26analysisofbogota.pdf

Analysis of Bogota's

Bus

Rapid

Transit

System

and

its

Impact

on

Land

Development

Recent experiences in Latin

American

cities supporting world-classpublic transportation systems

haveresultedin the creation oflivablespaces with asignificantpotentialtospur landdevelopment. In cities like Bogota, Colombia,

and

Curitiba. Brazil, bus rapidtransit (BRT) has re-emergedas a

cost-effective transportation alternativefor satisfying

growing

demands

for

urban

mobility.

Bogota's

BRT

system has allowedfor a 32percent reduction inaverage traveltimes

and

significant

reduction in accident

and

air pollution levels along the

busway

corridors.

Although

previous

research suggests that the impacts

of

access to

BRT

facilities on the nearby landvalue

and

use

have been minor,

new

BRT

systems like the one in Bogota feature intensive infrastructurefacilities

and

their effects in terms

of

accessibility

and

mobility have been impressive. This

paper

provides

first-hand empirical evidence

on

the evaluation

of

how

the

BRT

system is related to

land

development outcomes such as land values. Future

BRT

extensions will have

a

large potential to

influence future land development

and

induce desirable urban forms

and

landuses

around

stations

and busway

corridors.

Felipe

Taiga

and

Daniel A.

Rodriguez

Introduction

Urbantransportationinfrastructure,inaddition

to serving its explicit goal ofproviding mobility,

historicallyhas served as

means

ofattracting and

stimulating urban development.

By

effectively

altering

where

people live, work, and

how

they

travel, transportation systems

have

played a

significant roleinreshapingthe locationofactivities,

patterns

of

interaction, and

growth

of cities.

Mimicking

the experience ofcities in developed

countries, auto-centered transportation policies

prevailed in

most

20th-century cities in the

developing world. However, recent experiences

inurbanareasthatsupportworld-class publictransit

systems

suggest that rather than relying

on

automobile policies that reinforce patterns of

seclusion and isolation, policiessupporting

mass

transportationsystemsandfavoringnon-motorized

transportation alternatives have resulted in the

creation of livable spaces

and

the collective

appropriation of these systems as images and

symbols ofthe public.

Althoughinitiallydecriedbymultilateral lenders,

this quietrevolution is

now

heralded by planners

and

elected officials as an agent

of urban

redevelopment andsustainability.

One

elementof

thisrevolution istheprovisionofhigh qualitybus

transit service.

With

several successful cases

Felipe Targa.

a

native

of

Bogota. Columbia,

receiveda

Master of

Regional

Planning from

the University

of

North Carolina at Chapel Hill

in 2003. This article is

based on

his masters

project, which received the top

award

from the

from

the

Department

_of

City

and

Regional

Planning.

He

is currentlypursuing

a

doctorate

at the University

of Maryland

- _College Park.

worldwide,bus transit servicehas rc-cmcrged as a cost-effective transportation alternative for

satisfyinggrowingdemandsforurbanmobilitywhile hopefullystimulating landdevelopmentandlivable

spaces. This

new

concept for delivering bus

service,

known

as

Bus

Rapid Transit systems

(BRTs), is revolutionizing bus transit provision

around theworld, particularlyin Latin

American

cities.

BRTs

liketheones inCuritiba, Brazil,and

Bogota,

Colombia,

are

systems

with lanes

designated for exclusive use by large-capacity

buses,andspecializedbusstationswith pre-board

ticketingand fastboarding. These characteristics

have drastically improved the level ofservice of

bus-basedtransitsystemsincludingaveragespeeds,

reliability,andcapacity.

However,despite theresurgenceofbustransit

services andthe success ofseveral

BRTs

around

theworld,thereis limitedresearchexaminingthe

relationshipbetween

BRT

and landdevelopment.

The

paucity exists despite the fact that a careful

examination of

BRT

impacts is critical for the

transportation

planning

process. Potential

misperceptions of these impacts can lead to

significantfacilityredesign,construction delays,or

compensationtoaffectedparties,allofwhich

may

amount

to millions ofdollars. Furthermore, the successofinnovativeinfrastructurefinancingtools,

such as value-capture, hinges on understanding

whetherornot positive infrastructureimpacts are

capitalizedintolandvalues.

This

paper

presents an

examination

of

Bogota's

BRT

systemand its developmentas part

of an integrated

urban

mobility

and

land development strategy. Additionally, the paper

investigates the extenttowhichaccessibilitytothe

BRT

systemiscapitalizedintoresidentialproperty

rents as ameasure ofland values. Results from

hedonic pricemodelssuggest apositiveelasticity

of

local accessibility to

BRT

stations after

controllingforproximity-relatedeffects tothe

BRT

right-of-way, structural,

and

neighborhood

attributes. This empirical evidence has a wide

rangeofpractical applications, fromdetermining the usefulness of innovative land-based tax instruments that hinge on the capitalization of

positive effects oftransportation investments, to

informing policy-makers aboutthelanddevelopment

consequences of transportation infrastructure

alternatives.

Bogota's

Urban

Mobility Strategy

Bogota,

the capital

of

Colombia,

has

approximately 6.4 million inhabitants occupying

28,153 hectares(69,566 acres) ofurbanized area

(DAPD,

2000). This

makes

Bogota one of the

mostdensecitiesintheworld,with approximately

230people perhectare. Despitea 1999percapita

GDP

of

US

S2.300, 15 percent higher than the

national average, Bogota'sautomobile ownership

rate (130 cars per 1,000 inhabitants) is

low

comparedtocitiesinSouth

America

ofsimilarsize.

Notwithstandingthislowmotorizationrate,thecity

is greatly affected by severe mobility problems,

partially due to the high population density.

By

1999, the average speed during thepeak houron

themainroadsdeclinedto lessthan 12kilometers

perhour(7.45mph).

With approximately 70 percent ofmotorized

tripstakenby busandothertransit

modes

such as

paratransit, Bogota's quasi-deregulated and

free-enterprise transit system had one ofthe largest

percapitapublic transportationfleets intheworld

by 1996 (JICA, 1996).

The

excess ofvehicle

capacityandthelackofregulation resultedinlow transit vehicle occupation levels, inferior to the

minimum

requiredto

make

the service profitable

and

efficient.

The

transit

system

was

also

complemented

byillegalbus operationsand

intcr-munieipal

services that originate in areas

surroundingthemetropolitanregion.

Although

many

studies diagnosing Bogota's mobilityproblems

were

conductedduringthelast

decade , a long-term plan to achieve a desirable

urban form and to promote its co-existence with an efficient and equitable transportation system

was

offtheagenda oflocaladministrations. This

changedduringthelast

two

administrationsofthe

city(1998-2001and2001-2004),

when

a sustainable

strategy forthe transportation system ofthe city

was

developed and implemented. In addition to

Figure 1. TransMilenio

BRT

Caracas Corridor

transportation options,thisstrategy,called"mobility

strategy,"

was

designed toachieve largersocietal

objectives such as

enhancing

public spaces,

improvingsocialintegration,anddevelopingasense

ofownership andpridearoundredeveloped urban form.

A

cornerstoneoftheadministration'smobility

strategy

was

theimplementationofahigh levelof

service,

BRT

system.This requiredtherevamping

ofa priorinitiativeimplemented between 1988and

1992,

which

provided exclusive lanes for bus

operations.

The

16

kms

(9.94mi) oflanestraversed

thecity's

CBD

and connectedthesouthand north

parts oftown.

More

than anetwork ofbus lanes,

the Troncal Caracas acted as a high capacity

collector fed by routes needing to cross the city

rapidly(Ardilaand Rodriguez. 2000). Passenger

flows exceeded 36,000 passengers per houron a

givendirectionduringthepeakperiod (Ardilaand Rodriguez, 2000), but the

system

lacked an

operations

management

plan, allowing free entry

tooperatorsmeetingspecificbussizerequirements

(Rodriguez andArdila,2002).

The

infrastructure

itself

and

the bus stops

were

not adequately

maintained,trafficlightswerenotsynchronizedand

gridlock

was

common

in several streets crossing

the

busway

(Ardila

and Rodriguez,

2000).

Nevertheless, average bus speeds in 1999 were

24 kilometers per hour (14.9 mph), significantly higher thanthe citywide average.

Concerned

with an

oversupply

of

the transit

senice,poor environmental and

safety conditions,

and

decreasing vehicle speeds, the

Bogota

city

government

decided

to

upgrade

mass

transportationbyembarking on

extensive

investments

to

support a

BRT

system.

The

uniqueness of Bogota's case

liesinthetransformationofits

old system into an integrated system.

The

Caracas corridor (Figure 1) revolutionized an

undesirable mobility system

(e.g.,aestheticallydispleasing,

with high noise and diesel exhaust levels) into a

new

BRT

system with significantly lower travel

times, lower noise and fewer

greenhouse

gas

emission levels(Rodriguez andTarga,2003).

The

BRT

is

now

a sourceoflocal pride.

Complementary Urban

Policies

The

BRT

system is part ofa comprehensive

strategythatincludesrestrainingtheuseofprivate

cars, improving air quality, providing urban and

natural spaces for individual recreation and fare,

andtheprovisionofpublicspaceandnon-motorized

transport facilities. At a glance, ancillary policy

measuresinclude:

•

A

partial ban on peak-hourauto use.This

licenseplate-basedprivate vehicleban

applies to

40

percentofthevehicle fleet

duringpeakhourson weekdays. Thereis

also an annual car-free weekday.

•

The

reclamationofpublicuse ofspaces previously appropriatedbyautomobiles (suchassidewalks)orneglectedbyformer

cityauthorities(suchasparksandplazas).

•

The

implementationofa

350-km

bikeway

network,one ofthelargest intheworld.

Bogota's strategy

was

designed not only to

ISyHsW

UJUIB1

K

Source: £7TiempoandIDU.

Figure2. PublicSpaces

mobility,but alsotoachievelarger societalobjectives suchasenhancingpublic spaces,improvingsocial

integration, and developing a sense ownership

aroundredeveloped urban form. Inthe

words

of

its former mayor, Enrique Pefialosa,

who

left his

officewith a record approval rating, the strategy

consisted ofcreating a "city environment

where

themajorityof peoplewillbeashappyas possible"

(Penalosa,2002).

He

visualizedthatpeople

would

be happierinhealthier, safer,and

more

enjoyable

placesin

which

tolive,work, shop,andsocialize.

One

ofthe

means

toachievethisobjective

was

to

transformthe transportationsystem,andtoreverse the trend towards an increasingly auto-oriented

transportation system (Penalosa, 2002). Perhaps

forthisreason.42.5percentofthecity'sinvestment

budget

(USS

1.8 billion for the three-year term)

was

devoted to the ancillary policy

measures

describedabove(ArdilaandMenckhoff,2002).

One

ofthe most polemic policies, but at the

same

time one ofthe most emblematic ones of

thatadministration,

was

thereclamationofpublic

use ofspaces. Consistent with several planning

conceptshingingonurban designandcityformas

aninputtocomfortable, navigable,andparticipatory

urban public spaces (Whytc, 1988; Lynch, 1985;

Jacobs, 1961), the former Bogota

mayor

thought

that a quickerand

more

effective

way

toachieve

quality oflife

was

to invest in public spaces.

To

accomplishthis, the reclamation ofpublic use of

spaces includedthereconstructionof1,123 parks,

theimplementationofacar-free streetinthehistoric

CBD,

the construction of wide and continuous

pedestrian sidewalks, including a1

7-km

pedestrian

greenwaythroughpoorneighborhoods (Figure2,

top), and theredevelopment ofa 20-hectarepark

in a crime-ridden area (Figure 2, bottom) by demolishing

more

than 600 deteriorated houses (ArdilaandMenckhoff, 2002).

Another key

project for the city is the

implementation ofone ofthe largest permanent

bicyclenetworkintheworld(Figure3),

a350-km

bikewaynetwork, intendedto capture 30percent

ofthetotaldailytrips inthecity. Thistravel

mode

shareissimilartotheoneinCopenhagen,wherea

300-km

network captures 34 percent ofthe total dailytrips. Consideringtheyear-round mildclimate,

the flat valley where the city is located, and the

high urban density that

makes

most ofthe trips

being relatively short, the

demand

has currently

respondedwithincreasesontheproportionof non-motorizedtrips.

More

than providing alternative

andsustainable transportationoptionstomobility,

the assembling of the

bikeway network and

extensivewidesidewalks werealso conceived as

measures to improving pedestrian and bicycle

v

• J5i «££ I

Source: ElTiempo.

Source:SandovalamiHidalgo 12002

1

Figure4. TransMilenio

BRT

Stations

accessibilityto

BRT

stationsand swaying people

to leave theircars at home. Anecdotal evidence

suggests that approximately 10 percent ofthe

regular

BRT

system riders have switched from

private cars to TransMilenio, Bogota's mobility

strategy.

Bogota's

BRT

System

The

masstransitpolicyelement TransMilenio,

isa

BRT

systemresultingfroma successful

public-private partnership, with the

government

funding

theinfrastructureand overseeing long-term planning

functions, and private contractors bidding forthe

operationofahandful of

BRT

linesonacost-plus

basis (Rodriguez and Targa, 2003).

The

system

comprises specialized infrastructure, including exclusivelanesforhigh-capacityarticulatedbuses

privatelyoperatedwith an off-boardfarecollection

system.

The

firstphaseofthesystemoperates with62

stations.

470

articulated buses, and

300

feeder

buses.

The

vehiclesoperateinthe central lanesof

urbanroads,andarclongitudinallysegregatedfrom generaltraffic. Stations are locatedinthemedian, approximately every 500 meters, with pedestrian

access

provided by

overpasses, tunnels, or

signalized intersections (Figure 4).

Walkways,

plazas,andsidewalksare alsoconstructedtosupply

pedestrian and bicycle access (Sandoval and

Hidalgo.2002).

With a flat fare of 1.000

Colombian

pesos

(USS0.33), revenues

arc sufficient for the

participatingprivatebuscompaniestobeprofitable.

Simultaneously, anew public authorityforplanning,

developingandcontrolling thesystem

was

created

(TransMilenio

S.A.).

TransMilenio began

operations in

December

2000.

The

system

moves

approximately 800,000dailytripsover 42,4

km

(26.2 miles)of busways,andcarries

more

travelersthan

entire mass transit systems in

many

other cities

aroundtheworld(I

EA,

2002). Figure5

shows

the

firstphaseofthesystem(38 kilometers;23.6miles),

which

includes three corridors:Caracas, Callc 80

(80thstreet),andAutopistaNorte(northhighway).

The

firstphaseofthesystemcostaround

USS5

million perkilometer

(USS8.1

millionpermile),

anditsneteconomicbenefitsaccountedfor

USS

1.2

billion with a social rate of return of

60.9%

(CONPES,

2000). Similar to any transportation

project, themostsignificant impactofthe system

for its users has

been

travel time savings.

Commercial

speeds increased from 12 kilometers

perhour(7.5

mph

)to26.7kilometersperhour(16.6

mph)

intheCallc 80and Caracas corridors. This

©

TransMilenioPhase1

Busway

»

AUTOPISTA

—_-CALLE30

==CARACAS

WairR'.c Netv.rk

increase in bus speeds allowed for a 32 percent reduction in average trip times for users ofthe system (SandovalandHidalgo.2002). Additionally,

comparisons

between

before and after system

implementationhave

shown

a significantreduction

inaccidentandairpollutionlevels.

Between

1999 and2001, fatalitiesinthe

BRT

corridors resulting

fromtrafficaccidentswerereducedby 89percent.

Similarly, injuriesandthe

number

ofcollisionswere

reduced

by 75

and

79 percent, respectively (SandovalandHidalgo,2002). Contaminationand

emissionssuchassulfur dioxide, nitrogenoxides,

andparticulatematterwerereducedby43, 18,and

12 percent respectively (Sandoval and Hidalgo, 2002).

Extensionsareplanned overthenext 13years,

when

a 388-kilometer (241 miles)

BRT

network

w

illbe completed. Thisnetwork systemwillcover

80%

ofthe dailytransit trips inthecity (5 million

trips perday), with a capital investment of

more

than

USS2.9

billion.

The

infrastructure

component

ofthe project(USS1.9billion)isbeing financedby

localandnationalpublic funds.

The

citycovers 33 percent ofthe total cost via local fuel taxes, and

the national

government

is contributing the

remaining67percent.

Althoughthere are several operationaland

cost-efficiencyqualitiesofthesystem, one ofthemost

important characteristics

was

its impressive

implementation time. In lessthanthree years,the

firstphase ofthe

BRT

system

was

planned, built,

andinaugurated. Additionally, theimplementation

process did not suffer any significant change in

designorconstruction delays. Thisspeed has

come

atacost,though. Forexample, boththe beneficial

and deleterious impacts

upon

the neighborhoods

and property owners that have resulted from the

system

were

neglected in the evaluation and planning process.

Anecdotal evidence

also

suggests that there

was

little

community

participationand poorqualitycontrol intheplanning

process.

As

aresult,the firstphase ofthesystem

was

successfully

implemented

without

any

substantial compensation toaffectedparties.

Another

apparently neglected aspect of

Bogota's

BRT

system is its potential tospur land

development. Although theplanning ofthe

BRT

system took into account the location of major activitynodes,thereverse relationship,

how

BRT

can promoteadditional dense development along

its corridors

was

neglected. This omission is

somewhat

surprising ifone considers that land

developmentinducedby

BRT

was

thecornerstone

ofCuritiba'ssuccess. InBogota'scase,expediency

and practicality dominated the discourse around

the

BRT

station. Furthennore,asidefromCuritiba,

thereisscantevidenceofthe relationshipbetween

BRT

anditslanddevelopment potential.

From

theperspectiveofplanning,itisinteresting

toperforma posthoc evaluation of

how

the

BRT

system is relatedto land development outcomes

such as land uses

and

values. Transportation

plannersandpolicymakershavereliedonthenotion

that transportation

improvements

enhance

accessibility, and by doing so increase the values

ofthe nearby properties. However,the extent of

theseimpactsforBRTs, andthedifferentiationwith

proximity-related impacts, arc largely unsubstantiated by empirical evidence. It is this

lack of existing research, and the increasing

relevance of

BRT

systems as transportation

mobility solutionsforseveralcitiesaroundtheworld,

thatmotivatedtheempiricalanalysisconductedin

thispaper.

An

evaluationofaccessibilityimpacts

provides first-hand empirical evidence ofthe importanceoftransportationpolicy alternativeson

land use. This information will strengthen the planning processforurbantransitsystemsandwill bevaluableforunderstandingthelocalconditions

forwhich innovative land-basedtax instruments,

suchasvalue-capture, will bemostuseful.

Valuation of Access to

TransMilenio

As

inseveralotherstudies,

we

adoptahedonic

price

model

approach toempirically evaluatethe

capitalization ofaccessibility effects of Bogota's

BRT

onresidential propertyrents asameasure of

land values. Based on the theory ofthe market

forheterogeneousgoods(Rosen, 1974), thehedonic

technique allow ustoestimatepricesofgoodsthat

arenotexplicitlyexchangedinobservablemarket

Variable Definition

Mean

Std.

Dev. Coeff. t-value

Measures ofvalue I'l \l Structural attributes

ULAREA

BEDS

BATHS

LROOM

AGE

Seiahborliood attributes

STRATUM

: POP

DENS

o

o

EMP12_DENS

to

o

EMP3_DENS

cc

_{COMER_%}

RESID_% [NST_%

POVFR

<7r -J 2: o:

o

CD

§

Q.

ROB_RES

ROB_PER

HOMICIDES

BUSWAY

Accessibility

|

O

CC

LOCAL,

ACC

o

REG_ACC

DIST.CBD DIST.DT Proximity-Related I)1ST_BUSW Data

Rentoffered price($CoI1,000,000)' 0.5 0.4

IIsablelivingarea(squaremetersI

Numberofbedrooms

Totalnumberofbathrooms

Dummy

variable indicatingifproperty hasbothlivingand

dinningroom

Dummy

variable indicatingproperly< lOyears of age

Ordinalvariable forsocioeconomicstratum(from 1 to6) 3.0

Populationdensity(1.000 people per square kilometer) 16.0 7.4

Primary andsecondary sectoremploymentdensity

(1,000jobs per square kilometer) 5.6 4.4

Tertiary sectoremploymentdensity

(1,000 jobs persquare kilometer)

Percentageofareadedicatedtocommercialuse Percentageofareadedicatedto residentialuse

Percentage ofareadedicatedtoinstitutionaluse Percentageofareaunder baselinepoverty condition

Numberof break-insonresidential propertiesperyearand

1.000people

Numberof robberiestoindividuals peryearand 1.000 people

Numberofhomicides peryearand 1.000 people

Dummy

variable indicating propertyalongCaracas

corridor (=1.0 =otherwise)

77.8 44.1 0.005 9.96

2 2 1.1 0.034** 2.05

1.5 0.7 0.095*** 3.66

5.5ri 0.094 1.41

44.1% 0.084*** 3.30

0.124*** -0.006** -0.015*** 87.9% 0.8 0.5 -0.033 -0.207**

DATA

5.02 -2.05 -3.34

24.S 24.0 0.00

1

1.14

1.0 4.3 0.007** 2.04

0.6 3.9 -0.003 -0.69 4.S 6.9 -0.004** -2.3S 0.4 2 i -0.010 -1.55

0.2 0.1 -0.804*** -3.01 2.5 1.0 0.133*** 7.29 0.6 0.5 -0.143*** -2.67

-0.40

-2.38

5.3 1.5 0.013 0.62

4.6 3.1 -0.015 -1.34

4.2 3.2 0.008 -0.55

Networkaccessdistancefrom propertytonearest

BRT

station (Km.)

Networkaccessdistancefromnearest

BRT

stationto trip

destinationcenterofgravity foreachstation inthe

AM

peakperiod (Km.

)

Networkaccessdistancefromthenearest

BRT

stationto

the FinancialDistrictstation (76lhstreet)

Networkaccessdistancefromthenearest

BRT

stationto

thedowntownstation (13thstreet)

Straightdistancefrompropertytobusway (km) 0.6 0.4 0.301*** 2.99

Dummy

variable indicatingifdatawascollectedby

field-visual inspection (=1. =otherwise) _{35.8% -0.001 -0.04}

N

=494. 'SUS 1 =SCol 2.280of2002(averageforFebruary-April period).

;

Themeancorrespondstothemedian.

"*. ",and'

denotecoefficient significantly differentfromzeroatthe l°o.

5V

and 10%levelofsignificance (two-tailtest)

respectively. Interceptisequalto-1.820(t-value=-8.09).R:

isequal to0.74. SeeNotes,facing page.

o

Busway

=5=5=CALLESO

ssCARACAS

MainRoadNetwork

i54-m But*«Surer RetKxnulPicpeitei

statisticsofthedata

employed

inthispaper.

In order to specify and evaluate the hedonic

price function,ourempiricalexaminationrequires

an estimateofland values,as wellas information

on structural and neighborhoodcharacteristics of

residential properties.

As

aresult,

we

undertooka

primarydata collectioneffort.

The

data collection processbeganwiththe selectionofa 1.5kilometer

(0.93 mile) buffer areaaroundthe two

BRT

lines

(Caracas and Calle 80 corridors). Information

regarding residential advertised rent prices and structural attributes

was

collectedforallproperties

availableforrentwithinthisbufferarea.

The

final

datasetconsists on asample of

494

multi-family

residential properties surveyed from February to

Aprilof

2002

(Figure6).

Figure6. Areaof Study

systems.

The

basic empirical relationship to be evaluated under this approach is the equilibrium

implicit rent ofthe property as a function ofits

attributes:

r> ~ i ft

V

Structural , ft \r Neighborhood

P

i

=c +

p

s

X

i

+p

N

X

i

j_

R

V

Accessibility , /?

y

Proximitx , *

+

_P,\

A

i

+

Pp

A

i

+£

t

where Pi is the rental price ofthe ith residential

property. Xij isthejthattribute fortheithproperty,

,

p

s , Ph ,Pa an d Prare vectors with coefficient

estimatesfor structural,neighborhood,accessibility,

andproximity-related effects orattributes (implicit

empirical marginal price for each attribute), c is

the intercept constantterm, and ei is the

random

errorterm fortheithproperty. Table 1 presents a

description of the variables and the

summary

o

™3

"-Accessibilityf

Figure 7. Accessibility'

&

Proximity

Table 1.Notes:

a)32missing values (6.5%)from

ULAREA

werefilledbybest-subsetregression(imputed). Similarly, the2? missing values (4.7%)fromthedummy

AGE

variablewereset tothemedian.Foreach ofthesetwovariables

dummyvariables are usedinthemodelstocapturethe effectoftheseimputedobservations.

b)Rentoffered priceandstructural attributeswerecollectedbetweenFebruaryandAprilof 2002.Socioeconomic

variablessuchaspopulationandemploymentdata arefrom 1998.while crimedata arefrom 2001.

c)Neighborhoodattributes,exceptStratumand Busway, wereweight-assignedfromTAZ-levelto250-meter

Local access distance to

BRT

stations

was

measured based on the shortest roadway-based

path fromeach residentialproperty tothe nearest

BRT

station,ratherthana

mere

Euclideandistance

(Figure 7). In addition to accessibility to

BRT

stations. Euclidean distance from the residential

property to the

BRT

right-of-way

was

used as a

measure ofnuisanceproximity-relatedeffectssuch asnoise and air pollution (Figure 7). Structural

attributes include usable living area (in square

meters),

number

of bedrooms, total

number

of

bathrooms (including half baths), and

dummy

variablesforlivinganddining

room

area,andifthe

property islessthan 10 yearsold.

Neighborhood

attributes include

socioeconomic

stratum,

populationand

employment

density,percentageof

urbanized area dedicated to retail, residential, or

office uses,andcrimedatasuchas homiciderates

androbberies.

Results from the semi-logarithmic hedonic

pricefunctional formusing

OLS

regressionsuggest

thatthecurrentvaluationoflocalaccesstoBogota's

BRT

systemis capitalized intoaskingrent prices.

Particularly, the parameter estimated suggests a

monthly

rental discount of

1.87%

for every

additional0.1

km

(328 feet)froma

BRT

station,all

else being equal. Evaluated at the

mean

rental

asking price (Table 1 ), this translates into an

elasticityof-0.16.

By

determining the capitalizationofpositive

BRT

effects (local access to

BRT

stations), the

localizedevidence fromthisstudyprovides,onthe

one hand, tools for exploring the usefulness of innovative land-based tax instruments. For example, a value capture tax that theoretically

should hinge on the capitalization of positive

benefits

on

land values

from

infrastructure

improvements

is validated

from

the empirical

evidence

presented

on

this paper.

Local

governments andlocal transitagenciescouldjustify

thenatureandmagnitude ofcharges derivedfrom

value capture,

known

as valorizacion , toparcels

nearby transportation

improvements

or

new

constructionfacilities.

On

theotherhand,thecapitalizationofaccess

onland rents alsosuggeststhatthereisa potential

forfuture landdevelopment. SimilartoCuritiba's

experience,

where complementing

land-use initiatives weretakenin orderto inducedesirable urban formsand landusesaround

BRT

stationsor along corridors. Bogota's future

BRT

extensions

have a large potential to influence future land

development and urban growth. For example, a

worldofunexplored proactive land use planning

foraworkabletransit-landusenexus,thathasbeen

absentfromtheplanningprocess,should bein the

agenda of Bogota's transit and urban planners. Local officials could take advantage ofthe land

market

(e.g., fostering faster

and

more

concentrated urban development) as a response

to the capitalization effects from access to

BRT

stations.

Finally,there arc threemainlimitationsofthis

studythatshouldbe underscored. First, theuseof

cross-sectional datalimitstheabsoluteattribution

ofthe

premium

found on asking rental prices to

the presence ofthe

BRT,

instead it is an actual

measureor valuation ofaccess. Further research

(e.g.,usingtime-seriesdatafora beforeand after

study)

may

determineifthe

premium

detectedcan

beattributedtothepresenceofthe

BRT.

Second,

the use ofasking rental prices, instead ofactual

prices,

may

bias the results if there is

any

systematic bias in the difference between asking

and

market

rental price associated with

unobservable characteristics on the study.

And

third,furtherresearchshould focuson commercial

andofficelandvaluesinordertoevaluate the other

parts

of

the

expected

relationship

between

accessibilityandtheland market.

Conclusions

Rather thanrelyingonautomobilepoliciesthat

reinforce patternsofseclusionandisolation,recent

experiences in Latin

American

cities supporting

world-class public transportation systems have

resulted in the creation of livable spaces with a

significantpotentialtospurlanddevelopment and

future urban growth. In cities like Bogota and

Curitiba, bus transit

sen

ice has re-emerged as a

cost-effective transportation alternative for

example, Bogota's

BRT

has allowed for a 32

pereent reduction inaveragetraveltimes forusers ofthesysteminadditiontosignificantreductionin

aecidentandairpollutionlevelsalongthe

busway

corridors. Inadditiontoservingitsexplicitgoalof

providingmobility,thisrevolutionforprovisionof

high quality bus transit service has

shown

its

potential for stimulating land development and

livable spaces. DespitecaseslikeCuritiba,

where

BRTs

haveplayedanintegralroleinthesuccessful

articulationofanintegratedlanduseandtransport

strategy,thereisscantevidenceofthe relationship

between

BRT

and its landdevelopmentpotential.

Thispaper providesfirst-handempiricalevidence

onthe evaluationof

how

the

BRT

systemisrelated

tolanddevelopment outcomessuchaslandvalues.

Previous research suggests that the impacts

ofaccessto

BRT

facilitiesonthenearby land value

and use have been minor. However,

new

BRT

systems like the one in Bogota feature intensive

infrastructure facilities and their effects in terms

ofaccessibilityandmobilityhave beenimpressive.

Based on this previous premise, this paper finds evidencethatthe current valueofaccessibilityto Bogota's

BRT

are capitalized into residential propertyrentalprices. Giventheempiricalhousing

rent-landvaluerelationship,these results suggest

that property rental prices are a theoretical

representation of the land value for

housing

services.

To

the degree that the results fromthis study can begeneralized,thisevidence hasawiderange

ofpractical applications, from determining the

usefulnessofinnovativeland-basedtaxinstruments

that hinge on the capitalization ofpositive

BRT

effects, toinformingpolicymakersaboutthe land

development consequences

of transportation

infrastructure alternatives. Recent studies about

incentive taxation have

shown

that value capture

represents an alternative approach to capital cost

recovery that has not been fully explored and examined inthe tax policy context. Bart (2001

)

noted

how

only a

few

studies, if any,

have

recognizedthe relationshipbetweentransportation,

land use,andtaxation. However,there is

enough

evidence fromstudiesthat

show

themeritsof value-capture as an instrument ofpublic infrastructure

finance (Allen, 1987; Ccrvero, 1994;Johnson and

Hoel, 1985).

In addition to being an efficient

method

for

public funding of transit infrastructure, value-capture also encourages faster and denser urban

development in areas in close proximity to

BRT

lines,

assuming

that density caps are not a

constrainingfactor. Giventhehigherrentsonland

valuesinlocationswith

good

access,itisexpected

thatlandownerswill try torecovertheirinvestments

rather than hold

them

for speculative gain (e.g.,

BRT

fosters faster

and

more

concentrated

development). This is always a desired

outcome

for policy

makers

regarding transit-oriented

developments because it has implications forthe

viabilityoftransitoperation. However,to ensure

thisurbandevelopment

outcome

itisnecessaryto

complement

thistaxationpolicywith

mechanisms

such as higher density caps and mixed-use land-use zoning.

The

extenttowhichpositiveeffectsof Bogota's

BRT

system are capitalized into property values

provides apromising approachforpublicinstitutions

to fund

BRT

extensions

and

general transit

infrastructure. With extensions planned over the

next 13 years, issues relatedtoboth itsbeneficial

and deleterious impacts

may

become

ofgrowing

concern to boththe affected public andto transit

planners.

When

completed. 85percentofBogota's

population will be located in a 500-meterarea of

influenceofthe

BRT

system,

where

positive and

negative impactsareexpectedtoinfluence property valuesand future landdevelopment.

Acknowledgments

We

are gratefultoAngelicaCastroandDario

Hidalgofrom TransMilenioS.A.andVivianBarrios

for their invaluable data collection assistance.

Financial support

was

provided in part by the

References

Lynch,

k„

1985GoodCitv Form.

MIT

Press.

Allen, B., 1987 "ValueCapture inTransit,"_{Journal of}

theTransportationResearch Forum,Vol.28: pp.50-57.

Ardila,A.and Rodriguez.DA.,2000."Ilow ChaosBuilds Ridership:Operationsofan Exclusive BusvvayCam.ing Over 35,000 Passengers Per Hour per Direction,"

TransportationResearchRecord,No. 1726.

ArdilaA.,MenckhofTG.,2002"TransportationPolicies

in Bogota: Building a Transportation System for the

People".Paper presentedattheTransportationResearch Board 81thAnnual Meeting. Washington, D.C. Paper

01041,

CDROM.

Pefialosa E., 2002 "Urban Transport and Urban

Development:

A

DifferentModel". Speech conducted

intheCenterforLatinAmericanStudies,Universityof

California,Berkeley.

Rosen,U.S.. 1974"Iledonic PricesandImplicitMarkets:

Product Differentiation inPure Competition,"Journal

oj PoliticalEconomy,Vol. 82, pp. 34-55.

Sandoval, E. and Hidalgo,D., 2002 "TransMilenio:

A

high capacity - low cost bus rapid transit system

developedforBogota, Colombia."Unpublishedmimeo,

TransMilenioS.A., Bosiota,Colombia.

Batt, W.II., 2001 "Value Capture as a Policy Tool in

Transportation Economics:

An

exploration in public

finance in the tradition ofHenry George," American

JournalofEconomicsandSociology;Vol. 60,No. 1,pp.

195-228.

Cervero.R., 1994"RailTransitandJointDevelopment:

LandMarketImpactsinWashington,

DC

andAtlanta,"

Journal oftheAmerican PlanningAssociation,Vol. 60,

No. 1,pp.83-94.

CONPES

(Consejo Nacional de PoliticaEconomicay Social), 2000"Sistema de Servicio Publico Llrbano de

Transporte

Masivo

de Pasajeros de Bogota

-Seguimiento-."DepartamentoNacional de Planeacion.

DocumentoNo.3093.

Smolka,M.and Amborski,D.,2000"Value Capturefor

Urban Development:

An

Inter-AmericanComparison." Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, Working Paper. Cambridge,

MA.

Rodriguez, D. and Ardila, A., 2002 "An Empirical

ExplorationofBusTravelTimesand DwellTimesina

Highly Competitive Exclusive Busvvay," Journal of

PublicTransportation, Vol. 5,No. 1,pp.39-60.

Rodriguez. D. and Targa, F.. 2003 "The value of

accessibility to Bogota's bus rapid transit system,"

TransportReviews,(forthcoming).

Whyte,W., 1988City: RediscoveringtheCenter,

New

York: Doubledav.

DAPD

- Alcaldia

Mayor

de Bogota, 2000, Plan de

Ordenamiento Territorial de Santa fe de Bogota

-DocumentoTecnico de Soporte. DecretoNo.l110 del

28 deDie.de2000. Alcaldia

Mayor

de Bogota. Bogota, Colombia.

IEA(InternationalEnergy Agency),2002 "Bus Systems

for the Future; Achieving Sustainable Transport

Worldwide,"IEAPublications,France.

Jacobs,J., 1961 TheDeath andLifeofGreatAmerican

Cities,

Random

1louse.

New

York.

JICA-ChodaiCo. Ltd.. 1996 EstudiodelPlan Maestro

del Transporte Urbano de Santa Fe de Bogota en la

Republicade Colombia.IDU.Bogota.

Johnson,G,and1loel,L.A., 1985"AnInventoryof Value Capture Techniques forTransportation," University of