Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Built-environment differences across transit-oriented development (TOD) types shape the capitalization of metrorail accessibility into housing prices, generating spatially heterogeneous effects. Using Shanghai as a case study, this study calculates by-transit accessibility (BTA) based on transit supply–demand ratios and interstation passenger flows and derives metrorail accessibility through a distance-decay function. These measures, alongside station locations and built-environment indicators, inform an extended Node–Place model using K-means clustering to identify TOD types. Building on this classification, distance-threshold and price-grouped hedonic models are employed to examine the spatial heterogeneity of accessibility-price relationships. Results reveal clear spatial differentiation in TOD types. Accessibility thresholds generally increase from the urban core to peripheral areas, ranging from 359.5 to 766.77 m in Stressed and Extended TODs to 885.82–1543.75 m in Balanced and Demand TODs, indicating that no uniform station catchment radius applies across TOD contexts. The direction and degree of accessibility effects also vary by station-area development, distance, and housing price group. TAZ metrorail accessibility is positively associated with housing prices, with stronger effects on upper-middle- and high-price housing in Stressed, Extended, and Balanced TODs, but on low-price and high-price housing near Demand TODs. These differences suggest unequal opportunities to benefit from transit-related locational advantages. The findings inform better coordination of transport, land use, and housing toward more equitable and sustainable urban development.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Liu et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: