1 Introduction

Since their first introduction in 2015, the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) have offered a baseline definition for Sustainable Development, which aims at providing a “blueprint to achieve a better and more sustainable future for all” (United Nations, n.d.). Building on the SDGs, the UN Habitat III conference of 2016 held in Quito, Ecuador, led to setting out the New Urban Agenda.

Through this Agenda, the UN recognised the important role cities play in sustainable development and climate change mitigation (HIII Secretariat, 2017). From an urban planning perspective, the New Urban Agenda repeatedly puts forward ‘compactness’ in city design as key to achieving sustainable urban development. It argues that increasing density and connectivity combined with mixed social and economic uses of built-up areas can prevent urban sprawl and bring most of our daily needs within walking distance.

These ideas are far from new to urban planning and study literature and appeared in many pre-existing frameworks. The term Transit Oriented Development, coined by Calthorpe over 25 years ago, is one of those (1993). TOD is a development framework whose key concepts are mixed-use and high-density development near accessible public transit services. TOD itself builds on land-use methodologies that stretch back centuries (Knowles et al., 2020), such as the urban development around the St Charles Street Car corridor in New Orleans (since 1835), Ebenezer Howard’s Garden cities built around railway stations (early twentieth century) and the New Towns of the post-WWII boom in Japan (Renne & Appleyard, 2019), to name but a few.

This article aims to examine the relationship between TOD and the SDGs, highlighting the synergies and conflicts between the two frameworks. The theoretical debate is then examined through the case study of TOD in Quito, the capital of Ecuador, which has had a heavy influence from TOD since hosting the Habitat III (HIII) conference in 2016 and releasing an innovative policy that sparked the construction of high-rise, Eco-Efficient buildings around mass transit nodes (STHV, 2017). The policy was partly in response to the construction of a new underground metro system. It also set out to temp an ever-increasing number of private car users from living in the suburbs to reside instead within the consolidated city of Quito.

The paper is structured as follows. Section 2 explores the SDGs in detail, highlighting the strong links to economic growth as an assumed driver for poverty relief. Section 3 examines the relationships between TOD and the SDGs, drawing out the potential synergies and conflicts. Section 4 sets out the context of Quito and its current TOD legislation in detail. The study continues by drawing on three fieldwork studies carried out in Quito in 2018. The article then goes on to examine TOD in Quito through the lenses of the synergies and conflicts highlighted in the theoretical debate of Sect. 3. The paper rounds off in Sect. 5 by putting forward that a different form of development in urban areas should be pursued, concentrating not on ‘transit’ but on ‘people’s needs. The authors define such a shift in discourse, research and urban planning as People Oriented Development.

2 The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): Poverty and Inequality Solved Through Economic Growth

What exactly underlies the SDGs? In order to assess the synergies and conflicts between TOD and the SDGs, it is important to set out the theoretical framework through which we can understand the Goals.

The SDGs have a central theme of eradicating poverty in all its forms and dimensions and consist of 17 goals and 169 targets.Footnote 1 The targets then have various indicators through which they can be measured. However, recent studies indicate that the SDGs target economic development more than any tangible environmental benefits (Prerna & Pragati, 2020; Zeng et al, 2020). The same is true for the social dimension, where the SDGs fail to engage with an appropriate understanding of human needs and social sustainability, as well as replacing a due understanding of the existing synergies between the environment and human well-being with a form of technological determinism (Hillerbrand, 2018).

In fact, the very concept of Sustainable Development of the Goals has been strongly criticised as an oxymoron (Kothari et al., 2014; Spaiser et al., 2017), with the immanent contradiction that endless economic growth is compatible with the finite resources on the planet, ending poverty and protection of the environment (Adelman, 2018). The oxymoron is highlighted by the irony of studies showing how countries with high GHG emissions also perform well on the SDGs (Prerna & Pragati, 2020).

Effectively all, but one of the Goals that constitute the SDGs, are framed in monetary terms, with economic growth becoming the real measure of development and sustainability in this framework. Specifically, extreme poverty is understood in monetary terms ($1.25 USD/day, SDG 1, Target 1), resilience of a country faced with a reduction to its Gross Domestic Product (GDP, SDG 1, Target 1.5, indicator 1.5.2), and sound government policy related to capital expenditure (SDG 1, Targets 1.A and B, indicators 1.A.1, 1.A.2 and 1.B.1). Hunger will be ended through doubling the production capacity and income of small-scale farmers (SDG 2, target 2.3), coupled with increased investment. Additionally, health is understood and measured to an extent through having enough money to spend on health-care and medicines (SDG 3, targets 3.8 and 3.B, indicators 3.8.2 and 3.B.1). Gender equality is partially measured through having equal rights to economic resources (SDG 5, target 5.A). Furthermore, drinking water and energy are considered accessible if it is affordable (SDG 6, target 6.1, SDG 7, target 7.1). The title of SDG 8 speaks for itself regarding the need for economic growth: “Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth…” (UNDSDG, n.d.). This goes hand in hand with indicators for SDG 9: affordable access to infrastructure (target 9.1), doubling industry’s share in GDP (target 9.2), small-scale industries gaining access to financial services and markets (target 9.3), plus increased expenditure in scientific research (target 9.5). Reducing inequality meanwhile is understood through economic equality (targets 10.1 and 2 and associated indicators, measured in part through labour share of GDP (target 10.4.1)), transparency of financial markets (target 10.5) and having an equal voice in international economic and financial institutions (target 10.6)). Additionally, Sustainable Cities and Communities (SDG 11) promote affordable housing (target 11.1) and transport (target 11.2). The SDG also measures disasters through economic losses affecting GDP (target 11.5) and promotes flows of finance towards least developed countries (indicator 11.C.1). Regarding Sustainable Development (Goal 12), this is partly measured through material footprints per GDP (indicator 12.2.2) and reducing fossil fuel subsidies per unit of GDP (target 12.C.1). One of the indicators of progress up to 2019 for Goal 13, was the amount of finance made available from the Green Climate Fund, which was linked to a commitment in target 13.A to mobilise 100 billion USD per year to address the needs of developing countries. In the case of preserving marine life (Goal 14), economic growth is seen in indicator 14.7.1 (sustainable fisheries as a percentage of GDP). Life on land (Goal 15) recognises the importance of economic growth in its progress report for 2019, praising 8.7 billion USD in Official Development Assistance (ODA) to support biodiversity. This is linked to targets 15.A and B (mobilise financial resources). SDG 16 on Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions had elements of economic growth and trade in its report up to 2019: a county’s ability to achieve development objectives was considered in terms of approved and implemented budgets.

3 SDGs and TOD: The Synergies and Conflicts

3.1 TOD: A Panacea for All Urban Ills

The TOD concept Calthorpe, coined in 1993 of a mixed-use community within walking distance of a transit station and core commercial area, holds to this day (see, for example, Curtis et al., 2009; Thomas & Bertolini, 2015). According to Thomas and Bertolini’s (2015) definition of TOD, the methodology consists of two steps. First, planning for a land use and transportation system that brings about walking, cycling and transit use as preferred modes of transport. Second, maximising the efficiency of transit services through development around stations. TOD success is measured in terms of increased public revenue (Suzuki, et al., 2015) and changes in local modal split (Thomas & Bertolini, 2017).

Salat and Ollivier (2017) develop this further in their 3 Value (3V) Model, which sets out the Node, Place and Market Values to measure the potential success of TOD strategies around the possible location of a transit station:

  • Node Value: increase the number of hubs and their connections with transport lines/modes; create clusters of interlinking neighbouring stations; increase accessibility for everyone within the network.

  • Place Value: increase compactness (existing urban activity and main destinations proximity); increase diversity of uses; increase the concentration of educational, commercial and cultural amenities; neighbourhood design to promote walking and cycling; vibrant public realm creation.

  • Market Potential Value: increase residential, work and human density; create a vibrant land market through an increase in diversity of land parcels; floor area ratio increase.

In all its different definitions, TOD is believed to facilitate travel demand and generate more sustainable and liveable neighbourhoods, thanks to increased density and accessibility (Papa & Bertolini, 2015). As such, we can see TOD reaching out as a panacea for all our urban ills and depicted as beneficial, especially for cities in the Global South (Suzuki et al., 2015). The use of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) in TOD has also been the subject of attention in the Global South (Suzuki et al., 2013). It is a proven remedy in the USA against the unstoppable rise of wealthier citizens circulating in fossil-fuel consuming, space dominating private cars (Chatman et al., 2019). It is a solution to humanity’s greatest challenge of climate change (Renne & Appleyard, 2019). It has even been used in attempting to fix tricky social issues, such as inequities related to the legacy of apartheid in Johannesburg, South Africa (see Harrison et al., 2019). In all, TOD “is a possibility to address bigger problems in society” (Thomas & Bertolini, 2020). The points raised above are summarised in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1
A schematic illustration of T O D panacea for all urban ills. It includes sustainable methodology, development around public transit stations and access to economic centers of the city, mixed-use, L V C model, and economic growth vibrant communities.

TOD: a panacea for all urban ills

Full size image

3.2 TOD and SDGs: Beneficial at First Glance

The benefits that TOD is portrayed to bring are relevant to achieving many elements of the SDGs framework. For example, access to good quality public transit services enables urban inhabitants to reach urban economic centres (in accordance with Goal 1, target 1.4). According to Salat and Ollivier (2017), the mixed-use model should include centres of education, which relates to building and upgrading educational facilities (Goal 4, target 4). The mixity of urban developments also opens doors to solve many of the demands of Goal 8 (decent work and economic growth). Targets 8.3, 8.5 and 8.6 push for employment for all, with a move away from informal, agricultural employment. TOD can offer all this. The mixed-use urban planning gives rise to people living near new work facilities (usually offices), plus opportunities for small enterprises, cafés and services to cater to the needs of the residents and workers of the area. Furthermore, the compact city methodology behind TOD means material consumption can be increased whilst at the same time reducing material footprints (the indicator for target 8.4). In TOD, residents can walk to all their urban necessities and at most step into efficient public transit services to reach further out. As such, TOD increases passenger transport volume by mode of transport (SDG 9, indicator for 1st target). Furthermore, living in a mixed-use, dense urban area close to public transit potentially solves the first three targets of SDG 11. It provides safe housing with basic services (target 1), near accessible and sustainable transport systems (target 2), with a low ratio of land occupation to population growth rate (first indicator for target 3). Finally, potentially reducing the use of fossil fuel private cars is in line with climate change mitigation directions included in the SDGs (SDG 13, 2nd target and indicators). This is illustrated in Fig. 2.

Fig. 2
A schematic illustration of T O D and S G S beneficial for reducing the use of fossil fuel. It includes reducing material footprints, living in a mixed-use, dense urban area, safe housing, sustainable transport systems, and population growth rate.

TOD and SGS: beneficial at first glance

Full size image

3.3 TOD and the SDGs: A Double-Edged Sword

However, the TOD model is not without its flaws, especially in reaching out to the most vulnerable urban populations. It is here that we note a series of conflicts with the aspirations of the SDGs. To begin with, existing research in Europe, UK, USA and Hong Kong highlights the lack of affordable housing, gentrification and displacement of the poor in TOD projects (Enright, 2013; He et al., 2018; Luckey, 2018; Suzuki et al., 2015). TOD seems to be incompatible with promoting equity in practical terms (Enright, 2013; Guthrie, 2018; Linovski et al., 2018). This is highlighted specifically in the context of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), where there is growing evidence that the beneficial impacts in terms of increasing accessibility, health, etc. are rarely equitably distributed across society, and seldom reach the poorest groups suffering most from urban injustice (Venter et al., 2017). In relation to this, it has been noted how decisions related to transport are often highly politically charged, weighed up in terms of political gains through bargaining and lobbying (Rizzo, 2014, 2017; van Geet et al., 2019). This further reinforces how TOD is often implemented with close to no involvement of local residents, given its command-and-control approach (Joshi et al., 2017) and being inflexible outside its initial framing as a tool for ‘smart’ or ‘compact’ growth (Gordon & Richardson, 2000).

These disadvantages of the TOD methodology create a double-edged sword regarding most of the synergies with the SDGs. TOD’s proven track record of segregating the wealthy from the poor negates the claim to provide access to economic resources (Goal 1, target 4). TOD gives access only to those who can afford it. The same is true for educational facilities (Goal 4, target 4). In a similar manner, in TOD investment areas only, the urban wealthy live close to employment opportunities in sectors of the city undergoing economic growth (related to targets 8.3, 8.4, 8.5 and 8.6 in SDG 8). Additionally, Goal 11 calls for affordable and safe housing with a focus on upgrading slums (1st target), whilst the 11th SDG calls for accessible and sustainable transport for all. This clashes with TOD being unable to be of benefit to the poorest income groups.Footnote 2 Furthermore, TOD has the ability to push the poor away from areas where it increases land value, which counteracts potential fossil fuel reductions and GHG emissions (Goal 13) and passenger volume by transport (Goal 9). This is summarised in Fig. 3.

Fig. 3
A schematic illustration of T O D and the S D G for a double-edged sword. It includes no affordable housing, politically charged decisions, and little room for local residents to be involved.

TOD and the SDGs: a double-edged sword

Full size image

The following section of this paper analyses TOD development in Quito, Ecuador in light of the points made above.

4 Quito: A Case Study

Quito, the capital of Ecuador, with a population of 2,239,191 inhabitants (INEC, 2010) is classified as a medium-sized city (of between 500,000 and 3 million inhabitants in accordance with Dávila and Oviedo (2018)).Footnote 3 It has some mature and developed transport networks, found common in Latin American cities (Blanco et al., 2018). Quito is also growing rapidly in size, an aspect that generates an increase in strain on global resources (UN, 2015). This strain is coupled with challenges in terms of social equity, especially due to the centralization of economic activities and the displacement of lower-income groups (as highlighted in Oviedo and Dávila, 2018). Following an oil boom in the 1970s, the city rapidly expanded to the North and South, before later stretching further into the valleys located to the East. Wealthier residents tended (and continue) to settle in the North and East, whilst the lower income groups populated the South, North extremities and the historic centre. Since early 2000, the strong urbanisation by wealthier inhabitants of the peripheral, suburban areas has brought about an associated flux of private cars commuting into the city’s economic centre. Additionally, there has been a growing expansion of ‘informal urban areas’ referred to in this paper as Marginalised Communities in Urban Districts (MCUDs).Footnote 4 A main, North–South vein of the transportation network is made up of three public Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) lines, which entered into operation in 1995, 2001 and 2005 respectively. The BRT routes are interconnected by feeding buses (alimentadores), and the whole network is owned and operated by the Public Metropolitan Transport Company (EPMTP, 2019). Sixty-two privately owned bus companies further complement the BRT system by offering several predesignated routes throughout the city (El Telégrafo, 2014). Finally, a new underground Metro of Quito is currently under construction. The context described is visualised in Fig. 4.

Fig. 4
A. a schematic of economic class areas. The circles indicate lower, middle, and upper economic classes, and mountains. B to F represents Quito's urban expansion in 1971, 1995 Trolebus, 2003 Ecovia, 2006 Metrobus, and 2018 metro of Quito. The 4 different waves indicate Trolebus, Ecovia, Metrobus, and Metro of Quito.

a Economic class areas. b–f Quito’s urban expansion, with existing BRT (Bus Rapid Transit) and upcoming Metro lines (adapted from IMP, 2018; Informa, 2017; Jácome Polit et al., 2017)

Full size image

TOD legislation came into force in 2016 under the Secretary of Habitat, Territory and Housing (STHV) of the Municipality of Quito, which up until 2021 was divided into two parts. First, Ordinance 003 provides the overarching framework for a compact city approach to development in Quito. Second, the Resolution No. STHV-034-2020 (Resolution) provides the methodology through which real estate can purchase air rights in a contractual agreement to increase building heights around public transit nodes. The Resolution allows an increase up to a 50% or 100% in building height for construction projects within defined walking distance polygons of a BRT or underground metro station respectively, being a relatively straightforward Joint Development Land Value Capture approach to TOD (Medda, 2012). The buildings have complied with strict ecological design parameters. Additionally, the legislation adopts the most common, all-or-nothing method for transit and development co-location, where only projects within the catchment areas are defined as having access to transit (Marti et al., 2018).

Methodology for the Quito Case Study

To better understand the development of TOD in Quito, we draw on the results of three different qualitative research projects carried out in 2018. First, we analysed the results of a series of 3 workshops organised by the Ecuadorian College of Architects of Pichincha (CAE-P workshops) between July and August 2018 to discuss the impact the TOD legislation had had on the city. The workshops involved 98 professionals in total who worked in academia, planning, real estate development, construction or architecture.

Second, we considered the findings from a Delphi study that was carried out in accordance with Okoli and Pawlawski (2004), collating expert opinions on the relation between urban form and transport in Quito. A total of six experts were interviewed, including representatives of the Municipality of Quito, the private sector and academia.

Third, we reviewed the results of the participatory study with residents of Quito’s historic centre carried out by the Municipal Institute of Heritage (IMP) from March to December 2018, prior to the elaboration of an ‘Urban Plan for the Future’. An understanding of the results related to urban form, transport and social equity was then gained through a semi-structured interview with the IMP project leader in January 2019 for the purpose of this paper.

The Results of TOD in Quito and Its Relation to the Theoretical Debate

A key theme emerged from our analysis: the TOD Resolution increases land value and the developer’s appetite for certain urban areas. Participants for both the CAE-P workshops and Delphi interviews highlighted how the Resolution sparked investment in the construction sector, by offering an increase in property value through selling airspace and increased density around Mass Transit stations. In practical terms, at the time of the workshop, the Resolution had already resulted in the submission of over 23, high-rise, ecologically designed building permits to be constructed in the economic centre of the city. TOD was seen as a key factor strongly helping the restructuring of this area to become a ‘first class’ location, highly attractive to private investors:

All this area [the economic centre] is where the businesses want to be, […] the most important ones. This area is very well served. There are a lot of residential developments here, […there are…] even foreigners who buy in the area to come and reside in the seasons that in some countries are really cold.[…], the young professionals are also here. Let’s say that this area is the higher level one for Quito (Private Sector Delphi interview, February 2018).

In the view of experts working in the municipality who were in the CAE-P workshops, the development of the area and especially the construction of new high-rise, ecological design, expensive buildings will play a fundamental role in countering the urban sprawl that the city has experienced since the 1970s. This position was evident from the praise the municipality made of bringing about sustainable building design surrounded by local amenities within walking distance.Footnote 5 In their view, this goes hand in hand with bringing about cultural change in Quito’s higher-income inhabitants: there is a move away from seeking to live in an isolated house with a private garden (and an associated commute into the city centre by car), to living in an apartment in a high-rise building with luxury amenities (roof terrace, pool, gym, cinema, games room, etc.), within walking distance from the economic centre of the city.

As one member of the Municipality reported: thanks to the implementation of the Resolution, based on TOD, the economic centre is “starting to be seen as residential areas for young people, their habitability characteristics start to change” (Municipality Delphi interview, February 2018). As such, Quito was seen as following a worldwide trend in TOD highlighted in the literature, where success “can also be attributed to changing preferences [worldwide]… among younger adult age groups to live, work and socialise in TOD areas rather than live in low-density private car dependant areas” (Knowles et al, 2020).

However, the workshops and Delphi interviews highlighted how success was mainly considered in economic terms, in line with the idea that “transportation networks [..] become important not necessarily for their use value (as means of circulation and vehicles for movement), but for their ability to manufacture and identify new sites for redevelopment” (Enright, 2013). Our research also uncovered that experts in Quito’s Municipality were aware of the fact that whilst Quito’s TOD legislation is countering urban sprawl, it is further reproducing the city divide between different classes. The workshops and interviews highlighted how the economic and real estate development that TOD generated in Quito to date was highly geared towards the wealthier residents. The development concentrated investments in responding to the demands of wealthy urban residents, trying to limit the externalities generated by their lifestyle. In these terms, Quito’s legislation follows a model of neoliberal restructuring, similar to several other locations in the Global North (Enright, 2013; Farmer, 2011). As one of the academics interviewed in the Delphi study reported:

the city is not made by the city planners, […] the real city is made by politicians on the one side, […and] by real estate developers on the other, those who sell and buy land, who make it divided/fractioned, etc. (Academia Delphi Interview, March 2018).

Therefore, whilst the new TOD strategy changed the direction of urban development, it still nevertheless prioritised the interests of potential real estate investors, reserving the best locations for higher income groups. The CAE-P workshops highlighted how no projects under the TOD legislation had taken place outside of the economic centre. This resulted in an absence of investments from which the working and lower-middle classes would have more likely benefitted. Furthermore, the concentrated development in the economic centre, coupled with increasing speculation on land values and the absence of any obligation to develop affordable housing, meant that lower-income groups tended to be pushed ever further away from the consolidated urban hub of the city:

you can see how the poor start climbing up the hillside slopes to settle there, […] slopes of almost 45°, then you have lower class neighbourhoods on those slopes (Academia Delphi interview, March 2018).

In this respect, the Delphi interviews brought to light how MCUDs were often located in areas vulnerable to natural hazards, due to increasing pressure in raised prices resulting from the expansion of land sold to urban higher classes. As an additional point of interest, interviews with academics and the Municipality brought to light that as peripheral MCUDs become more populated, the community starts to demand formal recognition from the municipality and the provision of associated basic infrastructure (water, sanitation, roads, lighting, energy and transport).

These findings above resonate with the points raised earlier on the synergies and conflicts between the SDGs and TOD. Both the SDGs and TOD are aimed at economic growth, but where the SDGs are aimed at eradicating poverty, TOD appears to fail miserably in doing so. This is clear in the case of Quito. TOD has spurred economic growth and investment in sustainable urban design centred around public transit services in the economic centre of the city. However, the same activities have led to rising land prices, further segregation between the urban classes and an uneven distribution of the amenities offered by the TOD mixed-use real estate developments. The Resolution is effectively geared towards promoting transport infrastructure for wealthy urban inhabitants and private car users and reveals to be a policy that concentrates on environmental impacts more than poverty reduction.

The Municipal Ordinance 003 attempts to mitigate this by promoting strong, affordable housing incentives, which offer all airspace costs to be withdrawn for any ecologically designed building within the TOD catchment areas that include affordable housing. These elements are a signal of the recognition by experts in the municipality of the absence of affordable housing in core locations, whilst also attempting to continue to promote TOD development through financial incentives.

With relation to urban residents living in poverty, not all MCUDs are in Quito’s peripheral areas. For example, the historic centre of Quito is characterised by inhabitants with a low income who mainly work in informal employment (Jácome Polit, 2017). The centre is a transport hub for Quito’s bus services and will be served by a new underground Metro station. However, it does not necessarily benefit from the densification processes that are often associated with TOD. The semi-structured interview with the IMP project leader raised that traditional TOD strategies backed up by Land Value Capture Policies did not apply to the historic centre of Quito, which is characterised by low-income residents (now and for the projected future) and incompatible with the LVC model (being a world heritage site). High-density construction in a world heritage site is much more difficult and riskier than in the economic centre of Quito. In the economic centre, a plot of underdeveloped land is bought, the existing building demolished, a taller more high-density project built and the apartments, offices or shops sold. This generates profit. In contrast, this process is not possible in the historic centre. The existing buildings might be of low density, but they cannot be demolished and replaced with more profitable projects. Additionally, very strict restrictions exist as to what can/cannot be done to the buildings if they are purchased. Nor is there much interest from Quito’s potential homeowners or those looking to invest in purchasing properties in Quito’s historic centre. As such, real estate developers tend to keep clear. Additionally, it was found how different local residents’ needs were often highly varied and conflictual, which could make it difficult to aggregate a myriad of different actors, needs and livelihoods under the same label of ‘local’. Nevertheless, data analysis showed a common ground around issues of security, where having safe, walkable streets was a top priority: therefore, perceived as far more important than having fast, daily transport connections to the economic centre of the city.

The residents’ livelihoods could be said to unfold at a more localised and relational level, with different times and rhythms to the ones that TOD imposes or assumes they have. Gordon and Richardson (2000) highlighted this phenomenon in the USA, arguing that employment opportunities are more dependent on human capital than geographical location. The interdependency existing between human capital, transport disadvantage and social exclusion is explored in greater depth by Schwanen et al. (2015). None of these aspects are intrinsically related to the concept of poverty relief through access to the economic centre of Quito around public transit nodes.

This raises the question, what happens when development is taken from the chains of economic growth, and instead takes a focus on people?

5 Conclusions: From TOD to POD

In this paper, we have set out that SDGs promote an idea of development that centres on economic growth. The Goals put forward that raising local economies is a tool for lifting people out of poverty and to combat inequality. We also highlighted how TOD is a useful tool in meeting many of the aims of the SDGs at a surface level, especially in relation to economic growth and sustainable cities. However, a double-edged sword becomes clear, where economic growth tends to serve wealthier urban inhabitants at the expense of low-income and vulnerable residents.

In the case study of Quito, the gentrification of TOD investment areas was clear. This meant that only wealthier urban residents benefitted from mixed-use real estate developments in the economic centre of the city promoted by the new TOD. The positive modal shift and behavioural changes for the higher income groups were highlighted by the experts cited in this study. There was, however, a lack of assessments of these decisions in terms of procedural justice when considering how the top-down, nudging aspect of the Resolution is designed and applied. Specifically, a lack of involvement of the residents themselves meant that it remains unclear to what extent the changes promoted within the Resolution meet their complex and differential needs. For example, in terms of ‘walkability’ identifying threshold boundaries defined as a continuous decay, as opposed to a fixed distance (Marti et al., 2018), with respect, in particular, to the elements that might facilitate walking uptake (slope inclination, proximity to busy roads, safety, etc.). This conversation with residents is paramount when developing interventions such as TOD, in ensuring that the potential for such a framework facilitates model shift, and does not spin off into further congestion from private vehicles around transit nodes (Gordon & Richardson, 2000).

Additionally, the Delphi interviews highlighted how the raised land prices brought about by the gentrification processes of the city pushed MCUDs to peripheral areas (often vulnerable to natural hazards). In this case, the interviews included how the residents of peripheral MCUDs expressed having the need for basic infrastructure to be brought in, including transport services. However, it is difficult to see how TOD could meet these needs. For example, Salat and Ollivier (2017) have a market-driven approach to TOD that defines the three values that can be associated with a transit station as Node, Place and Market potential (over and above principles of transport and accessibility). And yet, the very definition of TOD embedded in the 3V model seems to exclude peripheral MCUDs in Quito as recipients of this type of development:

  • Node value: the fact that MCUDs are constantly being “pushed” further away and isolated from the economic centre of the city means this is an ever-decreasing value.

  • Place value: a lack of urban planning in these areas decreases the possibility of this (lack of greenspace and general infrastructure).

  • Market potential value: this value is greatly reduced given that peripheral MCUDs initially lack basic services and city infrastructure.

The historic centre of Quito is a particular case of non-peripheral MCUD, interspersed within the city’s urban and which presents an interesting case to further investigate the contradictions of TOD. The historic centre is a world heritage site, where the Land Value Capture module, and therefore, the 3V TOD methodology, are simply inapplicable. More importantly, in contradiction with any of the grounding assumptions within TOD, the residents of the area valued local needs (security and being able to walk in their area) over any latent need to have improved access to the city’s economic centre. As such, this example questions the core paradigm of TOD, which is based on having fast, easy access to economic locations of interest. In Quito, the poorest residents of the city centre were less interested in having quicker access to Quito’s economic centre, having safe, walkable streets that the local residents valued highly.

In more general terms, Quito highlights two weak points for both TOD and the SDGs. Firstly; it shows the limitation of these as rigid frameworks promoting the same solutions regardless of geographical location, promoting the same methodology for high income neighbourhoods or for slums. This fails to acknowledge the complex and differential needs that residents have in different places and at different stages of urban development. The case study also highlights how the obsession with economic growth inherent in TOD and the SDGs fails to prioritise the needs of those who are most affected by a lack of adequate transport provision and accessibility. Secondly, the Quito example shows that TOD’s failure is linked to its attempt to force development needs to be in accordance with a rigid economic model and economic growth as defined by the SDGs, without considering the differential values and meaning that urban residents can have in different contexts, including different perceptions of appropriate housing, walkability, access, etc.

In other words, the case study highlights how both TOD and SDGs fail to grasp those fundamental elements of people’s quality of life and well-being to which monetization and economic growth are blind. They fail to take steps towards building mobility justice, moving away from mobility geared towards wealthier urban residents, towards forms of transport that encompass the needs of all strata of urban residents, whilst minimising suffering in all its forms (Verlinghieri & Schwanen, 2020).

For these reasons, we call for a reassessment of those frameworks and their popularity, shifting the discourse from a strong focus on infrastructural development, fast access and economic growth, to discussing the ways interventions can support diverse and healthy forms of urban living. Some existing, alternative, approaches emphasise the need to measure accessibility to different places, but overall seem to miss to include those impacts that transport brings beyond the potential for fast connections to core locations (Pereira, 2019). Our proposed shift in discourse is in line with a growing tradition in transport studies, urban studies and human geography that explores the direct causal links between mobility, immobility and justice (Cook & Butz, 2018). These approaches are trying to respond to the strong need to better depict and understand the links between social exclusion and transport disadvantage, as well as developing new practical approaches and assessment frameworks that put a wider range of people’s needs at the centre of transport planning (Schwanen et al., 2015). The results have to go in the direction of promoting urban planning parameters that arise from people’s needs, replacing outdated metrics where the “focus tends to be on flows of vehicles on networks, or on individuals and sometimes households […] as (boundly) rational sovereign actors” (Schwanen, 2018). To put it in different words, we call a shift in discourse, research and urban planning, from Transit Oriented Development to People Oriented Development.

Overall, this paper highlighted the underlying message of economic growth as the answer to all our global ills, as put forward in the SDGs. We call into question that economic growth is the ultimate panacea for problems regarding development. This research has shown us the dangers of adopting policies based on ‘tried and tested’ methodologies, such as TOD in this case, for varied urban areas with different social strata. We have put forward the argument for the development of a POD approach to research and urban planning, and a first step in this direction was made with Quito’s Municipal Institute of Patrimony in its development of a new urban plan for the historic centre. However, much work remains to determine how POD is to be carried out in practice, not least in its definition and approach to urban justice issues. POD is most certainly a society-centric approach (Verlinghieri & Schwanen, 2020), but it remains to be seen which tendencies it is to harness. Is POD, for example, a form of Participatory Action Research (PAR, as in Sagaris et al., 2020)? Or might it be a methodology that brings to light previously unheard voices into mainstream policymaking (Vecchio, 2020)?

Whatever form POD takes on, it will have to depart from a perspective in line with the project of decolonising transport and knowledge about transport (Wood et al., 2020). This entails rethinking our pre conceptualised research assumptions, our subsequent methodologies, and finally, the way we perceive the world from an all-to-often western viewpoint. As Schwanen (2020) puts it, we need “critical reflection on, and revision of, how human beings are imagined and assumed to act and think” when conceptualising the city and its development. For example, when going into Quito’s historic centre to examine how TOD related to the local population, the IMP found that needs were at a much more local rhythm than TOD assumes. The population’s minds focused on many issues linked to their livelihoods and local conflicts, none of which were related to having fast, easy access to the economic centre of the city. A planner or researcher approaching them blindly using one of the popular ‘transport’ research questions such as “how do you get around the city” would have silenced the complexity and richness of these residents’ experiences and needs. At the same time, it would have failed to uncover the problematic nature of frameworks such as TOD or SDGs. It is for these reasons that POD will ask for starting with a participatory understanding of the local context, the physical, social and psychological elements of daily life in each place to determine how the locals interpret their daily lives as a precondition to going about researching or planning with them.