Transport infrastructure and global competitiveness: Balancing mobility and livability

Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science

Volumn 626, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 210-225

  Cervero, Robert ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Amenities; Highways; Infrastructure; Place making; Value capture

Indexed keywords

EID: 70350771023     PISSN: 00027162     EISSN: 15523349     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0002716209344171     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Asabere, P.K., G. Hachey, and S. Grubaugh. 1989. Architecture, historic zone, and the value of homes. Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics 2:181-95.
2. Aschauer, D.A. 1990. Highway capacity and economic growth. Economic Perspectives, September, pp. 14-24.
3. Bhatta, S., and M. Drennan. 2003. The economic benefits of public investment in transportation: A review of recent literature. Journal of Planning Education and Research 22:288-96.
4. Boarnet, M. 1997. Highways and economic productivity: Interpreting recent evidence. Journal of Planning Literature 11 (4): 476-86.
5. Boarnet, M. 1998. Spillovers and location effects of public infrastructure. Journal of Regional Science 38 (3): 381-400.
6. Boarnet, M., and A.F. Haughwout. 2000. Do highways matter? Evidence and policy implications of highway's influence on metropolitan development. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy.
7. Booth, G. 2001. Transforming suburban business districts. Washington, DC: Urban Land Institute.
8. Cambridge Systematics Inc. and Apogee Research. 1996. Measuring and valuing transit benefits and disbenefits. TCRP Report 20. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board.
9. Cervero, R. 1998. The transit metropolis: A global inquiry. Washington, DC: Island Press.
10. Cervero, R. 2003. Road expansion, urban growth, and induced travel: A path analysis. Journal of the American Planning Association 69:145-63.
11. Cervero, R., and C. Kang. 2008. From elevated freeway to linear park: Land price impacts of Seoul, Korea's CGC project. VWP-2008-7. Berkeley, California: Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Berkeley Center for Future Urban Transportation.
12. Cervero, R., and J. Murakami. 2008a. Rail+Property development in Hong Kong. Rail + Property development: A model of sustainable transit finance and urbanism. VWP-2008-5. Berkeley, California: Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Berkeley Center for Future Urban Transportation.
13. Cervero, R., and J. Murakami. 2008b. Shrinking urban transportation's environmental footprint: Evidence on built environments and travel from 370 U.S. urbanized areas. Berkeley, California: Institute of Urban and Regional Development.
14. Cheshire, P., and S. Sheppard. 1995. On the price of land and the value of amenities. Economica 62:247-67.
15. Eiden, E. 2005. The worst of all worlds: Los Angeles, California, and the emerging reality of dense sprawl. Transportation Research Record 1902:1-9.
16. Florida, R. 2002. The rise of the creative class. New York: Basic Books.
17. Frech, H.E., and R.N. Lafferty. 1984. The effect of the California Coastal Commission on housing prices. Journal of Urban Economics 16:105-23.
18. Giuliano, G. 2004. Land use impacts of transportation investments: Highway and transit. In The geography of urban transportation, ed. S. Hanson and G. Giuliano, 237-73. New York: Guilford.
19. Hall, P. 2002. Cities of tomorrow-An intellectual history of urban planning and design in the twentieth century. 3rd ed. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
20. Kain, J., and J. Quigley. 1970. Measuring the value of housing quality. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 65 (370): June, pp. 532-48.
21. Kasarda, J. 2001. From airport city to aerotropolis. Airport World 6 (4): 42-45.
22. Langdon, P. 2008. For TODs, medium densities often yield best values. New Urban News 13 (6): 11-12.
23. Porter, M.E. 1997. New strategies for inner-city economic development. Economic Development Quarterly 11 (1): 11-27.
24. Rogerson, R. 1999. Quality of life and competitiveness. Urban Studies 36 (5-6): 969-85.
25. Rose, E. 2003. Changing spaces. Urban Land 62 (3): 84-89.
26. Schrank, D., and T. Lomax. 2007. The 2007 urban mobility report. College Station: Texas Transportation Institute, Texas A&M University.
27. Seoul Metropolitan Government. 2003. CGC restoration project. Seoul, South Korea: Seoul Metropolitan Government.
28. Storpher, M., and M. Manville. 2006. Behaviour, preferences and cities: Urban theory and urban resurgence. Urban Studies 43 (8): 1247-274.
29. Tajima, K. 2003. New estimates of the demand for urban green space: Implication for valuing the environmental benefits of Boston's Big Dig project. Journal of Urban Affairs 25 (5): 641-55.
30. Tang, B., Y. Chiang, A. Baldwin, and C. Yeung. 2004. Study of the integrated rail-property development model in Hong Kong. Hong Kong, SAR, China Hong Kong Polytechnic University.
31. Vandell, K., and S. Lane. 1989. The economics of architecture and urban design: Some preliminary findings. AREUEA Journal 17:235-60.
32. Voith, R. 1993. Changing capitalization of CBD-oriented transportation systems-Evidence from Philadelphia, 1970-1988. Journal of Urban Economics 33 (3): 361-76.
33. Whitehead, T., D. Simmonds, and J. Preston. 2006. The effect of urban quality improvements on economic activity. Journal of Environmental Management 80:1-12.