![Page 1: Transit Impact Evaluation: Context Types: –Predictive (ex ante) vs. Evaluative (ex post) –Inter-modal vs. No-Build (counterfactual) Challenge: Attribution](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032607/56649ece5503460f94bdbc31/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Transit Impact Evaluation: Context• Types:
– Predictive (ex ante) vs. Evaluative (ex post)
– Inter-modal vs. No-Build (counterfactual)
• Challenge: Attribution– Econometric: time series data with statistical controls
– Quasi-experimental comparisons/matched pairs
• Economic Impacts:– Generative: travel time savings, employment growth
– Distributive: land-use shifts, retail sales shifts
• Issues: – Accounting (financial) transfers: property tax income
– Double-counting
![Page 2: Transit Impact Evaluation: Context Types: –Predictive (ex ante) vs. Evaluative (ex post) –Inter-modal vs. No-Build (counterfactual) Challenge: Attribution](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032607/56649ece5503460f94bdbc31/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Measuring Generative Benefits: MethodsTCRP Report 35
• Travel Demand Models: travel time savings with vs. without investment
• Econometric Models: REMI (increased economic outputs from industry-specific travel time savings)
• Land Market: Hedonic Price Model (premium)– Pit = f (I, N, L)it; I = Improvements; N = Neighborhood
Attributes; L = Location Attributes– Captures Accessibility & Agglomeration Benefits– Measurement: Impact Zone (distance rings); Land Price
Gradient; Aggregation
• Utility Choice Models: Compensating Variation estimates
![Page 3: Transit Impact Evaluation: Context Types: –Predictive (ex ante) vs. Evaluative (ex post) –Inter-modal vs. No-Build (counterfactual) Challenge: Attribution](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032607/56649ece5503460f94bdbc31/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
• Star-shaped, multi-centered Star-shaped, multi-centered metropolismetropolis
• Strong Core … “San Francisco Strong Core … “San Francisco as as the Manhattan of the the Manhattan of the
West”West”
The Vision: 1956 PlanThe Vision: 1956 Plan
BART BART @@ 20 Study 20 Study
![Page 4: Transit Impact Evaluation: Context Types: –Predictive (ex ante) vs. Evaluative (ex post) –Inter-modal vs. No-Build (counterfactual) Challenge: Attribution](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032607/56649ece5503460f94bdbc31/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
1980
1990
BART:BART: Spurred Decentralization Spurred Decentralization && Strengthened Strengthened the Corethe Core
1968 pre-BART)1968 pre-BART)
Employment Employment Densities Densities
and BART Alignmentand BART Alignment(CTPP, Part II)(CTPP, Part II)
![Page 5: Transit Impact Evaluation: Context Types: –Predictive (ex ante) vs. Evaluative (ex post) –Inter-modal vs. No-Build (counterfactual) Challenge: Attribution](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032607/56649ece5503460f94bdbc31/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
~ 30 million ft. sq. office-commercial floorspace added the 1st 20 Years of BART
Retained employment & retail primacy (vs. non-rail west-coast metro areas)
Commercial-Office GrowthCommercial-Office GrowthDowntown San FranciscoDowntown San Francisco(TRW-REDI)
![Page 6: Transit Impact Evaluation: Context Types: –Predictive (ex ante) vs. Evaluative (ex post) –Inter-modal vs. No-Build (counterfactual) Challenge: Attribution](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032607/56649ece5503460f94bdbc31/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Trend Comparisons Between BART & Non-BART Superdistricts:
Population and Job Changes, 1970-1990
17.1%
38.9%
29.8%
84.5%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Population
Employment
Percent Growth, 1970 - 1990
BART Non-BART
36 superdistricts
Employment Impact Analyses:• Shift-Share (CBP; FIRE Growth)• Econometrics (CTPP; Occupation)
![Page 7: Transit Impact Evaluation: Context Types: –Predictive (ex ante) vs. Evaluative (ex post) –Inter-modal vs. No-Build (counterfactual) Challenge: Attribution](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032607/56649ece5503460f94bdbc31/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Spurred Decentralization?Impacts outside of San Francisco
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
Oakland-12th
Oakland-19th
LakeMerritt
Berkeley WalnutCreek
Concord Fremont OtherEast Bay
Closest BART Station(within 1/2 mile)
Off
ice
Sp
ace
(mil
lio
ns
of
squ
are
feet
)
1975-921963-74To 1962
54.3
million
![Page 8: Transit Impact Evaluation: Context Types: –Predictive (ex ante) vs. Evaluative (ex post) –Inter-modal vs. No-Build (counterfactual) Challenge: Attribution](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032607/56649ece5503460f94bdbc31/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Walnut Creek
![Page 9: Transit Impact Evaluation: Context Types: –Predictive (ex ante) vs. Evaluative (ex post) –Inter-modal vs. No-Build (counterfactual) Challenge: Attribution](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032607/56649ece5503460f94bdbc31/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
BART & Housing Markets
$2.29$1.96
-$2.80
-$3.41-$4
-$3
-$2
-$1
$0
$1
$2
$3
Alameda ContraCosta
Per
Mete
r $ P
rem
ium
BART Freeway
• 1-mile catchments:~ 4,000 Demolitions =~ 4,000 Additions
• Home Price Premium
• “Discrete Change”analysis showedBART inducedhousing growth forhectare grid-cells within1 mile of stations(ABAG land-use &aerial-photo information)
Nodal Comparisons:Stations vs. Freeway Interchanges
![Page 10: Transit Impact Evaluation: Context Types: –Predictive (ex ante) vs. Evaluative (ex post) –Inter-modal vs. No-Build (counterfactual) Challenge: Attribution](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032607/56649ece5503460f94bdbc31/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0 .4
0 .5
0 .6
0 .7
0 .8
0 .9
0 1 2 3+
N u m b e r o f C a rs in H o u se h o ld
Pro
bab
ilit
y C
om
mu
te b
y R
ail
R e s id e N e a r /W o rk N e a r R a il
R e s id e A w a y /W o rk A w a y fro mR a il
R e s id e N e a r /W o rk A w a y fro mR a il
R e s id e A w a y /W o rk N e a r R a il
Sensitivity Test:Sensitivity Test: Car Ownership Covariate Car Ownership Covariate
35% pt. higher prob.
![Page 11: Transit Impact Evaluation: Context Types: –Predictive (ex ante) vs. Evaluative (ex post) –Inter-modal vs. No-Build (counterfactual) Challenge: Attribution](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032607/56649ece5503460f94bdbc31/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
![Page 12: Transit Impact Evaluation: Context Types: –Predictive (ex ante) vs. Evaluative (ex post) –Inter-modal vs. No-Build (counterfactual) Challenge: Attribution](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032607/56649ece5503460f94bdbc31/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
BART & Redevelopment
• Can’t overcome weak local real estate markets
• Required huge subsidies …and even then, not automatic
Oakland CBD
![Page 13: Transit Impact Evaluation: Context Types: –Predictive (ex ante) vs. Evaluative (ex post) –Inter-modal vs. No-Build (counterfactual) Challenge: Attribution](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032607/56649ece5503460f94bdbc31/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Highway and LRT Maps
Estimating Benefit Using Compensating Variation
C. Rodier & R. Johnston, Travel, Emissions, and WelfareEffects of TDM, TRR 1598, 1997.
![Page 14: Transit Impact Evaluation: Context Types: –Predictive (ex ante) vs. Evaluative (ex post) –Inter-modal vs. No-Build (counterfactual) Challenge: Attribution](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032607/56649ece5503460f94bdbc31/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
![Page 15: Transit Impact Evaluation: Context Types: –Predictive (ex ante) vs. Evaluative (ex post) –Inter-modal vs. No-Build (counterfactual) Challenge: Attribution](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032607/56649ece5503460f94bdbc31/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Benefit Measure
Compensating Variation (CV)Compensating Variation (CV) obtained from discrete choice models where is the individual's marginal utility of income, Vm is the individual's indirect utility of all m choices, p0 =before policy, and pf = after policy.
From SACMET 94 Logit Models with Land use, Travel Time & Cost, and Household Variables:
![Page 16: Transit Impact Evaluation: Context Types: –Predictive (ex ante) vs. Evaluative (ex post) –Inter-modal vs. No-Build (counterfactual) Challenge: Attribution](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032607/56649ece5503460f94bdbc31/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Scenarios
Consumer Consumer Welfare ($)Welfare ($) Per Trip ($)Per Trip ($)
LRT
$120,000 $ 0.02
Pricing/No Build $1.918 million $ 0.26
Super LRT & TOD* $2.362 million $ 0.32
* Shifted pop. & emp. from outer zones to 1 mi. radius of 45 LRT stations
Estimated Year 2015 Impacts for Sacramento Region
![Page 17: Transit Impact Evaluation: Context Types: –Predictive (ex ante) vs. Evaluative (ex post) –Inter-modal vs. No-Build (counterfactual) Challenge: Attribution](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032607/56649ece5503460f94bdbc31/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
HEDONICHEDONICPRICE PRICE MODELSMODELS
Timing Timing && Context Context Matter:Matter:
Santa Clara Santa Clara LRT – LRT – 1996-2000:1996-2000:• 4,500 4,500 Housing UnitsHousing Units• > 9 million > 9 million sq. ft. of sq. ft. of commercialcommercialfloorspacefloorspace
![Page 18: Transit Impact Evaluation: Context Types: –Predictive (ex ante) vs. Evaluative (ex post) –Inter-modal vs. No-Build (counterfactual) Challenge: Attribution](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032607/56649ece5503460f94bdbc31/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Residential Analysis (OLS)Residential Analysis (OLS)
Regional Job Accessibility (Highway): No. jobs within 30 min. peak-hour travel time on highway network
Regional Job Accessibility (Transit): No. jobs within 15 min. peak-hour travel time on transit network
Downtown San Jose: within with ½ mile (straight-line) of downtown San Jose
Accessibility/Location Vector
Effects on Land Values per Sq. Foot:
++
++
++
![Page 19: Transit Impact Evaluation: Context Types: –Predictive (ex ante) vs. Evaluative (ex post) –Inter-modal vs. No-Build (counterfactual) Challenge: Attribution](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032607/56649ece5503460f94bdbc31/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Residential AnalysisResidential Analysis
LRT & Large Apartments: within ¼ mile of LRT station and that are Apartment Complexes (5+ units)
Commuter Rail: within ¼ straight-line mile of CalTrain station
Freeway Proximity: Distance, in network miles, of parcel to nearest grade-separated freeway or highway interchange
Freeway Dis-amenity: Proportion of parcels with ¼ straight-line mile of grade-separated freeway or highway interchange
Rail/Highway Proximity Vector
Effects on Land Values per Sq. Foot:
++
++
--
--
![Page 20: Transit Impact Evaluation: Context Types: –Predictive (ex ante) vs. Evaluative (ex post) –Inter-modal vs. No-Build (counterfactual) Challenge: Attribution](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032607/56649ece5503460f94bdbc31/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Residential AnalysisResidential Analysis
Single-Family Residential: Proportion of dwelling units within one-mile radius of parcel that are single-family
Jobs-Housing Balance: 1 – {[ABS (ER - E)] / (ER + E)}, where: ER = employed-residents within 5 mile radius of parcel; E = employment within 5 mile radius of parcel
Land-Use Mix: Normalized Entropy = { - k [ (pi) (ln pi)]}/(ln k)},
where: pi = proportion of total land-use activities in category i for 1-mile
radius of parcel (where land-use activities are defined in terms of numbers of: employed-residents in single-family housing; employed-residents in multi-family housing; employees in retail; employees in services; employees in manufacturing; employees in trade; employees in agriculture; and employees in other (including office sector); and k = 8 (number of land-use categories).
Land Use, Zoning, Mix, & Balance Effects on Land Values per Sq. Foot:
--
++
++
![Page 21: Transit Impact Evaluation: Context Types: –Predictive (ex ante) vs. Evaluative (ex post) –Inter-modal vs. No-Build (counterfactual) Challenge: Attribution](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032607/56649ece5503460f94bdbc31/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Residential AnalysisResidential Analysis
Land-Use Mix & Apartments: Land-Use Mix (Entropy) * Apartment Residential Use (1=yes; 0=no)
Land-Use Mix & Condos: Land-Use Mix (Entropy) * Apartment Residential Use (1=yes; 0=no)
Land Use, Zoning, Mix, & Balance
Effects on Land Values per Sq. Foot:
--
++
![Page 22: Transit Impact Evaluation: Context Types: –Predictive (ex ante) vs. Evaluative (ex post) –Inter-modal vs. No-Build (counterfactual) Challenge: Attribution](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032607/56649ece5503460f94bdbc31/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Residential AnalysisResidential Analysis
Racial Mix: Normalized Entropy = { - k [ (pi) (ln pi)]}/(ln k)},
where: pi = proportion of total population in racial category i for 1-
mile radius of parcel (where racial categories are: White; African American; Asian American; Other; and k = 4 (number of land-use
categories).
Household Income: Mean household income (in $1999) ofhouseholds within one mile radius of parcel
Housing Density: No. housing units per gross acre within one mile of parcel
Others: School scores, crime rates
Type of Property; Municipality Fixed Effects
Neighborhood Attributes
Effects on Land Values per Sq. Foot:
--
++
--
Controls:
![Page 23: Transit Impact Evaluation: Context Types: –Predictive (ex ante) vs. Evaluative (ex post) –Inter-modal vs. No-Build (counterfactual) Challenge: Attribution](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032607/56649ece5503460f94bdbc31/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Transit Proximity & Value-Added:Santa Clara Valley, 1998-2000
$4.10
$25.40
$9.20
$4.16
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
< 1/ 4 mile ofLRT
< 1/ 4 mile ofCalTrain & BD
< 1/ 4 mile LRT < 1/ 4 mileCalTrain
Addit
ional
Lan
d V
alue/
Sq. Ft.
($, 1999)
(24(24%%))
(103(103%%))
(28(28%%))
(17(17%%))
COMMERCIAL PARCELSCOMMERCIAL PARCELS RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL PARCELSPARCELS
Favorable Favorable Conditions:Conditions:• Boom economy• More mature network• Proactive policies
![Page 24: Transit Impact Evaluation: Context Types: –Predictive (ex ante) vs. Evaluative (ex post) –Inter-modal vs. No-Build (counterfactual) Challenge: Attribution](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032607/56649ece5503460f94bdbc31/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
San DiegoSan DiegoRail StationsRail Stations
4 6 .1 %
2 .2 %
3 .0 %
6 .4 %
3 .5 %
0 % 5 % 1 0 % 1 5 % 2 0 % 2 5 % 3 0 % 3 5 % 4 0 % 4 5 % 5 0 %
La nd V a lue P re m ium /Dis c ount, P e rc e nt
T ro lle y : S o u th L in e
T ro lle y : E a s t L in e
T ro lle y : N o rth L in e
T ro lle y : D o w n to w n
C o a s te r
MF HousingMF Housing
38.5%
-4.2%
1.9%
30.4%
-0.5%
-3.9%
-10% -5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%
La nd V a lue P re m ium /Discount, P e rce nt
Tro lley: South L ine
Tro lley: East L ine
Tro lley: N orth L ine
Tro lley: D ow ntow n
C oaster
C oaster: D ow ntow n
CommercialCommercial
SAN DIEGOSAN DIEGOTROLLEY & COASTER’s VALUE-ADDEDTROLLEY & COASTER’s VALUE-ADDED
30.4%
38.9%
46.7%
![Page 25: Transit Impact Evaluation: Context Types: –Predictive (ex ante) vs. Evaluative (ex post) –Inter-modal vs. No-Build (counterfactual) Challenge: Attribution](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032607/56649ece5503460f94bdbc31/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
-1 .6%
-6 .0%
3 .4 %
1 .2 %
0 .5 %
-3 .4%
3 .7 %
-3 .5%
6 .1 %
-8% -6% -4% -2% 0% 2% 4% 6% 8%
Land Value P re mium/D iscount, P e rce nt
M etro R ed S ubw ay L ine
M etro link Antelope V a lley L ine
M etro link R iverside L ine
M etro link S an B ernard ino L ine
M etro link V entura L in e
M etro LR T B lue L ine
M etro LR T G reen L in e
M etro R ap id V entura B R T L ine
M etro R ap id W ilsh ire -W hittier B R T L ine
LA METRO
Los Angeles ExperiencesLos Angeles ExperiencesMulti-Family Housing Premium/Discount
![Page 26: Transit Impact Evaluation: Context Types: –Predictive (ex ante) vs. Evaluative (ex post) –Inter-modal vs. No-Build (counterfactual) Challenge: Attribution](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032607/56649ece5503460f94bdbc31/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Housing Values, Travel Times,and Commuter Rail Stations: NJ
Transport CostTransport Cost
Housing Housing CostCost
Travel time to CoreTravel time to CoreCoreCore
Price, $Price, $
Housing & Transport BudgetHousing & Transport Budget