Theme 7 Broader interactions, public transportation and city form

© P. Christopher Zegras 9/24/2013

1

Broader Interactions: Public Transportation and City Form

Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Workshop: Experiences and Challenges

20 September 2013

Professor Christopher ZegrasDepartment of Urban Studies & Planning Massachusetts Institute of Technology

1

Download this .ppt

• http://web.mit.edu/czegras/Public/

• And/or email me: [email protected]

2


2

Content• Built Environment (BE) = f (Transport) and

Transport = f (BE)– Background and basic theory

• Transport = f (BE)– theory, evidence, policy implications.

• BE = f (Transport)– theory, evidence, policy implications.

• Conclusions and Questions

3

Land Use-Transport Interaction: Theoretical Framework

Land Use

Land Uses (Activities)

Land, Floor Space

Prices Demand

Transportation

Travel (Activities)

Transportation System

Time

Costs Demand

Connectivity

Spatial

Distribution

Accessibility 4


3

Built Environment and Public Transport: The Promise

• Public transport changes the spatial economy of place– Accessibility benefits/costs reflected in land

prices (Zegras et al., 2013)

– Agglomeration economy potentials• Expanded labor markets

• Job concentration and reduced costs of inputs and knowledge spillovers

(Chatman and Noland, 2013)

5

Built Environment and Public Transport: The Promise

• Developers: Higher profits– Higher densities possible

– Higher price/unit possible

• Users: Higher benefits– Expanded accessibility

– Lower costs (?)

– Higher quality of life/well-being (Cao, 2013)

• Politicians: More desirable places– Happier voters

6


4

The Broader Context1

95

0

19

55

19

60

19

65

19

70

19

75

19

80

19

85

19

90

19

95

20

00

20

05

20

10

20

15

20

20

20

25

20

30

20

35

20

40

20

45

20

50

—

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

10,000

Po

pu

lati

on

(M

illio

ns

)

“Less Developed”Urban

“Developed” Urban

Total World

Source: United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA)

7

% Change Population by Census Tract (2000-10)

US Census

2012

8


5

Paris

Angel et al, 20119

Bandung, Indonesia

Angel et al, 201110


6

Average Tract Density: 20 US Metro Areas

Angel et al., 201111

World “Suburbanization” Trends

Angel et al., 2011 12


7

Transport = f (LU)?Something new?

Meyer, et al, 1965 (from Kain, 1999) Howard’s “Garden City”

13

14

The Built Environment and Mobility: A Question of Scale

Scale Refers To Built Environment Concepts/Indicators

Metropolitan Urban Structure Overall City Size, population, gross density, “skeletal” forms (e.g, radial)

Intra-Metropolitan (meso)

Urban Form Dispersion, concentration, mixes, grain, access networks

Micro Scale: (neighborhood)

Urban Design “Internal Texture”, Density, Mixes of Uses, Street Networks, etc.


8

Urban Density (persons/hectare)

15,000

10,000

5,000

100 200 300 400

Per

Cap

ita

Car

Km

s

Hong Kong

Sacramento, CA

?

?

xSantiago

13 US Cities

7 Canadian Cities

3 Wealthy Asian Cities

11 European Cities

6 “Developing” Asian Cities

6 Australian Cities

Urban Density (persons/hectare)

15,000

10,000

5,000

100 200 300 400

Per

Cap

ita

Car

Km

s

Hong Kong

Sacramento, CA

?

?

xSantiago

13 US Cities

7 Canadian Cities

3 Wealthy Asian Cities

11 European Cities

6 “Developing” Asian Cities

6 Australian Cities

Kenworthy & Laube, 1999.

Newman & Kenworthy…

15

Ingram, 1998, p. 1027.

Newman & Kenworthy…

16


9

Macro-Scale

Form & Function

Bertaud, 200417

18

Micro Scale Built Environment

Crane, 1996


10

19

Formalizing the Theoretical Framework

20

Crane’s Trip-Based (Time/Cost-Based) Framework

Crane, 1996


11

21

A Trip-Based (Cost-Based) Framework

Auto Travel Demand Indicator

Grid Street(shorter trips)

Traffic Calming

(slower trips)

Mixed Uses & Densification

(one trip, more purposes,

slower speed

All Three

Car TripsIncrease (for all modes,

likely)Decrease

Increase or Decrease


Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)


DecreaseIncrease or Decrease


Car Mode Choice


DecreaseIncrease or Decrease


Crane, 1996

22

To Better Understand Possible Effects…

We need to know

• Elasticities of trip demand with respect to speed and distance

• Cross-elasticities among modes– How changes for one mode (eg in distance)

affects demand for other modes

• Differentiate by trip purpose


12

Net Utility Approach

• Extending beyond Crane…

• The Built Environment influences disutility and utility

Maat et al, 2005

23

Stylized Effects of Travel Time Changes

Maat et al, 200524


13

Stylized Effects of Mode Changes

Maat et al, 200525

26

Net Utility Framework

• Land uses influence net utility: – Positive utility = activity realization– Negative utility (disutility) = travel cost

• Extends beyond Crane– Reveals a dual ambiguity of land use’s influences

• Uncertain influence on trip costs (disutility), thus travel• Uncertain influence on activities (utility), thus travel

• What happens with saved time? A. Invest in going to higher utility destinationsB. Carry out more activitiesC. Dedicate more time per activity– Travel demand increases with? – A and B– Consistent with…. constant travel time budgets (e.g., Schafer, 2000).


14

TB = f (BE)? Empirical Challenges: Unclear

pathways of effectsTransport-EfficientNeighborhood

Transport-EfficientBehavior

Transport-EfficientPreferences

Spatial cognition, etc…

27

A “Macro-Level” ExampleNetherlands

Policy Land Use Behavior

(Schawen et al, 2004)

28


15

National-Level Planning PoliciesNetherlands• 1970s-1980s

– “concentrated decentralization”• 1980s

– “compact urban growth”– with urban renewal subsidies

• 1990s– “A-B-C location policy”

• A: centrally located sites• B: outside CBDs, but still public transport connected• C: highway-oriented sites• Challenge: growth in service/office sector

• Retail policy• Overall: mixed success

– Primarily guiding residential and retail development29

Schwanen et al, 2004.30


16

Netherlands: Estimated Effects?

• Data– Travel

• One-day travel survey (NTS)

• Male/female Head of Household

– Land Uses• Macro: urban structure (mono-, poly-centric)

• Meso: degree of urbanization

• Travel Effects– Mode Choice

– Distance and time


Netherlands: Conclusions & Recs



17

“Micro-Scale” Effects

Meta-Analysis, Case Study (Jinan)

33

Meta-Analysis: Elasticities of Walking with respect to BE

Ewing and Cervero, 2010.34


18

Meta-Analysis: Elasticities of Transit Use with respect to BE

Ewing and Cervero, 2010.35

Micro-level Example: BE and BRT Pedestrian Catchment Area (PCA) in Jinan China

(Jiang et al, 2012)

36


19

Arterial- Edge Corridor(Jingshi St.)

1

(Jiang 2010)

37

Integrated- Boulevard Corridor(Lishan Rd.)

2

(Jiang 2010)38


20

Below- Expressway Corridor(Beiyuan St.)

3(Jiang 2010)

39

Approach

, , , ;

• Station area user survey

• Built Environment Analysis

• Regression

40


21

CORRIDOR WALKABILITYA BRT Users’ Perspective

29%33% 33%

26% 26% 28%

18%24% 26%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Crossing is safe. Crossing is easy. Walking on sidewalksis safe.

Arterial-edge(n=464)

Integrated-boulevard(n=356)

Below-expressway(n=946)

41

Unsafe crossing, poor signals…

(Jiang 2010)42


22

Distance… (Jiang 2010)43

(Jiang 2010)44


23


69%

47% 45%50%

33%

24%

38%35%

27%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Pavement is good. Streets are clean. Few blockages are onsidewalks.




45


48%

42%

70%

58%

39%

49%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Trees on sidewalks makewalking comfortable.

Facilities along streetsmeet my demand.




46


24

Walk next to trees…Arterial-Edge Corridor

47

(Jiang 2010)

Walk under trees…Integrated-Boulevard Corridor

48

(Jiang 2010)


25

Walk without trees…Below-Expressway Corridor 49

(Jiang 2010)

475

647

582

329

501459

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Avg Walking Distance

Avg Straight-line Distance

(m)

DetourFactor 1.59 1.36 1.33

CORRIDOR WALKABILITYDirectness

Walking distance

Straight-linedistance

50


26

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

90.00%

100.00%

0

150

300

450

600

750

900

1050

1200

1350

1500

1650

1800

1950

2100

2250

2400

2550

2700

2850

3000

3150

3300

3450

3600

3750

3900

Percentage

of BRT riders

Access/Egress Walking Distance (m)

Terminal Station

Transfer Station

Typical Station

Station Function vs. Access/Egress Walking Distance

Walking Distance (m) Typical Station Transfer Station Terminal Station

Mean 547 587 1365

Median 435 458 1311

Maximum 2738 2067 5114

51

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

90.00%

100.00%

0

150

300

450

600

750

900

1050

1200

1350

1500

1650

1800

1950

2100

2250

2400

2550

2700

2850

3000

3150

3300

3450

3600

3750

3900

Percentage

of BRT riders

Access/Egress Walking Distance (m)

Arterial‐Edge

Integrated‐Boulevard

Below‐Expressway

Corridor Type vs. Access/Egress Walking Distance(non-terminal stations only)

Walking Distance (m) Arterial‐Edge Integrated‐Boulevard Below‐Expressway

Mean 475 649 580

Median 412 520 458

Maximum 1635 2023 2738

52


27

Potentially confounding factors

Trip Maker• Age• Gender• Car Ownership• Household Income • Occupation• Frequent BRT User or not

Trip• Purpose• Time• Alternative Mode Availability• In Group or not

System• Level of Service• Transit Fare

Station Context• Station Function (terminal, transfer?)• Distance to City Center • Density Gradient• Connectivity (Feeder road length)• Level of Feeder-bus Service

No need control because BRT riders are granted free transfer between BRT lines and thus using the same system per se.

53

Catchment Area Density Gradient: Hill/ Valley/ Flat

Hill Pattern (convex) Valley Pattern (concave)

BRT

BRT

Station 3 Station 8

STATION CONTEXT

Source: http://jinan.edushi.com/54


28

E(Walk Distance) = 600 + 150 *(Integrated_Boulevard_Corridor)+ 400 *(Terminal_Station) - 100 *(Transfer_Station) - 150 *(Density_Hill) + 150 *(Density_Valley) + 50 *(Distance_to_Center in km)

Radial Distance Guidelines for Pedestrian Zones around BRT Stations AND RRT Stations

Radial Distance (meters)

Corridor Type Terminal Station Non‐terminal Station

BRT Arterial‐Edge 600‐1000 300‐600

BRT Integrated‐Boulevard 1000‐1500 600‐1000

BRT Below‐Express 800‐1200 400‐800

RRT Underground 1200 700‐900

RRT Elevated 1300 800‐1000

Jiang et al, 2012; Zhao & Deng, 2013

E(Walk Distance) = 900*(Underground typical sta.)+ 300 *(Terminal_Station) + 100 *(Elevated Station) - 100 *(if Transfer station) + 10 *(Distance_to_Center in km)

55

E(Walk Distance) = 600 + 150 *(Integrated_Boulevard_Corridor)+ 400 *(Terminal_Station) - 100 *(Transfer_Station) - 150 *(Density_Hill) + 150 *(Density_Valley) + 50 *(Distance_to_Center in km)

Radial Distance Guidelines for Pedestrian Zones around BRT Stations AND RRT Stations

Radial Distance (meters)

Corridor Type Terminal Station Non‐terminal Station

BRT Arterial‐Edge 600‐1000 300‐600

BRT Integrated‐Boulevard 1000‐1500 600‐1000

BRT Below‐Express 800‐1200 400‐800

RRT Underground 1200 700‐900

RRT Elevated 1300 800‐1000

Jiang et al, 2012; Zhao & Deng, 2013

E(Walk Distance) = 900*(Underground typical sta.)+ 300 *(Terminal_Station) + 100 *(Elevated Station) - 100 *(if Transfer station) + 10 *(Distance_to_Center in km)

56


29

Terminal station presents a unique opportunity for large transit-oriented development…

RECOMMENDATIONS

(Jiang 2010)57

This probably will NOT work…

(Jiang 2010)

RECOMMENDATIONS

58


30

Make crossing safer…

(Jiang 2010)59

Put more trees and stores along the sidewalk in an appropriate way…

(Jiang 2010)60


31

Jinan: Key Takeaways

• BRT Operators should be encouraged to push for designs that increase their PCA

• That, in turn, may further influence urban development possibilities…..

61

Land Use = f (Transport)?

Muller, 2004

62


32

Rail Transit Effects (Baum-Snow & Kahn, 2000; See Appendix 1)

Aims

1. How new rail transit attracts commute trips to transit

2. Which demographic groups benefit most from rail improvements

3. Rail transit influence on land values

63

Possible Rail Transit Effects

• Existing Residents Switch to Rail

• New Residents Move into Transit Tracts

• Property Values Increase

64


33

Results: Transit Use

• There is some Tiebout migration of transit users to tracts– i.e., “self-selection”– Migration rates are higher in tracts with increased

transit access• Induced transit-oriented development

• Also, transit-shifting by existing residents– In fact, most mode shift due to this effect

• Overall effects…– Small 1.4% increase in transit with a 2 km decrease

in distance to transit (from 3 to 1 km)

65

Results: Transit Capitalization & User Groups

• 3 km to 1 km decrease in transit distance increases rents by $19/month, house value by $5,000– More gain in travel time savings: $1,200/year

• College educated and home-owners more likely to be in census tracts closer to transit

66


34

More recent analysis (USA)

• Bus+rail services [seats per capita] -together and almost equally - increase downtown employment

• Downtown wages increase

• Metropolitan area productivity increases

67

Chatman, 2013

How to “get” TOD? Land policies of relevance

• parking restrictions

• land assembly

• high-density zoning

And, proper corridor alignment…

And, proper economic environment

• Growth, demand for density

Handy, 2005 68


35

Would Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Effects and Needs be

the Same?

69

Back to Theoretical Impacts

Users

• Revealed Preference (Washington, DC)• Local bus, express bus, commuter rail, metro in

Washington, DC

• Stated Preference (Boston)• Bus, light rail in Boston

“rail and bus services which provide similar service attributes have the same ridership

attraction”Ben-Akiva and Morikawa, 200270


36


User

• In New Jersey, USA: LRT– It’s the form, not the rail

– In fact, regular bus, stronger behavioral effects than rail, after form-controls

• better bus service relaxation of parking, zoning & other development restrictions key

Chatman, 2013 71


• Developers (24 interviews in Minnesota)– Transit (bus and rail) = secondary benefit

– Bus and rail both seen positively

– Bus transit referenced “slightly more often than” LRT and TOD

– Conventional bus neighborhoods often mentioned

• “employers focus more on current transit options in site selection than on proposed future options.”

72Fan and Guthrie, 2013


37

Developer Perceptions

• Los Angeles Sustainable Transit Communities Scorecard, 2011– 13 BRT + 36 Rail sites– Orange Line BRT sites

“development potential” ranked 3, 8, 12, 19, and 20

– BRT sites’ overall rankings lower due to suburban character and lack of walkability

More info at: http://www.compassblueprint.org/Documents/CBResources/LA_Sustainable_Transit_Communities_Scorecard.pdf.

73

BRTOD Strengths and Weaknesses

Strengths

• Speed and cost of implementation

• Flexibility, adaptability, extendability

Weaknesses

Judy, 200774

• Poor image of buses

• Little technical knowledge and empirical evidence

• Real externalities (noise, AQ)

• Perceived externalities (noise, AQ, crime)

• Perceived (real?) impermanence


38

BRTOD

Empirical Evidence

75

Curitiba: BRTOD “poster child” (See Appendix 2)

Land Use-Transportation Integration from Beginning: A “Linear City”:

• Promote densification of land uses on axes– Zoning, Regulations, Incentives

• Focusing urban expansion along structural axes– Centered on busways

76


39

Transmilenio

(Rodriguez and Targa, 2004; see Appendix 3)

77

~Current Network

114 Stations; 84 Kms; 1263 vehicles; 27 km/h; 200K peak hour passengers83 Feeder routes; 516 feeder buses

78


40

Hidalgo, 2006.

Calle 13 – Av. Caracas

79

Vehicles

Graftieaux, 2005.80


41

Stations

Graftieaux, 2005.81

1.5 km buffer

82


42

Results

• Elasticity of rent with respect to BRT stop dist.– -0.16 to -0.22

• Every five minutes from BRT stop, rent declines by US$15

• Elasticity of rent with respect to BRT Corridor– 0.19 to 0.21

• Every 100 meters from corridor, rent goes up by US$77 83

Comparing Results

• Results (in terms of % change in property value) fairly comparable to – Los Angeles Blue Line

– DC WMATA

• Slightly lower than San Diego (LRT) and UK Tramlink (Manchester)

• Estimated absolute premium (annualizing rents)– US$440-650 per 100 meters

– Roughly Double the Baum-Snow & Kahn Effect (measured from 3 to 1 km change)

84


43

Other Notes and Commentary

• No apparent Regional Accessibility Benefit

• Short time frame of analysis may mean conservative estimate

• Cross-sectional analysis

• Corridor effect might be confounded– By other traffic

• But, station effects might also be confounded– E.g., urban recovery

• Residential land only

85

Urban Recovery

Hidalgo, 2006.86


44

Commercial Development

Hidalgo, 2006.

87

Commercial Development

Hidalgo, 2006.

88


45

Increasing # of BRT “land” value studies• Seoul (Cervero and Kang, 2009)

– Residential: 5-10% premium within 300 meters of BRT stop

– Non-residential: 3-26% premium within 150 meters of BRT stop

• Pittsburgh (Perk and Catalá, 2009)

– Residential properties: $60/meter at 30 meters; $6/m at 300 meters

• Boston condo sales (Perk, et al., 2013)

– Immediate drop, then increase, 7.6% premium

89

Seoul’s BRT Amenity

Cervero and Kang, 2009

90


46

Canoga Orange Line Station (LA)

91

Canoga Orange Line Station

92


47

Getting to BRTOD• Transit Service

– Interconnectedness

– Station/route location/alignment

– Public investment in transit system

• Area Design/Development– “Right” development policies

– Station-area walkability

– Public investment in station areas

• Institutionality– Regional planning/ coordination

– Integrated land use-transit decision-making93

Judy, 2007

94

Transit = f (BE): Summary• Consider the geographical scale of analysis/intervention

– Generally, theory implies same types of effects, operating at different scales

• Theoretically, impacts are ambiguous• Complexity of LUT relationships increases with society’s

complexities– Time routines, age, family cycle, etc.– Keep in mind the type of potential activities (e.g., trip purpose) and

related spatial and temporal constraints

• Simple consideration: BE influence on walk influence to station access


48

BE = f (Transit): In Summary• Public Transit and BRT, in right conditions, will

influence urban form

• Land Value effects are consistently seen

• Institutional barriers to land value capture (LVC)

– Including poor transport finance pictures

• LVC not a panacea– Realistic amount to raise, will be modest, in most cases

– Ex-ante system in place (before build/expand)

• Need to better understand BRT’s particular urban design challenges/opportunities – (see PUC-MIT BRT Corridor Design Workshop)

95

BRT Design Workshop

Image courtesy of Team 2, Assn3 (18 Sept, 2013): Soledad Guerrero, Amalia Holub, Markus Niehaus, Sue Pot, Dany Ríos, Anson Stewart 96


49

Acknowledgments

You: For listening

Anson Stewart: for research contributions

97

Appendix 1

Baum-Snow and Kahn

98


50

Approach

• Case Studies– Expansions

• Boston, Chicago

– Comprehensive New Networks• Atlanta, Washington, DC

– Incremental Expansion• Portland, OR

99

Data

• Census Tract Data

• Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS)– 1% sample, micro data

• Constructed Transit Coverages to represent system changes (1980-1990)– Show declines in mean tract distance from

transit (all cities): 5 km to 3 km

100


51

Analytical Approach

• Transit Use: 3 models1. Use = f (Tract Distance)2. Change in use = f (Change in Tract Distance)3. Change in use = f (Change in Tract Distance,

Migration)

• Transit Capitalization– “Hedonic” home price capitalization– Change in home price = f (change in distance)

• Transit Beneficiaries– Change in Distance to Transit = f (demographics)

101

Relative Suburban Benefits from Rail Transit

Baum-Snow & Kahn, 2005.

Pub

lic T

rans

it U

se b

y D

ecad

e fo

r 16

Citi

es

that

Exp

ande

d R

ail T

rans

it (1

970-

2000

)

102


52

Some Problems with Baum-Snow & Kahn

• City fixed effects– Transit markets/service very local

• Ignore other investments/policies occurring at same time– E.g., highway investments– And their expansionary effects

• Rail transit almost certainly retains central city vitality– Not captured in their model– No employment effects captured in model

• Commute trips only• Possible issues with using census tract…

See, e.g., Voith, 2005.103

Appendix 2

Details on Curitiba’s Land Use Policies

104


53

Land Use Policies• Zoning Regulations within 2-blocks of

structural arteries– Residential FAR: up to 4– Office FAR: up to 5– Directly abutting buildings: First two floors can

extend directly to property lines– At least 50% of ground and second floors

must be commercial-retail• Not counted towards FARs

– Above 2nd Floor: 5 meter setback required

Cervero, 1998.105

Land Use Policies• Transferable Development Rights (TDRs)

– Within Curitiba Historic Area

• Transit-Supportive Housing Policies– Direct community-assisted housing towards

transportation corridors

– Additional residential density permitted with contributions to low-income housing fund

• Contributions = 75% of market value of add’l area

• Only allowed in residential zones within walking distance of busways

Cervero, 1998.106


54

Residential Densities Along Structural Axes and Adjoining Neighborhoods

TCRP, 2003.107

Appendix 3

Transmilenio apartment rent price effects

108


55

Transmilenio BRT: Land Effects?

• Estimate Effects on Property Values– Hedonic Model

• Rental Properties– Feb-Apr, 2002 – Field visits and newspaper adds– All properties for rent – 494 multifamily residential properties

• Dependent variable– Asking price

• Influencing variables (of interest)– Accessibility (local and regional)

109

Accessibility: How Measured?• Local

– Shortest walking time on road network from location of each property to closest BRT

• Regional– Line-haul travel time from closest BRT station to

Financial District– Line-haul travel time from closest BRT station to

Financial District Downtown– Weighted index of travel time to all BRT stations

• Weighted by the number of passengers travelling between each pairs

110


56

Other Variables

• Proximity effects– Straight line distance to corridor

– To capture possible negative externalities

• Control variables– Apartment: Size, # bedrooms, age, etc.

– Location: buffer with spatial average of zone attributes

• Crime, socioeconomic, demographic, land uses, etc.

111

Appendix 4Transit Land Value Capture

An Example Policy Implication (rail-based) in Chicago USA

112


57

Chicago: Hedonic Model, CTA Station Access

p = f (I, N, T)

where:

p is the property sales price; I is a vector of attributes of the improvements on the parcel, such as number of bathrooms, number of floors, and age, etc.; N is a vector of attributes of the neighborhood, such as quality of public facilities and services (including schools) and socioeconomic characteristics; and, T is a combined vector of attributes of the transportation-related locational accessibility of the parcel, such as proximity to transportation services (including transit), relative accessibility to opportunities across the broader metropolitan area, etc.

Zegras et al. 2013a, 113



58


Variation in Elasticity of Property Value with Respect to Walking Time Based on Properties’

Walk Times to CTA Station



59

Land-Based Finance Mechanisms

Derived from Lari et al, 2009117

Rail Transit Value Capture Potential: Chicago, Lisbon

Zegras et al 2013b118


60

References• Angel, S., J. Parent, D. Civco, A. Blei (2011) Making Room for a Planet of Cities, Policy Focus

Report, Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

• Baum-Snow, N. and M. Kahn (2000) The effects of new public projects to expand urban rail transit. Journal of Public Economics, Vol. 77, pp. 241-263.

• Ben-Akiva, M. and T. Morikawa (2002) Comparing Ridership Attraction of Rail and Bus. Transport Policy 9 (2) (April), pp. 107–116. doi:10.1016/S0967-070X(02)00009-4.

• Bertaud, A. (2004) The spatial organization of cities: Deliberate outcome or unforeseen consequence? May: http://alain-bertaud.com/images/AB_The_spatial_organization_of_cities_Version_3.pdf

• Blackman, A. (2002) Testing the Rhetoric. Regulation (Spring): 34-38.

• Cao, J. (2013) The association between light rail transit and satisfactions with travel and life: evidence from Twin Cities. Transportation, 40, 921-933.

• Cervero, R. (1998). The Transit Metropolis: A Global Inquiry. Island Press.

• Cervero, Robert, and Chang Deok Kang. “Bus Rapid Transit Impacts on Land Uses and Land Values in Seoul, Korea.” UC Berkeley Center for Future Urban Transport: A Volvo Center of Excellence, July 2009. http://escholarship.org/uc/item/4px4n55x

• Chatman, D. and R. Noland (2013) Transit Service, Physical Agglomeration and Productivity in US Metropolitan Areas. Urban Studies (forthcoming).

• Chatman, D. (2013) Does TOD need the T? On the importance of factors other than rail access.

• Journal of the American Planning Association, 79 (1), pp. 17-31.

• Crane, R. (1996) On form versus function: Will the new urbanism reduce traffic, or increase it? Journal of Planning Education and Research, Vol. 15, pp. 117-126.

• Ewing, R, R. Cervero (2010) Travel and the Built Environment. Journal of the American Planning Association, 76(3), pp. 265-294.

119

References (cont’d)• Fan, Y. and A. Guthrie (2013) Achieving System-Level, Transit-Oriented Jobs-Housing Balance:

Perspectives of Twin Cities Developers and Business Leaders. UMinn CTS 13-24: http://www.cts.umn.edu/Publications/ResearchReports/reportdetail.html?id=2300

• Geurs, K.T. and B. van Wee (2004) Accessibility Evaluation of Land-Use and Transport Strategies: Review and Research Directions. Journal of Transport Geography Vol. 12: 127-140.

• IBI Group. 2000. Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Urban Travel: Tool for Evaluating Neighborhood Sustainability. Healthy Housing and Communities Series Research Report, prepared for Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation and Natural Resources Canada, February.

• Graftieux, P. (2005). World Bank, Personal communication.

• Handy, Susan. (2005) Smart Growth and the Transportation - Land Use Connection: What does the research tell us? International Regional Science Review 28, pp. 146-167.

• Hidalgo, D. (2006). EMBARQ, Personal communication.

• Ingram, G. (1998) Patterns of Metropolitan Development: What Have We Learned? Urban Studies, Vol. 35, No. 7, June, pp. 1019-1035.

• Jiang, Y. (2010). CSTC, personal communication.

• Jiang, Y., C. Zegras, Mehndiratta, S. (2012). Walk the line: station context, corridor type and bus rapid transit walk access in Jinan, China.” Journal of Transport Geography, 20(1), 1–14.

• Judy, M. (2007). The Potential for Bus Rapid Transit to Promote Transit Oriented Development: An Analysis of BRTOD in Ottawa, Brisbane, and Pittsburgh. MCP Thesis, MIT: http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/40122

• Kain, J. (1999) The Urban Transportation Problem: A Reexamination and Update. Essays in Transportation Economics and Policy. Brookings.

120


61

References (cont’d)• Kenworthy, P. and F. Laube (1999) Patterns of automobile dependence in cities: an international

overview of key physical and economic dimensions with some implications for urban policy. Transportation Research A, Vol. 33, pp. 691-723.

• Lari, A., Levinson, D., Zhao, Z., Iacono, M., Aultman, S. Das, K.V., Junge, J., Larson, K., Scharenbroich, M. (2009) Value Capture for Transportation Finance: Technical Research Report. Minneapolis: The Center for Transportation Studies, University of Minnesota

• Maat, K., B. van Wee, D. Stead (2005) Land use and travel behaviour: expected effects from the perspective of utility theory and activity-based theories. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, Vol. 32, pp. 33-46.

• McNally, M. and A. Kulkarni. (1997) Assessment of Influence of Land Use-Transportation System on Travel Behavior. Transportation Research Record 1607, pp. 105-115.

• Muller, Peter O. Transportation and Urban Form: Stages in the Spatial Evolution of the American Metropolis. Chapter 3 in The Geography of Urban Transportation, 59-85. S. Hanson, ed. 3rd edition, Guildford Press, 2004

• Perk, V. and M. Catalá (2009) Land Use Impacts of Bus Rapid Transit: Effects of Station Proximity on Property Values of Single Family Homes Along Pittsburgh’s Martin Luther King, Jr., East Busway, National Bus Rapid Transit Institute, FTA Report FTA-FL-26-7109.2009: http://www.nbrti.org/docs/pdf/Property%20Value%20Impacts%20of%20BRT_NBRTI.pdf

• Perk, Victoria, Steven Bovino, et al. (2013) Impacts of Boston’s Silver Line Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) on Sale Prices of Condominiums Along Washington Street. 92nd Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington D.C., January.

121

References (cont’d)• Rodríguez, D. and Targa, F. (2004) Value of Accessibility to Bogotá’s Bus Rapid Transit System.

Transport Reviews, Vol. 24, No. 5 (September): 587-610.

• Schwanen, T., Dijst, M. and Dieleman, F. (2004) Policies for Urban Form and their Impact on Travel: The Netherlands Experience. Urban Studies Vol. 41, No. 3: 579-603.

• TCRP (2003) Bus Rapid Transit Volume 1: Case Studies in Bus Rapid Transit. TCRP Report 90: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp90v1_cs/Curitiba.pdf

• US Census Bureau (2012) Patterns of Metropolitan and Micropolitan Population Change: 2000 to 2010, Census Special Reports, September.

• Voith, R. (2005) Comment on Effects of Urban Rail Transit Expansions: Evidence from Sixteen Cities, 1970–2000 (Baum-Snow and Kahn). Brookings-Wharton Papers on Urban Affairs: 198-206.

• Zegras, C., S. Jiang, C. Grillo (2013a) Sustaining Mass Transit through Land Value Taxation?Prospects for Chicago, Draft Paper prepared for Lincoln Institute of Land Policy: http://web.mit.edu/czegras/www/Zegras%20et%20al_LVT%20and%20CTA.pdf

• Zegras, C., S. Jiang, C. Grillo, L. Martinez (2013b) Capture the Value to Finance Transit Systems? A Comparative Assessment of Chicago and Lisbon, Draft.

• Zhang, M. (2004) The Role of Land Use in Travel Mode Choice: Evidence from Boston and Hong Kong. Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 70, No. 3, Summer, pp. 344-360.

• Zhao, J. and Deng, W. (2013) Relationship of Walk Access Distance to Rapid Rail Transit Stations with Personal Characteristics and Station Context. Journal of Urban Planning and Development (forthcoming).

122

Date post:	19-Jan-2015
Category:	Technology
Upload:	brtcoe
View:	608 times
Download:	1 times