This study mainly addresses two main questions: (1) whether traffic congestion negatively affects single-family house price by constraining accessibility to jobs; (2) whether congestion effects and accessibility effects vary by income groups within a metropolitan area. This study uses a multilevel hedonic price model to estimate the marginal price of accessibility while controlling for other neighbourhood attributes and the correlation of proximal housing sales. The congestion effects are identified by comparing the implicit price of accessibility between congested-flow and free-flow. The results show that the accessibility measured with congested time yields higher marginal price, suggesting that households are willing to pay more to avoid locations with high congestion delays and accessibility loss. The results also suggest that accessibility effects are more valued by homebuyers in middle-income neighbourhoods, compared with those in the lowest or highest income neighbourhoods.
AdairAMcGrealSSmythAet al. (2000) House prices and accessibility: The testing of relationships within the Belfast urban area. Housing Studies15(5): 699–716.
2.
AllisonPD (1999) Comparing logit and probit coefficients across groups. Sociological Methods & Research28(2): 186–208.
3.
AlonsoW (1964) Location and Land Use: Towards a General Theory of Land Rent. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
4.
AnasAArnottRSmallKA (1998) Urban spatial structure. Journal of Economic Literature36(3): 1426–1464.
5.
AndersonRJCrockerTD (1971) Air pollution and property values. Urban Studies8(3): 171–180.
BasuSThibodeauT (1998) Analysis of spatial autocorrelation in house prices. The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics17(1): 61–85.
8.
BrighamEF (1965) The determinants of residential land values. Land Economics41(4): 325–334.
9.
BrownKUyarB (2004) A hierarchical linear model approach for assessing the effects of house and neighborhood characteristics on housing prices. Journal of Real Estate Practice and Education7(1): 15–24.
10.
BruecknerJK (1987) The structure of urban equilibria: A unified treatment of the muth-mills model. In: EdwinSM (ed.) Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics. Elsevier, pp. 821–845.
11.
BruecknerJKThisseJ-FZenouY (1999) Why is central Paris rich and downtown Detroit poor?: An amenity-based theory. European Economic Review43(1): 91–107.
12.
CasettiE (1972) Generating models by the expansion method: Applications to geographical research. Geographical Analysis4(1): 81–91.
13.
ClarkWA (1986) Residential segregation in American cities: A review and interpretation. Population Research and Policy Review5(2): 95–127.
14.
CoulsonNEEngleRF (1987) Transportation costs and the rent gradient. Journal of Urban Economics21(3): 287–297.
15.
FranklinJPWaddellP (2003) A hedonic regression of home prices in King County, Washington, using activity-specific accessibility measures. Proceedings of the Transportation Research Board 82nd Annual Meeting, 12–16 January 2003, Washington, DC.
16.
FreemanAMIII (1979) Hedonic prices, property values and measuring environmental benefits: A survey of the issues. The Scandinavian Journal of Economics81(2): 154–173.
17.
GalsterG (1988) Residential segregation in American cities: A contrary review. Population Research and Policy Review7(2): 93–112.
18.
GiulianoGGordonPPanQet al. (2010) Accessibility and residential land values: Some tests with new measures. Urban Studies47(14): 3103–3130.
GrahamDJ (2007) Variable returns to agglomeration and the effect of road traffic congestion. Journal of Urban Economics62(1): 103–120.
21.
HabibMAMillerEJ (2008) Influence of transportation access and market dynamics on property values: Multilevel spatiotemporal models of housing price. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board2076(1): 183–191.
22.
HansenWG (1959) How accessibility shapes land use. Journal of the American Institute of Planners25(2): 73–76.
23.
HeikkilaEGordonPKimJIet al. (1989) What happened to the CBD-distance gradient?: Land values in a policentric city. Environment and Planning A21(2): 221–232.
24.
HigginsCDKanaroglouPS (2015) 40 years of modeling rapid transit’s land value uplift in North America: Diverse methods, differentiated outcomes, debatable assumptions, and future directions. Proceedings of the Transportation Research Board 94th Annual Meeting, 11–15 January 2015, Washington, DC.
25.
HoxJ (1998) Multilevel modeling: When and why. In: BalderjahnIMatharRSchaderM (ed.) Classification, Data Analysis, and Data Highways. New York: Springer Verlag, pp. 147–154.
26.
HughesWTSirmansCF (1992) Traffic externalities and single-famliy house prices. Journal of Regional Science32(4): 487–500.
27.
JonesK (1991) Specifying and estimating multilevel models for geographical research. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers16(2): 148–159.
28.
JonesKBullenN (1993) A multilevel analysis of the variations in domestic property prices: Southern England, 1980–87. Urban Studies30(8): 1409–1426.
29.
KawamuraKMahajanS (2005) Hedonic analysis of impacts of traffic volumes on property values. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board1924(1): 69–75.
30.
LandisJGuhathakurtaSZhangM (1994) Capitalization of Transit Investments into Single-family Home Prices: A Comparative Analysis of Five California Rail Transit Systems. University of California Transportation Center, University of California, Berkeley, CA. Available at: http://escholarship.org/uc/item/80f3p5n1 (accessed 24 October 2016).
31.
LaveLB (1970) Congestion and urban location. Papers in Regional Science25(1): 133–150.
32.
LeRoySFSonstelieJ (1983) Paradise lost and regained: Transportation innovation, income, and residential location. Journal of Urban Economics13(1): 67–89.
33.
LiMMBrownHJ (1980) Micro-neighborhood externalities and hedonic housing prices. Land Economics56(2): 125–141.
34.
McMillenDPRedfearnCL (2010) Estimation and hypothesis testing for nonparametric hedonic house price functions. Journal of Regional Science50(3): 712–733.
35.
MaasCJHoxJJ (2005) Sufficient sample sizes for multilevel modeling. Methodology1(3): 86–92.
36.
MillsES (1967) An aggregative model of resource allocation in a metropolitan area. The American Economic Review57(2): 197–210.
37.
MondscheinATaylorBDBrumbaughS (2011) Congestion and Accessibility: What’s the Relationship?University of California Transportation Center, University of California, Los Angeles, CA. Available at: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/6bh2n9wx (accessed 24 October 2016).
38.
MoultonBR (1990) An illustration of a pitfall in estimating the effects of aggregate variables on micro units. The Review of Economics and Statistics72(2): 334–338.
39.
MuthR (1969) Cities and housing: The spatial patterns of urban residential land use. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
40.
NelsonJP (1977) Accessibility and the value of time in commuting. Southern Economic Journal43(3): 1321–1329.
41.
NgCF (2008) Commuting distances in a household location choice model with amenities. Journal of Urban Economics63(1): 116–129.
42.
OrfordS (2000) Modelling spatial structures in local housing market dynamics: A multilevel perspective. Urban Studies37(9): 1643–1671.
43.
OslandLPryceG (2012) Housing prices and multiple employment nodes: Is the relationship nonmonotonic?Housing Studies27(8): 1182–1208.
44.
OttensmannJRPaytonSManJ (2008) Urban location and housing prices within a hedonic model. Journal of Regional Analysis and Policy38(1): 19–35.
45.
RosenS (1974) Hedonic prices and implicit markets: Product differentiation in pure competition. The Journal of Political Economy82(1): 34–55.
46.
RyanS (1999) Property values and transportation facilities: Finding the transportation–land use connection. Journal of Planning Literature13(4): 412–427.
47.
SegalDSteinmeierTL (1982) Location in a congested city. Regional Science and Urban Economics12(3): 405–423.
48.
SnijdersTBoskerR (2012) Multilevel Modeling: An Introduction to Basic and Advanced Multilevel Modeling, 2nd Edition. Los Angeles, CA: Sage
49.
SolowRM (1972) Congestion, density and the use of land in transportation. The Swedish Journal of Economics74(1): 161–173.
50.
SteinerRLChuangHKimJ (2012) A Tale of Two Cities: How Much Commuting Cost can be Valued? Effects of Job Accessibility and Congestion on Property Values in Two Metropolitan Areas, Florida. Paper presented at the 53rd annual meeting of the Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning, Cincinnati, OH, 1–4 November 2012.
51.
SweetM (2011) Does traffic congestion slow the economy?Journal of Planning Literature26(4): 391–404.
52.
WaddellPBerryBLHochI (1993) Residential property values in a multinodal urban area: New evidence on the implicit price of location. The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics7(2): 117–141.
53.
WheatonWC (2004) Commuting, congestion, and employment dispersal in cities with mixed land use. Journal of Urban Economics55(3): 417–438.
54.
WhiteMJ (1976) Firm suburbanization and urban subcenters. Journal of Urban Economics3(4): 323–343.
55.
YingerJ (1992) City and suburb: Urban models with more than one employment center. Journal of Urban Economics31(2): 181–205.
