The Next Stop: Examining the Impact of Transit-Oriented Development on Communities Open Access

Abstract

This research expands on the prior literature on Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) by aiming to directly quantify and compare the community-level impacts of TOD across multiple cities. Through utilizing a mixed methods approach of a comparative case study of TODs in Atlanta, Denver, and Seattle and difference-in-differences regressions, I aim to quantify TOD’s impact on median household income and transit ridership. This station-level analysis revealed significant variation in both TOD-related governance practices and tangible outcomes across cities. Overall, I found that Denver’s TODs were the most effective, due to their engagement of both private and public sector actors and their correlation with increases in both median household income and ridership levels compared to non-TOD stations in the city. Additionally, in Atlanta, my analysis showed that median household income increased while transit ridership decreased, demonstrating how TOD may both increase existing residents’ access to economic opportunities and attract higher-income residents to previously underserved neighborhoods. While this research provides an intriguing foundation for station and city level analysis of TOD, future work is needed to continue to explore community level outcomes in greater depth and address many of the data quality and availability challenges of performing quantitative TOD research. 

Table of Contents

Introduction .......................................................................................................1

Literature Review ................................................................................................2

Evolution of the Transit-Oriented Development Concept .......................................3

Measuring TOD Outcomes and Success ................................................................7

Barriers to TOD and Policy Implications ..............................................................11

Collective Impact: The TOD Implementation Process In Action ............................14

Theory ..............................................................................................................17

Research Design: Comparative Case Study and DiD……………………………..............20

Station Selection and Matching Protocol .............................................................22

Data Sources ......................................................................................................26

Comparative Case Study ................................................................................... 27

Atlanta .................................................................................................. ..........27

Denver .............................................................................................................30

Seattle .............................................................................................................32

Quantitative Analysis ....................................................................................... 35

Propensity Score Matching Results .....................................................................35

Differences-in-Differences Model .......................................................................37

Atlanta Results ..................................................................................................40

Denver Results ..................................................................................................41

Seattle Results ..................................................................................................42

Discussion ........................................................................................................43

Conclusion .......................................................................................................45

Works Cited ......................................................................................................47  

Appendix

Table A-1: Variables Used for Propensity Score Matching ...........................................................................56

Table A-2: Variables Used for Economic and Community Development Regressions .....................................57

Table A-3: Variables Used for Neighborhood Structure Regressions .............................................................58

Table A-4: Atlanta Regression Results, Economic and Community Development ..........................................59

Table A-5: Atlanta Regression Results, Neighborhood Structure ..................................................................60

Table A-6: Denver Regression Results, Economic and Community Development ...........................................61

Table A-7: Denver Regression Results, Neighborhood Structure ...................................................................62

Table A-8: Seattle Regression Results, Economic and Community Development ............................................63

Table A-9: Seattle Regression Results, Neighborhood Structure ....................................................................64

Figure A-1: Propensity Score Matching Results for Atlanta ...........................................................................65

Figure A-2: Propensity Score Matching Results for Denver ...........................................................................66

Figure A-3: Propensity Score Matching Results for Seattle ...........................................................................67

Figure A-4: Verification of Parallel Trends for Atlanta Economic and Community Development Regression ….68

Figure A-5: Station-Level Results for Atlanta Economic and Community Development Regression..................68

Figure A-6: Verification of Parallel Trends for Atlanta Neighborhood Structure Regression.............................69

Figure A-7: Station Level Results for Atlanta Neighborhood Structure Regression .........................................69

Figure A-8: Verification of Parallel Trends for Denver Economic and Community Development Regression.....70

Figure A-9: Station Level Results for Denver Economic and Community Development Regression .................70

Figure A-10: Verification of Parallel Trends for Denver Neighborhood Structure Regression..........................71

Figure A-11: Station Level Results for Denver Neighborhood Structure Regression ......................................71

Figure A-12: Verification of Parallel Trends for Seattle Economic and Community Development Regression...72

Figure A-13: Station Level Results for Seattle Economic and Community Development Regression ................72

Figure A-14: Verification of Parallel Trends for Seattle Neighborhood Structure Regression...........................73

Figure A-15: Station Level Results for Seattle Neighborhood Structure Regression .......................................73 

About this Honors Thesis

Rights statement

• Permission granted by the author to include this thesis or dissertation in this repository. All rights reserved by the author. Please contact the author for information regarding the reproduction and use of this thesis or dissertation.

School	Emory College
Department	Political Science
Degree	B.S.
Submission	Honors Thesis
Language	English
Research Field	Urban and Regional Planning Transportation Political Science, General
Keyword	Transit-Oriented Development urban housing transit policy analysis community
Committee Chair / Thesis Advisor	Michael Rich, Emory University
Committee Members	Michael Leo Owens, Emory University Zachary Peskowitz, Emory University

Last modified

Primary PDF

Thumbnail	Title	Date Uploaded	Actions
	The Next Stop: Examining the Impact of Transit-Oriented Development on Communities ()	2026-04-07 17:26:29 -0400	Press to Select an action Download

Supplemental Files

Thumbnail	Title	Date Uploaded	Actions