USF Libraries
USF Digital Collections

An analysis of the economic impacts of urban transit systems on Florida's economy

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
An analysis of the economic impacts of urban transit systems on Florida's economy
Physical Description:
ii, 31 leaves : ill. ; 28 cm.
Language:
English
Creator:
Florida -- Dept. of Transportation
Florida Transit Association
University of South Florida -- Center for Urban Transportation Research
Publisher:
University of South Florida, Center for Urban Transportation Research
Place of Publication:
Tampa, Fla
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Local transit -- Economic aspects -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Genre:
local government publication   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Bibliography:
Includes bibliographic references (p. 28-31).
Additional Physical Form:
Also issued online.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Center for Urban Transportation Research, College of Engineering, University of South Florida.
General Note:
"Prepared for Florida Department of Transportation, Florida Transit Association."
General Note:
"June 1997."
General Note:
Draft.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of South Florida Library
Holding Location:
University of South Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 025511223
oclc - 666855751
usfldc doi - C01-00297
usfldc handle - c1.297
System ID:
SFS0032373:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text
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 2200277Ia 4500
controlfield tag 001 025511223
005 20110909134905.0
008 100929s1997 flua l000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a C01-00297
035
(OCoLC)666855751
040
FHM
c FHM
043
n-us-fl
090
HE4487.F6
b A53 1997a
0 3 245
An analysis of the economic impacts of urban transit systems on Florida's economy /
by Center for Urban Transportation Research, College of Engineering, University of South Florida.
260
[Tampa, Fla. :
University of South Florida, Center for Urban Transportation Research,
1997].
300
ii, 31 leaves :
ill. ;
28 cm.
500
"Prepared for Florida Department of Transportation, Florida Transit Association."
5 FTS
"June 1997."
FTS
Draft.
FTS
504
Includes bibliographic references (p. 28-31).
530
Also issued online.
FTS
650
Local transit
x Economic aspects
z Florida.
1 710
Florida.
Dept. of Transportation.
2
Florida Transit Association.
University of South Florida.
Center for Urban Transportation Research.
773
t Center for Urban Transportation Research Publications [USF].
4 856
u http://digital.lib.usf.edu/?c1.297
FTS
y USF ONLINE ACCESS
951
10
SFU01:002323435;
FTS



PAGE 1

An Analysis of the Economic Impacts of" Urban Transit Systems on Florida's Economy Prepared for Florida Department of Transportation Florida Transit Association By Center for Urban Transportation Research College of Engineering University of South Florida June 1997

PAGE 2

Table of Contents Execu tive Swnmary ............ ............................... .... . ........ I Introduction .......... ............. ....... .................................. 2 Flo rida's Tr ansit Systems ... ..... . . .......................... ...... .... 2 Economic Impacts ................................................. .......... 3 Impacts Not Quantified ................ . ............................. ...... 3 Land-Use Im pacts . ....... ......................................... ...... 3 Contingency Transportation ...... . ........................ ... . ............ 4 Business Productivity . . . .............................. ............... ... 4 Tourism and Special Events. ...................................... ........ .. 4 Impacts Quantified ................... .............. ... . ................... ... 5 Transit User Benefits ....... ... .................. ............. .............. 5 Highway User Benefits ................................................ ...... 6 Tran sportation Disadvantaged Program Savings ................. ... ..... ......... 6 Economic Output and Employment ...... ............................ ........... 7 Transit Dependent E m ployment ....... ..................................... 7 Summary . . .... ........ .. . . ........... ....... .... ..... . ...... 9 Appendices ........................ .................. ... . ................... 12 Appendix A: Consumer Surplus Calculation ............. .... ................. 12 Appendix B: Transportation Disadvantaged Program Savings Calculation ............. 16 Appendix C: Economic Output and Employment Calculation ......... .............. 18 New Funds .... .... . ...... .......... ....... .................. 18 Multipliers ............................................................ 19 Appendix D: Transit Dependent E mployment Calculation .............. ...... : ... 20 Data .................. ... ... ................... . ................ . 22 Calcula tion Steps ..................... ................................. 23 Endnotes ......... .... ................. . ....... ........ ............... 28 Bibliography ........ ... .................................................... 31 I

PAGE 3

Li s t o f Tab les Table AI Actual and Simulated Trip Patterns for Journey-to-Work Trips Aris in g from Massive Red u ctions in Transit in F lorida ........ ..... ... ... 14 Table B-1 1995 Savings of T r ansferring TD trips from Paratransit From Paratransit to Fixed Route . ................. ................ ........ 17 Table C-1 Average Annua l Transit Expenditures of New Federal DoUars (thousands of 1995 do ll ars) ..... . .... ............ .......... ...... .... 18 Table C-2 RIMS II Total Final-Demand Multip li ers .... ............ .......... ....... 19 Table D-1 Impacts Related to Transit-Dependent Workers (1995 do ll ars) .................................. . ....... ......... 20 Tab l e D-1 Impacts Related to T ransit-Dependent Workers ( 1 995 do ll ars) ................. .... . ..... . .... ................ ... 21 Tab leD-2 Transi t On-Board Surveys: Households without Vehicles and Househo l d Income Distribution for Comniuters .... 22 Table D-3 1 990 Cen sus Data: Workers, Mode Splits, and MultiWorker House h o l ds . ........ 23 TableD-4 1990 Census Data: Percentages of Households Owning Zero Vehicle and Owning One Vehic l e by Househo l d Inco m e L evel ................... .... . . 24 Table D-5 Calculation Steps: One through Five . ................... ................. 26 Table D-6 Cal culation Steps: Six through Eight .............. .......... .......... 27 .. 11

PAGE 4

An Analys i s of the Eco n omic Impacts of Urban Transit Systems on F l orida's Eco n omy Exec u tive S u mmary Public trans i t fulfills many social needs and is considered an essential urban service in the larger cities, but it also makes significant economic co ntrib utions to th e state of Florida. These contributions are distributed direct l y and indirectly among all residents of the state, i n cluding those who choose not to ride public transit and those who reside in areas where there is no transit serv 1 ce This report provides an objective anal ysis of these economic contributions There is no standard m ethodology for such an analysis and previous attempts to quantify th ese economic impacts have varied gJeatly in their approaches. However, in the mot:e objective research, certain standards aJ:e 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 must be considered (e.g., jobs created by spending public money in one sector of th e economy aJ:e essent ially of no more value than jobs created by spending the same money in another sector). The basic premise of objective transportation econo mic 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. The economic benefits measured in this report--wh ich 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 of provid ing transit: Transit User Benefits $495 million L ocal Governme n t Cost Highway User Benefits 12 million State Government Cost TD Program Savings 110 million Federal Government Cost Increased Income 83 milli!ln Total Benefit $700 million Total Cost The extent to which user benefits exceed user costs (fares, etc.) Docs not include income of transit-dependent persons. $193 million 68 million 126 million $387 milli on Also included in the report is a discussion of other transit impacts to which it is difficult to assign dollar values, but which have positive economic benefits for the state. I

PAGE 5

An Analysis of the Economic Impacts of Urban Transit Systems on Florida's Economy Introduction The Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR) was asked by the Florida Department of Transportation and the Florida Transi t 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 transi t plays a role 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 economies, but none has attempted to measure the total impact of a state's transit industry. We were able to quantify with a high degree of confidence only a portion of the total economic benefits of transit. That portion alone, however, provides compelling evide nce that transit, along with highways and other modes of transportation, 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. Brevard County Duval County Hillsborough County Lakeland Orange/Osceola/ Seminole Counties Sarasota County Broward County Escambia County Indian River County L ee County Palm Beach County Tallahassee Dade County Gainesville Key West Manatee County Pinellas County Volusia County In addition, there is a heavy-rail transit 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 Hillsboroug h counties In 1995, these transit system s had a total service-area population of o ver 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 2

PAGE 6

million ($39 million state and local, and $86 iilillioii federal) in 1995 dollars. Economic Impacts The direct economic impacts of transit service are experienced primarily by the users of transit and by th e users of highways. These direct impacts ripple through the ec onomy w1til they, at least indirectly, are felt by all of us. In this report, we measur e the direct impacts and discuss some of the indirect and other impacts that are not easily measured. There are numerous economic benefits experienced by users of transit, such as avoiding the use of taxicabs or the cost of owning an automobile. Th e benefits experienced by persons who continue to use the highway system are a little less obvious. Since transit removes some automobile drivers from the highway, it frees up some highway capacity, and, at least initially, improves the highway leve l of service. If no new drivers use this freed-up capacity, the economic benefit to highway users is the reduced travel time, reduced vehicle operating costs, and reduced accident costs that result from reduced congestion. In most urban areas particularly 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 somewhat 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 posit ion that in the urban areas of Florida, a s automobile drivers switch to transit, new drivers take the i r place on the urban road network. There are a number of other ec onomic benefits often attributed to transportation im provements, but the extent to which they are true benefits is Jess 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 improvements and the difficulty in determining true cause and effect? 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, describe these potential other benefits in the next section. To the extent that these other benefits are real and are attributable to transit, our i mpact estimates are understated. Impacts Not Quantified It generally is acknowledged that transit impacts or attributes include the following and that these impacts have positive though probably unquantifiable, economic benefits. Land-Use 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 3

PAGE 7

usually is argued that higher densities are les s costly to serve with public infrastructure. Occasionally, however, it also has been argued that traditional radial transit actually encourages urban sprawl. On balance, depending u pon 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 transit, such as the rail system in Dade County, 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 gene rally of having that option available For the individual, that value may be realized when one's car is in the shop or when for other reasons the individual wishes not to drive. For the community, transit may provide an essential service in times of natural disasters, as was the case in Miam i 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 labo r 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 indcpepdent and to participate more fully i n 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 improved air quality, reduced accidents, and reduced automobile operating costs experienced by transit use rs are captured in the calculation of transit users benefits in the next section. The value of the employment benefits and the accompanying reduced public welfare costs are included in the transit-dependent employment impacts calculated in the following section. The value of transit's impact on highway congestion is captured in the calculation of highway user benefits in the subsequent section. 4

PAGE 8

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 o f transi t 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 resu l t 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. T he savings i n the cost of the state's transportation disadvantaged program that results from the u se 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 o f transit-dep e nden t persons also is quantified in terms of jobs, earnings, and gross state product. The economic benefit of this impact is in part, captured in 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 transi t to the users is to measure the difference between the fare that riders pay and the value that they place on th e 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 laces 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 rece i ve service that he values at $10 for only $1. This 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 (This example makes the simplifying assumption that the person values a trip by transit and a trip by taxicab equally. Although that is unli kely to be the case, the basic concept is the same.) This consumer surplus is measured by using a travel demand model to conduct simulations of travel choices. The cost of travel (i.e., travel time) is increased in the model to determine at what price b u s riders will switch to other modes. The difference between the current price they pay and the price at which they switch is then added up to get total consumer surplus. 'Vhen this is done for Florida, we estimate that the consumer surplus just for work trips made on transit is $299 million per year Wor k trips are the most highly valued transit trips, i.e ., they have the highest consumer surplus, but they accoun t for only about 40 percent of all transi t trips. We estimate the consumer surplus for the remaining 60 percent of transit trips (e.g. medical, 5

PAGE 9

shopping, education, and social/recreation trips) to be $196 million for a total conswner 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 --i f the highway 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 CUTR, 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, a lternatively frees up that much highway capacity for new highway trips. Est imate s of the cost of highway congestion, or conversely, the value to the traveler of a new trip on the highway vary from 3 to I 7 per vehicle mile.' A 1996 study in Seattle estimated the average value of new highways trips as 10 per vehicle mile.' This value refers to the value that a person places on a marginal trip that currently is forgone (because the congestion cost will 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 Flo rida. This means that removing 118 million vehicle miles of travel from the highway system has 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. A variety of agencies fund trips for transportation disadvantaged persons in the state of Florida In 1995, a total of 28.7 million transportation disadvantaged trips were provided to persons in Florida by public transportation, and 11.8 million of those trips were provided by fixed-route transit.' F ixed-rou te transit has proven to be a lower cost alternative compared to paratransit modes of transportation such as taxicabs and shared vans. I n response to this cost difference, many sponsoring agencies are encouraging clients to use fixed-ro ute transit. In 1995, 14 counties in F lorida recorded fixed-route trips taken by transportation disadvantaged persons. I n 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 th ose 14 counties of$10.08, a $9.34 difference.' With agency 6

PAGE 10

clients taking fixed-route trans it in place of paratransit, sponsoring agencies reduced costs for those 11.8 million trips by $110.3 million in 1995. 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 resu l t in any fewer federal dollars coming into the state. Therefore, the entire savings is shown as a savings to the state of F lorida. (Sec Appendix B for calculation deta ils.) More counties are investigating the possibility of using fixed-route services for transportation disadvantaged trips and the number of trips provided through fixed-route trans it --and the corresponding savings realized--will most likely increase in the future. Economic Output and Employment Gross state p r oduct (GSP) which is the usual measure of a state's economic output, i s 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 spen t on t ransit has to come from some other sector of the economy that other sec t or's contribution to GSP is decreased. If funds for transi t ciome from the private sector through taxation, private sector investment is reduced and private sector output and employment decreases. If funds for transit come from the public sector, public sector investment in othe r p u blic p r ojects is reduced and public sector outp u t and employ ment for those other public projects decreases. The net impact on output and emplo yment 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 variety 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. 1 Howev er, it is a different matter if funds for transit come from out of state and would not come into the state if there were 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 receiv ing $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--ca u ses Florida's total annual economic output (i.e. gross state product) to in crease by $150.5 million and results in 2,477 permanent new j obs and $83.1 million in increased earnings. (See Appendix C for calculation details.) 7

PAGE 11

Transit Dependent Employment In addition to the new job s described above, tliere are an estimated 17,450 transit-dependent Floridians who would lose their jobs if they did not have transit service, and spending by these workers supports another 4,200 jobs The loss of these 21,650 jobs would result in a l oss of$310 million in annual income This information is included here and the methodology is e>tplained in Appendi>t D because the earnings of transit-dependent persons often are shown as a benefit in transit economic-impact studies. 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 functio n 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 t o 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. ln times of full employment, the benefit to the economy of retaining transit-dependent employees is greatest because the loss of workers would have to be addressed by relatively expensive measures, such as paying the remaiiring emp lo yees for overtime or relocating empl oyees. 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 have been iucluded in this report s summary of transit's impact on the Florida economy. However, for comparison w ith other studies that do quantify the earnings of transit dependent persons, the method of quantify in g these impacts is shown in Appendix D. 8

PAGE 12

Sum m ary A partial list of urban transit's contributions to Florida's economy include: serving as a catalyst for higher density development. provid ing contingency transportation for automobile drivers. increasing business productivity promoting tourism provid ing a variety of mobility benefits to transit users. increasing highway capacity. reducing the cost of the state s transportation disadvantaged (TO) program. attracting new federal dollars to the state Some of these economic impacts are impossible to quantify in a meaningful way although they are nonetheless of significant economic value to the state. The annual impacts that could be quantified for 1995 with a high degree of confidence in this study are: Mobility benefits to transit users (minus user costs) $495 million Increased highway capacity $ 12 million Reduced cost of state's TO program $110 million Increased income due to new federal dollars $ 83 million This partial list of annual economic benefits to both users and non-users of transit totals $700 million, which compares with a public cost of$387 million in 1995. Clearly, urban transit is a good investment for the state of F l orida. 9

PAGE 13

Appendices Appendix A: Consumer Surplus Calciiliition One technique used to measure the ben efits 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 morr than others for a particular good or service. T he difference between willingness to pay for different l evels 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 i s reduced to extre mely low levels of ridership-nearly zerothis calculation shows the approximate dollar value to society of having access to public transit. To calculate this value a statistical model of home-to-work travel behavior in Florida was constructed usi n g the 1990 Census Transportation Plarming Package. Data were extracted at the geographic level of place, referring to incorporated municipalities, named unincorporated places, and the rema ind er 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/elevated rail, railroad and ferry trips + walk, bike, and other (WBO) included walk bicycle, and other trips The statewide version of the Census data included the number of trips and reported travel times between respective origins and workplace destinations in Florida, along with additional informa tion about the residential characteristics of origins and the workplace characterist ics 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 lace 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 resembling 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 equal to 99 minu tes, an assumed upper limit for the journey to work This is similar to the "culling" process in traffic models in which local trips of long duration are assumed away, and a large travel time on the order of 100 minutes is used to represent a cutoff value that attenuates the geographic scope of the model. 10

PAGE 14

When tbe data were assembled travel behavior was modeled using logistic mode split curves for each of the four transportation modes. Large-scale transportation planning models such as the Urban Transportat i on Planning Package, Florida Standard Urban Transportation Modeling 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 direct, dollar costs of travel. Trave l 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 n ominal factor of 2,080 hours (52 weeks per year x 40 hours per week) worked per year. (This is similar to using o ne-half of the prevailing wage rate, as recommended by the Federal Trans it Administration and others.10) Thus, the value of travel time in an area with an annual mean income of $20,800, for example, would be 0.5($20,800/2,800 hours) = $5 per hour. If a transit trip took 30 minu tes with a fare of$0.70, the "price" of that trip would be $2.50 for the cost o f time plus $0.70 in direct cost, or a total of $3.20 The utility model used in this analysis is given as: where: S;xy a;. b; exp(z) 1 represents the share of trips carried by mode "i" between origin "x" and destination yn; represents the utility' of traveling distance Dxy miles via the i-th mode at unit price P; per mile; represent coefficients that determine the shape of the modal split curves; represents the natural base, e = 2.71.. ... raised to the power z ; and "x" 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 teclmique in the TSP microcomp uter statistical analysis progrant. 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 all places) and two variants of coverage (entire state with 20,727 observations, places with existing transit ridership with I ,94 1 observations) were examined with this statistical analysis. Model variants estimated over tbe entire state calibrated and validated successfully over all four methods of measuring the value of time. The models based on places with existing transi t 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 existing ridership and constant ($5 or $10) hourly values of time neither calibrated or validated 11

PAGE 15

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 relatiwly 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 simulations were performed to determine the transportation impacts ofreduced 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 increased with higher values of travel time in the simulation. This process was repeated w1til transit usc declined by 100,000 trips, reducing transit to less tlian one half of one percent of total trips, statistically not different from zero. This approach leads to a conservative estimate of the 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-1, below. Table A-t Actual and Simulated Trip Patterns for Journey-to-Work Trips 829,428 14.60"/o 920,152 16.20% 127,512 2.24% 25,651 0.45% 4.33% 3.90% Please note the changes in both the nwnber 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 walk, bike, and other category, suggesting that public transit serves as a backup niode for these trips in the case of emergencies or incleme nt weather. 12

PAGE 16

Consumer surplus was calculated on the basis of the FTAIUMTA formu la: Consumer Surplus= (P old P new)X(Qold + Qnew)/2 where P is the price of transit as defmed above and Q refers to the number of trips made by transit. The calcu la ted econom i c 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 average 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, assw ni ng that consumer surpl u s per trip is constant over time, the consumer surplus for the 67,231,818 total work trips" in 1995 (fwm home to work and fwm 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. Using that relationship reduces the consumer surplus for n on work trips to $2.22 per trip, which results in consumer surplus for non-work trips of: 99,816,980 non-work trips12 x $2.22 = $222,092,780. Fwm the 1995 total of$299,181,590 + $222,092 780 = $521,274,370 must be subtracted the cons u mer surplus attributed in the model to the trips made on fixed-route transit by transportat i on disadvantaged ( TO) persons whose trips are paid for by third parties, such as t h e Medicaid program. This is because these TD persons have, for practical purposes, zero consumer surplus on fixed -ro ute transit because the alternative mode (demand-responsive service) provides a similar service at no inc rease 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 surp lus of$2.22 per trip is used to make this calculation, which is: J 1,816,827 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 s urplus of$494,981,930. This gives an average consumer surplus of$2.96 per trip, which appears to be a conservative es t ima te when compared to the $4.68 per trip calculated in a recent national 13

PAGE 17

Appendix B: Transportation Disadvafttliged 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 ofFlorida. In 1995,28,657,449 transportation disadvantaged trips were provided to persons in Florida, and 11,816,827 of those trips were provided by fixed route trans it. Fixed-route transit has proved to be a lower-cost alternative com pared to paratransit modes of transportation such as taxicabs and shared vans. In response to this cost difference, many sponsoring agencies are encouraging cl.ients to use fixed-route transit. In 1995, 14 counties in Florida recorded fixed-rout e trips taken by transportation disadvantaged persons. In these coWlties, the average fare for a fixed-route trip was $0.74. T his 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. 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. 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 $110 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 services for transportation disadvantaged trips. Therefore, the number of trips provided through fixed route transit will most likely increase in the future. 14

PAGE 18

Tabl c B-1 1 99 5 Savings ofTralisf etnrtg Ti> trips from P aratransit Par a trans it to F ixed Ront e $6 .82 904,712 $0. 4 9 $1.77 $8.99 10 397 ,02 6 $0.78 $2.21 $10.24 75, 975 $0. 4 7 $2.33 $7.20 19, 756 $0.51 $2 29 $8 .84 8,605 $0 .14 SJ.13 $8.45 49,881 $0 .44 S2.37 $12 .20 24,136 $0.36 $2.29 $9.04 71,354 S().76 $2.28 $8.06 22,2 59 S().61 $3.91 $4.52 111,492 $0.43 $1.91 $9.14 $ 1 ,601,340.24 $8 1 33,360.88 $7, 690,052 00 $22,977 427.46 $106,465,546 24 $98,355,865 96 $177 ,021.75 $54 7,020.00 $511,311.75 $45,241.24 $ 1 74,643.0 4 5164,567 .48 $26,928.77 572,712.25 $71, 497.04 S118 217 .9l $608 5 4 8 20 $ 5 86.600.56 $55, 2 71.44 $218,189.44 $209 500 .48 $162,687.12 $57 5,113.24 $520,884 20 $87 032.69 $100,610 .68 $87,032 69 $2 1 2 949.72 51, 019, 036.88 $971, 095. 3 2 $101,464.53 $700 037.16 $075,522. 24 Sou rce: F l orida Commission Federa l Trans i t Administration, Fiscal Year 1995 Transit Databas e Reports. 1 5 $44 3,308.88 $8,109,680 28 $35 ,708.25 $ 1 0,075.56 $1,215.2 1 $21 ,947.64 $8,688 .96 $54,229.04 $13,577 .99 $47 941.56 $6,532,020 .64 $83 488 ,118.78 $369 998 25 $129 401.80 $45,783.48 $490,330. 2 3 $162,9 1 8 00 $412 426.12 $13,577.99 $806 087.16 $598,572 .63

PAGE 19

Appendix C: Economic Output aiid Employment Calculation New Federal Funds Table C-1 shows the federal funds that would not come into the state if there where no fixed route transit. These new federal funds include both new federal capital funds and new federal operating funds. They are based on National Transit Data Base (l\1TDB) Fonns 103 and 203, respectively. Table C-1 Average Annual Transit Expenditures of New Federal Dollars $36,161 $13 ,665 $31,694 $4,250 The NTDB uses three categories for total federal capital funds in Ponn I 03: funds received from PTA (line 4), funds received from other USDOT grant programs (line 5), and other federal funds (line 6). It is assumed tbat funds received from other USDOT grant programs or other federal funds would still come to F l orida under the scenario of no urban transit service. Thus, it is assumed that capital funds received from FTA are new federal funds. These funds for each transit operator are allocated to the three categories of capital expenditure according to the distribution of its total capital expenditures among these categories, as shown in Table C-1. The NTDB uses two categories for total federal operating funds: funds from FTA Urbanized Area Fonnula Program (line 32) and funds from other federal programs (line 33). [tis assumed that funds from other federal programs would come to the state even under the scenario of no transit se rvice, and that funds from the PTA Urbanized Area Po nnu la Program are new federal operating funds. For each operalor, the funds from the FTA Urbanized Area Formula Program are allocated to labor and other expenditures accord ing to the distribution of its total operating expenditures between these two categories 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 expend i tures tend to be lwnpy, 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

PAGE 20

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 2 0388 All rolling stock is asswned 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 asswnption 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 particu lar proportion of rolling stock expenditures that remains in Florida. The mul tiplier anal ysis 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 i n 1995 dollars. 17

PAGE 21

Appendix D: Transit Dependent Employment Calculation Transit-dependent workers are defined in this report as workers who have no veh ic les availab l e and regularly use transit for commuting to work. In 1995, there were about 45,60 0 transit depe n dent workers in F l orida urbanized areas served by p u blic transit. These workers are most dep en dent on transit service. Shutting down urban public transit would send these workers scrambling for alternative means of transportation to work. Those who are willing able to make necessary adjustments to find an alternative would remain employed Some of these would walk long distances or ride a bicycle, and others would join family, friends, or co-workers for a ri de. Others having the requisite financial means would buy or lease a vehicle. Some would even change residence and/or job locations in the lon g run. About 62 percen t of transit-dependent workers are resourceful enough to make such adjustm ent s." The remaining 38 percent of trans i t-depe\ldent workers or 17,450, how ever, are n ot as resourceful as the others in finding alternative means of transportation to work or acquiring a vehicle. They are likely to become unemployed temporarily or drop o u t of the labor force altogether. Among them about 7,500 would not be able to afford a s ingl e vehicle for their household. For the other 9,950 workers, a single vehicle i s affordable but would be used by other household members. The direct contribution of these 17,450 workers to the Flo rida economy is estimated at $225 million annually, excludi n g m u ltipli e r effects. This is based on an average yearly earnings of $12 904 per transit-dependent wor ker, which is about half the statewide average earnings per worker. Spending by these workers supports an additional 4,200 jobs, $85 million in earnings, and $52 million in statewide gross sales. The total impacts related to transit-dependent workers are 21,650 jobs, $310 million in earnings, and $277 mill i on in statewide gross sales as shown i n Table D-1. The port ion of the i nc reased earnings that is captured in the calculation of transit use r benefits is estimated using an average consumer swplus of$4.31 per trip and an average of 2 wor k trips per day for 255 days per year, which results in total consumer surplus of $47.6 mi llion so that the net benefit from increased income is $262 million. Table D 1 Impac t s Related to TransitDependent Workers 21,650 $310 $225 $85 $277 $22 5 $52 18

PAGE 22

The calculation of lost income to transit dependent workers and its impacts on the Florida economy was done in I 0 steps, with data ftoin traiisit on-board surveys and the 1990 Census. The data used are shown first, followed by an explanation of the steps Data Tran sit on-board surveys were used to derive the percentage of commuters who have no vehic l es available and the distribution of commuters by household income. Table D-2 shows the data. Table D-2 Transit On Board Surveys: Households without Vehicles and Household Income Distribution for Commuters The 1990 Census was also used to derive information b y urbanized area on the numbe r of workers, transit modal split, the percentage of workers who commute with modes other than transit or driving along, the percentage of households that have more than one worker, the percentage of workers whose households have no vehicles by l evels of household income, and the percentage of workers whose households have one vehicle by levels of household income. The deta i ls are shown in Tables D 3 and D-4. 19

PAGE 23

Table D-3 1990 Census Data: Workers, Mode Splits, The number of workers in 1995 for each urbanized area was derived from the number of workers iu I 990 for each urbanized area from the 1990 Census and a statewide growth of 1 1.4 percent iu the number of workers from 1990 to 1995. The "non SOV or transit split'' represents the percentage of workers who regularly, walk or ride a bicycle. Calculation Steps The 10 steps are stated below. The first eight steps calculate the number oflostjobs to transit dependent workers The last two steps calculate the lost incom e and its impacts on the Florida economy. Step 1. Compute the number of workers who regularly use public transit for commuting: 117,152. This is done by multiplying the total number of wor kers by the percentage of workers who regularly use transit for commuting. Step 2. Compute the number of workers who regularly use transit but have no vehicle available : 45,639. This is done by multiplying the percentage of work trips with n o vehicles ava ila b l e by the number from Step J. 20

PAGE 24

TableD-4 1990 Census Data: of Households Owning Zero Vehicle and Step 3. Compute the number of workers who would carpool, walk, ori"ide a bicycle for commuting: 9,208. This is done by multiplying the number from Step 2 by the percentage of workers who regularly carpool, walk, or ride a bicycle which is from the 1990 Census. Step 4. Compute the number of workers for whom acquiring vehicles seems to be the only alternative to transit: 36,431. This is done by subtracting the number from Step 3 from the number from Step 2. Step 5. Compute th e number of workers whose househol d can afford a vehicle: 17,806. This is d one by applying the income distribution of work trips (from on-board surveys) and the percentage of households owning one vehicle by income level (from 1990 Census) to the number from Step 4. Step 6. Compute the number of workers whose household can afford a vehicle but the vehicle is unavailable to them: 9,954. This is done by multiplying t he total number of workers whose household can afford one vehicle from Step 5 by the percentage of households with two or more workers (from 1990 Census). 2 1

PAGE 25

Step 7. Compute the number of workers whose household is unable to afford a vehicle: 7,483. This is done by applying the household-income distribution of work trips and the percentage of households owning zero vehicles to the number from Step 4. Step 8. Compute the n umber of direct lost jobs to transit-dependent workers: 17,437. This is done by adding the number of workers whose households cannot afford any vehicle or whose households can afford one vehicle but the vehicle is unavailable to them. Step 9. Compute the amount of direct lost income to transit-dependent workers: $225 millions in 1995 dollars. This is done by multiplying the number of direct lost jobs by the average annual earnings per worker who regu lar ly uses transit for commuting Step I 0. Compute the indirect impacts on the direct lost income and jobs to transit dependent workers on the Florida economy. This is done by applying RIMS II m ultipliers to the direct impacts Table D-5 shows the details for steps 1-5. Table D-6 shows the details for steps 6-8. Steps 9 and 1 0 involve additional information. The 1995 average annual earnings per worker who regularly uses transit for commuting was used to calculate the direct lost income to transit dependent workers from the number of direc t lost jobs from Step 8. This average annual earnings, $ 12 ,904, is about half of that for all workers. Also, statewide RlMS II multipliers were used to calculate the indirect impacts of the direct lost income on the F lorida economy. These multipliers are 18.7244 for employment, 0.3 777 for earnings, and 1 .2293 for output. 22

PAGE 26

23

PAGE 27

Tabh i D-6 24

PAGE 28

Endnotes I. ECONorthwest (1996), BetrefitCost of RTA Plan report prepared for Washington Research Council, 1301 Fifth Avenue, Sui te 2&10, Seattle, WA 98101: 1 9-20,22-23. 2. David Lewis (1991 ), Primer on Transportation, Productivity and Ec onomic Development, Report 342, National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Transportation Research Board Washington, D.C.: iv-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 lD No. CK7009, Tran s portation Researc h Board, 7& Annua l Meeting, January 12-16, 1997, Washington D .C.: 11-13. Cambridge Systematics Inc., and Apogee Rese arch, I n c (1996), Measuring and Valuing Transit Benefits and Dis benefits Report 20; T ransit Cooperative Research Program Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.: 18-21. ECONorthwest (1996), Benefit-Cost of RTA Plan, report prepared for Washington Research Council 1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2810 Seattle, WA 98101: 5-6, 1 5, 33ff. Puget Sou n d Regional Council (1996), The Costs of T ransportation: Expenditures on Surface Transportation in the Central Puget Sound Region for I 99 5, Sea tt le, Washington: 13. 3 Edward Beimbom and A lan Horowitz with J ulie Schuetz and Gong Zejun (1993), Measurement ofTransit Benefits, final report, DOT-T 93-33, prepared f or University Researc h and Training Program, Office ofT echnical Assistance and Safety, Urban Mass Transportation Administration, U.S. Department ofTransportation, Washington, D.C.: 67ff. David Lewis ( 1 991), Primer on Transportation, Productivity and Economic Development, Report 342, National Cooperative H ighway Research Program, Transportation Research Board Washington, D.C.: 8ff E conomics Research Associates (1996), Economic Impact and Benefit/Cost of High Speed Rail for California draft final re port pr e pared for the California Intercity High Speed Rail Commission: III.6. 4. ECONorthwest (1 996), Benefit Cost of RTA Plan, report prepared fo r Washington Research Council, 1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2810, Seattle, WA 98101: 20. Glen Wei sbrod and Burton Weisbrod (I997) Assessing the Economic Impact of Transportation Projects: How to Match the Appropriate Technique to Your Project, pr eprint TRB ID No. CK7009, TransportatiQn Research Board, 7& Annual Meeting, January 12-16, 1997, Washin gton, D.C.: 17. 25

PAGE 29

Puget Sound Regional Council {1996), The Costs ofTransportation: Expenditures on Surface Transportation in ihe Central Puget Sound Region for 1995, Seattle, Washington: 12. 5. ECONorthwest (1996), Benefit-Cosi of RtJ Plan, report prepared for Washington Research Council, 1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite2810, Seattle, WA 98101:20. 6. Florida Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged, 1995 Annual Performance Report, Tallahassee Florida. 7. Florida Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged, 1995 Annual Performance Report, Tallahassee, Florida. Federal Transit Administration, Fiscal Year 1995 National Transit Database Reports. 8. David Le\viS (1991), Primer on Transportation, Productivity and Economic Development, Report 342, National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.: iv-v, 23. 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.: 4-5,20. San Diego Association of Governments (1996), Economic Contributions of Public Transit in the San Diego Region, draft report, 401 B Street, Suite 800, San Diego, CA 92101: 5, 9. 9. Cambridge Systematics, Inc., and Apogee Research, Inc. (1996), Measuring and Valuing Transit Benefits and Disbenejlts, Report 20, Transit Cooperative Research Program, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.: 16-17. San Diego Association of Governments (1996), Economic Contributions of Public Transit in the San Diego Region, draft report, 401 B Street, Suite 800, San Diego, CA 92101: 5, 9. ECONorthwes t (1996), Benefit-Cost of RTA Plan, report prepared for Washington Research Council, 1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2810, Seattle, WA 98101: 7 10. 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, 7& Annual Meeting January 12-16, 1997, Washington, D.C.: 18. Kenneth A. Small (1992) Urban Transportation Economics, Chur, Switzerland, Harwood Academic Publishers: 44. 26

PAGE 30

David Lewis (1991), Primer on Transportation, Productivity and Economic Development, Report 342 Nationa l Cooperative Highway Research Program, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.: 83. Edward Beimbom and Alan with Julie Schuetz and Gong Zejun (1993), Measurement ofTransit Benefits, final report, DOT-T-93-33, prepared for U niversity Research and Tr aining Program, Office of Technica l Assistance and Safety, Urban Mass Transportation Administration, U .S. Departme n t of Transportation, Washington D.C.: 78. Cambridge Systematics Inc., with Vlecides-Schroeder Associates, Inc., Beatta Welsh and Ernest Sawyer Enterprises, Inc. (1995) Investment in Public Transportation: The Economic Impacts of the RTA System on the Regional and State Economies, fmal report prepared for Regional Transportation Authority, Chicago Illinois: 3, 5. San Diego Association of Governments (1996), Economic Contributions of Public Transit in the San Diego Region, draft report, 401 B Street, Suite 800, San Diego CA 92101: 13. ECONorthwest (1996), Benefit-Cost of RTA Plan, report prepared for Washington Research Council, 1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 281 0, Seattle, WA 98101: 16. II. Center for Urban Transportation Research (1995) calculated from surveys of transit riders conducted by C UTR and from Section 15 reports obtained from th e transit systems. 12. Ibid. 13. David Lewis and Michael O'Connor (1997), Economic Value of Affordable Mobility pr eprint Paper No. 97 1 093, Transportation Research Board, 76"' Annual Meeting, January 12-1 6, !997: 16. ($33.7 bill i on consumer surplus for 7 2 billion trips.) 1 4. San Diego Association of Governments (1996), Economic C ontributions of Public Transit in the San Diego Region, draft report, 40 I B Street, Suit e 800, San Diego, CA 92101: 17-21. 27

PAGE 31

Bibliography American Public Transit Association (1983), The Economic Benefits of Public Transit. 1225 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036. American Public Transit Association (1983), Employment Impacts of Transit Capital Investment and Operating Expenditures. 1225 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036. Aschauer, David Alan ( 1991), Transportation Spending and Economic Growth : The Effects of Transit and Highway Expenditures. Report prepared for the American Public Transit Association, 1225 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036. ATE Management and Service Company (1972), The Value of the Miami Valley Regional Transit Authority: An Appraisal. Report prepared for the Miami Valley Regional Trans it Authority Dayton Ohio. ATE Management and Service Company (1975) Economic lmpoct of Public Transit in Greater Chattanooga Report prepared for Chattanooga Area Regional Transportation Authority Chattanooga, Tennessee. Baum, Milton S. (1970) Cost ond Benefit Evaluation of the Sacramento Transit Authority. Interim Technical Report, No. 4, prepared for Sacramento Transit Authority, under an Urb a n Mass Transportation A dministration U S Department ofTransportation Beimbom, Edward, and Alan Horowitz, with Julie Schuetz, and GongZejun (1993), Measurement of Transit Benefits Final Report, DOT -T -93-33, prepared for U niversity Research and Trai ning l'rogram, Office of Technical Assistance and Safety, Urban Mass Transportation Administration, U.S. Department ofTransportation, Washington, D.C. Brockton Area Transit Authority ( 1994), Brockton Area Transit Authority 1994 Economi c Impact Study. 70 School Street, Brockton, MA 0240 I. Bureau of Economic and Business Research (1987) The Economic Impact of the Utah Transit Authority: A Report to the Utah Transit Authority. University of Utah Salt Lake C ity Burggraf Shirley P (1984) The Role of Public Transit Systems in E co nomic Development Prospecr.s for the Southeast Report prepared for the Urban Mass Transportation Administrat .ion, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C. Cambridge Systematics Inc. (1995), A Review of Methodologies for Assessing the Land Use and Economic Impacts of Transit on Urban Areas Report p repared for the Federal Trans i t Administration, U S DepartrnentofTransportation Washington, D.C. Cambridg e S ystematics Inc., with Vlecides-Schroeder Associates, Inc., Beatta Welsh, and Ernest Sawyer Enterprises, Inc. ( 1995), lnvestment in Public Transportation: The Economic Impacts of the RTA System on the Regional and State Economies. F ina l Report prepared for Regional Transportation Authority, Chicago 28

PAGE 32

* Cambridge Systemat ics, Inc., and Apogee Research, Inc (1996), Measwing and Valuing Transit Benefits and Dis benefits. Report 20, Transit Cooperative Research Program, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C. Camph, Donald H. (1997), Dollars and Seme : The Economic Case for Public Transportation in America. Prepared for the Campaign for Efficient Passenger Transportation, c / o citizen Action, 1730 Rl1ode Isla n d Ave., NW., No. 403, Washington, D C Davis Edward L. (1986) MARTA: A Stimulant to Atl
PAGE 33

* Lewis, David (1991), Primer 011 Tra11spor1ation, Productivity and Economic Development Rep
PAGE 34

Sheldon Nancy W. (1973) The E conomic and Social Impact of Investments In Public Transit. Lexington, Mass., Lexington Books. Small, Kenneth A (1992) Urban Transporiation Economics. Chur, Switzerland, Harwood Academic Publishers. Stranthman James G. ( 1983) Economic Effect ofTri-Met's Operating and Capital Expendit ures: FY 1983 on the Pori/and Metropolitan &onomy. Report prepared for the Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation D is trict (Tri-Met). C enter for Urban Studies, Portland State University, Portland, Oregon. Stranthman, James G. (1987) Regional Economic Impacts of Local Transit Financing A l ternatives: Input-Output Results for Portland. Discussion Paper, No. 87-1, Center for Urban Studies Portland State University, Portland, Oregon. TippettsAbbet-McCarthy-Str atton ( 1987) Replacement/Transit Improvement Study: Economic and Social impacts, Pha1;e II. Technical Report prepared for Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority. Seattle Washington. Tennessee Department of Transportation ( 1982), Costs and Benefits of Public Transit in Tennessee's Urban Areas. 505 Deaderick Street, Nashville, TN 37219. Urban Institute, and Cambridge Systematics, Inc., witll tlle Pennsylvania Economy League ( 1991 ), The Economic Impacts ofSEPTA on the Regional and State Economy. Final Report, DOT-T-92-02, prepared for tlle Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission, under funding from Office of Grants Management Urban Mass Transportation Administration U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C. 20590. Watterson W. T. (1985) Estimating &onomic and Development Impacts of Transit Investments Paper 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 &onomic Impact ofTransportation Projects: How to Match the Appropriate Technique to Your Project. Preprint TRB lD N o CK7009, T ransportation Research Board, 76th Annual Meeting, January 12-16, 1997, Washington, D.C. Wilson Steve (1987) Economics of Transit. Staff lssue Paper No. 550-87-061C, Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities Area, SL Paul, Minn. Wolfgram, Mark J. (198 3 ), Costs and Benefits of Public Transit in Wisconsin, 1982: Technical Supplement. Draft Report, Bure a u of Policy Planning and Analysis Wisconsin Department of Transportation. These are the reports that we found to be most relevant. 31