixed-use as well as their
different development
development scales and data
with an integrated availability.
transit station in The
the first was Union
Kowloon Square,
area of HongaKong.
13.54-hectare
Nambamixed-
Parks,
use development with an integrated transit station in the Kowloon area of Hong
located adjacent to Sekai Station in Osaka, Japan, which comprises 3.37 hectares of shoppingKong. Namba
arcadesParks,
and
located adjacent to Sekai Station in Osaka, Japan, which comprises 3.37 hectares of shopping
other amenities, was the second. The third one was D’Cube City in Seoul, South Korea, that comprises arcades
aand other amenities,
6.36-hectare complexwas the second.
of amenities withThe third
direct one to
access was D’Cube City
Shindorim in Seoul, South Korea, that
Station.
comprises a 6.36-hectare complex of amenities with direct access to Shindorim Station.

Figure 1.
Figure 1. Eight
Eightarchetypal transit-oriented
archetypal development
transit-oriented (TOD)forms
development under
(TOD)forms the ‘node-tie-place’
under the ‘node-tie-place’
model [38].
model [38].

2.2.
2.2. TOD
TOD Ridership
Ridership
Ridership
Ridership isisthe thenumber
numberofofpeoplepeoplewho whouse usethe
thetransit
transitservice,
service,hence
hence increasing
increasing ridership
ridership tends
tendsto
also increase the transit income. There are several particular reasons
to also increase the transit income. There are several particular reasons why people are more why people are more interested in
using transit
interested in instead of private
using transit means
instead of transportation,
of private such as the cost
means of transportation, affordability
such as the cost[45], time and
affordability
service
[45], time and service reliability [46] and accessibility [47]. However, accessibility is consideredthe
reliability [46] and accessibility [47]. However, accessibility is considered as one of as key
one
attributes affecting transit ridership rate since it is the main feature of
of the key attributes affecting transit ridership rate since it is the main feature of TOD principles. ItTOD principles. It shows
how
shows accessible a particular
how accessible area is from
a particular area one station
is from onetostation
anotherto[48]. TOD[48].
another can beTOD usedcantobemaximize
used to
accessibility and people’s mobility from one place to another
maximize accessibility and people’s mobility from one place to another [22]. Effective [22]. Effective implementation should
include a featureshould
implementation whereby certain
include areas whereby
a feature such as residences,
certain areasoffices
such as and health services
residences, are health
offices and easily
accessed.
services are Knowles
easily[32] depicted
accessed. TOD as[32]
Knowles beads connected
depicted TOD by as
yarn. Theconnected
beads beads represent
by yarn. the area, while
The beads
the yarn depicts the transit rail service connecting the areas.
represent the area, while the yarn depicts the transit rail service connecting the areas.
In
In the
the Minneapolis–St.
Minneapolis–St. Paul Metropolitan region, TOD development development has reduced reduced vehicle
vehicle tripstrips
per
per capita by 1% to 3%, depending on the level of transit service available [27]. The development of
capita by 1% to 3%, depending on the level of transit service available [27]. The development
TOD
TOD showsshowsaamore moreefficient
efficientpattern,
pattern,with withitsits
efficiency
efficiencyachieved
achievedby byshortening
shortening the the
triptrip
duration
durationin thein
area, increasing
the area, increasingthe number
the number of pedestrians
of pedestrians andandthe the
transit-trip rate.rate.
transit-trip TOD TODmakes
makes a good
a goodbalance
balance of
space
of space forfor
offices
officesandandresidences.
residences. It Italso
alsoincreases
increasesthe thechances
chancesfor forpeople
peopleto togogo walking
walking and and cycling,
creating
creating adequate density for for aa high
high level
levelof oftransit
transitservice.
service.According
AccordingtotoBardakaBardakaand and Hersey
Hersey [5],[5],
it
it
cancan
bebe seen
seen from
from travel
travel behavior
behavior thatthat63%63% of employees
of employees living
living in low-income
in low-income housing
housing unitsunits (in a
(in a TOD
TOD
area) area) take transit
take transit comparedcompared
to 20%toin20% in market-rate
market-rate housing housing
units. Aunits.
studyAofstudyPrinceofGeorge's
Prince George’s
County,
County,
Maryland Maryland (USA), showed
(USA), showed that TOD that TOD planning
planning would not would notinresult
result in any significant
any significant increase increase
in transit in
transit ridership, assuming that the area was quite transit-oriented, only
ridership, assuming that the area was quite transit-oriented, only making a slight change from 19.2% making a slight change from
19.2%
to 19.6% to 19.6%
[22]. [22].
Another study of Orenco Station, a transit-oriented development (TOD) in the Portland region,
and Station Park, a transit-adjacent development (TAD) in the Salt Lake City region, showed a
significant difference of the mode share of TOD, which was 45.8% walk and 16.0% rail higher than
Sustainability 2020, 12, 3798 5 of 20

Another study of Orenco Station, a transit-oriented development (TOD) in the Portland region,
and Station Park, a transit-adjacent development (TAD) in the Salt Lake City region, showed a
significant difference of the mode share of TOD, which was 45.8% walk and 16.0% rail higher than the
TAD (3.6% walk and 4.1% rail). This shows that the adjacent rail station appeared to have little effect on
the performance of the TAD, but a substantial effect on the performance of the TOD. This situation was
caused by regional travel models which are capable of capturing some of the effects of transit service on
travel demand at a particular site, but not the full effects of the D variables comprising density, land use
diversity, street design, destination accessibility and distance to transit for a particular TOD [49].

2.3. Function Analysis System Technique (FAST)

Value engineering (VE) is a problem-solving technique with a multidisciplinary approach that
systematically analyzes and improves the function, cost, value of a product, design, system, or the
service by combining knowledge from different backgrounds organized in a team [50]. It has been
widely applied in the practice of many fields such as engineering manufacturing, construction,
communication, urban and transportation, due to its remarkable benefits [51].
The primary component in value engineering is the function, and it is both the basis and the
catalyst of an innovative solution. The function is categorized into the primary and secondary function,
in which the basic primary function is a reason for the creation of a system and the basis for the existence
of a product, while the secondary function is the support for the basic functions [52]. The compilation
of functions confirms the analysis of the objective functions that may or may not be needed and
expands idea creation [53].
The logic diagram from the functions of an item, subsystem or facility is illustrated through the
graphics generated in a tool known as the FAST diagram. There are four types of FAST diagrams
that can be used to test the reliability of the identified functions [54,55], which include the classical
FAST model, hierarchy function model, technical FAST model and the customer-oriented FAST model.
The classical FAST model illustrated the interrelationship between the function in “HOW-WHY” logic
used to identify, classify, develop and select the functions that could create higher value and benefit to
the project development, while the hierarchy function model used hierarchical graphic vertically listed
functions. Moreover, the technical FAST model is the classical fast model that adds an “all the time”
function, “one-time” function, and a “same time” function or “caused by” function in the diagram.
On the other hand, the customer-oriented FAST model is developed to reflect the customer as the one
determining the value in the process of function analysis.

3. Methodology
This research adopted two stages of an approach by taking qualitative and quantitative methods
into account to get the two research objectives answered, which included: (1) developing the baseline
model for the TOD ridership mode; and (2) finding out how mixed-use TOD will optimally increase
the transit ridership. To achieve the first objective, the function and basic proportion of the mixed land
use were determined by analyzing the TOD functions, benchmarking to the TOD models through
the literature study, and collecting the data of the existing TOD development plans proposed by the
developer. As to attain the second objective, a linear programming (LP) approach and a comparative
analysis were carried out. The workflow of the research is shown in Figure 2.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 3798 6 of 20
Sustainability 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 20

Figure 2.
Figure 2. Research
Research workflow.
workflow.

3.1. TOD Function Analysis

Function
Function analysis,
analysis,whichwhichisisconsidered
considered as as
thethemainmainprocess of value
process engineering
of value [56,57],
engineering was used
[56,57], was
to obtain a full depiction of the TOD functions and benefits. The development
used to obtain a full depiction of the TOD functions and benefits. The development of a model of a model describing the
relationship
describing the of functions
relationship in aofproject is important
functions in facilitating
in a project is important theinunderstanding
facilitating theofunderstanding
their correctnessof
and analyzing the level of functions applied to obtain greater improvement
their correctness and analyzing the level of functions applied to obtain greater improvement [58]. [58]. Considering the
benefits
Consideringof using this technique
the benefits of usinginthis terms of functional
technique in termsimprovement
of functionaland quality enhancement,
improvement and quality
function analysis
enhancement, was therefore
function analysis was donetherefore
in this study
done to in help understand
this study to helpthe functionsthe
understand of functions
major TOD of
elements in order to come up with a broader consideration of alternative
major TOD elements in order to come up with a broader consideration of alternative activities to activities to achieve the
functions.
achieve theAfunctions.
FAST diagram A FASTthatdiagram
was produced during
that was the function
produced duringanalysis, depicting
the function a logic
analysis, diagrama
depicting
from
logic the functions
diagram fromof thethe item, subsystems,
functions of the item,orsubsystems,
facilities illustrated
or facilitiesthrough graphics
illustrated in order
through to test
graphics in
the reliability of the identified function [55,59], was also used in this study to
order to test the reliability of the identified function [55,59], was also used in this study to represent represent the results.
By
theusing theBy
results. FASTusingdiagram
the FASTthat diagram
expressedthatverb-noun
expressed functions
verb-noundescribing
functionsthe describing
complex TOD theelements,
complex
important information regarding functions can be obtained by answering
TOD elements, important information regarding functions can be obtained by answering questions questions of how, why and
when
of how,thewhy
functions
and when should
thebe performed.
functions should be performed.
To
To achieve
achieve thethe best
best practice,
practice, a benchmarking
benchmarking process to some relevant studies was conducted. conducted.
The sources used to develop the benchmark model include
sources used to develop the benchmark model include journal papers, reports, journal papers, reports, websites and
articles
articles [60]. Three urban developments were utilized as the guideline, namely Union Square Square in Hong
Kong,
Kong, Namba
Namba Parks
Parks in in Osaka,
Osaka, Japan,
Japan, and
and D’Cube
D’Cube CityCity inin Seoul,
Seoul, South
South Korea
Korea [61].
[61]. The variables used
in the benchmarking process were the characteristics of TOD formed by the five main criteria of the
built environment that included density, diversity, diversity, design,
design, destination
destination accessibility
accessibility and distance
distance to
transit [29], the details can be seen in Table
details can be seen in Table 1 below.1 below.
The first initiation of TOD projects in Indonesia was proposed for the Jakarta LRT, the routes
of which will service across Jakarta Table and its satellite
1. TOD cities such as Bogor, Depok and Bekasi.
Variables.
The development of these TOD projects refers to the government regulations outlined in the Jakarta
Dependent Variable Independent Variables
2030 Regional Spatial Plan and the regulations of Bekasi city planning office. The data of the design
of these TOD projects Density were from the feasibility study - Floor area ratio
document (FAR) from the developer of the
collected
Jakarta LRT. The available existing design plans obtained - Gross floor
from area (GFA) documents and discussion
the shared
meetings that were used in this
Diversity study included four (Jaticempaka,
- Residential Ciracas, Cibubur, Bekasi Timur)
ongoing LRT station areas (see Figure 3). The collection process of the data and the feasibility study
- Office
- Hotel
- Retail/
Sustainability 2020, 12, 3798 7 of 20
Sustainability 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 20

documents was conducted simultaneously with theCommercial

benchmarking process, resulting in benchmark
TOD and existing TOD plan models. However, -benchmark
Other TOD would become the basis for the
ridership model. Design
- Building configuration
Destination accessibility
Table 1. TOD Variables.
- Development configuration
Distance to transit
Dependent Variable Independent Variables
The first initiation of TOD projects in Indonesia
- wasarea
Floor proposed for the Jakarta LRT, the routes of
ratio (FAR)
Density
which will service across Jakarta and its satellite- Gross floor
cities areaas(GFA)
such Bogor, Depok and Bekasi. The
- Residential
development of these TOD projects refers to the government regulations outlined in the Jakarta 2030
Regional Spatial Plan and the regulations of -Bekasi Office
city planning office. The data of the design of
these TOD projects were -
from the feasibility study
Diversity Hotel
document collected from the developer of the
- Retail/
Jakarta LRT. The available existing design plans obtained from the shared documents and discussion
- Commercial
meetings that were used in this study included four (Jaticempaka, Ciracas, Cibubur, Bekasi Timur)
- Other
ongoing LRT station areas
Design(see Figure 3). The collection process of the data and the feasibility study
- Building configuration
documents was conducted simultaneously
Destination accessibility with the benchmarking process, resulting in benchmark
- Development configuration
TOD and existing TOD Distance
plan to transit However, benchmark TOD would become the basis for the
models.
ridership model.

Figure 3. Jakarta light rail transit (LRT) routes and its urban context [62].
Figure 3. Jakarta light rail transit (LRT) routes and its urban context [62].

3.2. Linear Programming

Sustainability 2020, 12, 3798 8 of 20

3.2. Linear Programming

Linear programming (LP), as a form of mathematical programming with all its functions,
i.e., the objective function and constraints in a system, was conducted [63]. Mathematical programming
addressed the optimization problems concerned with the allocation of competing for needs
(i.e., floor area uses) in a valuable resource (e.g., a land parcel or a site) to achieve an objective
(i.e., to maximize ridership) [16]. Transit ridership in a station was modeled as a linear equation
involving gross floor area and transit trip generation rate per unit area of each use [15]. Therefore,
LP was a suitable technique for solving this problem.
To develop the model, three components of the LP framework, i.e., the objective function,
decision variables and the constraints, must be determined. As mentioned above, the quantification
of the objective, for instance, maximizing ridership, as a function of the decision variables (floor
area use), was adapted from the model developed by Lin and Gau [15]. This was used to define the
types of issues facing the model. The type of use was determined by the results from the best TOD
benchmarking process initially conducted to achieve the first objective of the study. Considering the
limited availability of studies regarding the transit trip generation rate of specific types of TOD users,
the decision variables were defined in four categories, namely [38,64]: residential (x1), office (x2),
hotel (x3) and retail/commercial (x4). Therefore, the objective function of the problem is modeled as:

Maximize Z = T1x1 + T2x2 + T3x3 + T4x4 (1)

where Z is the level of transit ridership used as the objective variable, while T1 , T2 , T3 , and T4 are
the transit trip generation rates of residential, office, retail and commercial and hotel, respectively.
Furthermore, x1 , x2 , x3 , and x4 are the decision variables of floor areas, while the minimum and
maximum widths of the floor allowed in the location of the study are the constraints that depend on
the GFA.
x1 + x2 + x3 + x4 ≤ GFA maximum (2)

x1 + x2 + x3 + x4 ≥ GFA minimum (3)

The model of the existing, benchmarked and optimized TOD developments were validated by
measuring its ridership. This was followed by a depiction comparing the three models.

4. Result and Discussion

4.1. Benchmark TOD Models

The guidelines in this benchmarking process consisted of TOD developments in three countries,
which included Union Square in the Kowloon area of Hong Kong, Namba Parks near Sekai Station in
Osaka, Japan and D’Cube City in Seoul, South Korea. Regarding the design and destination accessibility,
Union Square seemed to be developed with the most efficient integration in which the residential,
office and other buildings sat on the top of the commercial podium that houses the Kowloon station;
besides, its multifunction areas located at the distance of approximately 200 m from the transit station
encourage dwellers to walk in as easy and comfortable access is provided. Namba Parks, which was
connected to the transit station through direct pedestrian access, was planned as an attraction so that
people could visit and wander around the TOD and its signature natural terraced pedestrian-oriented
design as a tourist destination. The visitors from outside the neighborhood were anticipated with
the hotel built in the TOD. Moreover, since it is confined within a 400-m radius from a transit station,
Namba Parks also allows pedestrians to walk through the buildings that make the distance to transit
closer. On the other hand, D’Cube City was designed to be a live, work, play and stay destination in
Seoul with a vibrant pedestrian-oriented district and direct access to the Shindorim Station, expected to
attract tourists with all the public services within walking distance.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 3798 9 of 20

The benchmark model considers three square area metrics consisting of the building coverage
ratio (BCR), floor aspect ratio (FAR) and the proportion of floor areas. Although the literature showed
that other variables existed to create the TOD model (number of workers, property sales, employment
ratio or economic landscape) [65,66], square area metrics was believed to be the core measurement
to expose the TOD density and to evaluate the property and transit relationship. These three square
area metrics were determined using properties mean values from existing the TODs in Union Square,
Namba Parks, and D’Cube City [61] in order to make a comparison with the existing TOD plans
in Indonesia.
The land use mix found in the benchmarking model was residential areas, offices, commercial/retail
areas and hotels. This finding confirmed the TOD planning that has been conducted in Denver,
United States, where most land use mix may consist of but not be limited to office, residential, retail,
entertainment and civic uses depending on their typology [67]. The composition of land use allocation
at each location is shown in Table 2, with the range being the minimum and maximum percentage
floor area usage. The benchmark model has a BCR of 92% and a FAR of 7.29, with the floor area usage
summarized in Figure 4.

Table 2. Composition of the land use allocation of the benchmark TOD.

Floor Area Usage

Property Type Range
Union Square Namba Parks D’Cube City
Sustainability 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 20
m2 608,026 60,000 110,300
Residential 24–56%
expose the TOD density and%to evaluate 56% the property and24% transit relationship.
26% These three square
m2 231,778 60,000 24,480
area metrics were determined
Office using properties mean values from existing the TODs in Union Square,
6–24%
% 21% 24% 6%
Namba Parks, and D’Cube City m 2 [61] in order
167,472 to make a comparison
0 with the
18,360 existing TOD plans in
Indonesia. Hotel 4–15%
% 15% 0% 4%
The land use mix found m2 in the82,750benchmarking 86,000model was107,800residential areas, offices,
Retail/commercial 8%-34%
commercial/retail areas and%hotels. This 8% finding confirmed
34% the TOD 25%planning that has been
conducted in Denver, m2 0 44,700 171,000
Others United States, where most land use mix may consist of but not be limited to
12–39%
% 0% 18% 39%
office, residential,
Total GFA
retail, entertainment
m 2 and
1,090,026
civic uses depending
250,700
on their
431,940
typology [67]. The
composition of land use
Total land area allocation
m 2 at each
135,000 location is shown
33,700 in Table 2, with
63,600 the range being the
minimum and maximum
FAR percentage floor 8.05area usage. The 7.23benchmark model
6.57 has a BCR of 92% and
a FAR of 7.29, with the floor area usage summarized in Figure 4.

Figure
Figure 4. Floor area
4. Floor area proportion
proportion of
of benchmark
benchmark TOD.
TOD.

To achieve theTable
objective of the research,
2. Composition this study
of the land adopted
use allocation ofthe
the technical
benchmark FAST
TOD.diagram produced
from function analysis by determining the study problem, which was the benchmark TOD. This was
Floor on
followed by identifying its function (which was based AreatheUsage
theory from the literature study). Figure 5
Property type
shows the FAST Diagram of TOD with a supporting transit system asD’Cube
Union Namba Range
the purpose of the project while
Squarewith economic
improving welfare and increasing revenue Parksbenefits being City the outcome. TOD would
m2 608,026 60,000 110,300
Residential 24%–56%
% 56% 24% 26%
m2 231,778 60,000 24,480
Office 6%–24%
% 21% 24% 6%
m2 167,472 0 18,360
Hotel 4%–15%
% 15% 0% 4%
Sustainability 2020, 12, 3798 10 of 20

mean nothing without a change in travel behavior, increased accessibility and developed properties,
which are all
Sustainability critical
2019, aspects
11, x FOR PEER of its function (with increased ridership being the main function).10 of 20
REVIEW

Figure 5. Function analysis system technique (FAST) diagram of TOD.

Figure 5. Function analysis system technique (FAST) diagram of TOD.
4.2. Existing Jakarta TOD Development Plans: Case Study
4.2. Existing Jakarta TOD Development Plans: Case Study
A summary of the design development for the TOD projects in Jakarta in terms of the land use
A summary
allocation and floorof area
the design development
proportion is presentedfor in
theTable
TOD3 projects
and Figurein Jakarta
6. Fromintheterms of theprograms
planning land use
allocation and floor area proportion is presented in Table 3 and Figure 6. From the planning
obtained from the feasibility study of the case study which included Jaticempaka, Ciracas, Cibubur and programs
obtained
Bekasi fromitthe
Timur, canfeasibility study
be seen that of the case of
the orientation study which included
the development Jaticempaka,
of the TOD areas Ciracas,
was onlyCibubur
focused
and Bekasi Timur, it can be seen that the orientation of the development of
on the residential property which took a big portion of TOD land use, while the development the TOD areas was only
of
focused on the residential property which took a big portion of TOD land use, while
retail and commercial areas was only made at about 20% of the total GFA. Nevertheless, there was no the development
of retail and for
explanation commercial
the benefitareas was
of the LRTonly made
transit at about
Jakarta 20% (which
service of the total
wasGFA.
closerNevertheless,
to the propertythere was
around
no explanation for the benefit
the area) in that feasibility study. of the LRT transit Jakarta service (which was closer to the property
around the area) in that feasibility study.
Table 3. Land use of the Jakarta TOD.
Table 3. Land use of the Jakarta TOD.
Property Type Jaticempaka Ciracas Cibubur Bekasi Timur
Property type m2 116,266
Jaticempaka 206,612
Ciracas 150,000
Cibubur 150,000
Bekasi Timur
Residential
% 69% 72% 94% 84%
m2m2 116,266
- 206,612
- - 150,000 - 150,000
Office
Residential
%% -
69% - 72% - 94% - 84%
m2 - - - -
Hotel m2 % -
- -
- -
- -
-
Office
%m2 -
18,600 18,672- 10,000 - 10,000 -
Retail/commercial
m2 % 11%
- 7% - 6% - 6% -
Hotel 2 33,423 61,426 - 18,100
Others %m - - - -
% 20% 21% - 10%
m2 2 18,600 18,672 10,000 10,000
Retail/commercial
Total GFA m 168,289 286,710 160,000 178,100
% 11% 7% 6% 6%
m2 33,423 61,426 - 18,100
Others
% 20% 21% - 10%
Total GFA m2 168,289 286,710 160,000 178,100
SustainabilitySustainability
2020, 12, 37982019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 20 11 of 20
Sustainability 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 20

Figure
Figure 6. 6. Floor
Floor area area usage
usage of of
thetheexisting
existing Jakarta
JakartaTOD Development
TOD Plans. Plans.
Development
Based on the lesson learned from the benchmarking process involving three successful TODs as
Figure 6. Floor area usage of the existing Jakarta TOD Development Plans.
Basedtheonguideline
the lesson learned from the benchmarking process involving three successful TODs as the
that was conducted previously, the configuration of the land use allocation for the
guideline that wasonconducted
benchmark
Based TOD
the lesson previously,
modellearned
was proposed the
from the configuration
tobenchmarking
be of theinvolving
conceptuallyprocess
designed land
with use allocation
thethree
commercial
successful forTODs
area thethebenchmark
as as
TOD model was proposed
connecting part of to
the be conceptually
transit station to designed
other functional with
areasthe
builtcommercial
in the TOD.
the guideline that was conducted previously, the configuration of the land use allocation for Inarea
order astothe connecting
reduce thethe part
walking
of the transit
benchmark distance
stationTOD and make
tomodel
other was the walking
functional
proposed to activity
areasbebuilt be
inmore
the efficient
conceptually TOD. Infororder
designed pedestrians,
with it is recommended
to reduce
the commercial the area
walking
as thedistance
that areas such as residential, office and hotel are planned to stand on the podium-shaped commercial
and makeconnecting part of activity
the walking the transitbestation
moretoefficient
other functional areas built in
for pedestrians, therecommended
it is TOD. In order tothat reduce the such as
areas
areas. That way, the commercial area can also be arranged as the circulation area within the TOD.
walking
residential,Thus, distance
office and make the walking activity be more efficient for pedestrians, it is recommended
theand
TODhotel are planned
can optimize its areasto
to stand on thevarious
accommodate podium-shaped
activities in a commercial areas. That way,
convenient pedestrian-
that areas such as residential, office and hotel are planned to stand on the podium-shaped commercial
the commercial area can also be arranged as the circulation area within the TOD. design
oriented and integrated built-environment. The mass concept for the land use plan and Thus, the TOD
areas. That way, the commercial area can also be arranged as the circulation area within the TOD.
can optimizescheme
its of the proposed
areas to benchmark TOD
accommodate modelactivities
various illustratinginthealand use allocation
convenient can be seen in
pedestrian-oriented and
Thus, the TOD
Figure 7. can optimize its areas to accommodate various activities in a convenient pedestrian-
integrated built-environment. The mass concept for the land use
oriented and integrated built-environment. The mass concept for the land use plan and designplan and design scheme of the
scheme of the proposed benchmark TOD model illustrating the
proposed benchmark TOD model illustrating the land use allocation can be seen in Figure 7. land use allocation can be seen in
Figure 7.

Figure 7. Proposed benchmark TOD model.

4.3. Ridership TOD Model

The modal split value for commuting trips was obtained from a benchmark study from Tokyo,
with rail transit acting as the backbone mode of travel activity. On the other hand, non-commuting
trips were retrieved from a previous study conducted by Lund et al. [64].
Sustainability 2020, 12, 3798 12 of 20

The transit ridership optimization approach derived from the required per person space
requirement in a building has been applied by Hendrigan and Newman [68] in modeling the daily
trips to estimate the capacity of transit mode in providing services for a dense, walkable and mixed-use
area in Perth, Australia. Their research resulted in an estimation model of additional real estate yields
obtained from a function of parking lot reduction and high transit mode capacity. The modal split of
rail transit was obtained from a benchmarking study to the successful TOD areas in which rail transit
is the main transit mode used in that city, such as in Tokyo and California; hence Jakarta was not
selected since it could not be included in that category yet. The rail transit modal split was estimated
by combining the modal split value of Tokyo for commuting trips (trips made from home to work
which can include office, hotel or commercial area) and the findings from a TOD research in California
conducted by Lund et al. [64]. The modal split value for the commuting trip was 73%, which was the
maximum modal split value that had been achieved in Tokyo (see Table 4). Therefore, the same modal
split value was used for apartment and office areas, considering that both were the main elements of
the commuting trip end.

Table 4. Rail modal split (commuting trips) in Tokyo.

Year Modal Split Reference

2006 64% Soltani and Kono [69]
2012 73% Tokyo Metropolitan Transport Census [70]
2014 61% Nuzir and Dewancker [71]

In hotel and commercial uses, there are two elements of trips, namely commuting trips done by
workers who work in hotels and commercial retail and non-commuting trips done by hotel guests with
an average rail modal split value of 44.17% (see Table 5) and retail visitors, the average rail modal split
value of which is 12.58%. The rail modal split values for hotel and commercial areas were determined
by taking the average rail modal split values of commuting trips and non-commuting trips, hence the
modal split values for the hotel and commercial areas were 58.6% and 42.8% respectively.

Table 5. Rail modal split to the hotel in California, USA. Source: [64].

Night of Stay Rail Modal Split

1 75%
2–3 18.8%
4–5 40%
5–8 25%
Average 44.17%

Therefore, the value of the required input parameters (see Equation (1)), i.e., the transit trip
generation rates, was estimated by multiplying the rail transit modal split and the required space area
per person in a building plan [72,73] for the aforementioned purposes (Table 6).

Table 6. Parameter values determining the function of objective ridership.

Minimum Required Space Modal Split Estimation of Train Trip

Development Person/m2
Per Person (m2 /person) Train Person /m2
Apartments 9.29 0.11 73% 0.08
Offices and bank 4.65 0.22 73% 0.16
Hotel 5 0.2 58.6% 0.12
Retail/Commercial 4.62 0.22 42.8% 0.09
Sustainability 2020, 12, 3798 13 of 20

The mandatory constraint related to the maximum gross floor area (GFA) was permitted to be built
at the site. It was the result of the multiplication of the floor-area ratio (FAR) and the land site. In other
words, the mixed-use development gross floor area should not exceed those figures. The conditional
constraints were related to restriction on developing particular uses, such as the maximum/minimum
GFA of commercial/residential areas, and other factors expressed in values or percentages. The last
constraint was on non-negativity, which inhibited the model from generating the negative value of the
decision variables. These were defined in accordance with the benchmark study (see Table 2). Based on
the above explanation, the TOD optimization model to maximize ridership is presented as follows:

Maximize Z = 0.08x1 + 0.16x2 + 0.12x3 + 0.09x4 (4)

subject to
x1 + x2 + x3 + x4 + x5 ≤ GFA (5)

x1 ≥ 24% of GFA (6)

x1 ≤ 56% of GFA (7)

x2 ≥ 6% of GFA (8)

x2 ≤ 24% of GFA (9)

x3 ≥ 4% of GFA (10)

x3 ≤ 15% of GFA (11)

x4 ≥ 8% of GFA (12)

x4 ≤ 34% of GFA (13)

x5 ≥ 12% of GFA (14)

x5 ≤ 39% of GFA (15)

x1, x2, x3, x4, x5 ≥ 0 (16)

The above model was used to resolve the optimization problem in TOD planning on a land parcel
of four LRT station areas. The first process evaluated ridership from the existing development plans,
with the value of each gross floor area added into the objective functional equation (Equation (4)) to
obtain the estimated values of ridership, as shown in Table 7.

Table 7. Ridership evaluation of the existing Jakarta TOD Development Plans.

Development Estimation of
TOD Project Residential Office Hotel Retail Others Daily Ridership

m2 % m2 % m2 % m2 % m2 %
Jaticempaka 116,266 69 - - - - 18,600 11 33,423 20 10,858
Ciracas 206,612 72 - - - - 18,672 7 61,426 21 17,964
Cibubur 150,000 94 - - - - 10,000 6 - - 12,713
Bekasi Timur 150,000 84 - - - - 10,000 6 18,100 10 12,713

Using the same method, the values of the ridership of Jakarta TOD with the benchmark-based
land use allocation can be seen in Table 8.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 3798 14 of 20

Table 8. Ridership evaluation of the benchmark-based Jakarta TOD.

Development Estimation
GFA
TOD Project Residential Office Hotel Retail Others of Daily
(m2 )
Ridership
m2 % m2 % m2 % m2 % m2 %
Jaticempaka 74,047 44 30,292 18 16,829 10 26,926 16 20,195 12 168,289 15,043
Ciracas 26,152 44 51,608 18 28,671 10 45,874 16 34,405 12 286,710 25,629
Cibubur 70,400 44 28,800 18 16,000 10 25,600 16 19,200 12 160,000 14,303
Bekasi Timur 78,364 44 32,058 18 17,810 10 28,496 16 21,372 12 178,100 15,921

The next step was to optimize the design using the linear programming optimization approach.
Bekasi Timur LRT station area was an example of the application model. The TOD of Bekasi Timur was
planned to be built on 50,000 m2 of land, with a maximum GFA of 178,100 m2 . Based on the case study
above, the linear programming process was executed. The Simplex method using the Solver parameter
from the spreadsheet application was utilized. Table 9 shows the optimum TOD design from a linear
programming-based optimization model using a typical benchmarking design. Based on Table 8,
the ridership estimation of the Bekasi Timur LRT station with benchmark-based land use allocation
was 15,921 trips per day, while the optimized design generated 1407 additional trips (from 15,921 to
17,328). This increase was a result of the optimization space taken from the residential proportion.
Residential space was reduced by 20%, to be allocated to retail, hotel and office development based on
the trip generation rates and the defined constraints.

Table 9. Optimum TOD design of the Bekasi Timur station area.

Development Quantity Unit Proportion

Residential 42,744 m2 24%
Office 42,744 m2 24%
Hotel 26,715 m2 15%
Retail 44,525 m2 25%
Others 21,372 m2 12%
Ridership 17,328 trips

The objective function showed that the highest rate of transit trip boarding came from office
workers. Several studies revealed that workplace development near a station is the main determinant
of transit ridership. The result of a study conducted by Kwoka et al. [74] in Denver, Colorado,
suggested that locating workplaces closer to transit is more effective in encouraging non-car workers to
commute than residential places. Evans and Pratt [75] reported that every 1000 feet away from stations
on the Washington Metro lines, the reduction in transit mode share regarding the office location was
58% higher than that of housing. Recent research on ridership-determinant factors of the Shanghai
rail transit system has revealed that employment within 500 m of a station is the dominant factor in
increasing rail passenger volume, which is, therefore, the key component of TOD planning [76].
The potential ridership using the land use allocation obtained from the benchmark study (Table 8)
and the optimized design of the Jakarta TOD (Table 10) were then compared with the ridership of
the existing Jakarta TOD plan (Table 7). The existing planned design of the Jakarta TOD comprised
residential development as its major land use, with other non-residential developments were allocated
less than 40%. Table 11 shows the additional rate of ridership in each case study resulting from the
evaluation of the benchmark design and optimization process.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 3798 15 of 20

Table 10. Ridership evaluation of the optimized Jakarta TOD.

Development
Estimation
TOD Project Residential Office Hotel Retail Others of Daily
Ridership
m2 % m2 % m2 % m2 % m2 %
Jaticempaka 40,389 24 40,389 24 25,243 15 42,072 25 20,195 12 16,374
Ciracas 68,810 24 68,810 24 43,007 15 71,678 25 34,405 12 27,895
Cibubur 38,400 24 38,400 24 24,000 15 40,000 25 19,200 12 15,567
Bekasi Timur 42,744 24 42,744 24 26,715 15 44,525 25 21,372 12 17,328

Table 11. Additional ridership of benchmark and optimized design compared to the ridership of the
existing TOD plan.

Percentage of Additional Ridership Compared to Existing TOD Design Plan

Case Study
Benchmark-Based Design (%) Optimized Design (%)
Jaticempaka 39 51
Ciracas 43 55
Cibubur 13 22
Bekasi Timur 25 36

The optimized design was capable of boosting the LRT ridership up to 55% in Ciracas, 51% in
Jaticempaka and 36% in Bekasi Timur, while the lowest ridership optimization took place in Cibubur.
This optimized mixed-use allocation for the Jakarta TOD areas, which comprised 24% residential,
25% retail, 15% hotel, 24% office and 12% others, as shown in Figure 8, will be able to generate
maximum 2019,
Sustainability ridership forPEER
11, x FOR the Jakarta
REVIEWLRT. 16 of 20

Optimized mixed-use
Figure 8. Optimized mixed-use allocation
allocation for the TOD in the Jakarta LRT station area.

Comparing the
Comparing the maximized
maximized ridership
ridership generated
generated by by the
the optimized
optimized TODTOD design with the
design with the existing
existing
TOD
TOD design, it can be seen that the ridership in Ciracas was boosted by 9931 passengers daily,daily,
design, it can be seen that the ridership in Ciracas was boosted by 9931 passengers 5500
5500 passengers
passengers daily daily in Jaticempaka,
in Jaticempaka, 4615 passengers
4615 passengers daily indaily in Timur
Bekasi Bekasi andTimur2854and 2854 passengers
passengers daily in
daily in Cibubur.
Cibubur. This was in This
linewas
withinthe
linefinding
with the finding
of the studyofbythe study and
Cervero by Cervero
Murakami and Murakami
[11] [11]
investigating
investigating the transit ridership of the TOD in Hong Kong, which pursued
the transit ridership of the TOD in Hong Kong, which pursued a transit value capture to fund the a transit value capture
to fund the
railway railway through
investment investment the through the of
integration integration of the and
the rail transit rail transit and urban development
urban development named the
‘R+P’ program that showed that a transit-oriented design of a rail station yields benefits not onlynot
named the ‘R+P’ program that showed that a transit-oriented design of a rail station yields benefits to
onlyreal
the to the realprices
estate estate but
prices buttoalso
also the to the transit
transit ridership.
ridership. The mixed-land
The mixed-land use, design
use, design integration
integration and
and pedestrian-oriented
pedestrian-oriented walking
walking environment
environment as as
thethe keyelements
key elementsof of transit-oriented
transit-oriented development
development
evidently have a positive impact on ridership at the Hong Kong’s rail
evidently have a positive impact on ridership at the Hong Kong’s rail transit stations. transit stations.
The finding
The finding of of this
this study
study supported
supported the the TOD
TOD principle
principle that
that well
well designed
designed TOD TOD with
with land
land use
use
diversity will help transit service to sustainably finance its operation through the
diversity will help transit service to sustainably finance its operation through the farebox generatedfarebox generated by
by maximum ridership. Moreover, property development designed with consideration to its
accessibility to transit can also be benefited in the form of a property price upgrade. Moreover,
universal accessibility addresses the issue on social equity by making the safe and affordable mode
of transport available for everyone, opening equal access to basic needs such as education, health and
employment opportunity.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 3798 16 of 20

maximum ridership. Moreover, property development designed with consideration to its accessibility
to transit can also be benefited in the form of a property price upgrade. Moreover, universal accessibility
addresses the issue on social equity by making the safe and affordable mode of transport available for
everyone, opening equal access to basic needs such as education, health and employment opportunity.
Well planned integrated transit and its diverse land development are the most effective way to
achieve sustainability in urban development, as they help growing cities improve their economic
development, ecological sustainability and social equity by providing inclusive transport and a livable
environment accessible for all. Therefore, in order to achieve sustainable urban development, this study
attempted to address this issue by formulating optimum densities around transit areas by putting
in close proximity all functions including the residential, retail/commercial, office and other areas
(parking spaces and open places) integrated into the concept of “live-work-play-stay-others” in the
development of a TOD project which can generate more ridership for the rail transit modal split.

5. Conclusions
TOD planning plays a significant role in maximizing the transit revenue from user demand and in
creating compact and sustainable urban development in a limited land area. To obtain optimization for
the planning of mixed-use TOD, this study took into account a mathematical programming approach,
which typically allocated limited land resources between several competing users and different mixes
to achieve a certain objective. In this regard, linear programming was seen as a suitable analytical tool
for such analysis. This paper therefore presents a linear programming framework by defining decision
variables and formulating objectives and constraint functions based on similar TODs in different cities,
maximizing transit ridership with consideration to the performance indicators of a successful TOD as
the objective function. The GFA of each development type was defined as the decision variables for
the residential, office, hotel and commercial purposes. The constraints were formulated based on the
total range of each development’s GFA derived from the benchmark study of successful TODs around
the world.
The sole objective was to quantify linear functions consisting of ridership and GFA decision
variables. The values of the required input parameters, such as trip generation rates, were obtained
by multiplying the transit modal split by the area needed per person in a building plan, while the
highest trip rate was generated by office development (0.16 person/m2 ), with residential development
(0.08 person/m2 ) generating the lowest. Thus, it can be concluded that the more mixed-use the
development of the Jakarta TOD is, the higher its potential to produce a higher level of transit
ridership with more livable communities than the existing TOD scenario, which was dominated by
residential use.
This study encourages TOD planning to prioritize the diversity in land use allocation in order to
be able to generate maximum ridership. In this regard, this paper also recommends that the city’s
policymakers contribute to this by establishing supportive policy instruments and implementation
frameworks regarding the land use diversity patterns to foster the development of TOD so that
the sustainable urban development in terms of sustainable finance, environment as well as society,
can be achieved.
Future studies need to be conducted to further examine the impact of the development scale,
such as the building coverage ratio and the floor area ratio of each type of property, on transit ridership.
These should also fulfill the ‘5D’ requirement of the TOD principles, namely density, diversity, design,
distance to transit and destination accessibility. Furthermore, once TOD areas in the LRT corridor in
Jakarta are in operation, studies assessing its performance need to be carried out. These should be able
to support the purpose of sustainable development, especially in the use of transit.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, M.A.B. and G.S.; data curation, F.A.I. and B.E.I.; writing—review and
editing, P.M. and M.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 3798 17 of 20

Acknowledgments: This research was supported by research grants from Universitas Indonesia and the Ministry
of Research and Higher Education, Republic of Indonesia (Kemristekdikti).
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Suzuki, H.; Murakami, J.; Hong, Y.H.; Tamayose, B. Financing Transit-Oriented Development with Land
Values: Adapting Land Value Capture in Developing Countries; The World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2015.
ISBN 1464801495.
2. Ma, X.; Chen, X.; Li, X.; Ding, C.; Wang, Y. Sustainable station-level planning: An integrated transport and
land use design model for transit-oriented development. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 170, 1052–1063. [CrossRef]
3. Mudigonda, S.; Ozbay, K.; Ozturk, O.; Iyer, S.; Noland, R.B. Quantifying transportation benefits of
transit-oriented development in New Jersey. Transp. Res. Rec. 2014, 2417, 111–120. [CrossRef]
4. Vale, D.S.; Viana, C.M.; Pereira, M. The extended node-place model at the local scale: Evaluating the
integration of land use and transport for Lisbon’s subway network. J. Transp. Geogr. 2018, 69, 282–293.
[CrossRef]
5. Bardaka, E.; Hersey, J. Comparing the travel behavior of affordable and market-rate housing residents in the
transit-rich neighborhoods of Denver, CO. Travel Behav. Soc. 2019, 15, 74–87. [CrossRef]
6. Newman, P.; Kenworthy, J.; Glazebrook, G. Peak Car Use and the Rise of Global Rail: Why This Is Happening
and What It Means for Large and Small Cities. J. Transp. Technol. 2013, 3, 272–287. [CrossRef]
7. Zhang, M.; Xu, T. Uncovering the Potential for Value Capture from Rail Transit Services. J. Urban Plan. Dev.
2017, 143, 04017006. [CrossRef]
8. Kenworthy, J.R. The eco-city: Ten key transport and planning dimensions for sustainable city development.
Environ. Urban. 2006, 18, 67–85. [CrossRef]
9. Bertolini, L. Spatial development patterns and public transport: The application of an analytical model in
the Netherlands. Plan. Pract. Res. 1999, 14, 199–210. [CrossRef]
10. Li, Y.; Guo, H.L.; Li, H.; Xu, G.H.; Wang, Z.R.; Kong, C.W. Transit-oriented land planning model considering
sustainability of mass rail transit. J. Urban Plan. Dev. 2010, 136, 243–248. [CrossRef]
11. Cervero, R.; Murakami, J. Rail and property development in Hong Kong: Experiences and extensions.
Urban Stud. 2009, 46, 2019–2043. [CrossRef]
12. Li, X.; Liu, Y.; Gao, Z.; Liu, D. Decision tree based station-level rail transit ridership forecasting. J. Urban Plan.
Dev. 2016, 142, 04016011. [CrossRef]
13. Kim, T.; Sohn, D.W.; Choo, S. An analysis of the relationship between pedestrian traffic volumes and built
environment around metro stations in Seoul. KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 2017, 21, 1443–1452. [CrossRef]
14. Lin, J.J.; Li, C.N. A grey programming model for regional transit-oriented development planning. Pap. Reg.
Sci. 2008, 87, 119–138. [CrossRef]
15. Lin, J.J.; Gau, C.C. A TOD planning model to review the regulation of allowable development densities
around subway stations. Land Use Policy 2006, 23, 353–360. [CrossRef]
16. Addae-Dapaah, K. Highest and best use in the valuation of mixed-use development sites: A linear
programming approach. J. Prop. Res. 2005, 22, 19–35. [CrossRef]
17. Addae-dapaah, K. Nonlinear Modelling of the Highest and Best Use in the Valuation of Mixed-Use Development
Sites; IRES Working Paper Series; National University of Singapore: Kent Ridge, Singapore, 2011; pp. 1–35.
18. Winokur, H.S.; Frick, J.B.; Bean, J.C. The Affair Between the Land Developer and the Management Scientist.
Interfaces 1981, 11, 50–56. [CrossRef]
19. Bevilacqua, C.; Cappellano, F.; Zingali, L. TOD -Transit oriented development: A sustainable tool towards
smart living. In Proceedings of the 7th Conference of International Forum on Urbanism, 7–11 October 2013;
National Chen Kung University in Tainan: Taiwan, China, 2013.
20. Wey, W.M.; Zhang, H.; Chang, Y.J. Alternative transit-oriented development evaluation in sustainable built
environment planning. Habitat Int. 2016, 55, 109–123. [CrossRef]
21. Calthorpe, P.; Fulton, W. The Regional City; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2001. ISBN 9781597266215.
22. Zhu, Z.; Lee, M.; Pan, Y.; Yang, H.; Zhang, L. Analyzing the impact of a planned transit-oriented development
on mode share and traffic conditions. Transp. Plan. Technol. 2018, 41, 816–829. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2020, 12, 3798 18 of 20

23. Yuan, R.Q.; Tao, X.; Yang, X.L. CO2 emission of urban passenger transportation in China from 2000 to 2014.
Adv. Clim. Chang. Res. 2019, 10, 59–67. [CrossRef]
24. Loo, B.P.Y.; du Verle, F. Transit-oriented development in future cities: Towards a two-level sustainable
mobility strategy. Int. J. Urban Sci. 2017, 21, 54–67. [CrossRef]
25. Bamwesigye, D.; Hlavackova, P. Analysis of sustainable transport for smart cities. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2140.
[CrossRef]
26. Calthorpe, P. The Next American Metropolis: Ecology, Community, and the American Dream; Princeton Architectural
Press: New York, NY, USA, 1993.
27. Dock, F.C.; Swenson, C.J. Transit-Oriented Urban Design Impacts on Suburban Land Use and Transportation
Planning. Transp. Res. Rec. 2003, 1831, 184–192. [CrossRef]
28. Cervero, R.; Kockelman, K. Travel demand and the 3Ds: Density, diversity, and design. Transp. Res. Part D
Transp. Environ. 1997, 2, 199–219. [CrossRef]
29. Ewing, R.; Cervero, R. Travel and the built environment: A synthesis. Transp. Res. Rec. 2001, 1780, 87–114.
[CrossRef]
30. Jerde Places: D-Cube City. Jerde 2011. Available online: https://www.jerde.com/places/detail/d-cube-city
(accessed on 20 September 2019).
31. Creative Housing Associates. Transit Oriented Development: Three Case Studies. 2009. Available online:
http://railvolution.org/rv2009_pdfs/20091031_10am_PrivFund_Dieden.pdf (accessed on 31 October 2019).
32. Knowles, R.D. Transit Oriented Development in Copenhagen, Denmark: From the Finger Plan to Ørestad.
J. Transp. Geogr. 2012, 22, 251–261. [CrossRef]
33. Jaffe, E. The Secret to Tokyo’s Rail Success. Available online: https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2012/
05/secret-tokyos-rail-success/2044/ (accessed on 18 May 2012).
34. Xue, C.Q.L.; Zhai, H.; Roberts, J. An urban island floating on the MTR station: A case study of the West
Kowloon development in Hong Kong. Urban Des. Int. 2010, 15, 191–207. [CrossRef]
35. Kwon, Y. Sejong Si (City): Are TOD and TND models effective in planning Korea’s new capital? Cities
2015, 42, 242–257. [CrossRef]
36. Jacobson, J.; Forsyth, A. Seven American TODs: Good Practices for Urban Design in Transit-Oriented
Development Projects. J. Transp. Land Use 2008, 1, 51–88. [CrossRef]
37. Renne, J.L. From transit-adjacent to transit-oriented development. Local Environ. 2009, 14, 1–15. [CrossRef]
38. Li, Z.; Han, Z.; Xin, J.; Luo, X.; Su, S.; Weng, M. Transit oriented development among metro station areas in
Shanghai, China: Variations, typology, optimization and implications for land use planning. Land Use Policy
2019, 82, 269–282. [CrossRef]
39. Tilahun, N.; Fan, Y. Transit and job accessibility: An empirical study of access to competitive clusters and
regional growth strategies for enhancing transit accessibility. Transp. Policy 2014, 33, 17–25. [CrossRef]
40. Renne, J.L. Evaluating transit-oriented development using a sustainability framework: Lessons from Perth’s
network city. In Proceedings of the Transportation Research Board 87th Annual Meeting, Washington, DC,
USA, 13–17 January 2008.
41. Simon, D.; Arfvidsson, H.; Anand, G.; Bazaz, A.; Fenna, G.; Foster, K.; Jain, G.; Hansson, S.; Evans, L.M.;
Moodley, N.; et al. Developing and testing the Urban Sustainable Development Goal’s targets and
indicators—A five-city study. Environ. Urban. 2016, 28, 49–63. [CrossRef]
42. Valencia, S.C.; Simon, D.; Croese, S.; Nordqvist, J.; Oloko, M.; Sharma, T.; Taylor Buck, N.; Versace, I.
Adapting the Sustainable Development Goals and the New Urban Agenda to the city level: Initial reflections
from a comparative research project. Int. J. Urban Sustain. Dev. 2019, 11, 4–23. [CrossRef]
43. Galelo, A.; Ribeiro, A.; Martinez, L.M. Measuring and Evaluating the Impacts of TOD Measures—Searching
for Evidence of TOD Characteristics in Azambuja Train Line. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2014, 111, 899–908.
[CrossRef]
44. Li, C.; Lai, T. Sustainable Development and Transit-Oriented Development Cities in Taiwan. In Proceedings
of the Annual International Sustainable Development Research Conference 2006, Hong Kong, China,
6–8 April 2006.
45. Altef, A.N.; Mokhtarian, H.; Shokri, F.; Ismail, A.; Rahmat, R.A.O.K. Switching model for private vehicles to
public transportation system in case of sana’a. Res. J. Appl. Sci. Eng. Technol. 2013, 6, 2366–2372. [CrossRef]
46. Dell’Olio, L.; Ibeas, A.; Dominguez, A.; Gonzalez, F. Passenger preference analysis: Light rail transit or bus
versus car. Transport 2012, 27, 276–285. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2020, 12, 3798 19 of 20

47. Lund, H. Reasons for living in a transit-oriented development and associated transit use. J. Am. Plan. Assoc.
2006, 72, 357–366. [CrossRef]
48. Papa, E.; Bertolini, L. Accessibility and Transit-Oriented Development in European metropolitan areas.
J. Transp. Geogr. 2015, 47, 70–83. [CrossRef]
49. Ewing, R.; Tian, G.; Park, K.; Sabouri, S.; Stinger, P.; Proffitt, D. Comparative case studies: Trip and parking
generation at Orenco Station TOD, Portland Region and Station Park TAD, Salt Lake City Region. Cities
2019, 87, 48–59. [CrossRef]
50. Dell’Isola, P. Value Engineering: Practical Applications for Design, Construction, Maintenance & Operations;
John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2014. ISBN 0876294638.
51. Xu, J.; Lu, Y.; Huang, L. Application of Value Engineering in Urban Planning Practice-3 Cases at Different
Levels. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management
2015; Atlantis Press: Paris, France, 2016; pp. 383–391.
52. Berawi, M.A. Empowering Added Value in Highway Project: A Strategy to Improve the Feasibility.
Available online: https://www.intechopen.com/books/highway-engineering/empowering-added-value-in-
highway-project-a-strategy-to-improve-the-feasibility (accessed on 6 December 2017).
53. In, C.S.; Nam-kung, I.; Hyun, C.T. A study on the consecutiveness of the function analysis and idea
creation phase with function integration (FI) and hierarchical value engineering concept modules(HVECM).
In Proceedings of the Society of American Value Engineers—48th Annual Conference of SAVE International
2008: Discovering Value Added Strategies, Reno, Nevada, 9–12 June 2008.
54. Husin, A.E.; Berawi, M.A.; Dikun, S.; Ilyas, T.; Berawi, A.R.B. Forecasting demand on mega infrastructure
projects: Increasing financial feasibility. Int. J. Technol. 2015, 6, 73–83. [CrossRef]
55. Woodhead, R.M.; Berawi, M.A. An alternative theory of idea generation. Int. J. Manag. Pract. 2008, 3, 1.
[CrossRef]
56. Berawi, M.A.; Woodhead, R. The If-Then Modelling Relationship of Casual Function and Their Conditioning
Effect on Intentionality. Value World 2005, 28, 16.
57. Berawi, M.A.; Susantono, B. Developing conceptual design of mega infrastructure project: Creating innovation
and added value. In Proceedings of the SAVE Value Summit 2013, Arlington, VA, USA, 24–27 June 2013.
58. Berawi, M.A.; Sunardi, A.; Ichsan, M. Chief-screen 1.0 as the internet of things platform in project monitoring
& controlling to improve project schedule performance. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2019, 161, 1249–1257.
59. Berawi, M.A.; Susantono, B.; Miraj, P.; Berawi, A.R.B.; Rahman, H.Z.; Husin, A. Enhancing Value for Money
of Mega Infrastructure Projects Development Using Value Engineering Method. Procedia Technol. 2014, 16,
1037–1046. [CrossRef]
60. Berawi, M.A.; Nabila, A.; Miraj, P.; Rahman, H.A.; Berawi, A.R.B. Analysis of life cycle cost and public-private
partnership in the development of Walini City as technology park. Int. J. Technol. 2018, 9, 1469–1479.
[CrossRef]
61. Berawi, M.A.; Ibrahim, B.E.; Miraj, P. Developing a conceptual design of transit-oriented development to
improve urban land use planning. J. Des. Built Environ. 2019, 19, 40–48.
62. LRT Jabodebek Proyek LRT Jabodebek 2016. Available online: https://www.rukamen.com/blog/
pembangunan-proyek-lrt-di-jakarta/ (accessed on 28 May 2019).
63. Cohon, J.L. Multiobjective Programming and Planning; Dover Books on Computer Science; Dover Publications:
Mineola, NY, USA, 2013. ISBN 9780486153070.
64. Lund, H.M.; Cervero, R.; Willson, R. Travel Characteristics of Transit-Oriented Development in California;
California Department of Transportation: Sacramento, CA, USA, 2004.
65. Loo, B.P.Y.; Chen, C.; Chan, E.T.H. Rail-based transit-oriented development: Lessons from New York City
and Hong Kong. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2010, 97, 202–212. [CrossRef]
66. Loo, B.P.Y.; Cheng, A.H.T.; Nichols, S.L. Transit-oriented development on greenfield versus infill sites:
Some lessons from Hong Kong. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2017, 167, 34–48. [CrossRef]
67. Ratner, K.A.; Goetz, A.R. The reshaping of land use and urban form in Denver through transit-oriented
development. Cities 2013, 30, 31–46. [CrossRef]
68. Hendrigan, C.; Newman, P. Dense, mixed-use, walkable urban precinct to support sustainable transport or
vice versa? A model for consideration from Perth, Western Australia. Int. J. Sustain. Transp. 2017, 11, 11–19.
[CrossRef]
Sustainability 2020, 12, 3798 20 of 20

69. Soltani, A.; Kono, N. Transit-oriented development versus car-oriented sprawl: The story of Tokyo and
Adelaide. In Proceedings of the 29th Australian Transport Research Forum (ATRF), Gold Coast, Australia,
27–29 September 2006; pp. 1–15.
70. Kato, H. Urban Rail Development in Tokyo: Integrated Public Transportation Planning; The University of Tokyo:
Tokyo, Japan, 2012.
71. Nuzir, F.A.; Dewancker, B.J. From Sustainable to Low Carbon City: Zero Emission Urban Mobility in
Japanese Cities. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference of Asia Institute of Urban Environment,
Daegu, Korea, 11–14 July 2014; pp. 3–8.
72. Adler, D. Metric Handbook: Planning and Design Data; Architectural Press: Oxford, UK, 1999. ISBN
9780750608992.
73. Engineering ToolBox Building Area per Person. Eng ToolBox 2003. Available online: https://www.
engineeringtoolbox.com/number-persons-buildings-d_118.html (accessed on 28 May 2019).
74. Kwoka, G.J.; Boschmann, E.E.; Goetz, A.R. The impact of transit station areas on the travel behaviors of
workers in Denver, Colorado. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2015, 80, 277–287. [CrossRef]
75. Evans, J.E.; Pratt, R.H. Transit Oriented Development: Traveler Response to Transportation System Changes;
National Academy of Sciences: Washington, DC, USA, 2007. ISBN 9780309098922.
76. Pan, H.; Li, J.; Shen, Q.; Shi, C. What determines rail transit passenger volume? Implications for transit
oriented development planning. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2017, 57, 52–63. [CrossRef]

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).