Exploring the synergistic economic benefit of enhancing neighbourhood bikeability and public transit accessibility based on real estate sale transactions

Abstract

Chinese

Planners and policy makers are increasingly promoting biking and public transit as viable means of transportation. The integration of bicycling and transit has been acknowledged as a strategy to increase the mode share of bicycling and the efficiency of public transit by solving the first- and last-mile problem. However, the economic outcomes of jointly promoting neighbourhood bikeability and transit accessibility are still poorly understood. This study aims to assess the property value impact of neighbourhood bikeability, transit accessibility, and their synergistic effect by analysing the single-family and condominium property sale transactions during 2010–2012 in Austin, Texas, USA. Our Cliff-Ord spatial hedonic modelling approach, which is also known as the general spatial model (or SAC), controls for the spatial dependent effects in the sale price and the error terms simultaneously. In order to quantify neighbourhood bikeability and transit accessibility, we use Bike Score and Transit Score as publicly available indices. We have assessed how residents’ willingness to pay (WTP) for bikeability and transit accessibility depend on various socio-demographic and built-environment factors, and whether the WTP is influenced by the bicycle-transit synergy. The results from this research show that jointly enhancing bikeability and transit accessibility can generate positive synergistic effects on property values. The effects would behoove policy makers to pursue the coordination of bicycle master plans with regional transit plans and to consider strategies of spatially-joint bicycle and transit investment.

Keywords

bikeability Bike Score economic benefit spatial hedonic models Transit Score

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Anderson

S-T

West

S-E

(2006) Open space, residential property values, and spatial context. Regional Science and Urban Economics36(6): 773–789.

Anselin

(1988) Spatial Econometrics: Methods and Models. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

APTA (2009) Transit Statistics. Available at: http://www.apta.com/research/stats/ (accessed 1 July 2015).

Arraiz

Drukker

Kelejian

et al . (2010) A spatial Cliff-Ord-type model with heteroskedastic innovations: Small and large sample results. Journal of Regional Science50(2): 592–614.

Asabere

Huffman

(2009) The relative impacts of trails and greenbelts on home price. The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics38(4): 408–419.

Bachand-Marleau

Larsen

El-Geneidy

(2011) Much-anticipated marriage of cycling and transit: How will it work?Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 2247: 109–117.

Bajari

Benkard

(2005) Demand estimation with heterogeneous consumers and unobserved product characteristics: A hedonic approach. Journal of Political Economy113(6): 1239–1275.

Bartholomew

Ewing

(2011) Hedonic price effects of pedestrian-and transit-oriented development. Journal of Planning Literature26(1): 18–34.

Beiler

Seketa

Swiatek

(2015) Investigating transit and pedestrian accessibility for age-restricted communities using spatial analysis. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation 10: 881–893.

10.

Bowes

Ihlanfeldt

(2001) Identifying the impacts of rail transit stations on residential property values. Journal of Urban Economics50(1): 1–25.

11.

Braun

Malizia

(2015) Downtown vibrancy influences public health and safety outcomes in urban counties. Journal of Transport & Health2(4): 540–548.

12.

Cervero

Duncan

(2002a) Benefits of proximity to rail on housing markets: Experiences in Santa Clara County. Journal of Public Transportation5(1): 1–18.

13.

Cervero

Duncan

(2002b) Transit’s value-added effects: Light and commuter rail services and commercial land values. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board1805: 8–15.

14.

Cliff

Ord

(1981) Spatial Processes: Models & Applications. London: Pion.

15.

D’Angelo

Evenson

Rose

et al . (2015) Examination of community and consumer nutrition, tobacco and physical activity environments at food and tobacco retail stores in three diverse North Carolina communities. Preventive Medicine Reports2: 730–736.

16.

DeMaio

(2009) Bike-sharing: History, impacts, models of provision, and future. Journal of Public Transportation12(4): 41–56.

17.

Doolittle

Jr Porter

(1994) Integration of Bicycles and Transit. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board Transit Cooperative Research Program Synthesis 4.

18.

Drukker

Peng

Prucha

et al . (2011) SPPACK: Stata Module for Cross-Section Spatial-Autoregressive Models. Available at: http://ideas.repec.org/c/boc/bocode/s457245.html (accessed 1 July 2015).

19.

Duncan

Aldstadt

Whalen

et al . (2012) Validation of Walk Scores and Transit Scores for estimating neighborhood walkability and transit availability: A small-area analysis. GeoJournal78(2): 407–416.

20.

Duncan

(2008) Comparing rail transit capitalization benefits for single-family and condominium units in San Diego, California. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 2067: 120–130.

21.

Duncan

(2011) The impact of transit-oriented development on housing prices in San Diego, CA. Urban Studies48(1): 101–127.

22.

ESRI Inc. (2015) ArcGIS Online Help – Shapefiles. Available at: https://doc.arcgis.com/en/arcgis-online/reference/shapefiles.htm (accessed 1 July 2015).

23.

Front Seat Management LLC (2015a) Bike Score^TM. Available at: https://www.walkscore.com/bike-score-methodology.shtml (accessed 1 July 2015).

24.

Front Seat Management LLC (2015b) Transit Score^®. Available at: https://www.walkscore.com/transit-score-methodology.shtml (accessed 1 July 2015).

25.

Hess

Almeida

(2007) Impact of proximity to light rail rapid transit on station-area property values in Buffalo, New York. Urban Studies44(5–6): 1041–1068.

26.

Hirsch

Moore

Evenson

et al . (2013) Walk Score® and Transit Score® and walking in the multi-ethnic study of atherosclerosis. American Journal of Preventive Medicine45(2): 158–166.

27.

Krizek

Stonebraker

(2011) Assessing options to enhance bicycle and transit integration. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 2217: 162–167.

28.

Krizek

(2006) Two approaches to valuing some of bicycle facilities’ presumed benefits: Propose a session for the 2007 national planning conference in the city of brotherly love. Journal of the American Planning Association72(3): 309–320.

29.

Krizek

Stonebraker

(2010) Bicycling and transit: A marriage unrealized. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board2144: 161–167.

30.

Kuha

(2004) AIC and BIC comparisons of assumptions and performance. Sociological Methods and Research33: 188–229.

31.

Kutner

Nachtsheim

Neter

(2004) Applied Linear Regression Models. 4th edn.McGraw-Hill Education.

32.

Lacombe

(2013) Donald J. Lacombe’s MATLAB Code for Spatial Econometrics Page. Available at: http://community.wvu.edu/~djl041/matlab.html (accessed 1 July 2015).

33.

LeSage

(2010) Econometrics Toolbox. Available at: http://www.spatial-econometrics.com/ (accessed 1 July 2015).

34.

Joh

Lee

et al . (2015a) Assessing benefits of neighborhood walkability to single-family property values: A spatial hedonic study in Austin, Texas. Journal of Planning Education and Research 35(4): 471–488.

35.

Saphores

J-DM

Gillespie

(2015b) A comparison of the economic benefits of urban green spaces estimated with NDVI and with high-resolution land cover data. Landscape and Urban Planning133: 105–117.

36.

Lubitow

Miller

(2013) Contesting sustainability: Bikes, race, and politics in Portlandia. Environmental Justice6(4): 121–126.

37.

Malizia

Song

(2016) Does downtown office property perform better in live–work–play centers?Journal of Urbanism: International Research on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability 9(4): 372–387

38.

Martens

(2004) The bicycle as a feedering mode: Experiences from three European countries. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment9(4): 281–294.

39.

Martens

(2007) Promoting bike-and-ride: The Dutch experience. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice41(4): 326–338.

40.

Mathur

Smith

(2013) Land value capture to fund public transportation infrastructure: Examination of joint development projects’ revenue yield and stability. Transport Policy30: 327–335.

41.

McDonald

(2015) Are millennials really the “go-nowhere” generation?Journal of the American Planning Association81(2): 90–103.

42.

Medda

(2012) Land value capture finance for transport accessibility: A review. Journal of Transport Geography25: 154–161.

43.

Munoz-Raskin

(2010) Walking accessibility to bus rapid transit: Does it affect property values? The case of Bogotá, Colombia. Transport Policy17(2): 72–84.

44.

Nedwick

Burnett

(2015) How can the LIHTC program most effectively be used to provide affordable rental housing near transit?Cityscape17(2): 113.

45.

Nicholls

Crompton

(2005) The impact of greenways on property values: Evidence from Austin, Texas. Journal of Leisure Research37(3): 321–341.

46.

Pan

Zhang

et al . (2014) Effects of rail transit on residential property values: Comparison study on the rail transit lines in Houston, Texas, and Shanghai, China. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board2453: 118–127.

47.

Parent

Vom Hofe

(2013) Understanding the impact of trails on residential property values in the presence of spatial dependence. The Annals of Regional Science51(2): 355–375.

48.

Pucher

Buehler

(2009) Integrating bicycling and public transport in North America. Journal of Public Transportation12(3): 79–104.

49.

Pucher

Buehler

(2012) City Cycling. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

50.

Pucher

Dill

Handy

(2010) Infrastructure, programs, and policies to increase bicycling: An international review. Preventive Medicine50: S106–S125.

51.

Rodríguez

Targa

(2004) Value of accessibility to Bogotá’s bus rapid transit system. Transport Reviews24(5): 587–610.

52.

Rosen

(1974) Hedonic prices and implicit markets: Product differentiation in pure competition. Journal of Political Economy82: 34–55.

53.

Saphores

J-D

(2012) Estimating the value of urban green areas: A hedonic pricing analysis of the single family housing market in Los Angeles, CA. Landscape and Urban Planning104(3–4): 373–387.

54.

Schneider

(2005) Integration of Bicycles and Transit. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board Transit Cooperative Research Program Synthesis 62.

55.

Singleton

Clifton

(2014) Exploring synergy in bicycle and transit use: Empirical evidence at two scales. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board2417: 92–102.

56.

Smith

Gihring

(2006) Financing transit systems through value capture. American Journal of Economics and Sociology65(3): 751–786.

57.

Statistics Canada (2009) Employed Labour Force by Means of Transportation. Available at: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/labr88c-eng.htm (accessed 1 July 2015).

58.

Stein

(2011) Bike lanes and gentrification: New York City’s shades of green. Progressive Planning: The Magazine of Planners Network 188: 34–37.

59.

USDOT (1998) Bicycles and Transit: A Partnership that Works. Washington D.C.: US Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration.

60.

Wang

Liu

(2013) Bicycle-transit integration in the United States, 2001–2009. Journal of Public Transportation16(3): 95–119.

61.

Welch

Gehrke

Wang

(2015) A hedonic spatial panel approach to estimating the impact of network access to bike and public transit facilities on housing prices. Transportation Research Board 94th Annual Meeting. Washington D.C., January 2015.

62.

Winters

Sims-Gould

Franke

et al . (2015) “I grew up on a bike”: Cycling and older adults. Journal of Transport & Health2(1): 58–67.

63.

Zhong

(2016) Rail transit investment and property values: An old tale retold. Transport Policy 51(October 2016): 33–48.