Interactions Between Transportation Capacity, Economic Systems, and Land Use (2012)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

1Study Overview Capacity Project C03 of the second Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP 2), Interactions Between Transportation Capacity, Economic Systems, and Land Use, produced 100 before and after case studies of the impacts on economic and land development of highway and highway/ intermodal projects, along with the creation of a national database for the case studies and a web tool for viewing and using the findings. The study developed standards for a national database of before and after case studies that included requirements for (a) before and after impact com- parisons, (b) coverage of local and regional impacts, (c) a wide range of perspectives for viewing and measuring impacts, (d) comparison of local changes over time relative to reference sources such as state trends, and (e) reliance on quantitative data and qualitative observations about local economic conditions. The study sought to include all major project types: intercity highways, urban beltways, and local access roads, as well as bridges, highway interchanges, and intermodal road/rail terminals. The projects spanned all regions of the continental United States, urban and rural settings, and different economic distress levels. A small number of English-language studies from Canada and abroad also were included in a format that would enable continuing expansion over time. Five categories of data were assembled for each case study: 1. Project characteristics. Type of facility, dates of construction, cost, size, and level of use. 2. Project objectives. For example, congestion reduction and access enhancement. 3. Impact metrics. Pre- and postconstruction change in employment, income, business output, land values, building development, and tax revenues. 4. Quantitative explanatory data. For example, location (region, metropolitan/rural), topog- raphy, and economic distress level. 5. Qualitative explanatory data. Local interview findings on land use plans and policies, business climate and support programs, other factors affecting outcomes. Analysis Results The case studies were analyzed through statistical analysis of empirical data and identification of common themes from the qualitative interview reports. Key findings are listed here: • Transportation projects lead to multifaceted forms of economic development impact, which may include effects on employment, income, land use, property values, or building construc- tion. The form of impact varies by the type and setting of the project. Executive Summary

2• Impacts unfold over time, so no single project will necessarily show every type of impact at the same time. For that reason, multiple impact measures and an appropriate period of obser- vation are needed to fully capture economic development impacts. • Overall, 85% of the projects show evidence of positive economic impacts, while the rest show either no net impact or a small negative impact. However, the impacts were measured at dif- ferent spatial scales depending on the size and breadth of the project, which varied from 2-mile, short-access roads to major interstate highways spanning several hundred miles. • Project cost and job growth impacts vary by project size, type, and location. • Project location matters. Larger numbers of jobs are generated by projects in metropolitan settings than by those in rural settings. Rural projects tend to have lower costs and take less time to build than those in metropolitan settings, although job growth in rural areas also tends to take longer to emerge than in metropolitan areas. • The economy and business climate of the project area are critical factors affecting the magni- tude of project impacts. Projects in economically vibrant areas with complementary infra- structure and zoning regulations tend to generate more long-term jobs than do projects in areas without those features. • Motivations for projects differ, and projects with a coordinated economic development effort (involving complementary policies) generally facilitate more long-term job growth than do projects that lack local supporting policies. Practical Use The Transportation Project Impact Case Studies (T-PICS) web tool (http://transportationfor communities.com/t-pics) provides transportation planners with a way to search for relevant case studies by type of project and setting. The case studies include details of the projects, their impacts, and factors affecting the impacts. The web tool also provides users with an option to specify the type of proposed project and see the range of likely impacts based on case study experience to date. These features have three important uses: • First, they can have value for early-stage policy or strategy development, in which it can be useful to identify the magnitude and types of impact trade-offs to be considered. • Second, they can be useful in early-stage “sketch planning” processes for identifying the types of local barriers and success factors that will need to be addressed in later, more-detailed plan- ning steps. • And third, the case study findings can be useful in public hearings because they can inform responses to the hopes of proponents and fears of opponents with reports of actual impacts from similar projects.