Transportation in California

The Concept Paper (CP) should include average of 60 pages, about 100 references (I already
have the prevailing wage references, probably over 50 references need for material regarding

transportation projects), and annotated bibliography.

I incorporated prevailing wage laws into the body the produced questions to use 50+ researches
and work in the past. The Chair liked the three topics. The Chair was just concerned whether can
be achievable. I must Report to the Chair frequently therefore, I need to have the writer to email
me his/her progress every two days and the end the final CP. I will constantly report back with the
feedback from the Chair until the approval. Example of questions forwarded to the chair is
illustrated below. I personally like the number two question, what is your opinion and suggestion?

What are the likely environmental aspects that require consideration in the improvement of

transportation in California considering the prevailing wage laws?

What are the economic benefits associated with improvement of transportation facilities in

California and the magnitude of its effects on the daily lives of people with the respect to the

prevailing wage laws?

Is opening up new transportation corridors in California in any way beneficial to food and

agriculture industry allowing for the prevailing wage laws?

Table of Contents

Introduction 1
Statement of the Problem 3
Purpose of the Study 4
Research Questions 5
Hypotheses 5
Definition of Key Terms 6
Theoretical Framework… 8
Brief Review of the Literature 26
Background of the study …………………………………….………………………26
Transportation Investment and Socio-Economic Impact ..………………………… 28
Mobility……………………………………………………………………………. 36
Market Accessibility………………………………………………………………..43
Spending impact ……………………………………………………………………50
Relationship between improved transportation and socio-economic development…53
Summary 62
Research Method 65
Operational Definition of Variables 69
Measurement 70
Summary 77
References 78
Appendix A 86

Introduction

As demand for effective travel continues to increase, this trend has prompted
transportation projects investments to improve transportation infrastructure and network
(Cooper, 2012). Bell (2013) notes that the response of both federal and state governments
to this increased demand has been through ambitious projects to improve transportation
infrastructure. Transportation involves the movement of goods and human beings from
one location to another, which is enabled by different modes of transportation including
road, air, water, and rail (Alstadt, 2012). According to “The Theory of Transportation”,
as proposed by Cooley (1894), the development or improvement of transportation
requires involvement of general agencies such as political, associations or private, instead
of individuals, subsequently resulting to fundamentalism and generalized degree of
organization of transportation process as pertains to the society. Therefore, transport
projects should be carried on bearing in mind that, their general aims are under
considerations through uniform methods and unified instruments (Cooley, 1894).
According to Carrion and Levinson (2013), the articulation of transportation
theory provides an explanation of how traffic contributes to mechanical and geographical
concepts of transportation, the relationship between air, waterways and land transport
with regards to naturally prevailing conditions. The contribution of transportation to
socio-economic effects within a population focuses on the society organization, political
organization, economic organization, the spatial location of towns, markets, as well as
cities in a region (Alstadt, 2012). The transportation industry is constituted by different
modes of transportation, operations, as well as physical facilities and infrastructure,

which play an imperative role in enabling of socio-economic growth, especially by
increasing inter-trade between people and regions (Levinson & Huang, 2012).
Improvement of the transportation infrastructure is fundamental in the
enhancement of socio-economic outcomes, particularly through increased level of income
arising from opened up markets for both labor and consumer goods (Banister, 2012).
According to McDermott (2011), transport infrastructure improvement is attributable to
different socio-economic benefits such as reduced travel delays, improved mobility of
goods and people as well as increased accessibility of distinct locations that are
geographically dispersed. As a result, transportation infrastructure improvement through
increased government investment is attributable to improved quality of life, which
automatically linked to people’s occupation, healthiness, teaching, and recreational
activities among other roles that are directly related to socio-economic activities within a
population (Bell, 2013; Carrion & Levinson, 2013).
In particular, the State of California is engaged in transportation improvement just
like other states across the country, even though with the envisaged economic expansion,
its transportation improvement program seems inadequate to cope with the anticipated
demand (Kernohan & Rognlien, 2011). This is because the expected rate of economic
expansion in the State of California is not likely to match that of transport expansion, and
this necessitates an investigation of how the two relate to each other, and determine the
specific socio-economic effects likely to accrue from the observed relationship (Cooper,
2012). As such, there is need for a more ambitious approach of improving transportation
in order for the socio-economic status improvement among California population to be
achieved (Saunders & Dalziel, 2014).

Statement of the Problem
The relationship between transportation and socio-economic growth and physical
activity has been the pivotal focus of various key studies (Cooley, 1894; Banister, 2002;
Banister & Berechman, 2012; Durant et al., 2016). Over the last two centuries since
considerable investments in transportation improvement began, there has been inadequate
information on the relationship between economic development and the transportation
services. The issue has been subject to debate by government agencies, development
partners and scholars. Investment in the transport sector is seen as a boost or catalyst for
economic growth (Stillwell, Geertman, & Openshaw, 2013). In regions across the world,
transport infrastructures have been seen as an imperative sector and are significant drivers
in the promotion of balanced and sustainable development socially because they improve
opportunities and accessibility of less developed regions or disadvantaged social groups.
The fundamental aim of the current paper is to unearth if there is any relationship
between the transport systems in the society and the socio-economic development.
Specifically, the study aims to come up with socio-economic effects associated with the
increased transport infrastructural systems (Weisbrod, 2011; Banerjeey, Dufloz & Qian,
2012; Bell, 2013). The problem addressed in this study is that there has been significant
investment dedicated to the Gold Line Foothill Extension project, which is a light rail line
that was opened in March 5, 2016 at Los Angeles, California State (Nelson, 2016),
however, the relationship between the extent of investments in the transport sector and
the cost of travel and income level effects is yet to be evaluated (Weisbrod, 2011;
MacKinnon, Pine & Gather, 2012; Bell, 2013).
Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this qualitative longitudinal cohort research design study is to
examine if there is relationship between transportation infrastructure improvement and
increased travel accessibility, increased transit use as well as increased physical activity
in a sample of transport workers in the State of California. The study population for the
proposed study is comprised of a sample of employees working at Los Angeles County
Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) in the State California who have lived in
the State of California for more than three years that have knowledge, experience, or
ability to provide data to answer the research questions. A random sample of 200
participants will be recruited from the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation
Authority (Metro) employees’ database who meets the following inclusion criteria:
transport sector workers, residents of California and at least 3 years working experience
in the transport sector. Considering that the State of California is study area, primary data
will be collected using Modifiable Activity Questionnaire (S-MAQ) and Multi-Context
Sitting Time Questionnaire (MSTQ) research instruments to evaluate the services offered
by the transportation projects (Durand et al., 2016). The primary data gathered through
the administration of the questionnaires will be coded or processed; subsequent to using
SPSS in order to allow testing of the hypotheses. The analytic plan to be used include
both correlation and regression analysis to determine the relationships between variables.
Therefore, the study will be carried out to determine the socio-economic impacts that are
likely to be accrued as a result of development of transportation network in Los Angeles
city, in the state of California.
Research Questions

In this study, particular research questions will enable collection of quantitative
primary data in order to test the proposed hypotheses. The research questions will be in
tandem with research constructs or variables associated with transportation improvement
and socio-economic impacts. The interview questions were be formulated in a manner
that ensures the desired data is collected.
The research questions for this study are:
Q1. What is the relationship between transportation infrastructure improvement
and increased accessibility, in Los Angeles, California?
Q2. What is the relationship between transportation infrastructure improvement
and increased transit use, in Los Angeles, California?
Q3. What is the relationship between transportation infrastructure improvement
and increased physical activity, in Los Angeles, California?
Hypotheses
The hypotheses for this study are:
H1 0 . There is no relationship between transportation infrastructure improvement
and increased accessibility, in Los Angeles, California.
H1 a. There is a relationship transportation infrastructure improvement and
increased accessibility, in Los Angeles, California.
H2 a . There is no relationship between transportation infrastructure improvement
and increased transit use, in Los Angeles, California.
H2 0 . There is a relationship between transportation infrastructure improvement
and increased transit use, in Los Angeles, California.

H2 a . There is no relationship between transportation infrastructure improvement
and increased physical activity, in Los Angeles, California.
H2 0 . There is a relationship between transportation infrastructure improvement
and increased physical activity, in Los Angeles, California.

Definition of Key Terms
Transportation: This are the means through which people and goods move from
one location to the other through various modes such as road, air, water, rail, air,
as well as pipeline (Carrion & Levinson, 2013; Junge & Levinson, 2012; Litman,
2014).
Transportation facilities: This involves the infrastructure and modes utilized to
facilitate movement of people and goods (Anderson, Levinson & Parthasarathi,
2013).
Economic benefits: This involves the positive outcomes associated with
improved of the socio-economic conditions due enhancement of transportation
(Levinson, Xie & Montes de Oca, 2012).
Economic growth: This is the improvement and/or development of economic
conditions of people in a particular region (Fan, Guthrie & Levinson, 2012).
Increased mobility: This is the ease with which people are able to move from
one location to the other (Carrion & Levinson, 2013).

Theoretical Framework

Transport systems and infrastructures have a very close relationship with socio-
economic changes among a population of people living within a particular region
(Rodrigue, 2013). Different groups of people in California (in terms of cultural influence,
marital status, income level and level of education) have varied socio-economic needs
and tend to differentially utilize transportation facilities subsequently leading to economic
expansion (Gomben et al., 2012). Improved transport network has an impact on the
socio-economic expansion of California residents because it improves mobility and
market accessibility, creates job opportunities, and increases income levels (Hazledine,
Donovan & Bolland, 2013). According to Cooper (2012) despite significant levels of
public transportation investment in California, there has not been matching socio-
economic status satisfaction levels. Hence, there is need for ensuring that the actual
investment in the public transportation sector about socio-economic status is done to
ensure that transportation facilities are at par with commuter needs (Cooper, 2012). As
noted by Bell (2013) the socio-economic advantages resulting from transportation
infrastructure improvements are often regarded to be location-specific, and this is growth
in economy that subsequently benefits individuals within a particular region socio-
economically. Using the socio-economic expansion analysis approach would enable
collection of the required information in order to investigate this relationship (Bell,
2013). Therefore, by succinctly determining the relationship that exists between
improvement of public transportation infrastructure and socio-economic impacts among
Californians, the study will be able to scientifically prove the need to improve the
transport networks for improved socio-economic status of the people within the society.
As a result, the findings obtained from this study would be fundamental in contributing to

the transportation because costs of travel and income level changes due to improvement
of transportation infrastructure are constructs of a transportation theory. Due to the lack
of a study that scientifically links the socio-economic benefits accrued from improvement
in the transportation facilities, the current study endeavors to establish the correlation
between investment in transportation systems and the possible socio-economic benefits
that can emanate from the process. According to Rodrigue and Notteboom (2013), the
ease of people to move from one region to another as well as levels of accessibility to
modes of transportation is at the core of the dynamics that determines the behavior of the
relationship observed between transport systems and the socio-economic effects among a
population of people living within a particular region. The socio-economic changes are
likely to vary from one region to another as well as between individuals and businesses.
In particular, there is a very high likelihood of the arising of new economic opportunities
where transportation infrastructures and systems have been improved and are able to
provide effective solutions and/or alternatives to the residents’ mobility needs and
insuring accessibility to resources and markets (Henderson, Shalizi & Venables, 2012;
Lakshmanan & Chatterjee, 2015; Limao & Venables, 2011; Rodrigue & Notteboom,
2013).
Since the 19 th century industrial revolution through economic integration and
globalization processes of the recent past, particularly towards the end of 20 th century and
at the onset of the 21 st century, socio-economic effects attributable to improvements in
transportation systems and infrastructures have been differently affected across various
regions of the world (Harrington & Warf, 2015; Hargroves & Smith, 2015; Helling,
2011; MacKinnon, Pine & Gather, 2012). In particular, Rodrigue and Notteboom (2013)

noted that local, regional, and global/international transportation systems and
infrastructures have all become fundamental drivers of economic activities. These authors
further notes that, a growing share of wealth created through these economic activities,
which involve trade and distribution, is linked to improvements in transportation systems
and infrastructures at local, regional and global/international levels (Afraz, 2014; Banister
& Berechman, 2012). However, it is imperative to note that despite the positive impacts
of improved transportation infrastructures and systems on socio-economic systems, some
negative outcomes are also reported such as increased accidents, congestion, and mobility
gaps (Banister & Berechman, 2012; Brueckner, 2013; Berry, 2011).
According to Henckel and McKibbin (2011), transportation has a variety of
conceptual variables and a succinct understanding of its relationship with socio-economic
effects, which forms the basis of the conceptual framework of this study, can be achieved
by considering transportation as a commercial activity deriving benefits from the inherent
operational attributes such as reliability, efficiency, capacity, costs, and speed.
Henderson, Shalizi, and Venables (2012) reiterate the importance of improving
transportation systems and infrastructures, which have continued to evolve within a set of
relationships that are relatively complex between transport demand, transport supply, the
transport network’s operational capacity, and an economy’s mobility requirements.
There are significant investments which have being going on in the state of
California towards improving transport infrastructures and systems without succinctly
assessing the ensuing socio-economic benefits first, something which makes it imperative
to undertake this study for the determination of the relationship that exist between the two
scenarios (Cooper, 2012; Delorme, Thompson & Warren, 2013). This implies that an

information gap exists which ought to be timely and effectively addressed, since if left
undetermined then the state of California may continue to take risk that is not
strategically evaluated through continued dedication of significant investments towards
improvement of transport infrastructure and systems without matching socio-economic
effects (Federal Highway Administration, 2012). On the other hand, the State may also
fail to prioritize significant levels of investments in transport infrastructure and systems
improvement and also risk to harness the inherent potential and economic opportunities if
the socio-economic effects attributed to such actions are significant and satisfactory
(Banister & Berechman, 2012; Brueckner, 2013; Berry, 2011; Mullen, Williams &
Moowaw, 2012). Levinson (2012) emphasizes that transportation facilities’
improvements do not directly result in economic growth, but merely plays a supporting
role, and this information gap is evident in California State, which means that a study is
necessary to establish the specific socio-economic benefits that accrue from
improvements on transportation facilities and infrastructure. Furthermore, according to
El-Geneidy and Levinson (2011), the economic benefits that results from improvements
in transportation facilities are often considered location-specific, and this implies that it
results to economic growth through benefits such as its positive effects on accessibility,
income, and employment. However, considering that these effects are location-specific,
the manifestation of economic growth potential is primarily considered to occur at the
local level (Banister & Berechman, 2012; Berry, 2012; Brueckner, 2013; Helling, 2011;
Hilling, 2013; McDermott, 2012; Tilahun & Levinson, 2011).
According to Cooper (2012), the need to determine the variety and composition of
transportation facilities in California State is greatly important since this would

subsequently enable an assessment of the specific economic benefits that result from
these improvements in transportation facilities. Moreover, there is the need to determine
the effects of improvements in transportation facilities on daily lives of California State
citizens both socially and economically (Berry, 2012; Cooper, 2012; Morrison &
Schwartz, 2012).
According to Ruyssen, Everaert and Rayp (2014), transportation improvement is a
portrayal of market ease of accessibility by associating manufactures as well as end users
and intermediaries or distributors to facilitate transactions. As Carrion and Levinson
(2013) mentioned in the theory of transportation, economic transactions does not occur
with lack of transportation facilities. The existing transportation projects in the state of
California are not adequate to compare to the forecasted economic development and
followed population growth (Kernohan & Rognlien, 2011). Transportation agencies have
in history been focusing on major construction as well as expansion of roads, bridges, and
other transport infrastructure (Banerjeey, Dufloz & Qian, 2012; Coleman, 2014; Graham,
Gibbons & Martin, 2011; Gomben, Lilieholm & Gonzalez-Guillen, 2012; Gui & Russo,
2011; MacKinnon, Pine & Gather, 2012). However, there has been drastic shift of the
emphasis from development of new transportation infrastructure to intelligent
maintenance of the existing ones. In recent years, the tightening of budget and increased
demands has both impacted on funds allocation in transportation infrastructure
improvement. Coleman (2012) notes that this situation has resulted to heightened focus
on asset management systems development.
A strong system of asset management has been critical in providing a solid basis,
which has led to the optimization of cost effectiveness and performance of the operation

and maintenance of transportation facilities (Brueckner, 2013; Helling, 2011; Nadiri &
Manuneas, 2014). From this perspective, the provision of this study’s theoretical
framework reiterates on the best practices, which have been adoption by different
agencies of the transportation not only in the United States but globally. Cooper (2012)
points out that the asset management system front-runners globally with regards to
improvements in transportation facilities and infrastructure based on best practices
review, a conceptual framework is proposed.
According to Williamson, Philbin, and Sanderson (2012) the tremendous increase
in the number of cars on the streets over time in big cities, more and more people have
been deliberately making decisions to leave their personal cars behind and use public
transport facilities such as metro, tram or bus as a means of movement from one location
to another. Hence this has necessitated continuous improvement of transportation
facilities as well as infrastructure not only in California, but also in many other regions
across the United States and globally. Ideally, these improvements in public transport
facilities are aimed at making sure that users are provided with detailed information
concerning transport network connections, and theoretically, it should also guarantee
effective and reliable means of movement directly proportional to the investment made
for improvements (Brueckner, 2013; Helling, 2011; Vickerman, 2012). Therefore,
through the improvements in transportation facilities as well as infrastructure plan
journeys have gained significant popularity in services offered by the public transport
facilities. Vogel (2012) state that people who use public transport facilities have
increased their interest in knowing how catch up with them as quick as possible from a

particular location to a specified destination, which has been made possible by the
improvements caused by investment in transportation facilities and infrastructure.
The conceptual framework guiding the support of improvement in transportation
facilities, as well as infrastructure in California, argues that the economic benefits and
subsequent economic development objective of such interventions aims at contributing to
the improvement of socio-economic conditions for the population in the target region
(including improvement in economic potential as well as improvement in the access to
health services and education). According to Williamson, Philbin and Sanderson (2012)
this assertion is in turn given certain assumptions, envisaged to be attained through
several other immediate objectives that include provision of an improved access of rural
areas to social services as well as administrative centers and economic opportunities. This
imminent objective is undoubtedly measurable through a consideration of the repair,
improvement or building of transportation infrastructure as well as facilities such as
roads, bridges etc., in addition to the associated increase in access roads’ traffic both
motorized and non-motorized (Anderson, Levinson & Parthasarathi, 2013; Brueckner,
2013; Helling, 2011; Hilling, 2013).
The relation between transportation facilities and improvement in welfare has
been examined in various studies; however, it is imperative to note that this has been
noted by way of introducing the problem of attribution been the central concern for
investments in rural infrastructure. According to Alstadt (2012) many welfare related
factors are to a significant extent influenced by a multiple of factors other than
transportation infrastructure. Secondly, the endogeneity problem implies that many
impacts and effects originally associated with improvement in transportation facilities are

also to a greater extent influenced by an initial set of factors resulting to road allocation to
be the area of key interest (Anderson, Levinson & Parthasarathi, 2013). To guide the
analysis of the collected data in this research, a differentiation will be made between
impact and effects. Effects are expected to occur before, and with greater certainty than,
impacts (Brueckner, 2013; Helling, 2011; Gomben, Lilieholm & Gonzalez-Guillen, 2012;
Gui & Russo, 2011; MacKinnon, Pine & Gather, 2012).

Figure 1: Conceptual Framework Diagram

Transport Infrastructural
Improvement

Cheapest, More Reliable
Service

Reduced distancesReduced CongestionOther Externalities

Logistical
Improvement

Facilities
ConsolidationLocation Effects Value Added
Effects

On the other hand, the modeling as well as measurement of transport facilities
and/or infrastructure improvement investments on economic development requires
conceptual framework to be specified which underlies the potential causes linking the
two key phenomena (Berry, 2012; Brueckner, 2013; Helling, 2011; Todaro & Smith,

2011). It is undoubtedly evident that historically the fundamental outcome of investing in
transport facilities improvement has been the imminent relative changes in prices for the
accessibility of different locations within the area under consideration (Banerjeey, Dufloz
& Qian, 2012; Coleman, 2014; Graham, Gibbons & Martin, 2011). This is attributable to
the fact that transport systems’ network structure results to non-uniformity in the spatial
accessibility, an investment in new transportation facilities, improvement of the existing
transportation facilities which eventually lead to alteration of the existing equilibrium
structure mainly due to changes in the prices of accessing two locations.
In turn, these changes in prices imply variations in the relative advantage with
regards to activities that are spatially located as well as economic opportunities both for
consumption and production sectors. The reason that is attributable to these changes in
prices is because the inputs costs (e.g. labor) and outputs prices (e.g. housing) at spatial
locations change as a function of accessibility costs between the two spatial locations.
Furthermore, Coleman (2012) reiterated that the strength and extent of various scale,
network and scope economies, which affects companies’ location decisions, may often
become insignificant as there are improvements in relative accessibilities between
spatially located regions.
According to Cooper (2012), it is necessary to understand that the extent to which
transportation facilities and/or infrastructure improvement affects economic growth is
also dependent on the demographic and economic characteristics of the region where the
improvements in transportation facilities and/or infrastructure are taking place. For
instance, a given accessibility change will differentially affect consumption and location
decisions for households with two employees than it will affect such decisions in

households with a single employee (Coleman, 2014; Graham, Gibbons & Martin, 2011;
Gomben, Lilieholm & Gonzalez-Guillen, 2012; Gui & Russo, 2011; MacKinnon, Pine &
Gather, 2012). Similarly, the reaction of retailers to accessibility improvements will
differs with that of industrial firms with respect to their use of labor as well as their
location. Hence, from an economic perspective, the analysis of how investments in
improvements of transportation facilities and/or infrastructure affects economic
development must put into consideration the nature of the region’s local economy as well
as the various stakeholders that participate in policy formulation and the decision making
process (Banerjeey, Dufloz & Qian, 2012; Coleman, 2014; Graham, Gibbons & Martin,
2011; Hilling, 2013; Porter, 2012; Rietveld, 2014).
The basis of this argument is on three fundamental premises. First, investing on
improvement of transportation facilities and/or infrastructure is an effective investment.
This is attributable to the fact that such investments results to tangible effects on transport
networks’ performance. Alstadt (2012) stated that this is attributed to the fact that
investments in transportation facilities and/or infrastructure whose magnitude,
composition, location and type do not lead to considerable alteration of the transport
networks’ performance are considered to be non-effective since they do not have the
potential of generating economic benefits which subsequently result to economic
development. On the other hand, any investments in the improvement of transportation
facilities and/or infrastructure that results to transport organization improvement as well
as increased efficiency in provision of transport services in a region, even if such
investments do not include actual construction of new transportation facilities, is

considered to be effective investments if measurable economic and social effects are
generated (El-Geneidy & Levinson, 2011; Hilling, 2013; Porter, 2012; Rietveld, 2014).
Second, the casual link that exists between investments aimed at improving
transportation facilities or infrastructure and economic benefits that subsequently result to
economic growth must be manifest in transport-economic behavior changes in the region.
According to Vickerman (2012), the implication of this premise is that, in order for
economic development to ensue as a result of investments to improve transportation
facilities or infrastructure, other agents of economic growth such as firms and households
as well as markets must synergistically act to cause substantial changes in the transport
network performance. A consideration of this scenario from a short and medium term
perspective, it is of essence to make sure there is confinement of the aforementioned
reaction to travel variable such as travel volumes, trip generation rates as well as choice
of routes (Button & Reggiani, 2011; Porter, 2012). On the other hand, when the scenario
is considered from the long-term perspective, there must be manifestation of this reaction
in the location decisions for firms as well as households and in property and land prices’
changes. In overall, accessibility changes that ensue from improvements in transportation
facilities or infrastructure need to be linked with economic prices and behavior changes
in order to make sure that it subsequently constitutes a fundamental component of
economic development (Button, 2012; Hilling, 2013; Porter, 2012).
Third, improvements in transportation facilities or infrastructure which directly
influence transport markets and travel behavior must subsequently translated into
economic benefits that are measurable (Banerjeey, Dufloz & Qian, 2012; Gomben,
Lilieholm & Gonzalez-Guillen, 2012; MacKinnon, Pine & Gather, 2012). These

economic benefits should include increased demand for inputs, larger output, improved
factor productivity, increased property, and land values as well as greater consumer
goods’ demand (Brueckner, 2013; Helling, 2011; Hilling, 2013; Gomben, Lilieholm &
Gonzalez-Guillen, 2012; MacKinnon, Pine & Gather, 2012).
After the above three crucial premises have been stated, it must also be noted that
the extent to which improvements in transportation facilities or infrastructure will
influence economic development is explicitly dependent on the performance and level of
the existing transportation facilities or infrastructure in terms of the in-place capital (El-
Geneidy & Levinson, 2011). This implies that in areas where the transport infrastructure
or facilities (e.g. roads, rail systems, access roads, airports, seaways) is highly developed,
even a sizeable investment for improvement of transportation facilities or infrastructure is
not likely to significantly affect travel markets and behavior, and consequently economic
development (Anderson, Levinson & Parthasarathi, 2013; Hilling, 2013).
Therefore, it can be generally envisaged that, economic development effect is
subject to marginal decline irrespective of additional investment for improvement of
transportation facilities or infrastructure (Berry, 2012; Button, 2012). This implies that at
extreme, when there is full development of the transportation facilities or infrastructure in
region to an extent that no accessibility improvements would ensue from additional
investment, there would not be any additional economic benefits that will accrue from the
investments to improve transportation infrastructure as well as facilities, with exception
of the multiplier effects (Berry, 2012; Button & Reggiani, 2011; Helling, 2011).
Transport systems and infrastructures have a very close relationship with socio-
economic changes among a population of people living within a particular region

(Rodrigue, 2013). According to Rodrigue and Notteboom (2013), the ease of people to
move from one region to another as well as levels of accessibility to modes of
transportation is at the core of the dynamics that determines the behavior of the
relationship observed between transport systems and the socio-economic effects among a
population of people living within a particular region. The socio-economic changes are
likely to vary from one region to another as well as between individuals and businesses.
In particular, there is a very high likelihood of the arising of new economic opportunities
where transportation infrastructures and systems have been improved and are able to
provide effective solutions and/or alternatives to the residents’ mobility needs and
insuring accessibility to resources and markets (Henderson, Shalizi & Venables, 2012;
Lakshmanan & Chatterjee, 2015; Limao & Venables, 2011; Rodrigue & Notteboom,
2013).
Since the 19 th century industrial revolution through economic integration and
globalization processes of the recent past, particularly towards the end of 20 th century and
at the onset of the 21 st century, socio-economic effects attributable to improvements in
transportation systems and infrastructures have been differently affected across various
regions of the world (Harrington & Warf, 2015; Hargroves & Smith, 2015; Helling,
2011; MacKinnon, Pine & Gather, 2012). In particular, Rodrigue and Notteboom (2013)
noted that local, regional, and global/international transportation systems and
infrastructures have all become fundamental drivers of economic activities. These authors
further notes that, a growing share of wealth created through these economic activities
which involve trade and distribution is linked to improvements in transportation systems
and infrastructures at local, regional and global/international levels. However, it is

imperative to note that despite the positive impacts of improved transportation
infrastructures and systems on socio-economic systems, some negative outcomes are also
reported such as increased accidents, congestion, and mobility gaps (Banister &
Berechman, 2012; Berry, 2011).
According to Henckel and McKibbin (2011), transportation has a variety of
conceptual variables and a succinct understanding of its relationship with socio-economic
effects, which forms the basis of the conceptual framework of this study, can be achieved
by considering transportation as a commercial activity deriving benefits from the inherent
operational attributes such as reliability, efficiency, capacity, costs, and speed.
Henderson, Shalizi, and Venables (2012) reiterate the importance of improving
transportation systems and infrastructures, which have continued to evolve within a set of
relationships that are relatively complex between transport demand, transport supply, the
transport network’s operational capacity, and an economy’s mobility requirements.
Fan, Guthrie and Levinson (2012), noted that the direct effects of transportation
improvements are to reduce transport costs and time achieved through reduced
congestion, decreased transportation operations costs as well as enhanced accessibility
and connectivity of spatially dispersed destinations within the region. Transportation
improvements through increased investment have the potential of mitigating any
economic disbenefits, especially when the transport projects results to reduced congestion
(Saunders & Dalziel, 2014). These incremental socio-economic benefits attributed to
transportation improvement projects can be measured through cost-benefit analysis
(Hazledine, Donovan & Bolland, 2013). Also there should be consideration of other
indirect socio-economic effects of transport improvement when attempting to evaluate

transportation projects in their entirety. Parthasarathi, Levinson, and Hochmair (2013)
noted that, the socio-economic effects caused by improvement of transportation are
specifically attributed to increased productivity and the spatial connectivity. In the long
term, investments on transportation infrastructure improvements contribute to socio-
economic development by catalyzing a variety of economy-wide processes that are inter-
connected, which subsequently lead to regional and spatial effects that augment overall
productivity (Kernohan & Rognlien, 2011; Saunders & Dalziel, 2014).
In particular, enhanced accessibility and lower transportation or travel costs, as a
result of improved transport services and systems, enhanced accessibility to suppliers and
inputs; and expanded markets for businesses. According to Lakshmanan (2011),
increased spatial connectivity and accessibility generates more opportunities for trade
deals, specialization and fair competition, which subsequently result to productivity gains
in the longer-term. These changes are attributed to benefits that ensue from lowered
barriers to trading and the expanded business opportunities arising from such actions
(Kernohan & Rognlien, 2011; Saunders & Dalziel, 2014). Therefore, having a succinct
understanding of these circumstances that influence the socio-economic impacts of
transportation improvement is an imperative in gaining deeper insights on the socio-
economic benefits likely to accrue from transportation systems and facilities
improvements (Parthasarathi, Levinson & Hochmair, 2013).
Market accessibility is undoubtedly among the most imperative characteristics of
active economies since it plays a vital role of facilitating movement of people from one
location to another, a fundamental need shared by businesses, passengers, and transport
employees (Bell, 2013; Levinson & Huang, 2012). Different regions and economies have

varied levels of mobility due to their different stages of mobility transition with regards to
transportation using various motorized forms (Levinson & Huang, 2012; Saunders &
Dalziel, 2014). According to Saunders and Dalziel (2014), economies in possession of
greater market accessibility often have high potential to achieve greater socio-economic
benefits compared to those with scarce mobility. This is because little mobility due poor
transportation networks hinders socio-economic growth, whereas greater market
accessibility catalyzes an increased rate of socio-economic growth. Cooper (2012) noted
that, the level of mobility in a region is a fundamental socio-economic growth indicator.
This means that, provision of mobility through improved transportation offers businesses
and individuals an opportunity to increase their level of income generation, which results
to creation of employment opportunities, increased wages as well as government revenue
through taxation (Bell, 2013; Levinson & Huang, 2012).
With regards to market accessibility, transportation improvement plays a
fundamental role of providing connectivity as well as accessibility between spatially
distant locations where businesses are saturated (commercial hubs) as well as household
regions (residential areas) in order to enable movement of persons and commodity
(freight). For instance, the business sector is heavily relied on transportation which
involves connecting different businesses and their sources of inputs as well as between
varied locations of different businesses and also connecting businesses to their respective
target markets (Bell, 2013; Levinson & Huang, 2012). On the other hand, the household
sector is also heavily dependent on transportation network mainly because it enables
accessibility by people living within a particular region to education facilities and

workplaces, shopping centers or markets, as well as recreational, social, medical and
community facilities (Levinson & Huang, 2012; Bell, 2013).
To summarize this theoretical and conceptual framework discussion, it can be
clearly noted that the discussion has suggested that there is need to have an overall view
of the transportation system in all its modes as a constraint to the attainment of the
potential economic benefits and opportunities within a region by industrial, commercial
and households’ activities. However, Gui and Ruuso (2011) noted that an additional
investment to improve transportation facilities as well as infrastructure lessens this
constraint, subsequently resulting to the achievement of higher economic benefits and
eventually higher economic growth. On the other hand, the transportation facilities as
well as infrastructure in a region becomes highly developed with regards to the ease of
travel as well as cost of travel, the less the transportation facilities as well as
infrastructure has a binding effect on economic benefits and subsequently economic
development (Banerjeey, Dufloz & Qian, 2012; Coleman, 2014; Graham, Gibbons &
Martin, 2011). Hence, the conceptual framework of this study suggests that prior to actual
analysis of the effect of additional investment to improve transportation facilities as well
as infrastructure on the region’s local economy, it is essential to initially assess its
relative contribution to accessibility in the region, through determination of its effect on
the region’s travel markets and behavior.
A fundamental conceptual question that arises from the above discussion of
theoretical and conceptual framework of the study is whether improvement in
transportation facilities as well as infrastructure constitutes to sufficient and necessary
conditions for economic benefits and subsequent economic development locally (i.e.

California State). Furthermore, it is crucially important to note that if improvements in
transportation facilities and infrastructure can be considered a constraint towards
economic opportunities’ attainment in the area, then it can also be considered as a
necessary condition for enabling economic opportunities’ attainment in the area (El-
Geneidy & Levinson, 2011; Helling, 2011; Hilling, 2013). This discussion highlights one
of the main objectives of this study, which is to determine whether and when investment
to improve transportation facilities as well as infrastructure becomes a sufficient
condition for economic benefits as well as subsequent economic development.

Brief Review of the Literature

This chapter reviews the existing literature in the context of the subject matter of
the research study, which is to investigate the socio-economic effects of the people as a
result of improvement of transportation networks in California. To address the concept,
this chapter will review the existing literature on the key issues and concepts regarding
the central theme as well as generally existing ideas on the concept as a foundation for
developing the ideas of the researcher on the general focus of the current study. The
review of the literature will attempt to provide a detailed account of how earlier studies
viewed the concept of transportation and socio-economic growth. The review will assist
to identify the existing gap within the literature and which the dissertation will attempt to
fill. This chapter of the conceptual paper focuses on reviewing existing academic
literature from previous studies, particularly those that consist of relevant information
about this area of study in order to gain meaningful insights that form the background of
the study. The intention of conducting this literature review is ensure that conclusions are
drawn from the research findings with regards to the research problem and questions. The
main objective of the literature review chapter is to find relevant information that is vital
to act as the study background and determine the extent to which the phenomenon under
consideration in this study has been researched.
Background of the study
The contemporary view sees economic development as less dependent on the
direct relationships with the environment and focuses on the dependence or the relations
across space. Although resources have been viewed as the major foundations of
economic development, transport system, which is one of the commoditized assets in the

economy, has been greatly linked with increasing the levels of flow of materials of all
types (Bocarejo, Portilla, Velásquez, Cruz, Peña, & Oviedo, 2014). This is because,
capital, resources and labor are able to experience higher rates of mobility.
Transportation provides a smooth platform over which producers are able to efficiently
link up with the consumers to enhance transactions to take place. There is a common
fallacy of people trying to assess the significance of transportation from one perspective;
reduction of transportation costs. However, if the economy based on transport is limited
to the costs, a lot of significances will be left out. The economy based on the transport
costs only accounts for approximately 5-10% of the value that goods and services hold
(Abdallah, Belloumi, & De Wolf, 2013). Transportation can be viewed as an economic
factor of production and it is a fundamental factor in the exchange or delivery of goods
and services. Irrespective of the costs involved, economic activities may not take place
without the involvement of transport services. Any changes in the costs, performance and
capacity incurred in transportation have tremendous impacts on economic activities. Any
efficient system equipped with modern infrastructure tends to favor a lot of positive
economic changes. For instance, a region that has the capability to produce a certain
aspect of a commodity will be able to specialize and capitalize on the fact that the product
incurs a higher advantage and a lower disadvantage if they realize that the transport
systems support the movement of their goods and services. The transport system will be
used to enhance the trading activities. In addition, a reliable transport system will enable
goods to be transported over large distances. This can be able to support mass production
and therefore economies of scale. This increased production and efficiency in the transit

of goods from one place to another may ultimately become a springboard of enhancing
socio-economic development and consequently growth.
Resources and transportation are vital factors that enhance both physical and
economic development of regions across the world (Abdallah, Belloumi, & De Wolf,
2013). Population growth, rise in housing and economic growth are usually experienced
in regions that have developed transport networks. There could be very little development
that could have been achieved around the world if there was limited development in
terms of transportation. Socio-economic growth and transportation are interdependent
factors.
Transportation Investment and Socio-Economic Impact
Largely due to the work of Alstadt (2012), numerous studies have so far been
carried out in order to explore the direction and extent of correlations between variables
of public transportation improvement investments and the socio-economic effects that
ensue. The socio-economic effects ensuing from public transportation improvement
investments are measured by considering a variety of variables such as value-added GDP,
output, productivity, as well as employment levels (for example, Banerjeey, Dufloz &
Qian, 2012; Coleman, 2014; Graham, Gibbons & Martin, 2011; Gomben, Lilieholm &
Gonzalez-Guillen, 2012; Gui & Russo, 2011; MacKinnon, Pine & Gather, 2012). Similar
studies have been carried out previously on the basis on data obtained from varied
sources in order to succinctly investigate and explain the interactions as well as the
relationship between variables of this imperative research phenomenon (e.g., El-Geneidy
& Levinson, 2011; Junge & Levinson, 2011; Levinson, Xie & Montes de Oca, 2012;
Litman, 2014; Schone & Levinson, 2014).

According to Carrion and Levinson (2013), a major finding from many previously
conducted studies was that, the variables of these two phenomena indicate a positive
relationship that is statistically significant even though very few studies have investigated
and reported small effect of public capital on transportation improvement output on
socio-economic effects. Carrion and Levinson (2013) further noted that, irrespective of
the significance structural changes in the improvement of transportation projects its
relation to transport infrastructure has not attracted sufficient research attention and
limited information exist of this specific aspect in the literature. The relevant structural
changes that are fundamental in transportation improvement projects’ investments with
regards to the envisaged socio-economic benefits concerns differentiation of economic
linkages between particular industry sectors of the economy with their specific type of
transportation infrastructure (Brooks, Pallis, & Perkins, 2014). According to Carrion and
Levinson (2013), the role of investment on transportation infrastructure and systems
improvement is entrenched in the derivation of public transport services’ demand by
different economy stakeholders, and the relationship between types of transport
infrastructure or facilities and varied extents of socio-economic effects. The review of the
literature indicates that research on relative productivity with regards to different modes
of transport has given substantially varied socio-economic effects (Berry, 2012; Helling,
2011; Hilling, 2013; Tilahun & Levinson, 2011).
According to Alstadt (2012), there is need to focus the study on transportation
projects in the view of how the investments on transportation facilities and systems
improvements influence socio-economic status of a population in a particular region.
There has been various techniques used to evaluate the socio-economic benefits arising

from transportation improvement projects at microanalysis and macro-analysis levels
mainly including cost functions and production functions methods for the microanalysis
level as well as case studies and cost-benefit analysis for macro-analysis level (El-
Geneidy & Levinson, 2011; Hickman et al., 2015). In an attempt towards finding the
impact of transportation improvement investments on economic productivity, the macro
analysis methods are concerned with comparing national trends in economic status and
the extent of socio-economic activity with levels of investment to improve public
transportation infrastructure (Hilling, 2013; Coleman, 2012; Cooper, 2012). According to
El-Geneidy and Levinson (2011), the major limitation of macro analysis methods on
investigating the impact of transportation improvement investments on socio-economic
status do not elucidate the existence of observed casual relationships, but only simply
highlight different relationships or associations between various data series. On the other
hand, the focus of microanalysis methods, particularly the cost and production functions
is directed on socio-economic effects arising from a particular or several transportation
projects by providing meaningful insights into how individuals and businesses responds
to changes in transportation infrastructure and systems (El-Geneidy & Levinson, 2011;
Hickman et al., 2015; Lakshmanan & Chatterjee, 2015).
Alstadt (2012) presented a substantially influential proposition on how socio-
economic effects are influenced by improvements of transportation infrastructure and
facilities through increased investment. The study posits that, there varied levels of
impact on socio-economic effects ensuing from transportation improvement at national
level as well as regional and local level. Furthermore, highway capital investment to
improve transportation systems seems to complementarily substitute private capital in

various economic sectors across different regions globally (Helling, 2012; Hickman et al.,
2015; Hilling, 2013; Struglia, Winter & Meyer, 2013).
This means that the studies focusing on ensuring that research is carried out to
examine the socio-economic effects of improvements in transportation facilities in
California utilizing both primary and secondary data collected from research participants
and secondary sources on financial and non-financial perspectives of the phenomenon.
As a result, it is imperative to ensure that there is a review of the existing literature on
improvement of transportation facilities as well as examining its impact on socio-
economic not only in California, but also across other various research scenarios across
the world. The improvements of transportation infrastructure and systems has the
potential to play an imperative role in the facilitation of socio-economic development
through the ensuing socio-economic benefits as well as utilization of socio-economic
effects to uplift the living standards of the people (El-Geneidy & Levinson, 2011;
Struglia, Winter & Meyer, 2013). According to Alstadt (2012), improvements in
transportation infrastructure are without any doubt the factor linking between the socio-
economic effects and the overall economic benefits attributed to improvements in
transport. The relationship to be considered in this study is about the aforementioned
aspects of transport infrastructures and systems improvement including specific socio-
economic effects on people and the overall economic benefits to determine whether
adequate rewards/outputs are obtained from continued capital investments towards
transportation infrastructure and systems improvement.
Transport systems have a close relationship with social as well as economic
changes (Gomben, Lilieholm & Gonzalez-Guillen, 2012; Gui & Russo, 2011;

MacKinnon, Pine & Gather, 2012). This is attributable to the fact that, mobility of people
as well as levels of accessibility across various regions is without any doubts at the centre
of the aforementioned relationship (Gomben, Lilieholm & Gonzalez-Guillen, 2012;
MacKinnon, Pine & Gather, 2012). Due to this interconnection there is a possibility of
economic opportunities to arise where transportation infrastructural facilities have a
potential of fulfilling the mobility needs in order to guarantee accessibility of resources as
well as markets by the people living within a particular region. From agrarian as well as
industrial revolution in the 18 th and early 19th centuries to processes of economic
integration and globalization both in 20 th as well as 21 st centuries, different regions across
the world have been differentially affected by economic growth and development
attributable to transportation improvement and increased connectivity. Transportation
systems at local, national, regional, as well as international levels alike have without any
dispute expanded to become imperative components of connectivity as well as economic
activities (Gomben, Lilieholm & Gonzalez-Guillen, 2012; Gui & Russo, 2011;
MacKinnon, Pine & Gather, 2012).
According to Williamson, Philbin, and Sanderson (2012), a continuously growing
proportion of the wealth generated by individuals, corporate as well as governments is
attributed to trade and distribution facilitated by the connectivity as well as accessibility
of different regions through transportation infrastructural facilities and networks.
However, despite the fact that improvement of transportation systems is associated to a
significant number of positive effects on socio-economics of the people living within a
region, there are also a considerable number of negative impacts that can be attributed to
increased levels of transportation including mobility gaps, accidents, air pollution as well

as congestion (Berry, 2012; Hilling, 2013; Vickerman, 2012; Vogel, 2012). According to
Lakshmanan (2011), transportation can also be considered as a commercial activity that
may arise from operational attributes, including efficiency, capacity, transportation costs,
speed, as well as reliability. Cooper (2012) noted that there has been a continuous
evolution of transportation systems within a complex set of interconnections as well as
relationships between variable such as transport supply, including a transport network’s
operational capacity as well as the demand for transport within a particular region,
including an economy’s mobility requirements. According to Vogel (2012),
transportation can be viewed as an imperative component of movement of goods and
people through interconnected networks of various modes of transport and usually have
an obvious impact on the social, cultural as well as economic activities carried out by a
population of people living within a particular region. Hazledine, Donovan and Bolland
(2013) emphasized that the role of improved transportation’s infrastructural facilities as
well as networks either occurs directly or indirectly whereby direct the direct effects
occur through heightened levels of investment in transport facilities and infrastructure. As
a result, increased purchases of vehicles and other transportation modes, increased
physical capital, improved logistical systems are attributed to the direct impacts; whereas
improved efficiency of transportation systems and facilities are usually attributed to most
of the indirect impacts of improvement of transportation infrastructure and facilities
subsequently stimulating further socio-economic growth in the particular area or region
under consideration (Huang & Levinson, 2011; Kernohan & Rognlien, 2011; Vickerman,
2012; Vogel, 2012).

A consideration of the transportation sector and the associated infrastructure as
well as facilities and network, the most important issue worthy critical evaluation is with
regards to whether transportation infrastructure as well as facilities’ improvements have a
significant potential of greatly influencing the growth of total factor productivity (TFP)
through heightened incentives for innovative strategies towards improving efficiency of
the transportation sector as a whole (Huang & Levinson, 2011; Lakshmanan, 2011;
Vickerman, 2012). According to Hazledine, Donovan and Bolland (2013), the main
outcomes of long-run economic growth are productivity growth and continued capital
investment. Therefore, if transport improvement is to be attributed to some extent of
socio-economic benefits it must achieve this milestone either indirectly or directly due to
effects resulting from decisions made by businesses and individual households. Vogel
(2012) and Vickerman (2012) emphasize that, historically the fundamental impact of
transportation improvements has been a reduction in the movement of goods and services
over both short- and long-distance trade, which contribute to significant integration of
geographically disperse markets. As a result, this is perhaps what makes transport
infrastructure improvement special because it has the potential to achieve this through
efficient transportation networks and infrastructure instead of concentrating on individual
transport schemes (Alstadt, 2012; Bell, 2013; Levinson & Huang, 2012; Vogel, 2012). In
contrast, Cooper (2012) noted that, when the transport-intensive economic sectors are
characterized by imperfect competition, this may be attributed to imperative economic
effects not likely to be captured in the cost-benefit analysis done conventionally.
According to Kernohan and Rognlien (2011), improvement in transportation and the
growth in economy are strongly related and commonly exhibit a two-way relationship,

meaning that a change in the transportation networks or systems and infrastructure has a
subsequent impact on the economic activity level and, on the other hand, the demand for
transportation can be affected by the economic activity level.
Parthasarathi, Levinson, and Hochmair (2013) through their study the significance
of transportation improvement in economic productivity and growth reported that, a
compelling link exists historically between improvements in transportation infrastructure
and economic growth. Connectivity through improved transportation infrastructure and
systems has in the recent past received significant attention, and is commonly associated
with new and advanced transportation technologies, especially those concerned with
communications that have played a fundamental role in transportation improvement
(Alstadt, 2012; Bell, 2013; Helling, 2011; Hilling, 2013; Levinson & Huang, 2012).
According to Levinson and Huang (2012), there is has been several changes that can be
taken to increase connectivity through transport, including increased opening up of
regions through various transportation routes across the world, improved impact on
domestic production through canals, increased mobility through inter-state highway and
motorways networks, and heightened role of railways in mass transit of goods in the
United States. Through these international and inter-urban connections by transport
networks, there has been introduction of radically efficient and new production processes
enabling nations and regions to increase their trading levels subsequently allowing them
to reap the ensuing socio-economic benefits (Huang & Levinson, 2011; Lakshmanan,
2011; Vickerman, 2012). This means that it is clear that, from the perspective of a
developing economy it is fundamental to establish basic connectivity as a vital driver of a
rapid rate of economic growth. According to Levinson and Huang (2012), the demand for

transport services is attributed to the increased movement and mobility of people to and
from work, education institution, shopping centers, markets and social or recreational
facilities. According to Kernohan and Rognlien (2011), it is imperative to note that
despite the evidence provided in academic literature concerning the impact transport
systems or networks improvement on economic growth, there are varied magnitudes of
these impacts at different places and in different times. However, although public
transportation improvement impacts can attract significant attention, longer-term benefits
that arise from increased connectivity through improved transportation justify that public
transportation improvement can lead to fundamentally important socio-economic effects
irrespective of the prevailing wages (Bell, 2013; Levinson & Huang, 2012). Direct
benefits that are experienced by travelers are categorized into four main parts: (1) saving
of travel time, (2) reducing travel costs, (3) improvement in reliability; as well as (4)
improvement of safety (Lakshmanan, 2011; Levinson & Huang, 2012; Vickerman, 2012).
All these forms of benefits have the potential of providing significant monetary savings
on public transportation costs among travelers and businesses (Berry, 2012; Bell, 2013;
Hilling, 2013; Levinson & Huang, 2012).
Mobility
Mobility is undoubtedly among the most imperative characteristics of active
economies since it plays a vital role of facilitating movement of people from one location
to another, a fundamental need shared by businesses, passengers, and transport
employees (Bell, 2013; Levinson & Huang, 2012). Different regions and economies have
varied levels of mobility due to their different stages of mobility transition with regards to
transportation using various motorized forms (Levinson & Huang, 2012; Saunders &

Dalziel, 2014). According to Saunders and Dalziel (2014), economies in possession of
greater mobility often have high potential to achieve greater socio-economic benefits
compared to those with scarce mobility. This is because little mobility due poor
transportation networks hinders socio-economic growth, whereas greater mobility
catalyzes an increased rate of socio-economic growth. Cooper (2012) noted that, the level
of mobility in a region is a fundamental socio-economic growth indicator. This means
that, provision of mobility through improved transportation offers businesses and
individuals an opportunity to increase their level of income generation, which results to
creation of employment opportunities, increased wages as well as government revenue
through taxation (Bell, 2013; Levinson & Huang, 2012).
With regards to mobility, transportation improvement plays a fundamental role of
providing connectivity as well as accessibility between spatially distant locations where
businesses are saturated (commercial hubs) as well as household regions (residential
areas) in order to enable movement of persons and commodity (freight). For instance, the
business sector is heavily relied on transportation that involves connecting different
businesses and their sources of inputs as well as between varied locations of different
businesses and also connecting businesses to their respective target markets (Bell, 2013;
Levinson & Huang, 2012). On the other hand, the household sector is also heavily
dependent on transportation network mainly because it enables accessibility by people
living within a particular region to education facilities and workplaces, shopping centers
or markets, as well as recreational, social, medical and community facilities (Levinson &
Huang, 2012; Bell, 2013). According to Cooper (2012), transportation may on its own be
considered an imperative component of a region’s economy, mainly because

improvement of transportation infrastructure and network or systems is attributable to
about 5 per cent the GDP of the State of California (Cooper, 2012). Considering the
imperativeness of transportation economically, there is a likelihood of increased level of
transportation improvement through higher investments and expenditure in transportation
operational efficiency would lead to a wider array of positive socio-economic effects
such as increased levels of income as well as a decline in household expenses on
consumer goods and services.
In the State of California, transportation improvement projects are largely self-
funded, in which most transportation investment costs as well as costs associated with
maintenance and operation of such projects are either initially financed by the
government and subsequently recovered from the money collected from the users of the
transportation facilities or the projects may be directly paid for by users at onset.
According to Cooper (2012), it is without any doubt that there are various other ways
through which public transportation improvement projects, including partially funded
public transport services as well as roads network improvement through local or regional
rates. The overall effect of these programs is the improvement of socio-economic status
among the population within a particular region (Levinson & Huang, 2012).
The improved or added value to living standards and employment effects that
ensue from transport services are extensive and stretches beyond increased financial
status generated by the improvement of transportation infrastructure to include indirect
effects are socio-economically salient. According to Zhang and Levinson (2011),
transportation improvement projects are directly involved in promoting socio-economic
benefits during and after the projects because the concerned companies tend to buy

project inputs (including supplies, fuel, and maintenance) from suppliers located around
the projects. As a result, additional employment and value addition to living standards are
generated by these projects in the local economy. Levinson and Huang (2012) further
reiterates that, suppliers to these projects in turn create more wealth and subsequently
improve their purchase power which is reflected through increased economic growth
locally. Similarly, there is also increased levels of income from the money received from
employment in transportation improvement activities meaning their level of spending in
purchasing goods and services from local businesses is also increased (Hazledine,
Donovan & Bolland, 2013). Consequently, more socio-economic benefits are felt because
the increased purchasing power results to additional local jobs and further improvement
of income levels, which can be attributed to continued positive socio-economic effects
locally or regionally (Bell, 2013; Levinson & Huang, 2012). As a result, these successive
rounds of increased spending due to improvement in transportation results to an overall
improvement in the socio-economic status of the residents (Bell, 2013; Hazledine,
Donovan & Bolland, 2013; Levinson & Huang, 2012).
Further changes in economic productivity may be attributed to improvements in
public transportation subsequently causing the population’s socio-economic well-being as
a consequence of both reduced traffic congestion as well as expanded public
transportation service (Bell, 2013; Levinson & Huang, 2012). With regards to
improvement in transportation, the specific socio-economic effects that ensue are as
follows: increased market access and mobility because of the benefits of business
productivity arising from access to more diverse and broader labor market characterized
by a better fit of workers skills, and spatial agglomeration economies; as well as access to

a wider customer market attributed to the benefits of business productivity including
clustering or agglomeration of complementary and similar activities (Levinson & Huang,
2012). Mobility is very imperative for any considerable socio-economic benefits to be
achieved from enhanced public transportation terminal facilities and services.
Mobility is without any doubt among the most imperative characteristics of active
economies since it plays a vital role of facilitating movement of people from one location
to another, a fundamental need shared by businesses, passengers, and transport
employees (Bell, 2013; Levinson & Huang, 2012). Different regions and economies have
varied levels of mobility due to their different stages of mobility transition with regards to
transportation using various motorized forms (Levinson & Huang, 2012; Saunders &
Dalziel, 2014). According to Saunders and Dalziel (2014), economies in possession of
greater mobility often have high potential to achieve greater socio-economic benefits
compared to those with scarce mobility. This is because little mobility due poor
transportation networks hinders socio-economic growth, whereas greater mobility
catalyzes an increased rate of socio-economic growth. Cooper (2012) noted that, the level
of mobility in a region is a fundamental socio-economic growth indicator. This means
that, provision of mobility through improved transportation offers businesses and
individuals an opportunity to increase their level of income generation, which results to
creation of employment opportunities, increased wages as well as government revenue
through taxation (Bell, 2013; Levinson & Huang, 2012). In the context of socio-
economic effects modeling, the increased access to places of work, markets, recreational
facilities, education institutions and shopping centers are among the most vital benefits
that ensue from increased mobility and consequently translate to improved socio-

economic effects (Saunders & Dalziel, 2014). This is because there is increased economic
productivity which commonly takes two forms: (1) economies of scale that result from
increased access to a vast pool of customers; and (2) increased employees’ productivity
caused by improved access to a more diverse and vast labor market, which offers an
effective balance between available and desired workforce skills (Bell, 2013; Weisbrod,
2011). The impact of transportation on labor market is particularly notable on the changes
in prevailing wages, which are directly influenced by the status of transportation
networks (Hazledine, Donovan & Bolland, 2013).
As noted by Hazledine, Donovan and Bolland (2013), transport systems and
infrastructures are a fundamental part of societies mainly because of their support to
complex social and economic interactions. Mobility is one of the most fundamental and
important characteristics of economic or social activities as it satisfies the basic need of
going from one location to the other, a need shared by passengers, freight and
information (Saunders & Dalziel, 2014). Rodrigue and Notteboom (2013) stated that,
locations don’t share the similar levels of mobility as most are in a different stage in
their mobility transition towards motorized forms of transport. Economies that possess
greater mobility are often those with better opportunities to develop than those with
scarce mobility (Rodrigue, 2013). Reduced mobility impedes development while greater
mobility is a catalyst for development. Mobility is thus a reliable indicator of
development. Rodrigue (2013) emphasized that, provision of mobility is an industry
offering services to its customers, while employing a considerable number of people and
disbursement wages, invests capital, generates income and provides taxation revenue.
Mobility is therefore the recurring aspect where transportation has its most significant

societal impacts. Zhang & Levinson (2011) state, mobility is a multi-dimensional concept
because it simultaneously shows the potential for a movement and the movement itself.
Rodrigue (2013) emphasized that; it is at the beginning a choice to be exercised or that is
not dependent on social and economic goals. For economic activities such as businesses,
transportation enables to access a workforce, reach suppliers and service customers. With
improvements in transportation, interactions with the workforce are more effective and
the costs of distribution usually decline with the derived competitive benefits. For
individuals, transportation is the mean to access employment, goods, services, leisure,
and social networks. Thus, a share of the societal consumption is allocated to satisfy
mobility needs. However, in a paradoxical manner higher income levels are in most cases
associated with a higher share of transportation in consumption, a trend particularly
attributed to automobile ownership and air travel (Lakshmanan, 2011; Levinson &
Huang, 2012; Vickerman, 2012). According to Zhang and Levinson (2011), mobility is
an activity that is affected by a number of constraints. For an individual, the lengths as
well as the number of trips is usually influenced by time limits. These constraints are
however economically, socially, and technologically articulated since more efficient
modes of transport are supportive of more wide spread mobilities as well as higher levels
incomes (Alstadt, 2012; Bell, 2013; Levinson & Huang, 2012; Vogel, 2012). Thus, an
individual would have a mobility contingent to physical capabilities, available budget,
transport supply and the spatial distribution of activities such as residential, commercial
and production areas. Further, the social context of mobility is changing in part because
of its impacts (Alstadt, 2012; Bell, 2013; Levinson & Huang, 2012; Vogel, 2012).

Market Accessibility
According to Saunders and Dalziel (2014), transportation improvement allows
increased market accessibility through the crucial connectivity and linkage it provides
between producers or manufactures and consumers. However, a common fallacy that has
been widely perpetuated on the assessment of the impact and importance of
improvement of transportation on the economy has been emphasis on transportation costs
incurred on transit goods, which fall in the range of 5 to 10% of the total value of a the
transit goods and this is relatively low (Levinson & Huang, 2012). Considering that
transport is an economic factor in process of producing goods and services, this implies
that it is an imperative determinant of the level of achievable socio-economic effects,
even if it accounts for a smaller proportion of input costs (Parthasarathi, Levinson &
Hochmair, 2013). This means that despite the cost, most the production processes cannot
occur without the transportation aspect. Thus, changes of relatively low extent in
transport costs, performance, and capacity can substantially influence socio-economic
effects and activities in a region (Hazledine, Donovan & Bolland, 2013; Saunders &
Dalziel, 2014).
Transport systems and infrastructures have a very close relationship with socio-
economic changes among a population of people living within a particular region
(Rodrigue, 2013). As expressed by Rodrigue and Notteboom (2013), the ease of people to
move from one region to another as well as levels of accessibility to modes of
transportation is at the core of the dynamics that determines the behavior of the
relationship observed between transport systems and the socio-economic effects among a
population of people living within a particular region. The socio-economic changes are

likely to vary from one region to another as well as between individuals and businesses.
In particular, there is a very high likelihood of the arising of new economic opportunities
where transportation infrastructures and systems have been improved and are able to
provide effective solutions and/or alternatives to the residents’ mobility needs and
insuring accessibility to resources and markets (Henderson, Shalizi & Venables, 2012;
Lakshmanan & Chatterjee, 2015; Limao & Venables, 2011; Rodrigue & Notteboom,
2013).
Since the 19 th century industrial revolution through economic integration and
globalization processes of the recent past, particularly towards the end of 20 th century and
at the onset of the 21 st century, socio-economic effects attributable to improvements in
transportation systems and infrastructures have been differently affected across various
regions of the world (Harrington & Warf, 2015; Hargroves & Smith, 2015; Helling,
2011; MacKinnon, Pine & Gather, 2012). In particular, Rodrigue and Notteboom (2013)
noted that local, regional, and global/international transportation systems and
infrastructures have all become fundamental drivers of economic activities. These authors
further notes that, a growing share of wealth created through these economic activities
which involve trade and distribution is linked to improvements in transportation systems
and infrastructures at local, regional and global/international levels. However, it is
imperative to note that despite the positive impacts of improved transportation
infrastructures and systems on socio-economic systems, some negative outcomes are also
reported such as increased accidents, congestion, and mobility gaps (Banister &
Berechman, 2012; Berry, 2011).

Conforming to Henckel and McKibbin (2011), transportation has a variety of
conceptual variables and a succinct understanding of its relationship with socio-economic
effects, which forms the basis of the conceptual framework of this study, can be achieved
by considering transportation as a commercial activity deriving benefits from the inherent
operational attributes such as reliability, efficiency, capacity, costs, and speed.
Henderson, Shalizi, and Venables (2012) reiterate the importance of improving
transportation systems and infrastructures, which have continued to evolve within a set of
relationships that are relatively complex between transport demand, transport supply, the
transport network’s operational capacity, and an economy’s mobility requirements.
Fan, Guthrie and Levinson (2012), noted that the direct effects of transportation
improvements are to reduce transport costs and time achieved through reduced
congestion, decreased transportation operations costs as well as enhanced accessibility
and connectivity of spatially dispersed destinations within the region. Transportation
improvements through increased investment have the potential of mitigating any
economic disbenefits, especially when the transport projects results to reduced congestion
(Saunders & Dalziel, 2014). These incremental socio-economic benefits attributed to
transportation improvement projects can be measured through cost-benefit analysis
(Hazledine, Donovan, & Bolland, 2013). In addition, there should be consideration of
other indirect socio-economic effects of transport improvement when attempting to
evaluate transportation projects in their entirety. Parthasarathi, Levinson, and Hochmair
(2013) noted that, the socio-economic effects caused by improvement of transportation
are specifically attributed to increased productivity and the spatial connectivity. In the
long term, investments on transportation infrastructure improvements contribute to socio-

economic development by catalyzing a variety of economy-wide processes that are inter-
connected, which subsequently lead to regional and spatial effects that augment overall
productivity (Kernohan & Rognlien, 2011; Saunders & Dalziel, 2014).
In particular, enhanced accessibility and lower transportation or travel costs,
because of improved transport services and systems, enhanced accessibility to suppliers
and inputs; and expanded markets for businesses. According to Lakshmanan (2011),
increased spatial connectivity and accessibility generates more opportunities for trade
deals, specialization and fair competition, which subsequently result to productivity gains
in the longer-term. These changes are due to benefits that ensue from lowered barriers to
trading and the expanded business opportunities arising from such actions (Kernohan &
Rognlien, 2011; Saunders & Dalziel, 2014). Therefore, having a succinct understanding
of these circumstances that influence the socio-economic impacts of transportation
improvement is an imperative in gaining deeper insights on the socio-economic benefits
likely to accrue from transportation systems and facilities improvements (Parthasarathi,
Levinson & Hochmair, 2013).
Market accessibility is undoubtedly among the most imperative characteristics of
active economies since it plays a vital role of facilitating movement of people from one
location to another, a fundamental need shared by businesses, passengers, and transport
employees (Bell, 2013; Levinson & Huang, 2012). Different regions and economies have
varied levels of mobility due to their different stages of mobility transition about
transportation using various motorized forms (Levinson & Huang, 2012; Saunders &
Dalziel, 2014). Pursuant to Saunders and Dalziel (2014), economies in possession of
greater market accessibility often have high potential to achieve greater socio-economic

benefits compared to those with scarce mobility. This is because little mobility due poor
transportation networks hinders socio-economic growth, whereas greater market
accessibility catalyzes an increased rate of socio-economic growth. Cooper (2012) noted
that, the level of mobility in a region is a fundamental socio-economic growth indicator.
This means that, provision of mobility through improved transportation offers businesses
and individuals an opportunity to increase their level of income generation, which results
to creation of employment opportunities, increased wages as well as government revenue
through taxation (Bell, 2013; Levinson & Huang, 2012).
With regards to market accessibility, transportation improvement plays a
fundamental role of providing connectivity as well as accessibility between spatially
distant locations where businesses are saturated (commercial hubs) as well as household
regions (residential areas) in order to enable movement of persons and commodity
(freight). For instance, the business sector is heavily relied on transportation that involves
connecting different businesses and their sources of inputs as well as between varied
locations of different businesses and also connecting businesses to their respective target
markets (Bell, 2013; Levinson & Huang, 2012). On the other hand, the household sector
is also heavily dependent on transportation network mainly because it enables
accessibility by people living within a particular region to education facilities and
workplaces, shopping centers or markets, as well as recreational, social, medical and
community facilities (Levinson & Huang, 2012; Bell, 2013). According to Cooper
(2012), transportation may on its own be considered an imperative component of a
region’s economy, mainly because improvement of transportation infrastructure and
network or systems is attributable to about five per cent the GDP of the State of

California (Cooper, 2012). Considering the imperativeness of transportation
economically, there is a likelihood of increased level of transportation improvement
through higher investments and expenditure in transportation operational efficiency
would lead to a wider array of positive socio-economic effects such as increased levels of
income as well as a decline in household expenses on consumer goods and services.
In the State of California, transportation improvement projects are largely self-
funded, in which most transportation investment costs as well as costs associated with
maintenance and operation of such projects are either initially financed by the
government and subsequently recovered from the money collected from the users of the
transportation facilities or the projects may be directly paid for by users at onset.
According to Cooper (2012), it is without any doubt that there are various other ways
through which public transportation improvement projects, including partially funded
public transport services as well as roads network improvement through local or regional
rates. The overall effect of these programs is the improvement of socio-economic status
among the population within a particular region (Levinson & Huang, 2012).
The improved or added value to living standards and employment effects that
ensue from transport services are extensive and stretches beyond increased financial
status generated by the improvement of transportation infrastructure to include indirect
effects are socio-economically salient. As stated by Zhang and Levinson (2011),
transportation improvement projects are directly involved in promoting socio-economic
benefits during and after the projects because the concerned companies tend to buy
project inputs (including supplies, fuel, and maintenance) from suppliers located around
the projects. As a result, additional employment and value addition to living standards are

generated by these projects in the local economy. Levinson and Huang (2012) further
reiterates that, suppliers to these projects in turn create more wealth and subsequently
improve their purchase power which is reflected through increased economic growth
locally. Similarly, there is also increased levels of income from the money received from
employment in transportation improvement activities meaning their level of spending in
purchasing goods and services from local businesses is also increased (Hazledine,
Donovan & Bolland, 2013). Consequently, more socio-economic benefits are felt because
the increased purchasing power results to additional local jobs and further improvement
of income levels, which can be attributed to continued positive socio-economic effects
locally or regionally (Bell, 2013; Levinson & Huang, 2012). As a result, these successive
rounds of increased spending due to improvement in transportation results to an overall
improvement in the socio-economic status of the residents (Bell, 2013; Hazledine,
Donovan & Bolland, 2013; Levinson & Huang, 2012).
Further changes in economic productivity may be attributed to improvements in
public transportation subsequently causing the population’s socio-economic well-being as
a consequence of both reduced traffic congestion as well as expanded public
transportation service (Bell, 2013; Levinson & Huang, 2012). With regards to
improvement in transportation, the specific socio-economic effects that ensue are as
follows: increased market access and mobility because of the benefits of business
productivity arising from access to more diverse and broader labor market characterized
by a better fit of workers skills, and spatial agglomeration economies; as well as access to
a wider customer market attributed to the benefits of business productivity including
clustering or agglomeration of complementary and similar activities (Levinson & Huang,

2012). Mobility is very imperative for any considerable socio-economic benefits to be
achieved from enhanced public transportation terminal facilities and services.
Mobility is without any doubt among the most imperative characteristics of active
economies since it plays a vital role of facilitating movement of people from one location
to another, a fundamental need shared by businesses, passengers, and transport
employees (Bell, 2013; Levinson & Huang, 2012). Different regions and economies have
varied levels of mobility due to their different stages of market accessibility transition
with regards to transportation using various motorized forms (Levinson & Huang, 2012;
Saunders & Dalziel, 2014). Pursuant to Saunders & Dalziel (2014), economies in
possession of greater accessibility often have high potential to achieve greater socio-
economic benefits compared to those with scarce accessibility of different parts. This is
because little mobility due poor transportation networks hinders socio-economic growth,
whereas greater mobility catalyzes an increased rate of socio-economic growth. Cooper
(2012) noted that, the level of market accessibility in a region is a fundamental socio-
economic growth indicator. This means that, provision of accessibility through improved
transportation offers businesses and individuals an opportunity to increase their level of
income generation, which results to creation of employment opportunities, increased
wages as well as government revenue through taxation (Bell, 2013; Levinson & Huang,
2012).
Spending Impact
According to Lakshmanan (2011) and Weisbrod (2011) public transportation
investments in the attempts of improving the infrastructure, facilities as well as systems
and network has a direct impact on a population’s socio-economic dynamics. However,

there are different ways through which these impacts occur such as: 1) by injecting
spending on buying materials and services as well as wages for the workers; and 2) by
saving costs as well as benefits of increased business productivity that ensue from
improvement in transportation facilities.
Kernohan and Rognlien, (2011) note that, the spending impact that ensue from
improvement of public transportation systems, facilities and infrastructure through
deliberate increased investment directly influence a region’s population socio-economic
dynamics through indirect, direct as well as induced effects. According to Hazledine,
Donovan and Bolland (2013), the capital investments directed to the improvement of
public transportation systems and facilities are done in order to accomplish any one of
these three objectives: 1) adoption of new and advanced transportation systems; 2)
modernization and standardization of transportation networks and networks; as well as 3)
expansion of the transportation facilities and infrastructure.
As stated by Alstadt (2012), there is need to focus the study on transportation
projects in the view of how the investments on transportation facilities and systems
improvements influence socio-economic status of a population in a particular region.
There has been various techniques used to evaluate the socio-economic benefits arising
from transportation improvement projects at microanalysis and macro-analysis levels
mainly including cost functions and production functions methods for the microanalysis
level as well as case studies and cost-benefit analysis for macro-analysis level (El-
Geneidy & Levinson, 2011; Hickman et al., 2015). In an attempt towards finding the
impact of transportation improvement investments on economic productivity, the macro
analysis methods are concerned with comparing national trends in economic status and

the extent of socio-economic activity with levels of investment to improve public
transportation infrastructure (Hilling, 2013; Coleman, 2012; Cooper, 2012). According to
El-Geneidy and Levinson (2011), the major limitation of macro analysis methods on
investigating the impact of transportation improvement investments on socio-economic
status do not elucidate the existence of observed casual relationships, but only simply
highlight different relationships or associations between various data series. On the other
hand, the focus of microanalysis methods, particularly the cost and production functions
is directed on socio-economic effects arising from a particular or several transportation
projects by providing meaningful insights into how individuals and businesses responds
to changes in transportation infrastructure and systems (El-Geneidy & Levinson, 2011;
Hickman et al., 2015; Lakshmanan & Chatterjee, 2015).
Alstadt (2012) presented a substantially influential proposition on how socio-
economic effects are influenced by improvements of transportation infrastructure and
facilities through increased investment. The study posits that, there varied levels of
impact on socio-economic effects ensuing from transportation improvement at national
level as well as regional and local level. Furthermore, highway capital investment to
improve transportation systems seems to complementarily substitute private capital in
various economic sectors across different regions globally (Helling, 2012; Hickman et al.,
2015; Hilling, 2013; Struglia, Winter & Meyer, 2013).
In the context of socio-economic effects modeling, the increased access to places
of work, markets, recreational facilities, education institutions, and shopping centers are
among the most vital benefits that ensue from increased accessibility and consequently
translate to improved socio-economic effects (Saunders & Dalziel, 2014). This is because

there is increased economic productivity which commonly takes two forms: (1)
economies of scale that result from increased access to a vast pool of customers; and (2)
increased employees’ productivity caused by improved access to a more diverse and vast
labor market, which offers an effective balance between available and desired workforce
skills (Bell, 2013; Weisbrod, 2011). The impact of transportation on labor market is
particularly notable on the changes in prevailing wages, which are directly influenced by
the status of transportation networks (Hazledine, Donovan & Bolland, 2013).
Relationship between improved transportation and socio-economic development
Most of the impacts that come with the development of the transportation systems
are ‘externalities’ and contribute indirectly to the economic growth of the immediate
users of the transport networks (Ferdous, Das, Ahmed, Farzana, Kaur, Chisti, & Faruque,
2013). The benefits of the improved transport network can be broadly termed as social
and economic impacts of the transportation systems. Looking at the socio-economic
benefits from a larger lens, the community impacts can be taken as the localized benefits
that concentrate on the people living within a local area and are usually more qualitative
in nature. In many instances, community impacts are less calculated or assessed in terms
of their monetary measures in terms of cost-benefit analysis.
Improvement in the transportation system may contribute towards great economic
benefits towards the community. Some of the benefits include; increased property
values, increased business activities, investment as well as tax revenues (Ferdous, Das,
Ahmed, Farzana, Kaur, Chisti, & Faruque, 2013). Transportation systems usually
increase the ability of businesses to provide both goods and services. In addition, it
provides the platform for people to access services such as education and employment. At

the same time, a good transport network works to minimize the costs that can be incurred
during any kind of transportation. Reduction in the costs of transportation, pollution and
accident expenses result to increased development and productivity within a given region.
There are both negative and positive impacts of improved transportation systems.
When roads have been upgraded to highways, more cars and motorists will be able to
access the region as they seek to carry out their business ventures (Karou & Hull, 2014).
On the one hand, it is an economic benefit. However, the process may pose a big threat to
the people living in the local area since some of them like the pedestrians may view the
move as limiting their movement space (Heesch, Giles-Corti, & Turrell, 2014).
Furthermore, when there are more improved transport facilities in a region, the area will
be opened up for more competition to the existing business activities.
Any development activity is usually linked with its capability to improve the
welfare of the people it directly touches. For the development activity to be effective
there should be appropriate political, economic and social conditions. Development in
transportation systems requires that the networks be placed at convenience points so as to
give rise to both qualitative and quantitative improvement in aspects such as human
capital as well as physical capital. Human capital targets facets such as education and
income (Ghimire, 2013). Transport in itself as a physical capital maintains the necessary
infrastructure that enables proper maintenance and operations. This is because the
infrastructure acts as the platform for facilitating economic activities necessary for
development of the community. Transport has been regarded as one of the most
significant sector of the economy and a very vital tool that aids the development in any
society. In a global economy, economic opportunities have been closely related with the

mobility of the people, information and goods. Development is therefore interplay of how
the aforementioned factors are able to move with ease (Ferdous, Das, Ahmed, Farzana,
Kaur, Chisti, & Faruque, 2013). The quality and quantity of transport infrastructure and
the level of development of economic activities is usually closely related. Highly
connected networks and high density infrastructure is usually associated with high level
of economic development. This is because, when transport systems are very efficient, in
terms of reliability and capacity, they usually provide the relevant social and economic
benefits and opportunities, which ultimately result to more employment, investments and
accessibility to markets. Poor transport systems lead to missed opportunities and lowers
the quality of life of the people within the region that they serve.
Efficient transport systems usually reduce the costs that can be incurred in
carrying out activities. Inefficient systems increase these costs. Impacts brought about by
the transport systems however, are not intended and may bring about unintended or
unforeseen consequences. For instance, there are times when low levels of transport
systems bring congestion. From another point of view, congestion can be used to indicate
high level of development. This happens when a very fast growing economy experiences
challenges in keeping up with the rising demands brought about by the mobility.
Transport systems usually assist in environmental and social developments and cannot be
taken for granted. The impacts brought about by the improved transport network can be
categorized into several major categories. First is the core. From this dimension,
transport systems offer the fundamental function of facilitating movement of goods and
people from one place to another; thereby enabling the interactions of economic entities
or strengthening the existing interactions to create further chances of economic

development. Transport also enhances the development of operations. In this case,
transport systems usually assist to improve in time performance thereby enhancing
reliability. This means that there will be reduced damages and losses that are brought
about by slow or inefficient transport networks. Transportation of assets between the
distributors or producers can take place with ease while at the same time minimizing their
‘perishability’ (Giljum, Dittrich, Lieber, & Lutter, 2014). Furthermore, goo transport
systems give rise to opened market opportunities that could hitherto be impossible under
undeveloped or poor network systems. Good transport systems can also facilitate wider
market base and can consequently enable the improvement of consumption, production
and distribution of goods. Transport systems do not only offer direct benefits. The
importance of transport systems usually extend beyond the obvious ones. For instance,
there are indirect benefits that are supported by the transport systems such as the goods
and services offered by the local suppliers. Maintenance services, supplies and fuel are
provided by the local sellers and therefore give the local people employment and
consequently the growth of the economy. The local economy consequently benefits in
terms of employment as well as the addition of value to the activities that they carry out.
From a more in-depth perspective, the local suppliers will be able to buy goods from
other local suppliers or producers. There will be further local re-spending actions that
usually results to the generation of additional value and creation of employment. There
will be people who will have invested in the transport sectors. They usually receive their
income from the transport sector through transportation activities. They may spend some
of their income on local goods and services. The purchases may result to increased goods
and services as well as value-addition (Giljum, Dittrich, Lieber, & Lutter, 2014). The

successive activities involving spending and re-spending ultimately results in improved
overall economy of the region or country which exceeds the initial input, employment
and income. Generally, the economic impacts of the transportation sector can be seen as
direct, indirect and induced.
Transportation works to link together the different factors involved in the
production and transit of goods in a complex system of relationship between the
consumers and producers. Economic growth is usually linked with a good transport
network. When the transportation systems are working in an efficient manner, the
business people will have ample time to invest in other key areas of business operations
and not overspend time in working out costs on logistics. It will be easier for the business
operators to calculate the costs involved in transportation of goods and services as
opposed to the case when they are needed to find alternative sources of transport if
transport systems are challenging.
Heesch, Giles-Corti, and Turrell (2014) assert that the growing economic
opportunities that have been present since the industrial revolution can be partly
attributed to the transportation development that has taken place over the years. Every
stage of human societal development has been linked with a certain technological
development in the transport sector, thus producing a series of impacts especially in the
economic sphere of the society. New social, market and economic opportunities emerge
with the increased technology in the transportation sector. For instance, during the age of
exploration, in the 16 th and the 18 th century, seaports brought a lot of development in the
business activities across different parts of the world (Heesch, Giles-Corti, & Turrell,
2014). International trade was made easier during the time. Containerization and

globalization of business activities brought an unprecedented revolution in the way
business activities would consequently be carried out in the diverse parts of the world.
Railways in the 19 th century made it possible for high capacity and flexible transport
systems to be achieved. Railway line systems made it possible for complex and heavy
goods to be carried in the inland. Substantial social and economic opportunities were
opened up through the extraction and movement of goods in addition to the settlement of
regions occupied by the system and the growth of mobility for both the cargo and the
passengers. Airways and information technology can be intertwined factors that also
brought quicker means of moving goods from one place to another. The overall effects of
the developed transportation networks have greatly brought about the increased economic
growth. Therefore there is no single transport mode has been responsible for the
economic development. The overall economic growth can be attributed to the overall
effects that have been brought about by the diverse changes that have taken place within
the society.
From another insightful perspective, the major flows of international migration
that took place in the 18 th century can be heavily linked with the continental and
international transport systems, which worked to shape the emerging economies such as
the Australia and North America. The improved transportation system worked to provide
the needed catalytic effect to these migrations. As a result, the social and economic
geography of many people was transformed. Proper transportation links have been known
to provide a tool for exploitation and territorial control. For instance, during the colonial
era, resource-based transport systems were used to enhance the growth of economic
activities. For instance, the transport systems could be able to support the extraction of

commodities in the developing world and later taken to the industrializing nations. The
growth of reliable and better transport networks was a major impetus that facilitated the
exchange of ideas, goods and services for the two sides. The development of ports,
especially containerization, creates a strategic plan that eventually assists countries to be
integrated in the global economy and therefore more development has been witnessed as
a result. Containerization has presented a great platform of capturing the opportunities
that have been presented by the globalization process. Lack of transport systems in any
region can be seen as one of the major constraints towards the economic development of
that region. In developing economies, limitation caused by the regulatory impediments
and transport infrastructures jointly impacts the economic development by increasing the
transportation costs and delays which renders the management of supply chain unreliable.
Poor transport networks can negatively affect the competitive capability of regions and
businesses as well as employment rates, thus lowering the economic fortunes.
Efficient transportation systems ensure that there is increased potential market for
a given product. This in turn increases competition. Many goods and services will be
available to the consumers owing to the competition and this tends to reduce the price,
alongside promoting innovation and increased quality of goods and services. Competition
is further increased through globalization. Values of factors of production such as land
are likely to increase with improved transport facilities. For instance, the pieces of land
that are adjacent to the improved transport facility in many cases acquire a higher value
than it was originally. In addition, the land tends to acquire more utility with increased
benefits since the transportation of any physical outcome becomes cheaper (Abdallah,
Belloumi, & De Wolf, 2013). Willing customers can be able to access a wide variety of

products and services while the residents can access employment opportunities. However,
there are other instances where the value of the land reduces following improved
transport services. Such instances include land near airports and some highways where
there is noise and pollution. In the modern society, most of the economic decisions that
producers and consumers make are usually based on the availability of transport facilities
within the society.
The benefits offered by a good transportation network are often underestimated
despite the major socio-economic benefits the system offers to the society. Transportation
network offers greater weight to the growth of the economy through different
mechanisms. From a social perspective, the transport network works to create as well as
stimulate social integration and cohesion among the people using it; thereby allowing
them to access similar opportunities (Karou & Hull, 2014) asserts that the transportation
networks are the heart of social and economic development through the provision of the
required mobility that enhances trading activities and consequently socio-economic
development. Transport networks work to support diverse sectors of the economy to
develop.
One of the major effects of investments on transport network is the Kansas state
of the United States. Approximately FRF 845.16 million was spent on construction of
highways between the year 1991 and 1994. This investment in the road network produced
an output impact of FRF 2,201.43 million (Karou & Hull, 2014). During the work of
construction of transport networks, people are usually hired to carry out various tasks.
This means that the construction activities offer direct employment to the people. This
creates a direct impact to the economy of the region where the construction activities are

being carried out. This acts to improve the socio-economic status of the people. Many
activities usually rely on individual mobility. Individuals are expected to move from one
place to another to carry out diverse socio-economic activities that are relevant to their
own development. Mobility is an essential facet of economic growth. Developed
transport systems usually accommodate improved socio-economic conditions. Modes of
transport are essential components of development since development depends on
communication and exchange of goods and services. Through developing exchanges and
facilitating mobility, transportation enhances social and economic cohesion, a factor that
is very instrumental towards achieving a sustainable and a balanced social and economic
development.
Transportation services are heavily linked with the alleviation of poverty. For
instance, lack of transportation services may limit the poor populace from capitalizing on
the available job opportunities as well as the basic social services that can lead to
development of their socio-economic status. Sustainable poverty alleviation requires the
development of good transportation systems. This is because the individuals can be able
to access health and school facilities that form the basis of human capital especially in the
contemporary society.
Economic growth of a region is highly dependent on well developed
transportation systems. The transportation systems open up the region which allows
efficient performance of activities. In itself, transportation is a wealth creating sector
(Abdallah, Belloumi, & De Wolf, 2013). Additionally, Lack of adequate transportation
systems usually limits the ability of the nation to utilize the natural resources as well as
integrate social development activities in areas that need to be developed within the

society in an attempt to create social equality. To attain national wealth, there is a need to
maintain and improve the existing transportation networks.
From another dimension, it is significant to note that transportation infrastructure
plays a very critical role in sustaining economic growth. First, individuals in a specific
region may want to improve their standards of living. As a result, they may aspire to
increase their levels of income as one if the techniques of achieving the goal.
Transportation networks support the people to maintain and improve economic
opportunities, their income and consequently their social living standards. Transport
services are very crucial aspects that contribute towards modernized business activities as
well as economic growth. The development of transport infrastructure is a significant tool
that determines the success a country is likely to achieve through the diversification of its
production, trading activities, and its ability to link up all the present resources in the
market in order to achieve an integrated economy at the end (Karou & Hull, 2014).
Transportation also assists to link people together from the grassroots and help them to
market their products and services. In this case, the developing regions are able to get
connected with one another, a process that opens up remote areas to assist in increasing
productivity while at the same time lowering production costs. There are various actions
that are aimed at reducing poverty in the different areas of the society. These activities
may not be successful if there are no good transport systems.
Summary
In summary, literature review covered in the preceding sections is a clear
indication that the focus of most of previously conducted studies was on government
investment in public transportation impacted economic development. In fact, most of the

past studies were particularly directed on the highway capital effects and/or impacts on
both social and economic in the population. As a result, there has been little attention on
the extent business focused transportation investment, and the economic impact which is
attributable to it, as well as its interaction or relation with government investment on
public transportation; and other modes. In addition, as pointed out in the scholarly or
journal articles considered in the literature reviewer, there is need for more work to be
carried out with regards to the exploration of the structural impact of various
transportation investment projects that are characteristically distinct on the economy.
This is mainly because these structural impacts are likely to influence a population
through impacts that fall within the form of geographical, demographic, as well as
industrial changes within an economy of a particular region.
Therefore, as highlighted in the literature review various transportation
investments that are characteristically different, it is likely for inclusion of a broad range
of characteristics capable of differentiating one form of investment from others
particularly in terms of asset type, transportation mode, sector of investors, technology
embedded in the transportation projects, the nature of investment as well as the source of
funding. In contrast, there are also a number of previous studies mentioned in the
literature review carried out to study the impacts of transportation investment on socio-
economic development, especially on how economic development both in terms of
industrial restructuring and economic growth stimulates or enhances continued
investments in the improvement of transportation in terms of both increased funding
sources as well as growing demand for transportation services. This form of study is
imperative in ensuring helpful insights are gained.

There are significant investments which have being going on in the state of
California towards improving transport infrastructures and systems without succinctly
assessing the ensuing socio-economic benefits first, something which makes it imperative
to undertake this study for the determination of the relationship that exist between the two
scenarios (Cooper, 2012; Delorme, Thompson & Warren, 2013). This implies that an
information gap exists which ought to be timely and effectively addressed, since if left
undetermined then the state of California may continue to take risk that is not
strategically evaluated through continued dedication of significant investments towards
improvement of transport infrastructure and systems without matching socio-economic
effects (Federal Highway Administration, 2012). On the other hand, the State may also
fail to prioritize significant levels of investments in transport infrastructure and systems
improvement and also risk to harness the inherent potential and economic opportunities if
the socio-economic effects attributed to such actions are significant and satisfactory
(Banister & Berechman, 2012; Brueckner, 2013; Berry, 2011; Mullen, Williams &
Moowaw, 2012).
Furthermore, recommendations from most of the studies considered in the
literature review indicate that there is an urgent need for initiatives aimed at developing
new data in order to ensure it is broader and more detailed towards supporting a vast
range of future research on a wide variety of issues. Similarly, through provision of
comparable findings throughout most of the transportation modes, the literature review
has provided helpful insights on this topic as well as highlighting areas of controversy
and also the existing research gaps. Thus, there has been suggestion to broaden research
on the impacts of public transportation improvements through government investment

from its primary focus on spending in highway transportation to cover other areas of
transportation. Through this approach, a comprehensive and wholesome view of the
transportation and its resulting socio-economic impacts with regards to prevailing wages
will be obtained. This is attributable to the fact that, this approach to future research will
bring together data for equipment and infrastructure investment and government
investment as well as the extent of impact on different households and industry sectors.

Research Method

The research methods focus on making sure that the study aim is achieved, which
in this case is to examine the socio-economic effects of improvements in transportation
infrastructure and systems by collecting information data on non-financial and financial
perspectives of research respondents with regards to improvements in transportation
infrastructure and systems as well as examining its socio-economic effects among
Californians. The improvements in transport facilities is likely to play a significant role in
fostering economic development through the economic benefits that ensue as well as
utilizing socio-economic effects on daily lives of people living in California.
According to Moballeghi and Moghaddam (2012), improvements in
transportation facilities and infrastructure are without any doubts the linking factor
between the overall economic benefits and the socio-economic effects on Californian
residents. The causal relationship to be investigated in this dissertation concerns these
two perspectives of improvements in transport facilities such as the economic benefits
and socio-economic effects on Californian residents in order to determine if people living
in California are receiving sufficient outputs/rewards from continuous improvements in
transport infrastructure and facilities and systems.

This section aims provides a clear map through which a realization of the research
questions and objectives would be achieved. This section covers all the aspects
underpinning the current study as and also provides the empirical methods forming the
basis of the research study. Further, there is also demarcation of the section in the scope
of the process of study as well as the limitations, which ensures that the study is situated
among the current traditions with respect to investigation of the impact of improvement
in transport facilities on socio-economic well-being of Californian residents.
Research Design
This section is involved in elucidating the process of data collection and covers
how both primary and secondary data will be to be collected. It will be concerned with
explaining the approach to be adopted as well as the requirements under which the
different stages of collecting the data and investigations will be done. Moballeghi and
Moghaddam (2012) emphasize that the most imperative elements in the construction of a
research design should prioritize the issues of consistency in the research questions that
ought to be answered. Research design constitutes the blueprint for the process of
collecting, measuring, and analyzing the research data (Kasim, Alexander & Hudson,
2011; Paltridge & Starfield, 2011). As a result, the research design is considered to be the
plan of helping in the process of investigating the phenomenon under study in order to
provide valid and reliable answers to the research questions proposed in the study.
Moballeghi and Moghaddam (2012) also emphasize that identifying appropriate variables
in a research problem situation subsequent to developing a theoretical framework is very
important in devising a research design, and the next step is to embark on designing the

research in a way essential in enabling the gathering of required data as well as its
analysis for the purpose of ensuring that conclusive solution are attained.
This means that a credible research design is crucial in providing a conceptual
structure through which the study will be based on conducted and it is used as the
reference point to deal with important aspects of the research including research
questions under investigations; the relevant data to be gathered; and the appropriate
method of analyzing the collected data to achieved the envisaged results to ensure desired
conclusions are made (Kasim, Alexander & Hudson, 2011; Matusov & Brobst, 2013).
This implies that the main purpose of developing an effective research design is to ensure
that evidence-based findings obtained from the collected data is appropriate to enable the
researcher in answering the research questions as succinctly as possible. In this
dissertation, a quantitative research design will be used to study how improvements in
transport facilities and infrastructure have impacted socio-economic well-being of
Californian residents. The reason for choosing the correlational research design is
attributed to the fact that there is need for developing a valid study for the description and
investigation of the phenomena under study (Paltridge & Starfield, 2011; Rocco, Hatcher
& Creswell, 2011).
According to Moballeghi and Moghaddam (2012) correlational study is an
important research method involving in-depth, comparative analysis of scenario that are
similar in various organizations within the same sector, where the nature in which the
research problem is defined happen to be universal irrespective of who carry out the
study. The most imperative features of a correlational study are its scientific credentials
as well as professional applications that are evidence-based. Therefore, correlational

study enables the study of a phenomenon in a timely manner within the settings which
are by allowing researchers to embark on retaining the meaningful and holistic
characteristics of events that are real and touching on organizations as well as individuals
(Hunter & Leahey, 2013; Paltridge & Starfield, 2011; Rocco, Hatcher & Creswell, 2011).
A correlational study mainly concentrates on a particular situation and is useful
for utilization when the complexity and uniqueness of a phenomenon is to be studied and
it in-depth understanding achieved. Hunter and Leahey (2013) further asserts that the
correlational research design should always be consisting of various fundamental
components such as the research question(s), the devised propositions, reliable and
quantifiable unit(s) of measurement and analysis, ability to determine the link the
research data and propositions as well as the proposed criteria of interpreting the research
findings. However, in correlational study it is possible to either use single or multiple-
case studies in the attempts to succinctly elucidate the phenomenon under study (Kasim,
Alexander & Hudson, 2011; Matusov & Brobst, 2013). Thus, the researcher may choose
to focus on a particular or multiple aspects of the phenomenon under investigation
depending on the proposed research questions. As a result, the researcher may opt to
delve on a single aspect or multiple aspects. However, despite the fact that correlational
research design is to be used in this study; a quantitative research approach will be
adopted to enable collection of quantitative data for analysis (Matusov & Brobst, 2013;
Paltridge & Starfield, 2011).
Operational Definition of Variables

The operational definition of variables provides a description of the variables
included for measurement in this study whereby the description is provident for both the
independent and dependent variables as shown below:
Improvement of transportation facilities. This construct/variable concerns the
extent to which the transportation facilities have moved from one status/situation
to a better one ( Yang, Li, & Cao, 2015). The study will consider the varieties of
transportation facilities in relationship to the average earnings of the people
within the study area.
Employment opportunities: This variable concerns the increase in the number of
job openings with a region (Hopcraft, Bigurube, Lembeli, & Borner, 2015).
Average amount of job opportunities will be considered.
Income level: This variable concerns the level of earnings among individuals or
households within a region (Hopcraft, Bigurube, Lembeli, & Borner, 2015).
Average income of the households will be noted.
Accessibility: This variable concerns the ease of access of one location from
another within a region through increased mobility by reducing congestion among
all the transportation modes (Hopcraft, Bigurube, Lembeli, & Borner, 2015). This
will take into account the number of road networks present within a locality.
Transport expenses: This variable concerns the costs people have to pay when
traveling from one location to another within a region (Hopcraft, Bigurube,
Lembeli, & Borner, 2015). The average of the amount of money the residents pay
to move from one market area to another will be estimated.

Consumer goods’ prices: This variable concerns the costs people have to pay
when purchasing consumer goods, that is, goods that are domestically used in
households (Yang, Li, & Cao, 2015). The study will seek to find out the average
amount of money that household use as their daily expenses.
Measurement
The measurement will be conducted on basis of the data collected on the
independent variable and dependent variables using the appropriate data collection tools.
The independent variable is the improvement in transport facilities while the dependent
variables are: employment opportunities, income level, accessibility, transport expenses
as well as consumer goods’ prices. In order to ensure the objectives of the study are
achieved, the instruments to be used as means of measurement must also be outlined and
described particularly those to be utilized in gathering data from the target population. In
this study quantitative data shall be gathered in order to examine whether improvements
in transport facilities has impact on economic development as well as socio-economic
effects on daily lives of Californians. According to Hunter and Leahey (2013), several
measurement instruments as well as methods of data collection exist which have been
developed for specific measurement of the assessment outcomes.
Prior to engaging in the data collection process, there is need for the researcher to
be familiar with the factors that inform the utilization of the measurement instruments
chosen as well as the mode of determining if the instrument should be created or a
commercially designed instrument should be utilized. According to Hunter and Leahey
(2013), there must be consideration of several factors prior to selecting a measurement
instrument, including methodology, purpose of measurement, type of measurement

outcomes, available resources, as well as audience expectations. Moballeghi and
Moghaddam (2012) further contend that when a researcher begins with outlining the
purpose of the measurement obviously leads to identification other factors that are best
suited to address the research questions. Furthermore, for the sake of clearly
understanding the phenomena which is being investigated there is need to use
quantitative research methods that emphasize more on making sure that there is succinct
understanding of both the meaning as well as gaining an in-depth understanding of data
collected through quantitative research methods such as focus groups, observations,
interviews, or analysis of written material (Kasim, Alexander & Hudson, 2011; Matusov
& Brobst, 2013; OECD, 2012). Pursuant to Moballeghi and Moghaddam (2012),
quantitative methods are used for deductive examination of greater details of the
phenomenon under investigation, which may sometimes go beyond the quantitative
measurements’ scope.
Conducting interviews whether structured or semi-structured is one of the best
ways through which quantitative primary data can be collected from the sample
respondents chosen from the target population (Hunter & Leahey, 2013; Matusov &
Brobst, 2013). However, one-on-one interviews can be conducted through emails or
through telephone. Nevertheless, Moballeghi and Moghaddam (2012) asserts that face-to-
face interviews is the best mode mainly because it allows a clear notice of interviewees’
facial expressions by the researcher during interviews which is critical in providing
insights into some vital information concerning the study topic. However, the interviews
in this study will be conducted through administration of questionnaires in order to make

sure that the interview questions are answered in a structured format (Matusov & Brobst,
2013; Paltridge & Starfield, 2011).
Population and Sample
The targeted population for this study is the Californians working in the transport
sector. The transport sector employees will be categorized into the following: lower cadre
employees, middle level managers and top-level managers. The sampling frame for
transport sector employees will be the computerized list from the transport organizations
both public and private. The list for employees will be stratified by cadre/working levels
and then further stratified by geographic locations. A mixture of probability and non-
probability samples will be used and probability sampling will be conducted for content
analysis of employees’ records.
Geographical Location
Los Angeles, the capital city of California State will be selected as the study site
for most of the top-level managers, middle level managers, and employees working in the
transport sector. However, in order to avoid biased sampling participants will also be
randomly selected from other regions of California State who will be picked randomly in
order to make sure that there is a balanced representation of the target population which
in this case the California State population.
Pilot Study
Prior to designing the final questionnaire, face-to-face interviews will be
conducted on randomly selected respondents from the target population in order to gain
insights into the understanding level of respondents towards the questionnaire. This plays
an essential role in identifying which questions that proven difficult for the selected

respondents to answer, either by not being well framed or failure of respondents to
understand them. During the interviews the researcher will use digital recorder to record
the responses of those chosen to participate in the pilot study to each questions asked
during the interview (Paltridge & Starfield, 2011; Rocco, Hatcher & Creswell, 2011).
Subsequent to data collection from all the chosen participants, the recorder will be played
in order to make sure that all the responses are noted down with respect to each research
question asked. The analysis from the pilot study will help the researcher to make
amendments into the questionnaire questions that prove to be difficult for a majority of
respondents in order to ensure that in the actual questionnaire administration there will be
high response rate with fully filled questionnaires (Given, 2012; Paltridge & Starfield,
2011).
Data collection and data analysis
The main methodology for data collection that will be applied is survey
questionnaires. This is the best method for this kind of study because it is less time
consuming and does not require a lot of personnel. In addition, it is affordable. The
participants will be brought in one venue during the delivery of the questionnaires so that
they can be directed together (Moballeghi & Moghaddam, 2012; Paltridge & Starfield,
2011; Rocco, Hatcher & Creswell, 2011). In order to stimulate research participants
response, the questionnaires will be designed accommodate both open-ended and closed
ended questions. The researcher will distribute one 111 questionnaires, which will be
administered using survey approach. Surveys are a research instrument that is common in
correlational studies due to the flexibility they offer during interviews (Babbie, 2012).
Hunter and Leahey (2013) defined surveys as research instruments that systemically

attempt to collect information to describe and explain values, attitudes, behavior and
beliefs of selected groups of people. Similarly, in spite the fact that surveys are
conventional, this ensures that they confer tremendous benefits in the process of
conducting non-experimental studies whose intention is to investigate the reality of a
situation (Gauch, 2013; Hunter & Leahey, 2013; Paltridge & Starfield, 2011). For
instance, during surveys it is possible to determine the prevalence of a certain aspect in
the situation under investigation using the selected research participants. This study seeks
to provide insights into the situation of transportation in California: the impact of
improvement in transport facilities on economic development and socio-economic effects
on daily lives among Californians.
The designed questionnaires will be delivered by the researcher, assisted by a
team of five research assistants. The researcher will use pre-existing questionnaires
because they have been devised by experts; therefore, they are very comprehensive. Data
to be collected will be both primary and secondary (Paltridge & Starfield, 2011; Rocco,
Hatcher & Creswell, 2011). The data to be used in the study will be gathered via
questionnaires which will be delivered to the area under study and distributed to the
selected research participants. This will span for duration of ten days. Filled-in
questionnaires will be presented to the researcher in order to sort and store them followed
by the cleaning and processing of the collected awaiting statistical analysis (Babbie,
2012; Paltridge & Starfield, 2011).
Secondary data collection will be carried out from sources that exist such as
websites, publications electronic and print as well as historical literature on other studies
related to the research topic. The stages of collecting and analyzing data are classified as

either “integrated” or “disconnected” (Moballeghi & Moghaddam, 2012). Questionnaires
from one set of research respondents will be handled prior to handling the next set. The
refined or processed data will then be analyzed using SPSS.
Human Participants and Ethics Precautions
A research study involving participation of human subjects is required to
adequately address all ethical considerations prior to the beginning of the study (Gauch,
2013; Hunter & Leahey, 2013; Rocco, Hatcher & Creswell, 2011). Armstrong and Sperry
(2014) particularly stated the fundamental ethical considerations that must be dealt with
sufficiently prior to beginning the research process at levels include: obtaining consent
from the human subjects envisaged to be enrolled in research, providing an assurance of
safety and security to all research participants to be involved, as well as giving a
guarantee of privacy of gathered of data to be obtaining by maintaining confidentiality.
According to Cohen and Arieli (2011), the highest ethical standards should always be
adhered to in order to make sure that there are no violations of the rights of human
participants taking part in the study. As a result, ethical considerations as outlined in the
university guidelines will be regarded with the highest level of imperativeness during this
study. This is attributable to the fact that research will be carried out in compliance with
the ethical guidelines stipulated in the California Intercontinental University’s research
guide. In order to ensure full compliance, the researcher will undertake a thorough
process of reviewing the ethics checklist to ensure it is fully complete as well as gain
succinct insights of the ethical policy and guidelines provided by the university and other
authorities prior to obtaining approval to begin the study. This is highly imperative since
it will help in the preparation of the researcher towards addressing the ethical challenges

that have a high likelihood of occurrence during the research process and devise a
contingency plan while making sure there is strict compliance to the ethical policy and
research guidelines of the University as well as the other relevant standards guiding the
research process.
Research Validity and Reliability
In social research, the researcher must ensure that the instruments development to
measure the variables are accurate and of good fit (Cohen & Arieli, 2011). Moballeghi
and Moghaddam (2012) states that, “it is imperative to ensure that the developed research
instrument precisely measures a particular concept of the variables (p.157)”. For social
sciences research, it is common to estimate the reliability and validity in order to ensure
that the measures developed are reasonably good and will produce dependable
measurements (Kara, 2012; Liu, 2015; Paltridge & Starfield, 2011).
Reliability will be an important element in this research. Measurements in a
research are termed reliable if they can be replicated with minimal variations and in case
randomness, then the measurement error should be arising from a particular source. As
expressed by Hunter and Leahey (2013), the measurement reliability is an indication of
absence of biasness, which is essential in making sure that consistency, is maintained. In
quantitative research, reliability is an indication of the research findings trustworthiness
(Creswell, 2012; Given, 2012). In order to make sure that the research findings are valid,
the research will ascertain the accuracy of the measurement methods to determine
whether they precisely capture what ought to be measured in variables (Soeters, Shields
& Sebastiaan, 2014).
Summary

In summary, the current research faces a number of limitations that ought to be
delimited in order for it to be successful. These limitations include: The area of study
under consideration is to some extent limiting in a manner that the findings obtained from
the study area cannot be generally applied. This is attributable to the fact that, since the
California State is area of study it cannot be assumed that the research findings obtained
shall have the possibility universal application globally. However, as mentioned earlier in
the discussions of this conceptual paper, different styles and modes of transportation exist
in different countries across various regions worldwide in the management of transport
sector. This fact poses a limitation or challenge on how to conclusively study the
phenomenon considering the feasibility of studying all transportation systems globally is
not attainable. Finally, there will also be a limitation of the study with regards to the
research participants to be included in the sample size, which shall be relatively small on
the basis of available resources i.e. money and time both of which are scarce meaning
that the researcher is not privileged to expand the study coverage.

References

Abdallah, K. B., Belloumi, M., & De Wolf, D. (2013). Indicators for sustainable energy
development: A multivariate cointegration and causality analysis from Tunisian
road transport sector. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 25, 34-43.
Afraz, N. (2014). Impact of Transport Infrastructure on Economic Growth – Annex 6 to
Final Report of COMPETE Analysis of the Contribution of Transport Policies to
the Competitiveness of the EU Economy and Comparison with the United States.
European Commission – DG TREN, Karlsruhe.
Alstadt, B. (2012). A generalized approach for assessing the direct user impacts of
transportation projects. Transportation Research Board, Annual Conference
Proceedings.doi: 10.3141/2079-15.
Anderson, P., Levinson, D., & Parthasarathi, P. (2013). Accessibility futures.
Transactions in GIS, 17, 683-705. doi: 10.1111/tgis.12024
Armstrong, J.S., & Sperry, T. (2014). Business School Prestige: Research versus
Teaching. Energy & Environment, 18(2), 13–43.
Babbie, E. (2012). The Practice of Social Research, (12 th ed.). Wardsworth: Cengage
Learning.
Banerjeey, A., Dufloz, E., & Qian, N. (2012).On the road: Access to transportation
infrastructure and economic growth in China. Retrieved from The National
Bureau of Economic Research website: http://www.nber.org/papers/w17897
Banister, D. (2002). Transport Planning, (2 nd ed.). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
Banister, D., & Berechman, J. (2012). Transport Investment and Economic Development.
London: Routledge.
Beaverstock, J.V., Taylor, P., & Smith, R.G. (2011). A Roster of World Cities. Cities, 16,
445-458.
Bell, M. (2013). Macroeconomic Analyses of the Linkages between Transportation
Investments and Economic Performance. National Cooperative Highway
Research Program Project 2-17(3), American Association of State Highway
Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C.
Berry, B.J.L. (2011). Long-wave Rhythms in Economic Development and Political
Behavior. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Bocarejo, J. P., Portilla, I. J., Velásquez, J. M., Cruz, M. N., Peña, A., & Oviedo, D. R.
(2014). An innovative transit system and its impact on low income users: the case
of the Metrocable in Medellín. Journal of Transport Geography, 39, 49-61.
Brooks, M. T., Pallis, T., & Perkins, S. (2014). Port investment and container shipping
markets. International Transport Forum, Discussion Paper No. 2014-03.
Brueckner, K. (2013). Airline traffic and urban economic development. Urban Studies,
40(8), 1455-1469.
Button, K. (2012). Transport Economics, (3 rd ed.). Aldershot: Edward Elgar.
Button, K., & Reggiani, A. (eds) (2011). Transportation and Economic Development
Challenges. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Carrion, C., & Levinson, D. (2013).Valuation of travel time reliability from a GPS-based
experimental design. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies,
35, 305-323. doi: 10.1016/j.trc.2012.10.010
Cohen, N. & Arieli, T. (2011). Field research in conflict environments: Methodological
challenges and snowball sampling. Journal of Peace Research, 48(4), 423–436.
Coleman, A., (2012). Transport infrastructure, lock-out and urban form highway
development in Auckland and the United States. Policy Quarterly, 6, 23–27.
Retrieved from: http://ips.ac.nz/publications/files/90e7fc24eeb.pdf
Combes, F. & Leurent, F. (2013). Improving road-side surveys for a better knowledge
of road freight transport. European Transportation Research Review, 5(1), 41-
Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating
Quantitative and Qualitative Research. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
ISBN 0-13-613550-1

Scholar Papers

Why choose us?

Quality is never compromised

Affordable prices

On time Delivery

24*7 Support

Safe and secure payments

We maintain confidentiality

Transportation in California