Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
49 C h a p t e r 9 analysis results The wide variation observed in economic impacts among the 100 case study projects and within each category of projects is explained by the following factors that were revealed in the course of compiling case studies and conducting data analysis. ⢠No single economic impact metric can capture all of the economic growth and development effects of all types of projects. That is partly because various types of projects lead to economic impacts at different spatial scales, which unfold differently over time. Access projects (such as inter- changes and industrial access roads) tend to show land development impacts at a highly localized level. Other projects (such as long-distance highway corridors) can have broadly dispersed beneficiaries, ultimately affecting regional job growth. Yet other projects (such as beltways and bypasses) tend to reshape local and regional growth patterns. ⢠Job impacts also vary tremendously by project size and type. To enable comparison between large and small proj- ects, long-term job growth impacts were portrayed in terms of ratios relative to the size of the project investment. Still, there are systematic differences in results that have more to do with project type and setting than the intrinsic value of building projects. For instance, smaller projects that pro- vide access to planned development at specified sites (some- times referred to as âcontingent developmentâ) naturally tend to show the highest long-term job impact/cost ratio. Larger projects that improve traffic flow can have diffused impacts that are not fully captured because some occur hundreds of miles beyond the project study area. ⢠The economic context of the study area is a critical factor. Projects tend to generate larger economic impacts in eco- nomically vibrant areas. Economic impacts appear to be smaller and take longer in areas where the contextual econ- omy is in a downturn and is distressed. ⢠Project location matters. More jobs were generated by project in metropolitan settings than in rural settings. Case studies show that metro projects are more complex and often have a longer construction time frame than rural projects. Although rural projects take less time to build, job development in rural areas often takes a longer time to mature than in metropolitan areas. ⢠Urban projects tend to be most expensive, due in part to higher land acquisition and social/environmental impact mitigation costs. That causes large urban projects to show a lower ratio of long-term job impact/cost, even though they generate the largest absolute numbers for long-term jobs growth. Of course, transportation proj- ects are built for many reasons other than just economic development, so one cannot simply conclude that proj- ects with the highest job impact ratio are most needed or desired. ⢠Motivations for developing projects differ. Some projects are planned and constructed to enable or facilitate eco- nomic development, but many others are constructed to address environmental, safety, congestion relief, or facility preservation needs. ⢠Economic impacts tend to be greatest when a project is part of a broader coordinated plan. Factors that increase economic impacts include interagency coordination and sharing of a common vision for land and economic devel- opment, along with other supportive actions that may include zoning, water/sewer infrastructure development, site assembly, site preparation, and other complementary transportation investments. Follow-on research and Development From the viewpoint of interviewed stakeholders and the proj- ect review panel, the development of case studies and the T-PICS database system is only a beginning. These products of this project now provide a new source of data that can be Conclusions and Next Steps
50 applied to help develop enhanced methods for forecasting future economic impacts of proposed projects. One of the first steps to move forward in that direction is to make the data set available for more sophisticated statistical analysis, in conjunction with efforts to enhance the measure- ment of associated changes in access, connectivity, reliability, and spatial patterns of impact. Such analysis may also focus on capturing nonlinear impacts on economic growth and devel- opment, including both threshold effects and scale effects. The results should help to identify the specific conditions and situ- ations that are most likely to generate a wider economic impact. They should be directly applicable to better inform decision making at various stages in the planning process. As a step forward to addressing these opportunities, a follow-on project, SHRP 2 Capacity Project C11 (Develop- ment of Improved Economic-Analysis Tools), has been ini- tiated to build directly on the findings of this project. It seeks to enable an evolution toward more empirically based meth- ods that are responsive to planning and decision-making needs. Accordingly, the follow-on project focuses on (1) develop- ment of an enhanced accounting framework for tracking and distinguishing various types of impacts and benefits, (2) improvement in development of access, connectivity, and reliability impact metrics, and (3) further development of methods for assessing and portraying spatial patterns of economic impact. The results should make it easier for economic development impacts to be considered in other planning analysis elements, such as benefit-cost assess- ment, project prioritization, travel forecasting, and land use forecasting.
