The Project California voters will be asked to approve a nearly $10 billion bond issue in the November election as the beginning of funding for the a high-speed rail system intended to serve San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego, Sacramento, Fresno, Riverside-San Bernardino and points between. Promoters claim that the remaining necessary funding (from $45 billion to $71 billion, depending upon who you believe) would come from the federal government and private investors. There is no federal program to provide such massive funding and private investment seems highly unlikely given the overwhelming prospects for financial failure.
The Issue The CHSRA lacks a comprehensive financing plan. The proposed state bonds would be insufficient to build Phase I, much less the rest of the system. Little appears firm about potential matching funds from federal and local governments and from potential investors. The state Senate Transportation and Housing committee has issued cautionary statements about the availability of matching federal funds. Also, CHSRA advisor Lehman Brothers has outlined risks that can be a barrier to private investment, including cost overruns, failure to reach ridership and revenue projections and political meddling. Meanwhile, the cost of the project continues to grow.
In the final analysis, it will be most difficult for CHSRA to obtain sufficient financing to complete the Phase I San Francisco–Los Angeles–Anaheim route. This Due Diligence report concludes that commercial revenues from that route are unlikely to be sufficient to pay operating costs and debt service, much less finance Phase II and other extensions. As a result, it seems highly unlikely that the Inland Empire-San Diego, Sacramento, East Bay San Jose to Oakland and Altamont Pass routes will be built. Further, in the worst case, funding shortfalls could require greater use of modestly improved conventional rail infrastructure in Phase I, which could add hours to the promised travel times.
All of this could lead to negative financial consequences, such as substantial additional taxpayer subsidies, private investment losses, and commercial bond defaults.
Adapted from The California High Speed Rail Proposal: A Due Diligence Report By Wendell Cox & Joseph Vranich
Additional information
2008/09/30
California High Speed Rail: Service to Riverside-San Bernardino & Inland Empire Unlikely
The Project California voters will be asked to approve a nearly $10 billion bond issue in the November election as the beginning of funding for the a high-speed rail system intended to serve San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego, Sacramento, Fresno, Riverside-San Bernardino and points between. Promoters claim that the remaining necessary funding (from $45 billion to $71 billion, depending upon who you believe) would come from the federal government and private investors. There is no federal program to provide such massive funding and private investment seems highly unlikely given the overwhelming prospects for financial failure.
The Issue The CHSRA lacks a comprehensive financing plan. The proposed state bonds would be insufficient to build Phase I, much less the rest of the system. Little appears firm about potential matching funds from federal and local governments and from potential investors. The state Senate Transportation and Housing committee has issued cautionary statements about the availability of matching federal funds. Also, CHSRA advisor Lehman Brothers has outlined risks that can be a barrier to private investment, including cost overruns, failure to reach ridership and revenue projections and political meddling. Meanwhile, the cost of the project continues to grow.
In the final analysis, it will be most difficult for CHSRA to obtain sufficient financing to complete the Phase I San Francisco–Los Angeles–Anaheim route. This Due Diligence report concludes that commercial revenues from that route are unlikely to be sufficient to pay operating costs and debt service, much less finance Phase II and other extensions. As a result, it seems highly unlikely that the Inland Empire-San Diego, Sacramento, East Bay San Jose to Oakland and Altamont Pass routes will be built. Further, in the worst case, funding shortfalls could require greater use of modestly improved conventional rail infrastructure in Phase I, which could add hours to the promised travel times.
All of this could lead to negative financial consequences, such as substantial additional taxpayer subsidies, private investment losses, and commercial bond defaults.
Adapted from The California High Speed Rail Proposal: A Due Diligence Report By Wendell Cox & Joseph Vranich
Additional information
The Issue The CHSRA lacks a comprehensive financing plan. The proposed state bonds would be insufficient to build Phase I, much less the rest of the system. Little appears firm about potential matching funds from federal and local governments and from potential investors. The state Senate Transportation and Housing committee has issued cautionary statements about the availability of matching federal funds. Also, CHSRA advisor Lehman Brothers has outlined risks that can be a barrier to private investment, including cost overruns, failure to reach ridership and revenue projections and political meddling. Meanwhile, the cost of the project continues to grow.
In the final analysis, it will be most difficult for CHSRA to obtain sufficient financing to complete the Phase I San Francisco–Los Angeles–Anaheim route. This Due Diligence report concludes that commercial revenues from that route are unlikely to be sufficient to pay operating costs and debt service, much less finance Phase II and other extensions. As a result, it seems highly unlikely that the Inland Empire-San Diego, Sacramento, East Bay San Jose to Oakland and Altamont Pass routes will be built. Further, in the worst case, funding shortfalls could require greater use of modestly improved conventional rail infrastructure in Phase I, which could add hours to the promised travel times.
All of this could lead to negative financial consequences, such as substantial additional taxpayer subsidies, private investment losses, and commercial bond defaults.
Adapted from The California High Speed Rail Proposal: A Due Diligence Report By Wendell Cox & Joseph Vranich
Additional information
California High Speed Rail: Service to Oakland & East Bay Unlikely
The Project California voters will be asked to approve a nearly $10 billion bond issue in the November election as the beginning of funding for the a high-speed rail system intended to serve San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego, Sacramento, Fresno, Riverside-San Bernardino and points between. Promoters claim that the remaining necessary funding (from $45 billion to $71 billion, depending upon who you believe) would come from the federal government and private investors. There is no federal program to provide such massive funding and private investment seems highly unlikely given the overwhelming prospects for financial failure.
The Issue The CHSRA lacks a comprehensive financing plan. The proposed state bonds would be insufficient to build Phase I, much less the rest of the system. Little appears firm about potential matching funds from federal and local governments and from potential investors. The state Senate Transportation and Housing committee has issued cautionary statements about the availability of matching federal funds. Also, CHSRA advisor Lehman Brothers has outlined risks that can be a barrier to private investment, including cost overruns, failure to reach ridership and revenue projections and political meddling. Meanwhile, the cost of the project continues to grow.
In the final analysis, it will be most difficult for CHSRA to obtain sufficient financing to complete the Phase I San Francisco–Los Angeles–Anaheim route. This Due Diligence report concludes that commercial revenues from that route are unlikely to be sufficient to pay operating costs and debt service, much less finance Phase II and other extensions. As a result, it seems highly unlikely that the Inland Empire-San Diego, Sacramento, East Bay San Jose to Oakland and Altamont Pass routes will be built. Further, in the worst case, funding shortfalls could require greater use of modestly improved conventional rail infrastructure in Phase I, which could add hours to the promised travel times.
All of this could lead to negative financial consequences, such as substantial additional taxpayer subsidies, private investment losses, and commercial bond defaults.
Adapted from The California High Speed Rail Proposal: A Due Diligence Report By Wendell Cox & Joseph Vranich
Additional information
The Issue The CHSRA lacks a comprehensive financing plan. The proposed state bonds would be insufficient to build Phase I, much less the rest of the system. Little appears firm about potential matching funds from federal and local governments and from potential investors. The state Senate Transportation and Housing committee has issued cautionary statements about the availability of matching federal funds. Also, CHSRA advisor Lehman Brothers has outlined risks that can be a barrier to private investment, including cost overruns, failure to reach ridership and revenue projections and political meddling. Meanwhile, the cost of the project continues to grow.
In the final analysis, it will be most difficult for CHSRA to obtain sufficient financing to complete the Phase I San Francisco–Los Angeles–Anaheim route. This Due Diligence report concludes that commercial revenues from that route are unlikely to be sufficient to pay operating costs and debt service, much less finance Phase II and other extensions. As a result, it seems highly unlikely that the Inland Empire-San Diego, Sacramento, East Bay San Jose to Oakland and Altamont Pass routes will be built. Further, in the worst case, funding shortfalls could require greater use of modestly improved conventional rail infrastructure in Phase I, which could add hours to the promised travel times.
All of this could lead to negative financial consequences, such as substantial additional taxpayer subsidies, private investment losses, and commercial bond defaults.
Adapted from The California High Speed Rail Proposal: A Due Diligence Report By Wendell Cox & Joseph Vranich
Additional information
California High Speed Rail: Service to San Diego Unlikely
The Project California voters will be asked to approve a nearly $10 billion bond issue in the November election as the beginning of funding for the a high-speed rail system intended to serve San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego, Sacramento, Fresno, Riverside-San Bernardino and points between. Promoters claim that the remaining necessary funding (from $45 billion to $71 billion, depending upon who you believe) would come from the federal government and private investors. There is no federal program to provide such massive funding and private investment seems highly unlikely given the overwhelming prospects for financial failure.
The Issue The CHSRA lacks a comprehensive financing plan. The proposed state bonds would be insufficient to build Phase I, much less the rest of the system. Little appears firm about potential matching funds from federal and local governments and from potential investors. The state Senate Transportation and Housing committee has issued cautionary statements about the availability of matching federal funds. Also, CHSRA advisor Lehman Brothers has outlined risks that can be a barrier to private investment, including cost overruns, failure to reach ridership and revenue projections and political meddling. Meanwhile, the cost of the project continues to grow.
In the final analysis, it will be most difficult for CHSRA to obtain sufficient financing to complete the Phase I San Francisco–Los Angeles–Anaheim route. This Due Diligence report concludes that commercial revenues from that route are unlikely to be sufficient to pay operating costs and debt service, much less finance Phase II and other extensions. As a result, it seems highly unlikely that the Inland Empire-San Diego, Sacramento, East Bay San Jose to Oakland and Altamont Pass routes will be built. Further, in the worst case, funding shortfalls could require greater use of modestly improved conventional rail infrastructure in Phase I, which could add hours to the promised travel times.
All of this could lead to negative financial consequences, such as substantial additional taxpayer subsidies, private investment losses, and commercial bond defaults.
Adapted from The California High Speed Rail Proposal: A Due Diligence Report By Wendell Cox & Joseph Vranich
Additional information
The Issue The CHSRA lacks a comprehensive financing plan. The proposed state bonds would be insufficient to build Phase I, much less the rest of the system. Little appears firm about potential matching funds from federal and local governments and from potential investors. The state Senate Transportation and Housing committee has issued cautionary statements about the availability of matching federal funds. Also, CHSRA advisor Lehman Brothers has outlined risks that can be a barrier to private investment, including cost overruns, failure to reach ridership and revenue projections and political meddling. Meanwhile, the cost of the project continues to grow.
In the final analysis, it will be most difficult for CHSRA to obtain sufficient financing to complete the Phase I San Francisco–Los Angeles–Anaheim route. This Due Diligence report concludes that commercial revenues from that route are unlikely to be sufficient to pay operating costs and debt service, much less finance Phase II and other extensions. As a result, it seems highly unlikely that the Inland Empire-San Diego, Sacramento, East Bay San Jose to Oakland and Altamont Pass routes will be built. Further, in the worst case, funding shortfalls could require greater use of modestly improved conventional rail infrastructure in Phase I, which could add hours to the promised travel times.
All of this could lead to negative financial consequences, such as substantial additional taxpayer subsidies, private investment losses, and commercial bond defaults.
Adapted from The California High Speed Rail Proposal: A Due Diligence Report By Wendell Cox & Joseph Vranich
Additional information
California High Speed Rail: Service to Sacramento Unlikely
The Project California voters will be asked to approve a nearly $10 billion bond issue in the November election as the beginning of funding for the a high-speed rail system intended to serve San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego, Sacramento, Fresno, Riverside-San Bernardino and points between. Promoters claim that the remaining necessary funding (from $45 billion to $71 billion, depending upon who you believe) would come from the federal government and private investors. There is no federal program to provide such massive funding and private investment seems highly unlikely given the overwhelming prospects for financial failure.
The Issue The CHSRA lacks a comprehensive financing plan. The proposed state bonds would be insufficient to build Phase I, much less the rest of the system. Little appears firm about potential matching funds from federal and local governments and from potential investors. The state Senate Transportation and Housing committee has issued cautionary statements about the availability of matching federal funds. Also, CHSRA advisor Lehman Brothers has outlined risks that can be a barrier to private investment, including cost overruns, failure to reach ridership and revenue projections and political meddling. Meanwhile, the cost of the project continues to grow.
In the final analysis, it will be most difficult for CHSRA to obtain sufficient financing to complete the Phase I San Francisco–Los Angeles–Anaheim route. This Due Diligence report concludes that commercial revenues from that route are unlikely to be sufficient to pay operating costs and debt service, much less finance Phase II and other extensions. As a result, it seems highly unlikely that the Inland Empire-San Diego, Sacramento, East Bay San Jose to Oakland and Altamont Pass routes will be built. Further, in the worst case, funding shortfalls could require greater use of modestly improved conventional rail infrastructure in Phase I, which could add hours to the promised travel times.
All of this could lead to negative financial consequences, such as substantial additional taxpayer subsidies, private investment losses, and commercial bond defaults.
Adapted from The California High Speed Rail Proposal: A Due Diligence Report By Wendell Cox & Joseph Vranich
Additional information
The Issue The CHSRA lacks a comprehensive financing plan. The proposed state bonds would be insufficient to build Phase I, much less the rest of the system. Little appears firm about potential matching funds from federal and local governments and from potential investors. The state Senate Transportation and Housing committee has issued cautionary statements about the availability of matching federal funds. Also, CHSRA advisor Lehman Brothers has outlined risks that can be a barrier to private investment, including cost overruns, failure to reach ridership and revenue projections and political meddling. Meanwhile, the cost of the project continues to grow.
In the final analysis, it will be most difficult for CHSRA to obtain sufficient financing to complete the Phase I San Francisco–Los Angeles–Anaheim route. This Due Diligence report concludes that commercial revenues from that route are unlikely to be sufficient to pay operating costs and debt service, much less finance Phase II and other extensions. As a result, it seems highly unlikely that the Inland Empire-San Diego, Sacramento, East Bay San Jose to Oakland and Altamont Pass routes will be built. Further, in the worst case, funding shortfalls could require greater use of modestly improved conventional rail infrastructure in Phase I, which could add hours to the promised travel times.
All of this could lead to negative financial consequences, such as substantial additional taxpayer subsidies, private investment losses, and commercial bond defaults.
Adapted from The California High Speed Rail Proposal: A Due Diligence Report By Wendell Cox & Joseph Vranich
Additional information
California High Speed Rail: They Don’t Even have a Qualifying Train Design
California High Speed Rail: They Don’t Even have a Qualifying Train Design
The Project California voters will be asked to approve a nearly $10 billion bond issue in the November election as the beginning of funding for the a high-speed rail system intended to serve San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego, Sacramento, Fresno, Riverside-San Bernardino and points between. Promoters claim that the remaining necessary funding (from $45 billion to $71 billion, depending upon who you believe) would come from the federal government and private investors. There is no federal program to provide such massive funding and private investment seems highly unlikely given the overwhelming prospects for financial failure.
The Issue No existing HSR trains capable of meeting the speed and capacity goals of the CHSRA system can legally be used in the United States. The CHSRA’s intention to share tracks with commuter and freight trains complicates designing a train to meet Federal Railroad Administration safety standards that are considered the toughest in the world. Currently, no European or Asian HSR train meets U.S. crashworthiness standards. The necessary regulatory approvals of an overseas train are unlikely to be achieved without substantial changes in design and weight.
The CHSRA has yet to decide on basic design specifications for a train and has based studies on inconsistent seating capacities of 450-500, 650, 1,175, 1,200 and 1,600 per train. Also, a train redesigned for the U.S. will become much heavier and is thus unlikely to reach promised speeds. In short, the Authority does not have a usable train design and the eventually required modifications could substantially impair operating performance. Lower performance would negate the CHSRA’s assumptions on which it has based travel times, ridership projections, revenue forecasts and profits.
While builder specifications for the CHSRA’s train do not exist, because of the above circumstance it is fair to state that the CHSRA’s design may become the world’s longest and heaviest HSR train—yet be expected to operate at the highest speed current technology permits. It is likely that a series of designs, tests, prototypes and safety reviews never before achieved anywhere in the world must succeed for the CHSRA’s train to become a reality.
Adapted from The California High Speed Rail Proposal: A Due Diligence Report By Wendell Cox & Joseph Vranich
Additional information
The Project California voters will be asked to approve a nearly $10 billion bond issue in the November election as the beginning of funding for the a high-speed rail system intended to serve San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego, Sacramento, Fresno, Riverside-San Bernardino and points between. Promoters claim that the remaining necessary funding (from $45 billion to $71 billion, depending upon who you believe) would come from the federal government and private investors. There is no federal program to provide such massive funding and private investment seems highly unlikely given the overwhelming prospects for financial failure.
The Issue No existing HSR trains capable of meeting the speed and capacity goals of the CHSRA system can legally be used in the United States. The CHSRA’s intention to share tracks with commuter and freight trains complicates designing a train to meet Federal Railroad Administration safety standards that are considered the toughest in the world. Currently, no European or Asian HSR train meets U.S. crashworthiness standards. The necessary regulatory approvals of an overseas train are unlikely to be achieved without substantial changes in design and weight.
The CHSRA has yet to decide on basic design specifications for a train and has based studies on inconsistent seating capacities of 450-500, 650, 1,175, 1,200 and 1,600 per train. Also, a train redesigned for the U.S. will become much heavier and is thus unlikely to reach promised speeds. In short, the Authority does not have a usable train design and the eventually required modifications could substantially impair operating performance. Lower performance would negate the CHSRA’s assumptions on which it has based travel times, ridership projections, revenue forecasts and profits.
While builder specifications for the CHSRA’s train do not exist, because of the above circumstance it is fair to state that the CHSRA’s design may become the world’s longest and heaviest HSR train—yet be expected to operate at the highest speed current technology permits. It is likely that a series of designs, tests, prototypes and safety reviews never before achieved anywhere in the world must succeed for the CHSRA’s train to become a reality.
Adapted from The California High Speed Rail Proposal: A Due Diligence Report By Wendell Cox & Joseph Vranich
Additional information
California High Speed Rail to Operate Far Slower than Advertised
California High Speed Rail to Operate Far Slower than Advertised
The Project California voters will be asked to approve a nearly $10 billion bond issue in the November election as the beginning of funding for the a high-speed rail system intended to serve San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego, Sacramento, Fresno, Riverside-San Bernardino and points between. Promoters claim that the remaining necessary funding (from $45 billion to $71 billion, depending upon who you believe) would come from the federal government and private investors. There is no federal program to provide such massive funding and private investment seems highly unlikely given the overwhelming prospects for financial failure.
The Issue Based upon international HSR experience, it appears that the CHSRA speed and travel time objectives cannot be met. As a result, HSR will be less attractive as an alternative to airline travel and is likely to attract fewer passengers than projected. Notably, the CHSRA’s anticipated average speeds are not being achieved anywhere in the world, including on the most advanced systems. Incomplete consideration has been given to California’s urban and terrain profiles where HSR trains must operate more slowly than circumstances allow in, for example, France. This study, by assuming realistic speeds, estimates that a non-stop San Francisco–Los Angeles trip would take 3 hours and 41 minutes—59 minutes longer than the statutory requirement of 2 hours, 42 minutes. In the future, the CHSRA’s travel times may be further lengthened by train weight and safety issues and also by political demands to add stops to the system.
The proposed HSR system appears unlikely to provide travel time advantages for long-distance airline passengers. It is likely that HSR door-to-door travel times would be greater and there would be considerably less non-stop service than air service. Moreover, HSR would be unattractive to drivers in middle-distance automobile-oriented markets because little or no door-to-door time savings would be achieved and costly local connections would often be required (rental cars or taxicabs). Another convenience factor is that California urban areas lack the extensive local transit infrastructure that connects with HSR systems in dense Asian and European urban areas. The HSR system will experience disadvantages and commercial challenges in competing with air and auto travel that have been understated in CHSRA documentation.
Adapted from The California High Speed Rail Proposal: A Due Diligence Report By Wendell Cox & Joseph Vranich
Additional information
The Project California voters will be asked to approve a nearly $10 billion bond issue in the November election as the beginning of funding for the a high-speed rail system intended to serve San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego, Sacramento, Fresno, Riverside-San Bernardino and points between. Promoters claim that the remaining necessary funding (from $45 billion to $71 billion, depending upon who you believe) would come from the federal government and private investors. There is no federal program to provide such massive funding and private investment seems highly unlikely given the overwhelming prospects for financial failure.
The Issue Based upon international HSR experience, it appears that the CHSRA speed and travel time objectives cannot be met. As a result, HSR will be less attractive as an alternative to airline travel and is likely to attract fewer passengers than projected. Notably, the CHSRA’s anticipated average speeds are not being achieved anywhere in the world, including on the most advanced systems. Incomplete consideration has been given to California’s urban and terrain profiles where HSR trains must operate more slowly than circumstances allow in, for example, France. This study, by assuming realistic speeds, estimates that a non-stop San Francisco–Los Angeles trip would take 3 hours and 41 minutes—59 minutes longer than the statutory requirement of 2 hours, 42 minutes. In the future, the CHSRA’s travel times may be further lengthened by train weight and safety issues and also by political demands to add stops to the system.
The proposed HSR system appears unlikely to provide travel time advantages for long-distance airline passengers. It is likely that HSR door-to-door travel times would be greater and there would be considerably less non-stop service than air service. Moreover, HSR would be unattractive to drivers in middle-distance automobile-oriented markets because little or no door-to-door time savings would be achieved and costly local connections would often be required (rental cars or taxicabs). Another convenience factor is that California urban areas lack the extensive local transit infrastructure that connects with HSR systems in dense Asian and European urban areas. The HSR system will experience disadvantages and commercial challenges in competing with air and auto travel that have been understated in CHSRA documentation.
Adapted from The California High Speed Rail Proposal: A Due Diligence Report By Wendell Cox & Joseph Vranich
Additional information
California High Speed Rail: Phony Climate Change Claims
California High Speed Rail: Phony Climate Change Claims
The Project California voters will be asked to approve a nearly $10 billion bond issue in the November election as the beginning of funding for the a high-speed rail system intended to serve San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego, Sacramento, Fresno, Riverside-San Bernardino and points between. Promoters claim that the remaining necessary funding (from $45 billion to $71 billion, depending upon who you believe) would come from the federal government and private investors. There is no federal program to provide such massive funding and private investment seems highly unlikely given the overwhelming prospects for financial failure.
The Issue One of the principal proponent’s claims about high-speed rail is that it will reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, high-speed rail’s environmental benefits have been greatly overstated.
California HSR will do little to reduce CO2 emissions (greenhouse gas emissions). Based upon California Air Resources Board projections, HSR would ultimately remove CO2 emissions equal to only 1.5 percent of the current state objective. This is a small fraction of the CHSRA’s exaggerated claims of “almost 50 percent” of the state objective. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has indicated that for between $20 and $50 per ton of reduced greenhouse gases emissions, deep reversal of CO2 concentrations can be achieved between 2030 and 2050. A McKinsey report indicates that substantial CO2 emission reductions can be achieved in the United States for less than $50 per ton. Yet the cost per ton of CO2 emission removal by HSR is far higher. ---.between 39 and 201 times the international IPCC ceiling of $50. The reality is that HSR’s impact on CO2 would be inconsequential while being exorbitantly costly.
Adapted from The California High Speed Rail Proposal: A Due Diligence Report By Wendell Cox & Joseph Vranich
Additional information
The Project California voters will be asked to approve a nearly $10 billion bond issue in the November election as the beginning of funding for the a high-speed rail system intended to serve San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego, Sacramento, Fresno, Riverside-San Bernardino and points between. Promoters claim that the remaining necessary funding (from $45 billion to $71 billion, depending upon who you believe) would come from the federal government and private investors. There is no federal program to provide such massive funding and private investment seems highly unlikely given the overwhelming prospects for financial failure.
The Issue One of the principal proponent’s claims about high-speed rail is that it will reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, high-speed rail’s environmental benefits have been greatly overstated.
California HSR will do little to reduce CO2 emissions (greenhouse gas emissions). Based upon California Air Resources Board projections, HSR would ultimately remove CO2 emissions equal to only 1.5 percent of the current state objective. This is a small fraction of the CHSRA’s exaggerated claims of “almost 50 percent” of the state objective. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has indicated that for between $20 and $50 per ton of reduced greenhouse gases emissions, deep reversal of CO2 concentrations can be achieved between 2030 and 2050. A McKinsey report indicates that substantial CO2 emission reductions can be achieved in the United States for less than $50 per ton. Yet the cost per ton of CO2 emission removal by HSR is far higher. ---.between 39 and 201 times the international IPCC ceiling of $50. The reality is that HSR’s impact on CO2 would be inconsequential while being exorbitantly costly.
Adapted from The California High Speed Rail Proposal: A Due Diligence Report By Wendell Cox & Joseph Vranich
Additional information
2008/09/28
England's Mortgage Bailout: The High Cost of Town Planning
The Daily Telegraph in London reports that the government bailout of mortgage lender Bradford and Bingley will raise the exposure of the United Kingdom taxpayers to £150 billion (nearly $300 billion). Overall, this is approximately $5,000 per capita, considerably more than the $3,000 per capita United States taxpayer exposure likely after the nearly $800 billion in bailouts, including AIG and the proposed congressional package.
It may be surprising that the cost in the UK would be competitive, much less higher than in the United States, until the causes are analyzed. Surely, US lenders appear to have been more profligate with their (and now taxpayers’) money than UK lenders. Yet the bloated prices have started to fall, as prices begin to return to reality.
Lending profligacy was only the start of the problem. Blame town planning, or what is called “smart growth” in the United States. Elsewhere, we have documented the fact that the excessive price increases that led to the US mortgage meltdown were concentrated in markets with strong land use regulation (smart growth). In these markets, land use policies limited the amount of land available for development, interfered with the competitive pricing of land for development and otherwise increased costs. The smart growth markets, while accounting for only 30 percent of the population, represented more than 85 percent of the housing price increases. Without smart growth, the financial crisis might well have been handled in the United States without government intervention.
The British are not so lucky. Because of the Town and Country Planning Act of 1947 and its subsequent administration, the entire nation is victimized by smart growth style policies that simply do not allow enough houses to be built. Last year, British house construction fell to the lowest level since World War II, and has dropped 30 percent just since 1992. This is barely one-third of the level required in the nation according to James Hearfield, in Let’s Build: Why We Need Five Million New Homes in 10 Years.
For all the good it has done, the Blair government has made the housing market a “dog’s breakfast.” By requiring an untenably high share of new housing to be built in brownfield sites, the government has raised the price of housing and discouraged its development. It is not as if housing has not attracted the attention of the government. Indeed, it seems as if the more it has talked, the less has been built.
But there is much more than national policy. Local authorities have long since caved to property owners who think that their rights to property they can see is no less than their rights to property they own. The result is a nation that is saying no to the next generation. Never mind that the UK is among the most poorly housed nations in the developed world.
It is not, therefore surprising, that housing prices have risen with a vengeance. Owner occupied housing costs have doubled in the last decade relative to incomes. This means that the value of the owner occupied housing stock stands at nearly £3.5 trillion, when historic norms would place it at £1.7 trillion. The £150 billion (£0.150 trillion) may just be the beginning.
It may be surprising that the cost in the UK would be competitive, much less higher than in the United States, until the causes are analyzed. Surely, US lenders appear to have been more profligate with their (and now taxpayers’) money than UK lenders. Yet the bloated prices have started to fall, as prices begin to return to reality.
Lending profligacy was only the start of the problem. Blame town planning, or what is called “smart growth” in the United States. Elsewhere, we have documented the fact that the excessive price increases that led to the US mortgage meltdown were concentrated in markets with strong land use regulation (smart growth). In these markets, land use policies limited the amount of land available for development, interfered with the competitive pricing of land for development and otherwise increased costs. The smart growth markets, while accounting for only 30 percent of the population, represented more than 85 percent of the housing price increases. Without smart growth, the financial crisis might well have been handled in the United States without government intervention.
The British are not so lucky. Because of the Town and Country Planning Act of 1947 and its subsequent administration, the entire nation is victimized by smart growth style policies that simply do not allow enough houses to be built. Last year, British house construction fell to the lowest level since World War II, and has dropped 30 percent just since 1992. This is barely one-third of the level required in the nation according to James Hearfield, in Let’s Build: Why We Need Five Million New Homes in 10 Years.
For all the good it has done, the Blair government has made the housing market a “dog’s breakfast.” By requiring an untenably high share of new housing to be built in brownfield sites, the government has raised the price of housing and discouraged its development. It is not as if housing has not attracted the attention of the government. Indeed, it seems as if the more it has talked, the less has been built.
But there is much more than national policy. Local authorities have long since caved to property owners who think that their rights to property they can see is no less than their rights to property they own. The result is a nation that is saying no to the next generation. Never mind that the UK is among the most poorly housed nations in the developed world.
It is not, therefore surprising, that housing prices have risen with a vengeance. Owner occupied housing costs have doubled in the last decade relative to incomes. This means that the value of the owner occupied housing stock stands at nearly £3.5 trillion, when historic norms would place it at £1.7 trillion. The £150 billion (£0.150 trillion) may just be the beginning.
2008/09/21
The Sub-Prime/Smart Growth Mortgage Market Bailout
The impending federal bailout of mortgage markets has a principal cause --- lax lending standards, such as sub-prime mortgages and an exaggerating cause --- excessive land use regulation, which drove house prices up beyond any precedent. More than 80 percent of the housing cost increase since 2000 occurred in markets with excessive land use regulation (also called "smart growth"). Without this excessive increase, the financial crisis would have been far less intense or may not have occurred at all.
These policies, often referred to as "smart growth," create a scarcity of land, artificially raise the price of housing, and, again, have increased the exposure of the market to risky mortgage debt. When more liberal loan policies were implemented, metropolitan areas that had adopted these more restrictive policies lacked the resilient land markets that would have allowed the greater demand to be accommodated without inordinate increases in house prices.
For more detail see:
How Smart Growth Exacerbated the International Financial Crisis (Heritage Foundation web memo)
How Smart Growth Exacerbated the International Financial Crisis (report)
These policies, often referred to as "smart growth," create a scarcity of land, artificially raise the price of housing, and, again, have increased the exposure of the market to risky mortgage debt. When more liberal loan policies were implemented, metropolitan areas that had adopted these more restrictive policies lacked the resilient land markets that would have allowed the greater demand to be accommodated without inordinate increases in house prices.
For more detail see:
How Smart Growth Exacerbated the International Financial Crisis (Heritage Foundation web memo)
How Smart Growth Exacerbated the International Financial Crisis (report)
2008/09/12
Google Chrome: A Step in the Right Direction (Review)
I was happy to be one of the first to download Google Chrome, a new web browser, within minutes of its being made available on the internet. Somehow, Unlike, Microsoft, Google has managed to bring products to the market that are generally well tested and I have been pleased to use G-Mail and Google Earth, almost without any difficulty, from the beginning. That is not to say that their products are without difficulties. There are design problems with G-Mail, for example, but these are not program bugs, but rather software architecture issues --- I would have designed them differently.
This, of course, is much unlike Microsoft, whose products I find so infuriating that I even briefly switched to Apple, in an expensive failed experiment.
My haste in downloading Google Chrome was due to an associate's bad experience with the latest version of Firefox, which I had intended to download, but had not pressed all of the necessary buttons. He had, and lost hours because of design glitches. This put me in the market for an alternative not only to Internet Explorer, but also Firefox.
Google Chrome is generally an improvement on the other browsers. It has a clean look and more of the page is available for web page display. Some of the features are a bit unusual (as in the case of G-Mail), but the program passed my one-half hour test --- I must be up and running pretty well with any software within 30 minutes or it is removed from the registry. Google Chrome seems to be faster than Firefox and its display of tabs is more attractive and user friendly.
The import of bookmarks from Firefox was not completely successful, but the 5 percent that was missed I will add as it becomes necessary.
There are two problems, neither of which is sufficient to require a return to Firefox or, God Forbid to Internet Explorer:
All in all, however, Google Chrome is a significant step forward, despite being a “beta.” One can only hope that someone from the Chrome product will have coffee with someone from the G-Mail product and there will be “peace in the valley” again.
This, of course, is much unlike Microsoft, whose products I find so infuriating that I even briefly switched to Apple, in an expensive failed experiment.
My haste in downloading Google Chrome was due to an associate's bad experience with the latest version of Firefox, which I had intended to download, but had not pressed all of the necessary buttons. He had, and lost hours because of design glitches. This put me in the market for an alternative not only to Internet Explorer, but also Firefox.
Google Chrome is generally an improvement on the other browsers. It has a clean look and more of the page is available for web page display. Some of the features are a bit unusual (as in the case of G-Mail), but the program passed my one-half hour test --- I must be up and running pretty well with any software within 30 minutes or it is removed from the registry. Google Chrome seems to be faster than Firefox and its display of tabs is more attractive and user friendly.
The import of bookmarks from Firefox was not completely successful, but the 5 percent that was missed I will add as it becomes necessary.
There are two problems, neither of which is sufficient to require a return to Firefox or, God Forbid to Internet Explorer:
URL’s do not show on downloaded PDF documents. This is a problem, because I often send links to these documents and have to go to a previous page to find the link. This may just be a setting problem I have not yet figured out, but it is annoying.
The greatest annoyance, however, makes me fear that a strain of Gate’s Disease has struck Google. The one program that Google Chrome does not work well with is G-Mail, its own mail program. It routinely hangs up and when it does not is very slow, unlike other operations with Google Chrome. How Microsoftian can you get than to not be able to handle your own programs. I recall the previous version of XL (2003) rarely closed without crashing on a Windows system. The G-Mail problem is akin to that. Again, however, the problem is not great enough to justify a return to Firefox. I, however, do keep Firefox open only for the purpose of using G-Mail (that explains how serious the problem is).
All in all, however, Google Chrome is a significant step forward, despite being a “beta.” One can only hope that someone from the Chrome product will have coffee with someone from the G-Mail product and there will be “peace in the valley” again.
2008/09/08
Small Town America
With all of the discussion in the presidential campaign about small towns, it is well to review the situation of local governance in the United States.
According to the 2002 United States Census of Governments
Small town America appears to be alive and well.
According to the 2002 United States Census of Governments
There were 19,429 municipalities (cities, towns, boroughs and villages) with a population of 175,845,000. The average sized municipality was 9,000.
There were 16,504 townships and towns that are analogous to townships, with a population of 52,365,000. The average sized township had a population of 3,200.
All together, there were 35,933 cities, towns, boroughs, villages and townships in the United States. The total population was 227,210,000. The average population was 6,300.
Small town America appears to be alive and well.
2008/08/26
Valley to West LA Monorail or Subway: A Real Loser
I was a member of the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission from 1977 to 1985 (appointed to three terms by Mayor Bradley) and a resident of the Valley (Chatsworth). It was my motion that created the Proposition A set-aside for rail construction in 1980. I supported rail at that point because of consultant and staff claims that it would make a material difference in traffic congestion --- indeed, it was that concern that led me to enter transportation public policy in the middle 1970s.
Since that time, it should have become painfully clear that rail has made virtually no difference in traffic congestion in Los Angeles. This should not be surprising, because new urban rail systems have not reduced traffic congestion anywhere in North America or Western Europe. As for the Sepulveda Pass (I-405), it is a classic corridor for which there is no transit solution. The basic problem is simply that not enough people are going to the same place. The destinations of people driving on such a peripheral (as opposed to downtown oriented) corridor makes it impossible to deter anything but a very small percentage of the traffic, and that would be quickly replaced by growth.
Because transit cannot serve door-to-door travel, nearly all trips by transit are much longer than by car --- the national average is double and the data in Europe is not much different. Regrettably, proposals such as monorails, subways and even express buses are a reflection more of rhetoric than reality. They will make little difference and that is especially true in a corridor like Sepulveda Pass.
As politically incorrect as it may be, there is no way to reduce traffic congestion and improve travel times except by expanding roadways. High occupancy toll lanes can be very effective and could make a real difference, especially in light of the fact that Census Bureau estimates indicate a near stagnation of population growth in Los Angeles County (and even Orange County)
Since that time, it should have become painfully clear that rail has made virtually no difference in traffic congestion in Los Angeles. This should not be surprising, because new urban rail systems have not reduced traffic congestion anywhere in North America or Western Europe. As for the Sepulveda Pass (I-405), it is a classic corridor for which there is no transit solution. The basic problem is simply that not enough people are going to the same place. The destinations of people driving on such a peripheral (as opposed to downtown oriented) corridor makes it impossible to deter anything but a very small percentage of the traffic, and that would be quickly replaced by growth.
Because transit cannot serve door-to-door travel, nearly all trips by transit are much longer than by car --- the national average is double and the data in Europe is not much different. Regrettably, proposals such as monorails, subways and even express buses are a reflection more of rhetoric than reality. They will make little difference and that is especially true in a corridor like Sepulveda Pass.
As politically incorrect as it may be, there is no way to reduce traffic congestion and improve travel times except by expanding roadways. High occupancy toll lanes can be very effective and could make a real difference, especially in light of the fact that Census Bureau estimates indicate a near stagnation of population growth in Los Angeles County (and even Orange County)
2008/08/25
Las Vegas Monorail Bonds: More Bad News
According to a Business Wire story, “a default of some kind appears probable” on the bonds of the Las Vegas Monorail, based upon a “CC” Fitch Rating.
The monorail was developed as a private venture and supported by tax-exempt industrial development bonds issued by the state of Nevada. Project promoters produced an “investment grade” projection of 53,500 daily riders for 2004. In 2007, the average daily ridership was 21,600—60 percent below projection. This author had produced a report during the planning process projecting between 16,900 and 25,400 daily riders for 2004, the mid-point of which, at 21,200, was five percent below the actual 2008 year-to-date ridership (www.publicpurpose.com/ut-lvmono-0006.pdf).
The eventual results in Las Vegas may be unfortunate for investors. Moody’s Investors Services has downgraded the bonds to “junk” status and has indicated that “At current ridership and revenue levels, a payment default is anticipated by 2010 once reserves are exhausted.” (www.kvbc.com/Global/story.asp?S=7797066 and www.reuters.com/article/companyNews/idUSN2959008320080129). Finally, the bond insurer, AMBAC Financial Services, has run into financial difficulties and has had its credit rating dropped two levels (www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=asLtTQyLRQQs&refer=home). Holders of insured Las Vegas Monorail bonds could lose their investments, along with holders of uninsured bonds.
The monorail was developed as a private venture and supported by tax-exempt industrial development bonds issued by the state of Nevada. Project promoters produced an “investment grade” projection of 53,500 daily riders for 2004. In 2007, the average daily ridership was 21,600—60 percent below projection. This author had produced a report during the planning process projecting between 16,900 and 25,400 daily riders for 2004, the mid-point of which, at 21,200, was five percent below the actual 2008 year-to-date ridership (www.publicpurpose.com/ut-lvmono-0006.pdf).
The eventual results in Las Vegas may be unfortunate for investors. Moody’s Investors Services has downgraded the bonds to “junk” status and has indicated that “At current ridership and revenue levels, a payment default is anticipated by 2010 once reserves are exhausted.” (www.kvbc.com/Global/story.asp?S=7797066 and www.reuters.com/article/companyNews/idUSN2959008320080129). Finally, the bond insurer, AMBAC Financial Services, has run into financial difficulties and has had its credit rating dropped two levels (www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=asLtTQyLRQQs&refer=home). Holders of insured Las Vegas Monorail bonds could lose their investments, along with holders of uninsured bonds.
2008/08/21
Counterproductive GHG Policy in California
California’s Senate Bill 375 appears likely to pass tomorrow. The bill would establish greenhouse gas emissions targets for the state’s metropolitan areas and includes financial incentives that would seek to encourage more dense development and would ultimately interfere with local zoning prerogatives. The underlying assumptions of SB 375 are at best unproven and at the worst could lead to serious economic disruption.
One of the principal concerns in reducing greenhouse gases is to do so in a manner that allows strong economic growth to continue. Strong economic growth is much more than theoretical --- it is required to minimize poverty and to preserve the quality of life. Because of this concern, considerable research has been undertaken by the International Panel on Climate Change, which has concluded that significant (and sufficient) reductions of greenhouse gas emissions can be achieved at from $20 to $50 per ton.
The problem with SB 375 is that it applies no cost test. It is simply assumed that suburban development and driving are “bad” and that they must be curbed. There has been no cost-based modeling to justify this view. Indeed, Australian research indicates that, overall, GHG emissions per capita are less in suburban areas than in higher density areas (in a process that allocates every gram of GHG to a household location). Similarly, the average new car is as GHG friendly as the average transit ride (on a passenger mile basis) outside New York.
By skipping over the issue of costs, SB 375 could do far more harm than good. It will effectively ration land for development, which is likely to substantially increase its costs. This will lead to less affordable housing and higher product costs. Further, SB 375 would increase traffic congestion. Virtually all of the evidence from around the world indicates that more dense development, which will occur as a result of SB 375, leads to greater traffic congestion. This will increase the intensity of local air pollution and thereby local health risks. It will also increase GHG emissions, because cars emit more GHGs when they operate slower and in stop and go conditions.
All of this comes at a time that California faces a financial crisis, while there is a strong out-migration of residents to other states, according to United States Census estimates (1.2 million just from 2000 to 2007).
SB 375 represents a triumph of ideology over reason.
One of the principal concerns in reducing greenhouse gases is to do so in a manner that allows strong economic growth to continue. Strong economic growth is much more than theoretical --- it is required to minimize poverty and to preserve the quality of life. Because of this concern, considerable research has been undertaken by the International Panel on Climate Change, which has concluded that significant (and sufficient) reductions of greenhouse gas emissions can be achieved at from $20 to $50 per ton.
The problem with SB 375 is that it applies no cost test. It is simply assumed that suburban development and driving are “bad” and that they must be curbed. There has been no cost-based modeling to justify this view. Indeed, Australian research indicates that, overall, GHG emissions per capita are less in suburban areas than in higher density areas (in a process that allocates every gram of GHG to a household location). Similarly, the average new car is as GHG friendly as the average transit ride (on a passenger mile basis) outside New York.
By skipping over the issue of costs, SB 375 could do far more harm than good. It will effectively ration land for development, which is likely to substantially increase its costs. This will lead to less affordable housing and higher product costs. Further, SB 375 would increase traffic congestion. Virtually all of the evidence from around the world indicates that more dense development, which will occur as a result of SB 375, leads to greater traffic congestion. This will increase the intensity of local air pollution and thereby local health risks. It will also increase GHG emissions, because cars emit more GHGs when they operate slower and in stop and go conditions.
All of this comes at a time that California faces a financial crisis, while there is a strong out-migration of residents to other states, according to United States Census estimates (1.2 million just from 2000 to 2007).
SB 375 represents a triumph of ideology over reason.
2008/08/20
"Ways to Work:" A Nobel Prize?
Ways to Work Program: A Nobel Prize?
The national Ways to Work program has improved the employment and education opportunities of low-income households across the United States. The model is similar to that used Mohammed Unus, who won the Nobel Prize for his small loan program in Bengladesh.
WAYS TO WORK PROGRAM
Economist Mohammed Unus recently won the Nobel Prize for his groundbreaking project that makes small loans available to the low-income residents of Bengladesh. In making the award, the Nobel Committee noted the importance of finding ways for people to break out of poverty. Unus’ Grameen Bank has developed an impressive record of assisting poor households to enter the mainstream of economic life in Bangladesh.
The applicability of the Unus model is not limited to low-income nations. The national Ways to Work program has been working for more than 20 years to bring low-income households across the United States into the economic mainstream. A principal strategy has been to provide loans, like Unus, to low-income households. Ways to Work helps households buy cars.
Why cars? Simply because in modern urban areas, whether in the United States, Western Europe or the low-income world, cars expand exponentially the geographical area in which people can search for employment. Research at the University of California, the Brookings Institution and the Progressive Policy Institute demonstrates that cars are crucial to obtaining better employment. The problem is, of course, that despite the romantic affection for transit, it is simply unable to provide mobility to much more than the downtown area, and that’s not where most of the jobs are.
A recent evaluation report looked at a representative sample of Ways to Work borrowers, and found the following:
It may be time for the Nobel Committee to honor the model Ways to Work program.
The national Ways to Work program has improved the employment and education opportunities of low-income households across the United States. The model is similar to that used Mohammed Unus, who won the Nobel Prize for his small loan program in Bengladesh.
WAYS TO WORK PROGRAM
Economist Mohammed Unus recently won the Nobel Prize for his groundbreaking project that makes small loans available to the low-income residents of Bengladesh. In making the award, the Nobel Committee noted the importance of finding ways for people to break out of poverty. Unus’ Grameen Bank has developed an impressive record of assisting poor households to enter the mainstream of economic life in Bangladesh.
The applicability of the Unus model is not limited to low-income nations. The national Ways to Work program has been working for more than 20 years to bring low-income households across the United States into the economic mainstream. A principal strategy has been to provide loans, like Unus, to low-income households. Ways to Work helps households buy cars.
Why cars? Simply because in modern urban areas, whether in the United States, Western Europe or the low-income world, cars expand exponentially the geographical area in which people can search for employment. Research at the University of California, the Brookings Institution and the Progressive Policy Institute demonstrates that cars are crucial to obtaining better employment. The problem is, of course, that despite the romantic affection for transit, it is simply unable to provide mobility to much more than the downtown area, and that’s not where most of the jobs are.
A recent evaluation report looked at a representative sample of Ways to Work borrowers, and found the following:
Working families who have received Ways to Work loans have, on average, increased their incomes more than 40 percent in the first year.
More than 80 percent of the borrowers who were previously on cash grant public assistance programs saw their incomes rise so much that they were able to leave the public assistance programs.
Many of the borrowers indicated that having the car made it possible for them to complete education and training programs.
Demonstrating how success breeds success, one-third of borrowers have since been able to obtain new loans through conventional sources.
Finally, nearly all of the borrowers said that having a car increased the time they could spend with their families and improved their quality of life.
It may be time for the Nobel Committee to honor the model Ways to Work program.
China: Send the Western Urban Planners Home
A cadre of Western urban planners has descended on China offering advice. Chinese officials are admonished “not to repeat our mistakes.” The mistakes, they explain are urban sprawl (a pejorative term for suburbanization) and automobile use. Chinese officials who visit the West must marvel as for the mistakes at the myopia of our planners after witnessing the high standard of living, which is something they would like to replicate. For good reason, they are largely ignoring the bankrupt advice they are receiving from the Western planners.
INTRODUCTION
China is experiencing unprecedented economic growth. Over the past two decades, living standards have risen seven fold. Gross domestic product per capita still remains below high-income world standards, at one-sixth that of the US level. Nonetheless, there is great regional disparity, with incomes in east coast urban areas up to three times that of urban areas in the central and western regions.
Like many developing nations, China remains more rural than urban. According to United Nations data, China’s population was only 40 percent urban in 2000. This compares to urban rates of over 70 percent in many high-income nations. People are moving in large numbers from rural areas to the urban areas, following the pattern of development that has occurred virtually wherever incomes have risen markedly. Opportunities are much greater in the large and expanding urban labor markets, and the standard of living is better in urban areas than in rural areas. The United Nations estimates that by 2030, 60 percent of the Chinese population will live in urban areas. This represents a staggering migration --- the movement of 340,000,000 people --- a population greater than that of the United States and Canada.
Already, China has very large urban areas. Shanghai, Shenzhen and Beijing have 10,000,000 or more residents. A number of other urban areas have approximately 5,000,000 people, such as Guangzhou, Wuhan, Tianjin, Shenyang and Dongguan. There are more than 25 additional urban areas with populations above 1,000,000 See DemographiaWorld Urban Areas.
The Western Planners
Not surprisingly, a cadre of Western urban planners has descended on China offering advice. Chinese officials are admonished “not to repeat our mistakes.” The mistakes, they explain are urban sprawl (a pejorative term for suburbanization) and automobile use.
The Reality of the West
And, as for the mistakes of the West, Chinese officials who visit the United States, Western Europe, Canada or Australia must wonder at the disconnect between the wasteland described by Western planners and the unparalleled quality of life enjoyed by people in the West.
It is not a mistake that the automobile has created mobile urban areas in which employers and employees have far greater choices and labor markets are more efficient. It is not a mistake that housing built on inexpensive land on the periphery of urban areas has made it possible for so many millions to build up financial equity in their own homes. Nor is it a mistake that nearbly inexpensive land has been developed by retailers and other businesses who are, as a result, able to provide lower prices than would otherwise be possible.
The West has achieved its unparalleled affluence because it was largely able to accomplish all of this before the planners were in a position to impose their wills that would have prevented suburbanization and the expansion of mobility. The planners would have imposed greenbelts and urban growth boundaries, making it impossible for low cost housing to be developed. Western nations would now be principally inhabited by renters rather than homeowners. Employees would be limited to those few places they could get on foot or public transport, rather than the whole urban area that the automobile has opened up. There would be less wealth and it would be less broadly distributed. The planners would not have allowed the “big-box” stores on the urban fringe, and as a result people would have had to pay higher prices with their smaller incomes.
Indeed, for any who might wish for China to stumble in its competition with the West, it is hard to imagine a more promising strategy than to export Western planning ideas, if not the planners themselves, to China. China would do well to ignore the Western planners, whose advice would retard the growth of the economy and spread of wealth. To China’s credit, the “fools gold” of Western urban planning principles is largely being ignored.
INTRODUCTION
China is experiencing unprecedented economic growth. Over the past two decades, living standards have risen seven fold. Gross domestic product per capita still remains below high-income world standards, at one-sixth that of the US level. Nonetheless, there is great regional disparity, with incomes in east coast urban areas up to three times that of urban areas in the central and western regions.
Like many developing nations, China remains more rural than urban. According to United Nations data, China’s population was only 40 percent urban in 2000. This compares to urban rates of over 70 percent in many high-income nations. People are moving in large numbers from rural areas to the urban areas, following the pattern of development that has occurred virtually wherever incomes have risen markedly. Opportunities are much greater in the large and expanding urban labor markets, and the standard of living is better in urban areas than in rural areas. The United Nations estimates that by 2030, 60 percent of the Chinese population will live in urban areas. This represents a staggering migration --- the movement of 340,000,000 people --- a population greater than that of the United States and Canada.
Already, China has very large urban areas. Shanghai, Shenzhen and Beijing have 10,000,000 or more residents. A number of other urban areas have approximately 5,000,000 people, such as Guangzhou, Wuhan, Tianjin, Shenyang and Dongguan. There are more than 25 additional urban areas with populations above 1,000,000 See DemographiaWorld Urban Areas.
The Western Planners
Not surprisingly, a cadre of Western urban planners has descended on China offering advice. Chinese officials are admonished “not to repeat our mistakes.” The mistakes, they explain are urban sprawl (a pejorative term for suburbanization) and automobile use.
The Reality of the West
And, as for the mistakes of the West, Chinese officials who visit the United States, Western Europe, Canada or Australia must wonder at the disconnect between the wasteland described by Western planners and the unparalleled quality of life enjoyed by people in the West.
It is not a mistake that the automobile has created mobile urban areas in which employers and employees have far greater choices and labor markets are more efficient. It is not a mistake that housing built on inexpensive land on the periphery of urban areas has made it possible for so many millions to build up financial equity in their own homes. Nor is it a mistake that nearbly inexpensive land has been developed by retailers and other businesses who are, as a result, able to provide lower prices than would otherwise be possible.
The West has achieved its unparalleled affluence because it was largely able to accomplish all of this before the planners were in a position to impose their wills that would have prevented suburbanization and the expansion of mobility. The planners would have imposed greenbelts and urban growth boundaries, making it impossible for low cost housing to be developed. Western nations would now be principally inhabited by renters rather than homeowners. Employees would be limited to those few places they could get on foot or public transport, rather than the whole urban area that the automobile has opened up. There would be less wealth and it would be less broadly distributed. The planners would not have allowed the “big-box” stores on the urban fringe, and as a result people would have had to pay higher prices with their smaller incomes.
Indeed, for any who might wish for China to stumble in its competition with the West, it is hard to imagine a more promising strategy than to export Western planning ideas, if not the planners themselves, to China. China would do well to ignore the Western planners, whose advice would retard the growth of the economy and spread of wealth. To China’s credit, the “fools gold” of Western urban planning principles is largely being ignored.
School Buses: Principal Mass Transit System
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.
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.
2008/08/11
Beware Unfair Son of Kyoto Targets
G8 leaders agreed upon a 50% reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2050. The agreement was subsequently rejected by countries of the developing world, principally India and China.
Negotiators for the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand need to be careful in the next round of climate agreement discussions. Each of these nations is experiencing strong population growth. Australia will grow 40% between 2005 and 2050, according to UN projections. The United States and Canada will each grow about one-third, while New Zealand will grow slightly less than 30%.
Any agreement that imposes an overall target, such as 50% below current emission rates will greatly disadvantage these nations. By comparison, Japan will lose 20% of its population, while the European Union will lose 2%.
Because of the higher growth rates, 50% national reduction from 2005 would thus translate into at least a 60% GHG emission reduction per capita in Australia, the United States, Canada and New Zealand, while requiring only a 40% reduction in Japan and 50% in the European Union.
Negotiators for the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand need to be careful in the next round of climate agreement discussions. Each of these nations is experiencing strong population growth. Australia will grow 40% between 2005 and 2050, according to UN projections. The United States and Canada will each grow about one-third, while New Zealand will grow slightly less than 30%.
Any agreement that imposes an overall target, such as 50% below current emission rates will greatly disadvantage these nations. By comparison, Japan will lose 20% of its population, while the European Union will lose 2%.
Because of the higher growth rates, 50% national reduction from 2005 would thus translate into at least a 60% GHG emission reduction per capita in Australia, the United States, Canada and New Zealand, while requiring only a 40% reduction in Japan and 50% in the European Union.
On the Australian Housing Shortage
On the Australian Housing Shortage
For anyone who thought that housing policy was tending in the right direction in Australia, a recent statement by ANZ Bank’s senior economist, Paul Braddick should hit like a bucket of cold water. Braddick was widely quoted in the media to the effect that the growing housing shortage is setting Australia up for the “mother of all housing booms.” Commonwealth Securities chief equities economist Craig James predicted that both house prices and rents would be driven higher by the shortage.
And then there was the BIS Shrapnel Residential Property Prospects report, which predicts huge increases in median house prices by 2011. Overall, BIS Shrapnel projects house price increases that would add nearly another year’s median household income to pay for the median priced house. Already housing is more than twice as expensive as it should be relative to historic income norms. Indeed, if the trends BIS Shrapnel projects are accurate, Sydney would become the most expensive market in the Anglosphere, as Californian markets implode due to their unsustainable cost inflation.
But wait a minute. Housing shortage? Australia? Is there not enough land? Are there not enough builders?
True, population growth is greater than in nearly two decades. However, fast population growth is nothing new in Australia. Much higher growth rates were accommodated in previous decades. In the 1950s, the annual growth rate was a full one-half greater than the present elevated rate. During the 1960s, the annual growth rate was a quarter greater. Yet, somehow, Australia was able to provide housing for this strong growth both from both domestic expansion and immigration. Thus, the higher present population growth rates, in and of themselves, do not justify a housing shortage.
There could be a problem if there is not enough land or if the housing industry is not up to the challenge. However, that is hardly the case.
Consider this:
Less than 0.3 percent of Australia is urbanized. That means there is plenty of land in Australia. There is substantial land for growth around all of the nation’s major capital cities.
Australia has, according to international studies, one of the most entrepreneurial home building industries in the world. That industry is capable of providing whatever level of new housing is required to accommodate whatever should be the number of new Australian households.
The problem is thus neither a shortage of raw land for development or a shortage of building capacity. It is policy.
The problem is the land use policies that have been adopted in the states. In every state, as well as the Northern Territory and the ACT, conscious policies have been adopted that to severely restrict the expansion of the housing supply. Arbitrary lines --- sometimes called urban growth boundaries --- have been drawn around urban areas. Generally, new housing must be built within these constraining belts. As anyone remotely familiar with economics knows, restricting supply drives up prices.
The net effect of the restrictive policies is to cartelize the market for land. Owners of land that can be developed ask a higher price. It is important to understand that house prices have not gone up much at all, indeed they have fallen relative to inflation in some areas. What has risen is the price of land. It is the escalation of land prices in a rigged urban land economy that is responsible for Australia’s housing shortage.
There are other issues too, such as huge infrastructure fees and master planning requirements that add so much to the price of housing. The stark reality is that if the urban planning policies of today had been in place in 1947, all of the efforts of Labor and Coalition governments to encourage home ownership would have failed --- as miserably as have the recent efforts.
Put in human terms, Australia’s housing shortage represents the deliberate government withdrawal of the Great Australian Dream for many households. Worse, the economists tell us that things are only going to get worse.
For all the rhetoric about housing affordability, there is a single, simple answer --- the regulations must be relaxed. There is no other affordable or sustainable way to restore housing affordability. It is truly remarkable --- and unfortunate that the “lucky country” may not be able to adequately house its hopeful and growing population.
For anyone who thought that housing policy was tending in the right direction in Australia, a recent statement by ANZ Bank’s senior economist, Paul Braddick should hit like a bucket of cold water. Braddick was widely quoted in the media to the effect that the growing housing shortage is setting Australia up for the “mother of all housing booms.” Commonwealth Securities chief equities economist Craig James predicted that both house prices and rents would be driven higher by the shortage.
And then there was the BIS Shrapnel Residential Property Prospects report, which predicts huge increases in median house prices by 2011. Overall, BIS Shrapnel projects house price increases that would add nearly another year’s median household income to pay for the median priced house. Already housing is more than twice as expensive as it should be relative to historic income norms. Indeed, if the trends BIS Shrapnel projects are accurate, Sydney would become the most expensive market in the Anglosphere, as Californian markets implode due to their unsustainable cost inflation.
But wait a minute. Housing shortage? Australia? Is there not enough land? Are there not enough builders?
True, population growth is greater than in nearly two decades. However, fast population growth is nothing new in Australia. Much higher growth rates were accommodated in previous decades. In the 1950s, the annual growth rate was a full one-half greater than the present elevated rate. During the 1960s, the annual growth rate was a quarter greater. Yet, somehow, Australia was able to provide housing for this strong growth both from both domestic expansion and immigration. Thus, the higher present population growth rates, in and of themselves, do not justify a housing shortage.
There could be a problem if there is not enough land or if the housing industry is not up to the challenge. However, that is hardly the case.
Consider this:
Less than 0.3 percent of Australia is urbanized. That means there is plenty of land in Australia. There is substantial land for growth around all of the nation’s major capital cities.
Australia has, according to international studies, one of the most entrepreneurial home building industries in the world. That industry is capable of providing whatever level of new housing is required to accommodate whatever should be the number of new Australian households.
The problem is thus neither a shortage of raw land for development or a shortage of building capacity. It is policy.
The problem is the land use policies that have been adopted in the states. In every state, as well as the Northern Territory and the ACT, conscious policies have been adopted that to severely restrict the expansion of the housing supply. Arbitrary lines --- sometimes called urban growth boundaries --- have been drawn around urban areas. Generally, new housing must be built within these constraining belts. As anyone remotely familiar with economics knows, restricting supply drives up prices.
The net effect of the restrictive policies is to cartelize the market for land. Owners of land that can be developed ask a higher price. It is important to understand that house prices have not gone up much at all, indeed they have fallen relative to inflation in some areas. What has risen is the price of land. It is the escalation of land prices in a rigged urban land economy that is responsible for Australia’s housing shortage.
There are other issues too, such as huge infrastructure fees and master planning requirements that add so much to the price of housing. The stark reality is that if the urban planning policies of today had been in place in 1947, all of the efforts of Labor and Coalition governments to encourage home ownership would have failed --- as miserably as have the recent efforts.
Put in human terms, Australia’s housing shortage represents the deliberate government withdrawal of the Great Australian Dream for many households. Worse, the economists tell us that things are only going to get worse.
For all the rhetoric about housing affordability, there is a single, simple answer --- the regulations must be relaxed. There is no other affordable or sustainable way to restore housing affordability. It is truly remarkable --- and unfortunate that the “lucky country” may not be able to adequately house its hopeful and growing population.
Apples, Oranges & Transit Oriented Development
A new TCRP report (#158, Effects of TOD on Housing, Parking and Travel) concludes that automobile trips are approximately one-half as frequent per dwelling unit in transit oriented development (TOD) apartments as in all other apartments. The report, however, raises more questions than it answers.
Based upon a quick review, it appears that the study suffers from three important biases.
What this report does not demonstrate (contrary to its claims) is that people in TODs drive less than their neighbors. Examining that question would require much more focused methodology. Rather, the report merely provides evidence transit is used more where it better connects people with downtowns. In the larger urban fabric, with its dispersed trip patterns and dispersed employment, sufficient levels of transit service simply cannot be afforded, whether in American or Western European urban areas.
The conclusion: TOD apartments and apartments in general are like apples and oranges with respect to trip generation.
Based upon a quick review, it appears that the study suffers from three important biases.
1. Usage of a "trips per dwelling unit" measure prejudices the results in favor of transit oriented development. The authors note that TOD residents tend to be single or couples, with no children. In contrast, the average number of persons per household in all apartments is 2.1 (American Community Survey, 2006). With fewer people per household in TOD developments, it is not surprising that trip generation rates per dwelling unit should be less. A good portion of the observed difference appears to be simply the result of differing types of households.
2. Usage of an overall apartment trip generation rate also prejudices the results in favor of TODs. That is because TODs, by definition, are generally close to rail transit lines that provide good access to downtown areas. On the other hand, non-TOD apartments are spread throughout urban areas, with more than 40 percent being in the suburbs. A good portion of the observed difference appears to be simply geographical location.
3. TODs tend to attract people who are more inclined than others to ride transit. This “self-selection” has been documented in research by one of the authors of the TCRP report (Robert Cervero) and is acknowledged in the report. Yet the report does not attempt to correct its conclusions for this bias.
What this report does not demonstrate (contrary to its claims) is that people in TODs drive less than their neighbors. Examining that question would require much more focused methodology. Rather, the report merely provides evidence transit is used more where it better connects people with downtowns. In the larger urban fabric, with its dispersed trip patterns and dispersed employment, sufficient levels of transit service simply cannot be afforded, whether in American or Western European urban areas.
The conclusion: TOD apartments and apartments in general are like apples and oranges with respect to trip generation.
2008/08/08
More Empty Hype About Transit in San Diego
Re:
North County Times Article
Dear Mr. Downey...
Just a quick note on your story on Wednesday. There is no doubt but that the Coaster's ridership increase is related to the increasing price of fuel. On the other hand, it needs to be undestood that the Coaster ridership increase is but a small fraction of the reduction in driving along the I-5 corridor (a quick review of the data in your article and data from the USDOT and Caltans). It appears that the Coaster ridership is about 1/8th the decline in traffic.
Best regards,
Wendell Cox
North County Times Article
Dear Mr. Downey...
Just a quick note on your story on Wednesday. There is no doubt but that the Coaster's ridership increase is related to the increasing price of fuel. On the other hand, it needs to be undestood that the Coaster ridership increase is but a small fraction of the reduction in driving along the I-5 corridor (a quick review of the data in your article and data from the USDOT and Caltans). It appears that the Coaster ridership is about 1/8th the decline in traffic.
Best regards,
Wendell Cox
2008/08/04
Transit Market Share Inches Up
Transit Market Share Inches Up
Latest annual data available from the United States Department of Transportation indicates that the market share of transit rose slightly in 2006, from 1.51% of passenger miles to 1.55% in 2005. Over the same period, gas prices rose 13% in the United States.
Annual data is at US Personal Vehicle and Public Transport Market Share from 1900
Latest annual data available from the United States Department of Transportation indicates that the market share of transit rose slightly in 2006, from 1.51% of passenger miles to 1.55% in 2005. Over the same period, gas prices rose 13% in the United States.
Annual data is at US Personal Vehicle and Public Transport Market Share from 1900
Louvre Café Syndrome Strikes Neal Peirce: Misunderstanding Amsterdam and America
Louvre Café Syndrome Strikes Neal Peirce: Misunderstanding Amsterdam and America
Tourists, journalists and urban planners are often smitten with what might be called the “Louvre café syndrome.” This occurs when Americans sit at Paris cafes in view of the Louvre and imagine why it is that the United States does not look like this. In fact, most of Paris doesn’t even look like this, nor do other European urban areas. Like their US counterparts, European urban areas rely principally on cars for mobility (though to a somewhat lesser degree) and their residents live in suburbs that have been built since World War II.
The last example of Louvre Café Syndrome comes from Washington Post Writer’s Group columnist Neal Peirce, who suggests that Amsterdam, with its bicycles, is the model for America to follow in a time of high energy prices (See Multiple Transit Options -- A Dutch Treat We'll Be Needing.
Not only is this view incorrect, but Amsterdam is not even a model for the Netherlands. The largest urban areas of the Netherlands, Amsterdam and Rotterdam, have been “stuck in neutral” with respect to growth for at least 45 years. United Nations data indicates that since 1960, 97% of urban growth in the Netherlands has occurred outside these two large urban areas. While the population of the two largest urban areas has increased approximately 10%, the urban population outside these areas has increased 120%. And how do these urbanites that have chosen not to live in Amsterdam or Rotterdam travel? Try by car. Overall, in the Netherlands, approximately 85% of travel is by car --- a figure that is nearly identical to the United States. All of the subway and light rail ridership in the Netherlands is less than the annual increase in car use. Some model.
America is a growing nation. Between now and 2030, approximately two-thirds of the urban growth in the developed world is projected to occur in the United States --- that is a considerable number given the fact that the US accounts for less than one-third of the developed world’s urban population today. The strategies that work in urban areas with stagnant growth --- such as Amsterdam --- will not work here.
As for the bicycles, one could also point to walking and the large share of travel that it represents in Manhattan or the Chicago Loop. A European felled by Louvre Café Syndrome might visit these places and imagine that the urban area looks the same all the way to the urban fringe --- that the citizens of New Brunswick, Westfield or Aurora live in residential skyscrapers and that they walk everywhere. Such a view would be as faulty as Peirce’s vision of Amsterdam.
It helps to think of things in context. Amsterdam would barely rank in the top 50 metropolitan areas of the United States. The Netherlands has a population less than that of two American metropolitan areas (combined statistical areas), New York and Los Angeles. Finally, all of the Netherlands --- urban and rural areas --- would fit into an area approximately 1.5 times that of the New York metropolitan area.
You can’t see everything from the Louve.
Wendell Cox
Visiting Professor, Conservatoire National des Arts et Metiers, Paris
Related articles: Little of Driving Decrease Captured by Transit
Tourists, journalists and urban planners are often smitten with what might be called the “Louvre café syndrome.” This occurs when Americans sit at Paris cafes in view of the Louvre and imagine why it is that the United States does not look like this. In fact, most of Paris doesn’t even look like this, nor do other European urban areas. Like their US counterparts, European urban areas rely principally on cars for mobility (though to a somewhat lesser degree) and their residents live in suburbs that have been built since World War II.
The last example of Louvre Café Syndrome comes from Washington Post Writer’s Group columnist Neal Peirce, who suggests that Amsterdam, with its bicycles, is the model for America to follow in a time of high energy prices (See Multiple Transit Options -- A Dutch Treat We'll Be Needing.
Not only is this view incorrect, but Amsterdam is not even a model for the Netherlands. The largest urban areas of the Netherlands, Amsterdam and Rotterdam, have been “stuck in neutral” with respect to growth for at least 45 years. United Nations data indicates that since 1960, 97% of urban growth in the Netherlands has occurred outside these two large urban areas. While the population of the two largest urban areas has increased approximately 10%, the urban population outside these areas has increased 120%. And how do these urbanites that have chosen not to live in Amsterdam or Rotterdam travel? Try by car. Overall, in the Netherlands, approximately 85% of travel is by car --- a figure that is nearly identical to the United States. All of the subway and light rail ridership in the Netherlands is less than the annual increase in car use. Some model.
America is a growing nation. Between now and 2030, approximately two-thirds of the urban growth in the developed world is projected to occur in the United States --- that is a considerable number given the fact that the US accounts for less than one-third of the developed world’s urban population today. The strategies that work in urban areas with stagnant growth --- such as Amsterdam --- will not work here.
As for the bicycles, one could also point to walking and the large share of travel that it represents in Manhattan or the Chicago Loop. A European felled by Louvre Café Syndrome might visit these places and imagine that the urban area looks the same all the way to the urban fringe --- that the citizens of New Brunswick, Westfield or Aurora live in residential skyscrapers and that they walk everywhere. Such a view would be as faulty as Peirce’s vision of Amsterdam.
It helps to think of things in context. Amsterdam would barely rank in the top 50 metropolitan areas of the United States. The Netherlands has a population less than that of two American metropolitan areas (combined statistical areas), New York and Los Angeles. Finally, all of the Netherlands --- urban and rural areas --- would fit into an area approximately 1.5 times that of the New York metropolitan area.
You can’t see everything from the Louve.
Wendell Cox
Visiting Professor, Conservatoire National des Arts et Metiers, Paris
Related articles: Little of Driving Decrease Captured by Transit
2008/08/03
World Urban Areas Strong Association Between Lower Density & Higher Incomes
The latest Demographia world urban area population estimates confirm the strong association between lower urban population densities and higher incomes (gross domestic product per capita on a purchasing power parity basis).
A linear regression analysis indicated a 0.300 “R2,” for 138 geographies (nations and separate territories), using the population density of urban areas (urban agglomerations, or urban footprints) with 500,000 or more population. This is significant at the 99% confidence level. The analysis included all of the 740 world’s urban areas with more than 500,000 population.
The data shows an association such that each percentage point increase urban density is associated with a nearly 0.8 percentage point decline in gross domestic product per capita. The data is illustrated in charts on pages 88 and 89 of the following recently report, released today.
Demographia World Urban Areas: Population & Density
Current population estimates and population projections were also released for all urban areas expected to have a population of 2,000,000 or more in 2030:
Demographia World Urban Areas: 2025 & 2030 Population Projections
A linear regression analysis indicated a 0.300 “R2,” for 138 geographies (nations and separate territories), using the population density of urban areas (urban agglomerations, or urban footprints) with 500,000 or more population. This is significant at the 99% confidence level. The analysis included all of the 740 world’s urban areas with more than 500,000 population.
The data shows an association such that each percentage point increase urban density is associated with a nearly 0.8 percentage point decline in gross domestic product per capita. The data is illustrated in charts on pages 88 and 89 of the following recently report, released today.
Demographia World Urban Areas: Population & Density
Current population estimates and population projections were also released for all urban areas expected to have a population of 2,000,000 or more in 2030:
Demographia World Urban Areas: 2025 & 2030 Population Projections
2008/08/01
"SmartMoney.com" Misses by 85% on Transit
SMART MONEY MISSES BY 85 PERCENT
Smartmoney.com reports on the increase in transit ridership, posted at “yahoofinance.com:”
Thanks to sky-high fuel costs, public transit ridership is at its highest level in 50 years, according to the American Public Transportation Association, an industry group. In the first quarter of this year, riders took 51% more trips on subways, commuter rails, streetcars, trolleys and buses than they did during the same period in 2007.
Actually the American Public Transportation Association has reported a 3.4% increase in ridership. Smartmoney.com missed the mark by about 85%.
There is no doubt that the increase in transit ridership is due to high gas prices. On the other hand, much of a “clueless” media has missed an even bigger point --- that more than 97% of the decline in car travel has not transferred to transit.
Smartmoney.com reports on the increase in transit ridership, posted at “yahoofinance.com:”
Thanks to sky-high fuel costs, public transit ridership is at its highest level in 50 years, according to the American Public Transportation Association, an industry group. In the first quarter of this year, riders took 51% more trips on subways, commuter rails, streetcars, trolleys and buses than they did during the same period in 2007.
Actually the American Public Transportation Association has reported a 3.4% increase in ridership. Smartmoney.com missed the mark by about 85%.
There is no doubt that the increase in transit ridership is due to high gas prices. On the other hand, much of a “clueless” media has missed an even bigger point --- that more than 97% of the decline in car travel has not transferred to transit.
2008/07/09
Changing US Car Purchase Preferences Improve Fuel Economy, GHG Emissions
Fuel prices have induced the purchase of more fuel efficient vehicles in the United States. This is the Demographia finding from an analysis of the 10 most popular automobiles and sport utility vehicles (SUVs), as reported by Ward’s Automotive.
In the first 6 months of 2008, the average fuel economy of these 20 vehicles was 23.7 miles per gallon. This is an improvement of nearly 4 percent from 2007. Over the period, the share of SUVs among these vehicles fell from 51 percent to 44 percent.
If this improvement is reflective of overall buying patterns and continues, this change in consumer preference alone would reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the United States by approximately 43,000,000 metric tons per year.
See: US Consumer Choice in Automobiles
In the first 6 months of 2008, the average fuel economy of these 20 vehicles was 23.7 miles per gallon. This is an improvement of nearly 4 percent from 2007. Over the period, the share of SUVs among these vehicles fell from 51 percent to 44 percent.
If this improvement is reflective of overall buying patterns and continues, this change in consumer preference alone would reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the United States by approximately 43,000,000 metric tons per year.
See: US Consumer Choice in Automobiles
Car Use Expands in San Francisco Bay Area at 3-Times National Rate
Car travel in the San Francisco Bay is rising rapidly, at more than three times the national rate per capita. Data from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission indicates that from 2000 to 2007, total daily vehicle miles traveled increased from 140,100,000 to 152,100,000. Per capita driving increased from 20.6 miles to 22.2 miles, an increase of 7.6 percent.
By comparison, the national increase in driving per capita over the same period was 2.1 percent.
United States Bureau of the Census data shows that the San Francisco Bay Area has slipped into laggard growth, having added only 0.3 percent to its population annually. This is a slower growth rate than Italy. The Bay Area has become one of the nation’s slowest growing areas, at least partially due to huge increases in housing costs.
See: San Francisco Bay Area Travel Data
By comparison, the national increase in driving per capita over the same period was 2.1 percent.
United States Bureau of the Census data shows that the San Francisco Bay Area has slipped into laggard growth, having added only 0.3 percent to its population annually. This is a slower growth rate than Italy. The Bay Area has become one of the nation’s slowest growing areas, at least partially due to huge increases in housing costs.
See: San Francisco Bay Area Travel Data
Urban Driving Loss Moderated in April: Intercity Decline Expands
New data from the US Department of Transportation indicates that driving in urban areas declined only 1.0 percent in April 2008 compared to April 2007. This is despite the continuing increase in gasoline prices.
The April figure compares to the 3.8 percent decline in March relative to the previous year.
Inter-city driving volumes appear to be suffering the largest declines. In April, traffic on urban interstate highways (motorways or autoroutes) was down 5.2 percent from the previous year. This is more than 4 times the decline in urban driving.
As was noted in a previous entry, the press has been filled with stories to the effect that people are abandoning their cars for mass transit. In the first quarter, transit replaced no more than 3 percent of the decline in urban travel by car. This is a simple consequence of convenient mass transit service not being available for the overwhelming majority of urban trips. With an urban market share of below 2 percent, it would take a 50 percent increase in transit market share to accomodate a 1 percent decline in urban travel by car. Outside the New York metropolitan area, the increase would need to be 100 percent, because of the much smaller market share.
In the longer run, it is likely that driving will stablize as households switch to more fuel efficient vehicles. In the first six months of the year, there appears to have been a nearly 1 mile per gallon increase in the fuel economy of new cars and SUVs sold in the United States compared to the previous year.
The April figure compares to the 3.8 percent decline in March relative to the previous year.
Inter-city driving volumes appear to be suffering the largest declines. In April, traffic on urban interstate highways (motorways or autoroutes) was down 5.2 percent from the previous year. This is more than 4 times the decline in urban driving.
As was noted in a previous entry, the press has been filled with stories to the effect that people are abandoning their cars for mass transit. In the first quarter, transit replaced no more than 3 percent of the decline in urban travel by car. This is a simple consequence of convenient mass transit service not being available for the overwhelming majority of urban trips. With an urban market share of below 2 percent, it would take a 50 percent increase in transit market share to accomodate a 1 percent decline in urban travel by car. Outside the New York metropolitan area, the increase would need to be 100 percent, because of the much smaller market share.
In the longer run, it is likely that driving will stablize as households switch to more fuel efficient vehicles. In the first six months of the year, there appears to have been a nearly 1 mile per gallon increase in the fuel economy of new cars and SUVs sold in the United States compared to the previous year.
Ville de Paris to Allow Skyscrapers?
The ville de Paris government has decided to consider allowing skyscrapers, after a more than 30 year bad (precipitated by the Darth Vaderite Tour Montparnasse).
On one hand, such a move could, in the long run, seriously retard the attractiveness of Paris as a tourist site --- the city, especially the core, is itself a museum. On the other hand, allowing the building market to develop what the customer market seeks can only make the ville de Paris more competitive in its metropolitan region, the Ile-de-France. The ville de Paris has taken serious losses in employment in the last two decades, as companies have increasingly moved or been established in the suburbs.
However, Paris will continue to have a serious competitive disadvantage with the artificial traffic constraints that have made parts of the ville a recurring traffic jam, as traffic lanes have been taken from general traffic use, in favor of buses, which have seen virtually no material increase in ridership.
High Rises in the Ville de Paris?
On one hand, such a move could, in the long run, seriously retard the attractiveness of Paris as a tourist site --- the city, especially the core, is itself a museum. On the other hand, allowing the building market to develop what the customer market seeks can only make the ville de Paris more competitive in its metropolitan region, the Ile-de-France. The ville de Paris has taken serious losses in employment in the last two decades, as companies have increasingly moved or been established in the suburbs.
However, Paris will continue to have a serious competitive disadvantage with the artificial traffic constraints that have made parts of the ville a recurring traffic jam, as traffic lanes have been taken from general traffic use, in favor of buses, which have seen virtually no material increase in ridership.
High Rises in the Ville de Paris?
2008/07/08
Gas Price Increase in Context
Much of the increase in gasoline costs in the United States is simply the result of a weakening dollar.
If the dollar had retained its value relative to the Euro as of January 1, 2002, the price of gasoline would be approximately $2.25 per gallon today (assuming a present price of $4.00).
The strength of the Euro has shielded Europe from the huge gas price increases experienced in the United States. Gas prices are up, but by far less in percentage terms than in the US.
If the dollar had retained its value relative to the Euro as of January 1, 2002, the price of gasoline would be approximately $2.25 per gallon today (assuming a present price of $4.00).
The strength of the Euro has shielded Europe from the huge gas price increases experienced in the United States. Gas prices are up, but by far less in percentage terms than in the US.
China to the G-8?
It would seem reasonable for the G-8 to be expanded to include the world's second largest national economy - China.
Moreover, it would be useful to extend the invitation before China itself becomes the "G-1," by virtue of its explosive growth.
Moreover, it would be useful to extend the invitation before China itself becomes the "G-1," by virtue of its explosive growth.
2008/07/07
Responding to Mayor Hanneman’s Personal Attack
It is hard to recall a more foolish expenditure than that made by Mayor Mufi Hanneman of the city and county of Honolulu in a campaign of personal invective against me.
The Situation
Here is the remarkable story.
1. The Honolulu Advertiser published a letter from the mayor in which he noted Honolulu's superior carbon footprint rating as reported in a Brookings Institution report. In the letter he made a positive reference to the proposed Honolulu urban rail project, which he supports (Note 1, below).
2. When I became aware of the letter, I sent a "tongue in cheek" letter to the editor on the subject of Honolulu's carbon footprint, the point of which was to note that Honolulu's rating was both deserved and not deserved. I implied that Honolulu would not have scored so well if it had been founded on Michigan's Upper Peninsula (where much colder conditions would require far more energy for heating, and thus more CO2 emissions). I also gave Honolulu credit for its high transit market share, which despite having no rail has often equaled or exceeded the market shares of all urban areas in the nation, except for New York. My letter suggested that this favorable situation was not likely to be made any better by building the urban rail system (Note 2, below).
The Over-Reaction
The latter casual (though correct) comment in a letter not principally about urban rail led the Mayor to take out near-full page ads in two metropolitan newspapers on Sunday, June 22. The ad was run again on Monday in one of the newspapers. This costs money. The ads were directed in part at me, but also were highly critical of local rail system opponents. In a sense I suppose that I should take pride that the Mayor is so terrified that I might bring my analysis of his rail system to Honolulu.
Cause for Concern
I have no interest in responding to the Mayor’s ad hominem attacks.
Prudent public policy is often trumped by what the Germans call "realpolitic" (policy based on power rather than the public good). Indeed, when proponents of megaprojects stoop to ad hominem attacks it often tends to mask feeble analysis and facts that do not justify the large expenditures. However, it is the facts, not the personalities that matter. Personalizing the debate makes does nothing to make a questionable project less questionable.
The mayor's over-reaction at the prospect of my entering the policy debate should give pause. Local Honolulu analysts have already pointed out the grim reality --- that this extravagant rail line is likely to require more of a share of metropolitan area income than any in US history --- and by a long shot. One can only hope that the citizens of the city and county of Honolulu will have an opportunity to decide this issue at the ballot box, rather than having substantial tax increases imposed without their consent.
Wendell Cox
Principal, Demographia (St. Louis)
Visiting Professor, Conservatoire National des Arts et Metiers, Paris
Member, Los Angeles County Transportation Commission (1977-1985)
Member, Amtrak Reform Council (1999-2002)
Note 1:
MAYOR HANNEMAN'S LETTER TO THE HONOLULU ADVERTISER
No. 1 Ranking Report Confirms City Going in Right Direction
The new Brookings Institution report that ranked Honolulu No. 1 out of 100 U.S. cities for our low carbon emissions was great news, but we will not be content to rest on our laurels.
We're moving forward aggressively on many important initiatives to further protect our environment and enhance our quality of life.
Our rail transit project is exactly what's needed to provide key improvements cited by the study to reduce pollution: Promote more transportation choices and transit-oriented development.
The study found that cities with rail mass transit systems and densely populated urban cores have far smaller "carbon footprints" per capita than sprawling metropolitan areas dependent on private vehicles. Our rail system will give thousands of commuters and visitors an alternative to private vehicles and clogged freeways, while providing important opportunities for new housing, commercial space and public facilities along the rail line.
Our 21st Century Ahupua'a Plan closely examined other environmentally friendly policies, and they are now reaching fruition. We're continually expanding curbside residential recycling, replacing buses and police cars with efficient hybrid vehicles, increasing the capacity of the H-Power garbage-to-energy plant, operating ferries from Kalaeloa to Aloha Tower and adding bicycle lanes to our roadways.
A few will always nit-pick when good news is announced, but we're confident that the Brookings report provided an honest assessment of Honolulu's ranking and made it clear that we are moving in the right direction with rail transit and other important initiatives. Our goal remains to leave Honolulu better than we found it.
Mayor Mufi Hannemann
City and County of Honolulu
Note 2
MY LETTER TO THE HONOLULU ADVERTISER (June 2)
To the Editor
The Honolulu Advertiser
The Mayor boasts about Honolulu's superior carbon footprint and some boasting is appropriate.
It is no surprise that Honolulu has one of the smaller transportation footprints in the nation. With its bus system, Honolulu often ranks second in the nation in transit market share to the New York area. It is hard to imagine that the proposed, expensive rail system will make that any better.
As for residential energy, had the city founders instead chosen a location on Michigan's Upper Peninsula, things would look much worse. Honolulu's modest residential carbon footprint is a function of Hawaii's marvelous climate, which reduces energy demand substantially.
Sincerely,
Wendell Cox
Principal, Demographia, St. Louis
The Situation
Here is the remarkable story.
1. The Honolulu Advertiser published a letter from the mayor in which he noted Honolulu's superior carbon footprint rating as reported in a Brookings Institution report. In the letter he made a positive reference to the proposed Honolulu urban rail project, which he supports (Note 1, below).
2. When I became aware of the letter, I sent a "tongue in cheek" letter to the editor on the subject of Honolulu's carbon footprint, the point of which was to note that Honolulu's rating was both deserved and not deserved. I implied that Honolulu would not have scored so well if it had been founded on Michigan's Upper Peninsula (where much colder conditions would require far more energy for heating, and thus more CO2 emissions). I also gave Honolulu credit for its high transit market share, which despite having no rail has often equaled or exceeded the market shares of all urban areas in the nation, except for New York. My letter suggested that this favorable situation was not likely to be made any better by building the urban rail system (Note 2, below).
The Over-Reaction
The latter casual (though correct) comment in a letter not principally about urban rail led the Mayor to take out near-full page ads in two metropolitan newspapers on Sunday, June 22. The ad was run again on Monday in one of the newspapers. This costs money. The ads were directed in part at me, but also were highly critical of local rail system opponents. In a sense I suppose that I should take pride that the Mayor is so terrified that I might bring my analysis of his rail system to Honolulu.
Cause for Concern
I have no interest in responding to the Mayor’s ad hominem attacks.
Prudent public policy is often trumped by what the Germans call "realpolitic" (policy based on power rather than the public good). Indeed, when proponents of megaprojects stoop to ad hominem attacks it often tends to mask feeble analysis and facts that do not justify the large expenditures. However, it is the facts, not the personalities that matter. Personalizing the debate makes does nothing to make a questionable project less questionable.
The mayor's over-reaction at the prospect of my entering the policy debate should give pause. Local Honolulu analysts have already pointed out the grim reality --- that this extravagant rail line is likely to require more of a share of metropolitan area income than any in US history --- and by a long shot. One can only hope that the citizens of the city and county of Honolulu will have an opportunity to decide this issue at the ballot box, rather than having substantial tax increases imposed without their consent.
Wendell Cox
Principal, Demographia (St. Louis)
Visiting Professor, Conservatoire National des Arts et Metiers, Paris
Member, Los Angeles County Transportation Commission (1977-1985)
Member, Amtrak Reform Council (1999-2002)
Note 1:
MAYOR HANNEMAN'S LETTER TO THE HONOLULU ADVERTISER
No. 1 Ranking Report Confirms City Going in Right Direction
The new Brookings Institution report that ranked Honolulu No. 1 out of 100 U.S. cities for our low carbon emissions was great news, but we will not be content to rest on our laurels.
We're moving forward aggressively on many important initiatives to further protect our environment and enhance our quality of life.
Our rail transit project is exactly what's needed to provide key improvements cited by the study to reduce pollution: Promote more transportation choices and transit-oriented development.
The study found that cities with rail mass transit systems and densely populated urban cores have far smaller "carbon footprints" per capita than sprawling metropolitan areas dependent on private vehicles. Our rail system will give thousands of commuters and visitors an alternative to private vehicles and clogged freeways, while providing important opportunities for new housing, commercial space and public facilities along the rail line.
Our 21st Century Ahupua'a Plan closely examined other environmentally friendly policies, and they are now reaching fruition. We're continually expanding curbside residential recycling, replacing buses and police cars with efficient hybrid vehicles, increasing the capacity of the H-Power garbage-to-energy plant, operating ferries from Kalaeloa to Aloha Tower and adding bicycle lanes to our roadways.
A few will always nit-pick when good news is announced, but we're confident that the Brookings report provided an honest assessment of Honolulu's ranking and made it clear that we are moving in the right direction with rail transit and other important initiatives. Our goal remains to leave Honolulu better than we found it.
Mayor Mufi Hannemann
City and County of Honolulu
Note 2
MY LETTER TO THE HONOLULU ADVERTISER (June 2)
To the Editor
The Honolulu Advertiser
The Mayor boasts about Honolulu's superior carbon footprint and some boasting is appropriate.
It is no surprise that Honolulu has one of the smaller transportation footprints in the nation. With its bus system, Honolulu often ranks second in the nation in transit market share to the New York area. It is hard to imagine that the proposed, expensive rail system will make that any better.
As for residential energy, had the city founders instead chosen a location on Michigan's Upper Peninsula, things would look much worse. Honolulu's modest residential carbon footprint is a function of Hawaii's marvelous climate, which reduces energy demand substantially.
Sincerely,
Wendell Cox
Principal, Demographia, St. Louis
2008/06/28
World Urban Areas: Population, Density & Projections Released
http://www.demographia.com/db-worldua.pdf
Demographia announces publication of World Urban Areas & Population Projections. World Urban Areas & Population Projections remains the only known source in the world for comprehensive and consistent estimates of urban land area and densities. This 4th comprehensive edition replaces publications released in March of 2007. The product includes:
(1) Population, land area and density estimates for all 723 identified urban agglomerations in the world with 500,000 or more in population. In all, 1,316 urban areas are included, representing 50 percent of the world urban population. Tables are provided in population, land area, population density and alphabetical order.
(2) There is also a summary of the data by the largest nations and major world regions.
(3) Population projections for all 204 urban agglomerations anticipated to have 2,000,000 or more residents in 2025. There is also a projection of the 2008 population of all such urban areas. Tables are provided in alphabetical order and population order by 2008 and 2025 projections
Demographia announces publication of World Urban Areas & Population Projections. World Urban Areas & Population Projections remains the only known source in the world for comprehensive and consistent estimates of urban land area and densities. This 4th comprehensive edition replaces publications released in March of 2007. The product includes:
(1) Population, land area and density estimates for all 723 identified urban agglomerations in the world with 500,000 or more in population. In all, 1,316 urban areas are included, representing 50 percent of the world urban population. Tables are provided in population, land area, population density and alphabetical order.
(2) There is also a summary of the data by the largest nations and major world regions.
(3) Population projections for all 204 urban agglomerations anticipated to have 2,000,000 or more residents in 2025. There is also a projection of the 2008 population of all such urban areas. Tables are provided in alphabetical order and population order by 2008 and 2025 projections
2008/06/23
Consultant Memo on Houston Misleads Tauranga Council
A Tauranga Councillor (New Zealand) raised questions about “smart growth” (prescriptive land use planning) in relation to the superior housing affordability of Houston, where no such policies exist. The resulting memorandum in response is evaluated below.
Principal Points
1. All of Texas is affordable and most of Texas is unzoned.
2. Houston’s affordable housing is not just on the urban fringe, contrary to the statement in the memo.
3. Houston’s suburbanization (or “sprawl”) is about average and not much greater than Portland’s.
4. Houston’s traffic congestion has been materially improved by road construction.
5. Houston’s traffic moves considerably faster than Auckland’s.
6. The loss of housing affordability is associated with smart growth-style land use policies.
Houston and Texas: Superior Housing Affordability
The city of Houston (local government authority) has no zoning, which the memo rightly points out. Virtually all of the other local government authorities in the Houston metropolitan area have zoning. However, most of the land in the Houston metropolitan area is unzoned, because it is outside local government authority areas and under the jurisdiction of counties. In Texas, counties have no zoning power. Thus, while local government authorities in Texas outside the city of Houston generally have zoning, they are forced to operate in a competitive environment under which housing can be readily built, without zoning, in adjacent unincorporated areas. Indeed, given this competitive environment, it is appropriate to think of the state of Texas as unzoned (environmental regulation, which is established at the state and federal level is observed).
The memo notes that Dallas (actually the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area) has slightly better housing affordability than the Houston metropolitan area as measured by the Median Multiple (median house price divided by the median household income). The important point is that both metropolitan areas are below the historic maximum norm of 3.0. By comparison, the Median Multiple in Tauranga was 7.5 in the third quarter of 2007 (Auckland was 6.9). This means that residents of these New Zealand urban centres face relative home ownership costs more than 2.5 times those of Houston, Dallas-Fort Worth and a number of US and Canadian metropolitan areas that have not adopted smart growth policies.
Affordable Housing in Houston: Not Limited to the Fringe
The memo indicates that housing is affordable only on Houston’s fringe. This is absurd and betrays an acute unfamiliarity with Houston housing markets. The referenced map shows house asking prices in Harris County (which is core of the urban area). Affordable housing is to be found throughout the metropolitan area Indeed, the low bound of the highest price category is lower than the median house price in Tauranga. No one would expect the consultant to have expertise on Houston housing markets. It does seem inappropriate, however, for the consultant to be erroneously opining that affordable housing is available only on the fringe
Houston’s "Sprawl:" Like Portland
As for Houston's suburbanization, (pejoratively called "sprawl,") the urban area (urban footprint) is approximately average the density for a US urban area over 1,000,000. It is only 10 percent less dense than Portland, despite that urban area's strong smart growth policies. Houston’s density is virtually the same as that of Dallas-Fort Worth and a quarter higher than that of Boston.
Traffic Congestion: Road Building Made it Better
The memo cites Houston as having some of the nation’s worst traffic congestion. It does --- the latest data shows that Houston ranks 8th in traffic congestion, which is not surprising for the nation’s 6th largest metropolitan area. Houston has done quite well. According to the Texas Transportation Institute (leading authority in the US on the subject), Houston had the worst traffic congestion in the US in the middle 1980s (among urban areas of more than 1,000,000 population). After a strong road building program, traffic congestion was materially reduced (though has increased in more recent years, since the road construction program has not kept up with population growth). By the mid-1990s, Houston had improved to 23rd place.
Since the middle 1990s, population growth has outstripped highway expansion and Houston has risen back to rank 8th in traffic congestion (Houston is one of the three fastest growing metropolitan areas over 5,000,000 population in the high income world). Houston has done better than smart growth Portland over the past 20 years, which has seen its excess peak hour traffic delay (based on the Travel Time Index) rise from approximately 1/4 that of Houston to 3/4 that of Houston.
Houston Traffic Moves Faster than Auckland Traffic
Finally, average travel speeds on the motorway and arterial network in Houston were more than 60 kph in 2002 (latest data from the Texas Transportation Institute). By comparison, according to the New Zealand Travel Time Indicator report, the average peak period travel times on the motorway and arterial network of Auckland was 36 kph in 2007.
Smart Growth Land Use Policy: The Root of New Zealand’s Unaffordable Housing
The report misses the point that New Zealand’s housing affordability loss is the result of overly prescriptive land use planning (smart growth or urban consolidation policy). This connection has been identified by some of the world’s top economists and is detailed in our 4th Annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey. The situation was best summed up by former Reserve Bank of New Zealand Governor Donald Brash, writing in the Demographia report: the affordability of housing is overwhelmingly a function of just one thing, the extent to which governments place artificial restrictions on the supply of residential land.. In short, where there are no prescriptive land use policies, housing is affordable. Among the six nations surveyed in our report, there are no exceptions.
Addendum: Understanding US Urban Geography
The memo exhibits the usual (and understandable) confusion about US urban geography. The memo refers to the city of Houston (which is a local government authority or municipality of 2 million population). The referenced housing affordability measures apply to the metropolitan area, which has 5.5 million people. There is also the Houston urban area (or agglomeration), which has more than 4,000,000 people (the difference between the agglomeration and the metropolitan area is that the urban area is the continuous urbanization (or urban footprint), while the metropolitan area includes areas considered in the labor market that are outside the urban area and generally in rural areas. Urban area and metropolitan area are formal designations by the US Bureau of the Census.
Principal Points
1. All of Texas is affordable and most of Texas is unzoned.
2. Houston’s affordable housing is not just on the urban fringe, contrary to the statement in the memo.
3. Houston’s suburbanization (or “sprawl”) is about average and not much greater than Portland’s.
4. Houston’s traffic congestion has been materially improved by road construction.
5. Houston’s traffic moves considerably faster than Auckland’s.
6. The loss of housing affordability is associated with smart growth-style land use policies.
Houston and Texas: Superior Housing Affordability
The city of Houston (local government authority) has no zoning, which the memo rightly points out. Virtually all of the other local government authorities in the Houston metropolitan area have zoning. However, most of the land in the Houston metropolitan area is unzoned, because it is outside local government authority areas and under the jurisdiction of counties. In Texas, counties have no zoning power. Thus, while local government authorities in Texas outside the city of Houston generally have zoning, they are forced to operate in a competitive environment under which housing can be readily built, without zoning, in adjacent unincorporated areas. Indeed, given this competitive environment, it is appropriate to think of the state of Texas as unzoned (environmental regulation, which is established at the state and federal level is observed).
The memo notes that Dallas (actually the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area) has slightly better housing affordability than the Houston metropolitan area as measured by the Median Multiple (median house price divided by the median household income). The important point is that both metropolitan areas are below the historic maximum norm of 3.0. By comparison, the Median Multiple in Tauranga was 7.5 in the third quarter of 2007 (Auckland was 6.9). This means that residents of these New Zealand urban centres face relative home ownership costs more than 2.5 times those of Houston, Dallas-Fort Worth and a number of US and Canadian metropolitan areas that have not adopted smart growth policies.
Affordable Housing in Houston: Not Limited to the Fringe
The memo indicates that housing is affordable only on Houston’s fringe. This is absurd and betrays an acute unfamiliarity with Houston housing markets. The referenced map shows house asking prices in Harris County (which is core of the urban area). Affordable housing is to be found throughout the metropolitan area Indeed, the low bound of the highest price category is lower than the median house price in Tauranga. No one would expect the consultant to have expertise on Houston housing markets. It does seem inappropriate, however, for the consultant to be erroneously opining that affordable housing is available only on the fringe
Houston’s "Sprawl:" Like Portland
As for Houston's suburbanization, (pejoratively called "sprawl,") the urban area (urban footprint) is approximately average the density for a US urban area over 1,000,000. It is only 10 percent less dense than Portland, despite that urban area's strong smart growth policies. Houston’s density is virtually the same as that of Dallas-Fort Worth and a quarter higher than that of Boston.
Traffic Congestion: Road Building Made it Better
The memo cites Houston as having some of the nation’s worst traffic congestion. It does --- the latest data shows that Houston ranks 8th in traffic congestion, which is not surprising for the nation’s 6th largest metropolitan area. Houston has done quite well. According to the Texas Transportation Institute (leading authority in the US on the subject), Houston had the worst traffic congestion in the US in the middle 1980s (among urban areas of more than 1,000,000 population). After a strong road building program, traffic congestion was materially reduced (though has increased in more recent years, since the road construction program has not kept up with population growth). By the mid-1990s, Houston had improved to 23rd place.
Since the middle 1990s, population growth has outstripped highway expansion and Houston has risen back to rank 8th in traffic congestion (Houston is one of the three fastest growing metropolitan areas over 5,000,000 population in the high income world). Houston has done better than smart growth Portland over the past 20 years, which has seen its excess peak hour traffic delay (based on the Travel Time Index) rise from approximately 1/4 that of Houston to 3/4 that of Houston.
Houston Traffic Moves Faster than Auckland Traffic
Finally, average travel speeds on the motorway and arterial network in Houston were more than 60 kph in 2002 (latest data from the Texas Transportation Institute). By comparison, according to the New Zealand Travel Time Indicator report, the average peak period travel times on the motorway and arterial network of Auckland was 36 kph in 2007.
Smart Growth Land Use Policy: The Root of New Zealand’s Unaffordable Housing
The report misses the point that New Zealand’s housing affordability loss is the result of overly prescriptive land use planning (smart growth or urban consolidation policy). This connection has been identified by some of the world’s top economists and is detailed in our 4th Annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey. The situation was best summed up by former Reserve Bank of New Zealand Governor Donald Brash, writing in the Demographia report: the affordability of housing is overwhelmingly a function of just one thing, the extent to which governments place artificial restrictions on the supply of residential land.. In short, where there are no prescriptive land use policies, housing is affordable. Among the six nations surveyed in our report, there are no exceptions.
Addendum: Understanding US Urban Geography
The memo exhibits the usual (and understandable) confusion about US urban geography. The memo refers to the city of Houston (which is a local government authority or municipality of 2 million population). The referenced housing affordability measures apply to the metropolitan area, which has 5.5 million people. There is also the Houston urban area (or agglomeration), which has more than 4,000,000 people (the difference between the agglomeration and the metropolitan area is that the urban area is the continuous urbanization (or urban footprint), while the metropolitan area includes areas considered in the labor market that are outside the urban area and generally in rural areas. Urban area and metropolitan area are formal designations by the US Bureau of the Census.
2008/06/14
On the Success of Airline Deregulation
Missing the Point
Re: Airline Deregulation Article: April 17
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/17/business/17air.html
To Micheline Maynard
New York Times
Just saw your column in the New York Times.
Perhaps I missed something, but it is astounding that you could have written an article assessing airline deregulation and not have prominently mentioned the impacts on consumers --- that deregulation has been associated with a huge increase in passenger usage, that simply could not have happened in the regulated environment.
This article seems to convey a much greater concern about producers than consumers. Businesses and society, in the final analysis, exist for the good of consumers and by that standard, airline deregulation has been a huge success.
Best regards,
Wendell Cox
Principal, Demographia (St. Louis)
Visiting Professor, Conservatoire National des Arts et Metiers (Paris)
Re: Airline Deregulation Article: April 17
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/17/business/17air.html
To Micheline Maynard
New York Times
Just saw your column in the New York Times.
Perhaps I missed something, but it is astounding that you could have written an article assessing airline deregulation and not have prominently mentioned the impacts on consumers --- that deregulation has been associated with a huge increase in passenger usage, that simply could not have happened in the regulated environment.
This article seems to convey a much greater concern about producers than consumers. Businesses and society, in the final analysis, exist for the good of consumers and by that standard, airline deregulation has been a huge success.
Best regards,
Wendell Cox
Principal, Demographia (St. Louis)
Visiting Professor, Conservatoire National des Arts et Metiers (Paris)
2008/06/03
Historic Annapolis Core Threatened by New Urbanist Interloper
A City Struggles To Find Its Niche: Competition Has Annapolis Planners Pondering How to Save Downtown
New urbanists have long claimed to admire traditional urban cores (downtowns) and sought to replicate them in new developments. However, their admiration of genuine urbanism is shown to be wanting, as revealed by the opening of the Annapolis Town Centre, which today’s Washington Post indicates is not only not in Annapolis, but could well decimate the already struggling, genuine core of Annapolis.
Thus, the contempt that new urbanists have toward how the majority of people have chosen to live, appears to extend to the very districts they claim to adore. It may be that new urbanism is more about securing fees for architects than maintaining urban cores
New urbanists have long claimed to admire traditional urban cores (downtowns) and sought to replicate them in new developments. However, their admiration of genuine urbanism is shown to be wanting, as revealed by the opening of the Annapolis Town Centre, which today’s Washington Post indicates is not only not in Annapolis, but could well decimate the already struggling, genuine core of Annapolis.
Thus, the contempt that new urbanists have toward how the majority of people have chosen to live, appears to extend to the very districts they claim to adore. It may be that new urbanism is more about securing fees for architects than maintaining urban cores
Transit Ridership Increase in Context
Note to Lena Sun of the Washington Post
Re June 3 article
In context, the transit increase represents somewhere around 5 percent of the urban driving decline... which indicates that while driving is down, transit's ridership increase is up only a fraction of the decline.
Best regards,
Wendell Cox
Principal Demographia
Former Member, Los Angeles County Transportation Commission
Visiting Professor, Conservatoire National des Arts et Metiers
Re June 3 article
In context, the transit increase represents somewhere around 5 percent of the urban driving decline... which indicates that while driving is down, transit's ridership increase is up only a fraction of the decline.
Best regards,
Wendell Cox
Principal Demographia
Former Member, Los Angeles County Transportation Commission
Visiting Professor, Conservatoire National des Arts et Metiers
Lucky Honolulu Wasn't Founded on Upper Peninsula: The Brookings Metropolitan Carbon Footprint Report
Re: Mayor Hanneman Letter
June 2, 2008
To the Editor
The Honolulu Advertiser
The Mayor boasts about Honolulu’s superior carbon footprint and some boasting is appropriate.
It is no surprise that Honolulu has one of the smaller transportation footprints in the nation. With its bus system, Honolulu often ranks second in the nation in transit market share to the New York area. It is hard to imagine that the proposed, expensive rail system will make that any better.
As for residential energy, had the city founders instead chosen a location on Michigan’s Upper Peninsula, things would look much worse. Honolulu’s modest residential carbon footprint is a function of Hawaii’s marvelous climate, which reduces energy demand substantially.
Sincerely,
Wendell Cox
Principal, Demographia, St. Louis
June 2, 2008
To the Editor
The Honolulu Advertiser
The Mayor boasts about Honolulu’s superior carbon footprint and some boasting is appropriate.
It is no surprise that Honolulu has one of the smaller transportation footprints in the nation. With its bus system, Honolulu often ranks second in the nation in transit market share to the New York area. It is hard to imagine that the proposed, expensive rail system will make that any better.
As for residential energy, had the city founders instead chosen a location on Michigan’s Upper Peninsula, things would look much worse. Honolulu’s modest residential carbon footprint is a function of Hawaii’s marvelous climate, which reduces energy demand substantially.
Sincerely,
Wendell Cox
Principal, Demographia, St. Louis
Alex Marshall's Delusions About Anti-Transit Bias
Letter to the Editor
Hartford Courant
June 9, 2008
Response To 'Idealism Takes A Wrong Turn'
June 9, 2008
In response to Alex Marshall's June 1 Place article, "Idealism Takes A Wrong Turn," in which he criticized my views on cars and transit:
Marshall deludes himself about a bias toward highways and against mass transit. Indeed, government transit spending per passenger mile is nearly $0.95, while all government spending on roadways is less than $0.04. Some bias. Transit spending is 25 times highway spending. This does not consider the fact that roads carry a large share of the nation's freight. Transit carries none.
Further, government highway spending is principally from gasoline taxes on drivers, not subsidies from non-users. In contrast, more than 75 percent of transit spending comes from non-user subsidies.
Ending the bias would require transit to be funded by taxes on transit fares. This, of course, would be the end of transit.
Despite romantic notions to the contrary, we cannot replace the mobility of the automobile. This is not to deny transit's important roles in serving low-income households in city cores and its principal niche market, the 10 percent of jobs that are in downtown areas.
The unparalleled democratization of prosperity (read, poverty reduction) in Western Europe and the United States since World War II could not have happened without the mobility of the automobile and the new, owner-occupied houses on cheap suburban land.
Wendell Cox
Principal Demographia Metropolitan St. Louis Belleville, Ill.
The writer was a member of the Los Angeles County Transportation Committee, 1977-85.
Hartford Courant
June 9, 2008
Response To 'Idealism Takes A Wrong Turn'
June 9, 2008
In response to Alex Marshall's June 1 Place article, "Idealism Takes A Wrong Turn," in which he criticized my views on cars and transit:
Marshall deludes himself about a bias toward highways and against mass transit. Indeed, government transit spending per passenger mile is nearly $0.95, while all government spending on roadways is less than $0.04. Some bias. Transit spending is 25 times highway spending. This does not consider the fact that roads carry a large share of the nation's freight. Transit carries none.
Further, government highway spending is principally from gasoline taxes on drivers, not subsidies from non-users. In contrast, more than 75 percent of transit spending comes from non-user subsidies.
Ending the bias would require transit to be funded by taxes on transit fares. This, of course, would be the end of transit.
Despite romantic notions to the contrary, we cannot replace the mobility of the automobile. This is not to deny transit's important roles in serving low-income households in city cores and its principal niche market, the 10 percent of jobs that are in downtown areas.
The unparalleled democratization of prosperity (read, poverty reduction) in Western Europe and the United States since World War II could not have happened without the mobility of the automobile and the new, owner-occupied houses on cheap suburban land.
Wendell Cox
Principal Demographia Metropolitan St. Louis Belleville, Ill.
The writer was a member of the Los Angeles County Transportation Committee, 1977-85.
2008/06/01
GHG Emissions Less in Auto Oriented Suburbs than Urban Cores: Australia
Deflating the Myths on Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Policy Conclusions: This report summarizes the data developed by the Australian Conservation Foundation in its Conservation Atlas. This nearly 100-page report provides detailed information by local authority area (geographical sector) of Australia’s largest urban areas. The conclusions are different than would have been anticipated.
Lower GHG emissions are associated with urban fringe locations, not the core.
Lower GHG emissions are associated with higher rates of detached housing.
Lower GHG emissions are associated with greater automobile use.
Lower GHG emissions are associated with lower population density.
Repealing the “Great Australian Dream”? Climate change concerns have propelled the issue of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to the top of the public policy agenda. For some years the urban planning community and other interests have sought to contain urban expansion (pejoratively called “urban sprawl”) and force more dense development through policies referred to as “smart growth” or “urban consolidation.” There is a presumed preference for multi-unit residential development in city cores and an aversion against low-priced detached housing on the urban fringe. An important objective of these policies has been to reduce automobile use, which it is assumed will naturally occur as a result of higher urban densities,
In Australia, these policies have seriously limited the availability of market priced land on the urban fringe and driven house prices up at a far greater rate than has occurred in international urban areas where compact city policies have not been implemented. Thus, the present dominant policies are at odds with the “Great Australian Dream,” which has been based upon detached housing on the fringe and automobile access.
Smart Growth and GHG Emissions: The urban consolidation agenda is perceived by many to be an appropriate strategy for reducing GHG emissions. Part of this is due to the fact that automobiles are an obvious example of fossil fuel use.
Generally, urban planning policy assumes that greenhouse gas emissions are higher in portions of urban areas that are more suburban, especially areas in which there is a preponderance of single-family detached housing. There is also the assumption that greenhouse gas emissions are lower in higher density areas, especially where there are more high-rise condominium and apartment buildings. And, as noted above, a parallel perception is that greenhouse gas emissions are greater in portions of the urban area that rely more on cars, and less where there is greater dependence on public transport. Finally, higher population densities are associated with lower GHG emissions.
The Reality: However, reducing GHG emissions is not so simple as to be achieved through the urban consolidation agenda. Indeed, there is considerable evidence to the contrary.
GHG emission estimates from the recently published Australian Conservation Foundation Consumption Atlas, indicates virtually the opposite of the generally held perceptions. The data shows that lower density areas, which rely more on automobiles, tend to produce less in GHG emissions than the high density, more public transport dependent areas that are favored by urban consolidation policies.
The reality, as indicated by data from the Australian Conservation Foundation’s Consumption Atlas is virtually the opposite.
The Consumption Atlas: The Consumption Atlas relies on a holistic approach, which allocates greenhouse gas emissions to final consumption at the household level. This includes not only direct energy consumption (such as household electricity use and automobile use) but also a much larger component, indirect energy consumption, which includes GHG emissions from electricity generation, manufacturing, processing, transport and otherwise producing consumer products. The Consumption Atlas provides a groundbreaking model for GHG emission analysis that establishes a model for the field, not only for Australia but also around the world.
The approach of the Consumption Atlas avoids what could deteriorate into agenda-driven approaches that focus only on the particular GHG producing sectors that are in the political sites of interest groups. Any approach that begins at any level other than allocating all GHG emissions to specific final consumption runs this risk. For example, the authors note that emphasis on direct consumption (such as automobile use and land use policy) may be “misdirected since direct energy use constitutes remarkably small portion of the total energy requirement over a range of incomes.”
The more important risk is that agenda-driven policies may fail to achieve the objective of substantially reducing GHG emissions. Any serious, good faith program for reducing emissions must be based upon comprehensive analysis that does not begin with pre-conceived notions, despite their popularity even at the highest policy levels.
Note: This report was prepared by Demographia for the Residential Development Council of the Property Council of Australia.
Policy Conclusions: This report summarizes the data developed by the Australian Conservation Foundation in its Conservation Atlas. This nearly 100-page report provides detailed information by local authority area (geographical sector) of Australia’s largest urban areas. The conclusions are different than would have been anticipated.
Lower GHG emissions are associated with urban fringe locations, not the core.
Lower GHG emissions are associated with higher rates of detached housing.
Lower GHG emissions are associated with greater automobile use.
Lower GHG emissions are associated with lower population density.
Repealing the “Great Australian Dream”? Climate change concerns have propelled the issue of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to the top of the public policy agenda. For some years the urban planning community and other interests have sought to contain urban expansion (pejoratively called “urban sprawl”) and force more dense development through policies referred to as “smart growth” or “urban consolidation.” There is a presumed preference for multi-unit residential development in city cores and an aversion against low-priced detached housing on the urban fringe. An important objective of these policies has been to reduce automobile use, which it is assumed will naturally occur as a result of higher urban densities,
In Australia, these policies have seriously limited the availability of market priced land on the urban fringe and driven house prices up at a far greater rate than has occurred in international urban areas where compact city policies have not been implemented. Thus, the present dominant policies are at odds with the “Great Australian Dream,” which has been based upon detached housing on the fringe and automobile access.
Smart Growth and GHG Emissions: The urban consolidation agenda is perceived by many to be an appropriate strategy for reducing GHG emissions. Part of this is due to the fact that automobiles are an obvious example of fossil fuel use.
Generally, urban planning policy assumes that greenhouse gas emissions are higher in portions of urban areas that are more suburban, especially areas in which there is a preponderance of single-family detached housing. There is also the assumption that greenhouse gas emissions are lower in higher density areas, especially where there are more high-rise condominium and apartment buildings. And, as noted above, a parallel perception is that greenhouse gas emissions are greater in portions of the urban area that rely more on cars, and less where there is greater dependence on public transport. Finally, higher population densities are associated with lower GHG emissions.
The Reality: However, reducing GHG emissions is not so simple as to be achieved through the urban consolidation agenda. Indeed, there is considerable evidence to the contrary.
GHG emission estimates from the recently published Australian Conservation Foundation Consumption Atlas, indicates virtually the opposite of the generally held perceptions. The data shows that lower density areas, which rely more on automobiles, tend to produce less in GHG emissions than the high density, more public transport dependent areas that are favored by urban consolidation policies.
The reality, as indicated by data from the Australian Conservation Foundation’s Consumption Atlas is virtually the opposite.
The Consumption Atlas: The Consumption Atlas relies on a holistic approach, which allocates greenhouse gas emissions to final consumption at the household level. This includes not only direct energy consumption (such as household electricity use and automobile use) but also a much larger component, indirect energy consumption, which includes GHG emissions from electricity generation, manufacturing, processing, transport and otherwise producing consumer products. The Consumption Atlas provides a groundbreaking model for GHG emission analysis that establishes a model for the field, not only for Australia but also around the world.
The approach of the Consumption Atlas avoids what could deteriorate into agenda-driven approaches that focus only on the particular GHG producing sectors that are in the political sites of interest groups. Any approach that begins at any level other than allocating all GHG emissions to specific final consumption runs this risk. For example, the authors note that emphasis on direct consumption (such as automobile use and land use policy) may be “misdirected since direct energy use constitutes remarkably small portion of the total energy requirement over a range of incomes.”
The more important risk is that agenda-driven policies may fail to achieve the objective of substantially reducing GHG emissions. Any serious, good faith program for reducing emissions must be based upon comprehensive analysis that does not begin with pre-conceived notions, despite their popularity even at the highest policy levels.
Note: This report was prepared by Demographia for the Residential Development Council of the Property Council of Australia.
2008/05/24
Windows XP Machines Still Being Sold
For anyone resistant to converting to “Windows Vista” from “Windows XP,” there is still an alternative. Dell continues to sell new computers, desktops and laptops, loaded with Windows XP (www.dell.com). Reportedly, some other manufacturers are doing the same. The Dell prices are competitive with prices at major retailers, where only Windows Vista loaded machines are for sale.
There are also reports that “downgrades” to Windows XP can be obtained for some Windows Vista machines, however the process as described on the internet may not be as simple as some might like.
There are two good reasons for postponing the switch from Windows XP to Windows Vista.
1. There are continuing complaints about Vista. They are so intense that competitor Apple has run television advertisements about Vista.
2. Many older programs will simply not work on Windows Vista. In the longer run, people using such programs will need to migrate to the new operating systems (or to alternatives, such as Linux or Apple). However, the new 2007 Microsoft Office product, which features Word, Power Point and Excel runs on both Windows XP and Windows Vista, so that additional time can be taken to adjust to the emerging Windows environment without having to make a complete break with Windows XP and the many years of PC compatibility that Microsoft appears to value so little.
A final, less compelling reason for resisting the change is to “vote” against Microsoft’s recurrent practice of unveiling new operating systems “before their time.” Planned or forced obsolescence is in no-one’s best interests except that of a firm seeking to maximize its revenues by undermining the interests of its customers. This is why, in the longer run, Microsoft, will face market share losses that are likely to be swift and significant, if serious competition ever emerges. So far, Apple is not even a threat (regrettably).
Thus, this is no advertisement for Apple, to which I attempted to switch a few years ago in an expensive experiment. One afternoon about a month after switching, I realized that I was more productive on a French language keyboard (with its extra letters, requirements to hold down more than one key for some letters and default special character set rather than numbers on the top row) than on an Apple US-English keyboard. That realization resulted in the Apple being boxed up within minutes (as soon as I could copy the nwere files to my older PC), and I have never looked back. My sister in Alaska, who had long wanted an Apple, was well pleased.
There are also reports that “downgrades” to Windows XP can be obtained for some Windows Vista machines, however the process as described on the internet may not be as simple as some might like.
There are two good reasons for postponing the switch from Windows XP to Windows Vista.
1. There are continuing complaints about Vista. They are so intense that competitor Apple has run television advertisements about Vista.
2. Many older programs will simply not work on Windows Vista. In the longer run, people using such programs will need to migrate to the new operating systems (or to alternatives, such as Linux or Apple). However, the new 2007 Microsoft Office product, which features Word, Power Point and Excel runs on both Windows XP and Windows Vista, so that additional time can be taken to adjust to the emerging Windows environment without having to make a complete break with Windows XP and the many years of PC compatibility that Microsoft appears to value so little.
A final, less compelling reason for resisting the change is to “vote” against Microsoft’s recurrent practice of unveiling new operating systems “before their time.” Planned or forced obsolescence is in no-one’s best interests except that of a firm seeking to maximize its revenues by undermining the interests of its customers. This is why, in the longer run, Microsoft, will face market share losses that are likely to be swift and significant, if serious competition ever emerges. So far, Apple is not even a threat (regrettably).
Thus, this is no advertisement for Apple, to which I attempted to switch a few years ago in an expensive experiment. One afternoon about a month after switching, I realized that I was more productive on a French language keyboard (with its extra letters, requirements to hold down more than one key for some letters and default special character set rather than numbers on the top row) than on an Apple US-English keyboard. That realization resulted in the Apple being boxed up within minutes (as soon as I could copy the nwere files to my older PC), and I have never looked back. My sister in Alaska, who had long wanted an Apple, was well pleased.
2008/05/03
Paris Light Rail (Tram) Increases Greenhouse Gas Emissions
According to University of Paris researchers, the new (2007) Paris tramway (light rail or streetcar) along the south boulevards des Maréchaux has attracted, at most, 3 percent of its ridership from cars. This finding is made in a paper entitled Paris: un tramway nommé désir (Paris: A Streetcar Named Desire), published in August 2007 by Rémy Prud’homme, Martin Koenig, Pierre Kopp. The authors note that this small modal shift “once again shows the limits of modal shift strategies” (our liberal interpretation of the French).
While traffic along the boulevard has been reduced, this has been accomplished by narrowing the capacity and forcing traffic to parallel roadways. The result has been to increase traffic congestion and, as occurs when traffic becomes slower and more erratic, increase fuel consumption, which of course leads to higher greenhouse gas emissions. It is estimated the tramway has resulted in a net increase of nearly 40,000 tonnes of CO2 annually.
Finally, the social costs of the project are estimated to have exceeded the benefits.
While traffic along the boulevard has been reduced, this has been accomplished by narrowing the capacity and forcing traffic to parallel roadways. The result has been to increase traffic congestion and, as occurs when traffic becomes slower and more erratic, increase fuel consumption, which of course leads to higher greenhouse gas emissions. It is estimated the tramway has resulted in a net increase of nearly 40,000 tonnes of CO2 annually.
Finally, the social costs of the project are estimated to have exceeded the benefits.
2008/05/02
Ken's Loss is London's Gain
Paris (20080502): The Evening Standard reports that Ken Livingstone is history as mayor of London. Boris Johnson, the Conservative (Tory) candidate is reported to have won the election convincingly .
This is an important victory for rational transport policy. Johnson is a “somewhat” critic of Livingstone’s radical congestion charging plan (implemented in 2003), which requires a payment of ₤8.00 ($16.00) for each car entry to central London between 07:00 and 18:00 on work days. Livingstone had announced plans for much higher tolls to be levied later in the year based upon the pollution rating of car models.
The congestion charging zone was expanded to the west in 2007 and has proven relatively ineffective. Johnson has promised to dismantle the expansion, returning the congestion charging zone to its original, smaller geographical definition. He would also reduce the charge, cancel the planned increases and charge based upon time of day and length of stay. No longer would it cost $16 to “pop” across the cordon to buy Al Gore’s proverbial quart of milk.
Remy Prud’homme and colleagues from the University of Paris have shown than the social cost of operating London’s congestion charge system exceeds the benefits.
The Daily Telegraph published my commentary expressing concerns about the congestion charge scheme the morning it was implemented. Those concerns remain and it would appear that a Johnson mayoralty will begin to round the rough edges of what has to be one of the most arbitrary transport policies in history (Commentary 2003.02.16.
Finally, Johnson would phase out the “bendy-buses” (articulated buses) that Livingstone had used to replace double deck buses. One problem with the bendy-buses is that their length makes boarding difficult at bus stops where many buses often line up. Of course, this also increases traffic congestion.
This is an important victory for rational transport policy. Johnson is a “somewhat” critic of Livingstone’s radical congestion charging plan (implemented in 2003), which requires a payment of ₤8.00 ($16.00) for each car entry to central London between 07:00 and 18:00 on work days. Livingstone had announced plans for much higher tolls to be levied later in the year based upon the pollution rating of car models.
The congestion charging zone was expanded to the west in 2007 and has proven relatively ineffective. Johnson has promised to dismantle the expansion, returning the congestion charging zone to its original, smaller geographical definition. He would also reduce the charge, cancel the planned increases and charge based upon time of day and length of stay. No longer would it cost $16 to “pop” across the cordon to buy Al Gore’s proverbial quart of milk.
Remy Prud’homme and colleagues from the University of Paris have shown than the social cost of operating London’s congestion charge system exceeds the benefits.
The Daily Telegraph published my commentary expressing concerns about the congestion charge scheme the morning it was implemented. Those concerns remain and it would appear that a Johnson mayoralty will begin to round the rough edges of what has to be one of the most arbitrary transport policies in history (Commentary 2003.02.16.
Finally, Johnson would phase out the “bendy-buses” (articulated buses) that Livingstone had used to replace double deck buses. One problem with the bendy-buses is that their length makes boarding difficult at bus stops where many buses often line up. Of course, this also increases traffic congestion.
2008/04/11
FHWA Overstates Houston Driving by 50 Percent --- Again
New (2006) Federal Highway Administration data for urban area highway use has just been released. As usual, the Houston area is wrongly shown as having the highest daily vehicle miles traveled per person among the nation’s urbanized areas of more than 1,000,000.
The erroneous 36.0 miles per capita is the result of a reported urbanized area (urban footprint) population of 2.8 million and a daily travel figure of 101 million miles. This 2.8 million population is reported to live in 1,476 square miles.
In 2000, FHWA reported Houston’s urbanized area population to be 2.5 million in an area of 1,537 square miles. The same year, the US Bureau of the Census found the Houston urbanized area to cover 1,295 square miles and to have a population of 3.8 million --- a full 1.3 million above the FHWA number. It is, of course, impossible for the FHWA’s larger urbanized area to have 1.3 million fewer people than that of the census. The result was then, and is today, a huge over-estimation of the daily vehicle miles traveled per capita.
Some years ago I brought this issue to the attention of the United States Department of Transportation. A bureaucrat condescendingly wrote me that Census urbanized areas and FHWA urbanized areas were different things, not comprehending the irreconcilable and irrational differences I had pointed out. There used to be similar problems with the Atlanta data, but it has since been fixed. In 2003, FHWA reported Atlanta at 34 miles per capita daily and, now, having adjusted its population estimate to a more rational figure. Daily travel is now reported at 29 miles per capita.
While the Bureau of the Census does not update urbanized area populations and land areas between decennial censuses, Houston’s metropolitan population growth would indicate an increase to in the neighborhood of 4.4 million in 2006. On that assumption, Houston’s daily vehicle miles traveled per capita would be 22.7, 20 percent below San Antonio, 10 percent below Dallas-Fort Worth, lower than Los Angeles and only 10 percent higher than Portland.
Note: The American Community Survey of the United States Census Bureau publishes yearly estimates of the population within urbanized areas as delineated in the 2000 census, but does not update the land area or include population that is added to the urbanized area in land area not included in the 2000 land area definition.
The erroneous 36.0 miles per capita is the result of a reported urbanized area (urban footprint) population of 2.8 million and a daily travel figure of 101 million miles. This 2.8 million population is reported to live in 1,476 square miles.
In 2000, FHWA reported Houston’s urbanized area population to be 2.5 million in an area of 1,537 square miles. The same year, the US Bureau of the Census found the Houston urbanized area to cover 1,295 square miles and to have a population of 3.8 million --- a full 1.3 million above the FHWA number. It is, of course, impossible for the FHWA’s larger urbanized area to have 1.3 million fewer people than that of the census. The result was then, and is today, a huge over-estimation of the daily vehicle miles traveled per capita.
Some years ago I brought this issue to the attention of the United States Department of Transportation. A bureaucrat condescendingly wrote me that Census urbanized areas and FHWA urbanized areas were different things, not comprehending the irreconcilable and irrational differences I had pointed out. There used to be similar problems with the Atlanta data, but it has since been fixed. In 2003, FHWA reported Atlanta at 34 miles per capita daily and, now, having adjusted its population estimate to a more rational figure. Daily travel is now reported at 29 miles per capita.
While the Bureau of the Census does not update urbanized area populations and land areas between decennial censuses, Houston’s metropolitan population growth would indicate an increase to in the neighborhood of 4.4 million in 2006. On that assumption, Houston’s daily vehicle miles traveled per capita would be 22.7, 20 percent below San Antonio, 10 percent below Dallas-Fort Worth, lower than Los Angeles and only 10 percent higher than Portland.
Note: The American Community Survey of the United States Census Bureau publishes yearly estimates of the population within urbanized areas as delineated in the 2000 census, but does not update the land area or include population that is added to the urbanized area in land area not included in the 2000 land area definition.
2008/04/07
Portland CBD Losing Employment Share
The latest information from the Portland (Oregon) Business Alliance shows that downtown Portland has lost approximately 5 percent of its employment share relative to the metropolitan area since 2001. This is exactly the opposite effect that would be claimed as a result of Portland's restrictive (smart growth) policies.
Data
Data
2008/04/06
More than 90% of Metropolitan Growth in Suburbs
A Demographia analysis of city and suburban population trends shows that the move to the suburbs continues. Between 2000 and 2006, more than 90 percent of large metropolitan growth was in the suburbs. This continues a trend that has been underway for at least 50 years and is considerably at odds with wishful thinking often to be found in the establishment press, which all too often substitutes anecdote for analysis.
Data.
Note: This report defines a single historical core city for each metropolitan area (thus, Norfolk is used in the Virginia Beach-Norfolk metropolitan area).
Data.
Note: This report defines a single historical core city for each metropolitan area (thus, Norfolk is used in the Virginia Beach-Norfolk metropolitan area).
Financial Times Misunderstands & Misleads on US Cities & Poverty
Letter to the Financial Times 2008.04.06
Re: As cities revive, America's poor are forced to the periphery (April 4)
It is hard to remember a more misleading statement than the “It used to be that poor people lived in cities and the rich lived in the suburbs. Now it's the reverse," by Carol Coletta of CEO’s for cities on poverty in American metropolitan areas. The article itself also does much to mislead. Indeed, the Barube Brookings Institution report notes that gross poverty numbers are now greater in the suburbs than in the core cities. Yet, the poverty rate in the suburbs is only one-half the core cities. Moreover, the suburbs have grown at nine times the rate of core cities since 2000 and now have 2.7 times as much population --- so that they have a larger number of people in poverty should not be surprising. As for the demographic reversal cited by Ms. Coletta, perhaps the wishful thinking of the urban elite is getting in the way of looking at the real data. You can do better than this.
Sincerely,
Wendell Cox
Principal, Demographia, St. Louis
Visiting Professor, Conservatoire National des Arts et Metiers, Paris
Re: As cities revive, America's poor are forced to the periphery (April 4)
It is hard to remember a more misleading statement than the “It used to be that poor people lived in cities and the rich lived in the suburbs. Now it's the reverse," by Carol Coletta of CEO’s for cities on poverty in American metropolitan areas. The article itself also does much to mislead. Indeed, the Barube Brookings Institution report notes that gross poverty numbers are now greater in the suburbs than in the core cities. Yet, the poverty rate in the suburbs is only one-half the core cities. Moreover, the suburbs have grown at nine times the rate of core cities since 2000 and now have 2.7 times as much population --- so that they have a larger number of people in poverty should not be surprising. As for the demographic reversal cited by Ms. Coletta, perhaps the wishful thinking of the urban elite is getting in the way of looking at the real data. You can do better than this.
Sincerely,
Wendell Cox
Principal, Demographia, St. Louis
Visiting Professor, Conservatoire National des Arts et Metiers, Paris
2008/03/03
Melbourne to Release Land to Improve Housing Affordability
The Age reports today that the Victoria state government, led by Premier John Brumby intends to release considerable amounts of land for housing development to improve affordability. The announcement comes as demographers predict that Melbourne is poised to retake its 19th century position as the nation’s largest urban area. Sydney, which has been the largest urban area since the early 1900s has been reeling under some of the world’s most radical smart growth policies, which have pushed housing prices up substantially relative to incomes. Moreover, recent New South Wales governments have demonstrated an ideological opposition to the automobile that has produced some of the worst traffic congestion in the Anglosphere. A recent survey indicated that one in five Sydney residents were considering leaving, and out-migration from has been substantial.
It is to be hoped that other Australian states will follow Victoria’s lead by breaking the shackles of overly zealous land regulation that have done so much to destroy the Great Australian Dream.
Demographia is pleased to have been among the first to bring Australia’s untenable housing affordability situation to public attention and its regulation related causes. The Fourth Annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey was published in January.
(The Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey is co-authored by Wendell Cox and Hugh Pavletich.)
It is to be hoped that other Australian states will follow Victoria’s lead by breaking the shackles of overly zealous land regulation that have done so much to destroy the Great Australian Dream.
Demographia is pleased to have been among the first to bring Australia’s untenable housing affordability situation to public attention and its regulation related causes. The Fourth Annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey was published in January.
(The Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey is co-authored by Wendell Cox and Hugh Pavletich.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
