Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2010-10
Comparing the Capitalisation Benefits of Light-rail Transit and Overlay Zoning for Single-family Houses and Condos by Neighbourhood Type in Metropolitan Phoenix,Arizona
Light rail transit (LRT) is increasingly accompanied by overlay zoning which specifies the density and type of future development to encourage landscapes conducive to transit use. Neighbourhood type (based on land use mix) is used to partition data and investigate how pre-existing land use, treatment with a park-and-ride (PAR) versus walk-and-ride (WAR) station and overlay zoning interrelate. Hedonic models estimate capitalisation effects of LRT-related accessibility and overlay zoning on single-family houses and condos in different neighbourhoods for the system in metropolitan Phoenix, Arizona. Impacts differ by housing and neighbourhood type. Amenity-dominated mixed-use neighbourhoods—predominantly WAR communities—experience premiums of 6 per cent for single-family houses and over 20 per cent for condos, the latter boosted an additional 37 per cent by overlay zoning. Residential neighbourhoods—predominantly PAR communities—experience no capitalisation benefits for single-family houses and a discount for condos. The results suggest that land use mix is an important variable to select comparable neighbourhoods.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Abbitt, J.W. ( 1990) History of transit in the Valley of the Sun: a history of public transportation in Phoenix, Arizona, 1887-1989. Public Transit Department, Phoenix, AZ .
2.
Al-Mosaind, M.A., Dueker, K.J. and Strathman, J.G. ( 1995) Light-rail transit stations and property values: a hedonic price approach. Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, DC.
3.
Altshuler, A. and Luberoff, D. ( 2003) Mega Projects: The Changing Politics of Urban Public Investment . Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
4.
ARPA (Arizona Rail Passenger Association) ( 2006) History of transportation elections in the Valley of the Sun, 1960-2000 (http://www.azrail.org/trains/transit/transit-elections/ ).
5.
Belzer, D., Autler, G., Espinosa, J. et al. (2003 ) The transit-oriented development drama and its actors, in: H. Dittmar and G. Ohland (Eds) The New Transit Town: Best Practices in Transit-oriented Development, pp. 41-56. Washington, DC: Island Press.
6.
Bertolini, L. and Split, T. ( 1998) City on Rails: The Redevelopment of Railway Station Areas. New York: Routledge.
7.
Bourassa, S.C., Hoesli, M. and Peng, V.S. ( 2003) Do housing submarkets really matter?, Journal of Housing Economics, 12(1), pp. 12-28.
8.
Breznau, S. ( 2003) The San Jose case study: Ohlone-Chynoweth station, in: H. Dittmar and G. Ohland (Eds) The New Transit Town: Best Practices in Transit-oriented Development, pp. 193-210. Washington, DC: Island Press.
9.
Brown, D.G. and Robinson, D.T. ( 2006) Effects of heterogeneity in residential preferences on an agent-based model of urban sprawl, Ecology and Society , 11(1) (online).
10.
Calthorpe, P. ( 2003) Foreword, in: H. Dittmar and G. Ohland (Eds) The New Transit Town: Best Practices in Transit-oriented Development . Washington, DC: Island Press .
11.
Cervero, R. and Duncan, M. ( 2001) Transit’s added value: effects of light and commuter rail services on commercial land values. Department of City and Regional Planning, University of California, Berkeley, CA.
12.
Cervero, R. and Kockelman, K.M. ( 1997) Travel demand and the 3Ds: density, diversity, and design , Transportation Research Part D, 3, pp. 199-219.
13.
Chen, H., Rufolo, A. and Dueker, K.J. ( 1998) Measuring the impact of light rail systems on single-family home values: a hedonic approach with geographic information system application , Transportation Research Record, 1617, pp. 38-43.
14.
City of Phoenix, Arizona, Planning Department ( 2002) Interim transit-oriented district overlay zoning ordinance .
15.
City of Phoenix, Arizona, Planning Department ( 2004) Downtown Phoenix: a strategic vision and blueprint for the future.
16.
City of Portland, Oregon (2008) Portland online: official website for the City of Portland, Oregon (http://www.portlandonline.com).
17.
City of Tempe, Planning Department (1997) Apache Boulevard redevelopment plan.
18.
City of Tempe, Planning Department (2006) City of Tempe, Arizona, zoning and development code (amended).
19.
Clark, W.A.V. and Hosking, P.L. ( 1986) Statistical Methods for Geographers. New York: Wiley.
20.
Cliff, A.D. and Ord, J.K. ( 1973) Spatial Autocorrelation. London : Pion.
21.
Cropper, M.L., Deck, L.B. and McConnell, K.E. ( 1988) On the choice of functional form for hedonic price functions , Review of Economics and Statistics, 70(4), pp. 668-675.
22.
Danielsen, K.A., Lang, R.E. and Fulton, W. ( 1999) Retracting suburbia: smart growth and the future of housing , Housing Policy Debate, 10(3), pp. 513-540.
23.
Dear, M. ( 1992) Understanding and overcoming the NIMBY syndrome , Journal of the American Planning Association, 58(3), pp. 288-300.
24.
Dittmar, H. and Poticha, S. ( 2003) Defining transit-oriented development: the new regional building block, in: H. Dittmar and G. Ohland (Eds) The New Transit Town: Best Practices in Transit-oriented Development, pp. 19-40. Washington, DC : Island Press.
25.
Downs, A. ( 1992) Remedies that increase residential densities, in: A. Downs (Ed.) Stuck in Traffic, ch. 6. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
26.
Downs, A. ( 1997) The challenge of our declining big cities, Housing Policy Debate, 8(2), pp. 359-408.
27.
Duaney, A., Plater-Zyberk, E. and Speck, J. ( 2001) Suburban Nation: The Rise and Sprawl of the American Dream . New York: North Point Press .
28.
Duncan, M. ( 2008) Comparing rail transit capitalization benefits for single family and condominium units in San Diego, CA, Transportation Research Record, 2067, pp. 120-130.
29.
Ewing, R., Bartholomew, K., Winkelman, S. et al. (2008) Growing cooler: the evidence on urban development and climate change. Urban Land Institute, Washington, DC.
30.
Farris, J.T. ( 2001) The barriers to using urban infill development to achieve smart growth, Housing Policy Debate, 12(1), pp. 1-30.
31.
Feigon, S., Hoyt, D. and Ohland, G. ( 2003) The Atlanta case study: Lindbergh City Center, in: H. Dittmar and G. Ohland (Eds) The New Transit Town: Best Practices in Transit-oriented Development, pp. 175-192. Washington, DC: Island Press.
32.
Fernandez, L.E., Brown, D.G., Marans, R.W. and Nassauer, J.I. ( 2005) Characterizing location preferences in an exurban population: implications for agent-based modeling, Environment and Planning B, 32(6), pp. 799-820.
33.
Fik, T.J., Ling, D.C. and Mulligan, G.F. ( 2003) Modeling spatial variation in housing prices: a variable interaction approach, Real Estate Economics, 31(4), pp. 623-646.
34.
Fujita, M. ( 1989) Urban Economic Theory: Land Use and City Size. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
35.
Gober, P. ( 2005) Metropolitan Phoenix: Place-making and Community-building in the Desert. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press .
36.
Gober, P. and Burns, E.K. ( 2002) The size and shape of Phoenix’s urban fringe , Journal of Planning Education and Research, 21(4), pp. 379-390.
37.
Goodman, A.C. and Thibodeau, T.G. ( 1998) Housing market segmentation, Journal of Housing Economics, 7(2), pp. 121-143.
Halvorsen, R. and Palmquist, R.B. ( 1980) The interpretation of dummy variables in semi-logarithmic equations, American Economic Review, 70, pp. 474-475.
40.
Hess, D.B. and Lombardi, P.A. ( 2004) Policy support for and barriers to transit-oriented development in the inner city: literature review, Transportation Research Record, 1887, pp. 26-33.
41.
Kahn, M.E. ( 2007) Gentrification trends in new transit-oriented communities: evidence from 14 cities that expanded and built rail transit systems, Real Estate Economics, 35(2), pp. 155-182.
42.
Kennedy, P. ( 1981) Estimation with correctly interpreted dummay variables in semilogarithmic equations, American Economic Review, 71, p. 801.
43.
Knaap, G.J., Ding, C.R. and Hopkins, L.D. ( 2001) Do plans matter? The effects of light rail plans on land values in station areas, Journal of Planning Education and Research, 21(1), pp. 32-39.
44.
Lake, R.W. ( 1993) Planners alchemy transforming NIMBY to YIMBY, Journal of the American Planning Association, 59(1), pp. 87-93.
45.
Landis, J., Cervero, R., Guhathukurta, S. et al. (1995) Rail transit investments, real estate values, and land use change: a comparative analysis of five California rail transit systems. Monograph 48, Institute of Urban and Regional Development Studies, University of California, Berkeley, CA.
46.
Lang, R.E. and Danielsen, K.A. ( 2005) Cities and the creative class, Journal of The American Planning Association, 71(2), pp. 203-206.
47.
Lang, R.E., Hughes, J.W. and Danielsen, K.A. ( 1997) Targeting the suburban urbanites: marketing central-city housing, Housing Policy Debate, 8(2), pp. 437-470.
48.
Lash, M. ( 1965) Community conflict and highway planning. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
49.
Leach, D. ( 2003) The Arlington County case study: Rosslyn-Ballston corridor , in: H. Dittmar and G. Ohland (Eds) The New Transit Town: Best Practices in Transit-oriented Development, pp. 131-154. Washington, DC: Island Press.
50.
Levine, J. and Frank, L.D. ( 2007) Transportation and land-use preferences and residents’ neighborhood choices: the sufficiency of compact development in the Atlanta region, Transportation, 34(2), pp. 255-274.
51.
Levine, J. and Inam, A. ( 2004) The market for transportation-land use integration: do developers want smarter growth than regulations allow?, Transportation , 31(4), pp. 409-427.
52.
MAG (Maricopa Association of Governments) ( 2003) Growing smarter implementation project best practices: transit-oriented development. MAG, Phoenix, AZ.
Matthews, J.W. and Turnbull, G.K. ( 2007) Neighborhood street layout and property value: the interaction of accessibility and land use mix, Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 35(2), pp. 111-141.
55.
Michaels, R.G. and Smith, V.K. ( 1990) Market-segmentation and valuing amenities with hedonic models: the case of hazardous-waste sites, Journal of Urban Economics, 28(2), pp. 223-242.
56.
Muller, J.C. ( 1977) Map gridding and cartographic errors: a recurrent argument , Cartographica, 14(2), pp. 152-167.
57.
Nelson, A.C. ( 1999) Transit stations and commercial property values: a case study with policy and land-use implications, Journal of Public Transportation, 2(3), pp. 77-95.
58.
Ohland, G. ( 2003a) The Dallas case study: Mockingbird Station and Addison Circle, in: H. Dittmar and G. Ohland (Eds) The New Transit Town: Best Practices in Transit-oriented Development, pp. 155-174. Washington, DC: Island Press.
59.
Ohland, G. ( 2003b) The San Diego case study: Barrio Logan’s Mercado project, in: H. Dittmar and G. Ohland (Eds) The New Transit Town: Best Practices in Transit-oriented Development, pp. 211-230. Washington, DC: Island Press.
60.
Parsons Brinkerhoff (2001) The effect of rail transit on property values: a summary of studies. Research carried out for Project 21439S, Task 7 (draft), NEORail II, Cleveland, OH , Parsons Brinkerhoff, New York .
61.
Paternoster, R., Brame, R., Mazerolle, P. and Piquero, A. ( 1998) Using the correct statistical test for the quality of regression coefficients, Criminology, 36(4), pp. 859-866.
62.
Pendall, R. ( 1999) Opposition to housing: NIMBY and beyond, Urban Affairs Review, 35(1), pp. 112-136.
63.
Plaut, P.O. and Boarnet, M.G. ( 2003) New urbanism and the value of neighborhood design , Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 20(3), pp. 254-265.
64.
Renne, J.L. and Wells, J.S. ( 2005) Transit-oriented development: developing a strategy to measure success. National Cooperative Highway Research Project No. 2065(5) , Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
65.
Sohmer, R.R. and Lang, R.E. ( 2001) Downtown rebound. Fannie Mae Foundation andBrookings Institution, Washington, DC.
66.
TCRP (Transit-Cooperative Research Program) ( 1997) The role of transit in creating livable metropolitan communities . TCRP, Washington, DC.
67.
Tcrp (2002) Transit-oriented development and joint development in the United States: a literature review . TCRP, Washington, DC.
68.
Tcrp (2004) Transit-oriented development in the United States: experiences, challenges, and prospects. TCRP, Washington, DC.
69.
Tu, C.C. and Eppli, M.J. ( 1999) Valuing new urbanism: the case of Kentlands, Real Estate Economics, 27(3), pp. 425-451.
70.
White, H. ( 1978) A heteroscedasticity consistent covariance matrix and a direct test for heteroscedasticity, Econometrica, 46, pp. 817-838.
