The following is from a reply to correspondence from a California reader of the 4th Annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey
Thank you for your email. You ask all manner of questions that probably deserve a good bit of discussion, and to which there are not easy answers.
It is important, I believe, to understand that the house cost inflation that has occurred in prescriptive (smart growth) markets… many of them on the coasts… is new. A decade ago there was nothing like the differences in housing prices between the prescriptive markets and what we refer to as the "responsive markets," where there is more traditional regulation. California had been perhaps 25 percent more costly than average, relative to incomes for some time (it is now more than double). I would argue that this was not so much the life style as it was the much stronger regulatory environment that arose in the 1970s (William Fischel of Dartmouth has published on this).
As for the pent up demand for coastal property, I would argue that this is a micro-issue. It does not explain why, for example, housing prices have exploded in the I-680 corridor or the Inland Empire. They have exploded there due to the regulations. There is plenty of land that can be developed in those areas, but it is largely forbidden or made so expensive with fees and regualtions that it is unaffordable.
There is no doubt that housing has become more attractive as an investment (shall we say, speculation, as all investment is to a degree). However, anyone speculating on housing in Atlanta, Dallas-Fort Worth or Indianapolis (or a host of other metropolitan areas) would have little, if anything to show for it. Those markets, where the restrictions are not so severe, have managed to avoid the cost escalation.
In my California presentations I frequently hear the attitude you indicate, that places like, for example, Dallas-Fort Worth are not at all attractive for one living in California. This is an understandable view, though mine is the opposite, having left Los Angeles for the Midwest 20 years ago.
I believe, however, this "California resident" view needs some perspective. In fact, since 2000, the Dallas-Fort Worth area has grown at a rate 8 times that of the SF Bay area (including the SJ area)… If current rates hold, DFW would exceed SFSJ in population before 2020. SD is losing domestic migrants at more than double the rate of Pittsburgh. The demand "equation" has shifted markedly. Kansas City and Indianapolis are growing at 3-4 times the rate of SFSJ. All of this is to say that your view is quite understandable and appropriate, but that the tide of demographics, at least at the moment, is nearly the opposite. There seems to be broad agreement that housing affordability is the issue.
The commuting issue is also important. While some people commute to the city centers (like downtown SF or LA), it is by no means the majority. In the SFSJ area, downtown SF represents little more than 10 percent of jobs (http://www.publicpurpose.com/ut-cprof-sf.htm). Downtown LA has a far smaller share. This is not unusual. Manhattan south of 59 Street has only 20 percent of metropolitan employment, central London about 20 percent of metropolitan employment and central Paris under 20 and dropping rapidly.
From a commuting perspective, this is not bad. Overall, commute times have generally stayed the same or even improved (though in some places where highway investment has been avoided, like SFSJ, times have gotten worse). One way commutes average 25 minutes in the US and the median is closer to 20. All of this is because the jobs follow the residents (some might argue the other way around), with employment spread throughout the urban area. The largest business centre in SFSJ is Silicon Valley. You are right on with respect to the problem of transit and employment corridors. In fact, transit is able to effectively serve only concentrated downtown areas, which is indicated by the strong share to SF, the strong, but weaker share to downtown Oakland and the nearly non-existent share to the "sprawling" Silicon Valley employment center. It is no different in Europe. As cities have expanded, suburb to suburb commuting has expanded, nearly all of it is by car, and it is generally faster than cars or transit to the city.
Meanwhile, in jest, I wonder where there is a $500,000 beach house in Calif. It can be difficult to find a 1500 square foot GI in the San Fernando Valley for that. Median price in SFSJ is far higher.
My sense is that California (and some other places) prices have risen to an unsustainable level, at least at historic economic growth rates. It would take a drop of 50 percent from peak to bring everything back into alignment with historic California norms. Failing something like that (the necessary drop might be higher or lower), historic economic growth could be difficult to sustain.
It is probably fair to say that all things being equal, people would rather live in California that what has been called "flyover country" --- the non-coastal Midwest, South and Mountain states. However all things are not equal (and, indeed, more people live in "flyover country").
Best regards,
Wendell Cox
Co-author,
4th Annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey
2008/01/27
Unaffordable Housing In Belfast
The Belfast Telegraph covered the 4th Annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey on January 25, noting that Belfast was rated the 10th least affordable market in the six surveyed nations (United Kingdom, Ireland, United States, Canada, New Zealand and Australia). The Telegraph quoted co-author Wendell Cox as saying
What it really comes down to is the prescriptive planning policies of the UK. After the war it took 10 years for the UK to be able to feed itself, right now it can't even house itself.
But the point is not demand, the issue is land use policies. The only way its going to improve is by a relaxing of the land use regulations.
Belfast tenth worst city in housing affordability table
Unaffordable Housing in Townsville, Queensland
To: Mr. Chris Quagliata
Townsville Bulletin
Townsville, Queensland
Dear Mr. Quagliata:
Re: Your 23 January Column
There is nothing inconsistent about our housing affordability survey, which ranks the Townsville urban centre as one of the least affordable markets in six nations and the Collier study, which finds Townsville to be among the most affordable in Australia. Both are true. Indeed, our housing affordability calculator shows that the purchasing and paying the mortgage on the median priced house in Townsville costs $500,000 less than in Sydney (http://www.demographia.com/dhi-aus.XLS). This is the equivalent of 8.5 years of median household income in Sydney. It is not surprising, therefore that many Sydneysiders are moving to Queensland.
However, Townsville should take no more than modest satisfaction in this. House prices across Australia have generally doubled relative to incomes and even tripled in some markets in the last decade. This means that future home owners will pay much larger mortgage payments and will have less discretionary income than they would have if housing prices had not exploded. This is neither good for Townsville, nor for Australia.
The tragedy is that all of this was unnecessary. The excessive house price inflation resulted from the naïve "urban consolidation" land use regulations of state and local governments. Too little land has been released for new housing and not surprisingly, land prices have exploded. Excessive infrastructure levies have raised the price of housing even further.
It will be important for governments to begin to dismantle these destructive policies and to implement programs that permit people to buy inexpensive housing on the urban fringe. The Great Australian Dream of a owning a home on quarter acre is not yet dead, though it is, at best, on "life support." It needs to be fully restored.
Best regards,
Wendell Cox
Principal, Demographia
Metropolitan St. Louis (USA)
Visiting Professor, Conservatoire National des Arts et Metiers, Paris
Co-author, Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey
Townsville Bulletin
Townsville, Queensland
Dear Mr. Quagliata:
Re: Your 23 January Column
There is nothing inconsistent about our housing affordability survey, which ranks the Townsville urban centre as one of the least affordable markets in six nations and the Collier study, which finds Townsville to be among the most affordable in Australia. Both are true. Indeed, our housing affordability calculator shows that the purchasing and paying the mortgage on the median priced house in Townsville costs $500,000 less than in Sydney (http://www.demographia.com/dhi-aus.XLS). This is the equivalent of 8.5 years of median household income in Sydney. It is not surprising, therefore that many Sydneysiders are moving to Queensland.
However, Townsville should take no more than modest satisfaction in this. House prices across Australia have generally doubled relative to incomes and even tripled in some markets in the last decade. This means that future home owners will pay much larger mortgage payments and will have less discretionary income than they would have if housing prices had not exploded. This is neither good for Townsville, nor for Australia.
The tragedy is that all of this was unnecessary. The excessive house price inflation resulted from the naïve "urban consolidation" land use regulations of state and local governments. Too little land has been released for new housing and not surprisingly, land prices have exploded. Excessive infrastructure levies have raised the price of housing even further.
It will be important for governments to begin to dismantle these destructive policies and to implement programs that permit people to buy inexpensive housing on the urban fringe. The Great Australian Dream of a owning a home on quarter acre is not yet dead, though it is, at best, on "life support." It needs to be fully restored.
Best regards,
Wendell Cox
Principal, Demographia
Metropolitan St. Louis (USA)
Visiting Professor, Conservatoire National des Arts et Metiers, Paris
Co-author, Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey
2008/01/10
Lowering the Toll on the Road to Prosperity
Congratulations to Tata of India and its chairman Ratan Tata on the unveiling of their new $2,500 Nano, a small car aimed at reducing the poverty of India and elsewhere by expanding personal mobility. Their important step forward has brought competitive responses from other auto makers, which intend to develop lower cost vehicles.
The connection between affluence and personal mobility is well established. Those who would stand in the way of Indians getting cars (or Chinese, Indonesians or Nigerians) may as well take to the streets to demonstrate for expanding poverty.
The Nano will get 50 miles to the gallon, meaning that it will produce lower greenhouse gas emissions than public transport (transit) per passenger mile in the United States.
U.N. climate scientist Rajendra Pachauri, who shared last year's Nobel Peace Prize, indicated that he was “having nightmares" about the car. One wonders if his nightmares might be different if he lived in Mumbai’s Dharavi slum or one of the many other slums or substandard residential areas that are all too numerous in the developing world.
There is a good reason that it is called the ROAD to prosperity.
The connection between affluence and personal mobility is well established. Those who would stand in the way of Indians getting cars (or Chinese, Indonesians or Nigerians) may as well take to the streets to demonstrate for expanding poverty.
The Nano will get 50 miles to the gallon, meaning that it will produce lower greenhouse gas emissions than public transport (transit) per passenger mile in the United States.
U.N. climate scientist Rajendra Pachauri, who shared last year's Nobel Peace Prize, indicated that he was “having nightmares" about the car. One wonders if his nightmares might be different if he lived in Mumbai’s Dharavi slum or one of the many other slums or substandard residential areas that are all too numerous in the developing world.
There is a good reason that it is called the ROAD to prosperity.
College Football: A Championship of the Willing?
Diverting for a moment to popular culture….
This has been a particularly frustrating season for US college football fans, except for followers of LSU or Ohio State. The current Bowl Championship Series (BCS) pits two teams, selected by votes and computers out of more than 100, to play in the national championship game. Even more than in previous years, there has been wide agreement that a number of deserving teams were left out.
The problem, of course, is that any selection of two teams out of the three to five or ten that are most deserving is unnecessarily subjective. But no year has been worse than this. A Chicago WBBM news radio station commentary put it something like this. USC (University of Southern California) and Georgia were eliminated by a formula. In a proper playoff system they would have had to be beaten on the field, which WBBM opined, would not have happened. Comforting words for a USC fan (and Georgia fans as well).
WBBM went on to criticize the disingenuous argument that a playoff would make it impossible for athletes to conduct their studies, noting that the college basketball games continue throughout the period and that much of the time that playoffs would be held is already university vacation time.
Half of the problem is the very conference that USC plays in. The Pacific-10, with its co-conspirator the Big-10 oppose any playoff system because of its potential to diminish the importance of the Rose Bowl, where the two conferences have played one-another since long before there was a two-point touchdown conversion. The horse is out of the barn, however, The Rose Bowl has already been diminished and this year saw television ratings drop 20 percent from last year. This year’s USC-Illinois match up is generally considered to have been a joke, with Illinois being greatly improved, but far below the caliber that would make a Rose Bowl viable.
Before the BCS, USC would have played Ohio State, which was losing for the second time in a row in the national championship game against LSU. Again, the Rose Bowl as it was known in 1949 or 1999 is a thing of the past.
It may be time for a college football championship of the willing. The rest of college football should proceed with a genuine bowl playoff system and let the Pacific-10 and Big-10 sit on the sidelines and play in their once great but diminished Rose Bowl to smaller and smaller television audiences.
At a minimum, an eight team playoff should be established. WBBM suggested that a 16-team playoff would be feasible. However, care needs to be taken not to follow the example of college basketball, where my impression is that all teams are included in the playoffs, plus a smattering of high school teams. That’s why I stopped following college basketball some years ago. It would be useful to limit any playoff to conference championships. There is no logic in allowing a national champion to be crowned that was incapable of winning its own conference.
The Pacific-10 and Big-10 are not likely to be left out in the cold too long. They would soon find it preferable to be a part of the solution rather than trying to put Humpty Dumpty together again.
This has been a particularly frustrating season for US college football fans, except for followers of LSU or Ohio State. The current Bowl Championship Series (BCS) pits two teams, selected by votes and computers out of more than 100, to play in the national championship game. Even more than in previous years, there has been wide agreement that a number of deserving teams were left out.
The problem, of course, is that any selection of two teams out of the three to five or ten that are most deserving is unnecessarily subjective. But no year has been worse than this. A Chicago WBBM news radio station commentary put it something like this. USC (University of Southern California) and Georgia were eliminated by a formula. In a proper playoff system they would have had to be beaten on the field, which WBBM opined, would not have happened. Comforting words for a USC fan (and Georgia fans as well).
WBBM went on to criticize the disingenuous argument that a playoff would make it impossible for athletes to conduct their studies, noting that the college basketball games continue throughout the period and that much of the time that playoffs would be held is already university vacation time.
Half of the problem is the very conference that USC plays in. The Pacific-10, with its co-conspirator the Big-10 oppose any playoff system because of its potential to diminish the importance of the Rose Bowl, where the two conferences have played one-another since long before there was a two-point touchdown conversion. The horse is out of the barn, however, The Rose Bowl has already been diminished and this year saw television ratings drop 20 percent from last year. This year’s USC-Illinois match up is generally considered to have been a joke, with Illinois being greatly improved, but far below the caliber that would make a Rose Bowl viable.
Before the BCS, USC would have played Ohio State, which was losing for the second time in a row in the national championship game against LSU. Again, the Rose Bowl as it was known in 1949 or 1999 is a thing of the past.
It may be time for a college football championship of the willing. The rest of college football should proceed with a genuine bowl playoff system and let the Pacific-10 and Big-10 sit on the sidelines and play in their once great but diminished Rose Bowl to smaller and smaller television audiences.
At a minimum, an eight team playoff should be established. WBBM suggested that a 16-team playoff would be feasible. However, care needs to be taken not to follow the example of college basketball, where my impression is that all teams are included in the playoffs, plus a smattering of high school teams. That’s why I stopped following college basketball some years ago. It would be useful to limit any playoff to conference championships. There is no logic in allowing a national champion to be crowned that was incapable of winning its own conference.
The Pacific-10 and Big-10 are not likely to be left out in the cold too long. They would soon find it preferable to be a part of the solution rather than trying to put Humpty Dumpty together again.
2008/01/06
Lagos Urban Area Population Estimate
Lagos Urban Area Population Estimate
The current Demographia estimate (2006) of the population of the Lagos urban area (urban agglomeration) is 8,100,000, covering an area of approximately 775 square kilometers (300 square miles) for a density of 10,400 per square km or 27,000 per square mile.
This estimate is based upon data from the 2006 Nigerian census, which is disputed by many, including the state of Lagos. Right or wrong, however, the census has become the international authority for population in Nigeria.
Our estimate includes most of the population of each of the following local government areas:
LAGOS STATE
Agege
Ajeromi-Ifelodun
Alimosho
Amuwo-Odofin
Apapa
Eti-Osa
Ifako-Ijaiye
Ikeja
Kosofe
Lagos Island
Lagos Mainland
Mushin
Oshodi-Isolo
Somolu
Surulere
OGUN STATE
Ifo
Abo-Ota
Note that this is an urban agglomeration or urban area population. The population is for the area of continuous urbanization. It is not a metropolitan area (labor market) population. There is no standardized international definition for metropolitan areas, though if the imprecise approach used in many nations were followed in the case of Lagos, it is likely that the metropolitan area would include the entire states of Lagos and Ogun, for a total population of 12.7 million.
The land area and population data for the urban agglomeration has been developed from inspection of satellite maps and comparison with local government area boundaries.
The current Demographia estimate (2006) of the population of the Lagos urban area (urban agglomeration) is 8,100,000, covering an area of approximately 775 square kilometers (300 square miles) for a density of 10,400 per square km or 27,000 per square mile.
This estimate is based upon data from the 2006 Nigerian census, which is disputed by many, including the state of Lagos. Right or wrong, however, the census has become the international authority for population in Nigeria.
Our estimate includes most of the population of each of the following local government areas:
LAGOS STATE
Agege
Ajeromi-Ifelodun
Alimosho
Amuwo-Odofin
Apapa
Eti-Osa
Ifako-Ijaiye
Ikeja
Kosofe
Lagos Island
Lagos Mainland
Mushin
Oshodi-Isolo
Somolu
Surulere
OGUN STATE
Ifo
Abo-Ota
Note that this is an urban agglomeration or urban area population. The population is for the area of continuous urbanization. It is not a metropolitan area (labor market) population. There is no standardized international definition for metropolitan areas, though if the imprecise approach used in many nations were followed in the case of Lagos, it is likely that the metropolitan area would include the entire states of Lagos and Ogun, for a total population of 12.7 million.
The land area and population data for the urban agglomeration has been developed from inspection of satellite maps and comparison with local government area boundaries.
2008/01/05
On St. Louis, Light Rail & Highway 40 Temporary Closure
Guest Blog by Tom Sullivan
On St. Louis, Light Rail & Highway 40 Temporary Closure
Goooo, Metro . . .
"Metro can play a huge role."
March 9, 2006
"The Highway 40 project offers a golden opportunity for Metro to prove its value. People might even forgive the $126 million cost overrun on the Cross County line if Metro can keep traffic moving."
-- St. Louis Post-Dispatch editorial
December, 2006
Metro president Larry Salci asks the Missouri Legislature for $20 million, saying the transit agency could be of great help when part of Highway 40 is shut down -- but it needs additional funding to do so. The Legislature did not act on the request.
April, 2007
The East-West Gateway Council of Governments gives Metro $6 million in federal funds to add buses, mostly in west St. Louis County, to help during the Highway 40 project.
October, 2007
MoDOT says it will give Metro up to $3 million for additional riders that use Metro. "This is a key component in getting one third of vehicle trips during peak hours off our highway system during those peak hours," said MoDOT director Pete Rahn.
* * *
Metro launches a new website, www.dontgetstuck.org, devoted to providing tips and avoiding traffic jams during the Highway 40 reconstruction. "We know the I-64 reconstruction project and its ripple effect on other nearby roads and interstates are a major concern for the whole region, and we believe Metro can play a huge role in helping to address those concerns," said Patrick McLean, Metro Vice President of Marketing and Customer Service.
December 29, 2007
"Representatives of the Metro transportation agency will be at the center court of Chesterfield Mall from 11 a.m. to 3 p.m. today to provide information on using buses and MetroLink trains when part of Highway 40 closes."
-- St. Louis Post-Dispatch
January 3, 2008
"EMPTY SEATS: On one early morning bus, only a reporter was aboard."
"MetroLink trains run smoothly as a few passengers file on at the Clayton station on a frigid Wednesday morning. Transit traffic was light amid the closing of Highway 40 for reconstruction." (photo caption)
"But trains departing the Shrewsbury station were one-quarter full and appeared emptier than usual." (Note: A MetroLink train has 144 seats, so a quarter-full train is around 35 passengers.)
"Some Metro buses showed no signs that the shutdown was having an impact. On a 6:05 a.m. bus that left the Chesterfield Mall, going east to the Maplewood Metro station, only one passenger -- a Post-Dispatch reporter -- was on board."
-- St. Louis Post-Dispatch
(Note: The Shrewsbury MetroLink line will cost taxpayers about $1.1 billion when finance charges are figured in. Larry Salci said the extension "exceeded all expectations" for ridership.)
-- from Tom Sullivan, 1/03/08
On St. Louis, Light Rail & Highway 40 Temporary Closure
Goooo, Metro . . .
"Metro can play a huge role."
March 9, 2006
"The Highway 40 project offers a golden opportunity for Metro to prove its value. People might even forgive the $126 million cost overrun on the Cross County line if Metro can keep traffic moving."
-- St. Louis Post-Dispatch editorial
December, 2006
Metro president Larry Salci asks the Missouri Legislature for $20 million, saying the transit agency could be of great help when part of Highway 40 is shut down -- but it needs additional funding to do so. The Legislature did not act on the request.
April, 2007
The East-West Gateway Council of Governments gives Metro $6 million in federal funds to add buses, mostly in west St. Louis County, to help during the Highway 40 project.
October, 2007
MoDOT says it will give Metro up to $3 million for additional riders that use Metro. "This is a key component in getting one third of vehicle trips during peak hours off our highway system during those peak hours," said MoDOT director Pete Rahn.
* * *
Metro launches a new website, www.dontgetstuck.org, devoted to providing tips and avoiding traffic jams during the Highway 40 reconstruction. "We know the I-64 reconstruction project and its ripple effect on other nearby roads and interstates are a major concern for the whole region, and we believe Metro can play a huge role in helping to address those concerns," said Patrick McLean, Metro Vice President of Marketing and Customer Service.
December 29, 2007
"Representatives of the Metro transportation agency will be at the center court of Chesterfield Mall from 11 a.m. to 3 p.m. today to provide information on using buses and MetroLink trains when part of Highway 40 closes."
-- St. Louis Post-Dispatch
January 3, 2008
"EMPTY SEATS: On one early morning bus, only a reporter was aboard."
"MetroLink trains run smoothly as a few passengers file on at the Clayton station on a frigid Wednesday morning. Transit traffic was light amid the closing of Highway 40 for reconstruction." (photo caption)
"But trains departing the Shrewsbury station were one-quarter full and appeared emptier than usual." (Note: A MetroLink train has 144 seats, so a quarter-full train is around 35 passengers.)
"Some Metro buses showed no signs that the shutdown was having an impact. On a 6:05 a.m. bus that left the Chesterfield Mall, going east to the Maplewood Metro station, only one passenger -- a Post-Dispatch reporter -- was on board."
-- St. Louis Post-Dispatch
(Note: The Shrewsbury MetroLink line will cost taxpayers about $1.1 billion when finance charges are figured in. Larry Salci said the extension "exceeded all expectations" for ridership.)
-- from Tom Sullivan, 1/03/08
2007/12/28
Michigan to Fall Under 10 Million Residents?
Michigan could become the first large state to ever exceed 10 million population and then to fall back below 10 million. The latest US Bureau of the Census estimates indicate that Michigan’s population fell from 10,102,000 to 10,072,000 between 2006 and 2007. Should that rate continue, Michigan would fall to under 10,000,000 by the 2010 census.
New York Out-Migration Exceeds Katrina's Louisiana
Data just released by the US Bureau of the Census indicates that New York state lost 1,400,000 million domestic migrants between 2000 and 2007 (people moving from New York to other states). This is nearly equal to the population of the city Philadelphia. Perhaps most stunningly, New York also had the highest rate of domestic migration loss, at -7.4 percent, exceeding even that of Louisiana and its hundreds of thousands of residents driven out in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.
State Migration: From More Expensive to Less Expensive Areas
Report
The U.S. Bureau of the Census released annual state population and migration estimates today (27 December 2007). This document provides detailed data and observations on the trends in domestic migration.
Domestic migration occurs when a person moves from one place in the United States to another. In this case, a domestic migrant moves from one state or the District of Columbia to another.
Moving to More Affordable States
There is continued net domestic migration to the more affordable (responsive planning) states from prescriptive planning states. This is evident in comparing the change in annual migration rates in 2007 compared to 2000-2001.
Overall, between 2000 and 2007, there was a strong movement away from the more unaffordable states.
Texas Emerges as the Top Destination
In 2006-7, Texas had the largest domestic migration gain, at 140,000. Texas had emerged as the top destination in 2005-6, principally due to the exodus of Katrina refugees from Louisiana (220,000). However, the Texas net domestic gain remained strong in 200607, at an annual rate more than tripling the 2000-1 migration gain. Texas has gained 580,000 domestic migrants since 2000. Between 2000 and 2005 Florida strongly led Texas in domestic migration gains, with 1,050,000, compared to the Texas figure of 210,000.
The End of Migration to Florida?
Perhaps the most significant news from the new data is that Florida’s domestic migration gains have nearly come to an end. During the first 6 years of the decade, Florida gained an average of more than 200,000 domestic migrants annually. In 2006-7, this figure declined to 35,000. Florida’s overall growth rate has also declined. Until 2006, it looked possible that Florida would grow quickly enough to replace New York as the nation’s third largest state after California and Texas. This would not occur if the growth rate of the last year continues.
Another #1 for California
California became the nation’s largest state in the late 1960s, passing New York, which had been the largest state since 1810. In the last two years, California has also displaced New York as the leader in net domestic migration loss (in 2006 and 2007). Since 2000, California has lost 1,200,000 domestic migrants, a population approximately equal to that of the city of San Diego.
Moving from Florida to North & South Carolina?
There has been much talk of the “half-backs,” Northerners who move to Florida and then move “halfway” back to North Carolina or South Carolina. Since 2000, North Carolina has gained approximately 500,000 domestic migrants and South Carolina has gained 225,000. In each case, the 2006-7 domestic migration gain was approximately three times the 2000-1 gain. The halfbacks have also discovered Tennessee, which has gained more than 200,000 domestic migrants and has had a similar increase in rate since 2000-1.
The U.S. Bureau of the Census released annual state population and migration estimates today (27 December 2007). This document provides detailed data and observations on the trends in domestic migration.
Domestic migration occurs when a person moves from one place in the United States to another. In this case, a domestic migrant moves from one state or the District of Columbia to another.
Moving to More Affordable States
There is continued net domestic migration to the more affordable (responsive planning) states from prescriptive planning states. This is evident in comparing the change in annual migration rates in 2007 compared to 2000-2001.
In 2000-2001, the responsive planning states had a net domestic migration loss of 48,000. By 2006-2007, there was a net domestic migration gain of 452,000.
In 2000-2001, the prescriptive planning states had a net domestic migration gain of 48,000. By 2006-2007, there was a net domestic migration loss of 452,000.
Among the prescriptive planning states, the higher cost states experienced an increase in net domestic migration loss from 246,000 to 677,000 between 2000-1 and 2006-7.
Among the prescriptive planning states, the “safety valve” states experience a reduction in net domestic migration gain from 295,000 in 2000-1 to 225,000 in 2006-7. Net domestic migration gain peaked at 503,000 in 2004-5 (Figure)
Overall, between 2000 and 2007, there was a strong movement away from the more unaffordable states.
The higher cost prescriptive planning states experienced a net domestic migration loss of 3,752,000.
The safety value prescriptive planning states experience a net domestic migration gain of 2,538,000.
The responsive planning states experienced a net domestic migration gain of 1,214,000.
Texas Emerges as the Top Destination
In 2006-7, Texas had the largest domestic migration gain, at 140,000. Texas had emerged as the top destination in 2005-6, principally due to the exodus of Katrina refugees from Louisiana (220,000). However, the Texas net domestic gain remained strong in 200607, at an annual rate more than tripling the 2000-1 migration gain. Texas has gained 580,000 domestic migrants since 2000. Between 2000 and 2005 Florida strongly led Texas in domestic migration gains, with 1,050,000, compared to the Texas figure of 210,000.
The End of Migration to Florida?
Perhaps the most significant news from the new data is that Florida’s domestic migration gains have nearly come to an end. During the first 6 years of the decade, Florida gained an average of more than 200,000 domestic migrants annually. In 2006-7, this figure declined to 35,000. Florida’s overall growth rate has also declined. Until 2006, it looked possible that Florida would grow quickly enough to replace New York as the nation’s third largest state after California and Texas. This would not occur if the growth rate of the last year continues.
Another #1 for California
California became the nation’s largest state in the late 1960s, passing New York, which had been the largest state since 1810. In the last two years, California has also displaced New York as the leader in net domestic migration loss (in 2006 and 2007). Since 2000, California has lost 1,200,000 domestic migrants, a population approximately equal to that of the city of San Diego.
Moving from Florida to North & South Carolina?
There has been much talk of the “half-backs,” Northerners who move to Florida and then move “halfway” back to North Carolina or South Carolina. Since 2000, North Carolina has gained approximately 500,000 domestic migrants and South Carolina has gained 225,000. In each case, the 2006-7 domestic migration gain was approximately three times the 2000-1 gain. The halfbacks have also discovered Tennessee, which has gained more than 200,000 domestic migrants and has had a similar increase in rate since 2000-1.
2007/12/26
Urban Transport in Hyderabad (India): Observations
A couple of months ago, Dr. P.R.Bhanu Murthy suggested that I offer some comments on urban transport in Hyderabad, India along the lines of my previously posted observations on Lagos, Nigeria.
I have not been to Hyderabad. My travel in India has been limited to the three megacities (Mumbai, Delhi and Kolkata). However, some general comments can be made on urban transport in Hyderabad. Obviously, much of what follows applies equally to urban agglomerations in other emerging market economies.
Hyderabad is relatively dense, with nearly 6,000,000 people living in an urban agglomeration (continuous urbanization) that is approaching 600 square kilometers. Thus, the population density is approximately 10,000 per square kilometer. This is below that of Mumbai (26,000) and Kolkata (13,000), but is approximately average for an agglomeration of above 5,000,000 residents outside the high-income world (see: http://www.demographia.com/db-worldua.pdf).
Any effective urban transport planning process must begin with a comprehensive vision that deals with ensuring mobility from every square meter of the urban agglomeration to every other (what I call ubiquitous mobility). It is this type of mobility that virtually removes any transport restraints on economic growth and poverty reduction. Given the documented relationship between better mobility (point to point travel time) and economic growth, this is a principal concern. Cars often provide the means for escaping poverty, both in lower income nations and higher income nations.
Most, if not all “regional” transport plans or “metropolitan” transport plans fail substantially in this regard. The principal emphasis is placed upon providing transport to the core, which may also be called the central business district, hypercentre or downtown. Such plans would be more appropriately called “downtown transport plans.”
The problem with such plans is their failure to effectively deal with mobility for destinations outside the core area. Yet, in most urban areas, the majority of travel is not to the core area, but is rather between non-core origins and destinations.
There is a tendency for urban areas outside the first world to look to first world urban areas for direction in their strategies. Thus, there has been an emphasis on high-cost projects, such as Metros and light rail. This can be at the expense of less costly, more comprehensive service strategies. The problem with the high cost strategies is that they can provide only a small share of the public transport services that are needed. For Metros or light rail to provide ubiquitous mobility, would require service grids of no more than 800 meters (with an assumption of a maximum walking distance of 400 meters). The cost of any such a system would rival the gross domestic product of any urban area, high-income or otherwise (see: http://www.publicpurpose.com/ut-wctrs2007.pdf). Moreover, the inclusion of these modes in a subsidized environment consumes resources that often could be used to provide many more trips.
Other modes of transport that are less attractive to affluent westerners are more effective in many applications, such as buses, vans, shared-ride taxis, auto-rickshaws, etc. The focus should be on mobility, not mode. An urban transport system should be evaluated based upon the extent to which it makes ubiquitous travel throughout the urban area possible.
This is not to suggest that the high cost modes are any more efficient in the high-income world. They are generally not, except in the highest density urban cores. However, in the high-income nations, the unwise use of subsidy funding does not lead to the widespread denial of effective mobility. This is because in Western Europe and the United States, the overwhelming majority of people who live outside the urban core have cars and travel by cars. Public transport’s failure to provide ubiquitous service in the high-income world has doubtless been a factor in the motorization, which occurred as fast as people could afford it. The extent to which public transport's generally meager service offerings in relation to the need for mobility contributed to motorization, of course, is debatable.
Thus, there is an important difference that may not be immediately obvious. High income urban agglomerations can afford transport plans that fail to address the transport needs of much of the community. Lower income urban agglomerations do not have this luxury.
It may be tempting to think that part of the problem could be solved by improving the “jobs-housing balance,” effectively by partitioning large urban areas into smaller units that somehow make it possible for residents to find jobs more locally and not travel so far. There is considerable evidence that this policy approach is likely to lead to failure. Peter Hall has chronicled disappointing research in the Stockholm area (which is a small urban area by international standards). The 2001 UK Census showed that in the new towns --- which were to be self sufficient in terms of employment --- the average commute is double the diameter of the new town in distance.
Urban areas reach the size of Hyderabad or Mumbai for a reason. They will continue to grow so long as it is more advantageous for people and businesses to move there than to smaller areas. This is why the greatest growth in recent decades has been in the larger urban areas, rather than in the self-contained, well-balanced urban areas of say, 100,000 or less. Around the world, the rural and smaller urban areas have generally tended to capture less than their share of growth. Indeed, in many nations, urban populations fall while overall growth rates continue strong.
Much of the world’s urban transport planning is geared toward the goal of reducing the use of automobiles or reducing the growth rate of automobile use. Ubiquitous public transport systems could assist in this. However, the lack of ubiquitous public transport increases the incentives for private, personal mobility. As a result, lower and middle income urban areas have comparatively high shares of 2-wheeled motorization (motos, motor cycles, motor bikes).
Given the choice between being able to get where they need to go and not, the moto is an obvious alternative. At the same time, the prospect is for greater, not less automobile use in the future. Tata Motors will bring the 1-lahk car to market in 2008 (100,000 Rupees or US$2,500). Other manufacturers intend to compete. Lower and middle incomes lack cars not because they don’t like or need them, rather because they cannot afford them. Moreover, the reality is that once people have achieved private, personal mobility, whether motos or cars, public transport stands little chance of winning them back.
Thus, it makes sense for lower income urban areas to not look to the west or the high income world for their transport models. They should rather look to places like Manila and the African urban areas where less expensive, informal, private and smaller vehicles provide mobility that is substantially more ubiquitous than in places that have not incorporated these approaches. Again, the test is the mobility results, not the presence of particular modes. A lower income urban agglomeration is likely to be able to build a “world class” public transport system (read “high-income”) only by denying mobility to large numbers of its citizens.
(Of course, where a public transport system or route can be built and operated using only passenger fares, this problem is avoided. Most systems, however, are heavily subsidized in construction and even operations.)
But this takes me back to the principal issue — setting of standards and objectives. For public transport to replace the automobile or slow down its expansion, public transport service must be ubiquitous. This is not so anywhere and is not even being aimed for. But the following standards are suggested.
It is well to understand the competition that public transport faces. Cars and motos have the following characteristics. Meeting or approaching these characteristics is the principal requirement of any public transport system that would provide ubiquitous mobility.
Any public transport system intending to seriously compete in such a market or any sub-market thereof needs to be designed with similar characteristics.
==================
Note: Link to latest information on the Tata 1-lakh car
http://www.deccanherald.com/Content/Dec192007/business2007121942043.asp?section=updatenews
I have not been to Hyderabad. My travel in India has been limited to the three megacities (Mumbai, Delhi and Kolkata). However, some general comments can be made on urban transport in Hyderabad. Obviously, much of what follows applies equally to urban agglomerations in other emerging market economies.
Hyderabad is relatively dense, with nearly 6,000,000 people living in an urban agglomeration (continuous urbanization) that is approaching 600 square kilometers. Thus, the population density is approximately 10,000 per square kilometer. This is below that of Mumbai (26,000) and Kolkata (13,000), but is approximately average for an agglomeration of above 5,000,000 residents outside the high-income world (see: http://www.demographia.com/db-worldua.pdf).
Any effective urban transport planning process must begin with a comprehensive vision that deals with ensuring mobility from every square meter of the urban agglomeration to every other (what I call ubiquitous mobility). It is this type of mobility that virtually removes any transport restraints on economic growth and poverty reduction. Given the documented relationship between better mobility (point to point travel time) and economic growth, this is a principal concern. Cars often provide the means for escaping poverty, both in lower income nations and higher income nations.
Most, if not all “regional” transport plans or “metropolitan” transport plans fail substantially in this regard. The principal emphasis is placed upon providing transport to the core, which may also be called the central business district, hypercentre or downtown. Such plans would be more appropriately called “downtown transport plans.”
The problem with such plans is their failure to effectively deal with mobility for destinations outside the core area. Yet, in most urban areas, the majority of travel is not to the core area, but is rather between non-core origins and destinations.
There is a tendency for urban areas outside the first world to look to first world urban areas for direction in their strategies. Thus, there has been an emphasis on high-cost projects, such as Metros and light rail. This can be at the expense of less costly, more comprehensive service strategies. The problem with the high cost strategies is that they can provide only a small share of the public transport services that are needed. For Metros or light rail to provide ubiquitous mobility, would require service grids of no more than 800 meters (with an assumption of a maximum walking distance of 400 meters). The cost of any such a system would rival the gross domestic product of any urban area, high-income or otherwise (see: http://www.publicpurpose.com/ut-wctrs2007.pdf). Moreover, the inclusion of these modes in a subsidized environment consumes resources that often could be used to provide many more trips.
Other modes of transport that are less attractive to affluent westerners are more effective in many applications, such as buses, vans, shared-ride taxis, auto-rickshaws, etc. The focus should be on mobility, not mode. An urban transport system should be evaluated based upon the extent to which it makes ubiquitous travel throughout the urban area possible.
This is not to suggest that the high cost modes are any more efficient in the high-income world. They are generally not, except in the highest density urban cores. However, in the high-income nations, the unwise use of subsidy funding does not lead to the widespread denial of effective mobility. This is because in Western Europe and the United States, the overwhelming majority of people who live outside the urban core have cars and travel by cars. Public transport’s failure to provide ubiquitous service in the high-income world has doubtless been a factor in the motorization, which occurred as fast as people could afford it. The extent to which public transport's generally meager service offerings in relation to the need for mobility contributed to motorization, of course, is debatable.
Thus, there is an important difference that may not be immediately obvious. High income urban agglomerations can afford transport plans that fail to address the transport needs of much of the community. Lower income urban agglomerations do not have this luxury.
It may be tempting to think that part of the problem could be solved by improving the “jobs-housing balance,” effectively by partitioning large urban areas into smaller units that somehow make it possible for residents to find jobs more locally and not travel so far. There is considerable evidence that this policy approach is likely to lead to failure. Peter Hall has chronicled disappointing research in the Stockholm area (which is a small urban area by international standards). The 2001 UK Census showed that in the new towns --- which were to be self sufficient in terms of employment --- the average commute is double the diameter of the new town in distance.
Urban areas reach the size of Hyderabad or Mumbai for a reason. They will continue to grow so long as it is more advantageous for people and businesses to move there than to smaller areas. This is why the greatest growth in recent decades has been in the larger urban areas, rather than in the self-contained, well-balanced urban areas of say, 100,000 or less. Around the world, the rural and smaller urban areas have generally tended to capture less than their share of growth. Indeed, in many nations, urban populations fall while overall growth rates continue strong.
Much of the world’s urban transport planning is geared toward the goal of reducing the use of automobiles or reducing the growth rate of automobile use. Ubiquitous public transport systems could assist in this. However, the lack of ubiquitous public transport increases the incentives for private, personal mobility. As a result, lower and middle income urban areas have comparatively high shares of 2-wheeled motorization (motos, motor cycles, motor bikes).
Given the choice between being able to get where they need to go and not, the moto is an obvious alternative. At the same time, the prospect is for greater, not less automobile use in the future. Tata Motors will bring the 1-lahk car to market in 2008 (100,000 Rupees or US$2,500). Other manufacturers intend to compete. Lower and middle incomes lack cars not because they don’t like or need them, rather because they cannot afford them. Moreover, the reality is that once people have achieved private, personal mobility, whether motos or cars, public transport stands little chance of winning them back.
Thus, it makes sense for lower income urban areas to not look to the west or the high income world for their transport models. They should rather look to places like Manila and the African urban areas where less expensive, informal, private and smaller vehicles provide mobility that is substantially more ubiquitous than in places that have not incorporated these approaches. Again, the test is the mobility results, not the presence of particular modes. A lower income urban agglomeration is likely to be able to build a “world class” public transport system (read “high-income”) only by denying mobility to large numbers of its citizens.
(Of course, where a public transport system or route can be built and operated using only passenger fares, this problem is avoided. Most systems, however, are heavily subsidized in construction and even operations.)
But this takes me back to the principal issue — setting of standards and objectives. For public transport to replace the automobile or slow down its expansion, public transport service must be ubiquitous. This is not so anywhere and is not even being aimed for. But the following standards are suggested.
1. Access Standard: X% of households shall be no more than Y distance from a public transport stop (in the US, a reasonable standard would be for 95 percent of households to be within 400 meters of a public transport stop).
2. Service Level Standard: Service from each stop shall operate no less than every X minutes during particular parts of the day. For example, a reasonable standard would be service at least every 10 minutes from 5am to 10pm and every half- hour in between.
3. Travel Time Standard: Travel times to all destinations (every single square centimeter!) shall not exceed X minutes in a Y radius, such as X1 minutes in a Y1 radius, etc. In the US, we could have a standard that says travel times shall not exceed 20 minutes for 10 km, 30 minutes for 15, etc.
4. System Development: The standards above shall be implemented within X years. This is a real issue. American urban areas are rushing to build nearly random rail lines without any sort of longer term vision (except to build, without particular reference to the
overall needs of customers). Those lines that are planned are many years away. Contrast that with Bogota, where the busway was in operation after just a few years and a far more comprehensive system will be completed long before a the more expensive and more limited Metro system would have been completed. It is simply a matter of maximizing mobility within the constraints of the available subsidies. Any other approach denies mobility to others.
It is well to understand the competition that public transport faces. Cars and motos have the following characteristics. Meeting or approaching these characteristics is the principal requirement of any public transport system that would provide ubiquitous mobility.
1. Immediate access (not even a 400 meter walk)
2. Service available on demand (not every 5 or 60 minutes)
3. Fastest travel time to nearly all destinations.
4. It is available now… not in a regional transport plan that may never be finished and probably does not even seek ubiquitous mobility as an objective.
Any public transport system intending to seriously compete in such a market or any sub-market thereof needs to be designed with similar characteristics.
==================
Note: Link to latest information on the Tata 1-lakh car
http://www.deccanherald.com/Content/Dec192007/business2007121942043.asp?section=updatenews
2007/12/18
United States, Canada World's Strongest Economies
The World Bank is out with a revised estimate of world economies (gross domestic product) based upon purchasing power parities. for 2005. There are a number of notable developments.
The United States remains the most affluent of the larger nations, with a GDP of $41,700. Canada has emerged as a strong number two among larger nations, at $35,100, leading perpetual rivals Australia ($32,800), the United Kingdom ($31,600), Germany ($30,500) and Japan ($30,300).
The United States, however, is not the most affluent. A number of smaller nations have higher GDP-PPP’s per capita than the United States, such as Luxembourg (population equal to metropolitan Santa Barbara) and oil rich countries Qatar, Brunei Darussalam, Kuwait and Norway.
Some smaller countries and city-states rank between the United States and Canada, including Ireland, Singapore, Macao and Hong Kong.
Argentina continues its relative slide. Some reports indicate that Argentina was among the world’s three strongest economies in the 1930s, before Peronism. Argentina has now fallen behind Mexico and is no longer South America’s most prosperous economy. That honor goes to Chile.
China ($4,100) and India ($2,100) ranked surprisingly low.
The United States remains the most affluent of the larger nations, with a GDP of $41,700. Canada has emerged as a strong number two among larger nations, at $35,100, leading perpetual rivals Australia ($32,800), the United Kingdom ($31,600), Germany ($30,500) and Japan ($30,300).
The United States, however, is not the most affluent. A number of smaller nations have higher GDP-PPP’s per capita than the United States, such as Luxembourg (population equal to metropolitan Santa Barbara) and oil rich countries Qatar, Brunei Darussalam, Kuwait and Norway.
Some smaller countries and city-states rank between the United States and Canada, including Ireland, Singapore, Macao and Hong Kong.
Argentina continues its relative slide. Some reports indicate that Argentina was among the world’s three strongest economies in the 1930s, before Peronism. Argentina has now fallen behind Mexico and is no longer South America’s most prosperous economy. That honor goes to Chile.
China ($4,100) and India ($2,100) ranked surprisingly low.
2007/12/17
On Urban Transport in Lagos
From the CODATU Mailing List
I have never lived in Lagos… in fact my experience in Lagos is
limited to a brief stop over at the airport. However, I study cities and my familiarity has to do with research and resources such as Google maps.
My view is that high-income world planning concepts have little or
no applicability in Lagos (or in many other developing world
cities). This is especially true of American smart growth planning,
which is much more theory than reality. There is a raging debate on
the subject in the United States and around the world, with planners
generally favoring smart growth policies and economists suggesting
that such policies are destructive because of the way that they
drive housing prices up (I am on the economist’s side of that issue).
I say that smart growth is more theory than reality, because
virtually all high income world cities developed with little overall
planning — there was local zoning, there were some local or
subregional plans and there are the exceptions like Washington (or
Brasilia, which is in the middle income world) where strong planning
regimes have been implemented in the core. But outside the core, the
development is relatively random. Smart growth seeks to impose a
design on top of that randomness and its successes tend to be, at
best, marginal. I have always been bothered at the way that some
American smart growth planners go to the developed world and tell of
the “Nirvana” that has been achieved, for example, in Portland,
which in many respects is no different than any other American urban
area, and in fact, sprawls twice as much as Los Angeles for its size.
Whatever the final outcome of the smart growth versus economics
debate, western conventional planning principles are simply
inappropriate in a place like Lagos, with its uncontrolled growth.
Attempting to manage the growth of Lagos, except in the less
intrusive way, would (in my view) lead to massive disregard of the
law.
I recall one time being involved in a US State Department urban
planning seminar at which a planner from Manila indicated that their
first priority was to demolish the shantytowns that had grown up on
the rivers. There is a much more fundamental issue. Why do the
people live in shantytowns? Obviously because there has been
insufficient economic growth and it is thus the only choice. Where
would these people live if the shantytowns were demolished? He had
no answer, and my analysis of such situations is that the
shantytowns soon return, perhaps in different locations. Western
planning principles are simply unable to deal with such realities.
Solly Angel, who has done considerable work at the World Bank and
the United Nations suggests that urban planning in developing world
nations should be principally the identification (and later
building) a grid of major arterial streets. This is the first step
in providing the necessary infrastructure.
The transport problem virtually all large cities have (whether in
Nigeria or the West) is that they are too geographically expansive
for public transport to be an efficient, ubiquitous (door to door)
form of mobility. At the same time, with the exception of some
American urban areas, they are not geographically expansive enough
for the auto to work optimally. For all of the criticism of US urban
areas, work trip travel times here are better than anywhere else
when size of urban area is considered.
But back to ubiquitous mobility. This is not easy to provide in a
large urban area. The urban footprint of Lagos is at least 300
square km and perhaps even larger. No major urban area of that size
(or for that matter of any size) has the kind of ubiquitous public
transport system that I am referring to — one that gets you from
every point to every other point in the urban area in a time that is
competitive with personal modes (cars, taxis and motos). Manila,
which covers about 500 square km and has 17m people (don’t believe
the UN numbers, which exclude all of the spillover suburban
development outside the jurisdiction of Metro Manila) comes the
closest, with its jitney system that nearly provides ubiquitous
mobility. The problem in Manila is that the road system is so bad
that travel speeds are terrible. They could have used a “Solly
Angel” design 25 years ago. Of couse, Manila’s system (which has the
highest service level in the world, including Hong Kong) is based
upon inexpensive jeepneys, which are legal but certainly look
informal.
Regrettably, planners tend to focus on urban cores. The standard
urban transport planning regime for Lagos would be rail lines
leading to the main business centre on the island. In fact, though I
don’t have the data, my experience elsewhere would lead me to
believe that no more than 10 percent of the jobs are there and maybe
only 5 percent.
This, again, is where busways come it. To the extent that we can
improve public transport, through the most cost efficient means, we
will improve people’s lives and, delay their purchase of motos and
cars. But if we do not provide the ubiquitous public transport
systems that people need, they will buy cars and motos — that is
the experience in virtually every large urban area. Thus, it would
seem to me that low-cost busways (following the example of places
like Manaus and Porto Alegre, rather than the more expensive system
in Curitiba) would help. But, again, to make it work optimally, you
will need a grid that serves virtually everywhere and a strong
feeder service system — buses operating on ½ hour schedules will
not do. This means informal services feeding the busway. Of course,
this is theory, but I think this is the way to go.
But this takes me back to the principal issue — setting of
standards and objectives. For public transport to replace the
automobile or slow down its expansion, public transport service must
be ubiquitous. This is not so anywhere and is not even being aimed
for. But the following standards are needed (perhaps repeating
myself now).
1. Access Standard. X% of households shall be no more than Y
distance from a public transport stop (in the US, I would say 95
percent of households should be within 400 meters of a public
transport stop).
2. Service Level Standard: Service from each stop shall operate no
less than every X minutes during particular parts of the day. For
example, a reasonable standard would be service at least every 10
minutes from 5am to 10pm and every ½ hour in between.
3. Travel Time Standard: Travel times to all destinations (every
single square centimeter!) shall not exceed X minutes in a Y radius,
X1 minutes in a Y1 radius, etc. In the US, we could have a standard
that says travel times shall not exceed 20 minutes for 10 km, 30
minutes for 15, etc.
4. System Development: The standards above shall be implemented
within X years. This is a real issue. American urban areas are
rushing to build nearly random rail lines without any sort of longer
term vision (except to build, without particular reference to the
overall needs of customers). Those lines that are planned are many
years away. Contrast that with Bogota, where the busway was in
operation after just a few years and should be completed long before
a far more expensive Metro system would have been completed and
served much less of the population.
I know all of this sounds like a lot, but think of the service that
a moto or automobile provides.
1. Immediate access (not even a 400 meter walk)
2. Service available on demand (not every 5 minutes)
3. Fastest travel time to nearly all destinations.
4. It is available now… not in some transport plan that may or may
not ever be finished.
I have never lived in Lagos… in fact my experience in Lagos is
limited to a brief stop over at the airport. However, I study cities and my familiarity has to do with research and resources such as Google maps.
My view is that high-income world planning concepts have little or
no applicability in Lagos (or in many other developing world
cities). This is especially true of American smart growth planning,
which is much more theory than reality. There is a raging debate on
the subject in the United States and around the world, with planners
generally favoring smart growth policies and economists suggesting
that such policies are destructive because of the way that they
drive housing prices up (I am on the economist’s side of that issue).
I say that smart growth is more theory than reality, because
virtually all high income world cities developed with little overall
planning — there was local zoning, there were some local or
subregional plans and there are the exceptions like Washington (or
Brasilia, which is in the middle income world) where strong planning
regimes have been implemented in the core. But outside the core, the
development is relatively random. Smart growth seeks to impose a
design on top of that randomness and its successes tend to be, at
best, marginal. I have always been bothered at the way that some
American smart growth planners go to the developed world and tell of
the “Nirvana” that has been achieved, for example, in Portland,
which in many respects is no different than any other American urban
area, and in fact, sprawls twice as much as Los Angeles for its size.
Whatever the final outcome of the smart growth versus economics
debate, western conventional planning principles are simply
inappropriate in a place like Lagos, with its uncontrolled growth.
Attempting to manage the growth of Lagos, except in the less
intrusive way, would (in my view) lead to massive disregard of the
law.
I recall one time being involved in a US State Department urban
planning seminar at which a planner from Manila indicated that their
first priority was to demolish the shantytowns that had grown up on
the rivers. There is a much more fundamental issue. Why do the
people live in shantytowns? Obviously because there has been
insufficient economic growth and it is thus the only choice. Where
would these people live if the shantytowns were demolished? He had
no answer, and my analysis of such situations is that the
shantytowns soon return, perhaps in different locations. Western
planning principles are simply unable to deal with such realities.
Solly Angel, who has done considerable work at the World Bank and
the United Nations suggests that urban planning in developing world
nations should be principally the identification (and later
building) a grid of major arterial streets. This is the first step
in providing the necessary infrastructure.
The transport problem virtually all large cities have (whether in
Nigeria or the West) is that they are too geographically expansive
for public transport to be an efficient, ubiquitous (door to door)
form of mobility. At the same time, with the exception of some
American urban areas, they are not geographically expansive enough
for the auto to work optimally. For all of the criticism of US urban
areas, work trip travel times here are better than anywhere else
when size of urban area is considered.
But back to ubiquitous mobility. This is not easy to provide in a
large urban area. The urban footprint of Lagos is at least 300
square km and perhaps even larger. No major urban area of that size
(or for that matter of any size) has the kind of ubiquitous public
transport system that I am referring to — one that gets you from
every point to every other point in the urban area in a time that is
competitive with personal modes (cars, taxis and motos). Manila,
which covers about 500 square km and has 17m people (don’t believe
the UN numbers, which exclude all of the spillover suburban
development outside the jurisdiction of Metro Manila) comes the
closest, with its jitney system that nearly provides ubiquitous
mobility. The problem in Manila is that the road system is so bad
that travel speeds are terrible. They could have used a “Solly
Angel” design 25 years ago. Of couse, Manila’s system (which has the
highest service level in the world, including Hong Kong) is based
upon inexpensive jeepneys, which are legal but certainly look
informal.
Regrettably, planners tend to focus on urban cores. The standard
urban transport planning regime for Lagos would be rail lines
leading to the main business centre on the island. In fact, though I
don’t have the data, my experience elsewhere would lead me to
believe that no more than 10 percent of the jobs are there and maybe
only 5 percent.
This, again, is where busways come it. To the extent that we can
improve public transport, through the most cost efficient means, we
will improve people’s lives and, delay their purchase of motos and
cars. But if we do not provide the ubiquitous public transport
systems that people need, they will buy cars and motos — that is
the experience in virtually every large urban area. Thus, it would
seem to me that low-cost busways (following the example of places
like Manaus and Porto Alegre, rather than the more expensive system
in Curitiba) would help. But, again, to make it work optimally, you
will need a grid that serves virtually everywhere and a strong
feeder service system — buses operating on ½ hour schedules will
not do. This means informal services feeding the busway. Of course,
this is theory, but I think this is the way to go.
But this takes me back to the principal issue — setting of
standards and objectives. For public transport to replace the
automobile or slow down its expansion, public transport service must
be ubiquitous. This is not so anywhere and is not even being aimed
for. But the following standards are needed (perhaps repeating
myself now).
1. Access Standard. X% of households shall be no more than Y
distance from a public transport stop (in the US, I would say 95
percent of households should be within 400 meters of a public
transport stop).
2. Service Level Standard: Service from each stop shall operate no
less than every X minutes during particular parts of the day. For
example, a reasonable standard would be service at least every 10
minutes from 5am to 10pm and every ½ hour in between.
3. Travel Time Standard: Travel times to all destinations (every
single square centimeter!) shall not exceed X minutes in a Y radius,
X1 minutes in a Y1 radius, etc. In the US, we could have a standard
that says travel times shall not exceed 20 minutes for 10 km, 30
minutes for 15, etc.
4. System Development: The standards above shall be implemented
within X years. This is a real issue. American urban areas are
rushing to build nearly random rail lines without any sort of longer
term vision (except to build, without particular reference to the
overall needs of customers). Those lines that are planned are many
years away. Contrast that with Bogota, where the busway was in
operation after just a few years and should be completed long before
a far more expensive Metro system would have been completed and
served much less of the population.
I know all of this sounds like a lot, but think of the service that
a moto or automobile provides.
1. Immediate access (not even a 400 meter walk)
2. Service available on demand (not every 5 minutes)
3. Fastest travel time to nearly all destinations.
4. It is available now… not in some transport plan that may or may
not ever be finished.
2007/12/14
Demographia Posts USA Household Debt to Income Ratios: 1945-2005
Demographia has posted household debt to income ratios for 1945 to the present, using data from the Federal Reserve Board and the National Income and Product Accounts (Available here).
Generally, household debt has risen strongly in recent years as housing prices have increased, especially in smart growth markets.
Generally, household debt has risen strongly in recent years as housing prices have increased, especially in smart growth markets.
2007/12/12
Greenspan Wrong, Krugman Right on "Housing Bubble"
Re:
The Roots of the Mortgage Crisis
By ALAN GREENSPAN
December 12, 2007; Page A19
Former Federal Reserve Board Governor Alan Greenspan is wrong and liberal New York Times columnist is right on the “housing bubble.”
Writing in today’s Wall Street Journal, Greenspan says that he had expected Fed actions to “dampen the then mounting house price surge.” Greenspan goes on to blame global economic factors for the continuing rise in house prices.
Greenspan makes the same mistake so many other analysts have made before. It starts with the whole concept of the housing price surge or the “housing bubble.” As Paul Krugman has pointed out, there is none. Where the demand pressures are the greatest, metropolitan areas like Atlanta and Dallas-Fort Worth house prices have maintained their historic link to household incomes. The Median Multiple (median house price divided by median household income) has remained at 3.0 or below.
Krugman notes that prices have risen in what he calls the “zoned-zone,” where there is strong land use regulation (such as smart growth). Where land use regulation is not overly restrictive, prices have not risen. Even with sub-prime lending practices, metropolitan areas with reasonable regulation have been able to handle the higher demand.
Greenspan’s analysis of the housing market has been every bit as off the mark as that of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand, which has raised interest rates multiple times to bring house price rises under control. It helps to address the cause. Interest rates and Greenspan’s global economic factors have little influence where local planning authorities have made land for development scarce.
Excessive land regulation (call it smart growth, urban consolidation or compact city policies) is the problem. Housing affordability has been destroyed in many metropolitan areas and the overall economic impacts of the over-heated housing market it has generated are just beginning to be felt. The central bankers need to look much closer to home to solve the problem.
The Roots of the Mortgage Crisis
By ALAN GREENSPAN
December 12, 2007; Page A19
Former Federal Reserve Board Governor Alan Greenspan is wrong and liberal New York Times columnist is right on the “housing bubble.”
Writing in today’s Wall Street Journal, Greenspan says that he had expected Fed actions to “dampen the then mounting house price surge.” Greenspan goes on to blame global economic factors for the continuing rise in house prices.
Greenspan makes the same mistake so many other analysts have made before. It starts with the whole concept of the housing price surge or the “housing bubble.” As Paul Krugman has pointed out, there is none. Where the demand pressures are the greatest, metropolitan areas like Atlanta and Dallas-Fort Worth house prices have maintained their historic link to household incomes. The Median Multiple (median house price divided by median household income) has remained at 3.0 or below.
Krugman notes that prices have risen in what he calls the “zoned-zone,” where there is strong land use regulation (such as smart growth). Where land use regulation is not overly restrictive, prices have not risen. Even with sub-prime lending practices, metropolitan areas with reasonable regulation have been able to handle the higher demand.
Greenspan’s analysis of the housing market has been every bit as off the mark as that of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand, which has raised interest rates multiple times to bring house price rises under control. It helps to address the cause. Interest rates and Greenspan’s global economic factors have little influence where local planning authorities have made land for development scarce.
Excessive land regulation (call it smart growth, urban consolidation or compact city policies) is the problem. Housing affordability has been destroyed in many metropolitan areas and the overall economic impacts of the over-heated housing market it has generated are just beginning to be felt. The central bankers need to look much closer to home to solve the problem.
2007/12/06
My Amtrak Adventure
I flew to Baltimore-Washington international airport (BWI) on this trip to Washington, DC. My intention was to take Amtrak from Baltimore to Union Station in Washington.
Right away I was in luck. Amtrak was running predictably late, which meant that I didn’t have to wait another half hour for what was supposed to be a half hour trip. But on Amtrak, that's as much luck as you can hope for.
It was slowing lightly, though as slow as the train traveled one would think it was the Blizzard of ’88.
About half way to Washington the train stopped. We were advised that the train had hit a tree and that the engineer (driver) had to inspect the locomotive to make sure we could continue. This delay was fairly short.
Then as we neared Union Station the conductor made a few announcements, including…
Then we got to Union Station. All of the lights went off, except for the emergency lights, as they began to switch to diesel power for the trip to Richmond. We all had to line up and slowly proceed in the dark through the cars to the one door the “hours of service law” permitted to be opened. From the time we arrived at the platform at Union Station to the time that I was able to get off the train was a full 15 minutes.
It is to be hoped that the “hours of service law” will allow at least one door to open in Richmond. Assuming they get there.
All of this reminds me why a $70 taxicab ride is not such a bad deal for getting to Washington if you happen to use BWI.
Wendell Cox
Member,
Amtrak Reform Council
1999-2002
Right away I was in luck. Amtrak was running predictably late, which meant that I didn’t have to wait another half hour for what was supposed to be a half hour trip. But on Amtrak, that's as much luck as you can hope for.
It was slowing lightly, though as slow as the train traveled one would think it was the Blizzard of ’88.
About half way to Washington the train stopped. We were advised that the train had hit a tree and that the engineer (driver) had to inspect the locomotive to make sure we could continue. This delay was fairly short.
Then as we neared Union Station the conductor made a few announcements, including…
- Auxiliary power for computers and the rest rooms would not work for passengers continuing to Richmond.
Because of the “hours of service law,” “all of the doors would not open in Washington.” I think she meant that “not all of the doors would open in Washington.”
Then we got to Union Station. All of the lights went off, except for the emergency lights, as they began to switch to diesel power for the trip to Richmond. We all had to line up and slowly proceed in the dark through the cars to the one door the “hours of service law” permitted to be opened. From the time we arrived at the platform at Union Station to the time that I was able to get off the train was a full 15 minutes.
It is to be hoped that the “hours of service law” will allow at least one door to open in Richmond. Assuming they get there.
All of this reminds me why a $70 taxicab ride is not such a bad deal for getting to Washington if you happen to use BWI.
Wendell Cox
Member,
Amtrak Reform Council
1999-2002
2007/12/05
Jerry Brown and GHG Ideology In San Diego
It seems that everyone knows what we have to do to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions --- Get out of our cars and into transit --- and move from our suburban detached houses to high-rise condominiums in the core. That is the basis of California Attorney General Jerry Brown’s intervention in the San Diego (SANDAG) regional planning process. This “back to the cave” mentality (or at least back to 1920 mentality) is both unnecessary and could lead to substantially less economic growth and higher levels of poverty.
There is no doubt that transit produces less in greenhouse gas emissions than cars in some applications and some corridors. The San Diego Trolley is a good example. However, trolleys cannot be built everywhere, not just because they cost so much, but also because the travel demand is simply not there. Local transit officials have built the trolley lines where demand is the greatest and the potential for reducing GHG emissions is the greatest. But there are serious limits to transit expansion.
The Attorney General may not be aware that cars are often more GHG friendly than transit. Outside New York, transit GHG emissions per passenger mile were virtually the same as cars in urban operation, based upon an analysis of 2005 US Department of Transportation and US Department of Energy data. Excluding the Trolley, transit services in the San Diego area emit more GHGs per passenger mile than cars.
The proposed federal 35 mile per gallon standard will reduce car GHG’s per passenger mile by 30 percent from present levels. Even more effective technology is on the way. Hybrid diesel cars entering the market in Europe next year will drop GHG’s per passenger mile a further 50 percent. The way forward is technological progress, not substantial life style changes.
Anyone who believes that people are going to abandon their cars for transit service that does take them where they are going or takes too long simply does not understand human behavior. Despite its substantial investment in transit, San Diego has the fourth worst traffic congestion in the nation, and things are only getting worse.
Moreover, the mobility that the car affords is crucial to the economy. International research demonstrates that metropolitan areas create more jobs and income where travel time is minimized. People use transit where it makes sense, but not where it doesn’t. University of California research suggests that a principal barrier to reducing minority unemployment is to make cars available. To keep traffic congestion under control, it will be necessary to continue investing in additional roadway capacity. This is also good for the environment, since air pollution and GHG emissions are far more intense where traffic becomes “stop and start.”
Then there is the matter of housing. It is not at all clear that single-family attached housing is produces more GHGs per capita than high-rise condominiums. Research in Sydney, Australia finds the opposite --- that GHG emissions per capita are substantially higher from high-rise condominium buildings than from single-family detached housing. The reason is the huge energy burden of common areas, shared services (such as central heating and air conditioning) and elevators, none of which are included from in US Department of Energy data for energy use by housing type.
There are those who believe that if we stop building additional highway capacity and traffic congestion gets bad enough, people will switch to transit. That is naïve. If traffic becomes bad enough, people and businesses will leave the area.
And, indeed, local smart growth policies are already driving people away from San Diego. The excessive regulations and land rationing of smart growth have driven housing prices to more than three times the level relative to incomes that occurs in markets with less severe regulation. San Diego County’s outward migration since 2000 is at or above the rate of Rust Belt Pittsburgh, Buffalo, Cleveland and Detroit.
The reality is that GHG emissions can be reduced substantially without seriously altering the way we live. What is needed is fact based strategies, not the tired ideology that has already done so much to increase traffic congestion and housing prices in San Diego (and to drive people away).
There is no doubt that transit produces less in greenhouse gas emissions than cars in some applications and some corridors. The San Diego Trolley is a good example. However, trolleys cannot be built everywhere, not just because they cost so much, but also because the travel demand is simply not there. Local transit officials have built the trolley lines where demand is the greatest and the potential for reducing GHG emissions is the greatest. But there are serious limits to transit expansion.
The Attorney General may not be aware that cars are often more GHG friendly than transit. Outside New York, transit GHG emissions per passenger mile were virtually the same as cars in urban operation, based upon an analysis of 2005 US Department of Transportation and US Department of Energy data. Excluding the Trolley, transit services in the San Diego area emit more GHGs per passenger mile than cars.
The proposed federal 35 mile per gallon standard will reduce car GHG’s per passenger mile by 30 percent from present levels. Even more effective technology is on the way. Hybrid diesel cars entering the market in Europe next year will drop GHG’s per passenger mile a further 50 percent. The way forward is technological progress, not substantial life style changes.
Anyone who believes that people are going to abandon their cars for transit service that does take them where they are going or takes too long simply does not understand human behavior. Despite its substantial investment in transit, San Diego has the fourth worst traffic congestion in the nation, and things are only getting worse.
Moreover, the mobility that the car affords is crucial to the economy. International research demonstrates that metropolitan areas create more jobs and income where travel time is minimized. People use transit where it makes sense, but not where it doesn’t. University of California research suggests that a principal barrier to reducing minority unemployment is to make cars available. To keep traffic congestion under control, it will be necessary to continue investing in additional roadway capacity. This is also good for the environment, since air pollution and GHG emissions are far more intense where traffic becomes “stop and start.”
Then there is the matter of housing. It is not at all clear that single-family attached housing is produces more GHGs per capita than high-rise condominiums. Research in Sydney, Australia finds the opposite --- that GHG emissions per capita are substantially higher from high-rise condominium buildings than from single-family detached housing. The reason is the huge energy burden of common areas, shared services (such as central heating and air conditioning) and elevators, none of which are included from in US Department of Energy data for energy use by housing type.
There are those who believe that if we stop building additional highway capacity and traffic congestion gets bad enough, people will switch to transit. That is naïve. If traffic becomes bad enough, people and businesses will leave the area.
And, indeed, local smart growth policies are already driving people away from San Diego. The excessive regulations and land rationing of smart growth have driven housing prices to more than three times the level relative to incomes that occurs in markets with less severe regulation. San Diego County’s outward migration since 2000 is at or above the rate of Rust Belt Pittsburgh, Buffalo, Cleveland and Detroit.
The reality is that GHG emissions can be reduced substantially without seriously altering the way we live. What is needed is fact based strategies, not the tired ideology that has already done so much to increase traffic congestion and housing prices in San Diego (and to drive people away).
2007/12/03
Rental Car Tour: Manila: Rich and Poor
It is always preferable to end the first visit with some affection for an urban area and even a desire to stay longer. This is the feeling that I have had in leaving most urban areas. In only one case was no affection developed for the urban area, which is described in the Kolkata Rental Car Tour. In others, an attraction developed, but there was no reluctance to leave, such as in Mumbai. Manila is in the majority --- an affection was developed and I would have preferred to stay longer.
Arriving at Manila’s Nonoy Aquino International Airport evokes a sense of history more than most. The airport is named for Benigno (Nonoy) Aquino, the opposition leader who was assassinated at the airport upon his return to the Philippines in 1983. Events led eventually to stolen election (by President Ferdinand Marcos), his deposition, a peaceful revolution and the installation of Corazon Aquino, wife of Nonoy Aquino as president of the Philippines. The main thoroughfare of the urban area, EDSA (below) was the site of this peaceful revolution and another in 2001.
More, with 150 photos
Arriving at Manila’s Nonoy Aquino International Airport evokes a sense of history more than most. The airport is named for Benigno (Nonoy) Aquino, the opposition leader who was assassinated at the airport upon his return to the Philippines in 1983. Events led eventually to stolen election (by President Ferdinand Marcos), his deposition, a peaceful revolution and the installation of Corazon Aquino, wife of Nonoy Aquino as president of the Philippines. The main thoroughfare of the urban area, EDSA (below) was the site of this peaceful revolution and another in 2001.
More, with 150 photos
2007/12/02
UK Cars Improving on GHG Emissions
Data provided to the private sector by the United Kingdom government provides an indication of estimated greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions per passenger kilometer of various transport modes.
Public transport is far more efficient in the United Kingdom than in the United States. As a result, the GHGs per passenger kilometer are substantially less. For example, US Metros (subways) emit 81 grams per passenger mile, 50 percent above the 53 figure in the United Kingdom. Light rail in the United Kingdom emits 65 grams per passenger kilometer, compared to 119 in the United States.
Despite the more efficient public transport operations in the UK, cars are becoming surprisingly competitive. Small hybrid cars produce less GHG than buses. The new hybrid-diesel cars will nearly equal the GHG efficiency of Metros. The European Union has established a 2012 goal for car emissions that would make them more GHG efficient than buses much more competitive with light rail.
An earlier posting reported that non-transportation emissions, from stations and maintenance are reported to add approximately 40 percent to public transport energy consumption, while 22 percent was added to cars.
Data and Notes
Public transport is far more efficient in the United Kingdom than in the United States. As a result, the GHGs per passenger kilometer are substantially less. For example, US Metros (subways) emit 81 grams per passenger mile, 50 percent above the 53 figure in the United Kingdom. Light rail in the United Kingdom emits 65 grams per passenger kilometer, compared to 119 in the United States.
Despite the more efficient public transport operations in the UK, cars are becoming surprisingly competitive. Small hybrid cars produce less GHG than buses. The new hybrid-diesel cars will nearly equal the GHG efficiency of Metros. The European Union has established a 2012 goal for car emissions that would make them more GHG efficient than buses much more competitive with light rail.
An earlier posting reported that non-transportation emissions, from stations and maintenance are reported to add approximately 40 percent to public transport energy consumption, while 22 percent was added to cars.
Data and Notes
Transit Share Drops and Gas Prices Increase
The nation’s transit services continue to lose market share among their most important demographics. According to the American Community Survey of the US Bureau of the Census, transit’s share of work trips has fallen from 5.0 percent in 2000 to 4.8 percent in 2006. With the rapid rise in gasoline costs, it might have been expected that transit would finally turn around its persistent downward market share trend. But the data shows no such turnaround.
Of course, the principal problem is that transit is simply uncompetitive with automobile travel for most trips. There are the exceptions, such as travel to the nation’s largest downtown areas, such as Manhattan, Chicago’s Loop, downtown San Francisco, the Hub in Boston and Centre City in Philadelphia. Some transit services are competitive with, or better than the automobile to these downtowns. As a result half or more of commuters to these areas go to work by transit.
However, most employment is not in downtown areas. These large, successful transit-based downtown areas account for less than three percent of the nation’s employment. Yet, nearly one-third of the nation’s transit commuters travel to these locations to their jobs (see Commuting to Downtown and Elsewhere).
Transit has two fundamental problems. The first is that it doesn’t go where most people need to go. The second is that it cannot at a price any urban area in the world can afford (see: Megacities: Land Use and Transport). It’s time for the advocates of higher transit taxes to stop pretending that transit has any potential to reduce traffic congestion.
Of course, the principal problem is that transit is simply uncompetitive with automobile travel for most trips. There are the exceptions, such as travel to the nation’s largest downtown areas, such as Manhattan, Chicago’s Loop, downtown San Francisco, the Hub in Boston and Centre City in Philadelphia. Some transit services are competitive with, or better than the automobile to these downtowns. As a result half or more of commuters to these areas go to work by transit.
However, most employment is not in downtown areas. These large, successful transit-based downtown areas account for less than three percent of the nation’s employment. Yet, nearly one-third of the nation’s transit commuters travel to these locations to their jobs (see Commuting to Downtown and Elsewhere).
Transit has two fundamental problems. The first is that it doesn’t go where most people need to go. The second is that it cannot at a price any urban area in the world can afford (see: Megacities: Land Use and Transport). It’s time for the advocates of higher transit taxes to stop pretending that transit has any potential to reduce traffic congestion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
