This article presents a new theoretical approach for assessing the implementation process of transit-oriented development (TOD). Through a conceptual framework, based on the notion of the urban project as an instrument of public policy, it highlights two distinct processes at work in the implementation of every TOD project: territorialization and differentiation. The first suggests that there are necessarily discrepancies between metropolitan planning strategies and the very local nature of the TOD projects. The second suggests that implementing a TOD project is an incremental process rooted in local policy conditions that must be factored in at every phase of the implementation process.
ArabNadia. 2018. “Pour une théorie du projet en urbanisme” [For a theory of the urban project]. Revue européenne des sciences sociales56 (1): 219–40.
2.
AscherFrançois. 2012. Les Nouveaux principes de l’urbanisme. [The New Principles of Urban Planning]. La Tour d’Aigues: Editions de l’Aube.
3.
BelzerDenaAutlerGerald. 2002. Transit Oriented Development: Moving from Rhetoric to Reality. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy.
4.
BoarnetMarlon G.CompinNicolas S.1999. “Transit-Oriented Development in San Diego County: The Incremental Implementation of a Planning Idea.” Journal of the American Planning Association65 (1): 80–95.
5.
BoarnetMarlon G.CraneRandall. 1998. “Public Finance and Transit-Oriented Planning: New Evidence from Southern California.” Journal of Planning Education and Research17 (3): 206–19.
6.
BrewerKirkGrantJill L. (2015). “Seeking Density and Mix in the Suburbs: Challenges for Mid-sized Cities.” Planning Theory and Practice16 (2): 151–68.
7.
CalthorpePeter. 1993. The Next American Metropolis: Ecology, Community, and the American Dream. New York: Princeton Architectural Press.
8.
CarltonIan. 2007. “Histories of Transit-Oriented Development: Perspectives on the Development of TOD Concept.” Working Paper 2009-02, Institute of Urban and Regional Development, University of California, Berkeley.
9.
CerveroRobert. 2007. “Transit-Oriented Development’s Ridership Bonus: A Product of Self-selection and Public Policies.” Environment and Planning A39 (9): 20–68.
10.
CerveroRobertFerrellChristopherMurphySteven. 2002. “Transit-Oriented Development and Joint Development in the United States: A Literature Review.” TCRP Research Results Digest 52. http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_rrd_52.pdf.
11.
CerveroRobertKocklemanKara. 1997. “Travel Demand and the 3Ds: Density, Diversity, and Design.” Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment2 (3): 199–221.
12.
CombeLilaGauthierMarioGariépyMichelPaulhiac-ScherrerFlorenceScherrerFranck. 2012. Débattre pour transformer l’action urbaine. La planification urbaine durable à Grenoble, Lyon et Montréal, Montréal. [Debate to transform urban action. Sustainable urban planning in Grenoble, Lyon and Montreal, Montreal]. Montreal: Presses Universitaires de Montréal.
13.
Communauté métropolitaine de Montréal. 2018. Programme d’aide financière à la conception de l’aménagement des aires TOD. [Financial assistance program for the design of the development of TOD areas]. Montréal: Communauté métropolitaine de Montréal.
14.
ConklinJeffrey, ed. 2006. Dialogue Mapping: Building Shared Understanding of Wicked Problems. Hoboken: Wiley.
15.
Cournoyer-GendronMaude. 2017. “The Transit-Oriented Development Model in Montreal (Canada): Mobilizing a Concept and Negotiating Urban Development at the Local and Metropolitan Scale.” Environnement Urbain/Urban Environment. https://journals.openedition.org/eue/1871?lang=en.
16.
CurtisCareyRenneJohn L.BertoliniLuca, eds. 2009. Transit Oriented Development: Making It Happen. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing.
17.
DittmarHankOhlandGloria. 2004. The New Transit Town: Best Practices in Transit-Oriented Development. Washington, DC: Island Press.
18.
DumbaughEric. 2004. “Overcoming Financial and Institutional Barriers to TOD: Lindbergh Station Case Study.” Journal of Public Transportation7 (3): 43–70.
19.
DushinaAnnaScherrerFlorence PaulhiacScherrerFranck. 2015. “Le TOD comme instrument territorial de la coordination entre urbanisme et transport: le cas de Sainte-Thérèse dans la région métropolitaine de Montréal.” [The TOD as a territorial instrument for the coordination between land use and transport planning: the case of Sainte-Thérèse in the Montréal metropolitan region]. Flux101/102:69–81.
20.
DushinaAnnaScherrerFlorence PaulhiacScherrerFranck. 2017. “Le T.O.D comme projet urbain: un nouvel isntrument de la cohérence urbanisme-transport?” In Montréal et Bruxelles en projet: les enjeux de la densification urbaine, edited by AnanianPriscillaDeclèveBernard, 189–210. [he T.O.D. as an urban project: a new instrument for urban-transport coherence?” In Montreal and Brussels in the planning stages: the challenges of urban densification, edited by Priscilla Ananian & Bernard Declève, 189–210]. Louvain: Presses universitaires de Louvain.
21.
FeldmanSarahLewisPaulSchiffRebecca. 2012. “Transit-Oriented Development in the Montreal Metropolitan Region: Developer’s Perceptions of Supply Barriers.” Canadian Journal of Urban Research21 (2): 25–44.
22.
FilionPierre. 2003. “Towards Smart Growth? The Difficult Implementation of Alternatives to Urban Dispersion.” Canadian Journal of Urban Research12 (1): 48–70.
23.
FilionPierre. 2009. “The Mixed Success of Nodes as a Smart Growth Planning Policy.” Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design36:505–21.
24.
FilionPierreKramerAnna. 2012. “Transformative Metropolitan Development Models in Large Canadian Urban Areas: The Predominance of Nodes.” Urban Studies49 (10): 2237–64.
25.
FilionPierreMcSpurrenKatleen. 2007. “Smart Growth and Development Reality: The Difficult Co-ordination of Land Use and Transport Objectives.” Urban Studies44 (3): 501–23.
26.
FischlerRaphaël. 2003. “Vers un nouvel urbanisme pour de nouveaux quartiers: Revue des nouveaux courants nord-américains en urbanisme et Aménagement et de leurs possibilités d’application à Montréal.” [Towards a new urbanism for new neighbourhoods: Review of new North American urban planning and development trends and their potential application in Montreal]. Final report submitted to the City of Montreal, Office de l’Habitation.
27.
GrantJill L.2002. “Mixed Use in Theory and Practice: Canadian Experience with Implementing a Planning Principle.” Journal of the American Planning Association68 (1): 71–78.
28.
GrantJill L.2006. Planning the Good Community: New Urbanism in Theory and Practice. London: Routledge.
29.
GrantJill L.2009. “Theory and Practice in Planning Suburbs: Challenges to Implementing New Urbanism, Smart Growth and Sustainability Principles.” Planning Theory & Practice10 (1): 11–33.
30.
GrantJill L.BohdanowStephanie. 2008. “New Urbanism Developments in Canada: A Survey.” Journal of Urbanism: International Research on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability1 (2): 109–27.
31.
HessDaniel B.LombardiPeter A.2004. “Policy Support for and Barriers to Transit-Oriented Development in the Inner City: Literature Review.” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board1887 (1): 26–33.
32.
HullAngela. 2011. Transport Matters: Integrated Approaches to Planning City-Regions. London: Routledge.
33.
JacobsonJustinForsythAnn. 2008. “Seven American TODs: Good Practices for Urban Design in Transit-Oriented Development Projects.” Journal of Transport and Land Use1 (2): 51–88.
34.
JossSimonCowleyRobertTomozeiuDaniel. 2013. “Towards the ‘Ubiquitous Eco-city’: An Analysis of the Internationalisation of Eco-city Policy and Practice.” Urban Research & Practice6 (1): 54–74.
35.
Lan XuJin. 2017. “Is New Urbanism Changing the Suburban Development Pattern? A Case Study of the Toronto Region.” Journal of Urban Design22 (6): 812–32.
36.
LascoumesPierreLe GalèsPatrick, eds. 2005. Gouverner par les instruments. [Governing by the instruments]. Paris: Presses de Sciences Po Académique.
37.
LascoumesPierreSimardLouis. 2011. “L’action publique au prisme de ses instruments Introduction.” [Public action through the prism of its instruments. Introduction]. Revue française de science politique61:5–22.
38.
LeeEugenePerlAnthony, eds. 2003. The Integrity Gap: Canada’s Environmental Policy and Institutions. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.
39.
LegacyCrystalCurtisCareySturupSophie. 2012. “Is There a Good Governance Model for the Delivery of Contemporary Transport Policy and Practice? An Examination of Melbourne and Perth.” Transport Policy19 (1): 8–16.
40.
MatkinDavid S. T.FredericksonH. Goerges. 2009. “Metropolitan Governance: Institutional Roles and Interjurisdictional Cooperation.” Journal of Urban Affairs31 (1): 45–66.
41.
MaulatJulietteScherrerFlorence PaulhiacScherrerFranck. 2018. “Les projets novateurs de Transit-oriented development dans le Grand Montréal: conception, mise en œuvre et effets d’un nouvel instrument d’urbanisme.” [Innovative Transit-oriented development projects in Greater Montreal: design, implementation and effects of a new urban planning instrument]. Métropoles23. https://journals.openedition.org/metropoles/6533.
OuelletMichel. 2006. “Le smart growth et le nouvel urbanisme: Synthèse de la littérature récente et regard sur la situation canadienne.” [Smart growth and new urban planning: A synthesis of recent literature and a look at the Canadian situation]. Cahiers de géographie du Québec50 (140): 175–93.
44.
Paulhiac ScherrerFlorenceGauthierMarioScherrerFranckGariépyMichel. 2012. “Développement urbain durable, débat public et différenciation: regards croisés sur les cas de Grenoble; Lyon et Montréal.” In L’action publique locale dans tous ses états. Différenciation et standardisation, FaureAlainHalpernCharlotteLereschPhilippeDouilletAnne-Cécile, 232–242. [Sustainable urban development, public debate and differentiation: cross-referenced views on the cases of Grenoble; Lyon and Montreal.” In Local public action in all its states. Differentiation and standardization, Faure, Alain, Charlotte Halpern, Philippe Leresch, and Anne-Cécile Douillet, 232–242]. Paris: L’Harmattan.
45.
PaulhiacFlorenceKaufmannVincent. 2006. “Transports Urbains à Montréal: Evolution des référentiels et enjeux d’une politique durable.” [Urban Transport in Montreal: Evolution of the standards and challenges of a sustainable policy]. Revue d’Economie Régionale Urbaine2006 (1): 49–80.
46.
PembertonSimon. 2000. “Institutional Governance, Scale and Transport Policy—Lessons from Tyne and Wear.” Journal of Transport Geography8:295–308.
47.
PinsonGilles. 2004. “Le projet urbain comme instrument d’action publique.” In Gouverner par les instruments, edited by LascoumesPierreLe GalèsPatrick, 199–233. [The urban project as an instrument of public action.” In Governing by instruments, edited by Pierre Lascoumes & Patrick Le Galès, 199–233]. Paris: Presses de Sciences Po Académique.
48.
RenneJohnNewmanPeter. 2002. “Facilitating the Financing and Development of ‘Smart Growth.’” Transportation Quarterly56 (2): 23–32.
49.
RittelHorst W. J.WebberMelvin M.1973. “Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning.” Policy Sciences4 (2): 155–69.
50.
Roy-BaillargeonOlivier. 2015. “La planification métropolitaine et le transit-oriented development : les nouveaux instruments de la gouvernance du Grand Montréal.” [Metropolitan planning and transit-oriented development: the new instruments of governance in Greater Montreal]. Thèse de l’Université de Montréal.
51.
TanWendyBertoliniLucaJanssen-JansenLeonie. 2014. “Identifying and Conceptualising Context-Specific Barriers to Transit-Oriented Development Strategies: The Case of the Netherlands.” Town Planning Review85 (5): 639–63.
52.
TheysJacques. 2000. “Un nouveau principe d’action pour l’aménagement du territoire ? Le développement durable et la confusion des (bons) sentiments.” In Repenser le territoire: un dictionnaire critique, edited by WachterSergeAlainBourdinLevyJacques, 225–79. [A new principle of action for spatial planning? Sustainable development and the confusion of (good) feelings.” In Rethinking the territory: a critical dictionary, edited by Serge Wachter, Bourdin Alain, and Jacques Levy, 225–79]. La Tour d’Aigues: Editions de l’Aube.
53.
ThomasRenBertoliniLuca. 2014. “Beyond the Case Study Dilemma in Urban Planning: Using a Meta-matrix to Distil Critical Success Factors in Transit-Oriented Development.” Urban Policy and Research32 (2): 219–23.
54.
ThomasRenBertoliniLuca. 2017. “Defining Critical Success Factors in TOD Implementation Using Rough Set Analysis.” Journal of Transport and Land Use10 (1): 139–54.
55.
Van LieropDinaKeesMaatEl-GeneidyAhmed. 2016. “Talking TOD: Learning about Transit-Oriented Development in the United States, Canada, and the Netherlands.” Journal of Urbanism: International Research on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability10 (1): 49–62.
