Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Transit Impact Evaluation: Context Types: –Predictive (ex ante) vs. Evaluative (ex post) –Inter-modal vs. No-Build (counterfactual) Challenge: Attribution.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Transit Impact Evaluation: Context Types: –Predictive (ex ante) vs. Evaluative (ex post) –Inter-modal vs. No-Build (counterfactual) Challenge: Attribution."— Presentation transcript:

1 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

2 Measuring Generative Benefits: Methods TCRP 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) –P it = 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

3 Star-shaped, multi-centered metropolis Star-shaped, multi-centered metropolis Strong Core … “San Francisco as the Manhattan of the West” Strong Core … “San Francisco as the Manhattan of the West” The Vision: 1956 Plan BART @ 20 Study

4 1980 1990 BART: Spurred Decentralization & Strengthened the Core 1968 pre-BART) Employment Densities and BART Alignment (CTPP, Part II)

5  ~ 30 million ft. sq. office- commercial floorspace added the 1 st 20 Years of BART  Retained employment & retail primacy (vs. non-rail west-coast metro areas) Commercial-Office Growth Downtown San Francisco (TRW-REDI)

6 Trend Comparisons Between BART & Non-BART Superdistricts: Population and Job Changes, 1970-1990 36 superdistricts Employment Impact Analyses: Shift-Share (CBP; FIRE Growth) Econometrics (CTPP; Occupation)

7 Spurred Decentralization? Impacts outside of San Francisco 54.3 million

8 Walnut Creek

9 BART & Housing Markets 1-mile catchments: ~ 4,000 Demolitions = ~ 4,000 Additions Home Price Premium “Discrete Change” analysis showed BART induced housing growth for hectare grid-cells within 1 mile of stations (ABAG land-use & aerial-photo information) Nodal Comparisons: Stations vs. Freeway Interchanges

10 Sensitivity Test: Car Ownership Covariate 35% pt. higher prob.

11

12 BART & Redevelopment Can’t overcome weak local real estate markets Required huge subsidies … and even then, not automatic Oakland CBD

13 Highway and LRT Maps Estimating Benefit Using Compensating Variation C. Rodier & R. Johnston, Travel, Emissions, and Welfare Effects of TDM, TRR 1598, 1997.

14

15 Benefit Measure Compensating Variation (CV) Compensating Variation (CV) obtained from discrete choice models where is the individual's marginal utility of income, V m is the individual's indirect utility of all m choices, p 0 =before policy, and p f = after policy. From SACMET 94 Logit Models with Land use, Travel Time & Cost, and Household Variables:

16 Scenarios Consumer Welfare ($) Per Trip ($) 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

17 HEDONIC PRICE MODELS Timing & Context Matter: Santa Clara LRT – 1996-2000: 4,500 Housing Units > 9 million > 9 million sq. ft. of commercial floorspace

18 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: +++

19 Residential 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: ++--

20 Residential 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 [ (p i ) (ln p i )]}/(ln k)}, where: p i = 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: -++

21 Residential 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: -+

22 Residential Analysis Racial Mix: Normalized Entropy = { -  k [ (p i ) (ln p i )]}/(ln k)}, where: p i = 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) of households 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:

23 Transit Proximity & Value-Added: Santa Clara Valley, 1998-2000 (24 % ) (103 % ) (28 % ) (17 % ) COMMERCIAL PARCELS RESIDENTIAL PARCELS Favorable Conditions: Boom economy More mature network Proactive policies

24 San Diego Rail Stations MF Housing Commercial SAN DIEGO TROLLEY & COASTER’s VALUE-ADDED 30.4 % 38.9 % 46.7 %

25 LA METRO Los Angeles Experiences Multi-Family Housing Premium/Discount

26 Housing Values, Travel Times, and Commuter Rail Stations: NJ Transport Cost HousingCost Travel time to Core Core Price, $ Housing & Transport Budget


Download ppt "Transit Impact Evaluation: Context Types: –Predictive (ex ante) vs. Evaluative (ex post) –Inter-modal vs. No-Build (counterfactual) Challenge: Attribution."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google