Tag: transport

Land Use–Transport Interaction: The Need for Policy Intervention

By Devraj Verma

The relationship between land use and transport is one of the most fundamental and dynamic elements shaping urban growth, accessibility, and sustainability. Land use determines where people live, work, and engage in various activities, while transport systems influence the ease with which these activities can be accessed. This interaction creates a continuous feedback loop—transport investments shape land development patterns, and in turn, urban form influences travel behavior and transport demand. Given the complexity of this interdependence, policy intervention becomes essential to ensure balanced, equitable, and sustainable development outcomes.

In most developing and rapidly urbanizing regions, the lack of coordinated land use and transport planning has resulted in sprawling urban forms, long commutes, and inefficient infrastructure utilization. The traditional approach of addressing land use and transportation as separate sectors has proven inadequate to deal with challenges such as traffic congestion, air pollution, and social inequities in accessibility. Hence, a policy framework integrating land use and transport planning is needed to promote compact urban forms, reduce travel demand, and enhance accessibility through sustainable modes like public transit, walking, and cycling.

One of the major policy needs lies in promoting Transit-Oriented Development (TOD)—a strategy that integrates high-density, mixed-use development with efficient public transport networks (Sharma & Dehalwar, 2025). By aligning land use zoning with transport corridors, TOD encourages a modal shift away from private vehicles and fosters livable, walkable communities. Policies supporting TOD can include density bonuses near transit nodes, reduced parking requirements, and mixed-income housing incentives to ensure social inclusivity. As highlighted in studies by Cervero and Guerra (2011), cities that implemented TOD policies—such as Curitiba, Singapore, and Copenhagen—have achieved higher public transit shares and reduced urban sprawl, demonstrating the tangible benefits of such policy interventions.

Another critical area for policy action is integrated urban governance. Land use and transport planning often fall under different institutional jurisdictions, leading to fragmented decision-making. Effective policy must therefore establish inter-agency coordination mechanisms, unified spatial planning frameworks, and integrated databases for transport and land use modeling. For instance, Singapore’s Land Transport Authority (LTA) exemplifies how centralized governance can successfully synchronize transport investments with spatial development policies, resulting in efficient land utilization and minimized congestion.

Moreover, policy interventions must address the equity dimension of land use–transport systems. Accessibility to jobs, education, and services should not be determined by socio-economic status or location. Policies promoting affordable housing near transit corridors, subsidized transit passes, and inclusive infrastructure design can ensure that marginalized communities also benefit from integrated planning. Without such interventions, market forces alone tend to create exclusionary patterns, pushing low-income groups to peripheral areas with poor connectivity.

Finally, climate and sustainability goals necessitate land use–transport integration in policy frameworks. Compact urban forms reduce per capita energy consumption, while policies promoting non-motorized and public transport modes significantly curb greenhouse gas emissions. Integrating transport and land use planning into national climate strategies aligns local development with global commitments under the Paris Agreement and the Sustainable Development Goals (particularly SDG 11—Sustainable Cities and Communities).

In conclusion, the interaction between land use and transport is not a spontaneous equilibrium but a system that requires strategic guidance through informed policy interventions. By integrating spatial and transport planning, encouraging transit-oriented and mixed-use development, ensuring social equity, and embedding sustainability in governance frameworks, policymakers can steer cities toward efficiency, inclusivity, and resilience. The need for such policies is not merely academic—it is an urgent prerequisite for achieving sustainable urban futures.

References

Acheampong, R. A., & Silva, E. A. (2015). Land use–transport interaction modeling: A review of the literature and future research directions. Journal of Transport and Land use, 8(3), 11-38.

Sharma, S. N., & Dehalwar, K. (2025). A Systematic Literature Review of Transit-Oriented Development to Assess Its Role in Economic Development of City. Transportation in Developing Economies, 11(2), 23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40890-025-00245-1

Pfaffenbichler, P., Emberger, G., & Shepherd, S. (2010). A system dynamics approach to land use transport interaction modelling: the strategic model MARS and its application. System Dynamics Review, 26(3), 262-282.

Sharma, S. N., & Dehawar, K. (2025). Review of Landuse Transportation Interaction Model in Smart Urban Growth Management. European Transport, Issue 103, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17315313

Webster, F. V., & Paulley, N. J. (1990). An international study on land‐use and transport interaction. Transport Reviews, 10(4), 287-308.

Sharma, S. N., & Dehalwar, K. (2025). Examining the Inclusivity of India’s National Urban Transport Policy for Senior Citizens. In D. S.-K. Ting & J. A. Stagner, Transforming Healthcare Infrastructure (1st ed., pp. 115–134). CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003513834-5

Lodhi, A. S., Jaiswal, A., & Sharma, S. N. (2024). Assessing bus users satisfaction using discrete choice models: A case of Bhopal. Innovative Infrastructure Solutions, 9(11), 437. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41062-024-01652-w

Sharma, S. N., Kumar, A., & Dehalwar, K. (2024). The Precursors of Transit-oriented Development. Economic and Political Weekly, 59(14), 16–20. https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.10939448

Van Wee, B. (2015). Toward a new generation of land use transport interaction models. Journal of Transport and Land Use, 8(3), 1-10.

Sharma, S. N., Singh, D., & Dehalwar, K. (2024). Surrogate Safety Analysis- Leveraging Advanced Technologies for Safer Roads. Suranaree Journal of Science and Technology, 31(4), 010320(1-14). https://doi.org/10.55766/sujst-2024-04-e03837

Kumar, G., Vyas, S., Sharma, S. N., & Dehalwar, K. (2025). Urban growth prediction using CA-ANN model and spatial analysis for planning policy in Indore city, India. GeoJournal, 90(3), 139. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-025-11393-7 

Sharma, S. N. (2019). Review of most used urban growth models. International Journal of Advanced Research in Engineering and Technology, 10(3), 397-405. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/372478470_Review_of_Most_Used_Urban_Growth_Models 

Wilson, A. G. (1998). Land-use/transport interaction models: Past and future. Journal of transport economics and policy, 3-26.

 

History of Transit-Oriented Development (TOD)

Daily writing prompt
What was the last live performance you saw?
View all responses

By Shashikant N Sharma

Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) is a planning and design strategy that promotes compact, walkable communities centered around high-quality public transportation systems. The concept has evolved over time, drawing from various urban development practices, transportation innovations, and planning philosophies. Its history can be traced through several key phases:

1. Early Inspirations (19th to early 20th Century)

The roots of TOD can be traced back to the development of rail-based suburbs in Europe and North America during the 19th century. As cities industrialized, railways and streetcars enabled the development of new residential communities beyond the congested urban core:

  • United Kingdom: The garden city movement led by Ebenezer Howard in the late 1800s emphasized self-contained communities with strong rail connectivity.
  • United States: In cities like Boston and New York, neighborhoods developed along streetcar lines, giving rise to the term streetcar suburbs.
  • India: Colonial-era developments such as New Delhi were also shaped by railway access and hierarchical planning.

These early examples were not called TOD, but they shared its core principle: locating housing, jobs, and services near transit.

2. Post-War Suburbanization and Auto Dependence (1945–1970s)

After World War II, especially in countries like the U.S., there was a significant shift toward automobile-centric suburban development. Public transit declined in favor of highways and low-density suburban sprawl:

  • Urban decentralization led to spatial separation of land uses (residential, commercial, industrial).
  • Public transport use declined sharply.
  • This period marked a retreat from TOD-like principles, as city planning favored highways and parking over compactness and accessibility.

3. Emergence of the TOD Concept (1980s–1990s)

The term “Transit-Oriented Development” was formally coined by American architect and planner Peter Calthorpe in the early 1990s. His book The Next American Metropolis (1993) outlined TOD as a response to the problems of sprawl:

  • He defined TOD as compact, mixed-use communities within walking distance (usually 400–800 meters) of a transit stop.
  • Calthorpe advocated for integrating land use and transit planning to create more sustainable and livable urban environments.
  • During this period, cities in the U.S., Canada, and Europe began incorporating TOD into their long-term growth strategies.

4. Global Adoption and Expansion (2000s–Present)

TOD gained global traction as cities recognized the need for sustainable urban growth:

  • Asia: Cities like Hong Kong, Tokyo, Singapore, and Seoul developed sophisticated TOD models with high-density developments above or around metro stations.
  • Europe: Many cities enhanced existing TOD frameworks with tram, metro, and cycling integration.
  • India: The National TOD Policy (2017) was launched by the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs to guide integrated land use and transport planning. Delhi, Ahmedabad, and Bengaluru have initiated TOD projects around metro corridors.
  • Latin America: BRT-based TOD emerged in cities like Bogotá and Curitiba.
  • TOD has also been integrated into climate resilience strategies and affordable housing policies.

5. Contemporary Trends and Innovations

Recent developments have further evolved TOD:

  • Technology Integration: Smart mobility, Mobility-as-a-Service (MaaS), and data-driven planning enhance TOD effectiveness.
  • First-Last Mile Solutions: Cycling, e-scooters, ride-sourcing, and pedestrian infrastructure are increasingly emphasized.
  • Inclusive TOD: Focus on equitable access to housing, gender-sensitive design, and affordability.

Conclusion

Transit-Oriented Development has evolved from early rail-based planning to a comprehensive urban development strategy adopted worldwide. As cities grapple with climate change, congestion, and social equity, TOD remains central to efforts to create compact, connected, and sustainable urban forms.

References

Cervero, R. (2004). Transit-oriented development in the United States: Experiences, challenges, and prospects.

Dittmar, H., & Ohland, G. (Eds.). (2012). The new transit town: Best practices in transit-oriented development. Island Press.

Knowles, R. D., Ferbrache, F., & Nikitas, A. (2020). Transport’s historical, contemporary and future role in shaping urban development: Re-evaluating transit oriented development. Cities, 99, 102607.

Lund, H. (2006). Reasons for living in a transit-oriented development, and associated transit use. Journal of the American Planning Association, 72(3), 357-366.

Sharma, S. N. (2024). Sustainable Transit-Oriented Development: A Solution to Urban Congestion. Track2Training

Sharma, S. N., & Dehalwar, K. (2025). Assessing the Transit-Oriented Development and Travel Behavior of the Residents in Developing Countries: A Case of Delhi, India. Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 151(3), 05025018.

Sharma, S. N., Kumar, A., & Dehalwar, K. (2024). The Precursors of Transit-oriented Development. EPW Economic & Political Weekly, 59(16), 14.

Lodhi, A. S., Jaiswal, A., & Sharma, S. N. (2024). Assessing bus users satisfaction using discrete choice models: a case of Bhopal. Innovative Infrastructure Solutions, 9(11), 1-27.

Understanding the Language of the Road: A Guide to Road Signs and Symbols

Daily writing prompt
Describe a random encounter with a stranger that stuck out positively to you.
View all responses

By Shashikant Nishant Sharma

Road signs and symbols are the silent communicators of our highways and byways, speaking a universal language understood by drivers around the world. From the simple yet essential stop sign to the intricate markings guiding us through complex intersections, these visual cues play a crucial role in ensuring safety and order on our roads. Let’s delve into the world of road signs and symbols to better understand their significance and the messages they convey.

Photo by Athena on Pexels.com

The Purpose of Road Signs and Symbols

At their core, road signs and symbols serve as a means of communication between road users and traffic authorities. They provide vital information, warnings, and regulatory instructions to drivers, pedestrians, and cyclists, helping them navigate the road network safely and efficiently. Without these visual aids, the chaos and confusion on our roads would be palpable, leading to increased accidents and congestion.

Types of Road Signs

Road signs can be categorized into several types based on their purpose and function:

  1. Regulatory Signs: These signs enforce traffic laws and regulations. Examples include stop signs, speed limit signs, and no-entry signs.
  2. Warning Signs: Warning signs alert drivers to potential hazards or changes in road conditions ahead. They include signs for sharp curves, slippery roads, pedestrian crossings, and animal crossings.
  3. Guide Signs: Guide signs provide information about directions, destinations, distances, and services available along the route. They include signs for exits, highway interchanges, rest areas, and tourist attractions.
  4. Informational Signs: Informational signs convey non-regulatory information, such as parking regulations, historical markers, and points of interest.
  5. Construction and Maintenance Signs: These signs inform drivers of ongoing roadwork, detours, and temporary changes to traffic patterns.

Understanding Road Symbols

In addition to signs with written messages, road users encounter various symbols that convey important information at a glance. Some common road symbols include:

  1. Arrow Markings: Arrows indicate the direction of travel, lane usage, and traffic flow. They are essential for guiding drivers through intersections, ramps, and lane merges.
  2. Pedestrian Symbols: Pedestrian symbols depict crosswalks, pedestrian zones, and pedestrian crossing points, reminding drivers to yield to pedestrians and exercise caution.
  3. Bicycle Symbols: Bicycle symbols mark dedicated bike lanes, shared roadways, and bike crossings, promoting safe interaction between cyclists and motorists.
  4. Lane Markings: Lane markings, such as solid lines, dashed lines, and chevrons, delineate lanes, indicate permissible maneuvers, and regulate traffic flow on multi-lane roads.
  5. Railroad Crossing Symbols: These symbols warn drivers of upcoming railroad crossings, prompting them to stop, look, and listen for approaching trains.

The Importance of Road Sign Recognition

Recognizing and understanding road signs and symbols is a fundamental aspect of safe driving. By obeying these visual cues, drivers can anticipate road conditions, adjust their speed and behavior accordingly, and avoid potential accidents. Additionally, familiarity with road signs is essential for passing driving exams and obtaining driver’s licenses in many jurisdictions.

Conclusion

Road signs and symbols are the unsung heroes of our transportation infrastructure, guiding us through the complexities of the modern road network. From directing traffic to promoting safety and efficiency, these visual aids play a vital role in shaping our driving experiences. By understanding the language of the road, drivers can navigate with confidence, knowing that each sign and symbol is a beacon of information guiding them toward their destination safely.

References

Agarwal, S., & Sharma, S. N. (2014). Universal Design to Ensure Equitable Society. International Journal of Engineering and Technical Research (IJETR), 1.

Dehalwar, K. Institute of Town Planners India is Dedicated to Planning Education and Development in India.

Dewar, R., & Pronin, M. (2023). Designing road sign symbols. Transportation research part F: traffic psychology and behaviour, 94, 466-491.

Greenhalgh, J., & Mirmehdi, M. (2012). Real-time detection and recognition of road traffic signs. IEEE transactions on intelligent transportation systems, 13(4), 1498-1506.

Krampen, M. (1965). Signs and symbols in graphic communication. Design Quarterly, (62), 1-31.

Merriman, P., & Jones, R. (2009). ‘Symbols of Justice’: the Welsh Language Society’s campaign for bilingual road signs in Wales, 1967–1980. Journal of Historical Geography, 35(2), 350-375.

Sharma, S. N. Leveraging GIS for Enhanced Planning Education.

Zwahlen, H. T., & Schnell, T. (1999). Legibility of traffic sign text and symbols. Transportation research record, 1692(1), 142-151.