Access for Appraisal: A Systematic Review of Estimating Transport Benefits via Real-Estate Uplift

Why It Matters

Real‑estate uplift captures broader welfare gains from accessibility, offering a more comprehensive metric for transport investment decisions. Its adoption could reshape CBA practice by aligning infrastructure appraisal with land‑value capture policies.

Key Takeaways

• Real‑estate uplift often exceeds travel‑time savings
• Ex post studies use difference‑in‑differences; ex ante limited
• Current models ignore supply‑side responses and externalities
• Agenda urges causal methods, benefit transfer, land‑use shocks

Pulse Analysis

Transport projects generate a spectrum of benefits that extend far beyond the conventional travel‑time savings captured in traditional cost‑benefit analysis (CBA). By quantifying the locational premium that improved accessibility confers on nearby properties, real‑estate uplift provides a market‑based proxy for these wider welfare effects. This approach aligns with contemporary land‑value capture strategies, allowing policymakers to link infrastructure spending directly to observable changes in property markets, thereby enriching the benefit side of CBA with tangible, monetizable outcomes.

The systematic review by Mann and Levinson uncovers a split between ex‑post and ex‑ante applications of real‑estate uplift. Fourteen studies were examined; the majority of ex‑post analyses employ difference‑in‑differences to isolate causal impacts, delivering credible uplift estimates that often dwarf direct user benefits. In contrast, ex‑ante studies rely on cross‑sectional hedonic price models that struggle with endogeneity and rarely incorporate supply‑side adjustments or externalities such as congestion spillovers. Consequently, while uplift figures appear attractive, they may overstate net welfare gains if omitted factors are not accounted for.

Recognising these gaps, the authors outline a forward‑looking research agenda. They call for rigorous causal identification techniques—such as instrumental variables or quasi‑experimental designs—to strengthen ex‑ante forecasts. Integrating benefit‑transfer methodologies can help translate observed uplift from studied corridors to new projects, while explicit modelling of land‑use supply responses and agglomeration effects will guard against double‑counting. If these enhancements are embraced, real‑estate‑based appraisal could become a mainstream component of transport CBA, offering a more holistic view of infrastructure value and supporting smarter, revenue‑generating investment decisions.