the impact of public transport system expansions on local informality rates for the São Paulo Metropolitan Region in Brazil by comparing the average changes in informality in areas that received new public transport infrastructure with the average changes in areas that were supposed to receive infrastructure according to official plans but did not because of delays. Informality rates decreased on average between 1 and 7 percentage points more in areas receiving new public transport infrastructure compared to areas that faced project delays.

Bird and Straub (2020) study the impact of the rapid expansion of the Brazilian road network on the growth and spatial allocation of population and economic activity across the country’s municipalities. The analysis reveals that better access to large urban centers generates agglomeration effects in terms of population and income growth. The shape of a highway network impacts local income and population through improved transport access, the economic strength of the municipality, as well as the economic characteristics of the interconnected points.

**Table 13: Survey of selected papers on the impact of urban transportation**

|**Author**|**Level of**<br>**Analysis**|**Country/**<br>**Region**|**Indicator of**<br>**Development**|**Main Findings**|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|Gonzales-<br>Navarro & Turner<br>(2018) *+|City|Global|Urban growth|Large cities are more likely to have subways, which do not<br>contribute to urban growth, but do cause cities to decentralize.|
|Baum-Snow et al<br>(2017) *|Prefecture|China|Urban growth|Each radial highway displaces 4% of city center population to<br>surrounding regions, reducing city center GDP by about 20%.|
|Bird & Straub<br>(2020) *|Municipality|Brazil|Urban Growth|The heterogeneity of impact of a transport cost reduction depends<br>on the characteristics of the end point.|
|Moreno-Monroy<br>& Ramos (2021)<br>*|Weighted<br>spatial area|Brazil|Labor market<br>informality|Informality rates decreased by 1-7% more in areas receiving new<br>public transport infrastructure compared to those facing project<br>delays.|
|Gaduh et al<br>(2022) *|Community|Indonesia<br>(Jakarta)|Labor market<br>access|BRT proximity neither reduced vehicle ownership nor travel times,<br>nor increased commuter flows, but rather exacerbated congestion.|
|Gonzalez-<br>Navarro &<br>Quintana-<br>Domeque<br>(2016)*+|Household|Mexico|Household<br>wealth|First time asphalting of residential streets in poor neighborhoods<br>increases home values by 17% and land values by 72%.|
|Chen & Whalley<br>(2012) *|Prefecture|Taiwan,<br>China|Local air<br>pollution|Opening the metro reduced air pollution (carbon monoxide) by 5 to<br>15 percent.|
|Lu et al (2017)+|City|China<br>(Beijing)|Local air<br>pollution|Workdays during school holidays have 20% lower traffic congestion<br>than others, leading to significant decrease in PM10 concentration.|
|Tsivandis (2019)+|Census tract|Colombia<br>(Bogotá)|Welfare|BRT would have higher welfare impacts and generate more<br>government revenue if combined with land value capture.|
|Gu et al (2021)*|Road<br>segments|China|Congestion|After first year of subway line launch, rush-hour speed on nearby<br>roads rises by 4% with time savings valued at US$0.10 per vehicle.|

Source: Compiled by the authors.

39