IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/transa/v31y1997i4p309-333.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Twenty years of the Bay Area Rapid Transit system: Land use and development impacts

Author

Listed:
  • Cervero, Robert
  • Landis, John

Abstract

Planners of the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) system, the first large-scale urban rail project built in the U.S. since the early part of this century, hoped BART would encourage compact and orderly growth, and spawn a multi-centered settlement pattern. The initial BART impact study, conducted a few years following the system's 1973 opening, concluded that BART played a fairly modest, though not inconsequential, role in shaping metropolitan growth and land-use patterns. This paper summarizes findings from an update of the original BART impact study, examining BART's influences on urban development patterns 20 years after services started. In general, our findings are similar to those of the original impact study. Over the past 20 years, land-use changes associated with BART have been largely localized, limited to downtown San Francisco and Oakland and a handful of suburban stations. Elsewhere, few land-use changes have occurred, either because of neighborhood opposition or a lackluster local real estate market. While BART appears to have helped bring about a more multi-centered regional settlement pattern, such as inducing midrise office development near the Walnut Creek and Concord stations, it has done little to stem the tide of freeway-oriented suburban employment growth over the past two decades. Indeed, recent office additions near East Bay stations pale in comparison to the amount of floorspace built in non-BART freeway corridors. Near several suburban stations, the most notable change has been the addition of multi-family housing. In most instances, local redevelopment authorities helped leverage these projects by providing various financial incentives and assistance with land assemblege. Statistical analyses reveal that the availability of vacant and developable land is an important predictor of whether land-use changes occurred near stations. BART, in and of itself, has clearly not been able to induce large-scale land-use changes, though under the right circumstances, it appears to have been an important contributor. If the Bay Area is to achieve the compact, multi-centered built form that was originally envisaged, we conclude that stronger public policy initiatives will be needed to channel future regional growth to BART corridors.

Suggested Citation

  • Cervero, Robert & Landis, John, 1997. "Twenty years of the Bay Area Rapid Transit system: Land use and development impacts," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 31(4), pages 309-333, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:transa:v:31:y:1997:i:4:p:309-333
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0965-8564(96)00027-4
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Cervero, Robert & Menotti, Val, 1994. "Market Profiles of Rail-Based Housing Projects in California," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt89k664kz, University of California Transportation Center.
    2. Cervero, Robert, 1993. "Ridership Impacts of Transit-Focused Development in California," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt8sr9d86r, University of California Transportation Center.
    3. Cervero, Robert, 1996. "Subcentering and Commuting: Evidence from the San Francisco Bay Area, 1980-1990," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt7b5919b1, University of California Transportation Center.
    4. Landis, John & Guhathakurta, Subhrajit & Huang, William & Zhang, Ming, 1995. "Rail Transit Investments, Real Estate Values, and Land Use Change: A Comparative Analysis of Five California Rail Transit Systems," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt2hf9s9sr, University of California Transportation Center.
    5. Merewitz, Leonard, 1972. "Public Transportation: Wish Fulfillment and Reality in the San Francisco Bay Area," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 62(2), pages 78-86, May.
    6. Cervero, Robert & Round, Alfred & Goldman, Todd & Wu, Kang-Li, 1995. "Rail Access Modes and Catchment Areas for the BART System," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt07k76097, University of California Transportation Center.
    7. Richard Voith, 1991. "Transportation, Sorting and House Values," Real Estate Economics, American Real Estate and Urban Economics Association, vol. 19(2), pages 117-137, June.
    8. Cervero, Robert & Castellanos, Carlos & Sarosa, Wicaksono & Rich, Kenneth, 1995. "Land Use and Development Impacts," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt4q87n8dp, University of California Transportation Center.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Cervero, Robert & Bernick, Michael & Gilbert, Jill, 1994. "Market Opportunities and Barriers to Transit-Based Development in California," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt2c01z5hw, University of California Transportation Center.
    2. Cervero, Robert & Duncan, Michael, 2008. "Residential Self Selection and Rail Commuting: A Nested Logit Analysis," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt72p9n6qt, University of California Transportation Center.
    3. Cervero, Robert, 1996. "Mixed land-uses and commuting: Evidence from the American Housing Survey," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 30(5), pages 361-377, September.
    4. Atkinson-Palombo, Carol & Kuby, Michael J., 2011. "The geography of advance transit-oriented development in metropolitan Phoenix, Arizona, 2000–2007," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 19(2), pages 189-199.
    5. Cervero, Robert & Duncan, Michael, 2002. "Residential Self Selection and Rail Commuting: A Nested Logit Analysis," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt1wg020cd, University of California Transportation Center.
    6. Cervero, Robert, 2006. "Transit Oriented Development’s Ridership Bonus: A Product of Self-Selection and Public Policies," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt8jn8g0hc, University of California Transportation Center.
    7. Ghebreegziabiher Debrezion & Eric Pels & Piet Rietveld, 2007. "The Impact of Railway Stations on Residential and Commercial Property Value: A Meta-analysis," The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, Springer, vol. 35(2), pages 161-180, August.
    8. Ghebreegziabiher Debrezion & Eric Pels & Piet Rietveld, 2005. "Impact of railway station on Dutch residential housing market," ERSA conference papers ersa05p748, European Regional Science Association.
    9. Cervero, Robert & Menotti, Val, 1994. "Market Profiles of Rail-Based Housing Projects in California," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt89k664kz, University of California Transportation Center.
    10. Gregory Thompson & Jeffrey Brown & Torsha Bhattacharya, 2012. "What Really Matters for Increasing Transit Ridership: Understanding the Determinants of Transit Ridership Demand in Broward County, Florida," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 49(15), pages 3327-3345, November.
    11. Mejia-Dorantes, Lucia & Lucas, Karen, 2014. "Public transport investment and local regeneration: A comparison of London׳s Jubilee Line Extension and the Madrid Metrosur," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 241-252.
    12. Sangwan Lee & Liming Wang, 2022. "Intermediate Effect of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Prices of Housing near Light Rail Transit: A Case Study of the Portland Metropolitan Area," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(15), pages 1-17, July.
    13. Park, Sungjin, 2008. "Defining, Measuring, and Evaluating Path Walkability, and Testing Its Impacts on Transit Users’ Mode Choice and Walking Distance to the Station," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt0ct7c30p, University of California Transportation Center.
    14. Julian Diaz III & J. Andrew Hansz & Matthew L. Cypher & Darren K. Hayunga, 2008. "Conservation Status and Residential Transaction Prices: Initial Evidence from Dallas, Texas," Journal of Real Estate Research, American Real Estate Society, vol. 30(2), pages 225-248.
    15. Weinzimmer, David & Sanders, Rebecca L. & Dittrich, Heidi & Cooper, Jill F., 2014. "Evaluation of the Safe Routes to Transit Program in California," Institute of Transportation Studies, Research Reports, Working Papers, Proceedings qt3wv3g18b, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Berkeley.
    16. Cervero, Robert & Bosselmann, Peter, 1994. "An Evaluation of the Market Potential for Transit-Oriented Development Using Visual Simulation Techniques," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt8qf9116b, University of California Transportation Center.
    17. Shadi O. Tehrani & Shuling J. Wu & Jennifer D. Roberts, 2019. "The Color of Health: Residential Segregation, Light Rail Transit Developments, and Gentrification in the United States," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(19), pages 1-19, September.
    18. Robert Cervero, 2007. "Transit-Oriented Development's Ridership Bonus: A Product of Self-Selection and Public Policies," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 39(9), pages 2068-2085, September.
    19. Smersh, Greg T. & Smith, Marc T., 2000. "Accessibility Changes and Urban House Price Appreciation: A Constrained Optimization Approach to Determining Distance Effects," Journal of Housing Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(3), pages 187-196, September.
    20. Ruohan Hu, 2017. "The impact of rail transit on the distribution of new housing projects in Beijing," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 54(8), pages 1867-1886, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:transa:v:31:y:1997:i:4:p:309-333. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/547/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.