transformation, and spatial econometrics, his results confirm that the systems have a favorable impact on the market price of residential and commercial property prices in both cities.

Cervero and Kang (2011) document the impact of BRT systems on the value and use of land in Seoul. Their results, based on multilevel models, indicate that converting regular buses to a median-lane BRT system leads to higher-density housing (because property owners convert single-family homes to higher-density apartments). The price of land for both residential and commercial uses grew significantly around BRT stations. The study stresses the importance of zoning regulations and public financing in recovering the value that public infrastructure creates so private landowners may address inequities. Using an urban simulation model, Jun (2012) finds that the Seoul BRT attracts firms to urban centers. Residential areas, however, are less susceptible than nonresidential areas to the improvements in accessibility. Central business districts appear to benefit more from the property value gains, while the outer ring zones experience reduced property values.

Using longitudinal analysis of property price data, Deng and Nelson (2010) find that the improvements in accessibility associated with the BRT in Beijing have led to higher real estate prices. The prices of apartments near a BRT stop have increased more rapidly than the prices of apartments not serviced by the system. These effects are larger over time and in areas that previously lacked mobility opportunities. Deng and Nelson (2013) find improved accessibility among communities along the BRT route to the center of the city. They also mention a positive impact on property prices along the corridor after six years of service. In addition, a passenger survey found that 79 percent of the users of Beijing BRT Line 1 are low income or lower-middle income (Deng and Nelson 2012). Zhang et al. (2014) compare BRT systems to light rail and metro transit in terms of variations in housing market performance. Using hedonic price models, they find that transit impacts spread out one mile in the case of metro rail and a half mile in the case of light rail, but are indiscernible in the case of BRT. The premium associated with proximity to stops is higher among residents living close to a metro than among residents living close to light rail. While the technological features of transit are important, the study concludes that BRT systems seem to be more dependent on context relative to rail transit, which appears to be a more independent force.

Assessment of BRT systems in the cities of Brisbane and Sydney, Australia, find mixed effects on land values. Some studies conclude that the impact of BRT systems is less in developed countries than in developing countries and is also less relative to rail systems. Mulley and Tsai (2016) look at the effects of the Liverpool-Parramatta BRT in Sydney using a multilevel hedonic pricing model. They find that the BRT increases housing sales prices shortly after launch, but that the effect does not last.

Similarly, using repeat sales data from before and after the opening of the BRT system, Mulley and Tsai (2017) find little difference in prices between properties within and outside the BRT service coverage area. Their segmented hedonic models further stratify the sample by type of housing, finding that apartments benefit less in terms of locations that had good public transport accessibility before the BRT. Mulley et al. (2016) find greater land value uplift associated with the BRT in Brisbane than in Sydney, which may be explained by the greater network coverage of the Brisbane system. The authors use spatial modeling, followed by geographically weighted regression to study the spatial 6