Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
MPO study links Complete Streets investments to higher property values; council raises methodological concerns
Summary
An MPO-commissioned analysis compared corridors before and after Complete Streets investments and reported property-value gains that, in aggregate, could exceed project costs; councilmembers questioned the choice of comparison corridors, possible selection bias, and attribution of growth to multimodal features rather than broader development trends.
MPO staff and an outside consultant presented a case-study economic analysis of Complete Streets investments across four corridors in Billings and argued that measured increases in property values and, in some cases, business licenses outpaced comparison corridors.
The study used a difference-in-differences approach across North 30th, Shiloh Road, Grand Ave/54th and Lake Elmo Drive, citing construction/maintenance costs for corridor elements (examples: North 30th bike lane ~$26,000; Shiloh shared-use path ~$1.9M; Grand/54th shared-use elements ~$462,000). The presenters said aggregated property-tax gains from the study areas could offset the additional costs in most case studies; staff gave examples of estimated annualized tax benefits and cited total property-tax benefits presented in the report's appendix.
Council members raised several methodological critiques during the Q&A: lack of site visits by the consultant team, differences between greenfield corridors and established commercial corridors (which can bias attributions), inclusion of large, tax-exempt property owners in value calculations (e.g., health systems that do not pay property tax), and the selection of comparison corridors that might not be well-matched in preconditions. Several council members said the study directionally supports safety and connectivity goals but expressed skepticism about the magnitude of the economic claims and urged caution in using the numbers for policy decisions.
Staff and the consultant responded that the study is informational, pointed to the stated limitations and assumptions in the report, and suggested the results should be interpreted as directional evidence rather than definitive causal proof. The MPO said the document will be forwarded to the Policy Coordinating Committee (PCC) and that no infrastructure investments were being recommended by the study itself.
Why it matters: The study provides local data to inform debates over how much to invest in multimodal infrastructure, but council members' concerns underscore the difficulty of attributing economic outcomes to specific street elements in rapidly changing corridors.
What to watch next: The study will go to MPO/PCC for review; staff recommended additional pre-project data collection and performance monitoring to improve future evaluations.
