xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam 2200373Ia 4500
controlfield tag 001 029186698
006 m d
007 cr bn|||||||||
008 110804s1997 flu ob 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a C01-00159
0 3 245
An analysis of the economic impacts of urban transit systems on Florida's economy
h [electronic resource] /
prepared for Florida Department of Transportation, Florida Transit Association ; prepared by Center for Urban Transportation Research, College of Engineering, University of South Florida ; [F. Ron Jones, project director ; Xuehao Chu, Laura C. Lachance, Richard T. Stasiak].
[Tampa, Fla.] :
b University of South Florida, Center for Urban Transportation Research,
1 online resource (25 leaves).
Includes bibliographical references (leaves 18-25).
x Economic aspects
Jones, F. Ron.
Lachance, Laura C.
Stasiak, Richard T.
Dept. of Transportation.
Florida Transit Association.
University of South Florida.
Center for Urban Transportation Research.
i Print version:
t Analysis of the economic impacts of urban transit systems on Florida's economy.
d [Tampa, Fla.] : University of South Florida, Center for Urban Transportation Research, 
Center for Urban Transportation Research Publications [USF].
y USF ONLINE ACCESS
An Analysis of the Economic Impacts of Urban Transit Systems on Florida's Economy Pre p ared for Florida D epa rtm en t of Transportati on Florida Trans it Associ ation L Prepa r ed b y Center for U r ba n T r ansporta ti on Research College of Engineer in g University of So uth Florida Septe mber 1997
Center for Urban Transportation Research USF College of Engineering 4202 E. Fowler Avenue, CUT 100 Tampa, FL 33620 CUTR Project Team: F. Ron Jones Ph.D. Project Director Xuehao Chu, Ph.D Laura C Lachance RichardT Stasiak Ph.D. Gary L. Brosch, Director
Table of C onten ts List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . n Exec u tive Swnmary ............. .... . ..................................... I Introduction .......... ... . . ..... .... .... ..... . .............. . . ....... 2 Florida's Transit System s ... ........................ ...... .... . . . ...... 2 Economic Impacts ..................... .......... ...... ..... .......... . . 3 Transit Dependent Empl oyment ................. ........... . ...... . . . . 4 Impacts Not Quantified ... .... .......... ........... ...... . .... . ........... 4 Land-Use Impacts . ......... ..... .............. .... . . ......... .......... 4 Contingency Transporta t ion ........... ......... .... ....... ...... . . .... . 5 Business Productivity ............... . ................ .. . . . . .......... 5 Tourism and Special Events ....... .................. .......... ........... . 5 Impacts Quantified . ................ . . . ............. ..... ........ ...... 6 Transit User B e n e fits ... ................... . ......... . .... . ........... 6 Highway User Benefits .............................. ... .................... 7 Transportation Disadvantaged Program Savings ........ ....... ................. 7 Economic Output and E mp loyment ...... ...................................... 8 Summary . . ....... ........... .... .............. .......................... 9 Appendices ................................. .............................. . 1 0 Appendix A: Consumer Surplus C alcu l ation ............. .... . ............ .... I 0 Appendix B: Transportation Disadvantag e d Program Savings Calculation ... ........ 1 4 Appendix C: Economic Output and Employment Calcula tion ............ ... . . . . 16 New Federal Fund s .................... ..... . ....... ...... ........ . . 16 Multipliers . .............................. . ......................... 17 Endnotes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Referen ce s .............. . ............ ..... .... .......... . .......... 21 I
Li s t o f Ta bles Table A-1 Actual and Simu l ated Trip Patterns for Journ ey-toWork Trips Arising from M assive Reductions in Transit in Florida .... ................. ... 12 Tab le B-1 1995 Savings of Trans f e rring TO trips from Paratransit to Fixed Route ............ 15 Table C-1 Average Annual Transit Expenditures of New Federal Dollars (thousands of 1995 dollars ) ................................... ........... 16 Table C-2 RJMS II Total Final-Demand M ultipliers ................................... 17 11
Executive Summary Public transit fulfills many social needs and is considered an essential urban service in the larger cities, but it also makes significant eco nomi c contributions to the state of Florida. These contributions are distributed directly and indirectly among all residents of the s tate including those who choose not to ride public transi t and those who reside in areas where there is no transit service. This report provides an objective and, as described in the report's introduction, a very conservative analysis of these economic contributions. The economic benefits measured in this report--which are only a portion of the total economic benefits--and the annual value in 1995 dollars of those benefits to the state of Florida are shown below, along with the annual cost to the state of providing transit: Florida's Benefits Florida's Costs Transit User Benefits* $495 millio n Local Government Cost $193 million Highway User Benefits 12 millio n State Government Cost 68 million TO Program Savings 33 million Increased Income 83 million Total Benefit S623 million Total Cost $261 mlllion *The extent to which user benefits exceed user costs (fares, etc.) These benefits include, among others: increased access t o job training, em p loyment, and education reduced cost of auto m obile ownership and operation reduced highway congestion travel time, and accidents improved air quality Also included in the report is a discussion of other trans i t impacts to which it is difficult to assign dollar values, but which have positive economic benefits for the state. These include: serving as a catalyst for higher-density development providing contingency transportation for automobile drivers increasing business productivity promoting tourism Transit systems also play an important supporting role in state and national e m ployme n t policies such as programs designed to reduce dependence on welfare. If welfare recipients do not have access to reliable, inexpensive transportation, it is very difficult for them to become employed and break out of the welfare cycle.
Introduction The Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR) was asked by the Florida Department of Transportation and the Florida Transit Association to undertake an objective analysis of the economic contributions that fixed-route transit makes to the state It has long been accepted that transit plays an important role in meeting many of the state's social objectives, but the extent to which transit plays a rol e in the state's economic well-being has never been fully documented. Around the country, a number of studies have analyzed the economic impacts that individual local transit systems have on the local and state economies, and each study has found that transit systems have strong positive impacts on local and state eco n omies but none has attempted to measure the total impact of a state's transit industry. There is no standard methodology for such an analysis, and previous attempts to quantify these economic impacts have varied greatly in their approaches. However, in the more objective research, certain standards are beginning to evolve. Among these are that transfer payments (i.e., taking money from one person and giving it to another) should not be counted as benefits, and that alternative uses of funds mus t be considered (e .g., jobs created by spendin g public money in one sector of the economy are essentially of no more value than jobs created by spending the same money in another sector). The basic premise of objective transportation economic impact research is that benefits flow from improvements in transportation systems (e.g., reduced travel time and cost), not from the mere expenditure or movement of funds. We were able to quantify, with a high degree of co'1fidence, only a portion of the total economic benefits of transit That portion alone, however, provides compelling evidence that transit makes an important positive economic contribution to the state. Florida's Transit Systems There are 18 fixed-route bus transit systems in Florida serving the counties and cities listed below. These systems range in size from the 4-bus system in Key West to the 677-bus system in Dade County. Many of the systems provide county-wide service. 2
In addition, there is a heavy-railtransit system in Dade County; a commuter-rail system that serves Palm Beach, Broward, and Dade counties; and people-mover (automated guideway) systems in Dade, Duval, and Hillsborough counties. In 1995, these transit systems had a total service -area population of more than 10 million and provided 167 million passenger trips at a total public cost of$387 million ($261 million state and local and $126 million federal), which includes a three-year average annual capital cost of$125 million ($39 million state and local and $86 million federal) in 1995 dollars. Economic Impacts The direct economic impacts of transit service are experienced primarily by the users of transit and by the users of highways. These direct impacts ripple through the economy until they are felt, at least indirectly, by all of us. In this report, the direct impacts are measured and some of the indirect and other impacts that are not easily measured are discussed. There are numerous economic benefits experienced by users of transit, such as avoiding the use of taxicabs or the cost of owning an automobile. The benefits experienced by persons who continue to use the highway system are a little less obvious. Since transii removes some automobi le drivers from the highway, it frees up some highway capacity, and, at least initially, improves the highway level of service If no new drivers use this freed-up capacity, the economic benefit to highway users is the reduced travel time, reduced vehi cle operating costs, and reduced accident costs that result from reduced congestion. In most urban areas, partic ularly in high-growth states such as Florida, the freed-up capacity attracts new drivers and induces additional trips by existing drivers until the highway level of service is the same as or very close to what it was before transit service.' The economic benefit in this case is the value of the new highway trips that can now be made due to the existence of transit. Which of these phenomena actually happens is somew hat immaterial, since the economic benefit to the public is very similar in both cases. Because we believe it is more likely the case in Florida, we have taken the position that in the urban areas of Florida, as automobile drivers switch to transit, new drivers take their place on the urban road network. There are a number of other economic benefits often attributed to transportation improvements, but the extent to which they are true benefits is less clear cut than in the case of user benefits. Sometimes this is because they involve double counting of benefits, but more often it is due to the complex nature of behavioral changes that accompany transportation imp rov ements and the difficulty in determining true cause and effect.2 Therefore, we have elected not to try to quantify these other benefits except in a couple of special cases as discussed later. We do, however, 3
describe these potential other benefits in the next section. To the extent that these other benefits are real and are attributable to transit, our impact estimates are understated. Transit Dependent Employment. One impact that merits special attention is the employment of transit-dependent persons, which is frequently described as a benefit of transit. There are thousands of transit-dependent Floridians who would lose their jobs if they did not have transit serv ice and spending by these workers supports many other jobs. The loss of these jobs would result in a loss of millions of dollars in annual income to these persons. However, the true benefit to the economy in this case is not the earnings of transit dependent persons, but rather the difference between these particular persons being employed and the alternative, where the alternative is a function of the availability of substitutes. For instance, if there is high unemployment in the state the displaced transit-dependent workers may be easily replaced by currently unemployed persons. If that is the case, the amount of income earned does not really change, it is just earned by a different set of workers. Of course, depending on the degree of unemployment, there would be some cost to the economy because, as a rule, substitutes are more costly or less productive; otherwise, they would have been employed in the first place. Therefore, the benefit to the economy of retaining transit dependent employees is equal to the marginal cost to the economy of employing "second best" resources, and this cost is a function of the availability of alternative resources. In times of full employment, the benefit to the economy of retaining transit-dependent employees i s greatest because the loss of workers would have to be addressed by relatively expensive measures, such as paying the remaining employees for overtime or relocating employees. When the cost is too great, jobs simply go unfilled and businesses don't expand. Another important consideration is that these benefits tend to be short-term benefits To the extent that there is an initial benefit, it largely disappears over time as the economy and the labor markets adjust. It also is impossible to quantify this benefit in any meaningful way. Consequently, no economic benefits for the employment of transit-dependent persons have been inc luded in this report. Impacts Not Quantified It generally is acknowledged that transit impacts or attributes i nclude the following and that these impacts have positive, though probably unquantifiable, economic benefits. LandUse Impacts. Although the existence of transit service and transit stations by themselves may have little, if any, impact on land use, it does appear that they serve as a catalyst for the development of land use policies that promote higher densities. And it usually is argued that higher densities are less costly to serve with public infrastructure. Occasionally, however, it also has been argued that traditional radial transit actually 4
encourages urban sprawl. On balance, depending upon local service patterns, it is likely that bus transit alone in Florida has little impact on land use, but there is evidence that fixed guideway tJ:ansit, such as the rail system in Dade CoWlty, has contributed to higher density development and the economic benefits that flow from that. Contingency Transportation. For many who rely on automobiles transit is there if they ever need it. And there clearly is an economic value to these non-users and to the community generally of having that option available. For indi v iduals that value may be realized when their car is in the shop or when, for other reasons, they \vish not to drive. For the community, transit may provide an essential service in times of natural disasters, as was the case in Miami after hurricane Andrew Also during major roadway reconstruction projects, transit can play an important role in reducing the transportation disruption. Although it would be very difficult to estimate the actual value, there is a very real economic value associated with this contingency transportation aspect of public transit Business Productivity. Transit service increases access to the labor pool, which gives businesses a greater selection of employees to choose from and/or reduces their labor costs. Tardiness and absenteeism also are reduced when workers have a reliable means of transportation. Tourism and Special Events. Transit provides access to beaches and other recreational areas where parking is in short supply and where additional parking and road widenings cannot be accomplished without destroying the very amenities that attract tourists. It also provides additional capacity in other high-volume tourist areas, such as the International Drive corridor in Orlando, and it reduces the need to provide highway and parking infrastructure to meet the peak demand at occasional events such as auto races and football games. For elderly tourists who prefer not to drive, it provides a way to get to these recreational activities and other attractions. To the extent that transit makes Florida more attractive and accessible to tourists, it makes an important contribution to the state s economy. The increased mobility that transit provides allows all segments of our society to be more independent and to participate more fully in economic and social activities, including job training, employment, shopping, education, and recreation, as well as health care. The value of this increased mobility and the value of reduced accidents and reduced automobile operating costs experienced by transit users are captured in the calculation of ll:ansit users benefits in the next section. The value of transit's impact on highway congestion is captured in the calculation of highway user benefits. 5
Note that all of the above benefits result from improvements in the transportation system. Some analysts suggest that, in addition, the expenditure of funds itself creates benefits For instance, they might argue that the income paid to transit employees allows them to buy homes, which increases property values and property tax revenues. However this type of analysis confuses costs and transfer payments with benefits (wages are a cost of transit not a benefit, and taxes are transfer payments) and overlooks alternative uses of these funds. The benefits of increased tax revenues, new jobs, increased sales, etc., generally are the result of transfer payments or they are captured as part of the economic benefits quantified, such as transit user benefits, and, therefore they are not included in this report except as noted in a special case in a later section. Impacts Quantified The impacts quantified here include the user benefits experienced by both transit and highway users, which can be added to get total user benefits. The savings in the cost of the state's transportation disadvantaged program that results from the use of fixed-route transit also is quantified. The impacts of the infusion of new federal dollars are quantified for employment, earnings, and gross state product impacts. The actual economic benefit of these federal funds is simply the change in income attributable to these funds. The impact of transit on the employment of transit-dependent persons also is quantified in terms of jobs, earnings, and gross state product. The economic benefit of this impact is in part captu.fed i n the calculation of transit user benefits, and, therefore it is reduced accordingly. Transit User Benefits For many transit users, the value of the service far exceeds the cost. One way of measuring the economic value of transit to the users is to measure the difference between the fare that riders pay and the value that they place on the service they receive. For instance, if a person takes a cab to go to the doctor and pays a fare of $10 the person p l aces a value on that trip of at least $10, or else the person would not have made the trip. If transit becomes an option for that trip at a fare of$1, the person is able to receive service that he values at $10 for only $1. lbis difference between cost and value is referred to as "consumer surplus," and it is a common measure of the economic value of transit to transit users.' (lbis example makes the simplifYing assumption that the person values a trip by transit and a trip by taxicab equally. Although that is unlikely to be the case, the basic concept is the same.) lbis consumer surplus is measured by using a travel demand model to conduct simulations of travel choices. This is similar to using fare elasticity calculations to determine changes in ridership as fares are increased. In this case, the cost of travel (i.e., the fare plus the value of travel time) is increased in the model to determine at what point bus riders will switch to other 6
modes. The difference between the current price that each individual pays and the price at which he or she switches is then added up to get total consumer surplus for all riders. When this is done for Florida, we estimate that the consumer surplus just for work trips made on transit is $299 million per year. Work trips are the most highly valued transit trips (i.e., they have the highest consumer surplus), but they account for only about 40 percent of all transit trips. We estimate the consumer surplus for the remaining 60 percent of transit trips (e.g., medical, shopping, education, and sociaVrecreation trips) to be $196 million, for a total consumer surplus of$495 million. (See Appendix A for calculation details.) Highway User Benefits As noted earlier, highway users benefit from transit service either because congestion is reduced or--if the high,vay level of service is kept constant--because additional trips can now be made on the highway system. In 1995, transit systems in Florida provided 859.6 million passenger miles of service. According to surveys conducted by CU1R, 13.73 percent of transit riders would drive alone if the service were not available. In other words, transit service removes 118 million vehicle miles of travel from the highways or, alternatively, frees up that much highway capacity for new highway trips. Estimates of the cost of highway congestion or, conversely, the value to the traveler of a new trip on the highway, vary from 3 to 17 per vehicle mile. A 1996 study in Seattle estimated the average value of new highway trips at 10 per vehicle mile.5 This value refers to the value that a person places on a marginal trip that currently is forgone (because the congestion cost will be too high) but that can be made in the future because additional highway capacity will be available at the current or a slightly lower level of congestion. The actual value of the trip is a function of trip purpose and other factors. For instance, a person might place a value of $1 on a new I 0mile trip because the person values the increased social interaction the trip provides, or the opportunity to save money by shopping at a more distant store that has a sale going on, etc. Research in this area is very limited, but it appears that this "middle" value of 10 used by Seattle should give a reasonable estimate of the value of new trips (or the cost of congestion) in Florida. This means that removing 118 million vehicle miles of travel from the highway system bas an economic value to the state of $11.8 million. Transportation Disadvantaged Program Savings One of the benefits associated with public transit is the reduced costs of trips provided to transportation disadvantaged persons (i.e., persons who are unable to transport themselves or to purchase transportation). A variety of agencies fund trips for transportation disadvantaged persons in the state ofFiorida. In 1995, a total of 28.7 million transportation disadvantaged trips 7
were provided to persons in Florida by public transportation, and 11.8 million of those trips were provided by fixed-route transit.6 Fixed-route transit has proven to be a lower cost alternative compared to paratransit modes of transportation such as taxicabs and shared vans. In response to this cost difference, many sponsoring agencies are encouraging clients to use fixed-route transit. In 1995, 14 counties in Florida recorded fixed-route trips taken by transportation disadvantaged persons. In these counties, the average fare for a fixed-route trip was $0.74. This average fare per trip compares with the average fare (i.e., the fare paid by Medicaid and other sponsoring programs) for a paratransit trip in those 14 counties of$10.08, a $9.34 difference.' With agency clients taking fixed-route transit in place of paratransit, sponsoring agencies reduced costs for an estimated 3.54 million trips by $33.1 million in 1995. (As discussed in Appendix B, it is estimated that 30 percent of the 11.8 million fixed-route trips would have been made on paratransit if fixed-route serv ice were not available and that, due to budget limitations, 70 percent of the trips would not have been made.) Some of the funds that cover the transportation costs of the sponsoring agencies comes from out of state (i.e., from federal programs), but the demand for these programs and the caps on their available funds are such that it is unlikely that savings in the transportation area will result in any fewer federal dollars coming into the state. Therefore the entire savings is shown as a savings to the state of Florida. (See Appendix B for calculation details.) More counties are investigating the possibility of using fixed-route services for transportation disadvantaged trips, and the number of trips provided through fixed-route transit--and the corresponding savings realized-will most likely increase in the future Economic Output and Employment Gross state product (GSP), which is the usual measure of a state's economic output, is the total value of the goods and services produced by the public and private sectors. Expenditures on transit are part of that output, and the more money spent on transit, the higher its contribution to GSP. However, since the money spent on transit has to come from some other sector of the economy, that other s ector's contribution to GSP is decreased. If funds for transit come from the private sector through taxation, private sector investment is reduced and p,ri vate sector output and employment decreases. If funds for transit come from the public sector, public sector investment in other public projects is reduced and public sector output and employment for those other public projects decreases. The net impact on output and employment of moving expenditures from one sector of the economy to another (or from one geographic area of the state to another) will depend on a vari ety of factors, but this impact is generally not considered a benefit or cost of the particular project or sector on which the money is spent.' 8
However it is a different matter if funds for transit come from out of state and would not come into the state i f ther e w e re not transit service And this is the case with certain federal funds that are earmarked for transit. Federal grants specifically earmarked for transit service result in the state receiving $121.5 million (in 1995 dollars) that it otherwise would not receive. This infusion into Florida's economy and the ripple effects it has on all economic sectors-as measured by input-output analysis--<:auses Florida's total annual economic output (i.e., gross state product) to increase by $150.5 millio n and results in 2,477 permanent new jobs and $83.1 million in increased earnings. (See Appendix C for calculation details.) Summary A partial list of urban transit's con tributions to Florida s economy include: serving as a catalyst for higher-density development providing contingency transportation for automobile drivers increasing business productivity promoting tourism providing a variety of mobility benefits to transit users including access to jobs, education, and health services increasing highway capacity reducing the cost of the state's transportation disadvantaged (TD) program attracting new federal dollars to the state Some of these economic impacts are impossible to quantify in a meaningful way, although they are of significant economic value to the state. The annual impacts that could be quantified for 1 995 with a high degree of confidence i n thi s study are : Mobility benefits to transit users (minus user costs) Increased highway capacity Reduced cost of s tate's TD program Increased income due to new federal dollars $495 million $ 12 million $ 33 million $ 83 million Thi s partial list of annual economi c benefits to both users and non use r s of transit in Florida totals $623 million, which compares with Florida's cost of$261 million in 1995. Clearly, urban transit is a good invesrment for the state of Florida. 9
Appendices Appendix A: Consumer Surplus Calculation One technique used to measure the benefits of public investments and services is the analysis of "willingness to pay also known as consumer's surplus. This way of measuring the benefits of public services like transit is based upon the idea that some consumers are willing to pay more than others for a particular good or service. The difference between willingness to pay for different levels of transit service and the prevailing "price" of transit as it exists today is statistically estimated and added up over all actual and potential transit riders. When transit use is reduced to extreme ly low levels of ridership--nearly zero--this calculation shows the appr oximate dollar value to society of having access to public transit. To calculate this value, a statistical model of home-to-work trave l behavior in Florida was constructed using the I 990 Census Transportation P lanning Package Data were extracted at the geographic level of place, referring to incorporated municipalities, named unincorporated places, and the remainder of counties not in named or incorporated places Four transportation modes were modeled: single occupant vehicles (SOV) included drive alone motorcycle, and taxi trips carpool (CPL) included all carpool and vanpool trips transit (TRANS) included bus, streetcar, subway /el evated rail, railroad, and ferry trips walk, bike, and other (WBO) included walk, bicycle, and other trips The statewide vers ion of the Census data included the number of trips and reported trave l times between respective origins and workplace destinations in Florida, along with additional information about the residential characteristics of origins and the workplace characteristics of destinations A geographic information system was used to calculate distances between origins and destinations located in different places. Distances for trips made within a given named or incorporated p la ce were imputed via a statistical relationship between the area of a general closed polygon and the average distance between pairs of randomly selected points within the polygon. Likewise the average trip distance for trips that began and ended within the remainder of counties was estimated in a similar fashion, with the geographical base resemb l ing a "doughnut" of sorts. The Census reported trip characteristics for over 21,000 unique origin-destination pairs within the state. In those cases where travel by a specific mode was equal to zero, the associated time for making that trip was assumed to be equa l to 99 minutes, an assumed upper limi t for the journey to work. This is similar to the "culling" process in traffic models in which local trips of )0
long dura tion are assumed away, and a large travel time on the order of I 00 minutes is used to represent a c utoff value that attenuates the geographic scope of the model. When the data were assembled, travel behavior was modeled using logistic mode split cwves for each of the four transportation modes Large-scale transportation planning models such as the Urban Transportation Planning Package, Florida Standard Urban T ransportation Mode l ing Structure, QRS-11, Tranplan, and TransCAD also make use of logit-based mode split. The "price" of each transportation mode reflected the value of travel time as well as the direc t, dollar costs of travel. Travel time was valued at four different levels as described below. The final results are based on one-half of the mean income level at the origin of the trip divided by a nominal factor of2,080 hours (52 weeks per year x 40 h ours per week) worked per year (This is similar to using one-half of the prevailing wage rate as recommended by the Federal Transit Administration and others .10) Thus, the value of travel time in an area with an annual mean income of$20,800, for examp l e, would be 0 5($20,800/2,800 hours)= $5 per h our. If a transit trip took 30 minutes with a fare of$0.70, the "price" of that trip would be $2.50 for the cost of time plus $0.70 in direct cost, or a total of$3.20. The utility model used in this analysis is given as: where: Sixy represents the share of trips carried by mode "1'' between origi n "x" and destination "y"; U;(P;, Dxy) represents the "utility" of traveling distance Dxy miles v ia the i-th transportation mode at unit price P; per mile; a;, b; represent coefficients that determine the shape of the modal split cwves; exp(z) represents the natural base e = 2.71 ... raised to the power z; and 1 represents the four modes in the model with "I" for SOV, "2" for CPL, "3" for TRANS, and "4" for WBO. The model was estimated using the Full Information Maximum Likelihood technique in the TSP microcomputer statistical analysis program Four variants of the value of time were employed (full value of income per hour, half value of income per hour, $10 per hour for all places, and $5 per hour for aiJ places) and two variants of coverage (entire state with 20,727 observations II
places with existing transit ridership with 1,941 observations) were examined with this statistical analysis. Model variants estimated over the entire state calibrated and validated successfully over all four methods of measuring the value of time. The models based on places with existing transit ridership and actual income levels (full income value or one-half of income value) successfully calibrated but did not validate properly, in that the mode split for transit was overestimated. The models based on places with existing ridership and constant ($5 or $1 0) hourly values of time neither calibrated or validated. Benefits, measured as willingness to pay, tend to be higher if there are few good substitutes for a particular commodity. The statistical analysis shows a relatively low level of substitutability between transit and other modes of transpOrtation in Florida. This is because public transit serves many sectors of society--the very young the very old, the disabled, and those of modest means--with limited access to automobiles Others such as middle-income riders in large urban areas may be quite able to drive, but may be unable to find suitable parking near their workplace. Once the statistical model was complete, several simula t ions were performed to determine the transportation impacts of reduced levels of transit service and to "map out" the willingness to pay for transit. Reductions in bus frequency equate to longer waiting times for riders, and thus longer overall travel times by transit. Using this logic, the "price of transit was i ncreased with higher values of tra vel time in the simulation. This process was repeated until transit use declined by I 00,000 trips, reducing transit to less than one half of one percent of total trips, statistically not different from zero. This approach leads to a conservative estimate of th e benefits of public transit, and allows for the possibility that some private jitney service would take over some portion of the market. The results of this analysis at one-half the average hourly income level are shown in Table A-I. Table A-I Actual and Simulated Trip Patterns for Journey-to-Work Trips 4,478,443 78.82 79 .45 829,428 14.60 920,152 16 .20 127,512 2.24 25,651 0 .45 4.33 3 90 12
Please note the changes in both the number and percentage of trips by mode. The virtual elimination of transit service leads to a major reduction in trips made by transit as a matter of course. The displaced trips are redistributed to single-occupant vehicles and carpools. A minor reduction is noted in the "Walk, Bike, and Other" category, suggesting that public transit serves as a backup mode for these trips in the case of emergencies or inclement weather. Consumer surplus was calculated on the basis of the FT NUMT A formula: Consumer Surplus = (P old P new)X(Qold + Qnew)/2 where P is the price of transit as defined above and Q refers to the number of trips made by transit. The calculated economic impact associated with the modeled reduction in transit service was $568,000 per day for the home-to-work leg of the commuting journey, which is an a verage consumer surplus of: $568,000 + 127,512 = $4.45 per trip to work Although strictly speaking the return portion of work trips has less value than the going portion (e.g., it usually is more important to get to work by a certain time than it is to get home by a certain time), it is not unreasonable to approximate the value of the round trip by doubling the one-way value. Therefore, assuming that consumer surplus per trip is constant over time the consumer surplus for the 67,231,818 total work trips" in 1995 (from home to work and from work to home) is: 67, 231,818 X $4.45 =$299,181,590. The model used in this analysis could not calculate the economic impact associated with other trip purposes. However, the literature on the value of time suggests that time spent on non-work trips generally is valued at about one-half of the value of time for work trips. Usjng that relationship reduces the consumer surplus for non-work trips to $2.22 per trip, which results in consumer surplus for non-work trips of: 99,816,980 non-work trips1 2 x $2.22 = $222,092,780. From the 1995 total of$299,181,590 + $222,092,780 = $521, 274,370 must be subtracted the consumer surplus attributed in the model to the trips made on fixed-route transit by transportation disadvantaged (TD) persons whose trips are paid for by third parties such as the Medicaid program. This i s because these TD persons have for practical purposes zero consumer surplus on fiXed-route transit because the alternative mode (demand-responsive service) provides a similar service at no increase in cost to them. Since third-party sponsored trips are primarily non-work trips (Medicaid, the largest sponsor pays only for medical trips), the average non work-trip consumer surplus of$2.22 per trip i s used to make this calculation, which is: 11,816,827 TO trips (see Table B-1) x $2.22 = $26,292,440. That figure is then subtracted from $521,274,370 to get the net consumer surplus of$494,981,930. This gives an average consumer surplus of $2.96 per trip, which ap pears to be a conservative estimate when compared to the $4.68 per trip calculated in a recent national study.'$ 13
Appendix B: Transportation Disadvantaged Program Savings Calculation One of the user benefits associated with public transit is the reduced costs of trips provided to transportation disadvantaged persons. A variety of agencies fund trips for transportation disadvantaged persons in the state of Florida. In 1995, 28,657,449 transportation disadvantaged trips were provided to persons in Florida, and II ,816,827 of those trips were provided by fixed route transit. Fixed-route transit has proved to be a lower-cost alternative compared to paratransit modes of transportation such as taxicabs and shared vans. In response to this cost difference, many sponsoring agencies are encouraging clients to use fixed-route transit. In 1995, 14 counties in Florida recorded fixed-route trips taken by transportation disadvantaged (TD) persons. In these counties, the average fare for a fixed-route trip was $0.74 This average fare per trip compares with an average operating expense per paratransit trip of$10.08, a $9.34 difference. With agency clients taking fixed-route transit in place of paratransit, sponsoring agencies reduced costs for those 11.8 million trips by $110.3 million in 1995, as shown in Table .B-1. However, due to budget limitations not all of the 11.8 million trips would have been provided on paratrans it if fixed-route service were not available. In Dade County, where 88 percent of these fixed-route trips occur, the average TD passenger on paratransit makes 15 trips per month while the average TD passenger who is provided with a fixed-route transit pass makes SO linked trips per month. Therefore, to be conservative, we have assumed that, if fixed-route service were not available, only 30 percent of the 11.8 million trips would bemade on paratransit, which results in a savings of $33 .I million (i.e., $110.3 million x 30 percent). This assumes growth in the provision of paratransit services similar to its historical growth. If the above calculation were made using the average cost ($2.20) for a fixed-route trip instead of the average fare ($0 74) the 1995 savings would be $93.1 million x 30 percent, or $27.9 million However, that approach would assume that the transit agencies would be able to reduce their service and their costs if they were not handling TD trips, and that is very unlikely given the current capacity of transit services and the fact that TD trips account for only 7 percent of total fixed-route trips. The more likely savings is the $33 million Fixed-route transit has become a good alternative to paratransit for many transportation disadvantaged trips. As stated above, 14 counties, in 1995, provided fixed-route trips to transportation disadvantaged persons. However, more cOunties are investigating the possibility of using fixed-route s ervices for transportation disadvantaged trips Therefore, the number of trips provid ed through fixed-route transit will most likely increase in the future. 14
Table B 1 1 9 9 5 Savings of T ra ns f e rrin g TD T rips 904,712 $0.49 st.n $8.99 :>443, 309 10,397,026 $0. 78 $2.21 $10 24 $8,109 ,680 75 975 $0.47 $2 33 $7.20 S35,708 19 756 $0 .51 $2.29 $8.8 4 $10,076 8,605 $0. 14 S3 13 $8.45 $1.2 1 5 49, 881 $0. 44 $2.37 $12.20 $21,948 24,136 $0.36 $2.29 $9. 04 $8,689 71,354 $0.76 $2.28 $8 06 $54,229 22,259 $0.61 $3.91 $4.52 $13 578 111 492 $0.4) $1.91 $9 14 $47 ,942 S4n,776 $44,474 $8,133,3 6 1 $7,690,052 $6 532 021 S22,9n, 427 $106.465, 546 $98, 35 5,866 $83,488,119 sm.o22 $547 020 $511,312 $369 998 $45,241 $174 643 $ 1 64,567 $129,402 $26,929 $72,712 $71,497 $45,783 $608 548 $586 601 $490 330 $55,271 $218 189 $209,5 0 0 Sl62,918 $162,687 $575 113 $520,884 $412,426 $87,0 33 $ 1 00,611 $87,03 3 $13,578 $212.950 $1, 019,037 $971,095 $806,087 IS
Appendix C: Economic Output and Employment Calculation New Federal Funds Table C-1 shows the federal funds that would not come into the state if there were no fixed-route transit. These new federal funds include both new federal capital funds and new federal operating funds. They are based on National T ransit Data Base (NTDB) Forms 103 and 203, respectively. TableC-1 Average Annual Transi t Expenditures of New Federal DoUars The NTDB use s three categories for total federal capi tal funds in Form 103: funds received from FT A (lin e 4), funds received from other USDOT grant programs (line 5), and other federal funds (line 6). It is asswned that funds received from other USDOT grant programs or other federal funds would still come to Florida under the scenario of no urban transit service. Thus, it is asswned that capital funds received from FTA are new federal funds. These funds for each transit operator are aUocated to the three categories of capital expenditure according to the distribution of its total capital ex penditures among these categories, as shown in Table C-1. The NTDB uses two categories for total federal operating funds: funds from FTA Urbanized Area Formula Program (line 32) and funds from other federal programs (line 33). It is asswned that funds from other federal programs would come to the state even under the scenario of no transit service and that funds from the FTA Urbanized Area Formula Program are new federal operating funds. For each operator the funds from the FTA Urbanized Area Formula Program are allocated to labor and other expenditures aceording to the distribution of its total operating expenditures between these two catego ries. These allocated expenditures by category are then aggregated statewide. Statewide new federal operating funds by category are obtained by subtracting the statewide total funds from other federal programs from the statewide federal operating funds for non-labor expenses These results also are shown in Table C-1 . Because capital expenditures tend to be l umpy, they are averaged across 1993, 1994, and 1995 for estimating their economic impacts Before averaging, expenditures for 1993 and 1994 were inflated to 1995 dollars using GDP implicit price deflators (1.0224172 for 1993 to 1994 and 1.025738 for 1994 to 1995). 16
Multipliers The RIMS II multipliers used to calculate the employment, earnings, and output impacts of the new federal funds are shown in Table C-2. Table C-2 0.0000 30 .7615 43.0318 18.7244 0.0000 0.6460 0.8992 1.3777 0.8992 0.0000 2.0742 2.0388 1.2293 2.0388 All rolling stock is assumed to be imported from outside Florida. As a result, rolling stock expenditures have no impacts on jobs, household earnings, and output in Florida. This is a safe assumption for new rolling stock. For other components of rolling stock expenditures the same asswnption may not hold because transit agencies may do some of the work themselves such as rebuilding engines or rehabilitation. However, information is not sufficient to allow one to assume a particular proportion of rolling stock expenditures that remains in Florida The multiplier analysis shows that the infusion of the new federal funds results in 2,477 new jobs, increased annual earnings of$83.1 million, and increased annual economic output of $150.5 million in 1995 dollars. 17
Endnotes 1 ECONorthwest (1996), "Benefit-Cost ofRTA Plan," report prepared for Washington Research Council, Seattle, Wash.: 19-20, 22-23. 2 David Lewis (1991 ), "Primer on Transportation, Productivity and Economic Development," Report 342, National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D. C.: i v-v 19, 29, 77-79, 86; Glen Weisbrod and Burton Weisbrod (1997), "Assessing the Economic Impact of Transportation Projects: How to Match the Appropriate Technique to Your Project," preprint, TRB ID No. CK7009, Transportation Research Board, 76 .. Annual Meeting, January 12-16, 1997, Washington, D. C.: 11-13; Cambridge Systematics, Inc., and Apogee Research, Inc. ( 1996), "Measuring and Valuing Transit Benefits and Disbenefits," Report 20, Transit Cooperative Research Program, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.: 18-21; ECONorthwest (1996), "Benefit-Cost ofRTA Plan," report prepared for Washington Research Council, Seattle, Wash.: 5-6, 15, 33ff;Puget Sound Regional Council (I 996) "The Costs of Transportation: Expenditures on Surface Transportation in the Central Puget Sound Region for 1995, Seattle, Wash.: 13. 3 Edward Beimbom and Alan Horowitz with Julie Schuetz and Gong Zejun (1993), "Measurement of Transit Benefits,"final report, DOT T-93-33, prepared for University Research and Training Program, Office of Technical Assistance and Safety, Urban Mass Transportation Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C.: 67ff; David Lewis (1991), "Primer on Transportation, Productivity and Economic Development," Report 342, National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.: 8ff; Economics Research Associates (1996), "Economic Impact and Benefit/Cost of High Speed Rail for California," draft final report prepared for the California Intercity High Speed Rail Conunission: III .6. ECONorthwest (1996), "Benefit -Cost ofRTA Plan," report prepared for Washington Research Council Seattle, Wash.: 20; Glen Weisbrod and Burton Weisbrod (1997), "Assessing the Economic Impact of Transportation Projects: How to Match the Appropriate Technique to Your Project prepriot, TRB ID No. CK7009, Transportation Research Board, 76"' Annual Meeting, January 12-16, 1997, Washington, D.C.: 17; Puget Sound Regional Council (1996), "The Costs ofTransportation : Expendirures on Surface Transportation in the Central Puget Sound Region for 1995," Seattle, Wash.: 12. sECONorthwest (1996), Benefit-Cost of RTA Plan, report prepared for Washington Research Council, Seattle, Wash.: 20. 6 Florida Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged, "1995 Annual Performance Report," Tallahassee, Fla. 18
1 Florida Commission for the Transportatio n Disadvantaged, "1995 Annual Performance Report," Tallahassee, Fla; Federal T r ansit Administration, Fiscal Year 1995 National Transit Database Reports Washington, D.C. David Lewis (1991), "Primer on Transportation, Produ ctivity, and Economic Development," Report 342, National Cooperative Highway Rese arch Program Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.: ivv, 23; Glen Weisbrod and Burton Weisbrod (1997), "Assessing the Economic Impact of Transportatio n Projects: How to Match the Appropriate Technique to Your Project," preprint, TRB lD No. CK7009, Transportation Research Board, 76"' Annual Meeting, January 1 2-16 1997, Washington, D.C.: 4-5, 20; San Diego Association of Governments ( 1 996), "Economic Contributions of Public Transit in the San Diego Region," draft report, San Diego, Calif.: 5, 9 9 Cambridge Systematics, Inc., and Apogee Research, Inc. (1996), "Measuring and Valuing Transit Benefits and Disbenefits," Report 20, Transit Cooperative Research Program, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.: 16-17; San Diego Association of Governments (1996), "Economic Contributions of Pub l ic Transit in the San Diego Region," draft report, San Diego, Calif.: 5, 9. ECONorthwest (1996), "Benefit-Cost ofRTA Plan," report prepared for Washington Research Council, Seattle, Wash.: 7. 0 Glen Weisbrod and Burton Weisbrod (1997), "Assessing the Economic Impact of Transportation Projects: How to Match the Appropriate Technique to Your Project," preprint, TRB ID No. CK7009, Transportation Research Board, 76"' Annual Meeting, January 12-16, 1997, Washington, D.C.: 18; Kenneth A Small (1992) Urban Transportation Economics, Chur, S\vitzerland, Harwood Academic Publishers: 44; David Lewis (1991 ), "Primer on Transportation, Productivity and E conomic Development," Report 342, National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Transportation Research Board Washington, D.C.: 83. Edward Beimbom and Alan Horowitz with Julie Schuetz and Gong Zejun (1993), "Measurement of Transit Benefits," fmal report, OOT-T 93-33, prepared for University Research and Training Program, Office ofTechnical Assistance and Safety, Urban Mass Trans portation Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C.: 78; Cambridge Systematics, Inc., with V l ecides Schroeder Associates I nc Beatta Welsh and Ernest Sawyer Enterprises, Inc. (1995), '1nvestment in Public T ransportation : The Economic Impacts of the RT A System on the Regional and State Economies," final report prep;u-ed for Regional Transportation Authority, Chicago Ill: 3, 5; San Diego Association of Governments (1996), "Economic Contributions of Public Transit in the San Diego Region," draft report, San Diego, Calif.: 13; ECONorthwest (1996), "Benefit-Cost ofRTA Plan," report prepared for Washington Research Council, Seattle, Wash.: 16. 11 Center for Urban Transportation Research (1995), calculated from surveys o f transit riders conducted by CUTR and from Section 15 reports obtained from the transit systems 12 Ibid. 19
11 David Lewis and Michael O'Connor (1997), "Economic Value of Affordable Mobility," preprint, Paper No. 971093, Transportation Research Board, 76"' Annual Meeting Janwuy 1 2-16, 1997: 16. ($33. 7 billion consumer surplus for 7.2 billion trips.) "San Diego Association of Governments (1996) "Economic Contributions of Public Transit in the San Diego Region," draft report, San Diego, Calif.: 17-21. 20
References American Public Transit Associa t ion (I 983), 'The Economic Benefits of Public Transit." Washin gton, D.C. American Public Transit Assoc i ation (1983), "Employment Impacts ofTransit Capital Investment and Operating Expendi tures. Washington D.C. Aschauer, David Alan (!991), "Transportation Spending and Economic Growth: The Effects of Transit and Highway Expenditures." Report prepared for the American Public Transit Association, Washington D.C. ATE Management and Service Company (1972), "The Value of the Miami Valley Regional Trans it Authority: An Apprai sal." Report p repared for the Miami Valley Regional Tr ansit Authority, Dayton Ohio. ATE Management and Service Company (1975), "Economic Impact of Public Transit in Greater Chattanooga." Report prepared for Chattanooga Area Regional Transportat ion A u thority, Chattanooga, Tenn Baum, Mi lt on S. (1970), "Cost and Benefit Evaluation of the Sacramento Transit Authority. I n t erim Techni cal Report," No. 4, prepare d for Sacramento Transit Authority under an Urban Mass Transp ortation Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C. Beimborn, Edward, and Alan Horov.'itz, with Julie Schuetz, and Gong Zejun (1993), "Measuremen t o f Transit Benefits." Final Report, DOTT-93-33, prepared for University Research and Training Program, Office ofTechnical Assistance and Safety, Urban Mass Transportat i on Administration, U. S. Department of Transport ation, Washington D C Brockton Area Transit Authority (1994), "Brockton Area Transit Authority 1994 Economic Impact Study." Brockton, Mass. Bureau of Economic and Busi ne ss Research (1987), "The Economic Impact of the Utah Transit Authority: A Report to the Utah Transit Authority." U niversity of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah. Burggraf, Shirley P. (1984), "The Role of Public Trans it Systems in Economic Development Prospects for the Southeast." Report prepared for the Urban Mass Trans portation Administration, U.S Department of Transportation Washington, D .C. 21
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. (1995), "A Review of Methodologies for Assessing the Land Use and Economic Impacts ofTransit on Urban Areas." Report prepared for the Federal Transit Administration, U S Department ofTransportation, Washington, D.C. Cambridge Systematics Inc., with Vlecides-Schroeder Associates, Inc., Beatta Welsh, and Ernest Sawyer Enterprises, Inc. (I 995), "Investment in Public Transportation: The Economic Impacts of the RTA System on the Regional and State Economies." Final Report prepared for Regional Transportation Authority, Chicago, Ill. Cambridge Systematics, Inc., and Apogee Research, Inc. (1996), "Measuring and Valuing Transit Benefits and Disbenefits." Report 20, Transit Cooperative Research Program, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C. Camph, Donald H. (1997), "Dollars and Sense: The Economic Case for Public Transportation in America." Prepared for the Campaign for Efficient Passenger Transportation, Washington, D.C. Davis, Edward L. (1986), "MARTA: A Stimulant to Atlanta Development?" T ransportation Planning and Technology, 10: 241-256. ECONorthwest (1996), "Benefit-Cost ofRTA Plan." Report prepared for Washington Research Council, Seattle, Wash. Economics Research Associates (1996), "Economic Impact and Benefit/Cost of High Speed Rail for California." Draft final report prepared for the California Intercity High Speed Rail Commission. Federal Transit Administration (1996), "Fiscal Year 1995 National Transit Database Reports." Washington, D.C. Federal Transit Administration (N.D.), "1996 Report: An Update". Washington, D.C. Fjeldsted, Boyd ( 1988), "Economic Impact of the Utah Transit Authority,'' Utah Economic and Business Review, 48: 1-10. Florida Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged ( 1996), "1995 Annual Performance Report." Tallahassee, Fla. Gibson, Nicholas Steven (1979), "Economic Impacts of the MARTA Construction Program on the Atlanta Region and Georgia." Final Report, Project A-2263. Engineering Experiment Station, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Ga. 22
Harbridge House (1972), "The Economic and Social Impacts of Investments in Public Transit." Boston, Mass. Hickling Lewis Brod Inc. (1995) "Recent Research and Policy Perspectives on Transportation Investment and E conomic Growth." Prepared for the Federal Highway Administr ation Office of Policy, Washington, D.C. Hills, Peter J. (1996), "What is induced traffic?," in Transportation, 23: 5-16. Kluwer Academic Publishers, The Netherlands. Huang WilliamS. (1995) Transit and Regional Economic Growth: A Review of the Literature." Working Paper 310, University of Transportation Center, University of California, Berkeley, Calif. Laird, Douglas M. (1983), "An Input-Output Assessment of!ndirect Economic Benefits from Urban Rail Transit Improvements." Thesis (M.S.), Department of Civil Engineering, Washington University. Lee, Douglass B. (1981), "Evaluation of Economic and Development Impacts of Major Transit Investments," Transportation Research Record, 820: J-5. Lewis, David (1991), "Primer on Transportation, Productivity and Economic Development. Report 342, National Cooperative Highway Research Program, T ransportation Research Board Washington, D.C. Lewis, David, and Michael O'Connor (1997), "Economic Value of Affordable Mobility," Preprint, Paper No. 971093, Transportation Research Board, 76th Annual Meeting, January 12-16, 1997, Washington, D.C. Lomax, Timothy J., and Jeffery L. Memmott (1989) "Tbe Cost and Benefits of Urban Public Tr ansit in Texas." Research Report, 2003-1 F, prepared for Texas State Department of Highways and Public Transportation Transportation Planning Division. Texas Transportation Institute, the Texas A&M U niversity System, College Station, Tex. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (I 996), Economic Development Impacts of the Long Range Transportation Plan for Los Angeles County." Los Angeles, Calif. Mahdi Syed!. (1987), "Estimating the Constructio n Phase Impacts of U rban Mass Transit Projects." Urban Mass Transportation Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C. 23
McWilliams, Douglas (1994), "The Economic Benefits of Refurbishing the L ondon Underground," Public Transport International, 43: 16-19. Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission (1988), "Economic Impacts of COT A on Central." Ohio. Neuw irth, Roanne ( 1990), "Economic Impacts of Transit on Cities Transportation Research Record 1274: 142-149. Pioneer Valley Planning Commission (1996), "Economic Benefit and Impact S tudy." Final Report prepared for the Pioneer Valley Transit Authority, Springfield, Mass. Plant, Jeremy F. (1982), The Metrorail System: Its Impact on Virginia, University ofVirginia Newsletter, 59. Pucher, John and Ira Hirschman (1993), Path to Balanced Transportation. Rutgers University, New Brunswick, N.J. Puget Sound Regional Council (1996), "The Costs of Transportation: Expenditures on S urface. Transportation in the Central Puget Sound Region for 1995." Seatt le Wash. Rawson Mary (1983), "Transit, the Nature and Role of L ocalized Benefits: A Selected Annotated Bibliography." The Center for Transportation Studies, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C. Rickman, DanS, and R. Keith Schwer (1995), "A Comparison of the Multipliers of IMPLAN, REM!, and RIMS II: Benchmarking Ready-Made Models for Comparison," Annals of Regional Science 29: 363-374. San Diego Association of Governments ( 1996), "Economic Contributions of Public Transit in the San Diego Region." D raft Report, San Diego, Calif. Sheldon, Nancy W. (1973), "The Economic and Social Impact oflnvestrnents in Public Transit." Lexington, Mass., Lelcington Books. Small, Kenneth A. (1992), Urban Transportation Economics. Chur, Switzerland, Harwood Academic Publishers. Stranthman, James G (1983), "Economic Effect ofTri-Met's Operating and Capital Expenditures : FY 1983 on the Portland Metropolitan Economy." Report prepared for the Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District (Tri-Met). Center for Urban Studies, Portland Sta t e U niversity, Portland, Ore. 24
Stranthman, James G. (1987), "Regional Economic Impacts of Local Transit Financing Alternatives: Input-Output Results for Portland Discussion Paper, No. 87-1, Center for Urban Studies, Portland State University, Portland, Ore. Tippetts-Abbet-McCarthy-Stratton (1987), "Replacement/Transit Improv ement Study: Economic and Social Impacts, Phase JI." Technical Report prepared for Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority. Seatt lc,Wash. Tennessee Department of T ransportation (1982), "Costs and Benefits of Public Trans it in Tennessee's Urban Areas." Nashville, Tenn. Urban Institute, and Cambridge Systematics, Inc., with the Pennsylvania Economy League (1991), "The Economic Impacts of SEPTA on the Regional and State Economy." Final Report, DOT-T-92-02, prepared for the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission, under funding from Office of Grants Management, Urban Mass Transportation Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C. Watlerson, W. T. (1985), "Estimating Economic and Development Impacts ofTransit Investments." Pa per prepared for presentation at the Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting, January 14-17, 1995, Washington, D.C. Puget Sound Council of Governments. Weisbrod, Glen, and Burton Weisbrod (1997), "Assessing the Economic Impact of Transportation Projects: How to Match the Appropria t e Technique to Your Pro ject." Preprint, TRB 10 No. CK7009, Transportation Research Board, 76th Annual Meeting, January 12-16, 1997, Washington, D.C. Wilson, Steve (I 987), "Economics ofTransit." Staff Issue Paper No. 550-87-061 C Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities Area, St. Paul, Minn. Wolfgram, Mark J. (1983), "Costs and Benefits of Public Transit in Wisconsin," 1982: Technical Suppleme nt." Draft Report, Bureau of Policy Planning and Analysis, Wisconsin Department ofTransportation. These are the reports that the authors of this report found to be most relevant. 25