control for block fixed effects. Instead, _Distance 2016_ is included as a block-specific, time-invariant variable measuring the distance to the closest station/stop in 2016.<sup>6</sup> This variable captures all unobserved block-specific characteristics that are systematically correlated with proximity to a station. As in any difference in differences framework, the identification resides in the assumption of parallel trends, that is, had Transmetro or any other improvement to the public transit system not been implemented, there would be no systematic difference in the trends in the outcomes under study as a function of the treatment variable ( _Distance_ ). Lastly, the term  _‘Xb,t_ denotes additional control variables and is only included for a few specifications. For each outcome, the results are presented for two treatment variables, that is, distance to the closest station independent of the type of station and a second specification that estimates the effects of distance to either a main line station or a feeder stop separately. The error term  _b,t_ is allowed to suffer from heteroskedasticity in the regressions.

Table A.1 shows a list of all variables used. The distances from the block centroid to the station range from a maximum of 10 kilometers, for observations in 2008 and 2009, down to 2 meters among feeder lines and 32 meters among main lines. In 2016, the centroids of some blocks coincided with stations. After the cutoff for inclusion in the sample was set at 1 kilometer, the maximum distance became 999 meters. If a block is closest to a main line station, the distance values to feeder lines are normalized to 10 kilometers and vice-versa in the case of the distance value for blocks closest to a feeder line station. The total sample consists of 2,964 block-year observations. Each year, blocks are randomly sampled, but some are repeated over the eight years under study. In total, 2,088 blocks were observed, among which 1,419 enter only once; 509 are sampled twice; 160, three times or more.<sup>7</sup> . The number of blocks oscillates between 334 and 473 blocks across the different years. The aggregates are based on a total of 57,330 households, resulting in an average of 19.34 households per block. Of these, more than half (10.70) represent homeowners, 2.62 live in usufruct, and 5.89 rent.<sup>8</sup> If the sample is split into ownersusufruct and renters-other, some observations are dropped for the average variables because of the lack of observations in the category; see the bottom of table A.1.

The rest of table A.1 should be mostly self-explanatory; it does not contain any surprising results. For clarity, the variables old age, prime age, youth, and children refer to the number of individuals ages 65 or above, 23–64, 16–22, and 15 or less, respectively. An average of only 0.78 household per blockyear (around 4 percent of the total observed) are extremely poor, while almost a quarter of the total (4.72) are considered poor. Household income is monthly and shown in constant Colombian pesos per capita. Here, average per capita incomes are reported with and without imputed rent for homeowner households and households in usufruct. The latter is an outcome of interest; the former is used to calculate income quintiles (following the official definition). The block averages on home values and rents are based on various survey questions. Homeowners and usufructuaries are asked for their estimates of the price at which they could sell the property or how they estimated the rent they

> 6 The 2016 round of the GEIH was not yet available in December, but other information on the transportation network was available and allows us to control for the characteristics of the neighborhoods that are close to a station.

> 7 To be more specific, 124 are sampled three times; 27, four times; 7, five times; and 2, six times.

> 8 The number of households in some other arrangement is negligible, at an average 0.13.

11