The optimal distance from housing development to railway station can be revealed by studying how housing price declines with the distance from the railway station. Usually a hedonic analysis can be conducted. Then the optimal distance can be the point where housing price largely stops declining or where the distance variable is no longer a significant variable for housing price.

This depends on the hierarchy of your public transit system. Is this a light rail for daily urban commute and you have transit/ridesharing system? Then.5 to 1 mile in high density area and 1 to 1.5 miles in suburb area.

if your rail system is a heavy system in a metropolitan area then you need to have stations in the center of each town/community and 2 or 3 stations in the main city.

As mentioned in another answer, it depends on the hierarchy of the rail system, and also the available modes of access/egress.

In general, people are prepared to spend max (preferably less) 1/6 part of their total door-to-door travel time on access and on egress.

For an urban metro-system, door-to-door time is preferably 45-60 min, so max 10 min access, hence 800m walking (or >2km cycling).

For a High Speed National Corridor, the total travel time could be >3 hours, so access >30 min, hence >30km driving, or feeder Public Transport.

For egress (at the destination side of the trip), this is mostly limited to walking and PT (or taxi), as no private transport mode is available...

But as I understand your question is for optimum TOD location of new residential (and working, office. shopping) developments. Then I would suggest a shorter distance, and 500m walking is a good measure (provided the urban realm is designed properly; with dense, mixed-use, fine grain, attractive space it could be a bit more). As another answer indicated: look at the price developments of property.

The distance between two station need to be design on the bases of Population demand, as you mentioned as per TOD concept the station should be around 500m, in Germany the ratio in urban areas is less then 1km, but in urban areas, its mainly based on town location, in Province of Bavaria the town are located by the Land planner, and the station is provided as per town planning, some time its located after 3 to 7km depend on the agriculture land parcel, so again in cities if you are planning and design to achieve sustainability it should be located in less then 500m, but also don't confuse in Right of way category A, B, C. that's totally different concept and difficult to analyses, planned and design.

Research conducted over the years in California has found that walking distance depends on whether it takes place at the origin (residential) end of a trip or at the destination (employment or other) end. Cervero found, for example, that walking distance from rail station to office followed a steeply dropping curve; offices adjacent to rail stations saw 20-30% of employees arriving by rail; at 100m, that figure was about 15%; at 250m it was down to 5%, and at 400m it was down to 2.5%, an order of magnitude difference with adjacent properties (it is worth noting that no mode choice component of any Regional Travel Model in the US with which I am familiar bothers to take these differences into account; the San Diego model, for example, assigns a single average walking score to any employment site located within a Transportation Analysis Zone whose centroid is within a specified straight-line distance from the station, leading to gross distortions in ridership projections).

The question, here, though, is about residential access. Other research in California, I recall, showed a straight, gently sloping line, with maximum ridership generated adjacent to the station and ridership declining until a distance of about 800m. Additional research has shown that people report a willingness to drive up to 2 miles to access a park-and-ride facility; beyond that, willingness to drive drops off significantly.

Having lived in the tropics for most my life I would say the nearer the better.Where it is not uncommon to have residential development located just adjacent to transport/transit hubs. Not just because of the warmer temperatures but because of the frequent rain that one might be exposed to during certain seasons of the year. This presumes that one takes the most basic form of transportation- walking to the station.

Another aspect that developers often ignore is noise pollution. Noise travels upwards from the transit hubs- bus/rail. And the higher up the location of the residence the more likely one is likely to be exposed to noises. Building walls and partitioning to deflect direct light will only be a partial solution to this problem. I recall having lived on the highest floor of an apartment and having been able to make out conversations of people at the swimming pool area that was located right below my unit, late at night and in the wee hours of the morning. With respect to residentials, "the nearer the better" and "the higher or more underground, the better ".

Just as gravity has its rainbow- resulting in projectiles having a parabolic trajectory; so similarly sound has a trajectory that is probably exponential from source or linear. This will also give a good estimate of the optimal distance besides "walkability in the tropics".

Article Climate-Sensitive Urban Design Measures for Improving the Wi...

Article The heat penalty of walkable neighbourhoods

ToD to ToD what would be the minimum diantance so that retails not kiliing each other ?

Hi,

This link talk about: Railway Designs

https://wiki.openttd.org/Railway_Designs