Transit’s Value-Added Effects: Light and Commuter Rail Services and Commercial Land Values

Abstract

Transit-oriented development has gained favor as a means of reducing traffic congestion, promoting affordable housing, and curbing sprawl. The effects of proximity to light and commuter rail stations are modeled as are the effects of freeway interchanges on commercial-retail and office properties in fast-growing Santa Clara County, California. From hedonic price models, substantial capitalization benefits were found, on the order of 23% for a typical commercial parcel near a light rail transit stop and more than 120% for commercial land in a business district and within 0.25 mi of a commuter rail station. Such evidence is of use not only to developers and lenders but also to transit agencies facing lawsuits over purported negative externalities associated with being near rail. It can also help in the design of creative financing, such as value-capture programs.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bernick

, and Cervero

. Transit Villages for the 21st Century. McGraw-Hill, New York, 1997.

Calthorpe

, and Fulton

. Regional City: Planning for the End of Sprawl. Island Press, Washington, D.C., 2001.

Cervero

Light Rail Transit and Urban Development. Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 50, No. 2, 1984, pp. 133–147.

Cervero

Rail Transit and Joint Development: Land Market Impacts in Washington, D.C., and Atlanta. Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 60, No. 1, 1994, pp. 83–94.

Landis

, Cervero

, and Hall

. Transit Joint Development in the USA: An Inventory and Policy Assessment. Environment and Planning C, Vol. 9, No. 4, 1991, pp. 431–452.

McNeal

, and Doggett

. Metro Makes Its Mark. Urban Land, Vol. 58, No. 9, 1999, pp. 78–81, 118.

Falcke

Study of BART’s Effects on Property Prices and Rents. Urban Mass Transportation Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1978.

Landis

, Guathakurta

, and Zhang

. Capitalization of Transportation Investments into Single-Family Home Prices. Working Paper 619. Institute of Urban and Regional Development, University of California, Berkeley, 1994.

Dunphy

Transit Trends. Urban Land, Vol. 60, No. 5, 2001, pp. 79–83.

10.

Cambridge Systematics, Inc., Cervero

, and Aschuer

. TCRP Report 35: Economic Impact Analysis of Transit Investments: Guidebook for Practitioners. National Academy Press, Transit Cooperative Research Program, Washington, D.C., 1998.

11.

Damm

, Lerman

, Lerner-Lam

, and Young

. Response of Urban Real Estate Values in Anticipation of the Washington Metro. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, Vol. 14, No. 3, 1980, pp. 20–30.

12.

Bollinger

, Ihlanfeldt

, and Bowes

. Spatial Variation in Office Rents Within the Atlanta Region. Urban Studies, Vol. 35, No. 7, 1998, pp. 1097–1117.

13.

Nelson

Transit Stations and Commercial Property Values: A Case Study with Policy and Land Use Implications. Journal of Public Transportation, Vol. 2, No. 3, 1999, pp. 77–93.

14.

Weinstein

, and Clower

. The Initial Economic Impacts of the DART LRT System. Center for Economic Development and Research, University of North Texas, Denton.

15.

Landis

, and Loutzenheiser

. BART at 20: BART Access and Office Building Performance. Institute of Urban and Regional Development, University of California, Berkeley, 1995.

16.

Weinberger

R. R.

Commercial Property Values and Proximity to Light Rail: Calculating Benefits with a Hedonic Price Model. Presented at the 79th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2000.

17.

Weinberger

R. R.

Light Rail Proximity: Benefit or Detriment?—The Case of Santa Clara County, California. Presented at the 80th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2001.