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