The complexity that characterizes the interaction of transportation and land use in urban areas is matched by the variety of the disciplines called on to address these issues, including economics, urban planning and civil engineering. In recent decades, communication among scholars in these disciplines has improved and the acceptance of a common base of theory and method, based on economics, is increasing. The Taxation, Resources and Economic Development (TRED) conference on “Transportation and Land Use” held at the Lincoln Institute in October 1996 focused on these issues. Ten papers presented at that conference are now published in a special issue of the journal Urban Studies. The papers are organized into four groups as summarized below.

Trends in Urban Development

Gregory Ingram’s paper on “Metropolitan Development: What Have We Learned?” documents the worldwide prevalence of several trends that characterize modern urbanization. Employment decentralization and the emergence of multiple employment centers in large metropolitan areas are observed worldwide in both developing and developed countries. Although employment continues to be more centralized than population, the typical Central Business District does not contain more than about 20 percent of jobs, and much smaller percentages are common in the U.S. Manufacturing employment has become more decentralized than service employment. Decentralization has reduced traffic congestion and travel distances and has contributed to a weakening of transit systems. The increased affordability of motorized transportation worldwide has led to more trip-making, with work trips typically being less than a third of all trips in urbanized areas.

Peter Gordon, Harry Richardson and Gang Yu find evidence that the suburbanization and exurbanization of employment in the U.S. has picked up its pace since 1988. In their paper, “Metropolitan and Non-Metropolitan Employment Trends in the U.S.: Recent Evidence and Implications,” they argue that the ability of manufacturing and even of services to locate in exurban and rural areas, shunning inner-suburban and central city locations, is a consequence of the continued weakening of the agglomeration economies that shaped the now outdated downtown-oriented city.

Robert Cervero and Kang-Li Wu examine the relationship between average commuting distance and employment subcentering in their paper, “Subcentering and Commuting: Evidence from the San Francisco Bay Area, 1980-1990.” They are concerned with changes in employment densities in 22 employment subcenters and with the commuting distances and travel times of those employed in these subcenters. The authors find that employment densities have increased more in the outlying suburban centers and that commuting to these centers has experienced modal shifts away from transit and in favor of the automobile. According to their data, while jobs in these centers grew by 18 percent during the decade, average one-way commuting distances to these 22 subcenters increased by 12 percent, and average one-way travel times rose by only 5 percent.

These findings are consistent with theory: with the number of subcenters fixed and the degree of spatial mismatch between jobs and housing invariant with job growth, an increase in the number of jobs in each subcenter should result in longer commutes on average. If new subcenters are spawned in between existing ones or new ones develop in outlying areas-something that does not appear to have occurred in the Bay Area-then average commutes should decrease. The 22 subcenters account for less than half of total employment in the Bay Area, the rest of the jobs being broadly dispersed throughout. Because such dispersed employment is not included in their study, we do not know about the total effect of job decentralization on average commute distances and times.

Genevieve Giuliano’s paper, “Information Technology, Work Patterns and Intrametropolitan Location: A Case Study,” examines the impact of information technology, including the advent of fax machines, computers, modems and the internet. One of her central observations is that while the U.S. labor force increased by 14 percent from 1980 to 1990, the “contingent workforce,” a diverse group of temporary workers, part-time workers, the self-employed and business service workers, increased much faster, from about 25 to 33 percent.

This trend implies that the information revolution is causing structural shifts in the labor force as more and more workers offer temporary services to a variety of employers and, as a result, do not have a long-term attachment to any one employer. Theory suggests that such workers should locate in a way that is sensitive to their expected accessibility to jobs. Also, the advent of information technology should facilitate “telecommuting,” thus reducing the need for physical proximity to jobs.

Giuliano uses the 1990 U.S. Census Public Use Microsample for the Los Angeles region to compare the residential location and commuting patterns of contingent and non-contingent workers. The socioeconomic complexity of contingent workers makes it difficult to draw clear conclusions, but Guiliano does find that those contingent workers who live in suburban areas are likely to live in high amenity areas. Controlling for socioeconomic factors, commuting distances are shorter for part-time workers than they are for full-time workers, and among full-time workers the self-employed have the shortest commutes.

Agglomeration Economies

The next two papers offer empirical contributions on intra-urban employment agglomeration. “Spatial Variation in Office Rents within the Atlanta Region,” by Christopher Bollinger, Keith Ihlanfeldt and David Bowes, is a hedonic rent study for office buildings in the Atlanta area from 1990 to 1996. The authors find that part of the rent differences among office buildings is due to differences in wage rates, transportation rates and proximity to concentrations of office workers. More importantly, the convenience of face-to-face meetings facilitated by office agglomerations is also reflected in office rents, providing evidence that agglomerative tendencies continue to be important in explaining office concentrations, despite the ability of information technology to reduce the need for some such contacts. In their paper, “Population Density in Suburban Chicago: A Bid-Rent Approach,” Daniel McMillen and John McDonald show that population density patterns in the Chicago MSA are strongly influenced by proximity to subcenters, which include the Central Business District, O’Hare Airport and 16 other centers. Site-specific variables such as access to commuter rail stations or highway interchanges have smaller influences on population densities.

Travel Behavior and Residential Choice

Among the challenges posed by the evolving trends in transportation and land use is a better explanation of the role of non-work travel in residential location decisionmaking. Motorized mobility has greatly increased non-work travel, thus weakening the relevance of the now classical commuting-based theory of residential location. While information technology may result in more telecommuting, the importance of non-work travel relative to work travel may grow even more in the future.

Two papers attempt to develop new techniques that can be used to explain the influence of non-work travel behavior on residential location and land use patterns, and vice versa. Central to this research is the notion that when a household makes a residential choice decision it will consider the pattern of non-work trips its members are likely to make. Accessibility to non-work opportunities is likely to be important and, for many households, perhaps more important than accessibility to jobs.

Moshe Ben-Akiva and John Bowman model the probability of choosing a residential location by treating the non-work trip patterns and activity schedules of the household’s members as explanatory variables. Their model allows the treatment of trips as tours with stops at multiple destinations. In their paper, “Integration of an Activity-Based Model System and a Residential Location Model,” the authors report that their model does not fit the data as well as a work-trip-based comparison model. But, the non-work accessibility measures are more appealing conceptually and allow a richer set of predictions and simulations to be made.

Until recently, economists have suppressed the importance of non-work trips in their theories of land use. Planners have viewed land use planning as a tool that can affect behavior and travel demand. But what is the evidence that travel patterns can be influenced meaningfully by manipulating land use at the neighborhood level or in a larger area?

Marlon Boarnet and Sharon Sarmiento tackle this question by means of a travel diary survey of Southern California residents. Their paper is titled “Can Land Use Policy Really Affect Travel Behavior? A Study of the Link Between Non-work Travel and Land Use Characteristics.” The number of work trips made by residents is explained by sociodemographic variables describing the residents and by land use characteristics describing their place of residence. Generally, the land use variables describing the neighborhood are not statistically significant, but future studies could follow this approach by trying more complex specifications and using better data.

Jobs-Housing Mismatch

As first stated by John Kain in 1968, the “spatial mismatch hypothesis” claimed that black central city residents are increasingly at a disadvantage economically as jobs disperse to the suburbs. Many suburban governments limit the quantity of high-density/low-income housing, forcing workers to make long, expensive commutes. Although there is a wealth of empirical work on the mismatch hypothesis, Richard Arnott’s paper, “Economic Theory and the Mismatch Hypothesis,” is one of the first attempts to formulate a microeconomic theory of the mismatch problem. In Arnott’s model, jobs flee to the suburbs because of the advent of international trade (relaxation of global trade barriers) and the emergence of suburban-based inter-city truck transport after World War II. At the same time, large-lot zoning and discrimination in suburban housing markets force minorities to reside in central cities. An increase in the cost of commuting effectively lowers the wage paid to low-skilled labor from the city.

In “Where Youth Live: Economic Effects of Urban Space on Employment Prospects,” John Quigley and Katherine O’Regan investigate how neighborhood of residence and access to jobs affect the employment prospects of minority youth. Black youth unemployment rates are higher in metropolitan areas where blacks are more isolated geographically. Controlling for socioeconomic characteristics, minority youth who have less residential exposure to whites are more likely to be unemployed. Finally, controlling for socioeconomic characteristics as well as residential exposure to whites, minority youth living in neighborhoods that are less accessible to jobs are more likely to be unemployed. While these findings support the mismatch hypothesis, they also suggest the importance of social networks and spatial search as important mechanisms in the intra-urban labor market.

Alex Anas, professor of economics at the State University of New York at Buffalo, was the editor of the special issue of Urban Studies (Vol. 35, No. 7, June 1998). The article and figures used in Land Lines are adapted with permission.

Note: Ben Chinitz, former director of research at the Institute, helped organize the 1996 TRED conference and the following colleagues served as discussants of the papers: James Follain, Vernon Henderson, Douglass Lee, Therese McGuire, Peter Mieszkowski, Edwin Mills, Sam Myers, Dick Netzer, Stephen Ross, Anita Summers, William Wheaton, Michelle White and John Yinger. The conference participants were saddened when news arrived that William Vickrey, who had been named a Nobel laureate in economics only a few days before, had passed away while traveling to the conference. Professor Vickrey had been a leading thinker on issues of transportation and land use and a regular attendee of previous TRED conferences. The special issue of Urban Studies based on the 1996 conference serves as a tribute to his memory.

Una versión más actualizada de este artículo está disponible como parte del capítulo 3 del libro Perspectivas urbanas: Temas críticos en políticas de suelo de América Latina.

La administración catastral en Colombia es un punto de encuentro para autoridades de las distintas instancias del sistema político-administrativo del país. En el ámbito nacional, las actividades catastrales se rigen por las normas técnicas establecidas en la Ley 14 de 1983 y siguen las directrices de la Federación Internacional de Agrimensores (FIG). El Instituto Geográfico Agustín Codazzi (IGAC) es una entidad gubernamental de carácter nacional que se encarga de toda la administración catastral y del control de más de siete millones de parcelas. Además, hay catastros municipales en las ciudades de Cali y Medellín, un sistema departamental en Antioquia y un catastro distrital para el Distrito Capital de Bogotá.

Cada una de estas entidades representa la autoridad catastral en su correspondiente territorio. En tal condición, cada una se encarga de los procesos necesarios para establecer los protocolos y actualizar y mantener los catastros, en los cuales se registra la debida identificación física, jurídica, fiscal y económica de todos los bienes inmuebles. Estas autoridades actualizan los catastros cada cinco años a fin de revisar sus elementos físicos y jurídicos y eliminar las posibles disparidades en el avalúo catastral originadas por cambios físicos, variaciones de uso o de productividad, obras públicas o condiciones locales del mercado inmobiliario. Asimismo revisan los avalúos catastrales anualmente, lo que les permite determinar la base gravable para el impuesto predial.

El Departamento Administrativo de Catastro Distrital de Bogotá (DACD) se creó en 1981 pero no estuvo completamente operativo hasta 1991. El proceso para actualizar la base de datos catastral se estableció en el artículo 5 de la Ley 14 de 1983, pero comenzó efectivamente en 1997. El catastro de Bogotá partió de las directrices del programa catastral nacional para luego formular un programa que reflejara los intereses y preocupaciones locales. El alcalde Antanas Mockus fijó como meta para su administración entre 2002 y 2003 realizar una actualización completa de los bienes inmuebles de Bogotá. A pesar de la poca popularidad de esta tarea, la voluntad política del Alcalde, la asignación que hizo del presupuesto y los recursos necesarios y la persistencia del personal del Catastro Distrital garantizaron el cumplimiento de la meta.

Este esfuerzo actualizó 1.734.622 predios, de los cuales 102.531 pertenecen a la categoría de nuevos predios (formación). Simultáneamente, el valor catastral de base aumentó de 66,61 mil millones a 88,25 mil millones de pesos colombianos, equivalente a un aumento de 21,64 mil millones de pesos (aproximadamente US$ 8 millones; US$1 = 2.700 pesos colombianos). Un cálculo rápido del impacto sobre las rentas públicas indica que el Distrito recaudaría un ingreso adicional de 65 mil millones de pesos (US$ 24 millones) en impuestos prediales por año. La ciudad gastó apenas unos 11 millones de pesos (US$ 4 millones) en el proceso de actualización, por lo que obtuvo un resultado costo-beneficio muy positivo, especialmente porque esta inversión se realiza sólo una vez y los recursos adicionales resultantes son permanentes.

El tener un catastro actualizado es importante no sólo desde la perspectiva de las finanzas públicas, sino también en vista de otras ventajas, tales como la búsqueda de igualdad tributaria, la depuración de los registros catastrales, la mejora de la nomenclatura urbana y la incorporación de la cartografía. Todos estos efectos pueden servir como herramientas útiles para administrar el desarrollo futuro de la ciudad. De esta manera, se hace imprescindible mantener actualizado el catastro a fin de conservar la sólida situación fiscal del Distrito, garantizar la justa distribución de las cargas tributarias entre los diferentes grupos sociales y aportar los recursos financieros para los procesos de planeación y desarrollo.

El resultado positivo de esta iniciativa llevó al DACD a examinar la experiencia catastral de otros países, con miras a encontrar nuevas estrategias e ideas que pudieran contribuir a lograr un mejor desempeño en el futuro. Ello dio pie para el Primer Foro sobre Metodologías de Actualización Catastral, el cual se llevó a cabo en noviembre de 2003 y contó con la participación de expertos de España, Francia y los Estados Unidos, quienes compartieron información sobre diversos temas. El catastro español es el más parecido al de Colombia y ofreció información valiosa sobre la legitimidad y simplificación del proceso. El Instituto Geográfico Nacional de Francia compartió su experiencia obtenida en la integración de los datos catastrales y los desarrollos tecnológicos para la actualización de las bases de datos gráficas. El Instituto Lincoln, que lleva tiempo trabajando en Bogotá sobre varios aspectos de la gestión del suelo y la tributación predial, aportó información acerca de los procesos de avalúo colectivo. Finalmente, el IGAC manifestó su deseo de integrar los datos de su catastro al catastro internacional mediante un acuerdo con sistemas semejantes en otros países del mundo.

Liliana Bustamante es asesora del director del catastro y Nestor Gaviria es el gerente del proyecto de actualización catastral en el Departamento Administrativo del Catastro Distrital en Bogotá, Colombia.

For the past eight years, each of our annual land policy conferences has addressed a different theme; last year’s explored the changing links between education, land, and location in light of the growing importance of school choice. The volume resulting from our 2013 conference—Education, Land, and Location, coedited by Lincoln Institute Fellow Daphne A. Kenyon and me—includes contributions from eminent scholars in a range of social science disciplines from across the U.S., Chile, and England.

When children attend schools near their homes, a strong link arises between residential location and quality of education. That link is strengthened when schools rely heavily on funding from the local property tax, as in the United States. Indeed, part of a house price can be thought of as paying for a ticket into a particular school system. But what if school choice is unlinked from choice of residence?

In the 1960s, approximately one in ten schoolchildren in the United States attended a private school. Now, there are new forms of school choice such as magnet schools, interdistrict and intra-district choice, charter schools, vouchers, and homeschooling. The best available data indicate that today between one-quarter and one-third of schoolchildren exercise some form of school choice.

This volume focuses on three policy issues. The first is racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic segregation. Within the decentralized system of U.S. local government, a great deal of such stratification is evident. As John R. Logan notes, the “average white child attends a school that is over 78 percent white.” The second is academic achievement gaps. Eric A. Hanushek concludes that the “gaps in achievement are stunning,” even though differences in high school attainment rates and scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress among whites, blacks, and Hispanics have converged somewhat. The third is a lack of equal opportunity flowing from residential segregation and academic achievement gaps. As Elizabeth J. Mueller and Shannon S. Van Zandt state, “Opportunities, in the form of good schools and other public services . . . are neither evenly distributed across regions nor accessible to all.”

The book is divided into four sections. The first reviews the literature, including Ellen B. Goldring and Walker Swain’s loosely chronological account of residential location–schooling linkages in the United States. The second examines questions of school district organization and finance, including William A. Fischel’s economic history of the structure of school districts, Andrew Reschovsky’s assessment of the property tax as the key funding source for K–12 education, and Henry A. Coleman’s examination of nontraditional sources of school funding. The third considers the effects of charter school location, with contributions from Robert Bilfulco and John R. Logan; Julia Burdick-Will and Elisabeta Minca; and Stephen Machin and Anne West, who analyze academy schools—the equivalent of charter schools in England. The fourth section examines cases where education and location are unlinked, such as homeschooling in Virginia, analyzed by Luke C. Miller.

This volume presents some evidence, highlighted in Eric J. Brunner’s chapter, that introduction of school choice reduces both the housing price premium associated with location in a high-quality school district and residential segregation. So far, however, these effects are less dramatic than one might suppose. One reason is that parents strongly prefer to send their children to neighborhood schools. Another reason is that the expense and availability of transportation limit the effective range of school choice. (Transportation costs are analyzed in the chapter by Kevin J. Krizek, Elizabeth J. Wilson, Ryan Wilson, and Julian D. Marshall.) One fascinating chapter on Chile, which implemented universal school vouchers in the 1980s, is instructive. One might have thought that school choice would reduce the school segregation inherent in residential segregation, but Carolina Flores found that socioeconomic segregation in schools is even greater than in residential neighborhoods. There are a number of reasons for this, including some schools’ ability to select students or to charge fees.

It is possible, however, that a decade from now school choice may have a more profound impact on housing markets and residential choice. Technological changes have begun to upend college education. Perhaps elementary and secondary education will soon face changes just as fundamental, some of which have been foreshadowed by the analysis in this volume.

How have infrastructure investments shaped global city regions? What have been the effects on the residents? Do the effects differ among residents in different sections of the city? Is the process different by type of infrastructure, such as highways, mass transit, airports or seaports? What if high-technology telecommunications infrastructures are included among our considerations? When the forces of globalization and technological change interact, do cities fare differently? Do their residents experience these changes differently?

These were among the questions generated at the second meeting of the global city regions consortium coordinated in July by Roger Simmonds, senior lecturer of planning at Oxford Brookes University. Most of the participants at the first conference held at the Lincoln Institute in September 1995 reconvened in El Escorial, Spain, to present the results of their latest research on the relationship between the location and timing of infrastructure development and the spatial form of the region. Teams from 11 city regions made presentations: Ankara, Turkey; Bangkok, Thailand; Madrid, Spain; San Diego, California; Santiago, Chile; and Sao Paulo, Brazil; Seattle, Washington; Taipei, Taiwan; The Randstad, Holland; Tokyo, Japan; and West Midlands, England.

Commenting on the relationship between infrastructure, governance and regional planning, Pedro Ortiz Castano, director of planning for the municipal government of Madrid, described the municipality’s extensive infrastructure plan. Existing highways, roads and transit lines will be woven together with other planned development to cover the region in a matrix or grid. This configuration is meant to reduce congestion and increase accessibility across city sectors as well as among social and economic classes.

Madrid’s grid-system of infrastructure and settlements presents a sharp contrast to the concentric rings of highways found in Seattle, as described by Anne Vernez-Moudon, professor of architecture and urban planning at the University of Washington. Despite the presence of Puget Sound to the west and the Cascade Mountains to the east, Seattle reflects the typical North American affection for beltways. Furthermore, with one highway dubbed the “Boeing Beltway,” the relationship between government-funded infrastructure and the private sector is clear.

This comparison also illustrates the role of Madrid’s strong regional government in attempting to have infrastructure-whether government-funded or privatized-shape the urban form. In most global city regions with weaker governments, infrastructure only plays catch-up with existing demand.

Consortium commentator Gary Hack argued that the polynucleated ‘spread city’ is the more typical reality, usually accompanied by an increase in spatial segregation by class. Since the powerful economic and technological forces at work around the globe are likely to accelerate and reinforce these trends, he concludes that planners should focus on specific sites within city regions where they can exert their influence with the most positive results.

The comparative analysis between Ortiz’s metropolitan-wide infrastructure plan and Hack’s site-specific approach reminds us that, despite the similarities among forces shaping city regions across the globe, the ways these forces play out vary widely. These variances reflect important differences in institutional arrangements, history, culture, attitudes about private property, and notions of the public interest, among other factors. Furthermore, these differences also affect how researchers see their own cities in comparison to others.

The role of informal markets, for example, illustrates the challenge researchers face in attempting to understand both the unique and common features of international forces. While it is hard to understand land markets and land use in cities as different as Ankara and Santiago de Chile without understanding the informal sector, western European and North American researchers rarely attempt to understand their cities’ land markets from this perspective.

The regional city teams are continuing to work on their respective reports in preparation for publication of a book by International Thomson Publishing in the United Kingdom.

Rosalind Greenstein is a senior fellow of the Lincoln Institute and director of the Program on Land Use and Regulation.

Colombia’s cadastral administration is a meeting point for authorities from the various levels of the country’s political-administrative system. At the national level, cadastral activities are determined by the technical norms established by Law 14 of 1983 and modeled on guidelines of the International Federation of Surveyors (FIG). The national government agency Agustin Codazzi Geographic Institute (IGAC) is responsible for all cadastral administration and oversight of more than 7 million parcels. In addition, there are municipal-level cadastres in the cities of Cali and Medellín, a department-level system in the Department of Antioquia, and a district-level cadastre for Bogotá’s Capital District.

Each of these entities represents the cadastral authority in its assigned territory. As such, each is in charge of the processes of establishing protocols and updating and maintaining the cadastres, which record the proper physical, legal, fiscal and economic identification of all real estate properties. These authorities update the cadastres every five years in order to check their physical and legal elements and to eliminate eventual disparities in cadastral valuation due to physical mutations, use or productivity changes, public works or local real estate market conditions. The authorities also reset the cadastral valuations every year, which enables them to determine the base payment level of the property tax.

Bogotá’s Administrative Department for the District Cadastre (DACD) was established in 1981 but was not fully operational until 1991. The process for updating the cadastre database was provided in Article 5 of Law 14 of 1983, but was started in 1997. The Bogotá cadastre relied on the national cadastre program guidelines before formulating a program that reflected local interests and concerns. Mayor Antanas Mockus set a goal for his administration in 2000–2003 to undertake a complete updating of Bogotá’s real properties. In spite of the unpopularity of this task, the mayor’s political will, his commitment of the necessary budget and resources, and the persistence of the District Cadastre’s staff ensured that the goal was met.

This endeavor updated 1,734,622 properties, 102,531 of which belong to the incorporated-as-new category. At the same time, the cadastral base value was increased from $66.61 billion to $88.25 billion Colombian pesos, thus increasing $21.64 billion pesos (approximately US$8 million; US$1=2,700 Colombian pesos). A quick calculation of the revenue impact suggested the District would receive an additional income of $65 billion pesos (US$24 million) in property taxes per year. The city spent only about $11 billion pesos (US$4 million) on the updating process, so it obtained a very positive cost-benefit result, especially because this investment is done only once and the resulting additional resources are permanent.

Having an updated cadastre is important not only from a public finance perspective but also for other benefits, such as addressing taxation inequity, purging cadastral archives, improving the urban nomenclature and incorporating cartography. All of these effects may be used as valuable tools for administrating the city’s future development. Thus, keeping the cadastre updated becomes imperative to preserve the District’s solid fiscal status, ensure the just distribution of the tax burden among the different social groups, and provide financial resources for planning and development processes.

The positive outcome of this experience led DACD to examine other countries’ experiences with cadastres, in search of new strategies and ideas that could help improve future performance. This led to the First Cadastral Updating Methodologies Forum, which took place in November 2003 with experts from Spain, France and the U.S. sharing information on different issues. Spain’s cadastre most resembles Colombia’s and offered valuable information on the legitimacy and simplification of the process. The National Geographic Institute of France shared experiences in linking registered cadastre data and technological developments in updating graphic databases. The Lincoln Institute, which has long worked in Bogotá on various aspects of land management and taxation, contributed information regarding mass valuation processes. Finally, the IGAC manifested its desire to integrate its cadastre data with the international cadastre through an agreement with similar systems worldwide.

Liliana Bustamante is adviser to the director of the cadastre and Nestor Gaviria is project manager for updating the cadastre in the Administrative Department for the District Cadastre in Bogotá, Colombia.