Interactions Between Transportation Capacity, Economic Systems, and Land Use (2012)

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.

32 C h a p t e r 6 types of Benefits and Impacts Covered The 100 case studies (listed in Table 6.1) are a source of empirical data on project characteristics and impacts, as well as considerable qualitative information obtained from inter- views with local public-sector and private-sector representa- tives. The two types of data together provide a sound basis for case study interpretations. This chapter draws on both forms of information to clarify impacts covered by the case studies and illustrate lessons learned regarding interpretation of impact findings. The case studies focused on identifying the magnitude and pattern of economic development impacts associated with transportation enhancement projects. They included expan- sion of jobs, worker income, business output, and changes in building construction and land values. But that is far from all of the aspects of economic impact that might result from a transportation investment. The case studies do not directly measure the economic value of efficiency benefits, such as travel time savings, operating cost savings, and reliability improvement, as well as productivity growth associated with increased accessibility and efficiency of business operations. In theory, travel efficiency benefits and access enhancement benefits are the drivers of business expansion and investment, which in turn enable other economic development impacts. From that perspective, all of the various benefits can be viewed as highly related. But in reality, these various economic impact measures often do not coincide. For instance, travel cost sav- ings and access benefits are realized by firms some distance away from the actual transportation investment (sometimes hundreds of miles away), and those impacts may not be iden- tified through interviews with local officials and businesses nor measured by local economic growth data. Even local sta- tistics can vary because changes in jobs, wages, building con- struction, and land values often do not move proportionally at the same rates. Travel efficiency benefits have clearly been realized for some projects in the database, such as major highway invest- ments that span long corridors (e.g., Interstates 16, 26, 27, 29, 68, 81, 86, and 476, and Appalachian Corridors B, D, J, and Q). Many of the intermodal freight projects also have wide- reaching economic impacts (e.g., Ayer Intermodal, Auburn Intermodal, Global III Terminal, World Port at DIA, Fairburn UP Intermodal Yard, Port of Huntsville, Tchoupitoulas Cor- ridor, and Alliance Intermodal Logistics Park). Other tools, such as transportation and economic models, are needed to calculate the potential economic efficiency benefits of these types of investments. The case study database also does not attempt to cover eco- nomic impacts associated with changes to safety, air quality, noise and vibration, neighborhood cohesion, environmental justice, and many other types of benefits or disbenefits often evaluated as part of the environmental impact assessment of transportation investments. Although there have been attempts to measure the economic effects of some of these impacts, they generally have minimal impact on economic development. Economic development impacts can be measured in terms of jobs, sales, income, and investment. The case studies relied heavily on the employment impacts because municipalities and economic development officials collect data on and report employment impacts more frequently than other impacts. In addition, individual businesses are more willing to share information about employment levels than sales. When possible, data on private and public investment result- ing from each case study project were collected, measured in terms of square feet of development by type (e.g., retail, office, and industrial), number of housing units, or dollars of investment. Changes in property values provide another measure of the economic impacts of the transportation investment. The T-PICS database includes information on both investment and property value impacts for many of the case studies, although data were not available in all instances. Lessons Learned for Case Study Interpretation

33 Project Name ID Location Project Type Hammondsport 1 N.Y. Access Road Clermont County Industrial Park in Miami 11 Ohio Access Road Cattaraugus Economic Development Zone Infrastructure 12 N.Y. Access Road Carolina Factory Shops Infrastructure 13 S.C. Access Road Columbus–Lowndes County Riverside 14 Miss. Access Road New Phalen Boulevard Corridor 79 Minn. Access Road State Route 126, Fenton Lake Bridge 84 N.M. Access Road Richmond, Virginia, I-295 Bypass 6 Va. Beltway Appleton, Wisconsin, Route 441 Bypass 32 Wis. Beltway Fort Wayne, Indiana, I-469 Bypass 33 Ind. Beltway Danville, Virginia, I-785 Bypass 35 Va. Beltway Beltway 8 Houston segments 36 Texas Beltway E-470 Denver 40 Colo. Beltway Arizona Route 101 57 Ariz. Beltway I-476 Blue Route 90 Pa. Beltway World Trade Bridge 7 Texas Bridge Oresund Bridge 39 Denmark, Sweden Bridge Gene Hartzell Memorial Bridge 76 Pa. Bridge Third Bridge (Route 3) 78 Maine Bridge Missouri Route 370 Bridge 80 Mo. Bridge Isle of Palms Connector (SC-517) 85 S.C. Bridge Neuse River Bridge 87 N.C. Bridge Lexington Bridge between I-5 and SR-411 94 Wash. Bridge Potato Hill Bridge 95 Wash. Bridge Lake Natoma Crossing Bridge 96 Calif. Bridge Yass Bypass 3 Australia Bypass Karuah Bypass 15 Australia Bypass Eastern Washington—SR-195 Bypass 16 Wash. Bypass Fort Atkinson Bypass 17 Wis. Bypass Verona Bypass 18 Wis. Bypass Stonewall Bypass 19 Okla. Bypass Wichita Northeast Bypass 20 Kans. Bypass Hollister SR-156 44 Calif. Bypass Sonora and East Sonora SR-49 and SR-108 45 Calif. Bypass US-400 Parsons Bypass 46 Kans. Bypass Georgetown Bypass 47 Ky. Bypass Mercer County US-127 Bypass 48 Ky. Bypass Bennington Bypass, VT-279 77 Vt. Bypass US Highway 281, San Antonio (Extension) 5 Texas Connector I-705 Connector 31 Wash. Connector Table 6.1. List of Case Study Projects Sorted by Project Type (continued on next page)

34 Project Name ID Location Project Type Branson West (Ozark Mt. Highroad) 49 Mo. Connector Southern Connector 50 S.C. Connector Ted Williams Freeway 56 Calif. Connector Topsham Bypass/Connector 75 Maine Connector US-460 86 Va. Connector US-25 Kentucky 93 Ky. Connector Auburn Intermodal Center 61 Maine Freight Intermodal Devens Intermodal Rail Terminal 62 Maine Freight Intermodal Global III Intermodal Terminal, Rochelle 63 Ill. Freight Intermodal Fairburn CSX Industry Yard, Fairburn 64 Ga. Freight Intermodal Huntsville, Alabama 65 Ala. Freight Intermodal Tchoupitoulas Corridor, New Orleans 66 La. Freight Intermodal Logistics Park—Alliance 67 Texas Freight Intermodal Bayport, Texas 91 Texas Freight Intermodal World Port at Denver International Airport 92 Colo. Freight Intermodal CenterPoint Center—BNSF Logistics Park 97 Ill. Freight Intermodal I-70 and 110th Street Interchange 8 Kans. Interchange Blue Route and Schuylkill Interchange 9 Pa. Interchange Commerce Parkway Interchange 21 Kans. Interchange I-95 and Route 128 Peabody 42 Maine Interchange Freeway Interchanges—Bloomington 51 Minn. Interchange Big I Albuquerque 52 N.M. Interchange Dallas High Five Interchange 53 Texas Interchange I-435 and Nall Avenue/Roe Avenue Interchange 54 Kans. Interchange Central Freeway, San Francisco 81 Calif. Interchange I-20 Interchange 82 Miss. Interchange I-35 and US-290, Texas 98 Texas Interchange Veteran’s Parkway, Georgia 99 Ga. Interchange Interstate 68 2 Md. Major Highway Interstate 29 4 Iowa Major Highway Interstate 43 22 Wis. Major Highway SR-29 23 Wis. Major Highway Interstate 81 (Pennsylvania) 24 Pa. Major Highway Interstate 81 (Virginia) 25 Va. Major Highway Interstate 16 26 Ga. Major Highway Interstate 26 27 S.C. Major Highway Interstate 27 28 Texas Major Highway Appalachian Corridor B 29 Tenn. Major Highway I-515 Henderson 37 Nev. Major Highway Central Artery/Tunnel 41 Mass. Major Highway Table 6.1. List of Case Study Projects Sorted by Project Type (continued) (continued on next page)

35 Use of Case Studies Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Information The case studies conducted for this project are intended to inform project screening and initial (“sketch level”) planning processes by providing insight into the range of impacts typi- cally occurring from various types of highways in various types of settings. The case studies can provide an initial esti- mate of the likely range of impacts that typically occur, and as such they can be used at public meetings to temper unrealistic fears of negative impacts and unrealistic expectations of posi- tive impacts. However, they are not meant to replace more careful local analysis of transportation and economic condi- tions nor the use of transportation and economic impact models needed for more-detailed planning. The case studies do provide a rich database for understand- ing how different types of transportation investments affect a local or regional economy. However, the cases are spread over several different types of projects located in many different regions. Many of the cases are complex. Some were built in phases over many years, and others have several component parts. Some were built specifically to encourage economic development, whereas others were built primarily for conges- tion relief. Many of the projects combined the transportation investment with other public policies or incentives to achieve the greatest benefits possible from the investment. The empirical (quantitative) analysis of case study data is described in Chapter 4; it discusses how economic impacts vary by project type, location, size, and other characteristics of transportation investments. However, because of the range of local factors that may also be applicable, it is difficult to draw strong conclusions about expected impacts of future invest- ments based solely on the empirical data analysis. Instead, users of the T-PICS web tool should look for individual cases that best mirror their own projects and review not only the empirical metrics for those cases, but also the accompanying narratives. The narratives provide important details about each case that are not captured in the empirical database. For example, the narratives include a detailed description of supportive public policies and incentives adopted in conjunc- tion with the transportation investment that often helped boost the economic development impacts of the investment. These might include land use regulations (e.g., zoning changes), financial incentives (e.g., establishment of tax increment finance districts), public land assembly, additional infrastructure Project Name ID Location Project Type Casey Highway (US Route 6) 55 Pa. Major Highway Interstate 105/Interstate 110 Interchange 83 Calif. Major Highway Anderson Regional Transportation Center 68 Mass. Passenger Intermodal Sunset Transit Center, Portland 69 Ore. Passenger Intermodal Bellevue Transit Center, Bellevue 70 Wash. Passenger Intermodal Tri-Rail Boca Raton Intermodal Transit Center 71 Fla. Passenger Intermodal Lindbergh Station, MARTA (Atlanta) 72 Ga. Passenger Intermodal DART Station Development 73 Texas Passenger Intermodal BART Station Development 74 Calif. Passenger Intermodal Arlington Heights METRA 88 Ill. Passenger Intermodal Emerson Park MetroLink 89 Ill. Passenger Intermodal Appalachian Corridor D 10 W.Va. Widening I-86 NY Southern Tier 30 N.Y. Widening I-15 Reconstruction–Salt Lake City 34 Utah Widening I-70 Glenwood Canyon 38 Colo. Widening Santan Freeway: Maricopa Regional Transportation Plan 43 Ariz. Widening Appalachian Corridor J 58 Ky. Widening Appalachian Corridor Q 59 Va. Widening US-75 North Central Expressway, Dallas 60 Texas Widening I-394 Minnesota 100 Minn. Widening Table 6.1. List of Case Study Projects Sorted by Project Type (continued)

36 investments, or similar policies included in a comprehensive economic development program. The narratives also detail local economic conditions, such as plant closures or new invest- ments, which can influence how the transportation investment affects the economy. Objectives in the Use of Case Study Information The T-PICS web tool is intended to help policy makers and transportation agencies understand the range of impacts that might result from a particular type of transportation invest- ment. This approach can be used to screen a range of alternative transportation investment proposals or schemes and help iden- tify those most likely to result in positive economic benefits. Used in this way, the tool can help in programming investments in a transportation improvement plan, particularly if economic development benefits to a region are an important consider- ation in the transportation programming. T-PICS may also be used as one tool (but not as the only tool) for screening alternative proposals for a single transpor- tation project. In an “alternatives analysis,” planners may be evaluating a range of transportation solutions, and the system can then be used to provide an initial sense of the magnitude of economic development impacts that might accrue from each of these alternatives. However, because T-PICS does not measure efficiency and productivity benefits and because each investment is unique, that tool is not intended to be used as the sole measure of potential impacts in this type of analysis. In addition, for more-detailed environmental impact analyses, T-PICS cannot provide the level of detail and location-specific analysis necessary to accurately measure potential impacts for individual projects. For both alternative analysis and environ- mental impact studies, analysts need to rely on site-specific analysis, local data, and interviews with local officials. Eco- nomic models may be useful in estimating productivity and efficiency impacts, as well as indirect and induced impacts. T-PICS also provides a means for using the case study database as a “reality check” on public hopes and fears con- cerning proposed transportation investments. It can be used to reign in unrealistically high positive expectations of proj- ect supporters as well as unrealistically negative expectations of project critics. An understanding of the actual range of impacts that have occurred around the country from particu- lar types of projects can thus be used at public meetings or press briefings to give audiences a realistic understanding of the likely range of potential impacts of a project. The tool also can be used to help define supporting strate- gies to bolster the economic development impacts of a trans- portation investment. Many of the case studies describe additional land use tools and business development incen- tives that have worked in conjunction with the transportation investment to stimulate investment and job growth. By read- ing the case study narratives, planners can gain an under- standing of the types of land use and development tools that can be adopted to maximize positive development impacts from a transportation investment. This use is discussed in greater detail in Chapter 7. appropriate Use of the Database The case studies show that the economic development impacts of transportation investments depend on myriad factors. Some of these factors are accounted for better than others in the impact estimation process. For that reason, the case studies are better at capturing some types of impacts than others and are more reliable for some types of projects than for others, as explained in the following seven statements of strengths and limitations. 1. T-PICS is best at capturing the full economic development benefits of transportation investments that serve a small, isolated geographic area. These include access roads, bypasses in more rural areas, and interchanges. This is because the effects are more contained, often occur in conjunction with or over a short time after the transportation improvement is completed, and in the case of more rural examples, may be the only new economic activity occurring in an area. The US-25 Kentucky (Dry Ridge Connec- tor) project illustrates this point. The 2.2-mile connector was built for two reasons: (1) to take truck traffic off the downtown streets of Dry Ridge and (2) to provide direct access to an area east of the town slated for industrial development. The impact of the bypass is clear. There has been some expansion at the industrial park east of the town, and some small offices have located near the intersection of the bypass with the north- south highway serving the region. There has not been any addi- tional economic development activity in Dry Ridge since the bypass was built. The ability to measure impacts through the case study approach decreases as the region served by the project expands and areas of more diverse economic activity are included in the impact area. The Topsham Bypass project in Maine dem- onstrates this. Although the project is similar to the Dry Ridge project in that it was built, in part, to remove traffic from downtown Topsham streets, the project also improves access to Brunswick, Maine, and US Route 1, a heavily traveled tour- ist route. The economic development impacts of the roadway in Topsham are easily measured because local officials and developers could point to the role the road improvement played in several development projects. However, the impacts become less clear in Brunswick, where the bypass delivers

37 people to the coastal highway more efficiently but where the decommissioning of a major military installation had over- arching negative economic impacts that were difficult to seg- regate from the impacts of the bypass. Isolating impacts became even more difficult in projects serving large, growing metropolitan areas. The Blue Route (I-476), which is a major connector in the western suburbs of Philadelphia, is a good example of how difficult it can be to measure the impact of a transportation project that provides interregional economic benefits in a growing corridor. The Blue Route has had some clear impacts in the area around its interchange with I-76, as well as in the city of Chester at the southern terminus of the route, and these impacts could be identified through the case study approach. However, the Blue Route provides benefits to travelers and shippers that reach at least as far south as Baltimore, but it is impossible to capture all those impacts in a case study approach. These impacts become more dissipated and obscured by other economic influences the farther away one moves from the transportation invest- ment itself. In addition, improvements to the heavy rail transit system and other area roadways occurred over the same time that the Blue Route was developed, making it difficult to isolate impacts associated solely with the Blue Route construction. 2. Impacts are easiest to substantiate for the area in the imme- diate vicinity of the transportation investment. This is a corollary of the first point. Isolating impact measures, such as number of jobs, square feet of investment, dollars of investment, and changes in property values, proved easiest for smaller projects, where new development occurred immedi- ately adjacent to the new transportation facility, particularly in areas that are more isolated and not affected by other concur- rent activities. The tool does a good job of capturing new devel- opment and business expansion and attraction at firms that benefit from nearby access to the transportation investment. Local officials often have worked with developers and firms that are interested in locations near the new transportation facilities and thus have a clear understanding of the relation- ship between the facility and local economic development. The relationship between the facility and business growth becomes more difficult to measure for firms using the facility for pass-through shipments, interregional business, or access- ing an expanded labor pool. For example, the Henderson (Nevada) I-515 project completed an important link between Las Vegas and points south. However, the case study focused on the impacts in the city of Henderson, not possible employment impacts in downtown Las Vegas (15 miles north), where the highway expansion was one of many factors influencing growth. Both the I-476 and Henderson I-515 projects represent extensions to an existing interstate roadway. This meant that the impacts that occurred were also related to a previous highway investment not captured in the database. The implica- tions are twofold. First, there is a symbiotic relationship between the newer investment and older investment, leading to a greater impact than would have been realized by either invest- ment alone. Second, some of the impacts that could be related to the highway extension may be occurring many miles away along the first investment. These impacts are difficult to capture in the analysis. For intermodal and transit projects, this issue is more pro- nounced. For intermodal facilities, much of the impact accrues to manufacturing firms that are scattered throughout a broad region, not at the intermodal facility itself. For example, the Ayer Intermodal Facility in Massachusetts provides rail con- nections to rail service throughout the United States and to ports with international connections. The Auburn Intermodal Facility in Maine has direct rail service to Canada, with con- nections to west coast shipping terminals serving the Far East. The Huntsville Air Intermodal Facility provides air access worldwide. The companies that use these facilities for ship- ping are located over a broad region, not just within a few miles of the facility itself. The job and sales impacts are felt nationally and are not captured in the case study approach. The case studies of passenger (road/rail) intermodal termi- nals generally focus on how land and building development is spurred in areas within walking distance of new or expanded stations. However, one of the greatest impacts of transit sta- tions is to provide access to city employment centers. In this way, transit stations can support growth of a broader regional economy, without any of those direct jobs necessarily occur- ring at or close to the stations. In fact, at many of the passenger intermodal stations covered in the study database, develop- ment impacts on adjacent areas were concentrated in housing investments (rather than office activities) because that was a specific goal established for those station areas. In some cases, such as the Colma Station on the airport extension line of the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART), develop- ment of affordable housing around stations was a prominent goal. This goal has been achieved. However, because nonprofit housing development in the station area does not generate property taxes, the economic impacts of station development that are easily measured in money terms (such as property tax revenue) end up understating the overall economic impact of the project. 3. It is sometimes difficult to isolate the impacts of a transporta- tion investment from other supporting, concurrent public policies. In many of the case studies, the transportation investment was made in conjunction with other public policies and incentives aimed at stimulating economic growth. A good example of this is the I-70 and 110th Street Interchange in Kansas City,

38 Kansas, a project that had substantial job creation and invest- ment impacts. The interchange was one of five major public initiatives that together led to several major private-sector investments, significant job creation, and measurable increases in property values. Other initiatives cited as important to the development included state STAR bonds to pay for infrastruc- ture (repaid with an increase in retail sales tax collected in the area after completion of the project), rezoning of 1,600 acres of land to accommodate mixed-use development, assembly of a 400-acre development site by the city and county, a payment in lieu of taxes paid by the developer of the Kansas City Speed- way, and unification of the city and county governments. According to those individuals interviewed for this project, no single one of the public policies adopted in the vicinity of the interchange could have attracted the scale of development that has occurred. It is the whole package of incentives that have resulted in the magnitude of development in the area. Although the numbers reported in the database have been adjusted to reflect that not all the development is attributable to the highway interchange, it is impossible to fully separate out the impacts because the package of incentives worked to pro- duce a larger impact than what might otherwise have occurred. This is an important lesson for those planning a transportation investment with a goal of stimulating economic growth. By marrying the investment with other economic development tools, the potential for positive economic development impacts can be improved significantly. The I-70 and 110th Street Interchange is just one case that points to the need to bundle additional incentives with the transportation incentive when the object is to stimulate eco- nomic development. In the case of the Anderson Regional Transportation Center in Massachusetts, site cleanup was the most significant catalyst for development because without the site cleanup, the land could not have been developed. At the same time, without three types of transportation improve- ments made to the site, it would not have been possible to develop the site at the level that has occurred. In some instances, land use considerations and regulations have superseded market forces to direct the type of develop- ment that has occurred in the vicinity of the investment. This is particularly true for some of the passenger intermodal projects, for which “smart growth” concepts often are part of pre development planning. In the latter cases, sometimes communities are more interested in long-term land use considerations than more immediate economic impacts. 4. T-PICS provides before and after comparison for specific points in time and thus may miss impacts that happened earlier and those that have yet to be realized. The before and after impacts included in the T-PICS database reflect snapshots in time, recording the economic development impacts at the time the case study was conducted. For older projects, the data do not reflect turnover that may have occurred over many years. For instance, a project completed in 1985 might have attracted businesses in a particular industry soon after it opened, but some of these businesses may have since closed or moved elsewhere. Similarly, structural changes in the economy (such as the contraction of oil industries in the 1980s, changes in agricultural production and shipping processes, reductions in basic manufacturing over time, and the fall of many dot-com industries in 2000) may mask some of the earlier positive impacts of older projects. Examples in which structural economic changes have affected the impacts of transportation investments include US-281 in San Antonio, I-29 in Iowa, and the I-95 Interchange in Peabody, Massachusetts. At the same time, the database includes several newer proj- ects, completed in the 2000 to 2005 period. The full potential of many of these projects may not yet have been realized, in part because of economic and travel downturns after Septem- ber 11, 2001, and the real estate market collapse in 2007 and subsequent global economic recession from which many com- munities have not yet recovered. A good example of a project whose impacts have not yet been realized because of those broad economic trends is the World Port facility at the Denver International Airport. This project was commissioned in 2000 to provide additional cargo facilities for shipping to national and international markets. However, the above-noted aviation events and economic downturns have stymied the anticipated demand for new space at the facility. As a result, expected eco- nomic development impacts have not yet been realized. There are also projects in the database for which impacts continue to occur and are not captured in the data included in T-PICS. One example is SR-29 in central Wisconsin. Between 1988 and 2000, the state of Wisconsin expanded this road from a two-lane highway to a four-lane highway. By 2001, more than 6,000 jobs had been created in the corridor as a result of the improved access it provides. Communities within the corridor continue to improve local infrastructure and development sites to attract even more jobs to the corri- dor. The economic development impacts are expected to con- tinue to accrue well into the future. 5. The time frame for impacts varies considerably among case study projects. There are several reasons for this variation. First, the economic conditions of the region in which a project is built will signifi- cantly affect the project’s economic development impact. Sec- ond, some projects were built in anticipation of future growth; others were built to accommodate more growth in an already expanding area. The E-470 Highway in the Denver region is an example of a project built in anticipation of future growth, the impacts

39 of which have been affected by changes in the regional eco- nomic climate. The 47-mile road was built through rural communities east of Denver in an area expected to support the next wave of development. The E-470 is a primary factor determining where, within eastern Denver County, this development occurs. The development is now occurring and is expected to continue for several decades. However, the eco- nomic impact of this highway has been slowed by economic downturns associated with the dot-com bubble in 2000, the real estate collapse of 2007, and a period of recession in the ensuing years. The area remains targeted as the next develop- ment corridor, as evidenced by plans to expand fixed guide- way transit service to the corridor. Similarly, in some instances, transportation investments have been made to help kick-start a local or regional econ- omy. The results of this strategy are mixed, and in some cases it will take many more years to really understand the magni- tude of the transportation investment on overall regional growth. The I-86 Corridor through southwestern New York State is a case in point. The highway links communities that once relied on heavy manufacturing, such as steel and auto parts production. Between these old economic centers the highway passes through farmland and hills. Each community along the road markets the access improvement that the high- way provides in hopes of attracting new industry to the region. The highway has, in fact, helped to attract new tourist-related businesses and light manufacturing facilities to the region. Still, some parts of the region remain remote, the labor force is aging, and distance to major markets remains a limitation. Economic development officials are pursuing additional strat- egies, such as the development of specialty industrial parks, to enhance the potential of the highway for attracting new jobs. The impact of the highway will likely continue to be real- ized, but because of the inherent nature of the region, the proj- ect may take years to reach its full potential for economic development. Another factor that can affect how long it takes for a proj- ect to generate economic development impacts is the regula- tory climate of the locality in which the project is built. The Sunset Transit Center demonstrates this point. At the time the Transit Center was being planned, Washington County, Oregon, adopted land use regulations that required higher- density residential and mixed-use development in the vicin- ity of the station. The regulations mirrored the land use regulations put in place around transit stations in many parts of the Tri-Met service area. However, Washington County was still suburban in character, and at the time the station opened (and continuing to today), the market for higher- density housing and mixed-use development had not yet emerged. In this case, county officials are not concerned inso- far as they are less interested in seeing short-term develop- ment occur and more interested in ensuring that when larger scale development does happen, the development will sup- port regional land use goals. 6. Data for more recent projects are easier to collect and poten- tially more accurate than data collected for older projects. It is much easier to accurately capture the economic develop- ment impacts of recent projects than of projects built many years ago. First, in some instances, there are few people still around to talk to about projects built more than 20 years ago. Interstate 68 in western Maryland was built over 23 years between 1966 and 1999. Many of the current municipal staff in towns along the corridor were not working in the region when the highway was constructed and needed to rely on old documents or information handed down by word of mouth over many years to provide input into the case study. Further- more, the time span of the project coincided with many broad, national economic trends that affected the economic development potential of the road. For example, computers became commonplace in industry, manufacturers became reliant on just-in-time deliveries, and the broader national economy transitioned from a manufacturing base to a service base. When the highway was built, it was expected to be heav- ily used by manufacturers. In reality, much of the impact of the highway has been to encourage tourism, including resort destinations and second home development. Ferreting out impacts of older projects is particularly dif- ficult in metropolitan areas, where so many factors combine to influence development patterns. Examples of other proj- ects that fall into this category include US-281 in San Antonio and I-476, the Blue Route through Philadelphia’s western suburbs. 7. The economic development impacts of a transportation investment can be difficult to isolate. When there are simultaneous factors at play, it can be difficult to parse out the impacts of the transportation investment relative to other factors. In general, the more economic activ- ity is occurring in an area, the more difficult it can be to sort out causation for observed impacts. For instance, the primary goal of some case study projects was to relieve traffic conges- tion slowdowns that were caused by an already growing econ- omy. The case study approach could capture some of the economic development impacts, particularly if interviewees could identify businesses that stayed only because of the con- gestion relief or a new business that located in a place because of the new access, but could not capture all the firms that stayed or expanded because of congestion relief. Examples of this type of project include the Central Artery/Tunnel Project in Boston, Arizona Route 101 in Phoenix, and the Dallas High Five Interchange.