<html> <body> 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 (<a href="http://www.vtpi.org/smith.pdf" eudora="autourl"> http://www.vtpi.org/smith.pdf </a>). 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 <a href="http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm45.htm" eudora="autourl"> http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm45.htm</a> ). Best wishes, -Todd Litman At 05:13 PM 3/20/2006, Lee Schipper wrote: <blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">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@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 (<a href="http://www.vtpi.org/railben.pdf" eudora="autourl"> http://www.vtpi.org/railben.pdf </a>). It also results in higher local property values and improved mobility for non-drivers (see the newly revised literature review at <a href="http://www.vtpi.org/smith.pdf" eudora="autourl"> http://www.vtpi.org/smith.pdf</a> ). 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 (<a href="http://www.vtpi.org" eudora="autourl">www.vtpi.org</a>) litman@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.</blockquote> <x-sigsep></x-sigsep> Sincerely, Todd Alexander Litman Victoria Transport Policy Institute (<a href="http://www.vtpi.org" eudora="autourl">www.vtpi.org</a>) litman@vtpi.org Phone & Fax 250-360-1560 1250 Rudlin Street, Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, CANADA “Efficiency - Equity - Clarity”   </body> </html>