Demographia: 2007

2007/12/28

Michigan to Fall Under 10 Million Residents?

Michigan could become the first large state to ever exceed 10 million population and then to fall back below 10 million. The latest US Bureau of the Census estimates indicate that Michigan’s population fell from 10,102,000 to 10,072,000 between 2006 and 2007. Should that rate continue, Michigan would fall to under 10,000,000 by the 2010 census.

New York Out-Migration Exceeds Katrina's Louisiana

Data just released by the US Bureau of the Census indicates that New York state lost 1,400,000 million domestic migrants between 2000 and 2007 (people moving from New York to other states). This is nearly equal to the population of the city Philadelphia. Perhaps most stunningly, New York also had the highest rate of domestic migration loss, at -7.4 percent, exceeding even that of Louisiana and its hundreds of thousands of residents driven out in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

State Migration: From More Expensive to Less Expensive Areas

Report

The U.S. Bureau of the Census released annual state population and migration estimates today (27 December 2007). This document provides detailed data and observations on the trends in domestic migration.

Domestic migration occurs when a person moves from one place in the United States to another. In this case, a domestic migrant moves from one state or the District of Columbia to another.

Moving to More Affordable States

There is continued net domestic migration to the more affordable (responsive planning) states from prescriptive planning states. This is evident in comparing the change in annual migration rates in 2007 compared to 2000-2001.

Overall, between 2000 and 2007, there was a strong movement away from the more unaffordable states.

Texas Emerges as the Top Destination

In 2006-7, Texas had the largest domestic migration gain, at 140,000. Texas had emerged as the top destination in 2005-6, principally due to the exodus of Katrina refugees from Louisiana (220,000). However, the Texas net domestic gain remained strong in 200607, at an annual rate more than tripling the 2000-1 migration gain. Texas has gained 580,000 domestic migrants since 2000. Between 2000 and 2005 Florida strongly led Texas in domestic migration gains, with 1,050,000, compared to the Texas figure of 210,000.

The End of Migration to Florida?

Perhaps the most significant news from the new data is that Florida’s domestic migration gains have nearly come to an end. During the first 6 years of the decade, Florida gained an average of more than 200,000 domestic migrants annually. In 2006-7, this figure declined to 35,000. Florida’s overall growth rate has also declined. Until 2006, it looked possible that Florida would grow quickly enough to replace New York as the nation’s third largest state after California and Texas. This would not occur if the growth rate of the last year continues.

Another #1 for California

California became the nation’s largest state in the late 1960s, passing New York, which had been the largest state since 1810. In the last two years, California has also displaced New York as the leader in net domestic migration loss (in 2006 and 2007). Since 2000, California has lost 1,200,000 domestic migrants, a population approximately equal to that of the city of San Diego.

Moving from Florida to North & South Carolina?

There has been much talk of the “half-backs,” Northerners who move to Florida and then move “halfway” back to North Carolina or South Carolina. Since 2000, North Carolina has gained approximately 500,000 domestic migrants and South Carolina has gained 225,000. In each case, the 2006-7 domestic migration gain was approximately three times the 2000-1 gain. The halfbacks have also discovered Tennessee, which has gained more than 200,000 domestic migrants and has had a similar increase in rate since 2000-1.

2007/12/26

Urban Transport in Hyderabad (India): Observations

A couple of months ago, Dr. P.R.Bhanu Murthy suggested that I offer some comments on urban transport in Hyderabad, India along the lines of my previously posted observations on Lagos, Nigeria.

I have not been to Hyderabad. My travel in India has been limited to the three megacities (Mumbai, Delhi and Kolkata). However, some general comments can be made on urban transport in Hyderabad. Obviously, much of what follows applies equally to urban agglomerations in other emerging market economies.

Hyderabad is relatively dense, with nearly 6,000,000 people living in an urban agglomeration (continuous urbanization) that is approaching 600 square kilometers. Thus, the population density is approximately 10,000 per square kilometer. This is below that of Mumbai (26,000) and Kolkata (13,000), but is approximately average for an agglomeration of above 5,000,000 residents outside the high-income world (see: http://www.demographia.com/db-worldua.pdf).

Any effective urban transport planning process must begin with a comprehensive vision that deals with ensuring mobility from every square meter of the urban agglomeration to every other (what I call ubiquitous mobility). It is this type of mobility that virtually removes any transport restraints on economic growth and poverty reduction. Given the documented relationship between better mobility (point to point travel time) and economic growth, this is a principal concern. Cars often provide the means for escaping poverty, both in lower income nations and higher income nations.

Most, if not all “regional” transport plans or “metropolitan” transport plans fail substantially in this regard. The principal emphasis is placed upon providing transport to the core, which may also be called the central business district, hypercentre or downtown. Such plans would be more appropriately called “downtown transport plans.”

The problem with such plans is their failure to effectively deal with mobility for destinations outside the core area. Yet, in most urban areas, the majority of travel is not to the core area, but is rather between non-core origins and destinations.

There is a tendency for urban areas outside the first world to look to first world urban areas for direction in their strategies. Thus, there has been an emphasis on high-cost projects, such as Metros and light rail. This can be at the expense of less costly, more comprehensive service strategies. The problem with the high cost strategies is that they can provide only a small share of the public transport services that are needed. For Metros or light rail to provide ubiquitous mobility, would require service grids of no more than 800 meters (with an assumption of a maximum walking distance of 400 meters). The cost of any such a system would rival the gross domestic product of any urban area, high-income or otherwise (see: http://www.publicpurpose.com/ut-wctrs2007.pdf). Moreover, the inclusion of these modes in a subsidized environment consumes resources that often could be used to provide many more trips.

Other modes of transport that are less attractive to affluent westerners are more effective in many applications, such as buses, vans, shared-ride taxis, auto-rickshaws, etc. The focus should be on mobility, not mode. An urban transport system should be evaluated based upon the extent to which it makes ubiquitous travel throughout the urban area possible.

This is not to suggest that the high cost modes are any more efficient in the high-income world. They are generally not, except in the highest density urban cores. However, in the high-income nations, the unwise use of subsidy funding does not lead to the widespread denial of effective mobility. This is because in Western Europe and the United States, the overwhelming majority of people who live outside the urban core have cars and travel by cars. Public transport’s failure to provide ubiquitous service in the high-income world has doubtless been a factor in the motorization, which occurred as fast as people could afford it. The extent to which public transport's generally meager service offerings in relation to the need for mobility contributed to motorization, of course, is debatable.

Thus, there is an important difference that may not be immediately obvious. High income urban agglomerations can afford transport plans that fail to address the transport needs of much of the community. Lower income urban agglomerations do not have this luxury.

It may be tempting to think that part of the problem could be solved by improving the “jobs-housing balance,” effectively by partitioning large urban areas into smaller units that somehow make it possible for residents to find jobs more locally and not travel so far. There is considerable evidence that this policy approach is likely to lead to failure. Peter Hall has chronicled disappointing research in the Stockholm area (which is a small urban area by international standards). The 2001 UK Census showed that in the new towns --- which were to be self sufficient in terms of employment --- the average commute is double the diameter of the new town in distance.

Urban areas reach the size of Hyderabad or Mumbai for a reason. They will continue to grow so long as it is more advantageous for people and businesses to move there than to smaller areas. This is why the greatest growth in recent decades has been in the larger urban areas, rather than in the self-contained, well-balanced urban areas of say, 100,000 or less. Around the world, the rural and smaller urban areas have generally tended to capture less than their share of growth. Indeed, in many nations, urban populations fall while overall growth rates continue strong.
Much of the world’s urban transport planning is geared toward the goal of reducing the use of automobiles or reducing the growth rate of automobile use. Ubiquitous public transport systems could assist in this. However, the lack of ubiquitous public transport increases the incentives for private, personal mobility. As a result, lower and middle income urban areas have comparatively high shares of 2-wheeled motorization (motos, motor cycles, motor bikes).
Given the choice between being able to get where they need to go and not, the moto is an obvious alternative. At the same time, the prospect is for greater, not less automobile use in the future. Tata Motors will bring the 1-lahk car to market in 2008 (100,000 Rupees or US$2,500). Other manufacturers intend to compete. Lower and middle incomes lack cars not because they don’t like or need them, rather because they cannot afford them. Moreover, the reality is that once people have achieved private, personal mobility, whether motos or cars, public transport stands little chance of winning them back.
Thus, it makes sense for lower income urban areas to not look to the west or the high income world for their transport models. They should rather look to places like Manila and the African urban areas where less expensive, informal, private and smaller vehicles provide mobility that is substantially more ubiquitous than in places that have not incorporated these approaches. Again, the test is the mobility results, not the presence of particular modes. A lower income urban agglomeration is likely to be able to build a “world class” public transport system (read “high-income”) only by denying mobility to large numbers of its citizens.
(Of course, where a public transport system or route can be built and operated using only passenger fares, this problem is avoided. Most systems, however, are heavily subsidized in construction and even operations.)
But this takes me back to the principal issue — setting of standards and objectives. For public transport to replace the automobile or slow down its expansion, public transport service must be ubiquitous. This is not so anywhere and is not even being aimed for. But the following standards are suggested.

It is well to understand the competition that public transport faces. Cars and motos have the following characteristics. Meeting or approaching these characteristics is the principal requirement of any public transport system that would provide ubiquitous mobility.

Any public transport system intending to seriously compete in such a market or any sub-market thereof needs to be designed with similar characteristics.

==================

Note: Link to latest information on the Tata 1-lakh car
http://www.deccanherald.com/Content/Dec192007/business2007121942043.asp?section=updatenews

2007/12/18

United States, Canada World's Strongest Economies

The World Bank is out with a revised estimate of world economies (gross domestic product) based upon purchasing power parities. for 2005. There are a number of notable developments.

The United States remains the most affluent of the larger nations, with a GDP of $41,700. Canada has emerged as a strong number two among larger nations, at $35,100, leading perpetual rivals Australia ($32,800), the United Kingdom ($31,600), Germany ($30,500) and Japan ($30,300).

The United States, however, is not the most affluent. A number of smaller nations have higher GDP-PPP’s per capita than the United States, such as Luxembourg (population equal to metropolitan Santa Barbara) and oil rich countries Qatar, Brunei Darussalam, Kuwait and Norway.

Some smaller countries and city-states rank between the United States and Canada, including Ireland, Singapore, Macao and Hong Kong.

Argentina continues its relative slide. Some reports indicate that Argentina was among the world’s three strongest economies in the 1930s, before Peronism. Argentina has now fallen behind Mexico and is no longer South America’s most prosperous economy. That honor goes to Chile.

China ($4,100) and India ($2,100) ranked surprisingly low.

2007/12/17

On Urban Transport in Lagos

From the CODATU Mailing List

I have never lived in Lagos… in fact my experience in Lagos is
limited to a brief stop over at the airport. However, I study cities and my familiarity has to do with research and resources such as Google maps.

My view is that high-income world planning concepts have little or
no applicability in Lagos (or in many other developing world
cities). This is especially true of American smart growth planning,
which is much more theory than reality. There is a raging debate on
the subject in the United States and around the world, with planners
generally favoring smart growth policies and economists suggesting
that such policies are destructive because of the way that they
drive housing prices up (I am on the economist’s side of that issue).

I say that smart growth is more theory than reality, because
virtually all high income world cities developed with little overall
planning — there was local zoning, there were some local or
subregional plans and there are the exceptions like Washington (or
Brasilia, which is in the middle income world) where strong planning
regimes have been implemented in the core. But outside the core, the
development is relatively random. Smart growth seeks to impose a
design on top of that randomness and its successes tend to be, at
best, marginal. I have always been bothered at the way that some
American smart growth planners go to the developed world and tell of
the “Nirvana” that has been achieved, for example, in Portland,
which in many respects is no different than any other American urban
area, and in fact, sprawls twice as much as Los Angeles for its size.

Whatever the final outcome of the smart growth versus economics
debate, western conventional planning principles are simply
inappropriate in a place like Lagos, with its uncontrolled growth.
Attempting to manage the growth of Lagos, except in the less
intrusive way, would (in my view) lead to massive disregard of the
law.

I recall one time being involved in a US State Department urban
planning seminar at which a planner from Manila indicated that their
first priority was to demolish the shantytowns that had grown up on
the rivers. There is a much more fundamental issue. Why do the
people live in shantytowns? Obviously because there has been
insufficient economic growth and it is thus the only choice. Where
would these people live if the shantytowns were demolished? He had
no answer, and my analysis of such situations is that the
shantytowns soon return, perhaps in different locations. Western
planning principles are simply unable to deal with such realities.

Solly Angel, who has done considerable work at the World Bank and
the United Nations suggests that urban planning in developing world
nations should be principally the identification (and later
building) a grid of major arterial streets. This is the first step
in providing the necessary infrastructure.

The transport problem virtually all large cities have (whether in
Nigeria or the West) is that they are too geographically expansive
for public transport to be an efficient, ubiquitous (door to door)
form of mobility. At the same time, with the exception of some
American urban areas, they are not geographically expansive enough
for the auto to work optimally. For all of the criticism of US urban
areas, work trip travel times here are better than anywhere else
when size of urban area is considered.

But back to ubiquitous mobility. This is not easy to provide in a
large urban area. The urban footprint of Lagos is at least 300
square km and perhaps even larger. No major urban area of that size
(or for that matter of any size) has the kind of ubiquitous public
transport system that I am referring to — one that gets you from
every point to every other point in the urban area in a time that is
competitive with personal modes (cars, taxis and motos). Manila,
which covers about 500 square km and has 17m people (don’t believe
the UN numbers, which exclude all of the spillover suburban
development outside the jurisdiction of Metro Manila) comes the
closest, with its jitney system that nearly provides ubiquitous
mobility. The problem in Manila is that the road system is so bad
that travel speeds are terrible. They could have used a “Solly
Angel” design 25 years ago. Of couse, Manila’s system (which has the
highest service level in the world, including Hong Kong) is based
upon inexpensive jeepneys, which are legal but certainly look
informal.

Regrettably, planners tend to focus on urban cores. The standard
urban transport planning regime for Lagos would be rail lines
leading to the main business centre on the island. In fact, though I
don’t have the data, my experience elsewhere would lead me to
believe that no more than 10 percent of the jobs are there and maybe
only 5 percent.

This, again, is where busways come it. To the extent that we can
improve public transport, through the most cost efficient means, we
will improve people’s lives and, delay their purchase of motos and
cars. But if we do not provide the ubiquitous public transport
systems that people need, they will buy cars and motos — that is
the experience in virtually every large urban area. Thus, it would
seem to me that low-cost busways (following the example of places
like Manaus and Porto Alegre, rather than the more expensive system
in Curitiba) would help. But, again, to make it work optimally, you
will need a grid that serves virtually everywhere and a strong
feeder service system — buses operating on ½ hour schedules will
not do. This means informal services feeding the busway. Of course,
this is theory, but I think this is the way to go.

But this takes me back to the principal issue — setting of
standards and objectives. For public transport to replace the
automobile or slow down its expansion, public transport service must
be ubiquitous. This is not so anywhere and is not even being aimed
for. But the following standards are needed (perhaps repeating
myself now).

1. Access Standard. X% of households shall be no more than Y
distance from a public transport stop (in the US, I would say 95
percent of households should be within 400 meters of a public
transport stop).

2. Service Level Standard: Service from each stop shall operate no
less than every X minutes during particular parts of the day. For
example, a reasonable standard would be service at least every 10
minutes from 5am to 10pm and every ½ hour in between.

3. Travel Time Standard: Travel times to all destinations (every
single square centimeter!) shall not exceed X minutes in a Y radius,
X1 minutes in a Y1 radius, etc. In the US, we could have a standard
that says travel times shall not exceed 20 minutes for 10 km, 30
minutes for 15, etc.

4. System Development: The standards above shall be implemented
within X years. This is a real issue. American urban areas are
rushing to build nearly random rail lines without any sort of longer
term vision (except to build, without particular reference to the
overall needs of customers). Those lines that are planned are many
years away. Contrast that with Bogota, where the busway was in
operation after just a few years and should be completed long before
a far more expensive Metro system would have been completed and
served much less of the population.

I know all of this sounds like a lot, but think of the service that
a moto or automobile provides.

1. Immediate access (not even a 400 meter walk)

2. Service available on demand (not every 5 minutes)

3. Fastest travel time to nearly all destinations.

4. It is available now… not in some transport plan that may or may
not ever be finished.

2007/12/14

Demographia Posts USA Household Debt to Income Ratios: 1945-2005

Demographia has posted household debt to income ratios for 1945 to the present, using data from the Federal Reserve Board and the National Income and Product Accounts (Available here).

Generally, household debt has risen strongly in recent years as housing prices have increased, especially in smart growth markets.

2007/12/12

Greenspan Wrong, Krugman Right on "Housing Bubble"

Re:
The Roots of the Mortgage Crisis
By ALAN GREENSPAN
December 12, 2007; Page A19

Former Federal Reserve Board Governor Alan Greenspan is wrong and liberal New York Times columnist is right on the “housing bubble.”

Writing in today’s Wall Street Journal, Greenspan says that he had expected Fed actions to “dampen the then mounting house price surge.” Greenspan goes on to blame global economic factors for the continuing rise in house prices.

Greenspan makes the same mistake so many other analysts have made before. It starts with the whole concept of the housing price surge or the “housing bubble.” As Paul Krugman has pointed out, there is none. Where the demand pressures are the greatest, metropolitan areas like Atlanta and Dallas-Fort Worth house prices have maintained their historic link to household incomes. The Median Multiple (median house price divided by median household income) has remained at 3.0 or below.

Krugman notes that prices have risen in what he calls the “zoned-zone,” where there is strong land use regulation (such as smart growth). Where land use regulation is not overly restrictive, prices have not risen. Even with sub-prime lending practices, metropolitan areas with reasonable regulation have been able to handle the higher demand.

Greenspan’s analysis of the housing market has been every bit as off the mark as that of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand, which has raised interest rates multiple times to bring house price rises under control. It helps to address the cause. Interest rates and Greenspan’s global economic factors have little influence where local planning authorities have made land for development scarce.

Excessive land regulation (call it smart growth, urban consolidation or compact city policies) is the problem. Housing affordability has been destroyed in many metropolitan areas and the overall economic impacts of the over-heated housing market it has generated are just beginning to be felt. The central bankers need to look much closer to home to solve the problem.

2007/12/06

My Amtrak Adventure

I flew to Baltimore-Washington international airport (BWI) on this trip to Washington, DC. My intention was to take Amtrak from Baltimore to Union Station in Washington.

Right away I was in luck. Amtrak was running predictably late, which meant that I didn’t have to wait another half hour for what was supposed to be a half hour trip. But on Amtrak, that's as much luck as you can hope for.

It was slowing lightly, though as slow as the train traveled one would think it was the Blizzard of ’88.

About half way to Washington the train stopped. We were advised that the train had hit a tree and that the engineer (driver) had to inspect the locomotive to make sure we could continue. This delay was fairly short.

Then as we neared Union Station the conductor made a few announcements, including…

There was more, About a mile before reaching Union Station, the train stopped again. The conductor came on and said that the engineer had heard something dragging under the train and he had to make another inspection (perhaps it was dismembered remains of the deceased tree). This delay was a bit longer.

Then we got to Union Station. All of the lights went off, except for the emergency lights, as they began to switch to diesel power for the trip to Richmond. We all had to line up and slowly proceed in the dark through the cars to the one door the “hours of service law” permitted to be opened. From the time we arrived at the platform at Union Station to the time that I was able to get off the train was a full 15 minutes.

It is to be hoped that the “hours of service law” will allow at least one door to open in Richmond. Assuming they get there.

All of this reminds me why a $70 taxicab ride is not such a bad deal for getting to Washington if you happen to use BWI.

Wendell Cox
Member,
Amtrak Reform Council
1999-2002

2007/12/05

Jerry Brown and GHG Ideology In San Diego

It seems that everyone knows what we have to do to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions --- Get out of our cars and into transit --- and move from our suburban detached houses to high-rise condominiums in the core. That is the basis of California Attorney General Jerry Brown’s intervention in the San Diego (SANDAG) regional planning process. This “back to the cave” mentality (or at least back to 1920 mentality) is both unnecessary and could lead to substantially less economic growth and higher levels of poverty.

There is no doubt that transit produces less in greenhouse gas emissions than cars in some applications and some corridors. The San Diego Trolley is a good example. However, trolleys cannot be built everywhere, not just because they cost so much, but also because the travel demand is simply not there. Local transit officials have built the trolley lines where demand is the greatest and the potential for reducing GHG emissions is the greatest. But there are serious limits to transit expansion.

The Attorney General may not be aware that cars are often more GHG friendly than transit. Outside New York, transit GHG emissions per passenger mile were virtually the same as cars in urban operation, based upon an analysis of 2005 US Department of Transportation and US Department of Energy data. Excluding the Trolley, transit services in the San Diego area emit more GHGs per passenger mile than cars.

The proposed federal 35 mile per gallon standard will reduce car GHG’s per passenger mile by 30 percent from present levels. Even more effective technology is on the way. Hybrid diesel cars entering the market in Europe next year will drop GHG’s per passenger mile a further 50 percent. The way forward is technological progress, not substantial life style changes.

Anyone who believes that people are going to abandon their cars for transit service that does take them where they are going or takes too long simply does not understand human behavior. Despite its substantial investment in transit, San Diego has the fourth worst traffic congestion in the nation, and things are only getting worse.

Moreover, the mobility that the car affords is crucial to the economy. International research demonstrates that metropolitan areas create more jobs and income where travel time is minimized. People use transit where it makes sense, but not where it doesn’t. University of California research suggests that a principal barrier to reducing minority unemployment is to make cars available. To keep traffic congestion under control, it will be necessary to continue investing in additional roadway capacity. This is also good for the environment, since air pollution and GHG emissions are far more intense where traffic becomes “stop and start.”

Then there is the matter of housing. It is not at all clear that single-family attached housing is produces more GHGs per capita than high-rise condominiums. Research in Sydney, Australia finds the opposite --- that GHG emissions per capita are substantially higher from high-rise condominium buildings than from single-family detached housing. The reason is the huge energy burden of common areas, shared services (such as central heating and air conditioning) and elevators, none of which are included from in US Department of Energy data for energy use by housing type.

There are those who believe that if we stop building additional highway capacity and traffic congestion gets bad enough, people will switch to transit. That is naïve. If traffic becomes bad enough, people and businesses will leave the area.

And, indeed, local smart growth policies are already driving people away from San Diego. The excessive regulations and land rationing of smart growth have driven housing prices to more than three times the level relative to incomes that occurs in markets with less severe regulation. San Diego County’s outward migration since 2000 is at or above the rate of Rust Belt Pittsburgh, Buffalo, Cleveland and Detroit.

The reality is that GHG emissions can be reduced substantially without seriously altering the way we live. What is needed is fact based strategies, not the tired ideology that has already done so much to increase traffic congestion and housing prices in San Diego (and to drive people away).

2007/12/03

Rental Car Tour: Manila: Rich and Poor

It is always preferable to end the first visit with some affection for an urban area and even a desire to stay longer. This is the feeling that I have had in leaving most urban areas. In only one case was no affection developed for the urban area, which is described in the Kolkata Rental Car Tour. In others, an attraction developed, but there was no reluctance to leave, such as in Mumbai. Manila is in the majority --- an affection was developed and I would have preferred to stay longer.

Arriving at Manila’s Nonoy Aquino International Airport evokes a sense of history more than most. The airport is named for Benigno (Nonoy) Aquino, the opposition leader who was assassinated at the airport upon his return to the Philippines in 1983. Events led eventually to stolen election (by President Ferdinand Marcos), his deposition, a peaceful revolution and the installation of Corazon Aquino, wife of Nonoy Aquino as president of the Philippines. The main thoroughfare of the urban area, EDSA (below) was the site of this peaceful revolution and another in 2001.

More, with 150 photos

2007/12/02

UK Cars Improving on GHG Emissions

Data provided to the private sector by the United Kingdom government provides an indication of estimated greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions per passenger kilometer of various transport modes.

Public transport is far more efficient in the United Kingdom than in the United States. As a result, the GHGs per passenger kilometer are substantially less. For example, US Metros (subways) emit 81 grams per passenger mile, 50 percent above the 53 figure in the United Kingdom. Light rail in the United Kingdom emits 65 grams per passenger kilometer, compared to 119 in the United States.

Despite the more efficient public transport operations in the UK, cars are becoming surprisingly competitive. Small hybrid cars produce less GHG than buses. The new hybrid-diesel cars will nearly equal the GHG efficiency of Metros. The European Union has established a 2012 goal for car emissions that would make them more GHG efficient than buses much more competitive with light rail.

An earlier posting reported that non-transportation emissions, from stations and maintenance are reported to add approximately 40 percent to public transport energy consumption, while 22 percent was added to cars.

Data and Notes

Transit Share Drops and Gas Prices Increase

The nation’s transit services continue to lose market share among their most important demographics. According to the American Community Survey of the US Bureau of the Census, transit’s share of work trips has fallen from 5.0 percent in 2000 to 4.8 percent in 2006. With the rapid rise in gasoline costs, it might have been expected that transit would finally turn around its persistent downward market share trend. But the data shows no such turnaround.

Of course, the principal problem is that transit is simply uncompetitive with automobile travel for most trips. There are the exceptions, such as travel to the nation’s largest downtown areas, such as Manhattan, Chicago’s Loop, downtown San Francisco, the Hub in Boston and Centre City in Philadelphia. Some transit services are competitive with, or better than the automobile to these downtowns. As a result half or more of commuters to these areas go to work by transit.

However, most employment is not in downtown areas. These large, successful transit-based downtown areas account for less than three percent of the nation’s employment. Yet, nearly one-third of the nation’s transit commuters travel to these locations to their jobs (see Commuting to Downtown and Elsewhere).

Transit has two fundamental problems. The first is that it doesn’t go where most people need to go. The second is that it cannot at a price any urban area in the world can afford (see: Megacities: Land Use and Transport). It’s time for the advocates of higher transit taxes to stop pretending that transit has any potential to reduce traffic congestion.

2007/11/30

Rental Car Tour: Mendoza: City of Trees

Setting

Mendoza is the capital of Mendoza province in Argentina. The urban area is located just to the east of the Andes Mountains at an elevation of approximately 2.500 feet (800 meters). The pre-cordillera of the Andes reaches 10,000 feet (3,200 meters) within 20 miles (32 kilometers) of Mendoza. Aconcagua, the highest mountain outside of Asia, reaches 22,841 feet (6,962 meters) is only 70 miles (110 kilometers) from Mendoza. Aconcagua, while on the crest of the Andes, is wholly within Argentina, rather than on the border with Chile.

More, with 82 photos

Rental Car Tour: Valparaiso-Vina del Mar: Urban Area on the Incline

Setting

Valparaiso-Vina del Mar is located on the Pacific Coast of Chile. The urban area is principally composed of three large municipalities, including Valparaiso, Vina del Mar and Quilpue. Much of the Valparaiso-Vina del Mar area is located on a narrow plain in front of steep hills. The city of Valparaiso is in the southern part of the urban area, mostly on a narrow plain along the Pacific Ocean, with the remainder on a steep rise of hills to the east. The city of Valparaiso is the historic, principal ocean port of Chile.

Vina del Mar is to the north along the coast. Vina del Mar is principally on flat land along the coast and a valley that extends to the east. Quilpue is located further inland, in a valley east of Vina del Mar.

The city of Valparaiso is the capital of Chile’s Valparaiso region (Slide: Regions of Chile). The city also shares national capital duties with Santiago, as the home of the National Congress.

More, with 182 photos

Rental Car Tour: Santiago: Favored Quarter, Favored Urban Area

What is the largest city in Chile? Few will get the answer right. Not even the respected international demographic website “citypopulation.de.” It shows the largest city in the country to be Santiago, with 4.7 million residents. Like many, “citypopulation.de” confuses the province of Santiago with the city of Santiago.

So what is Santiago? This is something of a mystery to many people. For the most part, Santiago refers to the urban agglomeration or metropolitan area that is the largest in Chile, with more than 5,000,000 residents.

More, with 244 photos

Rental Car Tour: San Diego: The End of Growth

There are few urban areas in the United States more highly favored than San Diego. San Diego is nearly universally considered a good place to live. It has one of the best climates in the nation. The Pacific Ocean keeps temperatures from getting as hot as in the desert, which is just over the mountains. In this regard, San Diego has a huge advantage over relatively nearby Phoenix and Las Vegas. Moreover, San Diego simply does not get very cold, which gives it a strong advantage over more northerly west coast urban areas like Portland, Seattle and Vancouver. Finally, rain and clouds are somewhat rare in San Diego, sparing it the grayness that drives depression and even suicide rates higher in places like Portland and San Diego. Then there is the matter of humidity. San Diego is not like Singapore, Miami, Houston or even Chicago or Toronto. This Mediterranean climate is largely devoid of humidity when the temperature is high.

Finally, the urban area that San Diego most resembles in climate, geography and topography, Los Angeles, has long since lost its former allure, due to its much larger population. Thus, San Diego is as popular among Los Angelenos as it is among residents of colder, more regions with more inclement weather.

Smart Growth and the End of Growth

San Diego, however, is not without its difficulties. This paradise of American urban areas has fallen into trends that should cause great alarm.

More at ... (with 113 photos)

Rental Car Tour: Trans Andes Highway (Chile-Argentina)

The Trans-Andes Highway:
Santiago/Mendoza/Valparaiso

An Intercity Rental Car Tour

Not all of the urban tours by rental car have been completed by rental car. This is principally because tourists are generally not allowed to rent cars in China, which has necessitated the use of taxis. This is the first urban tour by rental car that is not urban, though it is by rental car.

The Trans-Andean highway between Valparaiso/Santiago de Chile and Mendoza, Argentina is one of the world’s great drives. Separate rental car tours are being prepared for Santiago de Chile, Valparaiso and Mendoza. But the uniqueness of the scenery along the Trans-Andean highway and the importance of the route justify this intercity rental car tour.

More at

121 illustrations

2007/11/22

More Efficient Vehicles Blow Cover of Anti-Mobility Lobby

Honda has announced that it will begin marketing a hydrogen powered fuel-cell car in some California locations next year. Fuel-cell cars operate on hydrogen, which produces only water as exhaust and thus produces no carbon dioxide.

Fuel cells vehicles appear to have significant potential for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. They emit no greenhouse gases, however the production of the fuel involves emissions.

Virtual carbon neutrality can be achieved if hydrogen is manufactured with electricity generated by renewable sources, and in this situation fuel cell vehicles would equal the potential of “plug in” battery cars. Both technologies are some years away. However, the various GHG reduction targets being proposed are also some years away.

Honda, and other manufacturers are working on lower emission vehicles of various types. They are poised to show that cars are capable of achieving whatever reduction in greenhouse gas emissions is required in the longer run --- all of which is to prove anew that technology is the answer, despite the preference of the Jeremahs to view the world through sludge colored glasses.

All of this could take away greenhouse gas emissions cover as a justification in the anti-mobility, anti-car (for that matter, anti-economic growth and pro-poverty) agenda.

Honda Clarity

2007/11/21

Update on the URBAN TOURS BY RENTAL CAR Website

Our first Rental Car Tour --- on Sao Paulo --- was posted in September 2003 to the demographia.com website. A few months later, the rentalcartours.net website was established. In the intervening years, nearly 100 rental car tours have been posted.

The Rental Car Tours have attracted nearly 650,000 downloads since the beginning. The most popular have been (through 31 October):

49,800 – Mexico City
41,200 – Hong Kong
39,800 – Rio de Janiero
33,800 – Sao Paulo
25,200 – Miami
19,600 – Tokyo
18,600 - Paris
18,300 – London
17,100 – Toronto
16,800 – Montreal
15,900 – Curitiba
14,500 – Buenos Aires
14,100 – Cairo
13,700 – St. Louis
13,400 – South Bronx (New York)
12,900 – Mumbai
12,300 – Shenzhen
11,700 – Shanghai
10,700 – Seoul
10,700 – Rhine-Ruhr-Wupper (Essen-Dusseldorf)
10,300 – Guiangzhou

Since individual Rental Car Tours have been posted anywhere from more than four years ago to this last weekend, a better measure is the monthy volume. The most popular Rental Car Tours in monthly volume are:

1,173 – Mumbai
1,159 – Hong Kong
1,066 – Mexico City
829 - Cairo
794 – Rio de Janeiro
690 – Sao Paulo
650 – Chengdu
614 – Los Angeles
588 – Manila
535 – Shenzhen
525 – Miami
500 – Trans Andes Highway

The Trans Andes Highway Rental Car Tour, posted in October, has proven very popular. The partial November data already shows 1,000 downloads.

Statistics are available for all Rental Car Tours.

A new geographical index has been added to the site.

Thank you to all who have downloaded these articles.

Wendell Cox
20 November 2007

2007/11/04

Toward a Full Accounting of GHG Emissions in US Urban Transportation

Accounting for greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) is no simple matter in urban transportation. It is not as simple as the GHG emissions from the vehicles themselves. For example, there is the vehicle manufacturing process. There is also vehicle maintenance and the energy used to keep stations and administrative facilities open. There is simply no central source of information for such data, a situation that is a serious “GHG omission.”

Three decades ago, BART, the San Francisco area rapid transit system, published estimates of the full energy requirements for operating transit and cars, including such factors as vehicle maintenance, right of way maintenance, and stations. Generally, the analysis found that the rail mode required 41 percent more energy than is consumed in traction (transportation), buses 37 percent and cars 22 percent. These factors may be old, but they may be the only ones available (and it is possible that they are still valid).

If we assume the BART factors, then the comparison of GHG emissions between transportation modes in the United States is even more favorable for cars. The average 2006 car would emit 374 grams of GHG per passenger mile, compared to 322 for transit and 418 for transit outside New York.

The best hybrids could best transit in New York.

All of which points out the needed for objective, comprehensive analysis.

The previous post on GHG emissions by mode is shown below. The information in the previous post does not include any adjustment for vehicle maintenance, right of way maintenance, and stations. Its calculations apply only to transportation.

Summary

Despite perceptions to the contrary, there is little difference in greenhouse gas emissions between cars and public transport. On a per passenger mile basis, cars emit nearly the same GHGs per passenger mile as all public transport outside the New York urban area. Hybrid automobile technologies are already producing GHG emissions lower than the New York public transport figure.

Demographia has posted greenhouse gas (GHG) emission data for US public transport by mode and for personal mobility mechanisms (cars and SUVs). The data is for 2005 and is calculated using US Department of Transportation, US Department of Energy and US Environmental Protection Agency data.

The results may be surprising to any who have assumed that public transport is inherently less GHG intensive than cars.

These estimates include the GHG emissions from electricity consumption and fuel refining. A full life-cycle analysis would be preferable, which would include GHG emissions from construction of public transport and highway systems, construction of vehicles, extraction of fuel for electricity generation and refining, disposal of vehicles and other materials, vehicle maintenance and administrative support.

Toward a Full Accounting of GHG Emissions in Australian Urban Transport

Accounting for greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) is no simple matter in urban transport. It is not as simple as the GHG emissions from the vehicles themselves. For example, there is the vehicle manufacturing process. There is also vehicle maintenance and the energy used to keep stations and administrative facilities open. There is simply no central source of information for such data, a situation that is a serious “GHG omission.”

Three decades ago, BART, the San Francisco area rapid transit system, published estimates of the full energy requirements for operating public transport and cars, including such factors as vehicle maintenance, right of way maintenance, and stations. Generally, the analysis found that the rail mode required 41 percent more energy than is consumed in traction (transportation), buses 37 percent and cars 22 percent. These factors may be old, but they may be the only ones available (and it is possible that they are still valid).

If we assume the BART factors, then the comparison of GHG emissions between transport modes in Australia is even more favorable for cars. The average car would emit 229 grams of GHG per passenger kilometer, compared to 212 grams for buses and 148 grams for Sydney’s rail system. Cars meeting the 2010 National Average Fuel Consumption target would be better than both buses and rail in Sydney at 137 grams per passenger kilometer. The best hybrids could best buses by two-thirds and rail by one-half.

All of which points out the needed for objective, comprehensive analysis.

The previous post on GHG emissions by mode is shown below. The information in the previous post does not include any adjustment for vehicle maintenance, right of way maintenance, and stations. Its calculations apply only to transportation.

Guest Blog by Tony Recsei
Save Our Suburbs
Sydney

Public Transport Greenhouse Emissions Similar to Cars

Contrary to the repeated claims of high-density advocates that public transport travel is environmentally far superior to travel in cars, it has now been found that this is not the case. Greenhouse gas emission data posted by Demographia shows that the average petrol car in Australia in 2006 emitted 188 grams CO2 equivalent per passenger km and the figure for the more efficient cars now is as little as 60 grams.

These figures should be compared with the average bus in Australia which emits 155 grams CO2 equivalent per passenger km and with the 105 grams for traveling by rail in Sydney.

The emission figures of the Toyota Prius and the Peugeot hybrid diesel cars are indications that even the surprisingly small advantage of public transport could soon be eroded away by technology.

The reality that public transport use is not significantly more environmentally sustainable is of huge importance for planning policies. For the past two decades the NSW State Government has been implementing a policy of forcing high-density into communities. The principal foundation of these policies has been the allegation that people living in high-density will be able to travel more sustainably by public transport instead of by car. We now know this is not so.

The rationale for the despotic policies that have destroyed home ownership and grossly overloaded existing infrastructure is baseless.

2007/10/31

Australia: Public Transport Greenhouse Emissions Similar to Cars

Guest Blog by Tony Recsei
Save Our Suburbs
Sydney

Public Transport Greenhouse Emissions Similar to Cars

Contrary to the repeated claims of high-density advocates that public transport travel is environmentally far superior to travel in cars, it has now been found that this is not the case. Greenhouse gas emission data posted by Demographia shows that the average petrol car in Australia in 2006 emitted 188 grams CO2 equivalent per passenger km and the figure for the more efficient cars now is as little as 60 grams.

These figures should be compared with the average bus in Australia which emits 155 grams CO2 equivalent per passenger km and with the 105 grams for travelling by rail in Sydney.

The emission figures of the Toyota Prius and the Peugeot hybrid diesel cars are indications that even the surprisingly small advantage of public transport could soon be eroded away by technology.

The reality that public transport use is not significantly more environmentally sustainable is of huge importance for planning policies. For the past two decades the NSW State Government has been implementing a policy of forcing high-density into communities. The principal foundation of these policies has been the allegation that people living in high-density will be able to travel more sustainably by public transport instead of by car. We now know this is not so.

The rationale for the despotic policies that have destroyed home ownership and grossly overloaded existing infrastructure is baseless.

2007/10/09

GHG Dilemmas: Consigning China & India to Perpetual Poverty?

I was taken aback at a Melbourne conference sponsored by the Australian Financial Review. A questioner suggested that we need to recognize that third world nations will never be able to live at first world levels of affluence because of greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction policy. My response was simply that I doubted the Chinese and Indians would agree with that proposition.

Yet much of the current rhetoric on GHG reduction proceeds from this assumption, despite the fact that IPCC models and documents assume that strong economic growth will continue. Much of this has to do with the “hysterical” nature of the GHG reduction debate. For example, some observers blame global warming for Katrina’s destruction of New Orleans, rather than the Army Corps of Engineers and other government agencies that were remiss in their responsibilities to maintain the levees to withstand a category 3 hurricane (yes, a category 3 hurricane, not the category 5 hurricane that the hysterical so often disingenuously assign to Katrina). New Orleans was not a victim of climate change, it was a victim of government incompetence.

It is time to cut through the rhetoric. The Indians, Chinese and other lower income nation residents will not be satisfied to continue their less comfortable quality of life at the same time that Americans, Western Europeans, Japanese and Australians live their rich, comfortable lives. Nor should they. This is simply unsustainable.

Moreover, the political institutions of China and India are sustainable only if they facilitate the strong economic growth that their citizens have rightly come to expect. Simply reducing GHG emissions by reducing economic activity or controlling demand will not work. This does not mean that GHG emissions will continue to rise without limit --- technological advances can reduce GHG emissions while permitting economic growth to continue. This is the hope; it is the only hope.

For those inclined to “back to the cave” strategies that somehow imagine sacrifices being made by lower income nations, there is a single rhetorical question:

2007/09/28

GHG Emissions: From Hysteria to Hope

Summary

“Back to the cave” strategies are not required to reduce transportation GHG emissions. Nor is it necessary for developing world nations to accept the materially lower levels of economic growth that would inevitably occur from not pursuing personal mobility advances. It is appropriate to ask, “If Indians and Chinese are not to be allowed to live like Americans and Western Europeans, then when are Americans and Western Europeans going to begin living like Indians and Chinese?” Continuing advances in automobile technology and demonstrated advances yet to come in alternative fuels could reduce GHG emissions from cars so radically that there should be little concern about rising automobile use .

The parade of anti-automobile and anti-suburban greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reports has one thing in common --- major behavioral changes are going to be necessary. This type of analysis makes for headlines and is attractive to the more hysterical.

These proposed policies have a “back to the cave” ring about them. Whatever the anti-automobile, anti-suburban lobby opposes is not to be allowed. If that means that people are forced to take twice as long or longer to get to work because public transport takes so long, fine. If that means that they cannot even get to work, because there is no public transport service, no problem. If that means that, with fewer jobs and less time, people spend less money on the wide variety of services and products than were unimaginable a few decades ago, then fine. All of this “let’s outlaw what we don’t like” environmentalism is destructive and portends a mean (yes, “mean”) future.

However, as is inevitably the case when ideologies are confronted, the claims and assumptions of the anti-automobile, anti-suburban lobby are found wanting.

We have already detailed inconvenient truths to the extent that (1) high-density development is not more GHG friendly than low-density development and that (2) the GHG emission advantages of public transport over cars is small and fleeting.

The potential for reducing GHG emissions without reducing our mobility is already illustrated by the technological advances in cars. Hybrid cars are now achieving substantial reductions in GHG reductions. For example, a hybrid Toyota Prius produces less than one-half the emissions of the average car in city driving. That is just the beginning.

I know there are those who think that the developing world will never be able to live as well as we do in the developed world, because of the imperative for reducing GHG emissions. This assumption that the developing world must accept a long term economic condition below ours is elitist, unreasonable and, itself not sustainable. If Indians and Chinese are not to be allowed to live like Americans and Western Europeans, then when are Americans and Western Europeans going to begin living like Indians and Chinese?

Poverty is not an option. Technology is the answer and there is plenty of reason for great hope. Environmental sustainability cannot be achieved in a vacuum. Society must be rich enough to pay for it --- or it won’t, as the record of Soviet Eastern Europe demonstrated. Social stability depends on continued economic progress, as Benjamin Friedman stated so well in his The Moral Consequences of Economic Growth. It is time to acknowledge that the glass is at least 90 percent full, not the other way around.

2007/09/27

Transit’s GHG Reduction Role: No Big Deal

To Capitol Hill fanfare, the American Public Transportation Association released its new study, Public Transit’s Contribution to U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions on September 26.. The report is full of the usual big numbers for transit’s role in reducing greenhouse gases (GHGs). As is typical for reports covering the insignificant, the big numbers are never related to the much larger base of GHGs from personal transportation. If one believes the APTA numbers (which one does not, see below), transit use saves approximately 0.5 percent of GHGs attributable to personal transportation (cars, personal trucks or SUVs and transit).

There are problems even with that number. More than 40 percent of the “savings” is an exaggerated estimate of the congestion reducing GHG reductions of transit. There is no doubt that, without transit use, there would be more congestion near the cores of the nation’s largest downtown areas (Manhattan, Chicago’s Loop, Boston, Philadelphia and San Francisco, for example), but the impact would be slight in the rest of the county (places like Portland, Phoenix and perhaps Paducah), where the great bulk of the nation’s traffic congestion delay occurs. Randal O’Toole and I showed a similar estimate to be highly exaggerated in a Heritage Foundation paper The Contribution of Highways and Transit to Congestion Relief: A Realistic View three years ago.

All in all, a more reasonable figure for transit’s contribution might be 0.3 percent. Even that may be high. The APTA research only counts energy for propulsion (movement). Some estimates place the energy consumption at transit rail stations and maintenance facilities at a third above the propulsion figure.

But that opens a whole new area of inquiry --- full cost accounting of greenhouse gas emissions,. A full life-cycle accounting would include GHG emissions from construction of transit and highway systems, construction of vehicles, extraction of fuel for electricity generation and refining, disposal of vehicles and other materials, vehicle maintenance and administrative support.

However, the news out of APTA is not that transit saves so much in GHGs. It is rather that, even with exaggeration and an apparent error, it saves so little. And things will get worse. The United States might be thought of as two nations in transit --- New York and the rest of the country. In New York, transit plays a far more substantial role than anywhere else.

Predictably, transit in New York is very GHG friendly. New York’s GHG emissions are well less than one-half that of transit elsewhere (and cars).

Outside New York, the average automobile (not SUVs) is just about as GHG friendly as transit (see Greenhouse Gas Emissions: US Public Transport and Personal Modes).

However, even New York’s advantage may be fleeting. Cars are becoming more fuel efficient, which is indicated by the hybrid and hybrid diesel data. Toyota’s Prius produces only 10 percent more GHGs per passenger mile than transit in New York. Hybrid diesel cars just entering the European market emit 22 percent less.

So, as for transit’s contribution to GHG reduction --- interesting, but no big deal.

2007/09/25

Greenhouse Gas Emissions: US Public Transport & Personal Modes

2007/09/23

Greenhouse Gas Omissions: The “Growing Cooler” Report

Summary

Anti-suburban interests have published a new report, Growing Cooler, which wrongly suggests that it will be necessary to sharply reduce car use and undertake much more dense development to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Growing Cooler is more reflective of greenhouse gas omissions than of any rational policy with respect to reducing greenhouse gases. The report is based upon incomplete data, faulty assumptions and incomplete analysis. Adoption of its recommended strategies is likely to reduce economic growth, employment and increase poverty. Sustainability in environmental policy cannot be achieved without both economic and social sustainability.

Growing Cooler: The Evidence on Urban Development and Climate Change appears to be another attempt to advance the anti-mobility, anti-suburban agenda, this time under the cover of climate change (greenhouse gas emissions). Growing Cooler is more reflective of greenhouse gas omissions than of any rational policy with respect to reducing greenhouse gases. It was released by the Urban Land Institute, Smart Growth America, the Center for Clean Air Policy and the National Center for Smart Growth. Growing Cooler predictably suggests that car use must be curbed and that we must build densely to save the planet. Like so many agenda-driven reports, Growing Cooler tells only selected parts of the story, and even those not very reliably.

Greenhouse Gas Omissions

The greenhouse gas omissions of Growing Cooler start with housing, urban transport and economic growth (or poverty alleviation).

Housing: Growing Cooler implies that more dense development would be less greenhouse gas (GHG) intensive. That is not necessarily so, and certainly is not known at this point. Higher density requires construction of higher rise buildings. Construction produces GHG emissions. Does Growing Cooler assure us that the construction of higher-rise buildings will produce gains enough to offset any higher imagined GHGs from detached housing? No --- because there is no such data (Note 1). This is an important enough issue that such knowledge should precede adoption of any strategies that favor one form of housing over another.

Moreover, Australian research shows that, once housing is constructed, GHG emissions per capita are higher in mid-rise and high-rise condominium buildings than in detached and attached suburban housing. A principal reason is that common (shared, rather than billed to households individually) GHG emissions are so high (halls, elevators, parking lots, heating, cooling, etc.). Shared GHG emissions can exceed the consumption per capita of households in the same buildings.

The situation in the United States? No one knows. There is data for detached and multi-unit housing in the United States, but these US Department of Energy estimates exclude shared energy consumption. If shared GHG emissions are anywhere near those in Australia, detached housing is likely to be less GHG intensive than high rise condominium buildings. This is before taking into consideration the significant GHG reduction advances that are being incorporated into new detached houses.

Urban Transport: Urban transport has its own construction issues. Constructing the urban rail systems favored by the anti-suburban lobby produces so much in GHG emissions that the savings from attracting drivers from cars may never be recovered. The US federal government found that a Seattle light rail line would require 45 years to pay back the GHG emissions produced in construction (Note 2). If one accepts the Growing Cooler projections (which I do not) rail-based urban transport policies would probably leave 2050 GHG emissions from cars and transit every bit as high as the “business as usual” case Growing Cooler uses as a “whipping boy.”

Economic Growth and Poverty Alleviation: Growing Cooler, like nearly all similar publications, virtually ignores the economic impacts of its proposed policies Yet, there are potentially devastating economic impacts.

It starts with exploding house prices, which result from excessive land regulation and banning development on the low cost land that makes affordable housing possible. For example, it costs little more to build a house in San Diego than in Atlanta, but the land in San Diego is at least $250,000 more costly. These kind of land price differentials are unprecedented and they are the direct result of land use restrictions. Metropolitan areas that have severe land use regulation, including smart growth, have seen their housing prices increase more than $100,000 since 2000 compared to areas with more traditional regulation. Smart growth’s land rationing policies have already exacted a huge cost. The policies Growing Cooler favors would spread those economic losses to parts of the nation where housing still remains affordable.

Forcing people to spend more time traveling --- an inevitable consequence of substituting transit use for car use --- would reduce the time people have for productive activity. That means less economic activity, less economic growth, fewer jobs and more poverty (Note 3).

The anti-suburban lobby never has understood the strong association between the unprecedented, broad economic prosperity and reduction of poverty achieved in the West and Japan and the simultaneous expansion of personal mobility and home ownership on cheap suburban land. There can be arguments about the extent of this relationship, but one thing is clear. The prosperity-suburban association should not be omitted from the GHG emissions discussion.

Logical Omissions

Growing Cooler and similar reports start with a fundamentally flawed assumption --- that transit use produces a substantial reduction in GHG emissions relative to cars. Think again. According to data published by the United States Department of Energy, cars (not SUVs) are more fuel efficient (read emit less GHGs per passenger mile) than transit buses. Outside New York, cars are only 10 percent more GHG intensive than transit. Moreover, cars are getting more fuel efficient. Peugeot will soon be marketing a compact car that will be less GHG intensive than transit in New York. This is no small accomplishment, and it is just the beginning

Other Omissions

Growing Cooler, like other agenda driven reports, uses selective data to paint a far darker picture than is plausible.

Noting that transportation accounts for a “full third” of US GHG emissions (Note 4), Growing Cooler paints an overly negative picture of US automobile impacts and trends. In a significant GHG omission, Growing Cooler does not tell us that automobiles and SUV’s account for only about half that figure. Airliners, trucks and trains ---the other half --- are not cars.

Growing Cooler notes that annual miles traveled have increased three times more than population growth since 1980. There are far more important indicators than population growth. Miles traveled has increased only one-tenth more than employment and only one-quarter more households. These figures, of course, are a small fraction of “three times more”.

Part of the increase in driving has occurred because the number of ethnic minority households with cars has increased. Would the Urban Land Institute, Smart Growth America, the Center for Clean Air Policy and the National Center for Smart Growth be happier if African-Americans and Hispanics had less access to cars and had an even larger income gap relative to white non-Hispanics? In 1980, 9,000,000 fewer women had drivers licenses than men. By 2005 women held as many drivers licenses as men. Would it be better for the clock to be rolled back on the advancement of women?

A Complex and Serious Issue

GHG emissions policy is challenging, serious and complex. Things are not always as they seem. It would be a mistake for policy makers, like naïve converts on foreign shores, to accept the “feel-good” doctrines of this anti-suburban missionary society.

Consumption is the Driver: It is important to know what we are doing. It starts will a full understanding of what drives GHG emissions throughout all sectors of the economy. Of course, it all comes down to consumption. Greenhouse gases are produced for consumption, whether it is for mobility to jobs or shopping, to produce food or to provide for the national defense. At the same time, it would be a grave mistake to suggest that consumption should be reduced. The very sustainability of modern society requires a high level of employment, which any serious reduction of consumption would destroy.

Life Cycle Analysis: Moreover, it is important to ensure a full life-cycle analysis. This requires including all GHG emissions, from the extraction and manufacturing processes, to fuel consumption and eventual disposal. Life-cycle analysis needs to be applied to every sector. Without that kind of an inventory, serious mistakes are likely to be made. It is an understatement of serious proportions to state that no such inventory or information exists.

Rational Strategies: There are economic consequences to virtually everything that produces GHGs. GHG reduction policy will have serious consequences (negative externalities) unless it starts with objective, rigorously developed and comprehensive inventories based upon consumption. Every gram of GHG emissions should be allocated to a household, whether from direct or indirect consumption.

Environmental, Economic and Social Sustainability: From analysis based upon such inventories, it will be possible to identify the best strategies based upon effectiveness ---- those that are most consistent with the maximum economic growth and poverty alleviation. This is a radically different approach from the knee-jerk, agenda based measures the anti-suburban lobby would like to see imposed. But it is the only way to reduce greenhouse gas omissions in a way that is environmentally, economically and socially sustainable.
__________
Notes

Note 1: I say “imagined” because new detached housing is often 70 percent more fuel efficient in its operation than previous designs.

Note 2: Actually the case endorsed by the Federal Transit Administration was overly generous to the rail project. It assumed that a substantial amount of the electricity used to operate the trains would be produced by hydro. In fact, virtually all new electricity production for years in the Seattle area has been by fossil fuel (including natural gas). This would materially lengthen the payback period. Further, the 45 year time frame did not include energy that would be required for the inevitable refurbishing of the system and subsequent vehicle car production.

Note 3: Generally, travel by transit takes twice as long as travel by car, even where roads are congested. There are exceptions, the most obvious being travel into Manhattan, where the high density of rapid transit systems and, just as importantly, the intense concentration of jobs make it possible for many transit trips to take less time than commuting by car. It is infeasible to build this intensity of transit to anywhere except the largest downtown areas (central business districts). Our research suggests that a transit system capable of replacing car use throughout would cost a major European or American urban area 50 percent of its gross domestic product annually --- hardly an achievable amount.

Note 4: Actually, United States Environmental Protection Agency data indicates that transportation accounted for less than a full third (33.3 percent) of GHGs. In 2003, 2004 and 2005 transportation accounted for 26 percent of gross GHG emissions and under 30 percent of net GHG emissions.

Comments to demographia2@earthlink.net

2007/09/21

IBM-Lotus Symphony: A Real Loser

At the outset, let me say that I, more than anyone, want to be freed from the tyrrany of Microsoft.

I have been frustrated with their operating systems and programs to the point of actually buying a top of the line Apple a few years ago. That experiment ended a couple of months later when, having returned from my yearly assignment in Paris, I determined that I was more productive on a French keyboard. That’s not Apple’s fault. It’s just that the conversion simply was not worth the pain. My sister, who had long wanted an Apple, was quite pleased to take it off my hands.

I have continued to use the latest version of Lotus 123, which despite its 7-year age remains far superior to Microsoft’s juvenile “XL” product.

So it was with great satisfaction that I learned there was an alternative. Within minutes of finding out that IBM-Lotus Symphony was free on the web, I was downloading. I wasn’t even bothered that it took the better part of 30 hours and 8 attempts to get a copy that would work.

It took a fraction of that time to determine that this product is a loser, unless one returns to the information technology crib and pretends that there was no reality before it.

The following tests were more than enough to find better use for the precious space it would have consumed on my hard disk.

1. The word processing program imports only the simplest Word files. Virtually none of my tested files of more than a few pages could be loaded by Symphony. The limit appears to be somewhere below 20K (yes, that is a “K”). It was possible to “paste” longer files into a Symphony file, but it was then impossible to save them. Moreover, Symphony was generally unable to save into Word format and even failed sometimes to save into its own “odp” format.

2. The spreadsheet program suffers from the same deficiencies and more. Only the simplest files from “XL” can be loaded into Symphony. Any more complicated brings an error message. Perhaps the ultimate insult was that this Lotus spreadsheet does not even support Lotus 123 files.

3. The presentation program rounds out a perfect score of zero. Again, only the simplest Powerpoint files can be loaded onto Symphony. It appears to be impossible to copy a slide from Powerpoint to Symphony.

Granted, I am a very heavy user, with files that can easily run to 100 or more megabytes. There was no point in trying out any of those.

So the simple advice is this. If you are more than 12 years old and have had a computer for more than a week, IBM-Lotus Symphony is probably a mistake.

That is really too bad. I’d gladly pay for an office suite that lived up to its claims.

Comments to: demographia2@earthlink.net

2007/07/24

Overvalued Housing a Threat to the World Economy

To the Bank for International Settlements
Basle

Re: Annual Report

Dear Sir or Madame:

We note your concern in the Annual Report about the potential long term economic risks arising from the rise in house prices in response to interest rates and more liberal loan products in the United States. However, much of the increase in housing prices may be the result of regulatory factors, rather than financial market factors.

In recent years, the US housing market has developed into two very different sectors --- one sector has the severe overvaluation that rightly concerns you, while the other sector has had minimal housing inflation. This is not always obvious to analysts, because the huge price increases in the escalating markets have bloated the average national house price.

The same differing trends have occurred in Canada, where some markets are severely overvalued, while others continue to exhibit reasonable house prices. However, in Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom, the house price run-up has been pervasive, occurring in virtually all major markets.

This does not dilute your concerns in any way. Asset overvaluation in places like California, Oregon and New York pose a risk to the stability of the US economy, while overvaluation in markets like Vancouver presents risks to the Canadian economy.

However, prices have not increased materially in many markets. Perhaps the most important examples are high-demand markets as Atlanta, Dallas-Fort Worth, Houston (the three fastest growing over 5,000,000 population markets in the high-income world), Austin and Ottawa.

In each of the severely escalating markets in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand, there is a shortage of land for residential development. This is not a geographical or topographical shortage, it is rather an artificial shortage, imposed by stringent urban planning policies (which may be called “smart growth,” “urban containment” or “urban consolidation”). Development bans apply to large swaths of perfectly suitable land. Further, many of these markets have experienced exorbitant fee increases on new development. Overly lengthy, expensive bureaucratic procedures are also typical. All of these factors raise prices. When the financial market induced demand increase emerged, supply in these inflexible markets was unable to respond sufficiently, and prices rose inordinately.

On the other hand, many US and Canadian markets handled the increased demand in a healthy manner, consistent with historic ratios. These markets generally have more liberal residential development regimes. Where supply has been allowed to respond, the more intense demand has produced little upward pressure on prices.

Kate Barker, a member of the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England has documented the inflationary impact on housing of Britain’s land use regulations (under the “Town and Country Planning Act”). Further, Arthur Grimes, chairman of the board of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand has found that regional land use restrictions has been a principal driver of house price inflation in the Auckland (references to these studies are below).

House cost escalation has been so severe that paying for the median priced house, including interest, will cost between five and 10 years of additional median household income in all Australian markets compared to just a decade ago (including mortgage interest and both inflation and income adjusted). In some California markets, the additional costs range from 10 to more than 15 years (San Diego, Los Angeles, San Francisco and San Jose). Removing this amount of discretionary income from households cannot but have a dampening impact on future economic growth and job creation.

A related demographic shift is already underway in the United States, with more than 3,500,000 domestic migrants moving from the most expensive California and Northeastern markets to less expensive markets, according to US Bureau of the Census estimates for 2000 to 2006.

There is good reason to conclude that house asset overvaluation in the surveyed nations is more a result of restrictive land use policy than higher demand from financial market factors. More liberal lending environments and the resulting rising demand has impacted all markets. However, inordinate house cost escalation has occurred only in those markets in which there are serious land use restrictions. Where such restrictions are not in place, housing prices have remained under control.

Thus, the issue of development restrictions is deserving of more formal and serious attention by central banks.

These data are outlined in our “,” 3rd International Housing Affordability Survey which includes Median Multiples (median house prices divided by median household income) in 159 markets in six nations (United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Ireland).

Please let me know if you have any questions or comments.

Best regards,

Wendell Cox
Co-author, Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey

Cc: Hugh Pavletich, Co-author (Christchurch, NZ)

References:

Barker Report on Land Use Planning in the United Kingdom

Barker Report on Housing Supply in the United Kingdom

Housing Supply in the Auckland Region

Copies of this letter have been sent to:
Federal Reserve Board of the United States
Bank of England
Bank of Canada
Reserve Bank of Australia

2007/07/23

Say Good-Bye to Your Father's Buick
(The Olds Is Already Gone)

Bringing Home a Good Lesson Learned in China

An interesting article.

Dont doubt that Buick and Pontiac will go the way of Oldsmobile and close, while Chevrolet sinks further into selling a morass of poorly designed larger cars and nondescript small ones that can't compete with Suburu and Hyandai, much less Honda and Toyota. Impalas and Malibus that are a shadow of their former selves... forgettable Cobalts and Avelopes, or something like that?

That leaves us Cadillac and Saturn, which pretty well cover the American market as it has deteriorated for the American manufacturers. Of course, Cadillac is really no longer a luxury brand (in the ilk of BMW, Mercedes or Lexus), but it qualifies as a decent Olds. Saturn provides a moderate quality small car for those who, for whatever reason, are still willing to give American manufacturers a chance, even after all of their customer abuse.

I realized that there wasn't the slightest hope that the American manufacturers would ever recover when GM started its "Mr. Goodwrench" ads just a few years ago. Mr. Goodwrench? Why would I want to know an auto mechanic? My Japanese cars dont know auto mechanics. I recall my father's generation, many of whom really did have a relationship with car mechanics. The Japanese, for all of their problems, showed us that this was an unnecessary addiction. Thank God, an increasingly large share of the market no longer has the patience for such foolishness.

Count me out.