PUBLIC TRANSIT AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS - A...

PUBLIC TRANSIT AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

IMPACTS - A CASE OF AHMEDABAD JANMARG

Urban Transport Planning &

Management,

CEPT University

Neetu Anna Joseph

1

Why do we need

transportation?

TRANSPORTATI

ON: • Engine of growth,

• Associated with large concentration

of firms, activities and people.

• Congestion, pollution and higher land prices

Post industrialization, motorization �� private vehicles �� problems like congestion,

pollution, inequality of services.

Why do people

travel?

Why do we need public transportation?

• Affordability,

• Reduced carbon footprint and

• Ability to move large number of

commuters

• urban cohesiveness,

• creates agglomeration economies and

• enhances the economic development

prospects of the firms along the routes.

What does public transportation do?

2

TRANSPORTATION & ECONOMICS:

Assumed link between the quality

of the transport infrastructure and

economic growth.

Economic

success

In the developing countries, capital

investment decides the type and

quality of public transit that a city

can have.Changes in transport have economic

effects through their influence on

• Regional patterns of commerce, on

• Incentives to invest and to

innovate,

• Location decisions of firms,

How does transport have economic

effects?

Increased

density/populati

on/agglomeratio

n/jobs

New

Transportatio

n Investments

And a reasonable quality and

density of transport network is

necessary.

Source: Banister and Berechman, 2000; Transport – delivering productivity, GHD report – linking logic , David banister, transport studies unit,

school of geography and the environment, university of oxford, UK, Jan 2012.

• Location decisions of firms,

• Commuting and migration

decisions of households.

3

ECONOMIC IMPACTS:

Indicates a change in an item or an entity and includes both positive impacts

(benefits) and negative impacts (costs). It includes both short term and long term

activities.

All transportation investments bring about ECONOMIC IMPACTS, but not all

transportation investments result in ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS.

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT:

The growth of jobs, wealth, tax base and well being of a neighborhood, city, region or

state.

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS:

is a subset of “economic impacts” that result in economic development.

4

Source: Analyzing the economic impacts of transportation projects, Connecticut academy of science and engineering.

produce net economic growth in a region.

• They arise from utilizing previously underused resources

or using resources more efficiently.

• They reflect increases in economic productivity, the

competitive advantage of a region, and quality of urban

living, and represent a net economic gain.

• account for locational shifts of economic activity within a

region.

• They quite likely represent economic activities that would

1. Generative impacts

• User benefits

• Regional employment and income

growth

• Agglomeration and urbanization

benefits;

• External benefits

• Job accessibility benefits 2. Redistributive impacts

• Land development

• Employment and income growth

5

• They quite likely represent economic activities that would

have occurred anyway in the absence of the transit

investment, but in a more dispersed manner.

• involve the conveyance of money from one entity to

another.

• In actuality, they represent accounting or financial impacts –

shifts from one accounting ledger to another

• Employment and income growth

3. Financial transfer impacts

• Regional employment and income

growth related to construction, operation,

and maintenance of the transit system

• Joint development income to local

agencies

• Property tax income.

Source: David banister, transport studies unit, school of geography and the environment, university of oxford, UK, Jan 2012.

RESEARCH QUESTION:

• Do public transport investments (BRTS) have economic development impacts in

the region?

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES:

• What has been the change in the share of the activities in the urban area?

SCOPE :• The inferences drawn from this research thesis shall be valid only for the

Ahmedabad city area covered by BRTS.

• Study focuses on the accessibility impacts and not the mobility impacts.

LIMITATION:• The analysis is not carried out on the number of jobs but in terms of the number of

opportunities in the respective sector.• What has been the change in the share of the activities in the urban area?

• Evaluate the changes in different sectors and verify how much of this economic

development has been around the BRTS stations.

• Check which are the sectors most affected by the BRTS, both positively and

negatively.

6

opportunities in the respective sector.

• As exact addresses of the properties were difficult to collect, the analysis is been

done by considering the predominant land use and area of the property tax wards.

RATIONALE:

Transit requires bulky investments and is usually drawn from public exchequer.

Transit investments benefit both users and non-users.

• Studying economic development impacts would help justify investments in

quantitative terms.

• Measuring economic impacts will enable local agencies to devise value capture

mechanisms.

Measuring, nature and scale of impacts, would enable project proponents to better

justify the investments.

Moving forward, we would require more investments in transportation – to drive the

economic growth of our cities. Establishing or proving a significant relation between

public transport (BRTS) and economic development, can be used as an effective key

to procure more investments towards the public transportation sector.

mechanisms.

7

METHODOLOGY:

LITERATURE REVIEW

• Terms and definitions.

• Relation between transport and economics.

• Previous research works in the same area.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

• Framing the research question and objectives.

• Defining the scope and limitations

SECONDARY DATA

COLLECTION

• Aggregate data for 3 years (2006-2007, 2009-2010, 2012-2013) regarding number and area of residential and non residential properties.

• Detailed data regarding the typology of non residential activities for 2 years (2009-2010, 2012-2013)

8

LOCATION QUOTIENT ANALYSIS

• To identify the basic industries of each zone.

• The change in basic industries.

SHIFT SHARE

ANALYSIS

• To identify the shift share towards residential and non-residential units in each zone.

• To identify the shift share within the non residential activities.

CONCLUSION

• To draw inferences from the analysis carried out.

• To identify land use policy implications.

AHMEDABAD – CITY PROFILEAHMEDABAD – CITY PROFILE

9

AHMEDABA

D:The financial capital of Gujarat.

AMC area – 466 Sq Km,

AMC population density – 120 pph

it has six zones� North, East, West, New west, South and Central.

TRANSIT MODES:

The city has AMTS and BRTS providing public transportation facilities, together

they move 10.17 lakh passengers per day.

The city also has close to 60000 auto rickshaws out of which around 7000

Source:

www.utbenchmark.in

The city also has close to 60000 auto rickshaws out of which around 7000

operate as shared autos.

TRAVEL PATERNS:

The trip rate of the city is 1.44 (all modes) and 1.39 (excluding walk trips).

The average trip length is 5.02 km.

The western part of the city is dominated by car trips, walk and cycle trips in the

eastern city.

Trips by 2 wheelers and auto rickshaws are distributed all over the city.10

LAND USE:

West and New west are

predominantly residential,

North, East and South have

residential and industrial land

use. Central zone includes

the gamtal and some

residential and industrial

areas.

BRTS Phase I:

BRTS Phase II:

Progress

in Phase

1

Phase 1 Pilot stretch (12.5 kms.):

Operational since 14th October, 2009

Phase 1 (46.0 kms.):

Operational sequentially since December

2009 as mentioned below:

11

October 2009 (12.5 kms. - Phase 1)

December 2009 (18.5 kms. - Phase 1)

April 2010 (25 kms. - Phase 1)

September 2010 (32 kms. - Phase 1)

Progress

in Phase

2

Phase 2 (30.5 kms.):

•13.0 kms operational

•Operational by March 2013 – 7.7 kms.

•Operational by June 2013 – 14.5 kms.

•Operational by September 2013 – 6.1 kms.

Source: center of excellence, UT, CEPT university

ANALYSIS:

12

• Property tax ward details

1. Aggregate data, regarding residential and non-residential properties from 2006 to 2013.

2. Detailed data regarding non-residential properties and their usage typology, for 2009-2010

and 2012-2013.

• In 2009-2010, there were 177 activities listed, where as in 2012-2013 there were 221 activities;

hence for comparison it was required to categories all of them under common heads.

• BRTS stop locations

DATA:

13

• BRTS stop locations

• Buffer zone – 250mts around BRTS stations.

BRTS station with

buffer

AGGREGATE LEVEL ANALYSIS:

Here, the whole city i.e. the AMC limit is considered. The aim is to

understand the

• Growth happening in the city in terms of residential and non-residential

units and area.

• Non-residential to residential ratio.

14


• Area intensity of the residential and non residential properties.

• Residential and non-residential – shift share.

YEAR

NON

RESIDENTIAL -

units

RESIDENTIAL -

units

% increase - NON

RESIDENTIAL

% increase -

RESIDENTIAL

Ratio of non-residential to

residential unit

2006-2007 262008 806958 3.1

2007-2008 263958 811118 1% 1% 3.1

2008-2009 255043 800380 -3% -1% 3.1

2009-2010 277972 926307 9% 16% 3.3

2010-2011 322831 1085558 16% 17% 3.4

2011-2012 370476 1255342 15% 16% 3.4

2012-2013 433787 1375964 17% 10% 3.2

2006-2013 66% 71%

GROWTH IN RESIDENTIAL AND NON RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES AND AREA IN THE

CITY:

2006-2013 66% 71%

YEAR

AREA - NON

RESIDENTIAL

(sqm)

AREA –

RESIDENTIAL

(sqm)

% increase - NON

RESIDENTIAL

% increase -

RESIDENTIAL

Ratio of non-residential to

residential unit

2006-2007 27350000 37624992 1.4

2007-2008 26942495 37969079 -1% 1% 1.4

2008-2009 27229311 38041113 1% 0% 1.4

2009-2010 29788928 38461073 9% 1% 1.3

2010-2011 32953783 39486944 11% 3% 1.2

2011-2012 36208575 41841736 10% 6% 1.2

2012-2013 38942921 42876223 8% 2% 1.1

2006-2013 42% 14% 15

AVERAGE AREA INTENSITY OF NON-RESIDENTIAL AND RESIDENTIAL UNITS:

YEAR NON-RESIDENTIAL (sq m) RESIDENTIAL (sq m)

2006-2007 104.38 46.62

2009-2010 107.16 41.52

16

2009-2010 107.16 41.52

2012-2013 89.7 31.16

Is a standard regional analysis method, it determines how much of

regional job growth can be attributed to

• the national trends

• the unique regional factors.

It takes the change of an economic variable over time, such

as employment, and divides that change into various components.

SHIFT SHARE:

1. National growth effect: is the portion of the change attributed to the total

growth of the national economy. It equals the theoretical change in the

regional variable had it increased by the same percentage as the national

economy. (National share)

2. Industry mix effect: is the portion of the change attributed to the

performance of the specific economic industry. It is to be equal to the

COMPONENT

S:

as employment, and divides that change into various components.

The region can be a town, city, county, statistical area, state.

Source: Economic Modelling Specialist Inc, resource library

Rob Sentz, 2011

Each regional change is decomposed into three components.

17

performance of the specific economic industry. It is to be equal to the

theoretical change in the regional variable had it increased by the same

percentage as the industry nationwide, minus the national growth effect.

(Proportional shift)

3. Local share effect: is the portion of the change attributed to regional

influences, and is the component of primary concern to regional analysts.

It equals the actual change in the regional variable, minus the previous two

effects. (Differential shift, Regional shift or Competitive share).

SHIFT SHARE - CALCULATION:

The equation used has been developed by the “Carnegie Mellon Center for

Economic Development”, it is as follows:

SS = UA + IM + BRT

Where,

SS = is the shift share,

UA = is the Urban Area share,

IM = is the industry mix,

Where,

�i local(t-1) = number of local jobs in sector (i) at the beginning of the analysis period (t-1)

�i localt = number of local jobs in sector (i) at the end of the analysis period (t)

�UA (t-1) = total number of jobs in the nation at the beginning of the analysis period (t-1)IM = is the industry mix,

BRT = is the BRT location advantage.

The equations for each component of the shift-share analysis are:

UA = i local (t-1) • UA (t-1) / UA (t)

IM = (i local (t-1) • i UA (t) / i UA (t-1) - UA

BRT = i local (t-1) • (i local t / i local (t-1)– i UA (t) / i UA (t-1) )18

�UA = total number of jobs in the nation at the beginning of the analysis period (t-1)

�UA (t) = total number of jobs in the nation at the end of the analysis period (t)

�i UA(t-1) = number of jobs, nationwide, in sector (i) at the beginning of the analysis

period (t-1)

�i UA(t) = number of jobs, nationwide, in sector (i) at the end of the analysis period (t)

AGGREGATE SHIFT SHARE FOR OVERALL CITY – OVERALL

OVERALL

no. of units within 1/4 km of

BRTS station - 2009


BRTS station -2013 urban 2009 urban 2013 UA IM BRT

NON-RESIDENTIAL 42293 69538 304200 433571 28760 31519 9259

RESIDENTIAL 55211 86909 926307 1375964 37544 44468 4898

TOTAL 1230507 1809535

13% 6%

19

BRTS LOCATION, SHARE OF CHANGE:

Economic

SectorWithin 1/4 km of

BRTS 2009

Within 1/4 km of

BRTS 2013Change Urban

2009

Urban

2013Change %Change BRTS location

share of changeRate

Hotels/Lodgings 173 328 155 2079 3250 1171 56% 13% 1/4

Administration 1692 4963 3271 24090 68645 44555 185% 7% 1/25

Education 348 696 348 4476 7133 2657 59% 13% 1/4

Recreational - A 47 1806 1759 674 2143 1469 218% 120% 1/2

Health 605 1592 987 5536 9119 3583 65% 28% 1/2Health 605 1592 987 5536 9119 3583 65% 28% 1/2

Manufacturing 5788 7777 1989 53739 60942 7203 13% 28% 1/.4

Retail 30260 47866 17606 181726 239670 57944 32% 30% 1

Services 478 1289 811 4169 7320 3151 76% 26% 1/3

Warehousing 2902 3221 319 27711 35349 7638 28% 4% 1/6

TOTAL 42293 69538 27245 304200 433571 129371 21%

20

AMC area = 464 sq km,

Area in the buffers = 20.2 sq km 21% Of Change Happened In 4% Of

The Area

DISAGGREGATE LEVEL ANALYSIS:

Here, the whole city i.e. the AMC limit is taken up zone wise. The aim is to

understand the

• Growth happening in the six zones in terms of residential and non-

residential units and area.

• Area intensity of the residential and non residential properties in the

21

• Area intensity of the residential and non residential properties in the

zones.

• Location quotient and economic composition.

• Non-residential – shift share.

NORTH

YEAR NON RESIDENTIAL - units RESIDENTIAL - units % increase - NON RESIDENTIAL % increase - RESIDENTIAL

2006-2007 41559 168315

2009-2010 42816 150457 3% -11%

2012-2013 56213 207541 31% 38%

2006-2013 35% 23%

EAST


2006-2007 42533 163567

GROWTH IN RESIDENTIAL AND NON RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY UNITS ZONE WISE:

SOUTH


2006-2007 44402 164871

2009-2010 37668 136581 -15% -17%

2012-2013 57126 218187 52% 60%

2006-2013 29% 32%

CENTRAL


2006-2007 83494 135771

2009-2010 63748 91897 -24% -32%

22

2009-2010 55799 149954 31% -8%

2012-2013 79073 255074 42% 70%

2006-2013 86% 56%

WEST


2006-2007 46658 170415

2009-2010 65285 147857 40% -13%

2012-2013 88938 225869 36% 53%

2006-2013 91% 33%

2009-2010 63748 91897 -24% -32%

2012-2013 109492 152698 72% 66%

2006-2013 31% 12%

NEW WEST


2006-2007

2009-2010 12656 249561

2012-2013 72945 316595 476% 27%

2006-2013

GROWTH IN RESIDENTIAL AND NON RESIDENTIAL AREA ZONE WISE:

NORTH

YEARAREA - NON RESIDENTIAL

(sqm)AREA – RESIDENTIAL (sqm) % increase - NON RESIDENTIAL % increase - RESIDENTIAL

2006-2007 5765542 7136327

2009-2010 6185245 7150133 7% 0%

2012-2013 7643042 8107597 24% 13%

2006-2013 33% 14%

EAST

YEAR AREA - NON RESIDENTIAL(sqm) AREA – RESIDENTIAL (sqm) % increase - NON RESIDENTIAL % increase - RESIDENTIAL

SOUTH


(sqm)AREA - RESIDENTIAL(sqm)

% increase - NON

RESIDENTIAL% increase - RESIDENTIAL

2006-2007 5470961 7555692

2009-2010 7597292 8250412 39% 9%

2012-2013 8281706 8518318 9% 3%

2006-2013 51% 13%

CENTRAL


AREA – RESIDENTIAL (sqm)% increase - NON

% increase - RESIDENTIAL

23

2006-2007 5783722 5783722

2009-2010 4420815 7139157 -24% 23%

2012-2013 8462355 9168280 91% 28%

2006-2013 46% 59%

WEST

YEAR AREA - NON RESIDENTIAL(sqm) AREA – RESIDENTIAL (sqm) % increase - NON RESIDENTIAL % increase - RESIDENTIAL

2006-2007 4455873 11151458

2009-2010 6772644 8910457 52% -20%

2012-2013 7342036 9400197 8% 5%

2006-2013 65% -16%


(sqm)AREA – RESIDENTIAL (sqm)

% increase - NON


2006-2007 4426020 5873236

2009-2010 4465053 6060457 1% 3%

2012-2013 5127130 6200575 15% 2%

2006-2013 16% 6%

NEW WEST


(sqm)AREA – RESIDENTIAL (sqm)

% increase - NON


2006-2007

2009-2010 347879 950457

Zone Year Non-residential (sq m) Residential (sq m)

NORTH

2006-2007 138.7 42.4

2009-2010 144.46 47.52

2012-2013 135.96 39.06

EAST

2006-2007 136.0 35.4

2009-2010 79.23 47.61

AVERAGE AREA INTENSITY OF NON-RESIDENTIAL AND RESIDENTIAL UNITS – ZONE

WISE

Zone Year Non-residential (sq m) Residential (sq m)

SOUTH

2006-2007 123.2 45.8

2009-2010 201.69 60.41

2012-2013 144.97 39.04

CENTRAL

2006-2007 53.01 43.26

2009-2010 70.04 65.95

24

EAST 2009-2010 79.23 47.61

2012-2013 107.02 35.94

WEST

2006-2007 95.50 65.44

2009-2010 103.74 60.26

2012-2013 82.55 41.62

CENTRAL 2009-2010 70.04 65.95

2012-2013 46.83 40.61

NEW WEST

2006-2007

2009-2010 27.5 3.8

2012-2013 28.6 4.7

LOCATION QUOTIENT:

Is a way of quantifying how concentrated a particular industry, cluster, or

demographic group is in a city as compared to the nation. It can reveal what

It is also important to understand the economic composition of the city,

All the economic activities listed, have been classified in to various sector

heads.

All the sectors can be seen all across the city, but some are predominant in

certain areas.

The basic uses of industry LQs are:

• Which industries make the regional economy unique.

• The “export orientation” of an industry.

demographic group is in a city as compared to the nation. It can reveal what

makes a particular region “unique” in comparison to the national average.

Source: Local economic development, Session 6: Economic base theory

(con’td), focus on LQ’s

25

Suppose,

X is the amount of some particular asset in a region, and

Y is the total amount of all assets in the region.

X/Y is then the regional “concentration” of that asset in the region.

LOCATION QUOTIENT - CALCULATION:INTERPRETING LOCATION QUOTIENTS:

A location quotient greater than 1: BASIC / PREDOMINANT

• Then the industry employs a greater share of the local workforce than it does

nationally, produces more goods and services than are consumed locally, which are

exported

A location quotient less than 1: NON-BASIC / NOT PREDOMINANTX/Y is then the regional “concentration” of that asset in the region.

if X’ and Y’ are similar data points for some larger reference region (like a state or nation),

then,

LQ or relative concentration of that asset in the region compared to the nation is (X/Y) /

(X’/Y’).

Source: Local economic development, Session 6: Economic base theory

(con’td), focus on LQ’s

26

A location quotient less than 1: NON-BASIC / NOT PREDOMINANT

• Then the industry's share of local employment is smaller than its share of national

employment

If a location quotient equals 1: JUDGMENT CALL / NEUTRAL

• Then the industry's share of local employees is the same as the industry's share

nationally

ZONES LQ H LQ A LQ E LQ REC LQ HE LQ M LQ RE-A LQ S LQ W

CENTRAL 1.1 1.5 0.7 0.4 0.6 0.4 1.1 0.5 1.3

NEW WEST 2.4 4.6 2.4 6.0 3.5 0.4 0.2 3.7 3.0

WEST 1.1 0.1 1.1 2.8 1.3 0.5 1.3 2.7 0.2

EAST 0.7 0.3 0.9 0.4 0.8 2.1 0.8 0.7 0.7

NORTH 0.8 0.5 1.0 0.6 1.0 1.4 1.0 0.3 0.7

SOUTH 0.9 1.0 1.1 0.6 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.1

LQ Comparison 2009 & 2013 >1 <1

ZONES LQ H LQ A LQ E LQ REC LQ HE LQ M LQ RE-A LQ S LQ W

CENTRAL 1.2 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.9 1.1 1.6 1.4

NEW WEST 1.1 1.3 1.3 1.9 1.0 0.1 1.1 0.9 1.1

WEST 1.5 2.5 1.6 1.6 1.6 0.1 0.8 1.2 0.4

EAST 0.6 0.2 0.8 0.5 1.3 2.1 1.0 0.5 0.8

NORTH 0.8 0.3 1.0 0.8 0.9 1.7 1.1 0.6 0.7

SOUTH 0.8 0.9 1.0 0.8 0.9 1.2 0.9 0.7 1.3

27

Central Zone2009CENTRAL 2009

28Middle income, developed zone – commercial

CENTRAL 2013

North ZoneNORTH 2009

29Low &middle income, developing zone - industrial

NORTH 2013

East ZoneEAST 2009

30Low &middle income, developed zone - industrial

EAST 2013

West ZoneWEST 2009

31High income, Emerging zone – residential & institutional

WEST 2013

South ZoneSOUTH 2009

32

Low &middle income, developing zone - industrial

SOUTH 2013

New West ZoneNEW WEST 2009

33Low &middle income, emerging zone - residential

NEW WEST 2013

EMERGING

ZONES

WEST ZONE

NEW WEST

ZONE

DEVELOPING

ZONES

HIGH INCOME

LOW & MIDDLE

INCOME

LOW & MIDDLE

34

NORTH ZONE

SOUTH ZONE

DEVELOPED

ZONES

CENTRAL ZONE

EAST ZONELOW & MIDDLE

INCOME

LOW & MIDDLE

INCOME

MIDDLE INCOME

LOW & MIDDLE

INCOME

CENTRAL 2009 2013 change 2009- no BRTS 2013-no BRTS change

HOTELS/LODGINGS 116 157 41 337 442 105

ADMINISTRATION 1439 2618 1179 4499 4856 357

EDUCATION 181 201 20 515 520 5

RECREATIONAL – A 7 57 50 49 129 80

HEALTH 119 301 182 541 656 115

MANUFACTURING 1107 1700 593 2401 7740 5339

RETAIL 14919 17747 2828 27496 23702 -3794

SERVICES 121 517 396 279 2003 1724

WAREHOUSING 2477 2693 216 4959 4299 -660

BRTS LOCATION, SHARE OF CHANGE vs NON BRTS LOCATION:

NORTH 2009 2013 change 2009- no BRTS 2013-no BRTS change

HOTELS/LODGINGS 0 0 0 148 210 62

ADMINISTRATION 11 23 12 738 1466 728

EDUCATION 3 18 15 433 589 156

RECREATIONAL - A 2 17 15 40 133 93

HEALTH 87 151 64 470 688 218

MANUFACTURING 1098 1650 552 6682 9589 2907

RETAIL 2490 6207 3717 18909 21124 2215

SERVICES 11 89 78 147 578 431

WAREHOUSING 0 0 0 1391 1591 200

35

EAST 2009 2013 change 2009- no BRTS 2013-no BRTS change


ADMINISTRATION 101 212 111 658 836 178

EDUCATION 43 91 48 295 364 69

RECREATIONAL - A 3 21 18 24 100 76

HEALTH 66 148 82 376 753 377

MANUFACTURING 2898 3659 761 4671 5906 1235

RETAIL 2497 6224 3727 10766 11619 853

SERVICES 53 120 67 124 371 247

WAREHOUSING 399 479 80 974 1178 204

WEST 2009 2013 change 2009- no BRTS 2013-no BRTS change

HOTELS/LODGINGS 29 113 84 92 354 262

ADMINISTRATION 16 1694 1678 92 8092 8000

EDUCATION 71 259 188 268 599 331

RECREATIONAL - A 25 1619 1594 99 222 123

HEALTH 119 471 352 287 1113 826

MANUFACTURING 8 5 -3 27589 354 -27235

RETAIL 4093 7219 3126 9399 9321 -78

SERVICES 183 306 123 561 657 96

WAREHOUSING 21 45 24 241 770 529

36

SOUTH 2009 2013 change 2009- no BRTS 2013-no BRTS change


ADMINISTRATION 88 207 119 1027 1290 263

EDUCATION 29 43 14 279 301 22

RECREATIONAL - A 6 51 45 23 87 64

HEALTH 176 408 232 282 312 30

MANUFACTURING 676 759 83 4778 5889 1111

RETAIL 6214 7417 1203 8917 8647 -270

SERVICES 89 171 82 313 473 160

WAREHOUSING 3 4 1 1870 1889 19

NEW WEST 2009 2013 change 2009- no BRTS 2013-no BRTS change

Transit friendly Transit neutral Transit unfriendly

RetailNEW WEST 2009 2013 change 2009- no BRTS 2013-no BRTS change


ADMINISTRATION 37 209 172 3042 8956 5914

EDUCATION 21 84 63 312 947 635

RECREATIONAL - A 4 41 37 105 450 345

HEALTH 38 113 75 596 1107 511

MANUFACTURING 1 3 2 650 996 346

RETAIL 47 3052 3005 1053 27161 26108

SERVICES 21 86 65 462 1029 567

WAREHOUSING 0 0 0 3638 5335 1697

37

High rise residential Warehousing

Recreational Manufacturing

Mixed use development Education

Administrative Services

Health require large land areas

more trips/area less trips/area

AGGREGATE SHIFT SHARE FOR CITY – ZONE WISE

NORTH


BRTS station - 2009

no. of units within 1/4 km of BRTS

station -2013 urban 2009 urban 2013 UA IM BRT

NON-

RESIDENTIAL 3702 8155 304200 433571 2517 2759 2879

RESIDENTIAL 9027 15355 926307 1375964 6139 7271 1946

TOTAL 1230507 1809535

EAST


BRTS station - 2009



NON-RESIDENTIAL 6076 10995 304200 433571 4132 4529 2334

RESIDENTIAL 9027 15355 926307 1375964 6139 7271 1946

1230507 1809535

WEST


BRTS station - 2009



NON-RESIDENTIAL 4565 11731 304200 433571 3105 3402 5224

RESIDENTIAL 13011 19876 926307 1375964 8848 10480 549

TOTAL 1230507 1809535

SOUTH


BRTS station - 2009



NON-RESIDENTIAL 7293 9077 304200 433571 4960 5436 -1318

RESIDENTIAL 8741 13964 926307 1375964 5944 7040 980

TOTAL 1230507 1809535

CENTRAL


BRTS station - 2009



NON-RESIDENTIAL 20486 29991 304200 433571 13931 15268 792

RESIDENTIAL 7168 11190 926307 1375964 4874 5773 542

TOTAL 1230507 1809535

NEW WEST


BRTS station - 2009



NON-RESIDENTIAL 169 3588 304200 433571 115 126 3347

RESIDENTIAL 8236 10448 926307 1375964 5600 6633 -1786

TOTAL 1230507 1809535

35% 13%13%21%45% 3%3% 5%93%

38

ZONE WISE SHIFT SHARE ANALYSIS: CENTRAL

CENTRAL within 1/4 km of BRTS 2009 within 1/4 km of BRTS 2013 urban 2009 urban 2013 UA IM BRT

HOTELS/LODGINGS116 157 2079 3250 81 100 -24

ADMINISTRATION 1439 2618 24090 68645 1010 3091 -1482

EDUCATION 181 201 4476 7133 127 161 -87

ENTERTAINMENT 7 57 674 2143 5 17 35

HEALTH 119 301 5536 9119 83 113 105

MANUFACTURING 1107 1700 53739 60942 777 479 444

39

Walled city - gamtalMANUFACTURING 1107 1700 53739 60942 777 479 444

RETAIL 14919 17747 181726 239670 10467 9209 -1929

SERVICES 121 517 4169 7320 85 128 305

WAREHOUSING 2477 2693 27711 35349 1738 1422 -467

TOTAL 20486 25991 304200 433571

ZONE WISE SHIFT SHARE ANALYSIS: NORTH

NORTH within 1/4 km of BRTS 2009 within 1/4 km of BRTS 2013 urban 2009 urban 2013 UA IM BRT

HOTELS/LODGINGS 0 0 2079 3250 0 0 0

ADMINISTRATION 11 23 24090 68645 8 24 -8

EDUCATION 3 18 4476 7133 2 3 13

RECREATIONAL 2 17 674 2143 1 5 11

HEALTH 87 151 5536 9119 61 82 8

1098 1650 53739 60942 770 475 405

40

MANUFACTURING 1098 1650 53739 60942 770 475 405

RETAIL 2490 6207 181726 239670 1747 1537 2923

SERVICES 11 89 4169 7320 8 12 70

WAREHOUSING 0 0 27711 35349 0 0 0

TOTAL 3702 8155 304200 433571

ZONE WISE SHIFT SHARE ANALYSIS: EAST

EAST within 1/4 km of BRTS 2009 within 1/4 km of BRTS 2013 urban 2009 urban 2013 UA IM BRT

HOTELS/LODGINGS 16 41 2079 3250 11 14 16

ADMINISTRATION 101 212 24090 68645 71 217 -76

EDUCATION 43 91 4476 7133 30 38 22

RECREATIONAL 3 21 674 2143 2 7 11

HEALTH 66 148 5536 9119 46 62 39

MANUFACTURING 2898 3659 53739 60942 2033 1253 373

41

RETAIL 2497 6224 181726 239670 1752 1541 2931

SERVICES 53 120 4169 7320 37 56 27

WAREHOUSING 399 479 27711 35349 280 229 -31

TOTAL 6076 10995 304200 433571

ZONE WISE SHIFT SHARE ANALYSIS: WEST

WEST within 1/4 km of BRTS 2009 within 1/4 km of BRTS 2013 urban 2009 urban 2013 UA IM BRT

HOTELS/LODGINGS 29 113 2079 3250 20 25 68

ADMINISTRATION 16 1694 24090 68645 11 34 1648

EDUCATION 71 259 4476 7133 50 63 146

RECREATIONAL 25 1619 674 2143 18 62 1540

HEALTH 119 471 5536 9119 83 113 275

MANUFACTURING 8 5 53739 60942 6 3 -4

42

MANUFACTURING 8 5 53739 60942 6 3 -4

RETAIL 4093 7219 181726 239670 2872 2526 1821

SERVICES 183 306 4169 7320 128 193 -15

WAREHOUSING 21 45 27711 35349 15 12 18

TOTAL 4565 11731 304200 433571

ZONE WISE SHIFT SHARE ANALYSIS: SOUTH

SOUTH within 1/4 km of BRTS 2009 within 1/4 km of BRTS 2013 urban 2009 urban 2013 UA IM BRT

HOTELS/LODGINGS 12 17 2079 3250 8 10 -2

ADMINISTRATION 88 207 24090 68645 62 189 -44

EDUCATION 29 43 4476 7133 20 26 -3

RECREATIONAL 6 51 674 2143 4 15 32

HEALTH 176 408 5536 9119 123 166 118

MANUFACTURING 676 759 53739 60942 474 292 -7

43

MANUFACTURING 676 759 53739 60942 474 292 -7

RETAIL 6214 7417 181726 239670 4360 3836 -778

SERVICES 89 171 4169 7320 62 94 15

WAREHOUSING 3 4 27711 35349 2 2 0

TOTAL 7293 9077 304200 433571

ZONE WISE SHIFT SHARE ANALYSIS: NEW WEST

NEW WEST within 1/4 km of BRTS 2009 within 1/4 km of BRTS 2013 urban 2009 urban 2013 UA IM BRT

HOTELS/LODGINGS 0 0 2079 3250 0 0 0

ADMINISTRATION 37 209 24090 68645 26 79 104

EDUCATION 21 84 4476 7133 15 19 51

RECREATIONAL 4 41 674 2143 3 10 28

HEALTH 38 113 5536 9119 27 36 50

44

HEALTH

MANUFACTURING 1 3 53739 60942 1 0 2

RETAIL 47 3052 181726 239670 33 29 2990

SERVICES 21 86 4169 7320 15 22 49

WAREHOUSING 0 0 27711 35349 0 0 0

TOTAL 169 3588 304200 433571

OVERALL SHIFT SHARE ANALYSIS

Economic sector within 1/4 km of BRTS 2009 within 1/4 km of BRTS 2013 urban 2009 urban 2013 UA IM BRT

HOTELS/LODGINGS 173 328 1900 3250 111 185 32

ADMINISTRATION 1692 4963 22013 68645 1085 4192 -314

EDUCATION 348 696 4090 7133 223 384 89

RECREATIONAL 47 1806 616 2143 30 133 1643

HEALTH 605 1592 5059 9119 388 703 501

MANUFACTURING 5788 7777 49106 60942 3711 3472 594

RETAIL 30260 47866 166058 239670 19400 24274 4192

45

RETAIL 30260 47866 166058 239670 19400 24274 4192

SERVICES 478 1289 3810 7320 306 612 371

WAREHOUSING 2759 3221 25322 35349 1769 2083 -631

TOTAL 42150 72016 277972 433571 27023

CONCLUSIONS

AGGREGATE LEVEL ANALYSIS: WRAP UP

• Growth happening in the city in terms of residential and non-residential units and area.

The growth in residential units is seen to be slightly higher than the non-residential units, but in terms of area, there

has been a growth in the area under non-residential activities when compared to residential.


There has been not much change in the ratio of non residential to residential in terms of both units and area.

46

There has been not much change in the ratio of non residential to residential in terms of both units and area.

• Area intensity of the residential and non residential properties.

Over all the area per unit property has decreased from 2006 to 2013, this could be a reason of increase in land value.

• Residential and non-residential – shift share.

When considering the over all city, there has been greater influence on the non-residential sector when compared to

residential.

CONCLUSIONS

DISAGGREGATE LEVEL ANALYSIS: WRAP UP

• Growth happening in the six zones in terms of residential and non-residential units and area.

Non-residential units have increased in east, west and the maximum in new west zones, residential units have had a

major increase only in east zone.

In terms of growth in area, non residential has had a rise in west and new west, and residential has increased by

large in east, but has gone down in the west.

47

• Area intensity of the residential and non residential properties in the zones.

The area per unit property has decreased for both residential and non-residential in central, north, east and west

zones. New west zone has had a slight increase in the average area per unit property for both residential and non

residential.

• Residential and non-residential shift share.

All the zones except for south has shown to have a greater positive influence on the non-residential sector when

compared to residential, similar is the case of residential, all zone except new west has had a positive influence by

• Non-residential – shift share.

The detailed shift share for the non-residential sector was carried out to understand the influence of BRTS in each

zone and also the over all city.

It is seen that in the city all the sectors except administration and warehousing have seen a positive influence due to

BRTS, the maximum influence was observed to be in retail sector, followed by recreational – A and manufacturing.

From all the analysis it would be right to say that BRTS does bring in economic development impacts in the

city.

• But the extent of the impacts depend on the characteristics of the area, like the predominant land use, the

48

• But the extent of the impacts depend on the characteristics of the area, like the predominant land use, the

status of development, the income levels etc.

• And also the economic sector under consideration.

But how does BRTS contribute to business, yes all the analysis above have shown that there has been an increase in

the number of business activities.

The activities are benefited by the increased accessibility to them, the visibility advantage, the increase in number of

foot counts, and hence more sales (increased revenue), this in turn requires more work which creates more

employment opportunities in the city.

People like investing near projects which have a sense of permanence to them – BRTS satisfies the criteria.

But when one talks about impacts, there are also negative impacts.

• Impact on office prices in the city centre and in areas with direct access.

• The number of shoppers attracted to a town centre can be increased.

• Retailing turnover increases in the city centres, but the resulting increases in property prices and rents can have a

negative effect on the pattern of shops, driving the old established shops out of the most expensive city centre

streets.

IS ALL OF IT DESIRABLE ?

49

It can be seen that certain sectors are attracted to transit, but not all of them are desirable, in this case,

manufacturing sector which is generally a land consuming activity has been attracted.

Warehousing , thought its growth along BRTS is less it is still there.

streets.

Spatial distribution of land uses (development intensity and use) influences the travel demand, i.e., mobility patterns in

a city. Urban transport in turn influences land use development. Better understanding of this phenomenon would be

necessary to make effective land use and transport policies.

Understanding what is desirable and what is not is important.

In terms of the type of development that is desirable along the corridor, one option is to regulate it using property tax.

Property tax is different for all economic activities, so based on what has to be encouraged, the property tax can be increased or

decreased.

This study, has been an attempt to comprehend and rethink the way public transportation is looked at. The traditional

50

There is also the interesting question of whether and the extent to which BRTS proximity could affect the residential

location patterns, including changes in the housing market. Are they pushing away the residences or is there a pattern

to the type of residences being attracted to the BRTS zone?

This study, has been an attempt to comprehend and rethink the way public transportation is looked at. The traditional

thought is that providing public transportation is a social obligation of the government and that they shouldn’t be

looking at making profits or generating revenue.

Quantify in monetary terms the value of returns from investing in a public transport system.

THANKYOUTHANKYOU

51

PUBLIC TRANSIT AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS - A...

Documents

Transcript of PUBLIC TRANSIT AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS - A...