Land Use Impacts of Transportation Investments (Highway and Transit) The Geography of Urban Transportation, 2004 Genevieve Giuliano

The notion that transportation services and facilities have had an enormous effect on land use seems to be self-evident. Transportation investments are viewed as growth generators. Public transit investment is promoted as a key to economic revitalization for central cities. Highways are promoted as a mean to attract economic growth. The ability of trans. Investments to shape or influence urban structure is a widely held convection. Smart growth proponents target expressways as a major cause of urban sprawl. The primary focus is the impact of trans. On land use, not the impact of land use on travel or transportation. Two dimensions are relevant to examining the relationship b/t land use and Trans. 1) Context- First, land use patterns must be distinguished from growth. This is difficult. Second, the magnitude of transportation must be considered. Third, the geographic scale of analysis must be considered. Fourth, consider the geographical context of the transportation investment. 2) Dynamics- Land use and transportation are mutually dependent. The characteristics of the trans. System determines accessibility and accessibility in turn affects the location of activates or the land use pattern. LU and transportation are part of a larger urban system. The basic concept underlying the relationship between LU and Transportation is accessibility (the ease of movement b/t places). As movement becomes less costly between any 2 places, the accessibility increases. Theories of Land Use-Transportation Interaction Standard Urban Economic Theory-The basic of the standard model of urban structure is von Thunes theory of agriculture land rent and use. Developed to explain the basic structure of cities, meaning land value, population distribution, and commuting patterns. It is based on several simplifying assumptions: rational behavior, identical preferences, perfect info, all employment is in the center of the city, one worker per household, housing is a function of capital and land, unit transport costs includes both time and monetary costs. This gives rise to a city form which the greatest population density and highest land values are at the center and in which these density and land gradients decline with distance from the city center. The best location for a given household is the point at which the marginal savings of housing are equal to the marginal cost of transport. In a very general way, empirical evidence tends to support the standard theory. Employment Location TheoryCentral Place Theory: The classical theory of market-sensitive activities is central place theory. It gives rise to a hierarchical pattern of market centers. The resulting distribution of market centers is that which minimizes total consumer transport cost and fulfills the minimum threshold requirements. It predicts larger, more dispersed centers as transport costs decline b/c with declining costs consumers are willing to travel greater distances. Industrial Location Theory: Focuses on the transport or shipping costs of product inputs and outputs. Applies primarily to manufacturing activities *There is no integrated theory that applies to all types of employment. -Assumptions are what make the problem manageable Monocentric City-The standard urban model of location assumes this city. All employment is assumed to be in the center. This assumption is not supported in contemporary urban areas.

The Housing/Transport Trade-off- The standard model assumes that people decide where to live by selecting a trade-off b/t commuting cost and land cost. In most cases, the observed average commute length far exceeds that predicted by the standard model. Household preferences- The model assumes identical preference among households. Preferences are not identical, even among households with similar socio-economic and demographic characteristics. It also assumes that housing is identical and uniformly available. Economic structure- Overall, the trend is one of increasing job turnover, which again reduces the relative importance of locating close to any given job. Restructuring also has implications for employment location. The Supply-side- A number of factors associated with the supply of land also affect theoretical expectations. First, land use in the US is regulated by local jurisdictions. Second, is the nature of the contemporary land market. The scale of land development has increased over time. Static vs. Dynamic- The theories discussed previously are static: they assume instantaneous equilibrium across all markets. *We cannot predict whether real-world land use and transportation changes will confirm to theoretical expectations. Empirical Evidence Two ways to measure the land use impacts of transportation investments: 1) Model simulation. The new generation of integrated models allows for the distribution of activities to respond to changes in the transportation network. 2) Empirical study. Little consensus on the conclusions can be drawn from these. Results are conflicting for both highways and transit investments. Methodological Problems-----The ideal research design would be a four way experiment with a test group and a control group--this is not possible. Two problems: -Transportation changes take place in a highly dynamic system -The interaction of land use and transportation takes place over time. Longitudinal studies focus on one area and study the changes that take place over a given period of time. This approach may not control for the distributional shifts in land use activities that transp. investments may generate. Cross-sectional studies make comparisons between nearby similar areas as an approximation of the no project comparison. This has 2 pitfalls. First, seemingly similar corridors may be different. Second, it can exaggerate the extent of impact if transportation investments cause a shift in activity location because of improvements in relative accessibility. *Neither allows us to draw any conclusions on the direction of causality. The Contemporary Context of Urban Highway Investments The context of urban highway investments can affect the extent of land use impacts. 1) Any single highway investment is but a part of a much larger urban transportation system 2) The availability of developable land must be a key consideration. 3) Even when the land is available, local public policy may not be favorable to development. 4) The state of the regional economy. Little new investment takes place in a stagnant or declining region. 5) The scale of analysis must be considered. 6) Careful impact analysis requires that changes in land use patterns be distinguished from general economic growth. That is, land use change will occur in a growing region with or without new highway investment.

The potential growth effects of highway investments have become a major environmental issue. Many argue that more highway capacity generates induced demand-increased private auto use, which creates more demand for low-density development, which in turn increases dependence on private auto and thus demand for yet more highway capacity. Highway Impacts 3 ways of measuring impacts: travel outcomes, property values, or changes in the distribution of population and/or employment. Travel outcomes are the weakest and change is property value is the strongest measure. Early studies tended to validate theoretical expectations. They used land values as a measure of impact. Results showed significant increases in land value near the highway. Some studied beltways. The statistical analysis reveled that the land use impacts of beltways have generally been insignificant. The existence of a beltway, its relative location and its length had no consistent effect on growth. Land use impacts are largely determined by local market conditions. *Boarnet found a strong link b/t highways and economic growth within counties. Henry found that highways had no significant impact on rate or location of growth. Orange County-Toll roads Good example of highway construction. Toll roads did indeed change accessibility, and the value of the accessibility premium is reflected in the residential sales prices. These accessibility changes also change development and travel patterns. The toll roads did increase the accessibility of south and eastern OC, but land use regulation had determined what was built. Conclusions on hwy. impacts: Hwy investments increase accessibility. The greatest benefits are generated at the site of the new investment Hwy. impacts are context-specific. There is little evidence that hwy. investment is an effective means for promoting net economic development. Transit Impacts 1) A necessary but not sufficient condition for land use impacts is a significant impact on accessibility. 2) Impacts are highly localized and tend to occur in fast-growing, heavily congested core areas. 3) Impacts depend on complementary zoning, parking, and traffic policy, and especially on development subsidies. 4) Rail investment is not sufficient to promote economic development in declining areas. Hwy. expansion is resisted on the grounds that it promotes sprawl and auto dependence. Why? 1) Urban planners and local officials are heavily vested in the preservation and revitalization of central cities 2) Rail transit is often promoted for its economic development potential. 3) Many urban planners believe that public transit investment is one of the few feasible alternatives available for solving transportation and sustainability problems. 4) Some planners and policymakers are convinced that if transportation capacity increases are restricted to transit, eventually travelers will shift to transit as congestion becomes intolerable. 5) It has been argued that rail transit systems are expanding because their construction is politically acceptable, but hwy. construction is not.