Sound Transit Horror Stories: Letter from Seattle

Sound Transit's Rail Projects
Sounder Commuter Rail and Link light Rail as of 2008
12 years into its Sound Move Ten Year Plan (1996-2006)

By Emory Bundy
Sounder commuter rail

Sounder commuter rail

Although it absorbs the smaller portion of Sound Transit's funds--which mostly are allocated to Link light rail--Sounder commuter rail has the merit of having actually been put into operation. So there's a functioning entity to measure and evaluate. Its performance anticipates that of Link light rail.


Sound Transit's promises for Sounder commuter rail in the Sound Move Ten Year Plan tax package of 1996:

*82 miles in length, Everett to Lakewood
*Completed and fully operating in 2002, with 15 daily trains, 9 between Lakewood and Seattle, 6 Everett to Seattle
*Capital cost, $650 million
*Annual operating cost as of the benchmark year 2010, $10 million
*Ridership in 2010, 3.8 million boardings
*Farebox recovery, 27.5% of operating costs.

The record to date:

*75 miles of track completed
*10 of the15 daily trains are in operation , 7 from Tacoma to Seattle, 3 from Everett to Seattle
*Capital cost: $1.25 billion projected through 2010, with $1.1 billion more to follow via Phase 2 funds (second tax package, adopted 2008). The components to complete the Phase 1 $650 million capital development plan will cost approximately $1.8 billion, a $1.15 billion, 177% cost overrun.

*Completion of the 82 miles, promised by 2002, now is targeted for 2012-13.
*Operating costs exceed $30 million, triple the original projections--absorbed by only two-thirds of the promised daily trains.
*Annual ridership is 2.67 million, 70% that projected
.*Farebox recovery is 13% of operating costs, half the target

Most of the additional capital cost for Phase 2 is allocated to develop parking facilities added since the original Sound Move Ten Year Plan. Whereas much was made of "transit oriented development" at the outset--with images of people strolling, or perhaps biking to their handy train stop--virtually all Sounder's patronage is dependent on free, handy parking. People are enabled to live hither and yon, drive their SUVs and pickups to Sound Transit's far-flung parking lots and structures, and park free, in order to benefit from an enormously subsidized rail trip. Doug MacDonald, former Washington State Secretary of Transportation, and former Sound Transit board member, aptly dubbed Sounder, "Sprawl Rail."

"Transit-oriented development," doesn't mean live near your rail transit stop and get rid of your automobile. Were that the case, huge sums for parking facilities would be unnecessary. Rather, it means subsidies for commercial development near the stations, in addition to subsidies for the train system and its operations. E.g., there's a "transit-oriented development" in Kent, Kent Station. The municipality purchased the real estate for $15 million, spent $2 million for environmental remediation, and sold it to the developer for $5 million. Sound Transit then relocated its planned 800-stall parking garage to the opposite side of the tracks--where it brings traffic closer to downtown Kent--so the Kent Station developer could use the parking garage, free, for its customers.

The arrangement works because the clientele of Kent Station has virtually no relationship to that of Sounder. This is dramatized by the anchor tenant, a 13-screen cineplex. Since Sounder operates only during work day commuting hours, and people go to the movies evenings and weekends, Sounder patrons and movie-goers drive to and from the garage servicing Sounder's station and Kent Station without competing for parking spaces. Kent Station has almost nothing to do with transit, save the coming of Sounder provided a rationale for subsidizing the mall developer.


Central Link light rail

The vision of Link light rail was that of a 125-mile network linking all the major centers in the Central Puget Sound region (Snohomish, King, and Pierce counties). After several losses at the polls, a scaled-back 21-mile ten year "starter rail" plan was proposed, and the taxing authority was approved by public vote in 1996.

Central Link light rail was to run from the University District in north Seattle to South 200th, a short distance south of Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, at a cost of $2.3 billion. It was to be completed and operating in ten years, 2006, and demonstrate how well Sound Transit could build and operate a rail line. With this "test drive," the public could kick the tires and have confidence in approving additional, Phase 2 taxes for the rest of the 125-mile network, to completed and operating in 2020.

With great fanfare and bragging, a so-called Initial Segment of Central Link light rail (i.e. the "initial segment" of the "starter rail"), from downtown Seattle to Tukwila, will go into service in the summer of 2009, and be extended a short distance to the Sea-Tac Airport in 2010. Sound Transit then hurried to obtain its Phase 2 taxing authority, negating the public's opportunity to evaluate its Phase 1 performance. Initial Segment covers the cheapest, easiest portion of the promised Central Link segment, will cost as much as the proffered price of all Central Link, and is projected to have one-quarter the ridership promised in 2010. Also, four stations have been eliminated, and only 12 will be completed--four of them stations in the Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel, originally built and financed nearly two decades ago.


For an additional $1.9 billion, Sound Transit plans to add two more of the Central Link stations by 2016, and reach the University of Washington's football stadium. At that point the $2.3 billion project, to be completed in 2006, will have reached neither end of the Central Link line (NE 45th in the U District and South 200th, south of Sea-Tac), it will have cost $4.4 billion, and be missing 7 promised stations. That will have exhausted the Sound Move Phase 1 taxes, even though extended for 10 years in addition to the original 10 years. Reaching the NE 45th and South 200th termini, now targeted for 2020, will add well over $1 billion, supplemented by Phase 2 taxes. As of 2020, for roughly $6 billion, Sound Transit's Central Link light rail is now scheduled for completion, 14 years late, absent 5 of the promised 21 stations, with a $3.7 billion cost overrun.

The Central Link ridership promised in 2010, 32 million boardings, won't be approached by 2020, with a system that will cost at least 2.6 times as much. Operating costs will be multiples of those projected, and the share covered by the farebox--forecast at 53%--will be but a small fraction.

As for the Phase 2 additions, which was supposed to complete the 125-mile light rail network by 2020, if all goes according to the current plan, only 50 miles will be completed by 2030. The cost per-station for that Phase 2 is projected at $650 million. For Phase 1, Central Link, the cost-per-station will be roughly $300 million, versus an original estimate a tad higher than $100 million.


In sum, the introduction of the two rail systems in the Central Puget Sound counties, is a slow, disruptive process, costing huge sums to build and operate. The bottom-line effect will be to degrade the already inadequate productivity of the public transit system. The time, money, effort, and distraction will add so little to transit ridership that the effect on the region's mobility will be indiscernible--save for the immense "opportunity costs," the resulting inability to make productive use the financial resources.

The attached graphs illustrate the trajectory of transit ridership, and the share of the region's entire transportation funding allocated to transit from local, state, and federal sources. Forty years ago transit received 29% of the funding, and delivered 6% of the transportation market share. If Sound Transit performs as well as it hopes to, and if the idealized smart growth land uses are fully adopted, by 2030 transit will serve 4% of the transportation market share, and absorb more than two-thirds of the region's transportation dollars.

Seattle Three County Transportation Tax Revenues
Seattle Transit Market Share: 1965-2040

Mitsubishi 60 Gram Car

Mitsubishi has announced development of a lithium battery driven car, to be sold within two years. The car, the "MIEV Plug-In Electric First Drive" would travel as much as 100 miles (160 kilometers) between charges.

United States Data and Comparisons: GHG Emissions per Passenger Mile/Passenger KM are indicated below (From power plants - variation is due to mix of fuel sources used in producing electricity)

Average United States: 61 grams/37 grams
Lowest (Vermont): 1.4 grams/0,7 grams
Highest (North Dakota): 102 grams/62 grams

The average GHG reduction compared to the current US automobile and sport utility vehicle fleet average would be 83 percent.

European Union Comparison The MIEV would be 40 percent less GHG intensive that is required by the newly adopted European Union fuel economy requirements for 2020 (the equivalent of 101 grams per passenger mile or 62 grams per passenger kilometer).

The above calculations assume the US national vehicle occupancy rate of 1.6. The comparison to the present fleet includes upstream production and transport activities.

Mitsubishi MIEV Site

Edmunds Review

Serious Questions About “A Heavy Load” Report

Serious Questions About “A Heavy Load” Report

A report by the Center for Housing Policy relies on data that is at odds with consumer expenditure data as reported by the US Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. The report modeled transportation data that was readily available in consumer expenditure reports. The Center’s report generally puts the cost of transportation at more than double the figures reported by the Department of Labor. As a result, it would appear that the report, A Heavy Load is of dubious value.


Recently, the Center for Housing Policy issued a report on the costs of housing and transportation to American households in metropolitan areas (A Heavy Load: The Combined Housing and Transportation Burdens of Working Families. The report found, among other things, that transportation represents a larger share of household income in a number of metropolitan areas. Moreover, a thesis of the report seems to be that people who move farther away from their jobs to obtain less expensive housing end up spending most of the savings on additional transportation costs.

It is worthy of note that the figures developed by the Center for Housing Policy are considerably at odds with the Consumer Expenditure reports of the U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics. For example, among the seven metropolitan areas that the Center singles out for detailed analysis, the share of household income committed to housing averages 28 percent, while the share committed to transportation amounts to 31 percent. Data from the 2004 Consumer Expenditure report indicates rather more moderate figures --- 22 percent for housing and 12 percent for transportation.

What is the difference. To start, the Center used 2000 Census information (1999 data) for consumer expenditures on transportation. It is fair to suggest, however, that the authoritative source for consumer expenditures is the Consumer Expenditures report and its data is five years more current. The Center used a modeling technique to estimate the transportation expenditures, which it notes was “peer reviewed.” This was a wholly unnecessary exercise, since 1999 transportation expenditure data was directly available from the Consumer Expenditure report for that year.

Moreover, the Center notes that lower income households spend a larger share of their incomes on housing and transportation. True enough. The Center estimates that households with incomes from $20,000 to $35,000 spend from 54 percent to 70 percent of their income on housing and transportation. The 2004 Consumer Expenditures report shows that households with incomes of $20,000 to $30,000 (the closest approximation to the Center’s $30,000 to $35,000 classification) have total household and transportation expenditures of 49 percent --- below the low range estimate in the Center’s report.

None of this is to dispute the fact that housing and transportation costs are a burden for lower income households. It is simply to point out that the data in A Heavy Load is at considerable odds with the Consumer Expenditure report and may not be appropriate for serious consideration.

A Heavy Load makes a very useful recommendation: “Policies to encourage car sharing or make car ownership more accessible and affordable (through subsidized loans or insurance, for example) could go a long way to reducing the transportation cost burdens of Working Families.” Amen to that. Research by the Brookings Institution and the Progressive Policy Institute has come to similar conclusions.

However, A Heavy Load slips into the usual hopeless rhetoric about improving mass transit for commutes to suburban areas. If mass transit could be made competitive with the automobile for employment locations outside downtown areas, then people would use it for such commutes. Nearly three years ago, we issued a challenge to the transit industry to propose an automobile competitive transit service design for an entire urban area. Not a a single serious reply has been received. There is good reason for the silence. Automobile competitive mass transit service cannot be provided for a price that can be afforded, except to downtown. Even the Center’s report finds average transit commutes to approach or even double average car travel times. Working households choose cars because they minimize their transportation burden, by providing far more time for household activities and leisure.


However, whatever the reality, the fact is that people often move farther away from their jobs to obtain better housing at a lower cost. They do so in the full knowledge that their commuting costs will be higher. In the longer run, many may change jobs and restore lower commuting costs by working closer to home, a choice made possible by the dispersal of employment locations. This factor is an important reason why American urban areas have such short average commute times by international standards.

Finally, A Heavy Load uses 1999 data that does not reflect the huge runup in housing prices that have occurred, principally in areas that have adopted authoritarian planning practices, such as the more draconian “smart growth” measures. Perhaps the greatest threat to the future expenditures of lower and middle income households is the escalating housing prices that have been generated by these opportunity destroying policies. For example, the average household buying the median priced house in 2004 in the San Francisco area will pay, at least $600,000 more in mortgage payments and capital costs than if the house had been bought in 1999. This is a price not even Hugo Chavez or OPEC can match. Over the same 30 years, the average household can be expected to pay less than $11,000 more on gasoline due to the gasoline price increases over the same 1999-2004 period.

Originally posted to On the Heartland: 2006.10.14

Coordinating Land Use & Transport

One of the most enduring urban planning mantras is coordinating land use and transportation. While no one can dispute the desirability of coordinating land use and transport, the current strategies do exactly the opposite. That is because urban planning has been captured by an anti-automobile dogma that has the equation backwards. The idea is to locate as much as possible and densify adjacent to existing transportation infrastructure. The result, of course, is to significantly increase transportation demand.

However, the demand side is never addressed. When densities are intensified, more intense roadway systems are required. Failing to expand the roadways means that traffic congestion gets worse and that transport and land use have demonstrably not been coordinated. The planners may try to address the heightened demand by adding transit service or rail lines, but that is like attempting to reduce traffic congestion by increasing the frequency of garbage collection --- one has nothing to do with the other. The reality of the modern, large urban area is that people need to travel throughout to undertake their activities and to spur the economic growth that has produced an unprecedented expansion of jobs and affluence, while making poverty less of an issue than ever before. That cannot be done on transit.

Coordination of land use and transportation requires that sufficient practical transportation capacity be provided to support the land uses. If an area, such as Portland, seeks to densify, then it had better be prepared to expand and intensify its roadway system to maintain or improve reasonable traffic flows. Of course, Portland has failed to do that, has some of the worst traffic congestion among urban areas of its size and is losing businesses because of it.

Before today’s planners set about trying to coordinate land use and transport, they need to understand what it means.

Time Lost in Transit: Drag on Canadian Economy

Time Lost in Transit: Drag on Canadian Economy

It’s time to stop pretending about transit. That is the message of the new Statistics Canada data that shows the average transit commuter spends three hours more time weekly traveling between home and work than the average automobile driver or rider. The complete story is outlined in my National Post oped Travel Times Prove Transit a Non-Starter. The National Post is Canada’s second largest national newspaper.

School Buses: Most Used Form of Mass Transit

Most people, if asked, would probably respond that buses or subways are the most frequently used method of mass transit in the United States. They would be wrong. One of the best kept secrets in transportation statistics is the extent of school bus ridership. Part of the reason is that statistics are not as readily available as for school buses as they are for other modes of transport. Every school day, school buses carry 65 percent more travel than the nation’s transit buses, subways (metros), light rail, trolleybuses (electric buses), commuter rail and dial-a-ride services combined.

Of course, many school buses are operating in rural areas. Yet, even in urban areas, school buses carry a huge volume of travel. On school days, school buses operating in the nation’s urban areas carry 85 percent as much travel as all transit bus and rail services combined.

Sometimes it is suggested that school buses services should be merged into transit agencies, to save money. However, that would hardly do, since transit expenditures per passenger mile are approaching three times that of school buses. Transfering transit services to school districts would make more sense.

Originally posted to On the Heartland: 2006.07.15

Improved Transport Infrastructure a Necessity

UPS Chairman and CEO Michael Eskew recently addressed the Philadelphia World Affairs Council on the importance of transportation infrastructure to the nation’s economy. Eskew is in a good position to talk about that subject, since his company is one of the largest trucking companies in the world, runs the world’s 9th largest airline and is the nation’s largest user of freight railroads.

Eskew notes that the nation’s freight transportation system --- its highway, navigable waterway freight rail and air system --- has received poor or even failing grades in an American Society of Civil Engineers 2005 review. This is just the beginning of his concern. China, increasingly America’s most dynamic competitor, is building new seaports, expanding its rail system and is in the process of developing an interstate standard highway system more extensive than our own Eisenhower system.

There is no doubt that globalization is going to make the world a richer place. That does not mean, however, that nations, like the United States, that are on top now will continue to occupy such positions. Continued investment is required. Traffic in urban areas is frequently congested. This means that it takes longer to move freight, which means it is more costly. It also impedes productivity. Studies in Portland and Vancouver, where public officials have systematically discouraged highway expansion, demonstrate the importance of expanding urban highways and keeping the traffic moving.

A University of Paris study showed that as urban travel improves --- as people are able to access more jobs in a fixed period of time (such as 30 minutes) --- there is an increase in economic output.

Texas Transportation Institute data shows that the share of urban travel in congested conditions has risen from 20 percent to over 50 percent in just 20 years. This has occurred principally because urban highways have not been expanded sufficiently to meet the demand. As a result, the nation loses more than $60 billion in congestion costs every year. However, that will only get worse. Many urban areas intend to spend few of their resources on the highway capacity improvements that are the only hope for addressing traffic congestion.

There is an important exception, however, The state of Texas, at the direction of Governor Rick Perry, is undertaking the nation’s first serious program to reduce traffic congestion. The program, arising out of the Governor’s Business Council plan of 2003, is to reduce traffic congestion by up to one-half in the state’s metropolitan areas. Metropolitan planning organizations have developed traffic congestion reduction objectives and the necessary strategies. With Dallas-Fort Worth and Houston being among the fastest growing large metropolitan areas in the high-income world, this will not be easy. Amazingly, however, the modeling is showing that the goals are achievable and that they will not break the bank. Atlanta, the high-income world’s fastest growing metropolitan area has now followed suit, under the direction of Governor Sonny Perdue.

The Texas and Georgia programs represent a first --- transportation agencies actually implementing traffic congestion reduction objectives. It is astonishing that such objectives were not already the rule throughout the country. If the nation is to respond to the need for a sustainable, competitive transport infrastructure, no less than the Texas and Atlanta programs will be require in every metropolitan area in the nation. Such a beginning needs to be expanded to include all segments of the freight transportation system, from air cargo to navigable waterways and freight railroads.

Wendell Cox is a public policy consultant in St. Louis, a Senior Fellow at the Heartland Institute, and a visiting professor at the Conservatoire National des Arts et Metiers in Paris.

Originally posted to On the Heartland 2006.07.13

Europe: Commuting Faster in Suburbs than Cities

EUROPE: COMMUTING FASTER IN SUBURBS THAN CITIES

There are few public policy issues more driven my myth than land use and the currently fashionable strategies of “smart growth” or “urban consolidation.” Virtually all of the arguments made in support of smart growth’s densification and land restriction policies melt away when subjected to the light of scrutiny.

Further evidence of this is provided by an analysis of Western European work trip travel times. The anti-suburban smart growth theorists often suggest that cities should artificially constrained in their expansion because suburban areas put people farther away from their jobs and thus force people to spend more time traveling to work.

Estimates based upon data from the European Union Urban Audit indicates that commutes by suburban residents are faster than commutes by city (core) residents. that the average work trip travel time for suburban residents is 23 minutes, one-way. This is five minutes less each way that the central city estimate of 28 minutes. Of course, the reasons that suburbanites can get to their jobs more quickly are that lower densities mean less traffic congestion (contrary to smart growth claims) and that jobs have followed people to the suburbs. Doubtless, urban planners who are more inclined to believe their conceptions than the data will be surprised that this improved jobs-housing balance has occurred with little or no direction from the planning profession.

Land use policy needs to be based upon fact, rather than the myopic perceptions of a small urban elite. The data could not be more clear. Smart growth --- the compact city --- means more traffic congestion, more intense air pollution and longer travel times. This, of course, is just the beginning. Smart growth also means significantly reduced housing affordability, a redistribution of wealth from lower and middle income households to the more affluent and, as a result, the likelihood of future greater poverty and less economic growth.

Note on the methodology: The Urban Audit provides commute time estimates for central cities and metropolitan areas (Larger Urban Zones). The suburban estimate has been developed using a population based ratio supplied by the Urban Audit. This must be considered an estimate. A more precise figure could have been calculated with employment data, which is not available.

If central city labor participation rates are higher proportionally in the central cities than in the suburbs, then the extend to which suburban commute times are shorter than central city commute times has been somewhat underestimated.. If central city labor participation rates are lower proportionately, then the reverse would be true.

Nonetheless, the data shows that, generally, metropolitan area travel times are less than central city travel times, which means that suburban travel times are lower yet, which is indicated by the estimates above.

Originally posted at On the Heartland 2006.10.04

The EU Sprawl Report: Rewrite Needed

The EU Sprawl Report: Rewrite Needed

For any who perceive that “urban sprawl” (a pejorative term for suburbanization) is an American phenomenon, the new European Environmental Agency report Urban Sprawl in Europe: The Ignored Challenge provides a radically new perspective. Yes, there is suburbanization in Europe, and plenty of it. Regrettably, Urban Sprawl in Europe is far from an objective, comprehensive review of urban trends. It blindly repeats dogma and, most importantly, fails to consider the momentous advantages that the land use developments of the last one-half century have provided in Europe.

The Positive: Hysteria is Absent

Starting with the positive, Urban Sprawl in Europe generally uses muted language and is devoid of the hysterical theology so often found in anti-suburbanization reports in the United States, Canada and Australia.

Repeating the Dogma

Nonetheless, there are serious problems with Urban Sprawl in Europe. Predictably, the report finds all manner of problems with suburbanization and no benefits. The report repeats the dogma that has misled planners and public officials in the United States, Canada and Australia. For example:

• The report ways that traffic congestion is greater is less compact (more sprawling) urban areas. The international data, some of the of which is cited by Urban Sprawl in Europe says the opposite. More compact urban areas --- what the European Environmental Agency would like, have more traffic congestion.

• The report says that air pollution exposure “may” be at higher levels in suburban areas because of higher volume and slower traffic. There is no “may” about it. Air pollution levels in suburban areas tend to be lower in suburban areas because traffic is less dense and it flows more quickly. While city versus suburban traffic data is difficult to obtain, San Francisco illustrates the greater traffic congestion that is evident in central cities compared to suburbs.

• The report claims that less compact urban areas are more costly, claiming higher transportation and infrastructure costs. The higher transportation costs are more than offset by much lower housing costs, a matter the report does not address. Infrastructure costs are not necessarily lower in more suburbanized areas, as Joshua Utt and I found in a report published by the Heritage Foundation .

The European Model: Los Angeles

The report applauds Munich and Bilbao for being the only two urban areas studied that since 1950 increased their populations than their land areas. In effect, this means that Munich and Bilbao “sprawl” less in relation to their populations than they did in 1950.

The European Environmental Agency might be surprised to find out which urban area is the champion in that regard. It is Los Angeles, which managed to increase its population at more than double the rate of its increase in land area from 1950 to 2000. Moreover, during that period, urban development in Los Angeles was largely market, rather than planning driven.

The European Environmental Agency acknowledges that suburban low-density lifestyles are more attractive to people (so much for the theory that Europeans like high rise city living, while Americans, Canadians and Australians like the suburbs). Nonetheless, the report implies that it would be better for bureaucrats to make lifestyle decisions, not the people who are living the lives.

The Usual Absent Public Transport Vision

Predictably, the report complains about Europe’s automobile oriented culture. Just as predictably, the European Environmental Agency offers no vision that would get people out of their cars without seriously hobbling their mobility and quality of life. There is, of course, good reason for this. No such vision could be financed by any economy in the world (see The Illusion of Transit Choice).

Ignoring Economics

However, the most serious problem with Urban Sprawl in Europe is not what it says. The principal problem is rather what the report ignores.

Somehow, over the past 60 years, the Western European (and other high-income world nations) have suburbanized as never before and have embraced the personal mobility of the automobile. These developments that anti-suburbanites and the European Environmental Agency view as negative have in fact been associated with the greatest expansion of affluence in history --- what I call the democratization of prosperity.

Urban Sprawl in Europe simply ignores the important issues of economics. Research indicates that personal mobility is associated with greater economic growth and the reduction of poverty. There is plenty of evidence that development of housing on less expensive land on the urban fringe has created wealth and played a major role in producing a comfortable middle class. These are issues that an intellectually honest and comprehensive discussion would include.

The Risks of Ignoring Economics

The failure to consider these issues is already taking a toll in urban areas that have blindly followed the anti-suburban pied pipers. Some urban areas have consciously sought to limit personal mobility and seen businesses locate to other urban areas. The urban areas of Australia and New Zealand, along with Portland and a number in California have so strangled their land markets by development controls that the (see Second Annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Surveyhistoric relationship to incomes has been shattered. The result is that millions of future households will not be able to own their own homes or will have to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars more. This translates, at least in part, into consumer spending that will not occur, jobs that will not be created. United States Federal Reserve Board has published research showing that metropolitan areas with more stringent land use control experience less economic growth than would have been expected.

Revisions are Needed

Urban Sprawl in Europe would best be thought of as a preliminary working draft. Serious revision is required. The dogma needs to be replaced with objective research. Most importantly, the missing elements of economic impact need to be added.

Note: These issues are dealt with in greater detail in War on the Dream: How Anti-Sprawl Policy Threatens the Quality of Life, a new book by Wendell Cox.

2007 Consumer Expenditures on Transportation & Housing: US Metropolitan Areas

It is popular for analysts to use the US Consumer Expenditures data to make points about the costs of living between metropolitan areas, especially with respect to transportation and housing. This is not a completely valid exercise, because the Consumer Expenditure report does not principally measure the cost of living. The Consumer Expenditure report is more a measure of preferences.

This is illustrated by considering the transportation sector. The Consumer Expenditure report divides transportation expenditures into four categories --- (1) vehicle purchases, (2) gasoline and motor oil, (3) other vehicle expenses and (4) public transportation.

The vehicle purchases category is reflective of the problem. This category reports the net cost of new and used vehicle purchases. The price a household pays, however, is not necessarily reflective of the cost of living with respect to vehicles. Some households might be happy with a new economy car with a base price of $10,000. Others may want a mid-sized car that may have a base price over $20,000, while still others may want a luxury car costing over $50,000 or even $200,000. All of these purchases are recorded as consumer expenditures. The $10,000 purchase may be reflective of the cost of living, the $20,000 to $200,000 purchase is reflective of a preference that exceeds the base cost of living. The same argument can be made with respect to houses. Many people buy houses that are more expensive, which skews the housing figure upward.

The only transportation expenses that are generally reflective of reflective of the cost of living are gasoline and motor oil and other vehicle expenses.

The following discussion outlines the situation with respect to Consumer Expenditures in Houston, which has often been the target of discrediting efforts by organizations hostile to the suburban lifestyles that now prevail throughout all metropolitan areas in the United States. The following data is calculated from the 2006-2007 Consumer Expenditures report, which is the latest and which contains information for 18 metropolitan areas.

1. Houston ranks 2nd in total transportation expense per household, following Phoenix. A major component of this expense is vehicle purchases, with a considerable portion being “discretionary” as people buy cars that are more expensive than required for basic transportation (above). It also includes public transportation expense, principally airline fares.

2. Houston ranks 3rd in automobile operating costs (gasoline and motor oil and other vehicle expense) per household, behind #1 San Francisco and #2 Los Angeles.

3. Houston has a higher number of workers per household than most of the other metropolitan areas. This requires more vehicle travel. Houston’s automobile operating costs per worker rank 5th, behind #1 San Francisco, #2 Detroit, #3 Los Angeles and #4 New York.

4. There is a well-known trade-off between house prices and driving distance, as many households live farther from employment locations so that they can afford better homes. Houston’s consumer expenditures per household on shelter (mortgages and rents) ranks 15th out of the 18 metropolitan areas. Only Dallas-Fort Worth, Cleveland and Detroit have lower combined housing and vehicle operations costs.

5. When housing and vehicle operations are combined, Houston ranks 11th. The Houston figure is below both the average (mean) and the median for the 18 metropolitan areas.

Finally, the public transportation category is also misleading, because it includes airline travel and is not limited to local transit use. For example, in Houston, Federal Transit Administration data indicates that transit fares are at a level that would correspond to about $30 annually per household, leaving more than $450 for other expenses, principally airline fares.


Sources:
Data
United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, http://www.bls.gov/cex/ .
Metropolitan data: http://www.bls.gov/cex/#data

Suzhou: All of China in One Place

Full Article + 444 Photos


INTRODUCTION

If you only have time to visit one place in China, it should be Suzhou (pronunciation: SOO JOE). Suzhou provides a sampling of virtually all that China has to offer. Suzhou is Old China, from its temples, pagodas and canals to its tastefully designed and attractive gardens. Suzhou is also modern China, ringed by light industrial and commercial development. Suzhou also has elements of Italy, with canals like Venice and a leaning tower like Pisa (Yunyan Pagoda). Like other large urban areas in China, there are expanses of massive multiple building high-rise condominium development as well as lower rise townhouse developments and detached housing (called “villas” in China). Finally, Suzhou has a freeway and road system which is more comprehensive than most in North America.

GETTING TO SUZHOU

There is another reason to visit Suzhou --- it is conveniently located close to Shanghai, so a Suzhou is only a quick train, bus or taxi ride away from China’s principal urban area. Suzhou is on the new high speed rail line (CRH) from Shanghai to Nanjing. Air service is by the Shanghai airports.

LOCATION

Suzhou is located 45 miles (70 kilometers) west of Shanghai’s Hongqiao International Airport and 50 miles (80 kilometers) west of Puxi, Shanghai’s commercial core. It is another 20 miles (32 kilometers) to Pudong International Airport, which serves most international flights. Suzhou is in Jiangsu province, which, along with the provincial level municipality of Shanghai, occupies the south bank of the Yangtze River Delta. Suzhou city (the regional government) is bounded on the south by the Huzhou city (regional government) in Zhejiang, on the east by the provincial level city of Shanghai and to the west by Taihu and Wuxi city or regional government (Slide 2).

GENERAL DESCRIPTION

Suzhou sits at the gateway to China’s lake country. There are a number of lakes within the urban area. The west side of the urban area reaches into Taihu (Tai Lake), China’s third largest natural lake, at 900 square miles (2,250 square kilometers).

The topography is generally flat, however there are some hills in the urban area, including Tiger Hill, on which Yunyan Pagoda stands. The urban area extends to three islands in Taihu.

The Suzhou urban area now has 2.6 million people and is expected to increase to 3.2 million by 2025. The urban area covers 245 square miles (635 square kilometers) and a population density of 10,600 per square mile (4,100 per square kilometer). Suzhou is one of the least dense urban areas in China, principally because core densities are lower than elsewhere. The most dense core district (qu) reaches less than 50,000 per square mile (20,000 per square kilometer), well below Shenyang’s 80,000 (30,000) and Shanghai’s more than 100,000 (40,000).

However, as is the case in virtually all of the urban areas in China, the pattern of density is very uneven. Population densities are very high in the core or old city and fall off precipitously in the peripheral areas.

THE GRAND CANAL

The most unique feature of Suzhou is its canals. The most famous is the Grand Canal, or the Beijing-Hangzhou Canal, which is more than 1,100 miles (1,700 kilometers) long. The canal was started more than 2,500 years ago and completed 1,500 years ago. It is the longest canal in the world.
The Grand Canal courses through Suzhou. It carries considerable commercial traffic (Slides 3-24).


THE URBAN FORM

The Old City: The core, or old city of Suzhou covers approximately six square miles (15 square kilometers) and is surrounded by a broad canal, which forms a rectangle (called the Peripheral Canal in this Rental Car Tour). Parts of this “ring” canal have parks and well manicured green spaces on the old city side. This is particularly evident in the southwest section of the Peripheral Canal (Slides 419-444).

Boat cruises are available from the western side of the canal. The boat route goes to the north and continues into smaller canals further north toward Tiger Hill and the Yunyan Pagoda (Slides 25-104). The cruises provide a view of Yunyan Pagoda at their northern terminus. However, the terminus is well south of the pagoda. The rest of the canal toward Tiger Hill is closed to tourist traffic.

There are a number of additional canals within the old city. Many of these canals are also closed to tourist traffic. It would seem that Suzhou could increase tourist traffic by taking the necessary steps to open more of the canal system and making it possible to travel around the area by canal. Suzhou would appear to have greater potential as a tourist destination than it is now experiencing.

The old central business district is located in the middle of the old city (Slides 127-166). The central business district contains major shopping areas, but does not have much in the way of high rise commercial buildings. The population density of the core area appears to be somewhat lower than usual for the such an area in a Chinese urban area. In the older areas, the mid-rise multi-unit developments so typical in China appear to be up to five stories instead of six to nine. Like many Chinese core areas, the old Suzhou has many tree lined streets.

The old city is home to the Humble Administrator’s Garden (Slides 167-186).

The Emerging Western Center: Approximately three miles (five kilometers) the west of the old city a newer, bustling commercial core is emerging. This area contains a number of shopping centers and the tallest buildings in the urban area. As is the case with Chinese urban areas, the large commercial buildings are somewhat dispersed, rather than being concentrated as would be the case in North American or Australian urban areas. The Grand Canal divides this core, running north and south within walking distance of some of the largest buildings in the urban area (Slides 4-16). Just to the east of the Grand Canal is Suzhou Henghe Plaza, which is 48 floors and 600 feet high or 180 meters high (Slides 11, 120) . Suzhou’s tallest building, the Suzhou Xindi Center is located just to the west of the Grand Canal. The Suzhou Xindi Center is 54 floors, 761 feet and 232 meters high (Slides 203 & 205).

The Eastern Sector: To the east, there is a large number of new and under construction luxury condominium developments. These are both high-rise and mid-rise residential developments. There are also shopping centers.

Western Industrial Area: The western industrial area is to the west of the western core. This area has a grid of wide streets, which are up to eight lanes in width. The generally light industrial buildings are low rise, as would be expected in a similar area in Europe or North America. In addition, the area also includes some large luxury condominium developments.

Southwest: The southwest includes two older suburbs that have been engulfed by the expanding Suzhou urban area, Xiukou and Mu Du. These areas have older housing, much of it multi-unit and commercial districts. This area also includes much of the older industrial base of the urban area. There is a new area of more sparse development between these suburbs and the mainland shore, which includes commercial areas, hotels and housing, both multi-unit and detached.

Taihu (Tai Lake): The Suzhou urban area continues into Taihu, over a causeway that connects three islands to the mainland. The first island, Changsha, is nearly fully developed with detached housing. The second island, which is the smallest, is covered on its eastern half by detached housing and undeveloped in its western half. The third island, which is the largest, includes at least one older village that has been engulfed by the urbanization of Suzhou and contains commercial areas, some multi-family housing and considerable detached housing. Most of this island is rural.

Southern Sector: The southern sector, located to the south of the old city’s southern canal appears to be an older extension of the urban area. There is a variety of principally multi-unit housing, both mid-rise and high rise. Some of the developments are somewhat older, while others are new or still under construction. The Grand Canal crosses the southern sector (Slides 17-24)

Northern Sector: Tiger Hill and Yunyan Pagoda are located in an attractive park in the northern sector (Slides 70-85). Like the leaning tower of Pisa, Yunyan Pagoda leans, but not as far. Good views of the urban area can be seen from the top of Tiger Hill. Tiger Hill can be climbed from both the south and the north sides, though the climb from the south side is more gentle and more interesting. Like the rest of Suzhou, Tiger Hill and the northern sector also have their share of canals. The rest of the northern sector has residential buildings, principally multi-unit buildings, with some new high-rises. There are also older light industrial activities (Slides 251-269).

Small Businesses: As is the case in virtually all Chinese urban areas, many major streets are lined by small businesses (Slides 212 & 220)

HOUSING

Generally, older residential housing is lower rise in Suzhou than in other major Chinese urban areas. There are fewer of the old standard design apartment/condominium buildings that are found throughout Chinese urban areas (Slides 136 & 156).

As in other Chinese urban areas, there are many outdoor advertising signs for new luxury condominiums, town houses and detached housing (Slides 225, 289, 295, 306, 320 & 352)

TRANSPORT

Suzhou is well served by high-quality roads. There is a freeway ring road (Slide 315) and freeway connections to the west, east and south. In addition, there are various freeways within the urban area itself. Suzhou is well served by freeways, with nearly 100 route miles (160 route kilometers). At nearly 0.4 route miles per square mile (0.25 route kilometers per square kilometer), Suzhou has a higher freeway density than any major urban area in the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand other than Montreal and San Antonio.

Similarly, virtually all of Suzhou is served by a grid of wide arterial streets, as is typical of Chinese urban areas (Slide 230).

Most urban transport in Suzhou is by bus. A metro line is under construction, which will extend from near the eastern periphery of the urban area, through the old city core, the newer western center and continue well out into the western

THE YANGTZE DELTA

Suzhou is one of the principal urban areas on the Yangtze River Delta, which includes Shanghai, Nanjing, Wuxi, Hangzhou, Ningbo and a number of smaller urban areas. This is one of China’s two “mega-regions,” --- areas of large adjacent metropolitan areas. The other is the Pearl River Delta, with a somewhat smaller population but much higher population density (see Rental Car Tour: Pearl River Delta Overflight).

QUALITY OF HOUSING

China has been successful in housing its large urban population, which includes the registered population --- people with the right to live in a particular urban area --- and the unregistered, or floating population. The unregistered population is legally permitted to live in the urban area only temporarily, but the reality is that they have become a permanent fixture, staffing the many growing businesses. In all of our travels in China, which now cover more than 15 urban areas, we have seen no “shanty towns” or informal housing. This is unusual for a nation of China’s economic status. Nations that are rated as much more affluent, such as Mexico and Brazil have significant shanty towns, which cannot be missed in traveling through the urban areas. Moreover, China has every bit as big an urban housing challenge, since the strong movement of people from the rural areas to the urban areas continues. China will add more urban residents in the next quarter century than the population of the United States (more than 360 million).

EATING IN CHINA

The local food is superb. My rule in China is to never frequent a restaurant that takes credit cards. That way, there is a good chance of getting genuine local food. The experience is a happy one, though language difficulties make it virtually impossible to enunciate any recommendations. There are, along all business streets in the urban areas of China, a plethora of good local restaurants. Ordering can be difficult, since few such establishments have menus in English (though rather more than have Mandarin menus in Western Europe or the United States). Moreover, given the humble status of these restaurants --- low prices, good food, they will not be found in any of the tour guides.

It is recommended, however, that tap water be avoided. The hotels provide bottled water. Generally, bottled water should be relied on in all but the most affluent nations. This is my unfortunate advice after having contracted Montezuma’s revenge on every continent but Australia and Antarctica.

TRAVELING IN CHINA

China has one of the world’s most advanced air transport systems and has built many new airports. The new Beijing Terminal 3 and Guangzhou Baiyun International Airport are among the most impressive in the world. Other large and medium sized urban areas also have new airport terminals, such as Chengdu, Wuhan, Xi’an, Shenyang, Shenzhen, Taiyuan and a new terminal is under construction at Hongqiao International Airport in Shanghai.

Passenger rail is a very inexpensive and comfortable way to travel, especially over shorter distances. China has developed the fastest intercity train in the world, which operates between Tianjin and Beijing. It reaches nearly 220 miles per hour (350 kilometers per hour). Rail travel is very inexpensive. For example, second class travel between Hangzhou and Shanghai has an approximately cost of $15.

China has developed the world’s second longest freeway system, but it is largely inaccessible to foreign drivers because China has not ratified the international drivers license treaty. When and if they do, anticipate a rental car tour covering thousands of miles of Chinese intercity freeway.

“CITIES” IN CHINA

Analysts are often confused by the “city” (“shi” in Chinese) terminology used in China. All of the Suzhou urban area is contained within the city or municipality of Suzhou. Similarly, most (if not all) Chinese urban areas are contained within a single city. While Chinese “cities” are municipalities, they are far different from municipalities in the western world, by virtue of their geographical size and vast rural territories. A better rendering of the Chinese word “shi” would be region.

These cities or regions routinely include large areas of agricultural land, which keeps their density relatively low and leads publishers and analysts to report density data that is so low that it belies a complete misunderstanding of urban geography. For example, the largest municipality in the world is Chongqing, which has more than 30,000,000 people. Its land area is more than 30,000 square miles (more than 80,000 square kilometers) --- nearly as large as Austria or the state of Indiana. The urban area of Chongqing, however has a far more modest population of 4,000,000

http://www.rentalcartours.net
http://www.demographia.com
http://www.publicpurpose.com

Nanjing: Intermittent Capital

Full Article + 354 Photos


LOCATION

Nanjing (formerly called “Nanking” in western parlance) is the capital of and largest urban area in Jiansu Province. The Nanjing urban area straddles the Yangtze River (Chiang Jiang) , however nearly all of the urban area is on the south or east bank of, which curves from north to west at Nanjing (Slides 1-4).

Like Nanjing, the province straddles the Yangtze River and the Yangtze River Delta for all but the last few miles toward its mouth. Like the province of Jiangsu, Shanghai also straddles the Yangtze River. Nanjing is 190 miles (300 kilometers) west of Shanghai, 750 miles (1,400 kilometers) south of Beijing, 700 miles (1,100 kilometers north of the Pearl River Delta (Guangzhou and Hong Kong) and 300 miles (500 kilometers) east of Wuhan.

GENERAL DESCRIPTION

Nanjing means “south capital” and the city served as China’s capital during much of the republican period (1912 to 1949) and under some historical dynasties. The urban area is located on relatively flat land, though there are hill and small mountains in the area, including the Purple Mountain (Zhong Shan), which is just to the east of Nanjing’s core. Urbanization now surrounds Purple Mountain, which rises more than 1,100 feet (350 meters) above the urban area.

The Nanjing urban area has nearly 3.2 million people and is expected to increase to 4.0 million by 2025. The urban area is one of China’s least dense, covering 330 square miles (855 square kilometers), for a population density of 9,600 per square mile (3,700 per square kilometer). Overall, Nanjing is nearly as sparsely populated as a Western European urban area, principally because of the new, expansive residential and commercial development that has occurred in recent decades.

Even more than other urban areas in China, densities are highly variable in Nanjing. Core districts (qus) are somewhat less dense than in some other large urban areas. The most dense is Gulou Qu, at more than 65,000 per square mile (25,000 per square mile). This compares to nearly 110,000 per square mile (40,000 per square kilometer) in Shanghai, 85,000 per square mile (33,000 per square kilometer) in Shenyang and 80,000 per square mile in Beijing (30,000 per square kilometer. However, it is in the fringe areas that Nanjing reveals its less dense character. Large sections outside the urban area of 30 years ago are very low density, with large condominium projects and industrial estates that are widely spread.

TRAVELING TO NANJING

Airport access to is by Nanjing Lukou International Airport, which is located approximately 20 miles (35 kilometers) southeast of the core. The new CRH fast train from Shanghai station takes slightly more than two hours. Nanjing is also connected to the rest of the nation by the modern “7918” expressway system, which radiates in six directions from Nanjing’s freeway ring road. Six toll expressways connect Nanjing to Shanghai and Suzhou to the east, Wuhan and Hefei to the west, Beijing to the north, Hangzhou to the southeast, Nantong to the east and Wuhu to the south.

By 2006, the 7918 expressway system had reached 27,000 miles by the end of 2006 (45,000 kilometers) and will eventually exceed the United States interstate highway system in length.

THE URBAN FORM

Old Nanjing is surrounded by what is reportedly the longest city wall still standing in the world. The wall is approximately 20 miles (32 kilometers) long and encloses approximately 17 square miles (44 square kilometers). The wall was completed in the 15th century, at which time the population (inside the wall) was approximately 500,000. There is a moat to the outside of the wall, except where Xianwu Lake provides the moat.

The Core: Unlike some river urban areas, the core of Nanjing is not on the river. Nanjing’s core is located 3 miles (5 kilometers) east of the Yangtze and to the southwest of Xianwu Lake (Slides 5-170). The core of Nanjing is enclosed by the city wall. The main intersection in the central business district is Xinjieko. The tallest skyscrapers tend to be in the core, somewhat more in a concentrated pattern than is usual for a Chinese urban area. There are a number of buildings of 45 to 55 stories in the core. Currently, the tallest building is the New Century Plaza Tower (Slides 32 & 84), at 52 floors and 840 feet (255 meters). This building is just to the east of Xinjieko and sits across a central plaza from the Presidential Palace. There is a Carrefour hypermarket under the park.

Somewhat north of Xinjieko, there is an 89 story tower (1,500 feet and 460 meters) under construction, the Nanjing Greenland Financial Complex (Slides 63, 68, 69, 76, 77, 127), which will be the tallest in the urban area. It will also exceed the height of America’s tallest building, the Sears Tower in Chicago.

Like virtually all large Chinese urban areas, substantial office building development has occurred in recent decades, at the same time that there are many residential buildings. These include new condominium towers as well as the seemingly standard six to nine story bay-windowed apartment buildings that date back at least to the 1970s (see “Housing,” below). There are also a number of enclosed shopping centers.

Hunan Road is a popular restaurant area, located to the north of the principal concentration of office buildings (Slides 56, 59-62).

There are a number of public buildings built during the years that Nanjing was the national capital, under the Nationalist republic. The most significant is the Presidential Palace. In addition, the Zhou Enlai Museum is located near the Presidential Palace (Slide 80). Zhou Enlai was China’s premier from 1949 to 1976 and second in command to Mao Zedong. The museum includes two of Zhou’s cars, including a 1941 Buick and a Chrysler (Slides 81, 82). It is said that Zhou Enlai’s favor for Buicks led to that General Motors brand being the first and principal one manufactured in China.

Most of the streets of the core are lined with trees, which appear to be maple, from the shape of their leaves. Local people refer to them as “French trees,” however they look just like the maples that dominate so much of the middle of the United States and Canada (Slides 9, 10, 12 and others).

The railway station is located outside the city wall, across Xianwu Lake to the northeast of the core (Slide 107).

Core: Nanjing Massacre International Safety Zone: Nanjing was the site of the “Rape of Nanking,” which occurred when the Japanese army invaded the city in December of 1937 and continued until February of 1938. This is described in a The Rape of Nanking: The Forgotten Holocaust of World War II, by Iris Chang. She reports that “more than 300,000 Chinese civilians and soldiers were systematically raped, tortured and murdered.” It is estimated that approximately one-half of the population left in the city at the invasion died. The events are also chronicled in a 2007 movie, Nanking.

During this time, perhaps as many as 300,000 people were saved in what was called the “International Safety Zone,” which was established by resident westerners, including missionaries and businessmen. The zone’s southeast corner was at the city’s present core, Xinjieko and covered 2.15 square miles (Slides 38-62). The leader was a German, John Rabe, who was also a member of the National Socialist (Nazi) Party. Rabe and the others persuaded the Japanese to respect the zone, though there were reportedly frequent unauthorized incursions that resulted in rape, death and abduction. Virtually all of the area has since been redeveloped and looks no different from the rest of the core of Nanjing. Hunan Road is in the International Safety Zone.

There is a memorial hall dedicated to the Nanjing Massacre, located outside the wall, in the southern area (outside of the International Safety Zone).

North of the River and the Yangtze Bridge: Nanjing has one of the oldest bridges over the Yangtze River, Nanjing Yangtze Bridge Number 1. This bridge, with approaches is more than 4 miles (7 kilometers) long. The top deck has four road traffic lanes and has bus stops just to the outside of the statues that mark the river bank at each end of the span. The lower deck has two tracks for trains (Slides 171-176, 187-207).

Like Yangtze Bridge Number 1 in Wuhan, Nanjing Bridge Number 1 has good pedestrian access and is recommended for walking. Chairman Mao Zedong was pleased to swim across the Yangtze at Wuhan. I was sufficiently pleased to walk across the bridge there and was determined to again cross the Yangtze on foot in Nanjing. There are now other crossings of the Yangtze in Nanjing, but they are freeways and not pedestrian friendly.

The bridge leads to the north and west bank portions of the urban area, which are developing rapidly. This area includes substantial commercial and industrial activity, many large condominium developments and some single family (villa) housing (Slides 177-185, 208). It is also evident that former agricultural and rural housing uses are being displaced by urbanization (Slides 183-184)

Southern Area: There is considerable older development to the south of the city wall. But most of the southern area development is relatively new. Metro line 1, the only line open at this point, serves the southern area, and ends at the Olympic Stadium, which is one of a number of such facilities built around China for the 2008 Olympics.

The area closer to the city wall contains a large number of new high-rise condominium developments, each with multiple buildings. This type of development continues well to the south, where becomes much more sparse. There are also a large number of manufacturing facilities. It is in this area that the physical expanse of Nanjing’s urbanization is most obvious. Overall, the density of population and development in this area is far below that of the rest of the urban area.

One new villa development is named “Rotorua Town,” after the New Zealand volcanic resort town.

Eastern Area: The eastern area is a mixture of older and newer condominium developments. Generally the newer developments do not appear to be as desirable as in the southern area. Much of the eastern area is also in the process of being converted from rural living to urbanization (Slides 297-302). The eastern area also has a number of commercial developments that resemble the strip malls of western nations.

Western Area: The western area is to the west of the city wall and extends to the east bank of the Yangtze River. This area has many high quality high rise condominium developments. There are also a number of the standardized, older apartment buildings (see “Housing,” below), with industrial activities toward the river.

Northern Area: The northern area (east and south of the Yangtze River) has virtually all types of residential land uses. More significantly, the northern area is home to the urban area’s heaviest industries.

Small Businesses: As is the case in virtually all Chinese urban areas, many major streets are lined by small businesses (Slides 52, 213, 214, 316)

Industry: Nanjing has a number of large industrial parks, generally with exceptionally wide streets, often 8 lanes (Slides 226, 229, 276, 295).

Housing: China has been successful in housing its large urban population, which includes the registered population --- people with the right to live in a particular urban area --- and the unregistered, or floating population. The unregistered population is legally permitted to live in the urban area only temporarily, but the reality is that they have become a permanent fixture, staffing the many growing businesses.

Classic Apartment Housing: In Nanjing, as in other Chinese urban areas, there are many “classic” multi-unit residential buildings (Slides Below), located throughout the older parts of the urban area. These were originally built by the government and made available, generally as rentals to households. We are told that many of these units have been sold. The “classic” buildings are up to ten floors. Most of the units have bay windows and are fairly attractive given that they were built as public or social housing and are aging. It is unclear when these were built. They appear to date at least to the late 1970s and perhaps even before. Much of the older parts of Chinese urban areas are covered by these “classic” buildings, which are spaced close together within urban blocks.

Classic Apartment Housing Slides: 45, 49, 51, 53, 64, 86-89, 103-105, 214

Newer Condominium Developments: As throughout China, an increasing number of Nanjing households are moving into the newer, privately developed condominiums, most of which are at least 20 floors and often exceed 30 floors. A large number of high-rise residential buildings are under construction. These buildings are being developed in virtually every part of the urban area and often a number of near-duplicate buildings constitute a development (Slides ###).

Newer Condominium Development Slides: 6, 74, 95, 98, 114, 177-178, 181-182, 184-185, 210-212, 215-220, 223, 225, 227, 228, 230, 232-242, 233-252, 257-257, 283, 287-288, 291-292, 304-309, 311, 315, 325-327, 331-333

Older Housing: Toward the south end of the core, near the south wall, there is an area of older, perhaps sub-standard housing that is typical of the prerevolutionary era (Slides 151-169). The houses tend to be one or two floors and attached. The streets are far too small for motor vehicles. However, the area is clean and safe (as is all of urban China). There is also an area of similar housing near the Presidential Palace (Slides 91-92)

The Absence of Shanty Towns: In all of our travels in China, which now cover more than 15 urban areas, virtually no “shanty towns” nor informal housing has been seen. Even the sub-standard housing area near the south gate (above) is by no means a shanty town. The lack of “shanty towns” is unusual for a developing nation. Nations that are rated as much more affluent, such as Mexico and Brazil have significant shanty towns, which cannot be missed in traveling through the urban areas. Moreover, China has every bit as big an urban housing challenge, since the strong movement of people from the rural areas to the urban areas continues. China will add more urban residents in the next quarter century than the population of the United States (more than 360 million).

Villas: Single family (villa) housing is located in developments in every sector of the urban area. Generally, these developments are highly secured and it is generally not possible to obtain photographs except from the outside or satellite photographs (Slides 208, 265, 268, 277, 354).

TRANSPORT

Nanjing is well served by high-quality roads. The urban area has very wide streets, which is typical of China. There is a ring road, built to freeway standards. The ring road is a toll facility and built to freeway standards. Most public transport ridership in Nanjing is by bus. Like many Chinese urban areas, Nanjing is expanding its Metro.

THE YANGTZE DELTA

Nanjing is one of the principal urban areas on the Yangtze River Delta, which includes Shanghai, Hangzhou, Wuxi, Suzhou, Ningbo and a number of smaller urban areas. The Yangtze Delta is one of China’s two “mega-regions,” --- areas of adjacent large metropolitan areas. The other is the Pearl River Delta, with a somewhat smaller population but much higher population density (see Rental Car Tour: Pearl River Delta Overflight).

MAPS AND BOOKS IN CHINA

In Taiyuan and most Chinese urban areas, the largest and most comprehensive bookstores are a part of the Xinhua Bookstore chain, which is owned by the government. Xinhua bookstores generally have the best assortment of local and regional maps and include a small selection of English language books. Any one serious about touring China or Chinese urban areas will need good, detailed maps and they are generally available only in Chinese. However, there is no difficulty in developing a touring route to see an urban area using a Chinese map.

EATING IN CHINA

The local food is superb. My rule in China is to never frequent a restaurant that takes credit cards. That way, there is a good chance of getting genuine local food. The experience is a happy one, though language difficulties make it virtually impossible to enunciate any recommendations. There are, along all business streets in the urban areas of China, a plethora of good local restaurants. Ordering can be difficult, since few such establishments have menus in English (though rather more than have Mandarin menus in Western Europe or the United States). Moreover, given the humble status of these restaurants --- low prices, good food, they will not be found in any of the tour guides.

It is recommended, however, that tap water be avoided. The hotels provide bottled water. Generally, bottled water should be relied on in all but the most affluent nations. This is my unfortunate advice after having contracted “Montezuma’s Revenge” on every continent but Australia and Antarctica.

TRAVELING IN CHINA

China has one of the world’s most advanced air transport systems and has built many new airports. The new Beijing Terminal 3 and the Guangzhou Baiyun International Airport are among the most impressive in the world. Other large and medium sized urban areas also have new airport terminals, such as Chengdu, Wuhan, Xi’an, Shenyang, Shenzhen, Taiyuan and a new terminal is under construction at Hongqiao International Airport in Shanghai.

Passenger rail is a very inexpensive and comfortable way to travel, especially over shorter distances. China has developed the fastest intercity train in the world, which operates between Tianjin and Beijing. It reaches nearly 220 miles per hour (350 kilometers per hour). Rail travel is very inexpensive. For example, second class travel between Hangzhou and Shanghai has an approximately cost of $15.

China has developed the world’s second longest freeway system, but it is largely inaccessible to foreign drivers because China has not ratified the international driver’s license treaty. When and if they do, anticipate a rental car tour covering thousands of miles of Chinese intercity freeway.

“CITIES” IN CHINA

Analysts are often confused by the “city” (“shi” or 市 in Chinese) terminology used in China. Most (if not all) Chinese urban areas are contained within a single city (“shi”). While Chinese “cities” are municipalities, they are far different from municipalities in the western world, by virtue of their geographical size and vast rural territories. A better rendering of the Chinese word “shi” would be region.

Within the municipality or shi is the “shixiaqu” (市辖区), which encompasses the urban districts (referred to as “qu”). Much of some urban districts is actually rural, especially those on the periphery of the urban area.

These cities or regions routinely include large areas of agricultural land, which keeps their density relatively low and leads publishers and analysts to report density data that is so low that it belies a complete misunderstanding of urban geography. For example, the largest municipality in the world is Chongqing, which has more than 30,000,000 people. Its land area is more than 30,000 square miles (more than 80,000 square kilometers) --- nearly as large as Austria or the state of Indiana. The urban area of Chongqing, however has a far more modest population of 3,000,000

http://www.rentalcartours.net
http://www.demographia.com
http://www.publicpurpose.com

Taiyuan: Rust Belt Recovery

Full Article & 192 Slides

LOCATION

Taiyuan (pronounced TY-U-ANN) is approximately 250 miles (400 kilometers) southeast of Beijing, slightly less than one-half the way to Xi’an. Taiyuan is the capital of Shanxi Province (SHAN = mountains, XI= west). Taiyan is south of Shanxi’s other large urban area, Datong, which is 150 miles (205 kilometers) away. The urban area is in a valley with mountains on the east, west and north sides. The urban area rises from the Fen River, which flows north to south through the middle of the valley and empties into the Huang He (Yellow River or Huang Ho). Taiyuan is located in China’s arid north, which is illustrated by the barrenness of the nearby mountains.


GENERAL DESCRIPTION

Taiyuan is a historic coal mining, steel producing and industrial urban area. The Taiyuan urban area has a population of 2,730,000 (2007 estimated). The urban area covers 120 square miles (310 square kilometers). The population density is 22,800 per square mile (8,800 per square kilometer). Taiyuan is comparatively dense, at about 30 percent greater than the average of urban areas in China over 500,000 (17,000 per square mile or 6,800 per square kilometer). Taiyuan is one-third as dense as world leader Hong Kong and one-third less dense than Manila. On the other hand, the Taiyuan urban area is 2.5 times as dense as the Paris urban area, 3.3 times as dense as the Los Angeles urban area, 4.3 times as dense as the Sydney urban area and 6.7 times as dense as the Portland urban area (Chart).



Like Shenyang and Fushun, Taiyuan has been the home of some of China’s largest heavy industries. As a result, as reforms have reduced the size of the state sector and heavy manufacturing has declined, Taiyuan has suffered economic downturns and can be considered a part of China’s “Rust Belt.” However, there is plenty of evidence of economic vibrancy in Taiyuan.

GETTING TO TAIYUAN

There is convenient airline access to Taiyuan from all over China. Taiyuan Wusu Airport is located less than 10 miles from the historic core (less than 16 kilometers). It takes less than one-hour to fly to Beijing.

Taiyuan is also served by China’s “7918” toll expressway system. Currently, interstate or motorway standard roads connect Taiyuan to the rest of the nation in four directions. Bus and rail service is also available. The high speed rail link to Taiyuan from Beijing will be completed early in the next decade, with travel times of less than three hours.

THE URBAN FORM

Perhaps one-third of the Taiyaun urban area is located on the east side of the Fen River. Much of the urban area has a grid street system, with the main east-west street being Yingze Xidajie. Yingze Xidajie begins in the east at the Taiyuan railway station and crosses most of the urban area, ending at western portion of the Ring Expressway. At least five bridges cross the Fen the river in the central area. The main north-south street on the west side is Heping Bailu.

The Historic Core: The main commercial center is located to the west and south of the railway station on the east side of the river. It is appropriate to label this the “historic” core, since core activities, such as major shopping centers and office buildings are increasingly found throughout Chinese urban areas, including Taiyuan. Taiyuan boasts a number of high rise office towers, the tallest being more than 40 floors. As is typical of Chinese urban areas, however, office buildings are widely spread. Most of the office towers are within two miles (three kilometers) of the railway station, are not concentrated, as would be the case in a North American or Australian urban area. The core contains many shops and residential buildings.

East Side: South of the core, the east side becomes predominantly residential. There are office buildings, but they are very sparsely spaced and there are many smaller shops. The east side also includes many new high-rise residential buildings. Even to a greater extent that offices, the new high rise residential buildings are spread throughout the urban area. Interspersed between the offices, residential towers and shopping facilities are the “classic” multi-unit residential buildings, similar to what is seen throughout China (see “Housing,” below). The south side is also home to Taiyuan’s “automobile row,” a concentration of new automobile dealerships (Slides 89-91)

The West Side: The west side is similar to the east side, except that it does not contain many office towers. There are many dispersed high-rise residential towers and many shopping facilities. Some of the newest residential towers are located on Yingze Xidajie, near the west end of the urban area, near the ring road, more than 6 miles (10 kilometers) from the railway station (Slides 131-133).

The South: Toward the south, Taiyuan is not as prosperous. Much of the area is given to industry, including a major power plant on the southwest side. There are fewer high-rise residential towers, however, toward the airport, on the southeast side, there are some new towers. The south side contains the kind of less attractive uses that must attend to every urban area, such as repair shops, junk yards, trucking facilities, etc.

The Northeast Side: Toward the north, principally on the east side, there is also considerable industry, coal fired power plant and a large steel mill (owned by Taiyuan Iron and Steel Corporation, the largest corporation in Shanxi and it is reported will become the largest stainless steel producer in the world). Housing in this part of the urban area is more modest and there are few high-rise residential towers. Like the south side, the north side has some of the typical but necessary unattractive urban uses.

Shopping: Shopping is also very dispersed, which is a necessity since a low automobile ownership share requires people to shop relatively close to home, by walking, bicycle or motorcycle. Modern shopping centers are located throughout most of the urban area. Like other Chinese urban areas, there are many convenience stores and some are open 24 hours (Slides 46 & 57). Indeed, there are “7-11” stores in China. Thus convenience shopping opportunities in China are similar to the United States. However, in the United States the “7-11” and other similar stores have largely been replaced by convenience stores at petrol stations.

Housing: China has been successful in housing its large urban population, which includes the registered population --- people with the right to live in a particular urban area --- and the unregistered, or floating population. The unregistered population is legally permitted to live in the urban area only temporarily, but the reality is that they have become a permanent fixture, staffing the many growing businesses.

In Taiyuan, as in other Chinese urban areas, there are many “classic” multi-unit residential buildings (Slides 189-192) in the older areas. These were originally built by the government and made available, generally as rentals to households. We are told that many of these units have been sold. The “classic” buildings are up to ten floors, though in medium sized urban areas, like Taiyuan, they tend to be six or fewer floors. Most of the units have bay windows and are fairly attractive given that they were built as public or social housing and are aging. It is unclear when these were built. They appear to date at least to the late 1970s and perhaps even before. Much of the older parts of Chinese urban areas are covered by these “classic” buildings, which are spaced close together within urban blocks (Slide 192, additional Slides are noted in the footnote ).

As throughout China, an increasing number of Taiyuan households are moving into the newer, privately developed condominiums, most of which are at least 20 floors and some exceed 30 floors. A large number of high-rise residential buildings are under construction. These buildings are being developed in virtually every part of the urban area and often a number of near-duplicate buildings constitute a development (Multiple Slides, see footnote ). People stand at intersections handing out flyers to passersby, whether in cars or on foot, advertising new residential buildings, complete with floor plans and sale prices. The main Xinhua Bookstore, in the core, has a large billboard advertising a new condominium development (Slide 50).

In all of our travels in China, which now cover more than 15 urban areas, virtually no “shanty towns” nor informal housing has been seen. This is unusual for a nation of China’s economic status. Nations that are rated as much more affluent, such as Mexico and Brazil have significant shanty towns, which cannot be missed in traveling through the urban areas. Moreover, China has every bit as big an urban housing challenge, since the strong movement of people from the rural areas to the urban areas continues. China will add more urban residents in the next quarter century than the population of the United States (more than 360 million).

Small Businesses: As is the case in virtually all Chinese urban areas, many major streets are lined by small businesses (Slides 35, 42, 61, 75, 94, 112 & 159)


TRANSPORT

Taiyuan has a public transport system that relies on buses and trolleybuses. As in other Chinese urban areas, there is a growing volume of car and motorcycle traffic. There is a freeway ring road and some limited access road within the urban area. The urban area is generally served by a grid of wide streets.

MAPS AND BOOKS IN CHINA

In Taiyuan and most Chinese urban areas, the largest and most comprehensive bookstores are a part of the Xinhua Bookstore chain, which is owned by the government. Xinhua bookstores generally have the best assortment of local and regional maps and include a small selection of English language books. Any one serious about touring China or Chinese urban areas will need good, detailed maps and they are generally available only in Chinese. However, there is no difficulty in developing a touring route to see an urban area using a Chinese map.

EATING IN CHINA

The local food is superb. My rule in China is to never frequent a restaurant that takes credit cards. That way, there is a good chance of getting genuine local food. The experience is a happy one, though language difficulties make it virtually impossible to enunciate any recommendations. There are, along all business streets in the urban areas of China, a plethora of good local restaurants. Ordering can be difficult, since few such establishments have menus in English (though rather more than have Mandarin menus in Western Europe or the United States). Moreover, given the humble status of these restaurants --- low prices, good food, they will not be found in any of the tour guides.

It is recommended, however, that tap water be avoided. The hotels provide bottled water. Generally, bottled water should be relied on in all but the most affluent nations. This is my unfortunate advice after having contracted Montezuma’s revenge on every continent but Australia and Antarctica.

TRAVELING IN CHINA

China has one of the world’s most advanced air transport systems and has built many new airports. The new Beijing Terminal 3 and the Guangzhou Baiyun International Airport are among the most impressive in the world. Other large and medium sized urban areas also have new airport terminals, such as Chengdu, Wuhan, Xi’an, Shenyang, Shenzhen, Taiyuan and a new terminal is under construction at Hongqiao International Airport in Shanghai.

Passenger rail is a very inexpensive and comfortable way to travel, especially over shorter distances. China has developed the fastest intercity train in the world, which operates between Tianjin and Beijing. It reaches nearly 220 miles per hour (350 kilometers per hour). Rail travel is very inexpensive. For example, second class travel between Hangzhou and Shanghai has an approximately cost of $15.

China has developed the world’s second longest freeway system, but it is largely inaccessible to foreign drivers because China has not ratified the international drivers license treaty. When and if they do, anticipate a rental car tour covering thousands of miles of Chinese intercity freeway.

“CITIES” IN CHINA

Analysts are often confused by the “city” (“shi” in Chinese) terminology used in China. All of the Suzhou urban area is contained within the city or municipality of Suzhou. Similarly, most (if not all) Chinese urban areas are contained within a single city. While Chinese “cities” are municipalities, they are far different from municipalities in the western world, by virtue of their geographical size and vast rural territories. A better rendering of the Chinese word “shi” would be region.

These cities or regions routinely include large areas of agricultural land, which keeps their density relatively low and leads publishers and analysts to report density data that is so low that it belies a complete misunderstanding of urban geography. For example, the largest municipality in the world is Chongqing, which has more than 30,000,000 people. Its land area is more than 30,000 square miles (more than 80,000 square kilometers) --- nearly as large as Austria or the state of Indiana. The urban area of Chongqing, however has a far more modest population of 4,000,000

http://www.rentalcartours.net
http://www.demographia.com
http://www.publicpurpose.com

Melbourne 2030 Plan: Good Riddance

Note

This piece was originally posted in March 2005 as an issue of “The Public Purpose,” at http://www.publicpurpose.com/pp86-m2030.pdf.

It is republished here today on the occasion of the virtual abandonment of the plan by the state of Victoria as reported in The Age. This was written before my extensive direct involvement in the issue in Australia, and when the piece talks about having new home owners pay for infrastructure, it was not envisioning the kind of confiscatory and intellectually dishonest infrastructure fees charged by some Australian jurisdictions, the best example of which is the state of New South Wales (Sydney, etc).

MELBOURNE 2030: A VISION FAR TOO TIMID

Premier Bracks Swallows L.A. Fish Story

March 2005

By Wendell Cox

The State of Victoria’s Melbourne 2030 plan is a vision far too timid. Over the next 25 years, it is projected that another 1,000,000 residents will be added to this urban area of approximately 3,500,000. In times past, the urban area would have been permitted to expand to provide the next generation with a better lifestyle.

But not now. Across Australia, and to a lesser extent in urban areas outside, there is a rush to make the city more compact --- urban consolidation it is called in Australia. The plan is simple. Instead of allowing the city to continue to expand geographically, the government intends that more people should be piled into the same space already occupied by those who already live
there. Why, one might ask, does a country as large as Australia need urban (consolidation) densification? Is there a fear that without it, some day, as much as a total of 0.5 percent of the land might ultimately become developed? Is it that the food supply is threatened as land is taken for urban development? Or is it that public officials have heard the siren call to the effect that suburban development costs more --- so much more that we can no longer afford to live as we have? Or is it, as some suggest, that Australian cities might begin to sprawl like Los Angeles? Premier Steve Bracks even talks about Los Angeles as having “house after house without any
services provided.”

The facts demonstrate that positive answers to any of these questions would be absurd. Australia has plenty of land, and even if future growth were permitted to take up as much space as past, little of the nation’s plentiful supply of land would be used. As for the food supply, agriculture has become so productive that over the past quarter century an area the size of Victoria has been taken out of farming production. Indeed, all of the urban land that has been developed or might be in the future could be fit into an area the size of Victoria many times over. As for the suburban cost myth --- and it is a myth --- even if it were true, the answer would be simple. Make
the people who move into the new areas pay for their services. If it costs too much, they won’t move there. If doesn’t, then those who want will move there. But to the high priests of urban planning, letting people do what they want would be far too radical. Who knows better what is good for people and families than the university based planners thousands of kilometers distant?

As for Los Angeles, that’s where it really gets hilarious. If Australian cities sprawled like Los Angeles, they would be more compact, not less. The secret is that the most densely settled urban area in the former colonies (Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the United States) is Los Angeles. This inconvenient fact is often either missed or even ignored. Los Angeles also has the worst traffic congestion and probably the worst air pollution. But it is the Premier who has proven the most gullible. Somehow, despite living 20 years in Los Angeles serving more than eight in public office, the service-less houses that Premier Bracks talks about escaped me. In fact,
public services in the Los Angeles area are among the best in the nation, or for that matter in the high-income world. Indeed, across the United States the least costly and highest quality municipal services are to be found (to the horror of urban planners) in the suburbs. But that does not keep the urban planning fundamentalists from making up stories.

And, as for the higher density of Los Angeles, at least planners there had the good sense to allow the city to continue to expand. Never did they come back, as the Victorian planners have, and try to force higher density onto lower.

And that’s where it will probably all fall down, along with the Bracks government. Melbourne is not alone. Other urban areas have headed down this dead end. Portland, Oregon is the best example. It is in Portland that one finds the most fundamentalist urban consolidation rhetoric, yet its plans were never as radical as Melbourne’s. Nonetheless, when densities began to increase, as authorities forced high density development into low density neighborhoods, the people said “enough.” Under an initiative passed 2-1, densification of Portland neighborhoods is now prohibited. As a result, Portland expanded its urban growth boundary in two years more than it had planned for 2040. But all of this occurred after things had already gotten worse. Portland lost housing affordability at a greater rate than any other major US urban area during the 1990s, according to US Census data.

All of this is the result of urban planning fundamentalism --- a view that we are running out of land (wrong) and that we use cars too much. The solution is a philosophy that densifies and seeks to get people out of their cars. But the problem is that the urban planning fundamentalist have never “penciled” out the costs. Why does one need analysis when there is ideology. In fact it all
simply does not add up.

Already the Portland style housing affordability losses, and more, are being experienced in Australia’s “consolidating” urban areas, urban planning fundamentalism makes land scarce and when land becomes scarce housing prices rise. That part of Economics 101 is not required for urban planners. And with Portland’s neglect of, and indeed hostility toward automobile capacity improvements, traffic congestion has increased to become the worst of any similar sized urban area in the nation, according to data from the standard source for such information, the Texas Transportation Institute.

Like Portland, Melbourne’s housing affordability has tanked --- even worse. Now, according to the Demographia international rankings, Melbourne has a “severely” unaffordable housing market, ranking ninth worst out of 88 urban areas in the four former colonies. Much of this appears to be the result of the urban growth boundary and the attendant fundamentalist policies.
There are those who claim that there is a housing “bubble” caused by low interest rates. If that were true, then one would expect Melbourne’s nearly 6.9 to 1.0 median household inc ome to median house price multiple to be repeated in other places where interest rates are low, such as Atlanta, Dallas-Fort Worth and Houston. These urban areas rank first, third and fourth in the
high-income world among urban areas with more than 3,000,000. Yet, the combination of very strong growth and low interest rates have produced a housing affordability multiple not of 6.9, but rather 2.6, 2.6 and 2.7 respectively. What is missing? The gospel of the urban planning fundamentalists has thus far been rejected in Atlanta, Dallas-Fort Worth and Houston.

Fortunately some are watching. Monash University’s Bob Birrell, Kevin O'Connor, Virginia Rapson, and Ernest Healy have evaluated the 2030 plan in their book Melbourne 2030: Planning Rhetoric versus Urban Reality and found it severely wanting. Because I am in Paris for two months and have not yet been able to arrange for my own copy, I don’t know the criticisms. But, if Birrell et al have managed to cram a complete critique of the Melbourne 2030 plan into just a couple of hundred pages, then it is quite an accomplishment.

One of the intentions of the 2030 plan is to get people to give up their cars and ride public transport. The problem, of course, is that public transport is not a viable alternative to the automobile, except for trips to downtown. Even the public transport improvements proposed by the government would not begin to change that. What is needed is a public transport system that is as convenient as the car and takes people from their origins to their destinations when they want and at a speed as fast or nearly so. It is indeed possible to construct such a public transport system in Melbourne. All that’s needed is money, and a populace prepared to live through
construction disruptions that would make US urban freeway construction in the 1960s look like a Sunday afternoon picnic. To achieve the automobile competitive public transport service specification --- and attract a material share of trips from automobiles would cost more than the annual income of the Melbourne area --- every year.

The government’s objective, could, however, be met by another means. All it takes is a bit more strident commitment to densification. If the government could force everyone --- all 4.5 million people in 2030 to live within five kilometers of Flinders Street Station. This would achieve the density necessary (at least as high as Hong Kong) to afford the public transport system that could make the automobile a viable option for most trips. But the government is too timid for that.

The modest densification proposed by the government will only make things worse. Traffic congestion will get worse. Air pollution will be more intense, because traffic will be slower and more subject to stop and go conditions. Even so, traffic congestion will never get so bad that the less than adequate improvements the government intends to make in public transport would make it more convenient to switch from cars except for a small number of trips.

It can be expected that the urban consolidation policies will keep housing prices well beyond the ability of young households and others that have not yet purchased their own homes. Melbourne, which has long been a place where most people own their own homes is poised to become a city of renters. This will not be a fairer or more prosperous city. Unless the government plans are
reversed, Melbourne is poised for a yesterday of less affluence and greater social division.

But there is hope, and it is inherent in the government policies themselves. Densification may well be the sword on which the Bracks government falls. When serious densification begins and neighborhoods start to be ruined, the people are likely to forget other issues and vote to throw the urban planning fundamentalists out.

Wendell Cox is principal of Wendell Cox Consultancy, an urban policy firm that sponsors www.demographia.com. He also serves as a visiting professor at the Conservatoire National des Arts et Metiers in Paris. He was a three-term member of the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission.

Griffith University Misrepresents Research

(Based upon an email commenting on a report by Griffith University, Queensland, on GHG emissions in Australia.)

The Griffith University researchers have really stretched on this one, having charged us with saying far more than we said. They painstakingly point out that correlation is not causation and then basically say that we found a causal relationship between urban consolidation and higher GHGs.

We did no such thing. Virtually exclusively we used the word "association" (or lack of it) to note the relationship between the studied variables and urban consolidation (the word appears 32 times).

Our report simply took the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) analysis to its logical conclusion. It is fine for ACF to do a report that identifies GHGs by local authority area --- and indeed their work so far as it goes is by far the best I have seen in the world. Since they did not complete the job, however --- to increase the size of the analysis zones so that a more "macro" view could be obtained, we did. In light of the causal relationship that urban consolidation proponents have liked to suggest between inner city living and lower GHGs, this was important and their failure to put this data out there was a serious omission. One can only wonder why the research was not completed (imagine the headlines in the Courier-Mail, Sydney Morning Herald, etc.).

We did offer conclusions, none suggesting cause. Our most important conclusion was that, given the strong association that seems to be in opposition to the widely held views of the urban consolidation agenda, policy should not leap before looking much more closely.

In my view, our research stands (along with that of the Australian Conservation Foundation, which is its data source), unscathed and has been criticized principally for something that it did not do. We noted association, not causation.

Specifically, the conclusions of our report are (page 14):

1. Lower GHG emissions are associated with locations farther from the core.
2. Lower GHG emissions are associated with more detached housing.
3. Lower GHG emissions are associated with greater auto use.
4. Lower GHG emissions are associated with lower population density.


What the ACF data says is that before “sleepwalking” into GHG reduction policies based upon preconceived (and even ideological) notions, it is essential that reliable data be developed so that policies can genuinely address the objective.

ACF Australian Conservation Atlas
Housing Form in Australia and its Impact on Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Griffith University Paper