1. SUMMER 2007 GIS PROJECT BY ADETUNJI .O. IDOWU
EFFECTS OF RAILROAD PROXIMITY ON PROPERTY VALUE: DART CASE STUDY IN DALLAS COUNTY.
SUMMER 2007 GIS PROJECT BY
ADETUNJI .O. IDOWU

2. PROJECT INTRODUCTION. For Presentation: INRODUCTION.
OBJECTIVE AND HYPOTHESIS.
LITERATURE REVIEW.
DATA AND METHODOLOGY.
PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED.
REFERENCES.
For write up /deliverable:
CHAPTER ONE:INTRODUCTION.
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW.
CHAPTER THREE:METHODOLOGY.
CHAPTER FOUR:ANALYSIS AND RESULTS.
CHAPTER FIVE:CONCLUSIONS AND RESULTS.

3. OBJECTIVE:
This project aims at determining what effects (if any) railroad proximity has on both residential and commercial property values in Dallas County using DART railroad lines.

4. HYPOTHESIS
Hypothesis: The closer the property is to DART Railroad lines, the more valuable it is.
In other words, Property values will be affected positively.

5. PROJECT SIGNIFICANCE
Extensive research and studies have been done on both heavy and light railroad systems around the United States.
DART is the sixth most ridden Light rail system in the U.S serving an average of 64,300 weekly.
Studies help real estate developers, urban town planners and policy makers strategically plan cities
From , studies by DART showed that residential property near DART rail system on average increased in value of 39% more
that properties not served by rail
and for Office buildings 53%.
Source:

6. Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART)
The Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) was founded on August 13, 1983 and services the city of Dallas and 12 surrounding cities in the Dallas, Denton and Collin County Areas .
Funding for this project was generated by collection of a voter approved one cent local sales tax with ongoing development being financed by this tax plus investment incomes, federal funds, etc.
DART covers about 700 square mile-service area has about 45 miles of light rail transit and is slated to double its size to about 93 miles by 2014.
Currently has 35 stations, a total vehicle fleet of 115 and runs 45 miles (As of November 2004).

7. Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART)

8. LITERATURE REVIEW
Both residential and commercial property values are influenced by railroad transport accessibility and extensive research have been done using variables like stations, rail lines and rail corridor proximity.
Ferguson et al (1988) -“The Pre-Service Impacts of the Vancouver Advanced Light Rail Transit System on Family Property Values” suggests that railways have a natural effect on land values and land use patterns with this project focusing on residential property value.
Studies by Bernard L. Weinstein & Terry L.Clower, July 1999-The Initial Economic Impacts of the DART System showed that values of properties adjoining DART light rail stations grew by 25 percent more than properties that were not serviced by the rail system .

9. Literature review ….continued
The Bay Area Rapid Transit System (BART) is an example of a heavy rail public transit system and began operation in It spans 104 miles with five lines and 43 stations and this is a well documented example for this project purpose.
Results have been mixed but majority have found that rail stations have a positive effect on nearby property values.
Possible reason for varying results maybe failure to account for competing effects of stations on nearby properties.
Studies by Cervero et al.(1995) – “BART at 20” :Land use impacts-Presented at the 74th Annual meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington,DC have shown that home rent values were 10-15% greater in the area within ¼ miles to a BART station than those farther away.

10. Literature review ….continued
Residential and office properties were also impacted positively in an independent study conducted by The Sedway Group ( a full-service real estate and urban economics consulting firm in San Francisco. Results showed that apartment rent rates were 15 to 26% higher than those farther away from BART stations.

11. Literature review ….continued
The Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA) is another example of railroad system that has been extensively studied with positive railroad impact conclusions on commercial properties.
Research by Nelson, A. Transit Stations and commercial Property Values: A case study with policy and Land Use Implications. Journal of Public Transportation, Vol.2, No.3, 1999, pp found that commercial properties were influenced by both access to rail stations and policies that encourage more intensive development around these stations.

12. DATA Data Sources: Dallas County shape file: www.gisdfwinfo.com
Dallas Parcel files (2003):Dr Ron Briggs
Dallas Property value data ( DCAD 2000 and 2005 in dbf format): Dr Ron Briggs.

13. METHODOLOGY Data acquisition.
Cleaning up of unwanted and irrelevant data files.
Determine buffer zones of 1/8, 1/4, ½, ¾ and 1 mile of DART Rail lines.
Spatial analysis.
Select Residential properties within these regions and compare property values changes between 2000 and 2005 to test if values have increased using buffer zones of 1/4, ½, and 1 mile of DART Rail lines.
Select Commercial Properties within these regions and compare property values changes between 2000 and 2005 to test if values have increased using buffer zones of 1/8,1/4, ½, and 1 mile of DART Rail lines.
Display results side by side based on change in years.( percentage change and bar charts.)
Control test method: Compare my results to areas outside my ¼ buffer zones to test and compare with those within every ¼ mile.
Produce deliverables
Final Analysis to identify trend.

14. PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED
Huge Data files to deal with for both parcel and property value data (about 1 GB) .
Problem tying Parcel files from 2003 to those of Property values of 2000 and 2005.
Other data other than commercial and residential property with incomplete records included.
Literature review studies have varying results depending on study area and railroad system type.

15. Map 1 Only residential and commercial properties used.
Business and Personal Property variable was ignored and deleted for this study.
Only property values were consistent for 2000 and 2005 were used.
Some individuals had their name and address be withheld from public release .
Residential and Commercial properties within 1 mile of DART line.

16. Map 2.
1/8, ¼ ,1/2 and 1 mile Buffer distances around DART Rail lines.

17. RESIDENTIAL vs. COMMERCIAL
1/4 miles away from DART lines
1/2 mile away from DART lines
1 mile away from DART lines
2000 Residential properties ($)
1,057,817,990
2,318,946,110
1,875,124,700
2005 Residential properties ($)
Percentage change in value(%)
1,539,798,110
45.56%
3,337,948,550
43.94%
2,538,572,520
35.38%
1/8 miles away from DART lines
1/4 miles away from DART lines
1/2 miles away from DART lines
1 miles away from DART lines
2000 Commercial properties ($)
5,523,106,940
3,075,208,040
3,634,909,270
1,243,767,910
2005 Commercial properties ($)
Percentage change in value(%)
5,130,827,190
-7.10%
3,069,312,860
-0.19%
3,902,546,050
7.36%
1,139,983,450
-8.34%
Table Showing Residential and Commercial Property
Value Change for 2000 and 2005 (A).

18. RESIDENTIAL vs. COMMERCIAL
1/4 miles away from DART lines
½ miles away from DART lines
¾ miles away from DART lines
1 miles away from DART lines
2000 Residential properties ($)
1,725,578,130
2,318,946,110
2,619,821,710
1,875,124,700
2005 Residential properties ($)
Percentage change in value(%)
2,516,606,600
45.84%
3,337,948,550
43.94%
3,671,840,530
40.15%
2,538,572,520
35.38%
1/4 miles away from DART lines
½ miles away from DART lines
¾ miles away from DART lines
1 miles away from DART lines
2000 Commercial properties ($)
8,598,314,980
3,634,909,270
2,475,854,440
1,243,767,910
2005 Commercial properties ($)
Percentage change in value(%)
8,200,140,050
-4.63%
3,902,546,050
7.36%
2,256,828,040
-8.85%
1,139,983,450
-8.34%
Table Showing Residential and Commercial Property
Value Change for 2000 and 2005 (B).

19. RESIDENTIAL vs. COMMERCIAL Using Standard buffer distances
Residential and Commercial Property
Value Change for 2000 and 2005 (A).

20. RESIDENTIAL vs. COMMERCIAL Using equal quarter-mile buffer distances
Residential and Commercial Property Value Change for 2000 and 2005 (B).

21. Conclusions. Overall property values increased from 2000 to 2005.
The closer residential properties were located to DART rail lines, the higher the rate of property appreciation.
Commercial property values decreased as they were situated closer to DART lines even though they were priced higher the closer they were to DART lines.

22. Recommendations.
Further research into this study area will be helpful especially for decision makers and town planners to track current trends in urban areas like Dallas.
I would also recommend that the Dallas Central Appraisal District produce DCAD data in easily purchasable or downloadable shape file format which will make similar GIS study and research relatively easier to implement.
Constant updates of property data from year to year will help in keeping track of changes.

23. References
Bollinger et al.(1998)- Spatial Variation in Office Rents Within the Atlanta Region. Urban Studies Vol.35,No. 7 ,pp
Cervero, R. (1994)-Light Rail Transit and Urban Development. Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 50, No. 2,pp
Cervero et al.(1995) – “BART at 20” :Land use impacts-Presented at the 74th Annual meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington,DC.
Damm et al, (1980) - “Response to the Urban real estate values in anticipation of the Washington Metro, Journal of Transport Economics and Policy” .Pg
Ferguson et al (1988) - “The Pre-Service Impacts of the Vancouver Advanced Light Rail Transit System on Family Property Values”.
Gordon and Richardson (1989).Gasoline Consumptions and the Cities : A reply Journal of the American Planning Association, pp.342 .
Nelson, A. Transit Stations and commercial Property Values (1999 ): A case study with policy and Land Use Implications. Journal of Public Transportation, Vol.2, No.3, pp

24. Questions / Comments?