USF Libraries
USF Digital Collections

An un-cataloged item [C01-00322] from Center for Urban Transportation Research Publications [USF].

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
An un-cataloged item C01-00322 from Center for Urban Transportation Research Publications USF.
Physical Description:
Book

Subjects

Genre:
letter   ( marcgt )

Notes

General Note:
Full cataloging of this resource is underway and will replace this temporary record when complete.

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:
usfldc doi - C01-00322
usfldc handle - c1.322
System ID:
SFS0032394:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

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 JJLTR Prepared by Center for Urban Transportation Research College of Engineering Univer s ity of South Florida September 1997

PAGE 2

Center for Urban Transportation Research USF College of Engineering 4202 E. Fowler Avenue, CUT I 00 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

PAGE 3

Table of Contents List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . u Exe cu t ive Swnmary .................... .......................... ............ 1 I n troductio n .......... .. ... .............................. ......... ......... 2 F l orida's Transit Systems . . ....... ....... .... ................. .... .... . ... 2 Economic Impacts ................................................. : ........ . 3 Trans it Dependent Employment ................ .............. . . ............. 4 Impacts Not Quantified ............ ; . . .... ..................... ........ 4 Land Use Impacts ............................ . ............ .............. 4 Contingency Transportation ............... ... ......... ................. ....... 5 Business Productivity ....................................................... 5 Tourism and Special Events ......... . ............. ........ . . ..... ....... 5 Impacts Quantified ..... ........................... ......... .................. 6 Transit User Benefits .............. ............................... . ......... 6 Highway User Benefits ..... ............. . ................................. 7 Transportation Disadv ant aged Program Savings ................................... 7 Economic Output and E mployment ................... ................. ......... 8 Swnmary ..... ..................... ............. ........... .......... ... ... 9 Appendice s ........................ ................... ............ ... .... 10 Appendix A: C onsumer Surplus Calculation . . . . .. .. .. . .. . . . .. . .. . . I 0 Appendix B: Transportation Disadvantaged Program Savi ngs Calculation . . ..... . 14 Appendix C : Economic Outpu t and Employmen t Calculation ................. . ... 16 New Federal Funds ........... ................. ........................ 1 6 Multipl iers ..... ................................................. . . . 17 Endnotes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 References . .... . . .................................. . . ....... . .... 21 I

PAGE 4

. List of Tables Table A-I Actual and S imul ated Trip Patterns for Journey-to-Work Trips Arisi n g from Massive Reductions in Transit in F l orida ................... .... 1 2 Table B-1 1995 Savings of Transferring TD trips from Paratransit to Fi)(ed Route ........... IS TableC 1 Average Annual Transit Expenditures of New Federal Dollars (thousands of 1995 dollars) ............................................... 16 TableC-2 RIMS II Tota l F in a l-Demand Multipliers ................................... 17 II

PAGE 5

Executive Summary Public transit fulfills many social needs and is considered ali essential urban service in the larger cities, but it also makes significant economi c contributions to the state of Fl .orida. These contributions are distributed directly and indirectly among all resid ents of t h e state, including those who choose not to ride public transit 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 \vith the annual cost to the state of providing transit: Florida's Benefits Florida's Costs Transit U ser Benefits $495 million L ocal Government Cost $193 million Highway User Benefits 12 million State Gov ernment Cost 68 million TD Program Savings 33 million Increased Income 83 million Total Benefit $623 million Total Cost $261 million The extent to which user benefits exceed use r costs (fares, etc.). Th ese benefits include, among others: increased access to job training, employment, and education reduced cost of automobile ownership and operation reduced highway congestion, travel time, and accidents improved air quality 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. These include: serving as a catalyst for higher-density deve lopment providing contingency transportation for automobile drivers increasing business productivity promoting tourism T ransit systems also play an important supporting role i n state and national employment polic i e s such as programs designed to reduce dependence on welfare. I f welfare rec i p i ents do not have access to reliable inexpensive transportation it is very difficult for them to become employed and break out of the welfare cycle.

PAGE 6

In t roduction The Center for U rban Transportation Research (CU TR) was asked by the Florida Department of Trll!lsportation and the Florida Trans i t Association to undertake an objective analysis of the economic contrib u tions 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 p l ays a role in the state's economic well-being has never been fully documented Around t h e country, a number of studies have analyzed the economic impacts that ind i vidual local transit systems have on the local and state economi es, and each study has found that transit systems have strong positive impacts on local and state economies, but none has attempted to meas u re 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 yaried greatly in their approac hes. However, in the more objective research, certain standards arc 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 tha t alternative uses of funds must be considered (e.g., jobs created by spending public money in one sector of the economy are essentially of no more value th an jobs created by spending the same money in another sector). The basic premise of objective transportation economic impact research i s that benefits flow from improvements in transportation systems (e g reduced travel time and cost) not from the mere expenditure or move m e n t of funds. 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 evidence that transit ma_kes an important positive economic contribution to the state. F lo rid a' s T r a nsit Syste ms There are 18 fixed-route bus transit systems in Florida serving the counties and cities listed below These systems range in s iz e from the 4-bus system in Key West to the 677-bus system in Dade County. Many of the systems p r ovide county wide service. 2

PAGE 7

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) syste ms in Dade, Duval, and Hillsborough counties. In 1995, these transit systems had a total service-area population of more than 10 m illion and pro vided 167 million passenger tri ps at a total public cost of $387 millio n ($26 1 miU.ion state and local, and $126 m.illion federal), which inc ludes a three-year average annual capital cost o f$125 m.illion ($39 million state and local, and $86 m.ill.ion federal) in 1995 dollars. E c o n o mic Imp acts The direct economic impact s of transit service are experienced primarily by the user s of transit and by the users of highways T hese direct impacts ripple through the economy until they are felt, at least ind.irectly, by all of us. In th.is report, the direct impacts are measured and some of the indirect and other impacts that are not easily measured are d.iscussed. There are numerous econom.ic benefits experienced by users of transit, such as avoid.ing 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 transit removes some automobile 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 vehicle operating costs, and reduced accident costs that result from reduced congestion. In most urban areas, particular l y in high -growth states such as Florida, the freed-up capacity attracts new drivers and indu ces add.itional tri ps by existing drivers until the highway level of service is the same as or very clo se to what it was before transit service .' The economic benefit in this case is the value of the new highwa y trips that can now be made due to the existence of transit. Which of these phenomena actuall y happens is somewhat immaterial since the econom ic benefit to the public is very similar in both cases. Because we believe it i s more likely the case in Florida, we have taken th e position that in the urban areas of F l orida, as automobile drivers switch to transit, new drivers take the ir place on the urban road network There are a number of other econom.ic 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 thi. s is because they involve double counting of benefits, but more often it is due to the complex natur e of behavioral changes that accompany transportation improvements and the difficulty in detennining true cause and effect.> T herefore, we have e l ected not to try t o q uantify these other benefits except in a couple of special cases as discussed later. We do, h owever, 3

PAGE 8

( 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 oftransit-dependent Floridians who would lose their jobs if they did not have transit service, 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 em ploying "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 is 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 simp ly 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 l uded in this report. Impacts Not Quantified It generally is acknowledged that transit impacts or attributes include the following and that these impa c ts have positive though probably unquantifiable economic benefits. Land-Use Impacts. Although the existence of transit service and transit statio ns by themselves may have little, if any, impact on land use, it does a ppear that they serve as a catalyst for the development of land use policies that promote higher densities. And it usually i s 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

PAGE 9

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 fixedguideway 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 generally of having that option available. For individuals, 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 \videnings 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 t ourists 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 act ivities, 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 transit users benefits in the next section. The value of transit's impact on highway congestion is captured in the calculation of highway user benefits. The value of the employment benefits and the accompanying reduced public welfare costs is included in the transit-dependent employment impacts. 5

PAGE 10

Note that all of the above benefits result from improvements in the transpot1lltion system. Some analysts s uggest that, in addition, tbe expen diture of funds itself creates b e n efits. 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 o f 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 la ter 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 Th. e 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 sta te 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 i s quantified in terms of jobs, earnings and gross state produ ct. The economic benefit of this impact is, in part, captured in the calculation of transit user benefits and, therefore, it i s reduced according ly. Transit User Benefi ts For many transit users, th e value o f 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 places 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. This difference between cost and value i s referred to as consumer surplus," and it is a common measure of the economic value of transit to transit users.1 (This 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.) This consumer surplus is measured by using a travel demand model to conduct simulations of trave l choices This is similar to using fare elasticit y 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 i n creased in the model to determine at what point bus ri ders will switch to other 6

PAGE 11

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 social/recreation 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 repuced or--if 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 m iles 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, 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 valu e of new highway trips at 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 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 "midd le" value of I 0 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 syste m 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 (i.e., persons who arc unable to transport themselves or to purchase transportation). A variety of agencies fund trips for transportatio n disadvantaged persons in the state of Florida. In 1995, a total of 28.7 million transportation disadvantaged trips 7

PAGE 12

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 averag e 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.7 With agency client s taking fixed-route transit in place of paratransit, sponsoring agencies reduced costs for an estimated 3.54 millio n trips by $33.1 million in 1995. (As discussed in Appendix B, it is estimated that 30 percent of the 11.8 million fixed-rou te trips would have been made on paratransit if fixed-route service were not available and that, due to budget limi tat ions, 70 percent of the trips would not have been made.) Some of the fimds 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 ca lc ulation 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 sector's contribution to GSP is decreased. If funds for transit come from the priva te sector through taxation, private sector investment is reduc ed and private sector output and employment decreases. Iffimds 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 variety of factors, but this impact is generally not considered a benefit or cost of the partic ular project or sector on which the money is spent.* 8

PAGE 13

However, 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.9 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--causes Florida's total annual economic output (i.e., gross state product) to increase by $150.5 million and results in 2,4 77 permanent new jobs and $83.1 million in increased earnings. (See Appendix C for calculation details.) Summary A partial list of urban transit's contributions 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 (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 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) Increased highway capacity Reduced cost of state's TD program Increased income due to new federal dollars $495 million $ 12 million $ 33 million $ 83 million This partial list of annual economic benefits to both users and non-users of transit in Florida totals $623 million, which compares with Florida's cost of$261 million in 1995. Clearly urban transit is a good investment for the state of Florida. 9

PAGE 14

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 ben efits of public serv ices 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 extremely low levels of ridership--nearly zero-this 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 using the 1990 Census Transportat ion Planning Package. Datd were extracted at the geographic leve l of place, referring to incorporated municipalities, named unincorporated places, and the remainder of counties not in named or i ncorporated 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 i nformation about the residential characteristics of origins and the workplace characteristics of destinations. A geographic information system was used to calculate distances between origi ns and destinations located in different places. Distances for trips made within a given named or incorporated place were imputed via a statistical relationship between the area of a general, closed polygon and the average distance between pairs of randomly selected points \vithin 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 t hose 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 minutes ; an assumed upper limit for the journey to work. This is similar to the "culling" process in traffic models in which local trips of 10

PAGE 15

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. When the data were assembled, tfavel behavior was modeled using logistic mode split curves for each of the four transportation modes. large-scale transportation planning models such as the Urban Transportation Planning Package, Florida Standard Urban Transportation Modeling Structure, QRS-II, 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. 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 4{) hours 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.1 0 ) 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 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 "I" between origin "x" and destinatio n "y"; U;(P;, Dxy) represents the "utility" of traveling distance Dxy miles via the i-th transportation mode at unit price P; per mile; a;, b; represent coefficients that determine the shape of the modal split curves ; 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 ofthe 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, I 1

PAGE 16

places w ith existing transit ridership with I ,941 observations) were examined with this statistical analysis. Model variants est im ated over the entire state calibrated and validated successfully over all four methods of measuring the value oftime. The models based on places with existing transit ridership and actual income levels (full i n come value or one-half of income value) successfully calibrated but did not validate properly, in that the mode split for transit was overestimaled 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 willing ness to pay, tend to be higher if there are few good substitutes for a particular commodity. The statistica l analysis s hows a relatively low level of substitutability between transit and other modes of transportation in Florida. This i s because publ ic transit serves many sectors of society--the very young, the very old, the d isabled, and those of modest means-with limited aceess to automobiles. Others, such as middle-income riders in large urban areas may be quire ab l e to drive, but may be unable to find suitable parking near their workplace Once the statistical model was complete, several simu la tions were perfotmed to derermine 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. Usi ng this log ic, the "price" of transit was increased with higher values of travel 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 diff erent from ze r o. This approach leads to a conservative estimate of the benefits of public transit, and allows for the possibility that some private jitney service woul d take over some portion of the market. The results of this analysis at one balfthe average h ourly income level are shown in Tab l e A-I. TableA-1 Actual and Simu lated Trip Patterns for Journey-to-Work Trips Massive Reductions in Tnmi i!7' 78.82 829,428 14.60 920 ,152 16. 20 127,512 2.24 25,651 0.4 5 4.33 221,759 3 90 12

PAGE 17

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 sutplus was calculated on the basis of the FTNUMTA formula: Consumer SUtplus: (P o l d -P new)X(Qold + Qnew)/2 where Pis 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 average consumer surplus of: $568,000 + 1 27,512 = $4.45 per trip to work A l though 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 sutplus per trip is constant over time, the consumer SUtplus for t h e 67,231,818 total work trips" in 1995 (from home to work and from work to home) is: 67,231,8!8 X $4. 4 5 = $299,181,590. The model used in this analysis could not calcula t e 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 SUtplus for non work trips to $2.22 per trip, which results in consumer sUtplus for non-wo.rk trips of: 99,816,980 non-work trips12 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 sutplus attributed in the model to the trips made on fixed -rou te transit by transportation disadvantaged (TD) persons whose trips are paid for by third parties such as the Medicaid program. Tbis i s because these TD persons have, for practical putposes zero consumer SUtplus on fixed-route transit because the alternative mode (demand responsive service) provides a similar service at no i ncrease in cost to them. Since third-party sponsored trips are primarily non-work trips (Medicaid the largest sponsor, pays onl y for medical trips), the average non work trip consumer sUtplus of$2.22 per trip is used to rnake th i s calculation wbic b is: 1 1,816,827 TD trips (see Table B -1) x $2 22 = $26,292,440. That figure is then subtracted froro $521, 274 370 to get the net consumer sutplus of$494 981,930 This gives an average consumer sutplus of$2. 96 per trip, which appears to be a conservative estimate wben compared to the $4 68 per trip calcu l ated in a recent national study. 13 13

PAGE 18

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 st ate of Florida. 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 transit. Fixed-route transit has proved to be a lower-cost alterna tive compared to paratransit modes of transportatio n 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 -rou te trips taken by transportation disadvantaged (TD) persons. In these counties, the average fare for a fixed-route trip was $0. 74 This average fare per trip compares with an average operating expense per paratransit trip of$! 0 .08, a $9.34 d ifference. 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 i n 1995, as shown in Table B-1. However, due to budget limitations, not all of the l1.8 million trips would have been provided on paratransit 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 TO passenger who is provided with a fixed-route transit pass makes 50 linked trips per month 1berefore, to be conservative, we have assumed that, if fixed-route service were not available, only 30 percent of the 11.8 million trips would be made on paratransit, which results in a savings of$33.1 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 t o reduce their service and their costs if they were not handling TD trips, and that is very unlikely given the current capacity o f transi t services and the fact that TD trips account for only 7 percent of total fixed-route trips. The more likely savings is the $33 milli on Fixed-route transit has become a good alternative to paratransit for many transportatio n 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 provide d through fixed-route transit will most l i kely increas e in the future. 14

PAGE 19

TableB-1 1995 Savings of Tra n sfe rr ing TD Trips 904,712 $().49 $1.77 $8. 99 10,397, 026 $0.18 $2.21 $ 1 0 24 $8,109,680 75,975 $0.47 S2.33 $1.20 $35,708 19,756 $0.51 $2.29 $8.84 $10 076 8,605 $0 .14 $3.13 $8.4$ $1, 215 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 $9.14 $47,942 $471,776 S44,474 $1,601,340 $8,13 3 ,361 $6,532,021 $22,917 ,427 $106.465,546 $98,355 ,866 $83 488,119 $177,022 $547 020 $511,312 $369,998 $45,241 $174,643 $164,567 $129,402 $26,929 $72,712 $71,497 $45,783 $118,218 $608,548 $586,601 $ 4 90,330 S55,271 $218,189 $209 500 $162,918 $162,687 $575,113 $520,884 $412,426 $87,033 $100,611 $87,033 $13,578 $ 212, 950 SI,OI9.037 $971,095 $806,087 15

PAGE 20

Appendix C: Economic Output and Employm ent C alculation New Federal Funds Table C1 shows the federal funds that would not come into the state if there were no fixed-route transit. These new federal funds includ e both new federal capital funds and new federal operating funds. They are based on National Transit Data Base (NTDB) Forms I 03 and 203, respectively. Tabl e C-1 Average Ann u a l Transit Expenditure s o f New Federal Doll ars .. : The NIDB uses three categories for total federal capital funds in Form 103: funds received from PTA (line 4), funds received from other USDOT grant programs (line 5), and other federal funds (line 6). It is assum ed that f und s received fro m other US DOT grant prograrn s or other federal funds would still come tO Florida un der the scenario of no wban transit service. Thus, it is assum ed that capital funds received from FT A are new federal funds. These funds for each transit operator are allocated to the three categories of capital ex.penditwe according to the distribution of its total capital expendi tures among these categories, as sho"'n in Table C.! The NTDB uses two categories for total federal operating funds: funds from FT A U rbanized Area Formul a Progl'lU)l (line 32) and funds from other federal programs (line 33). It assumed 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 Urbani zed Area Formula Program are new federa l opera ting funds. For each operator, the funds from the FTA Urbanize d Area Formula Program are allocate d to labor and ot h er expenditures ac cordil\g to the distribu t ion o f its tota l operating expend itures b etween th ese two categories. These allocated expen ditures by category are then aggregated statewide. Statewide new federal operating funds by category are obtained by subtracting the sta tewide 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 Jumpy, they are averaged across 1993 1994 and 1995 for estim ating their economic impacts Before averaging, expenditures for 1993 and 1994 were infla ted to 1995 dollars using GOP implicit price deflators ( 1.0224172 for 1993 to 1994 and 1.025738 for 1994 to 1995). 16

PAGE 21

Multipliers The RIMS ll multipliers used to calculate the employment, earnings and output impacts of the new federal funds are shown in Table C-2. TableC2 1.2293 2.0388 All rolling s t ock is assumed to be imported from outs ide Florida. As a result, rolling stock expenditures have no impacts on jobs household earnings and output in F lorida. Thi s is a safe assumption for new rolling stock. For other components of rolling stock expenditures the sam e assumption may not hold because transit agencies rnay do some of the work themselves, such as rebuilding engines or rehabilitation. However, information is not sufficien t to allow one to assume a particu l ar proportion of rolling stock expenditures that remains in Florida. The mul tiplier analysis shows that the infusion of the new federal funds results in 2,4 77 new jobs, increased annual earnings of$83.1 million, and increased annual economic output of $150.5 million in 1995 dollars. 17

PAGE 22

Endnotes 1 ECONortbwest (1996), "Benefit-Co st ofR.TA Plan," report prepared for Washington Research Council, Seattle, Wash.: 19-20,22-23. 2David Lewis (1991), "Primer on Transportation, Productivity and Economic 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 Techn iqu e 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, SeanJe, Wash.: 5-6, 15, 33ff; Puget Sound Regionil!. Council (1996), "The Costs ofTransportation: Expenditures on Surface Transportation in the Central Puget Sound Region for 1995," Seattle, Wash.: 13. Beimbom and Alan Horowitz with Julie Schuetz and Gong Zejun (1993), Measurement of Transit B enefits," final report, DOT-T-93-33, prepared for Uuiversity Research and Training Program, Office of Technical Assistance and Safety, Urban Mass Transportation Administration, U.S. Department ofTransportation, 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 Im pact and Benefit/Cost of High Speed Rail for California," draft final report prepared for the California Intercity High Speed Rail Commission: III.6. 4 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," preprint, 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 of Transportation: Expenditures on Surface Transportation in the Central Puget Sound Region for 1995," Seattle, Wash.: 12. E CONorthwest (1996), "Benefit-Cost ofRTA Plan," report prepared for Washington Research Council, Seattle Wash.: 20. Florida Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged, "1995 Annual Performance Report," Tallahassee, Fla. 18

PAGE 23

7 Florida Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged, "1995 Annual Perf ormance Report," Tallahassee, Fla; Federal Transit Administration, Fiscal Year 1995 National Transit Database Reports, Washington, D.C. 8 David Lewis (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 o f Transportation Projects: How to Match the Appropriate Technique to Your Project," preprint, TRB I D No. CK7009, Transportation Research Board, 76" Annual Meeting, January 12-16, 1997, Washington, D.C.: 4-5, 20; San Diego Association o f Governments (1996), ''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 Report 20, Transit Cooperative Research Program Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.: 16-17; San Diego Association of Governments ( 1996), "Econom ic Contributions of Public 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. 10 Glen Weisbrod and Burton Weisbrod (1997), "Assessing the Economic impact of Transportation Projects: How to Match the Appropriate T echnique to Your Project," prepi"int, TRB ID No. CK7009, Transportat ion Research Board, 76"' Annual Meeting, January 12-16, 1997 Washington, D .C.: 18; Kenneth A. Small (1992) Urban Transportation Economics Chur, Switzerland, Harwood Academic Publishers: 44; David Lewis (1991 ), "Primer on T ransportation, Productivity and Economic Development," Report 342, National Cooperative Highway Research Program. Transportation Research Board, Washington D. C.: 83. Edward Beimborn 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.: 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," final report prepared for Regional Transportation Authority, Chicago, Ill: 3, 5; San Diego Association of Governments (1996), "Economic Contributions of Public T ransit in the San Diego Region," draft report, San Diego, Calif.: 13; E CONorthwest (1996), "Benefit-Cost of RTA Plan," report prepared for Washington Research Council, Seattle, Wash.: 16. 1 1 Center for Urban Transportation Research (I 995), calculated from surveys of transit riders conducted by CUTR and ftom Section 15 reports obtained from the transit systems. 12 Ibid. 19

PAGE 24

13 David Lewis and Michael O'Connor (1997), ltlconomic Value of Affordable Mobility," preprint, Paper No. 971093, Transportation Research Board, 76" Annual Meeting, January 12-16, 1997: 16. ($33.7 billion consumer surph i s for 7.2 billion trips.) 14 San Diego Association of Governments (1996), "Economic Contributions of Public Transit in theSan Diego Region," draft report, San Diego, Calif.: 17-21. 20

PAGE 25

References American Public Transit Association (1983), "The Economic Benefits of Public TransiL" Washington, D.C, American Public Transit Association (1983), "Employment Impacts ofTransit Capital Investment and Operating Expenditures." Washington, D.C. Aschauer, David Alan (1991), "Transportation Spending and Economic Growth: The Effects of Transit and Highway Expenditures." Report prepared for the American Public Trans it Association, Washington, D.C. ATE Management and Service Company (1972), "The Value of the Miami Valley Region!ll Transit A u thority: An Appraisal." Report prepared for the Miami Valley Regional T ransit Authority, Dayton, Ohio. ATE Management and Service Company (1975), "Economic Impact of Public Transit in Greater Chattanooga. '' Report prepared for Chattanooga Area Regional Transportation Authority, Chattanooga, Tenn. Baum Milton S. (1970), "COst and Benefit Evaluation of the Sacramento Transit Authority. Inter im Technical Report," No.4, prepared for Sacramento Transit Authority, under an Urban Mass Transportatio n Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C. Beimborn, Edward, 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 Technica l Assistance and Safety, Urban Mass Transportation Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C. Brockton Area Trans it Authority (1994), "Brockton Area Transit Authority 1994 Econmnic Impact Study." Brockton, Mass. Bureau of Economic and Business Research (1987), "T he Economic Impact of the Utah Transit Authority: A Report to the Utah Transit Authority." Univer sity of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah. Burggraf, Shirley P. (1984), "The Role of Public Transit Systems in Economic Development Prospects for the Southeast." Report prepared for the Urban Mass Transportation Administratio n, U.S. Depart m ent of Transportation, Washington, D.C. 21

PAGE 26

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. (1995), "A Review of Methodologies for Assessing the Land Use and Economic Impacts of Transit on Ur ban Areas." Report prepared for the Federal Transit Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C. 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 RT A 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. Da vis, Edward L. (1986), "MARTA: A Stimulant to Atlanta Development?" Transportation Planning and Technology, 10: 241-256 . 1ft 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" Washingtol), 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

PAGE 27

Harbridge House (1972), "The Economic and Social Impacts oflnvestments in Public Transit." Boston, Mass Hickling Lewis Brod Inc. (1995), "Recent Research and Policy Perspectives on Transportation Investment and Economic Growth." Prepared for the F ederal Highway Administration Office of Policy, Washi_ngton, 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 L iterarure." Working Paper 310, University of Transportation Center University of California, Berkeley Calif. Laird Dougl as M. (1983), "An Input-Output Assessment ofJndirect Economic Benefits from Urban Rail Trans it Improvements Thesis (M.S.), Department of Civil Engj.neering, Washington University. Lee, Douglass B. ( 1981 ), "Evaluation of Economic and Development Impacts of Major Transi t Investments," Transportation Research Record, 820: 1-5. Lewis, David (1991), "Primer on T ransportation, Productivity and Economic Development." Report 342, National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Transportation 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), "The Cost and Benefits of Urban Public Transit in Texas." Research Report, 2003-1F, prepared for Texas State Department of Highways and Public Transportation, Transport ation Planning Division. Texas Transportation Institute, the Te xas A&M University System, College Station, Tex. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (1996), "Economic Development Impacts of the Long Range Transportation Plan for Los Angeles County." Los Angeles, Calif. Mahdi, Syed I (I 987), "Estimating the Construction Phase Impacts of Urban Mass Transit Projects." Urban Mass Transp ortatio n Administratio n U.S. Departm ent of Transportation, Washington, D.C. 23

PAGE 28

McWilliams, Douglas (1994), "The Economic Benefits of Refurbishing the London Underground," Public Transport International 43: 16-19. Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission (1988), "Economic Impacts of COTA on Cent:rnt.: Ohio Neuwirth, Roanne (1990), "Eco nomic Impacts ofTr:ansit on Cities," Transportation Research Record, 1274: 142-149. Pioneer Valley Planning Commission (1996), "Economic Benefit and Impact Stndy ." Final Report prepar ed for the Pioneer Valley Tr:ansit Authority, Springfield, Mass. Plant, Jeremy F. (1982), The Metrorail System: Its Impact on Virginia, University of Virginia Newsletter, 59. Pucher, John and Ira Hirschman (1993), Path to Balanced Transportation. Rutgers Univers ity New Brunswick, N .J. Puget Sound Regional Council (1996), "The Costs of Transportation: Expenditures on Surface Transportation in the Central Puget Sound Region for 1995." Seattle, Wash. Rawson, Mary (1983) "Transit, the Natnre and Role of Localized Benefits: A Selected Annotated Bibliography." The Center for Transportation Stndies, University of British Columbia, Vancouver B.C. Rickman, DanS, and R. Keith Schwer (1995), "A Comparison of the Multipliers ofiMPLAN, REMI, and RIMS ll: 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." Draft Report, San Diego, Calif. She ldon, Nancy W. (I 973), "'The Economic and Social Impact of Investments in Public Transit." Lexington, Mass. Lexington Books . Small, Kenneth A. (1992), Urban Transportation &ononr/cs. Chur, Harwood Academic Publishers. Stranthman, James G. (1983), "Eco nomic Effect ofTri-Met's Operating and Capital Bxpenditnre s: FY 1983 on the Portland Metropolitan Eco nomy." Report prepared for the Tri-Co unty Metrop olitan Transportation District (Tri-Met). Center for Urban Studies, Portland State University Portland, Ore. 24

PAGE 29

Stranthmao, James G. (1987), "Regional Economic Impacts of Local Transit Financing Alternatives: Input-Output Results for Portland." Discussion Paper, No. 87-1, Center for U rban Studies, Portland State University, Portland, Ore. Tippetts-Abbet-McCarthy-Stratton (1987), "Replacement/Transit Improvement Study: Economic and Social Impacts, Phase II." Technical Report prepared for Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority. Seattle Wash. Tennessee Department of Transportation (1982), "Costs and Benefits of Public Transit in Tennessee's Urban Areas." Nashville, Tenn. Urban Institute, and Cambridge Systematics, I nc., with the Pennsylvania Economy League (1991), "The Ec onomic Impacts of SEPTA on the Regional and State Economy." Final Report, DOT-T-92-02, prepared for the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Conunission, under funding from Office of Grants Management, Urban Mass Transportation Admini stration, U.S. Department ofTransportation, Washington, D.C. Watlerson, W. T. (1985), "Estimating Economic and Development Impacts ofTransit 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 Economic Impact of Transportation Projects: How to Match the Appropriate Te chnique to Your Project." Preprint, TRB ID No. CK7009, Transportat ion Research Board, 76th Annual Meeting January 12-16, 1997, Washington, D.C. Wilson, Steve (1987), "Economics of Transit." Staff Issue Paper No. 550-87-061C, Metropolitan Coun cil of the Twin Cities Area, St. Paul, Minn. Wolfgram, Mark J. (1983), "Costs and Benefits ofPublic Transit in Wisconsin," 1982: Technical Supplement." Draft Report, Bureau of Policy Planning and Analysis, Wisconsin Department of Transportation. These are the reports that the authors of this report found to be most relevant. 25


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 ntm 22 Ka 4500
controlfield tag 008 s flunnn| ||||ineng
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a C01-00322
2 USFLDC DOI
0 245
[An un-cataloged item [C01-00322] from Center for Urban Transportation Research Publications [USF].]
500
Full cataloging of this resource is underway and will replace this temporary record when complete.
1 773
t Center for Urban Transportation Research Publications [USF]
4 856
u http://digital.lib.usf.edu/?c1.322