[sustran] Re: land use control and levels of motorization

Todd Alexander Litman litman at vtpi.org
Tue Mar 21 13:57:01 JST 2006


There are, indeed, many studies showing that 
property values tend to increase near rail 
transit stations, and some involve 
before-and-after analysis. See Smith and 
Gihring's excellent literature review posted on 
our website (http://www.vtpi.org/smith.pdf ). 
Only one published study shows similar effects 
along BRT (see Rodríguez and Targa, 2004) but I 
suspect that reflects a lack of research rather 
than a lack of effects. I expect that BRT would 
have some land use impacts, particularly in 
lower-income countries, but less than rail. I 
find it difficult to believe that "too much" 
capital is being invested along BRT corridors, 
from most economic perspectives that sort of 
concentration along major transit corridors 
exactly what is desirable (see http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm45.htm ).


Best wishes,
-Todd Litman



At 05:13 PM 3/20/2006, Lee Schipper wrote:
>I can't say Ive seen any hard before/after evidence on rail
>developments, Todd. I have seen a lot of work on Transmilineo in Bogota
>(BRT) showing clear increases in property values and development, in
>fact some say too much capital is now sucked into development along the
>corridor.
>
>Sam?
>
> >>> litman at vtpi.org 3/20/2006 2:12:33 PM >>>
>
>I agree with Zvi. The debate between Bus Rapid Transit and rail-based
>transit is partly a debate between "mobility" and "accessibility."
>Rail systems tend to provide a catalyst for more compact, accessible
>neighborhood development which shows up in reduced per capita vehicle
>ownership and mileage, and therefore reductions in per capita
>congestion delay, transportation costs, parking costs, accidents,
>energy consumption and pollution emissions
>(http://www.vtpi.org/railben.pdf ). It also results in higher local
>property values and improved mobility for non-drivers (see the newly
>revised literature review at http://www.vtpi.org/smith.pdf ). BRT
>appears t have some of these impacts, particularly if implemented in
>conjunction with supportive land use policies, but rail impacts are
>greater and more likely to attract higher-income riders, and gain
>voter support.
>
>
>Best wishes,
>-Todd Litman
>
>
>At 08:03 AM 3/17/2006, Zvi Leve wrote:
> >In my opinion, the major issue in any region, particularly those
>which
> >are rapidly growing, is 'accessibility' to opportunities - and not
> >necessarily mobility. Why are so many people acquiring cars? Of
>course
> >as the economy grows and financing become more flexible more people
>can
> >afford private vehicles. But also note that these rapidly expanding
> >regions are often not structured in such a way that there is
>sufficient
> >accessibility to things (employment opportunities, schools, etc.) -
> >hence the /need/ to acquire the means of independent mobility. And
> >unfortunately rapid uncontrolled urban growth cannot be well served
>by
> >mass transit - hence the rapid rush to motorization!
> >
> >There is always the chicken and the egg issue. What comes first:
> >concentrated land uses, or the transportation infrastructure to serve
> >them? In places such as Hong Kong and Singapore there was a concerted
> >effort by the government to integrate land use developments together
> >with mass transit. In many other places local governments do not
> >necessarily have as much control over local land use so it is not so
> >simple to serve the population's needs via 'mass-transit'.
> >
> >I think that one of the legitimate arguments for rail-options is that
> >they are perceived as being more permanent - hence there is a better
> >chance of being able to formalize land use development around rail
> >rather than small-scale transit options. Still, is it realistic to
> >expect that just becauses an authority chooses a rail option, they
>will
> >miraculously now be able to control the way a given location
>develops?
> >
> >As for 'utilization charges' - no government ever earned much support
> >from the population by adding more taxes!
> >
> >Just some thoughts. Unfortunately I have no solutions.
> >
> >Zvi
>
>
>Sincerely,
>Todd Alexander Litman
>Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org)
>litman at vtpi.org
>Phone & Fax 250-360-1560
>1250 Rudlin Street, Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, CANADA
>"Efficiency - Equity - Clarity"
>
>
>
>================================================================
>SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion 
>of people-centred, equitable and sustainable 
>transport with a focus on developing countries 
>(the 'Global South'). Because of the history of 
>the list, the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia.


Sincerely,
Todd Alexander Litman
Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org)
litman at vtpi.org
Phone & Fax 250-360-1560
1250 Rudlin Street, Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, CANADA
“Efficiency - Equity - Clarity”

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060320/c40d588f/attachment.html


More information about the Sustran-discuss mailing list