Q. Wu | X. Ye
OPEN ACCESS
The costly construction and operation of urban rail transit have become escalating problems for cities worldwide, especially in developing countries. Reliable measures of residential property appreciation for urban rail transit can provide suggestions for policy-making of value capture to fund transit improvements. Using GIS techniques and residential property price data, the relationships between accessibility improvement value and residential property appreciation are analysed in Shanghai. The impacts of urban rail transit on residential property values are classified into traffic effect and agglomeration effect, both of which are measured by the accessibility improvement model. The results indicate that the goodness-of-fit of the model is greater than 93%. Traffic benefit is greater than agglomeration benefit in the suburb, which is completely different in the city centre. furthermore, the residential property appreciation is about 5 times the accessibility improvement value per year. This study contributes to the evidence of capitalization impacts of public transit from a booming and transitional economy and provides suggestions for land use planning of areas surrounding stations.
accessibility, agglomeration benefit, residential property appreciation, traffic benefit, transit-oriented development, urban rail transit
[1] Medda, F., Land value capture finance for transport accessibility: a review. Journal ofTransport Geography, 25, pp. 154–161, 2012. DOI: 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2012.07.013
[2] Cervero, R. & Landis, J., Assessing the impacts of urban rail transit on local real estatemarkets. Transportation Research A, 27, pp. 13–22, 1993. DOI: 10.1016/0965-8564(93)90013-B.
[3] Du, H. & Mulley, C., The short-term land value impacts of urban rail transit: quantitativeevidence from Sunderland, UK. Land Use Policy, 24(1), pp. 223–233, 2007. DOI:10.1016/j.landusepol.2005.12.003.
[4] Pagliara, F. & Papa, E., Urban rail systems investments: an analysis of the impactson property values and residents’ location. Journal of Transport Geography, 19(2),pp. 200–211, 2011. DOI: 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2010.02.006.
[5] Lancaster, K.J., A new approach to consumer theory. Journal of Political Economy,74(2), pp. 132–157, 1966. DOI: 10.1086/259131.
[6] Rosen, S., Hedonic prices and implicit markets: product differentiation in pure competition.Journal of Political Economy, 82(1), pp. 34–55, 1974. DOI: 10.1086/260169.
[7] Bowes, D.R. & Keith, R.I., Identifying the Impacts of Rail Transit Stations on ResidentialProperty Values. Journal of Urban Economics, 50(1), pp. 1–25, 2001. DOI:10.1006/juec.2001.2214.
[8] Seo, K., Golub, A. & Kuby, M., Combined impacts of highways and light rail transit onresidential property values: a spatial hedonic price model for Phoenix, Arizona. Journalof Transport Geography, 41(0), pp. 53–62, 2014. DOI: 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2014.08.003.
[9] Wu, Q., Ye, X. & Lin, X., Attraction area model for urban rail transit stations. Journalof Tongji University (Natural Science), 42(7), pp. 1058–1063, 2014.
[10] Wu, Q. & Ye, X., Analysis of relationships between urban rail transit accessibility improvementand residential property appreciations. Journal of Tongji University (NaturalScience), 44(6), pp. 899–906, 2016.
[11] Dube, J., Theriault, M. & Des, R.F., Commuter rail accessibility and house values: Thecase of the Montreal South Shore, Canada, 1992–2009. Transportation Research PartA–Policy and Practice, 54, pp. 49–66, 2013.
[12] Kay, A.I., Noland, R.B. & DiPetrillo, S., Residential property valuations near transitstations with transit-oriented development. Journal of Transport Geography, 39,pp. 131–140, 2014. DOI: 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2014.06.017.
[13] Image, www.baidu.com. Accessed: May 26, 2016.