TOD can be developed along the nodes even in sub-urban districts. In principal it is associated development along the transit, in opposition with low density development in sub-urban areas. Station areas which is major OD point must have housing and mix use closer. Walkability becomes essential for the transit system to be efficient. Land use, density control and transit facilities are important for smooth functioning of movements. It must be understood the sub urban needs to have optimized energy efficiency thus must re-densify the districts with sufficient mix use for commercial viability of TOD expenditures.

Density of development close to the station is important as well as parking at the station. The market should handle the density issue if binding public-sector constraints are not encountered. The pricing of parking is the key in that regard.

TOD is applicable at such areas but of course the attraction urban elements should fit the nature of these areas. Best wishes 

The short answer is yes: the idea of TOD (as formulated by Calthorpe an others) is about urban intensification around suburban stations. See below study about exploring such opportunities in suburban Melbourne.

https://msd.unimelb.edu.au/sites/default/files/docs/Intensifying%20Melbourne%202014_180dpi.pdf

Transit oriented development TOD should always be taken into account no matter what density are we considering. However the issue of the scale of the development and transport is important and vary on location and local condition.

I would most importantly take into account the changes in urban mobilty that are ahead of us due to climate change!

All due respect to Mr. Bradecki, high density is the foremost condition of success of  public transit. It is also, in my opinion, a necessary policy parameter, and must be imposed, if the success of transit is a community goal. SR

TOD is a desirable objective, socially, economically and environmentally.  If travellers can be persuaded to walk/cycle and take public transport instead of driving, there are benefits of reduced transport energy intensity, reduced cardiovascular problems and reduced traffic congestion which translates into less urban pollution and more productivity from the reduced travel time.

However, my work suggests that all of the above are threatened by autonomous vehicles which, in the form of driverless 'Uber' taxis, may be a similar cost to public transport but will offer a door-to-door service.  This brings risks of continuing or increased traffic congestion and reduced active travel.  Of course, the productivity gains and reduced traffic accidents will still be achieved but there is a growing need for urban planners and policymakers to develop policies that optimise the use of this new technology before it severely impacts TOD policies.  Note also that driverless vehicles also threaten the compact city's goal of constraining urban sprawl.

A good starting point (if you haven't read it) is 'Lecture Notes in Mobility - Road Vehicle Automation 3'  by Beiker & Meyer - link https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-319-40503-2

Regards, Phil

Philip Tomney brought up a pivotal point: the impact of private transport modes. He pointed to the 'Lecture Notes ...'. As well, we must include, in this discussion, taxing the users (of private modes), most likely, in cases such as Uber, through the providers (knowing full well that they will pass on that tax to their customers). Without undue optimism, I predict that this will soon become as ubiquitous as taxing  income is today. SR

A counter example of TOD is Los Angeles, where transit (only a short segment was built) plays a minimal role in urban transportation.  The key, as Peter pointed out, is density.  If below some threshold level of urban density, it is very difficult for TOD to succeed.

An interesting point related to walkability is that bike sharing, which is now very common and popular in major Chinese cities, may overcome the walkability problem related to TOD.  Hopefully, it may significantly extend the impact region of TOD and even lower the threshold density required by TOD.

Thanks to Feng Frederick Deng for your comments.  Do you have a link to any empirical data relating to the Los Angeles TOD example, or is there only anecdotal evidence?

I don't have any data about LA, but there are many studies on transit in LA as well as many news reports.  I am sure you can search and find many of them on the web.