TIGER II Urban Circulator Impact Assessment AUGUST 2018 FTA Report No. 0122 Federal Transit Administration PREPARED BY Sisinnio Concas, Ph.D. Makarand Gawade Janet L. Davis Center for Urban Transportation Research University of South Florida COVER PHOTO Shutterstock DISCLAIMER This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability for its contents or use thereof. The United States Government does not endorse products of manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the objective of this report. TIGER II Urban Circulator Impact Assessment AUGUST 2018 FTA Report No. 0122 PREPARED BY Sisinnio Concas, Ph.D. Makarand Gawade Janet L. Davis Center for Urban Transportation Research University of South Florida SPONSORED BY Federal Transit Administration Office of Research, Demonstration and Innovation U.S. Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590 AVAILABLE ONLINE https://www.transit.dot.gov/about/research-innovation FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION i MetricMetric Conversion Conversion Table Table Metric Conversion Table SYMBOL WHEN YOU KNOW MULTIPLY BY TO FIND SYMBOL LENGTH in inches 25.4 millimeters mm ft feet 0.305 meters m yd yards 0.914 meters m mi miles 1.61 kilometers km VOLUME fl oz fluid ounces 29.57 milliliters mL gal gallons 3.785 liters L ft3 cubic feet 0.028 cubic meters m3 yd3 cubic yards 0.765 cubic meters m3 NOTE: volumes greater than 1000 L shall be shown in m3 MASS oz ounces 28.35 grams g lb pounds 0.454 kilograms kg megagrams T short tons (2000 lb) 0.907 Mg (or "t") (or "metric ton") TEMPERATURE (exact degrees) 5 (F-32)/9 oF Fahrenheit Celsius oC or (F-32)/1.8 FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION iv FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION ii REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved OMB No. 0704-0188 Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instruc- tions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188), Washington, DC 20503. 1. AGENCY USE ONLY 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED August 2018 Final 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. FUNDING NUMBERS TIGER II Urban Circulator Impact Assessment FL-79-7117 6. AUTHOR(S) Sisinnio Concas, Ph.D., Research Associate Professor Janet L. Davis, Senior Research Associate Makarand Gawade, Graduate Research Assistant 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESSE(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER Center for Urban Transportation Research University of South Florida FTA Report No. 0122 4202 E. Fowler Avenue, CUT100 Tampa, FL 33620 9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY REPORT U.S. Department of Transportation NUMBER Federal Transit Administration Office of Research, Demonstration and Innovation FTA Report No. 0122 East Building 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590 11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES [https://www.transit.dot.gov/about/research-innovation] 12A. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 12B. DISTRIBUTION CODE Available from: National Technical Information Service (NTIS), Springfield, VA 22161. Phone 703.605.6000, Fax 703.605.6900, email [[email protected]] TRI 13. ABSTRACT Since the signing of the Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) grant program, the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) invested substantial resources to fund streetcar projects in major urban areas. To assist USDOT in understanding the medium- to long-term impacts of streetcars, this research evaluated five systems that received TIGER grants and other federal funds. This study estimates impacts on property values, changes in business and employment growth, and changes in household job accessibility and travel times. The analysis reveals that streetcar investments have a positive impact on residential, commercial, and vacant properties. The magnitude of impacts is not equally distributed across the five systems and project phases (planning, construction, and operation). Panel data models on establishment and employment growth confirm the hypothesis that streetcars can be a catalyst for economic development. The impact on establishment and employment growth is greater at project announcement and during construction, with decreasing but lingering effects at opening and during operation. The accessibility analysis reveals that streetcars do not inherently result in marked gains to households and workers, especially if the study area is currently well-served by an extensive fixed-route bus system. Streetcars that integrate with a regional light rail or metro system provide minor added accessibility gains. 14. SUBJECT TERMS 15. NUMBER OF PAGES Streetcar, circulator, TIGER grant program, economic development, impact 339 assessment, land use 16. PRICE CODE 17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT OF REPORT OF THIS PAGE OF ABSTRACT Unclassified Unclassified Unclassified FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION v TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Executive Summary 5 Section 1: Background 5 Project Background 6 Research Objectives 6 Report Organization 7 Section 2 Research Design 7 Case Study Selection 7 Evaluation Measures 9 Statistical Analysis 11 Section 3 Project Descriptions 11 Cincinnati Bell Connector 13 Charlotte CityLYNX Gold Line 15 Sun Link Tucson Streetcar 17 Atlanta Streetcar 20 Salt Lake Sugar House Streetcar 22 Section 4 Streetcar Influence Area 22 Cincinnati Bell Collector 24 Charlotte CityLYNX Gold Line 26 Sun Link Tucson Streetcar 28 Atlanta Streetcar 31 Salt Lake City S-Line 33 Section 5 Trend Analysis of Property Values 33 Cincinnati Bell Collector 46 Charlotte CityLYNX Gold Line 57 Sun Link Tucson Streetcar 73 Atlanta Streetcar 86 Salt Lake City S-Line 101 Section 6 Econometric Analysis of Property Values 101 Cincinnati Bell Connector 117 Charlotte CityLYNX Gold Line 127 Sun Link Tucson Streetcar 140 Atlanta Streetcar 151 Salt Lake City S-Line 164 Summary of Findings 169 Section 7 Trend Analysis of Business Activities 169 Cincinnati Bell Connector 176 Charlotte CityLYNX Gold Line 182 Sun Link Tucson Streetcar 187 Atlanta Streetcar 194 Salt Lake City S-Line FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION vi 200 Section 8 Econometric Analysis of Business Activities 200 Changes in the Number of Establishments 211 Changes in Employment Levels 223 Summary of Findings 227 Section 9 Impacts on Workers and Households Accessibility 227 Cincinnati Bell Connector 240 Charlotte CityLYNX Gold Line 252 Sun Link Tucson Streetcar 268 Atlanta Streetcar 281 Salt Lake City S-Line 294 Summary of Findings 297 Section 10 Conclusions 298 Impact on Property Values 300 Impact on Business Activity 302 Impact on Accessibility 303 Limits of the Analysis and Directions for Further Work 304 References 308 Appendix A: Quasi-Experimental Approach to Select Treatment and Control Units FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION vii LIST OF TABLES 3 Table ES-1: Summary of Impacts by Type and Project Phase 23 Table 4-1: Sociodemographic and Travel Descriptive Statistics – Cincinnati Bell Connector 26 Table 4-2: Sociodemographic and Travel Descriptive Statistics – Charlotte CityLYNX Gold Line 28 Table 4-3: Sociodemographic and Travel Descriptive Statistics – Sun Link Tucson Streetcar 30 Table 4-4: Sociodemographic and Travel Descriptive Statistics – Atlanta Streetcar 32 Table 4-5: Sociodemographic and Travel Descriptive Statistics – Salt Lake City S-Line 36 Table 5-1: Parcel Counts – Cincinnati Bell Connector 36 Table 5-2: Parcel Acreage – Cincinnati Bell Connector 38 Table 5-3: Residential Parcel Counts – Cincinnati Bell Connector 38 Table 5-4: Residential Parcel Acreage– Cincinnati Bell Connector 38 Table 5-5: Residential Property Values – Cincinnati Bell Connector 42 Table 5-6: Commercial Parcel Counts – Cincinnati Bell Connector 42 Table 5-7: Commercial Parcels Acreage – Cincinnati Bell Connector 49 Table 5-8: Parcel Counts – Charlotte CityLYNX Gold Line 49 Table 5-9: Parcel Acreage – Charlotte CityLYNX Gold Line 51 Table 5-10: Residential Parcel Counts – Charlotte CityLYNX Gold Line 51 Table 5-11: Residential Parcels Acreage – Charlotte CityLYNX Gold Line 51 Table 5-12: Residential Property Values – Charlotte CityLYNX Gold Line 55 Table 5-13: Commercial Parcel Counts – Charlotte CityLYNX Gold Line 55 Table 5-14: Commercial Parcels Acreage– Charlotte CityLYNX Gold Line 60 Table 5-15: Parcel Counts – Sun Link Tucson Streetcar 61 Table 5-16: Parcel Acreage – Sun Link Tucson Streetcar 62 Table 5-17: Residential Parcel Counts, Sun Link Tucson Streetcar 63 Table 5-18: Residential Parcels Acreage, Sun Link Tucson Streetcar 63 Table 5-19: Residential Property Values – Sun Link Tucson Streetcar 67 Table 5-20: Commercial Parcel Counts – Sun Link Tucson Streetcar 67 Table 5-21: Commercial Parcels Acreage – Sun Link Tucson Streetcar 75 Table 5-22: Parcel Counts – Atlanta Streetcar 76 Table 5-23: Parcel Acreage – Atlanta Streetcar 77 Table 5-24: Residential