Vika Fransisca
Page 2787
Asian Journal of Engineering, Social and Health
Volume 3, No. 12 December 2024
Volume 3, No. 12 December 2024 - (2787-2797)
p-ISSN 2980-4868 | e-ISSN 2980-4841
https://ajesh.ph/index.php/gp
Lesson for Vietnam to Learn from Asian Countries’ Financial
Instruments for Railway Projects
Vo Hoang Thien1*, Huang Ming Zhi2
Wuhan University of Technology, China
Emails: vohoangthien@whut.edu.cn1, huangmingzhi@whut.edu.cn2
ABSTRACT
The development of Vietnam's railway infrastructure faces challenges in securing adequate funding and
attracting private sector investment, which necessitates innovative financial strategies. This study aims to
propose a comprehensive financial framework tailored to address these challenges. The research employs
a comparative analysis method, examining financial instruments used in railway projects across several
Asian countries, including Laos, Indonesia, Hong Kong, Japan, Singapore, Taiwan, South Korea, and China.
The findings reveal two key insights: (1) integrating railway infrastructure development with Transit-
Oriented Development (TOD) and Land Value Capture (LVC) mechanisms significantly boosts government
revenues through property development aligned with TOD and LVC principles; (2) diversifying revenue
sources—such as fare revenues, property development, and government subsidies-is crucial for ensuring
the financial sustainability of Public-Private Partnership (PPP) railway projects and reducing associated
risks, thereby encouraging private sector involvement. The proposed framework provides actionable
strategies for Vietnam's specific context, offering implications for policymakers to enhance the viability of
railway infrastructure projects through innovative financial models.
Keywords: Railway Project, Public-Private Partnerships, Transit-Oriented Development, Land Value
Capture.
INTRODUCTION
Improving transportation infrastructure is one of the key elements in supporting sustainable
economic growth in developing countries. According to World Bank data, global logistics costs
average around 10.7% of GDP, but in Vietnam this figure reaches 16.8% of GDP. The imbalance of
the transportation system is one of the main causes, with the dominance of road transportation
at 60.2%, air transportation at 36.6%, and rail transportation which only accounts for 0.5-1.0% of
total freight (Stambrook, 2006). The reliance on road transportation leads to high logistics costs,
environmental damage, and significant congestion in major cities such as Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh
City.
Vo Hoang Thien, Huang Ming Zhi
Page 2788
Asian Journal of Engineering, Social and Health
Volume 3, No. 12 December 2024
Table 1. New railway infrastructure in Vietnam
No.
Project
Length (km)
A
Urban railway projects
547.1
A1
Ho Chi Minh city
229.1
A2
Hanoi city
318
B
Ordinary railway projects
2417
C
North-South HSR project
1545
Addressing this issue, the Vietnamese government set out an ambitious plan to develop
new railway infrastructure that includes major corridor lines, high-speed rail (HSR), as well as
urban rail. Key projects include the construction of 547.1 km of urban rail networks, 2417 km of
regular rail projects, and a 1545 km North-South HSR project. However, the implementation of
these projects faces serious challenges, including limited public investment, reliance on Official
Development Assistance (ODA) loans, and low efficiency of investment through public-private
partnership (PPP) schemes.
Previous research shows that Asian countries such as Hong Kong, Japan, Singapore and
South Korea have successfully developed innovative financial instruments to support rail
infrastructure projects. Studies by (Dhindaw et al., 2021) highlight the effectiveness of Transit-
Oriented Development (TOD) and Land Value Capture (LVC) in increasing government revenue
from property development around stations. In addition, the subsidy-based and risk-sharing
(BTO-RS) Public-Private Partnership (PPP) model in South Korea has also been shown to attract
private sector investment without increasing the government's financial burden.
The urgency of this research lies in the pressing need to develop a financial model that fits
the Vietnamese context, given that reliance on ODA loans poses long-term risks to the country's
financial stability. Moreover, the low interest of the private sector to invest in railway
infrastructure projects under the PPP framework indicates the need for new, more innovative
approaches. This research also offers a comparative perspective with other Asian countries,
which can provide valuable lessons for Vietnam.
As a novelty, this research focuses on the integration of TOD and LVC strategies in the
Vietnamese context, which has not been discussed much in depth in previous literature. By
exploring ways of revenue diversification through ticket revenue, government subsidies, and
property development, this research is expected to provide innovative solutions to improve the
efficiency of railway infrastructure investment in Vietnam.
Based on the above background, the main objective of this research is to identify and
evaluate financial instruments that the Vietnamese government can use to finance railway
projects while improving investment efficiency through PPP schemes, focusing on the relevance
of instruments such as Transit-Oriented Development (TOD), Land Value Capture (LVC), and
franchising models. The benefits of this research include the provision of innovative financial
models, improved sustainability of infrastructure projects through revenue diversification,
Lesson for Vietnam to Learn from Asian Countries’ Financial Instruments for Railway Projects
Page 2789
Asian Journal of Engineering, Social and Health
Volume 3, No. 12 December 2024
reduced reliance on foreign loans, and increased private sector participation, which is expected
to contribute significantly to Vietnam's economic and social development through the
development of more efficient transportation infrastructure.
RESEARCH METHOD
This study employs secondary data sourced from publicly available reports and peer-
reviewed research. The methodology involves a comparative analysis of financial instruments
used in railway projects across various Asian countries to derive lessons applicable to Vietnam.
RESULT AND DISCUSSION
Implementation of Financial Instruments for Railway Infrastructure in Asian Countries
This section reviews key financial instruments in Asian railway projects, focusing on TOD, LVC, and
franchising models
TOD, introduced by Peter Calthorpe in the 1990s, promotes high-density, mixed-use
development around transit stations to boost public transport use and system efficiency [6]. TOD,
introduced by Peter Calthorpe in the 1990s, promotes high-density, mixed-use development
around transit stations to boost public transport use and system efficiency (Choi et al., 2023);
(Jones, 2023); (Hankamp, 2023).
LVC captures the rise in land and property values near transit stations to recover capital costs,
as ticket revenues are often insufficient. In cities like Beijing, Wuhan, and Shanghai, property
values increase significantly within 2 km of railway lines (Tan et al., 2019); (Shi & Fu, 2022).
Combining TOD and LVC promotes urban sustainability by lowering housing and transport costs
while improving capital recovery (Renne et al., 2016), (Z. Li et al., 2019).
Franchising, a PPP model, grants private entities the right to operate and maintain railway
services for a set period. Revenue is mainly from fares, but franchisees may also receive subsidies
or engage in real estate development, integrating LVC and TOD for capital recovery and
sustainability.
Franchising as a Fare-Based Financial Instrument for Capital Recovery
Laos–China Railway
The Laos–China Railway, a 414 km line connecting Boten to Vientiane, cost USD 5.9 billion.
The project is a Sino-Lao joint venture, with Laos holding 30% through the Lao National Railway
State Enterprise and Chinese state-owned enterprises contributing the rest. It operates under a
build-operate-transfer (BOT) model with a 75-year project duration—five years for construction
and a 50-year concession, extendable by 20 years. While successful in terms of schedule and
budget, Laos faces significant debt, about USD 1.5 billion, leading to land and resource
concessions to China (Hang et al., 2023).
Vo Hoang Thien, Huang Ming Zhi
Page 2790
Asian Journal of Engineering, Social and Health
Volume 3, No. 12 December 2024
Jakarta-Bandung HSR
The 142.3 km Jakarta-Bandung HSR, operating at speeds of 350-380 km/h, is a 60-40 joint
venture owned by PT Kereta Cepat Indonesia China (KCIC). China Development Bank financed
75% of the USD 6 billion cost, with a 10-year grace period and 2% interest. Indonesian enterprises
in joint venture handled land acquisition, and the government granted KCIC a 50-year concession.
Project delays pushed the completion from 2019 to 2022, and cost overruns raised the total to
USD 7.2 billion, leading to an extension of the concession period to 80 yearss (Maryani & Abidin,
2022).
Franchising as a Fare- and Subsidy-Based Financial Mechanism for Capital Recovery
Korean Railways
Attracting private investment in South Korea’s railway sector is challenging due to financial
risks. To address this, the Minimum Revenue Guarantee (MRG) was introduced in some Build-
Transfer-Operate (BTO) projects, with the government covering revenue shortfalls. However, this
increased public sector financial burden, leading to the adoption of the Maximum Concession
Cost (MCC) mechanism, which only covers operational losses. Later, the Build-Transfer-Operate
with Risk Sharing (BTO-RS) model was introduced to share both investment and operational risks
between the public and private sectors. While the BTO-RS model balances costs and risks, it
requires thorough risk assessments (Lee et al., 2022); (Maryani & Abidin, 2022).
Urban railways in Korea also struggle to attract private investment due to limited revenue
from fare-based financial instruments under the PPP model. Fares, capped by government
regulations, are the sole revenue source for PPP-Urban Rail Transit projects, making it hard to
secure financial investment for the lifecycle of urban rail transit (URT) systems (Chang & Phang,
2017), (Pulido et al., 2018).
Franchising as a Balanced Fare- and Subsidy-Based Financial Mechanism with LVC and TOD for
Capital Recovery
Urban Railways
To attract private investment, some cities combine LVC with TOD for sustainable financing.
LVC captures the increased value of land around transit stations and reinvests it to cover part of
the capital costs for railway infrastructure. LVC methods are typically classified as either (Suzuki
et al., 2015):
1) Tax/fee-based methods: Indirect taxes or fees from property owners.
2) Development-based methods: Direct transactions of properties that increase in value due to
railway infrastructure development.
Table 2. A summary of URT with LVC
Project
Fare regulation
Tokyo
Yardstick regulation [22]
Singapore
Price cap, operators bear revenue and cost risks
Hong Kong
Price cap
Lesson for Vietnam to Learn from Asian Countries’ Financial Instruments for Railway Projects
Page 2791
Asian Journal of Engineering, Social and Health
Volume 3, No. 12 December 2024
In Tokyo, the metro system uses the Rail + Property (R+P) model, a development-based LVC
mechanism (Table 2). Land and railway companies are privately owned, with fare regulation via
yardstick benchmarking (Chang & Phang, 2017).
In Hong Kong, the Mass Transit Railway (MTR) Corporation operates under the R+P model.
MTR generates revenue from non-fare sources like property development, rentals, and
commercial businesses at stations, making the metro financially self-sufficient without
government subsidies (Table 3).
In Singapore, the government auctions land to private developers, with proceeds going into
the general budget (Table 2). The Land Transport Authority (LTA) owns and builds rail
infrastructure, while SMRT operates it under strict fare regulations, exposing SMRT to cost and
revenue risks. In 2016, LTA bought back SMRT for US$1.06 billion.
Table 3. MTR Corporation's Operating Profit Contributions (billion USD) (X. Li & Love, 2022)
MTR Operations
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
Hong Kong transport operation
0.85
0.89
0.91
0.97
0.95
Hong Kong station commercial businesses
0.52
0.57
0.61
0.64
0.70
Hong Kong property rental and management businesses
0.39
0.43
0.47
0.50
0.52
Hong Kong property development
0.18
0.53
0.37
0.04
0.14
Total Profits
2.07
2.55
2.45
2.33
2.72
Intercity Railways
Intercity rail projects, unlike urban rail, leverage increased land values around stations to
support financing. The Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (XRL) is an example,
with two key sections:
1) Shenzhen XRL section: Public sector funds 100% of capital, with state and provincial
governments each contributing 50%. Shenzhen Metro Group Co., Ltd. (SZMC), a stakeholder,
provided 27.43% of the investment and operates the route. SZMC also partnered with private
developers for property projects above stations but relies on government subsidies to mitigate
operating deficits (Gong et al., 2021). SZMC is required to invest in social housing during real
estate booms.
2) Hong Kong XRL section: The railway facilities are owned by the government. The Special
Administrative Region (SAR) Government has entered into an entrustment agreement with
MTR Corporation Limited to oversee the construction and operation of the XRL project. Hong
Kong employs alternative value capture instruments, such as selling land above the station
through public bidding, which generates public revenue. In addition to land auctions, Hong
Kong captures increased land value from existing properties through its well-established tax
administration system, which serves as a secondary public revenue source.
Vo Hoang Thien, Huang Ming Zhi
Page 2792
Asian Journal of Engineering, Social and Health
Volume 3, No. 12 December 2024
Discussion and Lessons Learned for Vietnam
Discussion
Railway projects typically generate positive spillover effects across various economic sectors;
however, they often exhibit low investment efficiency and entail significant financial risks. One of
the key challenges in attracting private investment in railway infrastructure is the issue of capital
recovery. Addressing this challenge is critical to ensuring the financial viability of such projects.
Table 1. Comparison of Financial Instruments for Railway Projects in Asia
(*) The SOE issues shares on the stock market, thereby transitioning into a PPP entity.
Various financial instruments help balance risks through subsidies. Inkorea, MRG attracts
private investment but increases the public sector's burden, whereas MCC reduces this burden
but may require longer concession periods. The BTO-RS model offers a more balanced risk-sharing
approach between the government and private investors.
The length of concession periods in these models reflects the balance between risk, ticket
sales revenue, and government subsidies. When private investors face higher risks, such as
capped fare revenues or decreases in ticket sales, concession periods may need to be extended
to ensure the financial viability of the projects. Alternatively, when the government assumes a
greater portion of the risk through subsidies, concession periods may be shorter but result in
higher public expenditure.
Revenue generation in urban metro systems depends on balancing fare income, non-fare
revenue from LVC and TOD, along with government subsidies. While fares are a key revenue
source, fare caps in cities like Tokyo, Hong Kong, and Singapore limit operators' ability to raise
fares, creating financial risks, particularly as operational costs increase. The Rail+Property (R+P)
model, successfully implemented in Hong Kong and Tokyo, effectively leverages LVC to support
financial sustainability. In Hong Kong, non-fare revenue reduces the dependency on government
Project
Investor
Operator
Revenue of operator
Fare
Subsidy
LVC
URTs in Tokyo
Private
companies
Private
companies
Yardstick
regulation
[22]
None
Development-
based
URTs in Singapore
SOE
PPP (*)
Price cap
None
None
URTs in Hong kong
PPP (*)
PPP (*)
Price cap
None
Development-
based
Jakarta-Bandung HSR
Joint Venture
Joint Venture
Normal
None
None
Laos-China Railway
Joint Venture
Joint Venture
Normal
None
None
Korean Railways
PPP
PPP
Normal
Risk- sharing
None
Shenzhen XRL
section
SOE
SOE
Regulation
Risk- sharing
Development-
based
Hongkong XRL
section
SOE
PPP (*)
Regulation
None
Development-
based
Lesson for Vietnam to Learn from Asian Countries’ Financial Instruments for Railway Projects
Page 2793
Asian Journal of Engineering, Social and Health
Volume 3, No. 12 December 2024
subsidies, enabling more sustainable concession periods. In contrast, Singapore's reliance on fare
revenue led to financial instability for SMRT, raising concerns about the viability of PPP models.
When fare revenue proves insufficient, as in Singapore, concession periods may need to be
extended, or government support may become necessary. Models that integrate LVC and TOD,
such as those in Hong Kong, offer more balanced and financially resilient concession periods.
In intercity rail, as seen in Laos and Indonesia, ticket sales are the main revenue source.
Laos’ 75-year concession and Indonesia’s extension from 50 to 80 years highlight the need for
longer periods to recover costs, especially with delays and overruns in construction phase.
Research on the XRL rapid rail link indicates that fare revenue alone is insufficient to cover
total costs. Shenzhen relies more on government subsidies and property development through
risk-sharing to meet its social obligations. In contrast, Hong Kong’s more market-driven approach,
which disregards social obligations, successfully captures increased property values to cover a
significant portion of costs, leading to more balanced concession periods.
In conclusion, the adoption of Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) and Land Value Capture
(LVC) strategies generates significant public revenue by auctioning land above railway stations
through public bidding or by capturing the increased value of surrounding properties via a well-
established tax administration system, providing an additional public revenue source.
Furthermore, the diversification of revenue streams is widely acknowledged as a crucial approach
to addressing the challenge of capital recovery in railway projects. By reducing dependence on
fare revenues, operators can leverage alternative income sources such as government subsidies
and real estate development through TOD and LVC mechanisms. This approach enhances financial
sustainability, shortens concession periods, and increases the attractiveness of railway projects
to private investors.
Lessons Learned for Vietnam
Figure 1. Proposal for the financial mechanism of railway projects in Vietnam
Vo Hoang Thien, Huang Ming Zhi
Page 2794
Asian Journal of Engineering, Social and Health
Volume 3, No. 12 December 2024
Based on the analysis of financial instruments for railway projects across Asia, the proposed
financial model for Vietnam (Figure 2) emphasizes revenue diversification as a means of
enhancing capital recovery feasibility. This model aims to encourage private sector participation
in railway projects, thereby reducing the government's reliance on public investment.
Financial Instruments for Railway Joint Ventures
Figure 2. Proposed TOD Planning in Vietnam
Railway joint ventures are strategic for Vietnam's railway development, involving SOEs,
private companies, and international partners. These partnerships leverage diverse strengths
across financial, construction, and operational phases, promoting technology transfer and
capacity building. The proposed financial model highlights the importance of diversifying revenue
and investment sources, as outlined below.
Diversifying revenue sources
Diversification of revenue sources has been identified as a critical factor in capital recovery due
to its balanced approach across three distinct streams:
1) Fare and ticket sales: The implementation of a planning strategy based on the TOD model plays
a significant role in enhancing passenger utilization of railway infrastructure. This strategy not
only improves accessibility but also increases ticket sales revenue, thereby optimizing the
economic potential of railway operations.
2) LVC: LVC involves granting railway joint ventures the rights to exploit real estate above and
around railway stations (Figure 2). This generates additional revenue, which contributes to the
financial stability and sustainability of the investment model.
3) Government Subsidies: In cases where direct revenue generation is insufficient, governments
may provide subsidies to share financial risks. These subsidies ensure that railway joint
ventures can continue to maintain and expand services, alleviating the financial burden
associated with capital recovery.
Diversifying Investment Capital
Railway joint ventures can further enhance financial feasibility by diversifying their sources of
investment capital:
1) Private Sector: In addition to their own capital, private sector stakeholders can secure loans
Lesson for Vietnam to Learn from Asian Countries’ Financial Instruments for Railway Projects
Page 2795
Asian Journal of Engineering, Social and Health
Volume 3, No. 12 December 2024
from both domestic and international commercial banks. The availability of diversified revenue
sources improves the attractiveness and accessibility of investment in railway infrastructure
systems.
2) SOEs: In addition to receiving sponsorship from the state budget, SOEs can indirectly access
loan capital from foreign banks through government-backed financing.
Financial Instruments for State Budget
TOD and LVC are key instruments for generating revenue for the state budget, utilizing the
following methods:
Development-Based Method
Through TOD planning, the state can implement land acquisition policies in areas (Figure 1)
that do not conform to TOD design standards. This allows for the creation of land funds for LVC
implementation, which can then be monetized through the auction of land parcels within
designated areas.
Tax-Based or Fee-Based Methods
For TOD-compliant projects (Figure 1), the state can impose taxes on increased land value
resulting from railway development. Policies like Taiwan’s TOD FAR reward system (Yen et al.,
2023) can incentivize investment in nearby the projects.
Additionally, the state can secure capital through preferential loans from international
financial institutions and issue sovereign or infrastructure bonds to fund SOE investments in
railway joint ventures and real estate. The state budget also covers land acquisition, site
clearance, and subsidies for railway joint ventures during operations.
Advancing the Real Estate Industry
The real estate industry serves as an indirect financial tool for both the state budget and
railway operators through TOD and LVC strategies. When real estate development aligns with TOD
planning, it enhances the attractiveness and accessibility of railway infrastructure, leading to
increased passenger numbers and improved operational efficiency of railway projects.
Additionally, this alignment generates revenue for the state budget and operators through
development-based, tax-based, or fee-based methods under the LVC strategy, contributing to
long-term financial sustainability.
The diversity of investors and the leadership of SOEs are essential for promoting sustainable
development within the real estate industry. A diverse group of investors, including domestic and
foreign private companies as well as SOEs, enhances competitiveness, spurs innovation, and
improves product quality. Moreover, this diversity mitigates risks, strengthens market resilience
during economic downturns, and provides a larger capital pool for large-scale real estate
developments.
In parallel, SOEs play a crucial role in stabilizing the real estate market by reducing
speculation and preventing market volatility. They also fulfill their social obligations by providing
affordable housing, thereby contributing to social equity. Strong leadership within SOEs ensures
Vo Hoang Thien, Huang Ming Zhi
Page 2796
Asian Journal of Engineering, Social and Health
Volume 3, No. 12 December 2024
compliance with regulations, fosters transparency, and builds public trust. Together, these factors
significantly enhance the overall sustainability and effectiveness of the real estate industry.
To achieve this, targeted financial instruments are necessary. Private sector entities can
secure capital from both domestic and international financial institutions or issue shares on the
stock market, while SOEs can initially obtain funding through the state budget (Figure 1).
CONCLUSION
This study examined financial instruments in railway projects across Asia, focusing on Hong
Kong, Japan, Singapore, Taiwan, Laos, Korea, and China. Based on these, a financial strategy was
proposed to address two key challenges in Vietnam's railway development: securing government
investment and attracting private sector participation.
Regarding Government Investment Capital, this study recommends utilizing sovereign
bonds, infrastructure bonds, loans from international financial institutions, and LVC. LVC,
particularly when integrated with TOD planning, is highlighted as a key tool. By capturing the
increased land value near railway stations, LVC helps mitigate financial risks while making a
substantial contribution to the state budget. To attract private sector investment, the strategy
emphasizes project feasibility and profitability by diversifying revenue through fare sales, LVC,
and government subsidies, while offering protections like revenue guarantees and risk-sharing
to ensure capital recovery and private sector engagement.
In summary, the proposed model aims to secure sustainable funding for Vietnam’s railway
infrastructure, ensuring financial viability and long-term sustainability through a balanced mix of
public and private financing.
REFERENCES
Chang, Z., & Phang, S.-Y. (2017). Urban rail transit PPPs: lessons from East Asian cities.
Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 105, 106–122.
Choi, K., Park, H. J., & Uribe, F. A. (2023). The impact of light rail transit station area development
on residential property values in Calgary, Canada: Focus on land use diversity and activity
opportunities. Case Studies on Transport Policy, 12, 100924.
Dhindaw, J., Kumaraswamy, S. K., Prakash, S., Chanchani, R., & Deb, A. (2021). Synergizing land
value capture and transit-oriented development: A study of Bengaluru metro.
Gong, W., Li, J., & Ng, M. K. (2021). Deciphering property development around high-speed railway
stations through land value capture: Case studies in Shenzhen and Hong Kong.
Sustainability, 13(22), 12605.
Hang, N. H. T., Manh, H. B., Cong, K. N., Le Viet, H., & Le Cong, T. (2023). Financial resource
mobilization for high-speed railway projects in the world, lessons for Vietnam. E3S Web of
Conferences, 403, 7013.
Hankamp, B. (2023). Transit Oriented Development in the Netherlands: key strategies for
development and implementation.
Lesson for Vietnam to Learn from Asian Countries’ Financial Instruments for Railway Projects
Page 2797
Asian Journal of Engineering, Social and Health
Volume 3, No. 12 December 2024
Jones, C. E. (2023). Essays on purpose-built rental housing, gentrification, and transit-oriented
development in suburban Metro Vancouver. University of British Columbia.
Lee, J., Kim, K., & Oh, J. (2022). Build-Transfer-Operate with risk sharing approach for railway
public-private-partnership project in Korea. Asian Transport Studies, 8, 100061.
Li, X., & Love, P. E. D. (2022). Procuring urban rail transit infrastructure by integrating land value
capture and public-private partnerships: Learning from the cities of Delhi and Hong Kong.
Cities, 122, 103545.
Li, Z., Han, Z., Xin, J., Luo, X., Su, S., & Weng, M. (2019). Transit oriented development among
metro station areas in Shanghai, China: Variations, typology, optimization and implications
for land use planning. Land Use Policy, 82, 269–282.
Maryani, D., & Abidin, Z. (2022). JAKARTA-BANDUNG HIGH-SPEED TRAIN INFRASTRUCTURE
DEVELOPMENT. Jurnal Ilmiah Administrasi Pemerintahan Daerah, 14(1), 162–179.
Pulido, D., Darido, G., Munoz-Raskin, R., & Moody, J. (2018). The urban rail development
handbook. World Bank Publications.
Renne, J. L., Tolford, T., Hamidi, S., & Ewing, R. (2016). The cost and affordability paradox of
transit-oriented development: A comparison of housing and transportation costs across
transit-oriented development, hybrid and transit-adjacent development station typologies.
Housing Policy Debate, 26(4–5), 819–834.
Shi, D., & Fu, M. (2022). How Does Rail Transit Affect the Spatial Differentiation of Urban
Residential Prices? A Case Study of Beijing Subway. Land, 11(10), 1729.
Stambrook, D. (2006). Key factors driving the future demand for surface transport infrastructure
and services. Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development, Infrastructure To,
2030, 185–239.
Suzuki, H., Murakami, J., Hong, Y.-H., & Tamayose, B. (2015). Financing transit-oriented
development with land values: Adapting land value capture in developing countries. World
Bank Publications.
Tan, R., He, Q., Zhou, K., & Xie, P. (2019). The effect of new metro stations on local land use and
housing prices: The case of Wuhan, China. Journal of Transport Geography, 79, 102488.
Yen, B. T. H., Feng, C.-M., & Lee, T.-C. (2023). Transit-oriented development strategy in Taiwan:
An application of land value capture. Asian Transport Studies, 9, 100094.
Copyright holder:
Vo Hoang Thien, Huang Ming Zhi (2024)
First publication right:
Asian Journal of Engineering, Social and Health (AJESH)
This article is licensed under: