The Link Between Transit Station Proximity and Real Estate Rents, Jobs, People Housing With Transit and Land Use Planning Implications

University Transportation Centers Programhttps://doi.org/10.15760/trec.2352019PDFTech ReportNelson, Arthur CHibberd, RobertDixon, MatthewUniversity of Arizona. College of Architecture, Planning, and Landscape ArchitectureNational Institute for Transportation and Communities (NITC)United States. Department of Transportation. University Transportation Centers (UTC) ProgramUnited States. Department of Transportation. Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and TechnologyNational Institute for Transportation and Communities (NITC)OregonUnited StatesBefore and after studiesBus rapid transitDemographicsDistanceEconomic analysisHousingJobsLand use planningLocationModal splitRail transit stationsRail transit stationsRailroad commuter serviceRentStreetcarsLight rail transitExpress busesEmploymentIndustriesEconomic developmentCensusTransportation planningCommuter RailExpress BusGIS Model BuilderNAICSSectorsLongitudinal-Household Employment DatabaseAmerican Community SurveyReal Estate Rents and Transit AccessibilityJobs-Housing BalanceJobs-Labor Force BalanceGood Station Location and DesignNITC-RR-1103NITC-RR-1103Final ReportThis report updates and expands prior research in the genre of research that has used economic base analysis (especially shiftshare) and CoStar commercial rent data to estimate the development outcomes to transit. The study period for prior economic base analysis was 2002-2011and census data for 2000 and 2010, as well as CoStar data for 2013. Prior analysis compared development, demographic and housing outcomes associated with those transit systems during the period before the Great Recession (2000 through 2007) and during recession into recovery (2008 through 2011). Though NITC researchers found important differences in outcomes between the study periods of 2000-2007 and 2008-2011, their research could not measure outcomes during the period of economic stability that commenced about 2012. This report expands the number of systems used in analysis to 17 LRT systems, 14 BRT systems, nine SCT systems and 12 CRT systems. It also expands the period of analysis to 2015 for jobs-related data, 2016 for census data, and 2018 for CoStar data. The expanded and updated databases allow for more comprehensive assessment of their outcomes. Those data have been made available for open access use by researchers. Key findings include: (1) market rents increase with respect to Fixed Guideway Transit (FGT) station proximity for nearly all commercial types and for all modes, except there no rent premium for BRT in the closet (0.125 mile) distance band and office responds positively only within the closets (0.125 mile) distance band from LRT stations, with rent premiums extend one to two miles away from FGT stations for many commercial types; (2) on the whole, more mature Fixed Guideway Transit (FGT) system saw gains in regional share of jobs in closer in (0,.25 mile and 0.50 mile) distance bands if not up to the 1.00 mile distance band from transit stations\u2014BRT being an exception in gaining share only in the nearest (0.25 mile) distance band\u2014 while ones build during and since the Great Recession saw small or negative shifts in regional share; (3) there are only modest gains in the regional share of population and housing before/during the Great Recession (2000-2009) bit somewhat more gains afterward (2010-2016) for all transit types except BRT with larger gains associated with households without children and early/middle aged households (35-49); and (4) for the most part for all transit modes saw reductions in regional share of driving alone and carpooling, and increases in regional share of transit, biking, walking, and working at home with respect to FGT station proximity. Transit and land use planning implications are offered.143