the economic benefits of vehicle miles traveled (vmt ...€¦ · not limited to complete streets,...
TRANSCRIPT
TheEconomicBenefitsofVehicleMilesTraveled(VMT)-ReducingPlacemaking:SynthesizingaNewView
November2017
AWhitePaperfromtheNationalCenterforSustainableTransportation
MarlonG.Boarnet,UniversityofSouthernCalifornia
EygenyBurinskiy,UniversityofSouthernCalifornia
LaurenDeadrick,UniversityofSouthernCalifornia
DanielleGuillen,UniversityofSouthernCalifornia
NicholasRyu,UniversityofSouthernCalifornia
AbouttheNationalCenterforSustainableTransportationTheNationalCenterforSustainableTransportationisaconsortiumofleadinguniversitiescommittedtoadvancinganenvironmentallysustainabletransportationsystemthroughcutting-edgeresearch,directpolicyengagement,andeducationofourfutureleaders.Consortiummembersinclude:UniversityofCalifornia,Davis;UniversityofCalifornia,Riverside;UniversityofSouthernCalifornia;CaliforniaStateUniversity,LongBeach;GeorgiaInstituteofTechnology;andUniversityofVermont.Moreinformationcanbefoundat:ncst.ucdavis.edu.DisclaimerThecontentsofthisreportreflecttheviewsoftheauthors,whoareresponsibleforthefactsandtheaccuracyoftheinformationpresentedherein.ThisdocumentisdisseminatedunderthesponsorshipoftheUnitedStatesDepartmentofTransportation’sUniversityTransportationCentersprogram,intheinterestofinformationexchange.TheU.S.GovernmentandtheStateofCaliforniaassumesnoliabilityforthecontentsorusethereof.NordoesthecontentnecessarilyreflecttheofficialviewsorpoliciesoftheU.S.GovernmentandtheStateofCalifornia.Thisreportdoesnotconstituteastandard,specification,orregulation.AcknowledgmentsThisstudywasfundedbyagrantfromtheNationalCenterforSustainableTransportation(NCST),supportedbyUSDOTandCaltransthroughtheUniversityTransportationCentersprogram.TheauthorswouldliketothanktheNCST,USDOT,andCaltransfortheirsupportofuniversity-basedresearchintransportation,andespeciallyforthefundingprovidedinsupportofthisproject.TheauthorswouldalsoliketothankBruceGriesenbeckoftheSacramentoAreaCouncilofGovernments,JeanieWard-WalleroftheCaliforniaBicycleCoalition,MaggieWittoftheCaliforniaAirResourcesBoard,andSuzanneHagueoftheCaliforniaStrategicGrowthCouncilforprovidingreviewcommentsandfeedbackonpreliminaryversionsofthiswhitepaper.
TheEconomicBenefitsofVehicleMilesTraveled(VMT)-ReducingPlacemaking:SynthesizingaNewView
ANationalCenterforSustainableTransportationResearchReport
November2017
MarlonG.Boarnet,USCSolPriceSchoolofPublicPolicy,UniversityofSouthernCalifornia
EygenyBurinskiy,USCSolPriceSchoolofPublicPolicy,UniversityofSouthernCalifornia
LaurenDeadrick,USCSolPriceSchoolofPublicPolicy,UniversityofSouthernCalifornia
DanielleGuillen,USCSolPriceSchoolofPublicPolicy,UniversityofSouthernCalifornia
NicholasRyu,USCSolPriceSchoolofPublicPolicy,UniversityofSouthernCalifornia
[pageleftintentionallyblank]
i
TABLEOFCONTENTSEXECUTIVESUMMARY...................................................................................................................iiIntroduction...................................................................................................................................1II.WhyStudytheEconomicBenefitsofPlacemaking?..................................................................2III.HowMightVMTReductionContributetoNeighborhoodVitalityandNeighborhoodEconomies?....................................................................................................................................3
A.TheOldView:TransportationandEconomicDevelopment.................................................3
B.ANewView:VMT,Placemaking,andtheValueofPlace.....................................................6
IV.PlacemakingandAgglomerationBenefits................................................................................8V.ResidentBenefits.....................................................................................................................11VI.BusinessBenefits....................................................................................................................20VII.Discussion:SynthesizingaSystemsViewoftheEconomicBenefitsofTransportation........27References....................................................................................................................................31
ii
TheEconomicBenefitsofVehicleMilesTraveled(VMT)-ReducingPlacemaking:SynthesizingaNewView
EXECUTIVESUMMARYThispaperanalyzesevidenceontheeconomicbenefitsofplacemakingeffortsthatprioritizepedestrianandnon-motorizedaccessandthat,attimes,reducevehiclemilestraveled.Thepreviousliteratureontheeconomicimpactsoftransportationhasfocusedontheorizingandgatheringevidenceonwaysthattransportationinfrastructuregenerateseconomicbenefitsatlargegeographicscales–oftenstatesornations.Thatliteratureoverlooksmanyoftoday’stransportationprojectswhichareatthescaleofaneighborhoodandwhichtypicallyincludenon-motorizedtransportation.Wesummarizeevidenceonhowthosemorelocallyorientedplacemakingeffortsareassociatedwithbenefitsthataccruetoresidentsandfirms.Thereisahighdegreeofevidencethatthereareeconomicbenefits,oncommercialpropertyvalues,residentialpropertyvalues,businesssentiment,andproductivity,fromdensitythataresummarizedastheyrelatetoneighborhoodorientedplacemakingtransportationpolicies.Weconcludebysuggestingasystemsviewofmetropolitantransportationthathasahierarchyofnetworks,fromhigh-throughputmetropolitanarteriestolocal,multi-modal,neighborhoodplanningwithconnectionsbetweenthedifferentlevelsofthesystem.
1
IntroductionCaliforniacities,andregionsacrosstheworld,areembarkingonaseaofchangeintransportationpolicy.Movementstolimittheautomobile,reducedriving,andsupporttransitandnon-motorizedtravelarenowpopularworldwide.Thischangeismotivatedinpartbyenvironmentalregulations.California,forexample,encourageslocalgovernmentstoreducevehiclemilestraveled(VMT)tocomplywithstateregulationsforgreenhousegas(GHG)emissionreduction.ButthetrendtowardlowerVMT,andpoliciesthatareaimedatreducingVMT,goesdeeperthancompliancewithenvironmentalregulations.VMT-reducingplanning–programsthatincludecompletestreets,pedestrianneighborhoods,bicycleinfrastructure,ortransit–ispartofamovementtoreconnecttransportationtoplaceandplacemaking,andtoviewtransportationnotsimplyasamobilitytoolbutasanintegralpartofthebuiltenvironmentinourcommunities.
TheProjectforPublicSpacesdefinesplacemakingas…“thecollaborative,community-basedprocessbywhichwecanshapeourpublicrealminordertomaximizesharedvalue.Morethanjustpromotingbetterurbandesign,Placemakingfacilitatescreativepatternsofuse,payingparticularattentiontothephysical,cultural,andsocialidentitiesthatdefineaplace
andsupportitsongoingevolution.”(ProjectforPublicSpaces,2009)
Inthispaper,weexaminehowVMT-reducingplacemakingcanhelpboostlocal(i.e.neighborhood)economies.Thisisanewquestionintwoways.First,thelinkbetweeneconomicdevelopmentandtransportationhasbeenlargelyalinkfromincreasedmobility–attimesfromincreasedVMT–toeconomicgrowth.Second,theacademicliteratureoneconomicbenefitsandtransportationhasbeenregionalandnational,andrarelyneighborhoodfocused.ChangingthefocustotheeconomicroleoflessVMTandshiftingthegeographyfromthemetropolitanareatotheneighborhoodarebothchallengingshifts.Theincreasingpolicyimportanceofmulti-modaltransportation,oftenwithanexplicitgoaltoreduceVMT,requiresabetterunderstandingofhowVMT-reducingplacemakingis,orcouldbe,linkedtoneighborhoodeconomicbenefits.Thispaperaddressesthatgapforpolicymakersandresearchers.Thispaperproceedsinthefollowingsections.InSectionII,wediscussthemotivationforanewviewofVMT-reducingplacemakingandthelinktolocaleconomicbenefits.SectionIIIarticulatesboththeold(ortraditional)viewofhowtransportationinfluenceseconomicdevelopment,andanewviewthatweargueshouldbesynthesized.Thetwoviews,wenote,arenotmutuallyexclusive,butratherfocusondifferentproblemsatdifferentgeographicscales.SectionsIVthroughVIarticulatedifferentcategoriesofbenefitsfromplansthatreduceVMTinneighborhoods.SectionIVsummarizesevidenceonagglomerationbenefits(i.e.increasesinbusinessproductivity),SectionVdiscussesresidentbenefitsthataccruefromVMT-reducingplacemaking,andSectionVIsummarizesbusinessbenefits.WeclosewithconclusionsinSectionVII.
2
II.WhyStudytheEconomicBenefitsofPlacemaking?Californiahasapolicyinterestinencouragingalternativestoautomobiletravel.SenateBill(SB)375(TheSustainableCommunitiesandClimateProtectionActof2008)requiresthatmetropolitanplanningorganizations(MPO’s)meetGHGreductiontargetsforthegroundtransportationsector.SB375doesnotrequireVMTreductionperse(thetargetisGHGemissions),butSB375hasaccelerateddiscussionabouttheco-benefitsofpoliciesthatreduceGHGemissions,andthoseco-benefitsareoftenrelatedtoquality-of-lifeattributesassociatedwithreduceddriving.1Additionally,inresponsetoSB743(2013),theCaliforniaGovernor’sOfficeofPlanningandResearchhasproposedshiftingthecriteriafortransportationimpactsforCaliforniaEnvironmentalQualityAct(CEQA)reviewfromlevel-of-service–acongestioncriterion–toVMT,whichwillfavorprojectsthatreducecurrentlevelsorfuturegrowthofVMT.Atthesub-statelevel,citiesandmunicipalitiesareincreasinglypursuingpoliciesthatareconsistentwithVMTreduction.LosAngelesMayorEricGarcetti’sGreatStreetsprogramhasbeenasignatureofhisadministration.2Completestreets–streetsthataccommodatepedestriansandbicyclists,thatareenvironmentallysustainable,andthatintegratethestreetspaceandassociatedsidewalksintopubliclife–havebeenapriorityinmanyCaliforniacommunitiesforsomeyears.3Trafficcalmingisincreasinglypopularandisrelatedtocompletestreetsandpedestrianization.AllofthesereflectapolicycontextthathasshiftedfromviewingstreetsandhighwayssolelyasmobilityinfrastructuretoviewingthoseroadwaysaspublicspaceandhencevaluingpoliciesthatfavorlowerlevelsofVMT.Forpurposesofthispaper,wedefineVMT-reducingplacemakingaseffortsthathavetwobroadcharacteristics.
(1) VMT-reducingplacemakingprojectslinktransportationinfrastructuretoplace,suchthatthetransportationprojectbecomesaneighborhoodamenity.Examplesincludebutarenotlimitedtocompletestreets,pedestrianizedstreetsormalls,highwaycaps,bikelanesandbicyclesharing.
(2) VMT-reducingplacemakingprojectshavetheeffectofreducingVMT,eitherthroughpurposefulefforts(e.g.trafficcalming)orthroughaconcomitantoftheproject(e.g.infrastructurethatsupportsbicycleorwalkingtravel.)
Wefocusonneighborhoodscalegeographies,becausethatisthescaleformanyVMT-reducingorsimilarplacemakingprojects,andbecausesmallercommunities(orsmalllocaleswithin
1Seethesetof25policybriefsdevelopedfortheCaliforniaAirResourcesBoard.Eachbriefincludesasectiononco-benefits.Here:https://arb.ca.gov/cc/sb375/policies/policies.htm.2SeeLAGreatStreetsInitiativewebsiteformoreinformationonthisprogram,here:http://lagreatstreets.org/.3See,e.g.,theproceedingsofa2011UCLAconference,availablehere:http://www.lewis.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2015/02/2011-Complete-Streets-for-Los-Angeles.pdf.
3
largercities)haveoftenbeenmostconcernedaboutwhetherandhowVMT-reducingplacemakingwillaffecttheirlocaleconomy.OurresearchaimstoinformotherresearchersandlocalpolicymakersontheeffectsofneighborhoodscaleVMT-reducingplacemaking.III.HowMightVMTReductionContributetoNeighborhoodVitalityandNeighborhoodEconomies?TheideathatVMTreductioncanhaveeconomicbenefitsmightseemoddatfirst–particularlysoafterdecadesofpracticeandscholarshipthatfocusedonwaysthatmobility(andhenceattimesincreasedVMT)isassociatedwitheconomicgrowth.Inthissub-section,wediscusstwothings.First,wewilldiscussthetraditionalliteratureontransportationandeconomicdevelopment,toprovidebothabenchmarkandlessons,andthentheoreticalperspectivesonwhyandhowVMT-reducingplacemakingcanhavepositivelocal(neighborhood)economicoutcomes.A.TheOldView:TransportationandEconomicDevelopment
Thelinkbetweentransportationandeconomicgrowthbegan,intuitivelyenough,withtheideathatbettertransportationimproveseconomicdevelopment.Increasingmarketaccess,bybuildingtransportationinfrastructure,improvestradeandincreaseseconomicgrowth.Thatisparticularlytruefortheearlystagesofinfrastructureconstructionwhichcanhavelargeimpactsonthegeographicscopeofmarkets.Donaldson(2010)andDonaldsonandHornbeck(2016)foundthatearlyrailwayconstructioninboththeU.S.andIndiainthe1800sledtoeconomicgrowth.Thoseearlyrailroadsconnectedmarkettownsandfar-flunglocationsthat,often,werenotpreviouslyreadilyorreliablyconnectedtothelargermarket.TheconstructionoftheInterstateHighwaysysteminthe1950sand1960sprovidedanotheropportunitytoexaminethelinkbetweenlarge-scaletransportationinfrastructureinvestmentandeconomicgrowth.NadiriandManuneas(1996,p.110)examinedhowhighwaycapitalisrelatedtototalfactorproductivity(TFP)for35industriesintheU.S.Theyfoundthatfrom1964through1972,25percentofTFPgrowthinthoseindustrieswasassociatedwithincreasesinthestockofhighways,butthatinlateryears,whentheInterstateHighwaynetworkwaslargelycomplete,theeffectwassmaller.From1973through1979,highwaycapitalaccountedfortwopercentofTFPgrowthintheindustriesstudiedbyNadiriandManuneas(1996).Liketherailroadsbeforethem,theconstructionofanew,nationaltransportationnetworkwasassociatedwitheconomicgrowth(inthiscasemeasuredbygrowthinproductivity.)Buttheeffectofadditionalchangestothetransportationnetworkissmallerwhenthenetworkismature.MohringandHarwitz(1962)examinedtheimpactoftheearlyInterstateHighwaysystemanddevelopedacritiquewhichstillappliestoday.Insomecases,improvementsintransportationinfrastructureshifteconomicactivityfromonelocationtoanother.Distinguishingbetween
4
aggregategrowthandshiftsinactivityacrossthelandscapeisanimportantissue.Agoodpieceofintuition,whichisconsistentwiththeoryandevidence,isthatlargeinvestmentsinnewnationalinfrastructure(railwaysinthe1800s,highwaysinthemid-1900s),byconnectinglargenumbersofpreviouslypoorlylinkedmarkets,cangenerateaggregateeconomicgrowth.Oncethenetworkmatures,theeconomicimpactoftransportationinvestmentismorelikelytoshifteconomicactivityfromonelocationtoanother,asbusinessesmovetotakeadvantageofthenewpatternoftransportationaccessibility.Thishasledtothedoublecountingcritique,firstformalizedbyMohring(1961)inadifferentcontext(landprices).Appliedtoeconomicgrowth,thedoublecountingcritiquecautionsustobecarefultodistinguishbetweentwocases:(1)whentransformativenewnetworksconnectpreviouslyunconnectedplaces,andhenceleadtoneweconomicgrowth,and(2)whenmoremarginalchangesintransportationinfrastructureadvantagesomelocations,shiftingeconomicactivityfromonelocationtoanother.Thedoublecountingcritiquehasbeenamainstayofacademicthinkingontransportationandeconomics.Thecritiqueimpliesthatnewjobsnearhighwaysorrailstationsoughtnotbecountedaseconomicimpacts,becausethosejobsmovedfromsomewhereelse,andhencearecountervailedbyjoblosseselsewhere.Thiscritiquehasledmany,includingthispaper’sfirstauthor(Boarnet,1997),tobeskepticaloftherolethathighwaybuilding,orbyextension,anyimprovementintransportationaccessinamaturesysteminadevelopedeconomy,canhaveonaggregateeconomicgrowth.Yetthereisonemorenuance,andapotentiallyimportantone.Knowledge-basedeconomies,relyingonaccesswithinmetropolitanareas,benefitfromsmoothtransportation.Hymel(2007)foundthattrafficcongestionisassociatedwithlowerratesofemploymentgrowthinasampleofU.S.metropolitanareas.Thedampeningeffectofcongestiononemploymentgrowthislargerathigherlevelsofcongestion(Hymel,2007,p.134).Startingfromalesscongestednetwork,inSanDiego,a10%reductionintraveltimegivesa2.48%increaseinemploymentgrowth.InthemorecongestedLosAngeles-OrangeCountynetworka10%reductionintraveltimegivesa4.6%increaseinemploymentgrowth.Thisresulthasbeenreproducedbycomputablegeneralequilibrium(CGE)modelsthatexaminehowtransportationinvestmentisrelatedtoeconomicgrowthwithinametropolitanarea.TheSouthernCaliforniaAssociationofGovernments(SCAG)isthemetropolitanplanningorganizationforthegreaterLosAngelesregion,asix-countyareathatishometoover18millionpersons.Beginninginthe2012RegionalTransportationPlan,andcontinuingwiththe2016plan,SCAGhasmodeledhowtransportationspendinginthegreaterLosAngelesregionwillincreaseemployment.Theresultsshowthatthe2016RegionalTransportationPlan,aprogramofover$500billionintransportationinvestmentsover25years,cancreateanaverageof539,000annualjobsfrom2016-2040,ofwhich188,000jobsineachyearwillbefromtheconstruction,operation,ormaintenanceoftransportationprojects.Theother351,000annualjobsflowfromincreasedeconomiccompetitiveness(SCAG,2016).4Thisissimilartothemarket
4“Annualjobs”intheSCAG(2016)analysisisjobyears.Onejobforadurationofoneyearisone“annualjob.”
5
arearesultsofDonaldson(2010)andDonaldsonandHornbeck(2016),butitreflectsadvantageswithinthemetropolitanareathatlikelygobeyondsimpleone-for-oneshiftsineconomicactivityfromonelocationtoanother.Thisresultappliesattheregional(metropolitanorcounty)level(theunitofanalysisinHymel’sstudyandsimilarresearch)notattheneighborhoodlevel.Theresearchresultssuggestthatimprovedregionaltransportationaccess,ofthesortthatwouldflowfromcongestionpricingorimprovedaccesstojobs,isassociatedwithregionaleconomicgrowth,whileattheneighborhoodlevelknowledge-basedindustriesbenefitfromdensityandhenceoftencongestion.Theresearchliteraturedoesnotgiveevidencethatneighborhoodcongestionisafactorinlocaleconomicgrowth,buttheliterature(summarizedbelow)doessupporttheideathatVMTreductioncanboostneighborhoodeconomicgrowth.Summarizing,thefollowingresultsareimportant:1. Mostresearchhasfocusedonhowmoretransportation,oftenmeasuredasmore
infrastructure,relatestoeconomicgrowth.Theresultsaretwofold:(a)Newnetworks,oftenbuilttorespondtonewtransportationtechnologies,canconnectfar-flungmarkets,increasingmarketaccess,trade,andhenceeconomicgrowth.(b)Aftertheinitialnetworkconstruction,marginalchanges(forexample,addingalinktothenetworkorexpandingcapacitybyaddingalane)oftenhavenooratbestlittlerelationshiptoeconomicgrowth.
2. Recentevidence(e.g.Hymel,2007,SCAG,2016)haslinkedcongestionreductiontoeconomicgrowth.Congestionreduction,however,isnotthesameassimplyinvestinginmoretransportationinfrastructure.Inlarge,congested,metropolitanareas,evidenceindicatesthataddingmorehighwaylanemilesinducesmoredriving(DurantonandTurner,2011).Managingthesystem,includingpricingcongestion,willbeimportantfortherelationshipbetweentransportationaccessandeconomicgrowth,particularlysoinmaturenetworksandsystems.
3. Thepracticecommunityshouldbewareofdoublecounting.Intheearlystagesofnetworkconstruction,theeconomicbenefitsfromincreasedconnectivitylikelyextendbroadlyandhenceeconomicgainsarelikelytogobeyondsimplymovingactivityfromonelocationtoanother.Butasthenetworkmatures,continuedimprovementsintransportationaccessmostoftenshifteconomicactivityfromonelocation(withrelativelypooraccess)toanother,moreaccessible,location.Seeinganewofficeparkdevelopnearanintersectionoftwohighways,orinatransit-orienteddevelopment(TOD),doesnotimplythatallthosejobsarenew.MuchofthateconomicactivitymighthavelocatedelsewhereabsentthenewfreewaysorTOD.
4. Doublecountingappliesmostclearlytocaseswheretheeconomyisconstantreturnstoscale–insimpleterms,caseswheredoublingeconomicinputsleadstotwiceasmucheconomicoutput.Knowledgeeconomiesrelyonlearningthatisfacilitatedbyinteraction,
6
andisperformedbyworkerswhovalueamenities.Sucheconomiesmaybecharacterizedbyincreasingreturnstoscaleif,asisoftenthecase,firmsbecomemoreproductivewhentheyandtheiremployeesinteractwitheachother.Thisisthekeytowhycongestionreductioninheavilycongestedlocationsisassociatedwithmoreemploymentgrowth.
Whatdoesthisallmean?Weshoulddrawtwodistinctions–betweenmetropolitanandneighborhoodgeographies,andbetweenefficiencyofmovement(access)andsimplybuildingmoreinfrastructure.Theevidencesuggeststhatimprovingconnectionsacrossametropolitanareacanincreaseeconomicactivity(e.g.Hymel,2007;SCAG,2016).Thisisnotaformulaforsimplybuildingmoreinfrastructure,butacalltobuildinfrastructurewisely.Theevidencesuggeststhateaseofmovementacrossametropolitanareacanbeimportant,andindensecities,suchmovementisusuallymulti-modal,requiringinpartthehigherpassengerthroughputthatrailtransit(particularlyheavyrail)canprovide.Atthesametime,foottrafficandinvitingstreetscapesareimportantforneighborhoods,andarelikelyincreasinglyvaluedbyresidentsandbusinessvisitorsalike.Allofthissuggestsaplaceforanewviewoftransportationandeconomicdevelopment,whichhasaroleforplacemakingthatcan,attimes,belinkedtoreductionsinVMTratherthanincreasesindriving.B.ANewView:VMT,Placemaking,andtheValueofPlace
Theideathatplaceisvaluableisnotnewinplanning.Itisatthecoreofthefield.Butitisarguablynewtotransportationplanning–atleastnewinthewaywearecurrentlyaskingthequestionandinthepolicydebatesthatthequestioninforms.Thepurposeofthiswhitepaperistosummarizetheevidenceinwaysthatcaninformpolicy.TherearethreewaysthatVMT-reducingplacemakingcanenhancethevalueofandtheeconomyinaneighborhood:(1)amenitiesassociatedwithplacemakingaspectsoftransportationpoliciesorprojects,(2)increasedresidentialpropertyvalueswhichreflectimprovedresidentqualityoflife,and(3)increasedbusinessactivityoreconomicbenefitsthatflowfromtheVMTreduction.Eachisdescribedbelow.1.PublicorExternalBenefits
VMTreductioncanhavemanypositiveeffects.LowerVMT,orthereducedcartravelspeedsthatareoftenassociatedwithlowerVMT,canleadtoloweraccidentrates,increasedphysicalactivity(frompedestrianandbicycleprogramsandprojects),improvedairquality,andamenitiesthatrangefrominvitingstreetscapestosidewalkcafestowalkingneighborhoodsthatmaybedesiredbylocalresidentsandshoppers.Someoftheseeffectsarereductionsinwhateconomistswouldcallnegativeexternalities.Anegativeexternalityisacosttopersonswhodidnotbuyagoodbutwhoareaffectedbyotherswhopurchase(orsell)thegood.Emissionsfromcarsarenegativeexternalities,becausepersonswhodidnotdrivebreaththeemissionsgeneratedbytripsfromotherdrivers.Followingthatlogicinreverse,improvementsinlocalairqualityfromreduceddrivingareexternalbenefits.Increasedphysicalactivity,totheextentthatphysicalactivityproducesorreflectssocietalbenefitsthatarenotfullycapturedby
7
theindividual(e.g.reducedsocietalhealthcarecosts)canbeexternalbenefits.Accidentreduction,particularlywhenindividualscannotperfectlyinsureagainstthefulleffectoftrafficaccidents,canbeexternalbenefits.Thereisalargeliteratureoneachofthesetopics,andforthatreasonthispaperwillnotgointodepthoneacheffect.ThesesummariescoverthelinkbetweenVMTreductionandneighborhoodamenities:Fordrivingspeedandaccidents,seeAartsandSchagen(2006);forVMTreductionandphysicalactivity,seeFranketal.(2007)andSallisetal.(2004);fordrivingandairquality,seeZhangandBatterman(2013).Allofthesethingsareneighborhoodamenities.Assuch,thebenefitswillbedispersedthroughouttheneighborhood–nosingleprivateactorcanbeexpectedtocapturethefullvalue.Havingsaidthat,acommonwaytomeasureamenitiesistolookforhowthoseamenitiesarereflectedinlandvalues.Iftheseimpacts–loweraccidents,improvedairquality,invitingstreetscapes,andaneighborhoodthatisvisuallyattractive–arevaluedbyresidents,thatvalueshouldbereflectedinhigherlandpricesandhence,holdingallelseequal,higherhomeprices.Thisisatime-honoredconcept–placeswithhigheramenitieshavehigherhomevalues.ThetheorybehindthisdatestothepioneeringurbaneconomicsworkofAlonso(1960),Muth(1968)andMills(1972),andlargeliteratureshavedemonstratedthatplacebasedamenitiesarereflectedinlandvaluesandhomevalues.Forareviewoftheliteratureonhousepricesandtransit-orienteddevelopments,seeBartholomewandEwing(2011).2.ResidentBenefits
Residentsvaluelivinginneighborhoodswithmoredesirableamenities.Thatvalueshouldbereflectedinhigherlandpricesandhencehigherhousevalues.Henceacommonwaytomeasureresidentbenefitsistomeasureincreasesinhomeprices.Thosehomepriceswillmeasuretheoverallpackageofamenitybenefits–thecombinationof,forexample,slowervehiclemovement,pedestrianization,businessactivity,andinvitingstreetscapes,inadditiontoschoolquality,accesstojobs,andahostofotherfactors.Somestudiesdisentangletheeffectofindividualamenitiesonhomeprices,whileotherstudiesexaminetheeffectofapackageofamenitiesbymeasuringthehousepricepremiumassociatedwithaneighborhoodorspecifickindofneighborhoodwithoutseparatingtheeffectoftheseveralamenitiesintheneighborhood.3.Businessbenefits
Non-motorizedandpublictransportation,pedestrianization,andtrafficcalmingmeasurescanincreaseretailbusinessbenefitsbydoingthreedifferentthings.First,increasedpedestrianactivityandaccessibilityforcustomerscanleadtomoreopportunitiesforwalk-byorpass-bycustomervisitstoretailbusinesses.Thatincreaseinretailsalescanleadtoanincreaseincommercialpropertyvalues.Lastly,walkablebusinessdistrictswithlinkstohigh-throughputtransitcanincreasepedestrianactivityandtransportationaccessinwaysthatmightleadtomorebusinessinteractionsandhencehigherbusinessproductivity.
8
Wesummarizetheliteratureoneachimpactinturn.Wefirstdiscusswaysthatneighborhood-scaleplacemakingcanleadtohigherbusinessproductivity,thenwesummarizestudiesthatmeasureresidentbenefits,followedbystudiesofretailsalesandbusinesspropertyvalues.IV.PlacemakingandAgglomerationBenefitsThereisconsensusinboththetheoreticalandempiricaleconomicliteraturethatincreasedurbandensityisbeneficialforlocaleconomicgrowth.Thephenomenoniscalled“agglomerationeconomies”andreferstothefindingthatfirmsaremoreproductive,onaverage,whentheylocatenearotherfirms.SeveralstudiesonagglomerationeconomiesaresummarizedinTable1.Agglomerationbenefitsdeclinesharplywithdistance.Forsomeindustries,mostoftheproductivitybenefitsfromlocatingnearotherfirmsaccruewithin1-5miles(RosenthalandStrange,2003).Inotherwords,firmsaretypicallymoreproductivewhentheylocatenearotherfirmsinthesameindustry,butthateffectoperatesoversmalldistances,assmallas1to5miles(RosenthalandStrange,2003).Anolderstudythatmeasuredtheeffectoftrainstationsonemploymentcentersfindsthatthepositiveinfluenceofstationsonemploymentdeclinessharply,droppingatarateof20-25%permile(McMillenandMcDonald,1998).Ingeneral,thereisevidencethatagglomerationbenefitsarestrongestovershortdistances(McMillenandMcDonald,1998).TheRosenthalandStrange(2003)studyfindsthatsmallfirms(1-20people)benefitthemostfromco-locatingneareachother.Moreover,theyfindthatsomeindustriesbenefitmorefromco-locating.Firmsincreativeindustries,suchassoftwareandfashionapparel,benefitedmorefromco-locatingnearothersimilarfirms,suggestingtheimportanceofknowledgespilloversasasourceofagglomerationeconomies.Aseriesofstudiesfindsthattrafficcongestionisnegativelyrelatedtoeconomicgrowth.Forexample,workerswhospendmoretimecommutingneedtobecompensatedwithhigherwages(WheatonandLewis,2002).Asaresult,ifcongestionleadstocommutetimesthatareexcessivelylong,itisintheinterestoffirmstomoveclosertotheiremployeestoreducecommutetimes.Onewaytomitigatethisshufflingistoallowformixed-usedzoningthatenablesfirmsandemployeestoco-reside(WheatonandLewis,2002).Anotherstudythatmodeledtrafficflowinurbanareasreachedasimilarconclusionthatmixingland-useinsidecommercialdistricts,increasingdensity,andimprovingroadnetworkconnectivityinordertostemcongestionhelpseconomicefficiencyandspatialequity(TsekerisandGeroliminis,2013).AnotherstudyexaminedBritain’slargestcitiesandfoundthatcongestionandincreasinghousingpricesnegativelyaffecteconomicgrowth(HanlonandMiscio,2017).TheseconclusionsareconsistentwiththoseofGordon,Richardson,andWong(1986)whofindthatcitiessuchasLosAngelesarehighlypolycentric,meaningthattrafficcongestionisencouragingfirmstomoveclosertoemployeesinordertoreducetheircommutingtimes.However,firmrelocationstoplacesoutsideoftheurbancoremayalso
9
reducethebenefitsofagglomerationunlessenoughfirmschoosetolocateinthesamearea.Asaresult,theLosAngelesareamaynotbeasproductiveasitcouldbe.Similarly,Hymel(2007)findsthathighcongestionreducesemploymentgrowth.Importantly,benefitstofirmsfromlocatingneareachotherdonotbenefiteveryoneequally.Services,shopping,andknowledgeindustriesbenefitthemostfromagglomeration(Graham,2007b).Bacolod,Blum,andStrange(2009)findthatagglomerationbenefitsaccruemosttosectorsrequiringhighcognitiveandsocialskills.Inasimilaranalysis,Rosenthal(2008)andRosenthal(2001)findthatbenefitsaccruefromhumancapitalspilloversasevidencedbyhighagglomerationeffectsamongcollegeeducatedworkers.Allofthisisconsistentwithaviewthatagglomerationbenefits–thebenefitsoffirmsandemployeesquicklyinteractingwitheachother–arestrongestincreativeandknowledge-basedindustries.Althoughnostudiesexaminedagglomerationeffectsattheneighborhoodlevel,presumablyduetolackofappropriatedata,someinferencescanbemadefromthestudiesonagglomerationthatmayapplyattheneighborhoodlevel.First,forindustriesrequiringsocialandcognitiveskills,densityleadstohigherproductivity.Second,congestionreducesproductivityatallsurveyedgeographiclevelsandincreasesthespreadoffirmswhichcanreduceagglomerationbenefits.Combiningthesefindings,wecansurmisethatshoppingorhigh-skilledindustryclusterswouldbenefitfromVMTreductionsifhighdensitytransportalternatives(i.e.,walking,cycling,transit)couldenableretailersandfirmstoco-locateattheneighborhoodlevel.Table1.SummaryofStudiesonAgglomerationEconomics
Author(Year) Results
Bacolod,Blum,andStrange(2009)
Urbanwagepremiumisapremiumoncognitiveandsocialskills.
Graham(2007a)
Transportinfrastructureincreasesfirmandresidentialdensity.
Graham(2007b)
Alltestedsectorsexperiencepositivereturnsfromagglomeration.Inthestudy,manufacturinghasthelowestagglomerationbenefits.Theindustriesthatbenefitsmostfromagglomerationeconomiesare:publicservices,businessservices,andbankingfinanceandinsurance.
10
Author(Year) Results
HanlonandMiscio(2017)
Congestion,measuredthroughcommutingtimes,hasanegativeeffectoncitygrowth.
Hymel(2007)
Highlevelsofcongestionreduceemploymentgrowthinurbanareas.
McMillenandMcDonald(1998)
Averageemploymentdensitydecreasesby34%to35%permilefromemploymentsubcenters.
RosenthalandStrange(2001)
Foragglomerationbenefits,labormarketpoolingworksatthezipcodelevelwhileknowledgespilloversworkatthecountylevel.
RosenthalandStrange(2003)
Thebenefitsofco-locatingdiminishrapidlywithdistance.Forexample,forsoftwarefirms,100additionalsoftwareworkerswithinonemileisassociatedwith0.04newsoftwarefirmbirthsand1.17additionalemployeesateachfirm.
RosenthalandStrange(2008)
Beinglocatedclosertoanemploymentcenterincreaseswages.Humancapitalspilloversareespeciallyimportantforcollegeeducatedworkers.
TsekerisandGeroliminis(2013)
Improvingroadnetworkconnectivitycanreducecongestionandincreaseeconomicefficiency.
Wheaton(2004)
Inageneralequilibriummodelwithagglomerationeconomiesandcommutingcosts,firmslocateinapolycentricpatterntoobtainagglomerationbenefitswhilereducingcommutingcosts.
WheatonandLewis(2002)
A1%increaseinworkerspecializationleadstoa23%increaseinwages.Specializationleadsto30%wageincreasesattheMSAlevelwithvariationbetweenindustriesandoccupations.
11
V.ResidentBenefitsBenefitstoresidentscanbecapitalizedintoincreasedhousepricesorrentalvalues.Thosebenefitswouldbeoftwotypes:
1. BenefitsfromaccessibilitycreatedbyprojectsassociatedwithreducedVMT.Multi-modaltransportationprojects,improvednon-motorizedaccess,andclusteringofdestinationsnearresidencesmightallincreasetransportationaccesswhilereducingVMT.
2. Benefitsfromlarger“qualityoflife”impactsoramenitiesrelatedtoimprovedaccess.Examininghousepricesorrentalrateswillcapturebothbenefits,andmoststudiesintheliteraturecannotdisentangletheeffectofaccessibilityfromotherqualityoflifeorplacemakingbenefits.Onemethodforunderstandingifacharacteristiciscapitalizedintopropertyvaluesisbyperforminghedonichousepricemodels.Duetodataavailability,moststudiesusehousepricesratherthanrents,andwesummarizethosestudieshere.Hedonichousepricemodelsusepropertyvaluesasthedependentvariablewithavarietyofenvironmentalandhomecharacteristicsastheindependentvariables.Theliteratureonhedonichousepricingmodelspublishedsince2000wasreviewed.Thestudieslookedatbothcommercialandresidentialpropertyvaluesasthedependentvariable.Mostofthestudiesusedproximity(distance)toatransitstationasthemeasureofaccessibility.Themeasurementofwalkabilitydifferedslightly;somestudiesusedWalkScore,whileothersusedneighborhoodcharacteristicssuchassidewalkdensityortheslopeofsidewalks.Theimpactoftransit-andpedestrian-orienteddevelopmentonpropertyvaluesvariedacrossstudies,likelyduetogeographicaldifferences,walkabilitymeasurementdifferences,andothermodel-relatedfactors.ThestudiesandtheirresultsarelistedinTable2.ThepatterninTable2alignswiththefindingsofthemeta-analysisbyDebrezion,Pels,andRietveld(2007),wholookedattheimpactoftransitrailwaystationsoncommercialandresidentialpropertyprices.Debrezionetal.(2007)findthataccessibilitytoamarketorcentralbusinessdistrict(CBD),measuredasrailwaystationproximity,isassociatedwithpropertyvalues.However,thereisvariabilityintheresultsofstudiesthatattempttomeasurethatimpact;somehedonicpricinganalysesfindstatisticallysignificantsmall,positive,andmodestimpacts,whileothersfindnegativeorstatisticallyinsignificantimpacts(Debrezionetal.,2007).Debrezionetal.(2007)performedameta-analysisof57studiestobetterunderstandwhythereisvariationinresults.Thisanalysisconcludesthatsixfeaturesoftheanalyzedstudiescouldexplainthevariation:typeofproperty,typeofrailwaystation,typeofmodelused,thepresenceofspecificvariablesrelatedtoaccessibility,demographicfeatures,andthetimingofthedata.Moredetailedfindingsofthemeta-analysisinclude(Debrezionetal.,2007):
12
● Propertiesnearcommuterrailwaystationsshowconsistentlyandsignificantlyhighervalues,controllingforotherfactors,comparedtolightandheavyrailstations.
● Commercialpropertyvalueslocatedwithina0.25-milerangefromarailwaystationare,onaverage,16.4percentmoreexpensive.AsDebrezionetal.(2007,p.176)explain,“…whentheofficeiswithinwalkingdistanceofthestation,itbenefits,otherwisethestationisoflittleuse…”
● Residentialhomepricesincrease2.4percentforevery250metersclosertoarailwaystation.
● Omittedvariablebiasmayoccur.Ifastudyleavesouthighwaysinitsregression,theregressioncanoverestimatetheimpactofstationaccessonpropertyvalues.
Mostresearchfoundthatwalkabilityispositivelyassociatedwithhomeprices.Additionally,MatthewsandTurnbull’s(2007)researchfoundthatthedesignofthetransportationnetworkcanaffectthemagnitudeofwalkabilitybenefits;grid-likestreetpatternsincreasedhomevalues.PivoandFisher(2011)studieddifferenttypesofpropertiesandtheirvaluesacrosstheUnitedStatesbetween2001and2008tounderstandhowwalkabilityaffectsdifferentpropertytypes.TheirstudyfoundthatapartmentpropertieswithhighWalkScoreswereassociatedwitha6percentincreaseinmarketvalue,whileofficeandretailpropertiessawa54percentincrease(PivoandFisher,2011).InCortright’s2009CEOforCitiespaperontheeffectofWalkScoresonhousingprices,hefoundarangeofpriceimpactsdependingonthecitystudied.LookingattheCaliforniaresults,Fresno,Stockton,SanFranciscoandSacramentoeachsawpositiveassociationsbetweenWalkScoreandhouseprices,whileBakersfieldsawanegativeassociationofWalkScorewithhouseprices,,wherea1-pointincreaseinwalkabilitywasassociatedwitha$112decreaseinhomevalue.However,theresultforBakersfieldwasnotstatisticallysignificantatthe.1(two-tailed)level.Fora1-pointchangeinWalkScore,thepriceofahomeinFresnoincreased$675,Stocktonincreased$795,SanFranciscoincreased$2,985,andSacramentoincreased$2,642(Cortright,2009,Table5).
13
Severalstudiesobservedthattransit-orienteddevelopmentscoupledwithpedestrian-friendlyneighborhoodenvironmentsareassociatedwithhigherhomesalesprices(BartholomewandEwing,2011;Duncan,2011).Duncan(2011)examinedwhetherproximitytotransitaddsmorevaluetoacondominiumpropertyinagoodpedestrianenvironmentthanitdoesinabadpedestrianenvironment.HisstudyfocusedonSanDiegoandmeasuredgoodpedestrianenvironmentsinneighborhoodswiththreevariables:densityofcommercialactivity,flatpathto
ResidentBenefitsinGuerreroStreet,SanFrancisco,CA
InthequicklytransformingMissionDistrictinSanFrancisco,residentsalongGuerreroStreetcametogetherinanefforttomaketheirstreetmorepedestrian-friendly.Withspeedingcarsalongitssixtrafficlanesandeightunsignalizedintersections,thecommunitycalledforGuerreroStreettobeincludedintrafficcalmingplans(ProjectforPublicSpaces,pg.58).Thecitizen’sorganization,SanJose/GuerreroCoalitiontoSaveOurStreets,successfullyadvocatedforthefollowingpedestrian-friendlyimprovements:
§ Changedthestreetfromthreelanesoftrafficeachwaytotwolanesoftrafficwithabicyclelane
§ Createdwidermedians§ Installednewtrafficlights
Thesechangesresultedinresidentsfeelingsafertowalkintheirneighborhoodandareductionindrivingspeeds(Roth,2009).Images:
Aftertrafficcalming,beforegreening:http://pavementtoparks.org/wp-content/uploads//2015/10/plaza-guerrero-park-before.jpg
Aftergreening:https://www.flickr.com/photos/54560762@N04/22199523316Sources:
ProjectforPublicSpaces.(2016).“TheCaseforHealthyPlaces:ImprovingHealthOutcomesthroughPlacemaking.”Accessed:https://www.pps.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Healthy-Places-PPS.pdf
ProjectforPublicSpaces.(2006).“CreatingStreetsforthePeopleintheSanJose/GuerreroNeighborhoodinSanFrancisco.”Accessed:http://www.sanjoseguerrero.com/Planning/DraftPlan/SanJoseGuerreroNeighborhoodRecommendation.pdf?lang=en
CityandCountyofSanFranciscoPlanningDepartment.(AdoptedDecember2008).“EasternNeighborhoodsPedestrian/Bicycle/TrafficCalmingImprovements.”Accessed:http://generalplan.sfplanning.org/images/EN_Pedestrian_Bicycle_Traffic_Calming_Improvements.pdf
Roth,Matthew.(July2009).“SanJoseandGuerreroPlazaCouldMarkTriumphOverDeadlyTraffic.”StreetsBlogSF.Accessed:http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/07/17/san-jose-and-guerrero-plaza-could-mark-triumph-over-deadly-traffic/
14
astation,andwell-connectedstreetnetwork(intersectiondensity).Resultsfoundthattransitstationsinpedestrian-friendlyneighborhoodsseehighermarketvalues(estimatedpremiumof$20,000)thantransitstationsinpoorpedestrianenvironments(Duncan,2011,p.120).Thissupportstheuseofamoreholisticlanduseanddesignapproachtotransitstationprojects,toensurepedestrian-orientedprojectsareprovided.Duncan’sresultsalsoemphasizethevaluethatresidentsplaceongoodpedestrianaccessibilityinTOD’s.ThestudybyBoyle,Barilleaux,andScheller(2013)differsfromthemoregeneraltrendofpositiveassociationsbetweenhomepricesandpedestriancharacter.UsingdatafromMiami,Boyle,Barilleaux,andScheller(2013)usedfixedeffectstocontrolforunobservedheterogeneityinthedata.Walkableneighborhoodsmightbevaluableforreasonsthatarecorrelatedwiththewalkability(suchas,possibly,betteraccesstodowntownjobcenters),ratherthanthepedestriancharacteritself.TheBoyle,Barilleaux,andScheller(2013)studyattemptedtocontrolforneighborhoodcharacteristicsotherthanwalkabilitybyincludingcontrolsforthesubdivision,onesquaremilesection,andzipcodeofeachhouseinthedata,andwhenanyofthosegeographiccontrolswereincluded(tomeasureneighborhoodcharacteristics),theWalkScorevariableintheirhedonichousepriceregressionwasinsignificant.Whilethedatawerecross-sectional,theuseofthese“fixedeffects”tocontrolforneighborhoodcharacteristicsisastronganalyticalapproach,andsotheresultsprovidesomecaution.Duncan(2011)alsousedneighborhoodcontrolsinhisSanDiegostudy–inhiscase,usingdummyvariablesforneighborhoodsrangingfrom0.5to4squarekilometerstocontrolforneighborhoodquality.Duncanfoundastrongandstatisticallysignificanthousevaluepremiumforpedestriancharacteristicsinlocationswithinahalfkilometerofarailtransitstation.Goodpedestriancharacteristicsincreasehomepriceswithinahalfkilometerofrailtransitstationsby15percent,accordingtoDuncan(2011).Onthewhole,themethodologicalqualityofstudiesinthisliteraturevaries,withtwoofthestrongeststudies–Boyle,Barilleaux,andScheller(2013)andDuncan(2011)–reachingopposingconclusions.Summarizing,thehedonichousepricemodelsthatfocusedonmeasuringtheimpactoftransitsawlessconsistentresultsthandidthestudiesexaminingpedestrian-orienteddevelopment.Thissuggeststhereisapremiumassociatedwiththequalityoflifeamenitiesfoundinwalkableneighborhoods,andthateffectofawalkabilityhousepricepremiumismorerobustintheliteraturethantheevidencefortransitaccessandhouseprices.WiththeexceptionoftheBoyle,Barilleaux,andScheller(2013)study,theevidenceonpedestrianenvironmentsandhousepricessupportstheideathatplacemakingcharacteristicsassociatedwithVMTreductionbringresidentialandqualityoflifebenefits.Itmustbeacknowledgedthatpropertyownerswillbetheprimarybeneficiariesofincreasedpropertyvalueandtherearedisplacementandgentrificationimpactsofplacemakingamenities.Theseequityconcernsareimportantanddeservefurtherresearch.
15
Table2.SummaryofStudiesofHedonicHousePriceModels
Author(Year)
StudyArea Methodology WalkabilityResults TransitResults
BartholomewandEwing(2011)
Meta-analysissummarizingseveralstudies
Surveyandsummaryofexistingliterature
Transit-orienteddevelopmentpairedwithpedestrian-orienteddevelopmentincreaseshomevalues
Transit-orienteddevelopmentsresultinvaryingimpactsduetodifferingmagnitudesofamenitiesanddisamenities
Boyle,Barilleaux,andScheller(2013)
Miami,FL Linearhedonicfixedeffectsregression
Walkability(measuredbyWalkScore)wasnotassociatedwithhomevaluesusingafixedeffectsmethodtocontrolforunobservedheterogeneity
Cervero(2002)
SantaClaraCounty,CA
Commercialretailvaluesincreasedby23percentforatypicalcommercialparcelnearalightrailstationCommercialretailvaluesincreasedby120percentlocatedwithin0.25milesofacommuterrailstation
16
Author(Year)
StudyArea Methodology WalkabilityResults TransitResults
Cortright(2009)
Multi-city Log-linearhedonicOLSregression
ThirteenoutoffifteencitiesshowedpositiveimpactofWalkScoreonhouseprices.
Debrezion,Pels,andRietveld(2007)
Meta-analysissummarizingseveralstudies
Meta-regressionmodelwiththeeffectsizeoftheimpactofrailwaystationproximityasthedependent(Y)variable
Commercialpropertieswithin0.25mileofarailstationseealargerpricegapfrompropertieslocatedoutsidethatrangethandoresidentialproperties-onaverage,commercialpropertieshavea16.4%priceincreasewhereasresidentialpropertieshavea4.2%priceincreaseCommuterrailwaystationshaveaconsistentlyhigherpositiveimpactonpropertyvaluescomparedtolightrailstationorbusstop
17
Author(Year)
StudyArea Methodology WalkabilityResults TransitResults
Duncan(2011)
SanDiego,CA
Linearhedonicfixedeffectsregression
Homevaluesincreasedwhentransitstationdistancewasinteractedwithpedestrian-orienteddevelopment(measuredbysidewalkslope,intersectiondensity,andpopulation-servingbusinesses)
Lietal.(2015)
Austin,TX Cliff-Ordspatialhedonicregression(alsoknownasGeneralSpatialModel)
Homevaluesincreasedinareasofhighwalkability(measuredbyWalkScoreandsidewalkdensity)Walkabilitypremiumonhomepricesishigherareaswith:morecollegeresidents,higherproportionHispanicresidents,higherincomeresidents,lowercrimerates.
18
Author(Year)
StudyArea Methodology WalkabilityResults TransitResults
MatthewsandTurnbull(2007)
KingCounty,WA
LinearhedonicOLSregression
Pedestrian-orientedneighborhoodswithamoregridiron-likestreetpatternassociatedwithhigherhomevalues
PivoandFisher(2011)
VariousacrossU.S.
LinearhedonicOLSregression
Using2001-2008realestateperformancedatafromtheNationalCouncilofRealEstateInvestmentFiduciaries,foundwalkability(measuredbyWalkScore)increasedthemarketvaluesofoffice(54percent),retail(54percent)andapartment(6percent)propertiesWalkabilityhadastatisticallyinsignificanteffectonindustrialproperties
19
Author(Year)
StudyArea Methodology WalkabilityResults TransitResults
SongandKnaap(2003)
WashingtonCounty,OR
Semi-loghedonicOLSregression,datafrom1990to2000
Pedestrianwalkabilityhasmixedeffectsonhomevalues:1)singlefamilyunitswithinaquarter-mileofcommercialuseshavehigherprices;and2)singlefamilyunitswithinaquarter-mileofabusstophavelowervalues,controllingforothercharacteristics
Seo,Golub,andKuby(2014)
Phoenix,AZ Translog(ln-ln)hedonicOLSregressionincludingspatiallagandspatialerrormodel(tomitigatehetero-skedasticityandspatialdependence)
Homevaluesincreasednearlight-railtransitnodes
20
Author(Year)
StudyArea Methodology WalkabilityResults TransitResults
Wang(2016)
Seattle,WA LinearhedonicOLSregression;before,during,afterTODconstructiontimeperiods
Aftertheconstructionperiod,transit-orienteddevelopmenthasapositiveimpactonsingle-familyhomevalueslocatedwithin0.25to0.5milesfromalightrailstation
VI.BusinessBenefitsInsomeinstances,neighborhoodsreduceVMTinbusinessdistrictsthroughtrafficcalming,closingstreetstovehicletraffic,orsupportingalternativestodriving.TherearemultiplewaysthatVMTreductioncanbenefitneighborhoodbusinesses.Forinstance,increasedpedestrianactivityandaccessibilityforcustomerscanleadtomorevisitingopportunitiesforretailbusinesseswhichcanincreasepropertyvaluesandretailsalesiftheincreasedfoottrafficorlonger“lingering”timesoffsetstheeffectofreducedautomobileaccessibility.Itispossiblethatclosingstreetsmightnotreduceautomobileaccessibilitymuch,ifnearbystreetsremainopentovehicletrafficasistypicallythecase.Thestudiesinthissectionincludestreetclosuresandothereffortsthatinstallpedestrianorbicycleamenitiesorcalmtrafficwhilekeepingstreetsopen.Severalstudiessurveyedbusinessesontheirperceptionoftheimpactofpedestrianization(includingstreetclosures)andwalkability.(Foralistofthestudiesreviewed,seeTable3.)Inthesestudies,thesamplesizerangedfrom9to777firms.Surveysandquestionnaireswereusedbothbeforeandafterperiodsofdifferentpedestrianizationandtrafficcalmingmeasures,someofwhichspannedyears.Thestudiesvariedintheirresearchperiod,withsomeexaminingtimeframesbeingasearlyasthe1990’sandthemorecontemporarystudiesbeinginthe2010’s.Someofthestudiesanalyzedpoliciesthatcloseoffstreetsfromvehicletrafficorthatlimitedvehicletraffic.Initially,businesseswereconcernedthatthereductioninautomobiletraffic
21
wouldhurttheirbusiness.Thestudiesshowedthatbusinessownersshiftedtoapositiveperceptionafterthetrafficcalmingpoliciesorstreetclosureswereinstituted.Forinstance,aftertheimplementationofbicyclelanesonValenciaStreetinSanFrancisco,66%ofmerchantssurveyedindicatedthattheybelievedthatbikelaneshadagenerallypositiveeffectonbusinessand/orsalesandwouldsupportmoretrafficcalming(DrennanandKelly,2003).Attimes,businessowners’positiveperceptionledthemtoattributeseveralbenefitssuchasincreasedpublicsafetyandincreasedbusinessrevenuetothetrafficcalmingpolicies(Woolleretal.,2012;Kumar2006).Theretailgainsofthebusinessownersvariedineachstudybutshowedincreasesinthemajorityofstudies.IntheKhaoSanRoadproject(astreetclosureandpedestrianizationinBangkok,Thailand),47%ofretailshopsreportedanincreaseinsalesvolume(orturnover)with35%reportingnochange(Kumar,2006).Similarly,inHongKong,thepedestrianizationofatwo-waystreetretailarealedtoanapproximately17%increaseinretailsalesonaverage(Yiu,2011).Hass-Klau’s(1993)workmirroredthesefindings.Hass-Klau(1993)conductedacross-countrystudyofretailbusinessesinGermanyandtheUnitedKingdom.Inadditiontoincreasedretailsales,betterpedestrianflow,andimprovedperceptionofpedestrianstreets,theHass-Klaustudyfoundthatpedestrianizationledtoincreasesinhousepricesandrentsinthepedestrianstreetareasafterthepolicieswereimplemented(Hass-Klau,1993).
22
AccordingtoWeisbrodandPollakowski(1984),pedestrianprojectsincreasedtheentryofnewbusinessesintodowntownareas.IncreasedpropertyvaluewasassociatedwithpedestrianizationandwalkabilityinitiativesinToronto,CanadaandWashingtonD.C.(Prokai,1991;Alfonzoet.al,2012).Alfonzoet.al(2012)studied71neighborhoodswithintheMetropolitanWashingtonD.C.areaandfoundthatmorewalkableplacesperformbetter
CompleteStreetsinLancaster,CA
TheCityofLancaster,locatedinLosAngelesCounty,wantedtorevitalizeitsdowntown.Partoftheprobleminattractingpeopleandbusinesseswasduetothedangerousandun-walkablenatureofLancasterBoulevard.Afour-laneroadwithmanytrafficsignals,carsspedbyat50milesperhour,makingitinhospitabletopedestriansandshoppers(NationalCompleteStreetsCoalition,2012,p.22).TheCitybeganitsrevitalizationeffortsin2006andin2008theCityCouncilpasseditsfinalplanwhichincludeda$10millionCompleteStreetsdesign.Thegoalsoftheprojectweretoimprovewalkability,increasepedestriansafetyandreducespeeds(George,2013,p.65).ThefollowingchangesweremadetoLancasterBoulevardaspartofitsCompleteStreetsdesign:
§ Reducedthenumberoflanesfromfourtotwo,removedseveraltrafficsignals,installedaroundabout
§ Createdacentral“rambla”(resemblingthefamousBarcelonastreet)whichincludespedestrian-friendlyinfrastructure,parkingspaces,andacommunityeventspace
§ Widenedandrepavedsidewalks,addedstreetlighting,andlandscapedwithmoregreenery.LancasterBoulevardisnowbrandedas“TheBLVD.”TheCompleteStreetsdesignhasspurredeconomicdevelopmentinthedowntownbyimprovingroadwaysafetyforpedestrians.Morethan40newbusinessesopenedfollowingtheredesign,privateinvestmentisestimatedtobe$125millionindowntown,andsalestaxrevenueincreased26percent(NationalCompleteStreetsCoalition,2012,p.22).Images:
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/pojylzK2uSM/maxresdefault.jpghttps://www.huduser.gov/portal/casestudies/images/artist_hsg/Image_10.jpghttps://www.cnu.org/sites/default/files/LancasterBoulevard_streetscape.jpg
Sources:
George,Sherie.(June2013).“ACompleteStreetsAnalyisandRecommendationsReportfortheCityofBakersfield.”Accessed:http://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2037&context=theses
NationalCompleteStreetsCoalitionLocalGovernmentCommission.(February2012).“It’saSafeDecision:CompleteStreetsinCalifornia.”Accessed:https://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/app/legacy/documents/cs/resources/cs-in-california.pdf
TheBLVDwebsite:http://www.theblvdlancaster.com/downtown-lancaster.html;CityCounciloftheCityofLancaster.(2010).“ResolutionNo.10-68,[DowntownLancasterSpecificGeneralPlan].”Accessed:http://www.cityoflancasterca.org/home/showdocument?id=12940
23
economically.Onaverage,morewalkableplaceshad$6.92/sq.ft.peryearhigherretailrentsandgenerated80percentmoreinretailsaleswhencomparedtotheplaceswithfairwalkability(Alfonzoet.al,2012).Inaddition,anincreaseinwalkscoreresultedinanincreaseinretailsales,officerents,andresidentialpropertyvalues(Alfonzoet.al,2012).
Whenanalyzingthestudies,thetypeofpedestrianprojectandthelocationoftheeffortsshouldbeconsidered.Whenanalyzinghowdowntownrevitalizationprojectsaffectedretailsales,WeisbrodandPollakowski(1984)discoveredthatrevitalizationofdowntownshadlittletonoimpactonemploymentgrowthofexistingretailbusinessintheareabutrevitalizationeffortsdidincreasenewbusinessopeningsinthedowntownareas.Thestudiesoffullstreet
UnionSquareNorth,Manhattan,NewYorkCity
UnionSquareinManhattan,NewYorkCity(anareathatisabout9acresoralittlelessthan400,000squarefeet)isaconstantlytraversedarea,“sometimesseeingupto200,000pedestriansonpeaksummerdays”(NYCPressRelease,2010).ItisapopulardestinationknownforitsGreenmarket,shops,restaurants,streetchess,andbeingagatheringpointforsocialandpoliticalactivism. In2010,theNewYorkCityDepartmentofTransportation(NYCDOT)announceditsstreetredesignprojectforUnionSquare.Thegoalwastoimprovepedestriansafetyandparkaccesswhilemaintainingeconomicvitalityinanareathathad95pedestrianinjurycrashesfrom2004to2008(NYCPressRelease,2010).Theproject,developedwithinputfromthecommunity,supportedbythearea'sCommunityBoardandbackedbytheUnionSquarePartnershipandlocalbusinesses,wasabletoimplementthefollowing(NYCPressRelease,2010andUnionSquareProjectProposal,2010):
§ Convertingportionsof17thStreettoone-waytraffic§ Addingpedestrianareas§ ReducingthroughtrafficlanesonBroadwayfrom23rdto18thStreetstoonelanewithsafety
islandsandprotectedbikepath§ Simplifiedtrafficsignalstoimprovepedestriansafety.
ThestreetredesignprojectallowedUnionSquaretoremainavibrantneighborhoodwhilealsobecomingmoresafe(NYCPressRelease,2010).AnNYCDOTevaluationin2012foundthatinjurycrashesinUnionSquarehaddropped26percentwhilecommercialvacancieshaddroppedby49percent.Sources:
NYCDOT(2012)MeasuringtheStreet:NewMetricsfor21stCenturyStreetshttp://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/2012-10-measuring-the-street.pdf
NYCDOTAnnouncesCompletionofUnionSquareRedesign,ImprovingSafetyandParkAccessPressRelease.http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/pr2010/pr10_043.shtml
UnionSquareProjectProposal.NewYorkCityDepartmentofTransportation.6/21/2010.http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/20100610_broadway_union_square.pdf
24
closuresareoutsideoftheU.S.,andwecautionthattheevidenceofpositiveimpactsofpedestrianprojectsintheU.S.islargelyfromprojectsthatincreasepedestrianandnon-motorizedtravel,ratherthanfullstreetclosures.PedestrianizationeffortsinToronto,Canadasawanincreaseinvacancyrateseventhoughpriorliteraturehadshownanegativerelationshipbetweenpedestrianizationandvacancyrates(Prokai,1999).Summarizing,therearerelativelyfewstudiesinthisarea,butthesurveysofbusinessownerssuggestthatinitialbusinessconcernsaboutpedestrianprojectsshiftedtoapositiveattitudeaftertheprojectwascompleted.Studiesofpropertyvalues,whilerelativelyfewinnumber,suggestthatwhenimplementedinareasofhighfoottraffic(orhighpotentialfoottraffic),pedestrianizationisassociatedwithincreasedsalesand,throughthat,increasedcommercialpropertyvalues.Table3.SummaryofEconomic/RetailBenefitsofPedestrianization
Author(Year)
StudyArea Methodology Results
Alfonzo,et.al(2012)
WalkablePlacesandEconomicPerformance,MetropolitanWashington,D.C.
HedonicregressionanalysisusingWalkScoreandIrvine-MinnesotaInventorytomeasurewalkability
HigherWalkScorelocationsperformedbettereconomically.WalkScorecorrelatedwithincreasesinretailsales,officerents,andresidentialhousingvalues.Inaddition,higherWalkScorelocationsbenefittedfrombeingnearotherhighWalkScorelocations.
DrennenandKelly(2003)
EconomicEffectsofTrafficCalmingonUrbanSmallBusinessesonValenciaStreetinSanFrancisco
Interviewswithstreetmerchants,N=27
66%ofmerchantsbelievedthatthebikelaneshavehadapositiveeffectonbusinessand/orsales.TheystatedtheywouldsupportmoretrafficcalmingonValenciaStreet.
37%ofsurveyedbusinessownersbelievethatsales
25
Author(Year)
StudyArea Methodology Results
increasedduetonewcustomersfromoutsidetheneighborhoodbeingabletovisittheirbusinessbecauseoftrafficcalmingpolicies
Hass-Klau(1993)
HowdoespedestrianizationaffectretailinUnitedKingdomandGermany
Survey,GermanyN=777UKN=400
Increasesinpedestrianflowwereassociatedwithbusinessturnover.
Housingrents/costsincreaseinpedestrianareasaftertrafficcalmingmeasures
Kumar(2006)
KhaoSanRoad,Bangkok.Effectsofpedestrianisationoncommercialandretailsales.Businesstypescategorizedbyfoodstalls,shops,guesthouses,andtravelagencies
Survey,N=110 47%ofretailshopshadincreaseinrevenuesales,35%hadnochange,while18%hadareduction
65%increaseinfavorabilityofpedestrianprojectafterdevelopmentfrom20%favorability(before)to85%favorability(after)
NewYorkCityDOT(2012)
NewYorkCity Post-projectmetricsofeconomicvitality
UnionSquareNorthinManhattansaw49%fewerretailvacanciesaftertheadditionofanewpedestrianplazaandprotectedbicyclelanes.PearlStreetinBrooklynsaw172%increaseinretailsalesafterpedestrianplaza
26
Author(Year)
StudyArea Methodology Results
Prokai(1999)
ImpactsofpedestrianfriendlystreetscapeimprovementsontworetailareasinToronto,Canada
IndicatorAnalysisofTrendsandDistribution,OftenSimpleBefore-AfterComparisonofDatawithoutStatisticalControls
Propertyvalueswerehigherwherestreetscapeimprovementsweredone.
Studiesindicatedanincreaseinvacancyfollowingpedestrianprojects.
Robertson(1991)
ExaminesthecitycentersofsixSwedishcitiestohelpbetterunderstandtheextenttowhichpedestrianstreetshavechangedovertimeintermsofretailtrends.
Interviews Interviewees’believedthatpedestrianstreetshelpedtostrengthenthecommercialcoresofSwedishcities.Priortotheexpansionofcentralpedestriandistrict,downtownmerchantshadanegativeperceptionofcentralpedestriandistricts.
WeisbrodandPollakowski(1984)
EffectsofDowntownImprovementProjectsonRetailActivity
Regressionofdatafor14shoppingmallsthatwerepartofdowntownpedestrianrevitalizationprojects
Downtownrevitalizationprojectssometimeshadnostatisticallysignificantimpactonobservedgrowthorexitsofexistingestablishments.
Revitalizationprojectsdidhaveastatisticallysignificantpositiveeffectonratesofnewestablishmententryintorevitalizationareas.
27
Author(Year)
StudyArea Methodology Results
Wooller,Badlam,andSchofield(2012)
PedestrianizationBenefits,NewZealand
Semi-StructuredInterviews,N=9
Perceptionofintervieweeswasthatpedestrianizationencouragedleisurebusiness.Perceptionofco-benefitsincludedpublicsafety,accessibility,andexercise
Yiu(2011)
PedestrianizationandRetailRents,HongKong,China
Two-street,Two-periodRegressionModel
Pedestrianizationincreasedtheretailrentalvalueofthestreetbyapproximately17%.
VII.Discussion:SynthesizingaSystemsViewoftheEconomicBenefitsofTransportationTheliteratureoneconomicbenefitsoftransportationfallsintotwoparts–whatwecalledthe“old”andthe“new”views–withlittlecross-talkorconnectionsbetweenthosetwoliteratures.Thedifferentviewsevolvedatdifferenttimes(roughlytheearlyandmid-InterstateHighwayerafortheoldviewversusthepasttwodecadesforthenewview),focusingondifferentpolicyquestions(increasedVMTversusneighborhoodplacemaking)anddifferentgeographicscales(metropolitanareasorlargergeographiesversusneighborhoods).Wefirstsummarizetheresultsfromthe“new”viewstudiessurveyedhere,andthensuggestapolicysynthesis.ThestudiesonresidentialbenefitsofVMT-reducingplacemakingprovideevidencethathousepricesarehigher,controllingforotherfactors,inneighborhoodswithgoodpedestriancharacteristics.HigherneighborhoodWalkScore(indicatingbetterpedestrianaccesstodestinations)isassociatedwithhigherhousevalues,suggestingthatpersonsvaluethepackageofamenitiesthatisassociatedwithwalkableneighborhoods.Transitaccessalsoisassociatedwithhigherhousevalues,althoughthateffectvariesacrossstudiesandthetransithousepricepremiumislargerinmorewalkableneighborhoods.Businesssurveysindicatethatbusinessesinlocationswherestreetswereclosedorwheretrafficlaneswerereducedhadagenerallypositiveviewoftheimpactontheirretailsales.Someevidenceindicatesthatincreasesincommercialpropertypricesareassociatedwithpedestrianization.Someofthesebusinessimpactstudiesmightbesubjectto“survivorbias”,
28
surveyingfirmsthatremainedintheneighborhoodafterthepedestrianizationprojectwascompletedandhencemissingfirmswhosebusinesscouldnotadaptandthatthuslefttheneighborhoodorceasedoperations.Yetsomeofthesurveystudiescontactedfirmsbeforeandafterpedestrianimprovements,andthosesurveysshowedlargeincreasesinbusinessfavorabilityfrombefore-projecttoaftertheprojectwascompleted.Onecautionforboththeresidentialhousepriceandbusinessimpactstudiesisthattheresearchmighthavefocusedonplaceswherepedestrianizationandplacemakingwasmostlikelytohaveapositiveimpact.Policyactivityoftenfocusesonlocationsthatareprimedtobenefit,andresearchersmightalsochooseneighborhoodswheretheplacemakingactivitywaslikelytoprovidebenefits,iffornootherreasonthanthatsuchplacesaremorevisibletoresearchers.Whiletheresultssuggestpositiveimpactsonresidentsandbusinesses,itwouldbeprematuretogeneralizethateveryplacewillbenefit.Wesuggestthattheevidenceisbestinterpretedasshowingthatthoughtfullyappliedplacemakingactivityhaspositiveimpacts;notthatanyandeveryVMT-reducingplacemakinginanylocationwillproducebenefits.Thestudiesonagglomerationshowthatthebenefitsfrombusinesseslocatingnearotherbusinessesisoftenashortdistancephenomenon–insomecasesatascaleoffromonetofivemiles.Knowledgeindustriesandcreativeactivitiesparticularlybenefitfromagglomerationeconomies,andhencetransportationplansthatallowfirms,employees,andcustomerstointeractquicklyandseamlessly,ofteninaface-to-facefashion,willbeimportantfortheeconomichealthofcities.Theevidencedoesnotindicatethatthoseinteractionsneedbeatawalkingscale,andthegeographicscopeofagglomerationbenefits,whilecoveringshortdistances,islargerthanthescaleofmanyneighborhoods.Themostapplicable“oldview”studiesarethosemorerecentworksthatshoweconomicbenefitsfromreducedcongestioninametropolitanarea(e.g.Hymel,2007;SCAG,2016).Theseworksindicatethatincreasingaccesswithinametropolitanareaisimportantforeconomicgrowth–afindingconsistentwiththeliteratureonagglomerationeconomies.Butbuildinghighwaysisnotafruitfulwaytoincreaseaccessinmetropolitanareas.Studieshaveshownthatincongestedmetropolitanareas,additionalhighwaycapacityleadstoinducedtravel,suchthatnewhighwaycapacitydoesnotreducecongestion(e.g.DurantonandTurner,2011).Forthatreason,congestionreductionisnotnearlyassimpleasbuildingmorehighways–andhighwaybuildingalonewillnotleadtolowercongestionlevelsinlargemetropolitanareas.Overall,theseresultssuggestasystemsapproach(Figure1).Atthescaleofametropolitanarea,economicgrowthflowsfromtransportationpoliciesthatreducecongestionand/orincreaseaccess,thusallowingmoreseamlessbusinessinteractionsandmoreeasyreachfromfirmstooutputandlabormarkets.ManyneighborhoodswillbenefitfrompoliciesthatreduceVMTwhileproducingplacemakingamenities,butcreatinganentiremetropolitanareaofslow-movingtrafficinpedestrianizedplaceswouldnotallowthehighthroughputthatmetropolitanareasneedtoincreaseaccessibility.Ahierarchyoftransportationlinksisthebestapproach.Highthroughputroutes,ideallycongestionpriced,shouldconnectneighborhoodswithin
29
metropolitanareas,whilethoseneighborhoodsshould,asoftenaspossible,supportmultipletravelmodesthathaveamenitiesassociatedwithwalkablelocales.Therewillstillbearoleforsuburbanofficeparkswitheasyautomobileaccessibility(noteveryplacecanbeanurbanneighborhood),buteveninthosemoresuburbanplacesplannersshouldincludetheamenitiesandtransportationoptionsthat,researchhasshown,producevalueforresidentsandfirms.
Figure1.SystemsapproachtotransportationpolicypromotingeconomicbenefitsinbothplaceandlargermetropolitanareaCanacar-onlytransportationsystemsupportthishybridofregionalaccessibilityandneighborhoodplacemaking?Webelievetheansweris“no”,particularlyinlargermetropolitanareas.Thewalking-orienteddesignelementsandpedestrianneighborhoodsthathelpcreateplacemakingbenefitsareoftenseamlesslyassociatedwithalternativestoautomobiletravel.Thosedesignsareoftenassociatedwithfirst-lastmiletransitaccessorwithplanstoincreasenon-motorizedtravel.Thereisaroleforthecar,butacar-onlymetropolitantransportationplanleaveslittleroomforwalkableplacemakingattheneighborhoodscale.Thebestapproachistheonebeingpursuedinmanycities–traveloptionsandalternativesthatviewtheautomobileasoneofmanywaystotravel,butnottheonlytravelmode.Inlargemetropolitanareas,asystemsviewwillrequirehighthroughputtransitthatcansupportdensitiesthathighwayscannotsupport(e.g.thecentralbusinessdistrictsinLosAngelesorSanFrancisco),
30
ideallycongestionpricedhighwaysandmajortransitlinks,andcarefulfocusonfirst-lastmileneighborhoodaccessibilitythathasarobustroleforplacemakingamenities.Neighborhoodplacemaking,inthisview,isaconcomitantoftransportationsystemsbasedonabackboneofhighthroughputintra-metropolitanconnectorsthatlinktoneighborhoodsthrougharangeofmodesthatincludetransit,walking,andbicycling.Thetransportationsystem,inthisview,isaboutmorethanmovement.Itconnectspeopleandfirmsatthemetropolitanscale,whilefocusingonprovidingamenitiesandweavingintotheurbanfabricattheneighborhoodscale.Transportationplanning,inthisview,includesurbandesign,humaninteraction,andaccessibility.Equityconsiderationswillbeimportantinaplacemaking-orientedviewoftransportationplanning.Higherincomeneighborhoodsareoftentheplaceswiththeresourcesandpoliticalclouttopursueplacemakinginitiatives.Pedestrianizedstreets,trafficcalming,andbicyclelanesaremorecommonlyfoundinhigh-incomethanlow-incomeplaces.Oneriskofneighborhood-ledplanningisthatthoseneighborhoodswiththeresourcestoengageinplacemakingwilldoso,leavingotherneighborhoodsbehind.Forthatreason,placemakingshouldhaveastrongroleforequity,withpurposefuleffortstobringplacemakingtoneighborhoodsthatmaynothavetheresourcesorpoliticalpowertopursuesuchinitiativesbythemselves.Suchanequity-focusedplacemakingshouldempowerlocalcommunities.Thebestplacemakingistypicallyorganicandinformedbylocalneeds,andhenceitwouldbeunwisetofoistaplacemakingviewonaneighborhoodfromtheoutside.Asneighborhoodsbecomemoreimportantintransportationplanning,transportplannerswillhavetoshiftfromtop-downapproachestomethodsthatempowerandengagecommunities.Overall,theevidencesuggeststhatplacemakinginitiatives,pursuedinwaysthatreduceneighborhoodVMT,bringbenefitsthatarevaluedbyresidentsandfirms.Placemakingwillrequireamoremulti-modaltransportationplanning,focusingonneighborhoodcontextandengagingandempoweringcommunitieswhilebuildingsystembackbonesthatincreaseaccessthroughoutthemetropolitanarea.Thissynthesisisappropriateandnecessaryforanerainwhichtheautomobile,whilestillimportant,cannotmeetallouraccessibilityneeds.Thereisaneedformoreresearchthatfurtherexplorestheimpactsofsmallscaledplacemakinganditseffectsonlocaleconomiesandredefiningaccessibility.
31
ReferencesAarts,LettyandIngridvonSchagen.2006.DrivingSpeedandtheRiskofRoadCrashes:A Review.AccidentAnalysisandPrevention,vol.38,215-224.
Adler,M.W.,&vanOmmeren,J.N.(2016).Doespublictransitreducecartravelexternalities?Quasi-naturalexperiments’evidenceontransitstrikes.JournalofUrbanEconomics,106–120.
Alfonzo,M.,Leinberger,C.(May2012).“WalkthisWay:TheEconomicPromiseofWalkable PlacesinMetropolitanWashington,D.C.”BrookingsInstitution:MetropolitanPolicy Program.1-21Accessed: http://static1.squarespace.com/static/55ba65c5e4b0aa2fc6f7ada4/563a7a20e4b00388 7ba9827b/563a7a1ae4b003887ba98026/1446672922251/Walk-This-Way-2012May25- Release.pdf?format=original&__hstc=48159608.a23f13faefdff6167dacda4a5569da3b.1 486001967172.1486001967172.1486001967172.1&__hssc=48159608.9.148600196717 3&__hsfp=1236935214
Al-Mosaind,M.A.,Dueker,K.J.,Strathman,J.G.(1993).“Light-RailTransitStationsandProperty Values:AHedonicPriceApproach.”TransportationResearchRecord.Transportation ResearchBoard(1400),90-94.Accessed: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/Onlinepubs/trr/1993/1400/1400-013.pdf
Anas,A.,&Xu,R.(1999).Congestion,LandUseandJobDispersion:AGeneralEquilibriumModel.JournalofUrbanEconomics,(45),451–473.
Arnott,R.(2013).Abathtubmodelofdowntowntrafficcongestion.JournalofUrbanEconomics,(76),110–121.
Bacolod,M.,Blum,B.S.,&Strange,W.C.(2009).Skillsinthecity.JournalofUrbanEconomics,(65),136–153.
Bartholomew,K.,Ewing,R.(2011)."HedonicPriceEffectsofPedestrian-andTransit-Oriented Development."JournalofPlanningLiterature.26(1),18-34.Accessed: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0885412210386540
Boyle,A.,Barrilleaux,C.,Scheller,D.(2013).“DoesWalkabilityInfluenceHousingPrices?”Social ScienceQuarterly.(95:3),852-867.
Brinkman,J.C.(2016).Congestion,agglomeration,andthestructureofcities.JournalofUrbanEconomics,(94),13–31.
Cervero,R.,Duncan,M.(2002).“Transit’sValue-AddedEffects:LightandCommuterRail ServicesandCommercialLandValues.”TransportationResearchRecord.(1805),8-15.
Cortright,J.(August2009)."WalkingtheWalk:HowWalkabilityRaisesHomeValuesinU.S. Cities."CEOsforCities.Accessed: http://nacto.org/docs/usdg/walking_the_walk_cortright.pdf
32
Debrezion,G.,Pels,E.,Rietveld,P.(August2007).“TheImpactofRailwayStationson ResidentialandCommercialPropertyValue:AMeta-Analysis”TheJournalofRealEstate FinanceEconomics.(32:2),161-180.Accessed: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11146-007-9032-z
DePalma,A.,&Proost,S.(2006).ImperfectcompetitionandcongestionintheCity.JournalofUrbanEconomics,(60),185–209.
Donaldson,Dave.2010.RailroadsoftheRaj:EstimatingtheImpactofTransportation InfrastructureWorkingPaper16487oftheNationalBureauofEconomicResearch, availableathttp://www.nber.org/papers/w16487,accessMay6,2017.
Donaldson,DaveandRichardHornbeck,2016.RailroadsandAmericanEconomicGrowth: A‘‘MarketAccess’’Approach.QuarterlyJournalofEconomics,799-858.
Drennen,E.(December2003).“EconomicEffectsofTrafficCalmingonUrbanSmallBusinesses.” SanFranciscoStateUniversity:DepartmentofPublicAdministration.1-84Accessed: https://www.sfbike.org/download/bikeplan/bikelanes.pdf
Drennan,M.P.,&Kelly,H.F.(2011).Measuringurbanagglomerationeconomieswithofficerents.JournalofEconomicGeography,(11),481–507.
Duncan,M.(2011)"TheImpactofTransit-OrientedDevelopmentonHousingPricesin SanDiego,CA.”UrbanStudies,48(1),101-127.Accessed:http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0042098009359958
Duranton,G.andM.A.Turner.(2011).TheFundamentalLawofRoadCongestion:Evidence fromUSCities.AmericanEconomicReview,101,2616-2652.
Frank,LarryDouglas,BrianE.Saelens,KenE.Powell,andJamesE.Chapman.2007.Stepping TowardCausation:DoBuiltEnvironmentsorNeighborhoodandTravelPreferences ExplainPhysicalActivity,Driving,orObesity?SocialScience&Medicine,(65),1898- 1914.
Goodwin,P.,Hass-Klau,C.,&Cairns,S.(1998).Evidenceontheeffectsofroadcapacityreductionontrafficlevels.
Graham,D.J.(2007a).Agglomeration,Productivity,andTransportInvestment.JournalofTransportEconomicsandPolicy,(41),317–343.
Graham,D.J.(2007b).Variablereturnstoagglomerationandtheeffectofroadtrafficcongestion.JournalofUrbanEconomics,(62),103–120.
Hanlon,W.W.,&Miscio,A.(2017).Agglomeration:Along-runpaneldataapproach.JournalofUrbanEconomics,(99),1–14.
Hass-Klau,C.(1993).“Impactofpedestrianizationandtrafficcalmingonretailing:Areviewof theevidencefromGermanyandtheUK”.TransportPolicy.1(1),21-31Accessed: http://publiekeruimte.info/Data/Documents/rc5abtiq/39/Pedestrianization--- retailing.pdf
33
Hymel,K.(2007).Doestrafficcongestionreduceemploymentgrowth?JournalofUrbanEconomics,(65),127–135.
Li,W.,etal.(July10,2015)"AssessingtheBenefitsofNeighborhoodWalkabilitytoSingle- FamilyPropertyValues."JournalofPlanningEducationandResearch.35(4),471-488.
Matthews,J.W.,Turnbull,G.K.(July2007).“NeighborhoodStreetLayoutandPropertyValue:InteractionofAccessibilityandLandUse.”TheJournalofRealEstateFinanceandEconomics.(35:2),111-141.Accessed:https://link-springer-com.libproxy2.usc.edu/article/10.1007%2Fs11146-007-9035-9
McCarthy,P.,&Tray,R.(1993).EconomicEfficiencyvsTrafficRestraint:ANoteonSingapore’sAreaLicenseScheme.JournalofUrbanEconomics,(34),96–100.
McMillen,D.P.,&McDonald,J.F.(1998).SuburbanSubcentersandEmploymentDensityinMetropolitanChicago.JournalofUrbanEconomics,(43),157–180.
Melo,P.C.,Graham,D.J.,&Noland,R.B.(2009).Ameta-analysisofestimatesofurbanagglomerationeconomies.RegionalScienceandUrbanEconomics,(39),332–342.
Mills,EdwinS.(1972).StudiesintheStructureoftheUrbanEconomy.Baltimore,MD:TheJohnsHopkinsPress.
Mohring,Herbert.(1961).“LandValuesandtheMeasurementofHighwayBenefits.”Journalof PoliticalEconomy,(79),236-249.
Mohring,HerbertandMitchellHarwitz.(1962).HighwayBenefits:AnAnalyticalFramework. Evanston,Illinois:NorthwesternUniversityPress.
Nadiri,M.IshaqandTheofanisP.Mamuneas.(1996).ContributionofHighwayCapitalto IndustryandNationalProductivityGrowth.ReportpreparedforApogeeResearch,Inc., fortheFederalHighwayAdministrationOfficeofPolicyDevelopment,WorkOrder NumberBAT-94-008
NewYorkCityDepartmentofTransportation.(October2012).“MeasuringtheStreet:New Metricsfor21stCenturyStreets”.Accessed: http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/2012-10-measuring-the-street.pdf
P.Gordon,H.W.,Richardson,&Wong,H.L.(1986).Thedistributionofpopulationandemploymentinapolycentriccity:thecasetheLosAngeles.EnvironmentandPlanningA,(18),161–173.
Parry,I.W.H.,&Bento,A.(2002).EstimatingtheWelfareEffectofCongestionTaxes:TheCriticalImportanceofOtherDistortionswithintheTransportSystem.JournalofUrbanEconomics,(51),339–365.
Pivo,G.,Fisher,J.D.(March2011).“TheWalkabilityPremiuminCommercialRealEstate Investments.”JournalofRealEstateEconomics.(39:2),185-219. Accessed:http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1540-6229.2010.00296.x/full
34
ProjectforPublicSpaces.(December2009).“WhatisPlacemaking.”Accessed: https://www.pps.org/reference/what_is_placemaking/
Prokai,F.(1999).“UnderstandingImpactsofPedestrian-FriendlyStreetsinUrbanRetailAreas”. UniversityofGuelph.Accessed:https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=5351652
Rapoport,A.,Kugler,T.,Dugar,S.,&Gisches,E.J.(2009).Choiceofroutesincongestedtrafficnetworks:ExperimentaltestsoftheBraessParadox.GamesandEconomicBehavior,(65),538–571.
Robertson,K.(November1991).“PedestrianstreetsinSweden’scitycentres”.Cities8(4),301- 314Accessed:http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/026427519190047U
Rosenthal,S.S.,&Strange,W.C.(2001).TheDeterminantsofAgglomeration.JournalofUrbanEconomics,(50),191–229.
Rosenthal,S.S.,&Strange,W.C.(2003).Geography,IndustrialOrganization,andAgglomeration.TheReviewofEconomicsandStatistics,(85),377–393.
Rosenthal,S.S.,&Strange,W.C.(2008).Theattenuationofhumancapitalspillovers.JournalofUrbanEconomics,(64),373–389.
Sallis,JamesF.,Frank,LawrenceD.,Saelens,BrianE.,Kraft,KatherineM.(2004).“Active TransportationandPhysicalActivity:OpportunitiesforCollaborationonTransportation andPublicHealthResearch,”TransportationResearchA,(38),249-268.
Santosh,K.,William,R.(September2006).“EffectsofPedestrianizationontheCommercialand RetailAreas:StudyinKhaoSanRoad,Bangkok”.WorldTransportPolicy&Practice. 13(1),37-48Accessed:https://trid.trb.org/view.aspx?id=804614
Seo,K.,Golub,A.,Kuby,M.(December2014).“Combinedimpactsofhighwayandlightrailtransitonresidentialpropertyvalues:aspatialhedonicpricemodelforPhoenix,Arizona.”JournalofTransportGeography.(41),53-62.
Song,Y.,Knaap,G.(September2003).“NewUrbanismandhousingvalues:adisaggregate assessment.”JournalofUrbanEconomics.(54),218-238.Accessed: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0094119003000597
SouthernCaliforniaAssociationofGovernments.(2016)Final2016RegionalTransportation Plan/SustainableCommunitiesPlan.Chapter7,147-148.Accessed:
http://scagrtpscs.net/Documents/2016/final/f2016RTPSCS_07_TheBigPicture.pdf.
Tsekeris,T.,&Geroliminis,N.(2013).Citysize,networkstructureandtrafficcongestion.JournalofUrbanEconomics,(76),1–14.
Venables,A.J.(2007).EvaluatingUrbanTransportImprovements.JournalofTransportEconomicsandPolicy,173–188.
Wang,Z.(2016).“TheImpactofLightRailTransit-OrientedDevelopmentonResidentialPropertyValueinSeattle,WA.”Accessed:
35
http://search.proquest.com.libproxy2.usc.edu/docview/1830464131?pq-origsite=summon&accountid=14749
Weisbrod,G.,Pollakowski,H.(November2007).“EffectsofDowntownImprovementProjectsonRetailActivity”.JournaloftheAmericanPlanningAssociation.50(2),148-161Accessed:http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01944368408977171
Wheaton,W.C.,&Lewis,M.J.(2002).UrbanWagesandLaborMarketAgglomeration.JournalofUrbanEconomics,(51),542–562.
Wheaton,WilliamC.(2004).Commuting,congestion,andemploymentdispersalincitieswith mixedlanduse.JournalofUrbanEconomics,(55),2004417-438.
Wooller,L.,Badlan,H.,Schofield,G.(2012).“Pedestrianisation:Arewereadingfromthesame page?PerspectivefromkeystakeholdersinTakapuna,Auckland”.GraduateJournalof Sport,Exercise&PhysicalEducationResearch.1(15),16-30Accessed: http://aut.researchgateway.ac.nz/handle/10292/4785
Yiu,C.(2011).“Theimpactofapedestrianisationschemeonretailrent:anempiricaltestin HongKong”.JournalofPlaceManagementandDevelopment.4(3),231-242Accessed: http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/17538331111176057
Zhang,KaiandStuartBatterman.(2013).“AirPollutionandHealthRisksDuetoVehicleTraffic”. ScienceoftheTotalEnvironment,450-451,April15,307-316.