transit impact evaluation: context types: –predictive (ex ante) vs. evaluative (ex post)...
TRANSCRIPT
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
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
• 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
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)
~ 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)
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)
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
Walnut Creek
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
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.
BART & Redevelopment
• Can’t overcome weak local real estate markets
• Required huge subsidies …and even then, not automatic
Oakland CBD
Highway and LRT Maps
Estimating Benefit Using Compensating Variation
C. Rodier & R. Johnston, Travel, Emissions, and WelfareEffects of TDM, TRR 1598, 1997.
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:
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
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
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:
++
++
++
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:
++
++
--
--
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:
--
++
++
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:
--
++
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:
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
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%
-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
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