How is this at odds with established economic theory?

If so, that should be a tough case to argue using established economic theory.

In Charlotte, the Road brigade were laughed out of town. To good measure. Close to 50% of all new red dirt on the ground three miles from downtown is 1/2 mile from the South Corridor light rail. (Check it out on Google Earth!) $1/2 billion of public investment just produced $2.1 billion (mostly in high density brownfield redevelopment). And that’s the short term return on the South Corridor. Then there’s also the handy fact that in one year of operation, we obliterated our projected ridership numbers…and are approaching the 2030 projections. Shows you just how out of date our science is.

Randal, you have to base your diagnoses and solutions on what is going on NOW.

The idea, however, that there is some regulatory conspiracy forcing low-density development and that higher densities would “more profitable” (how can it be more profitable when it isn’t profitable today?) is a fantasy.

Randall, the “conspiracy forcing low-density development” is no fantasy – it’s called “zoning”. However, zoning is no smoke-filled-room “conspiracy”. It’s an out-in-the-open, restriction of land use, which was born through the progressive movement and approved by the Supreme Court.

Perhaps not in isolated parts of Texas, but in most places zoning restrictions limit the density of new development with regards to FAR, units per acre, setbacks, etc. Without these limits, denser projects would be more profitable. Otherwise, zoning limits wouldn’t be “restrictions”, but mere features. I don’t know how you could say higher densities aren’t more profitable, if they must be restricted, thus hurting otherwise profitable development. As a developer, I rarely (probably never have, actually) encounter a project where it’s highest-and-best economical use is as-of-right.

Density isn’t the solution. Opening up transit systems to competition and encourage private operators to find innovative ways to provide transit will work better.

Why can’t density be the solution? Certainly if it is restricted now, liberalizing land use would allow a more natural, and often denser land use pattern to emerge. Legalizing density allows market demand to be better accommodated in well-located developments.

However, I do agree about opening transit (and highways) to competitive forces, and applaud efforts to introduce market mechanisms to the otherwise socialist, taxpayer-funded systems.

The idea, however, that there is some regulatory conspiracy forcing low-density development and that higher densities would “more profitable” (how can it be more profitable when it isn’t profitable today?) is a fantasy.

Real estate developers think otherwise. Jonathan Levine, in his book Zoned Out: Regulation, Markets, and Choices in Transportation and Metropolitan Land Use makes a very persuasive case that developers, at least, feel overwhelmingly that they are constricted from offering the densities that the market demands, precisely because of local and state regulations against building densely on one’s own property. There’s also evidence that he presents that points to consumers being unsatisfied with their choices of density, though those sorts of surveys are problematic because of the difference between consumers’ revealed preferences and their stated preferences.

There are few or no regulations regarding density in much of Texas, for example, and low density the lifestyle of choice for most of the people in Texas cities.

I presume you’re talking mostly about Houston, the so-called unzoned city. In that case, your statement that there are “few or no regulations regarding density” is false. As Michael Lewyn explains:

Like other cities’ zoning codes, Houston’s municipal code creates auto dependency by artificially spreading out the population. Until 1999, the city required all single-family houses to gobble up 5,000 square feet of land. Although this limit is less rigid than minimum lot sizes in most suburbs, the city’s statute nevertheless insures that many residents will be unable to live within walking distance of a bus stop, which in turn means that those residents will be completely dependent on their cars. In 1999, the City Council partially deregulated density in neighborhoods closer to downtown. But since 98% of the city’s housing was built before 1999, this change in the law is of little importance.

Houston’s parking regulations also create automobile dependency by encouraging driving and discouraging walking. Under Houston’s city code, virtually every structure in Houston must supply plenty of parking. For example, apartment buildings must have even more parking spaces than residents; landlords must supply 1.25 parking spaces for each efficiency apartment and 1.33 parking spaces for every bedroom. Offices, supermarkets, and other businesses are subject to similar restrictions. Such parking regulations discourage walking by forcing pedestrians to navigate through massive parking lots (and to dodge the vehicles driving them) to reach shops or jobs. And where walking is uncomfortable, most people will drive. In addition, minimum parking requirements, by taking land for parking that could have been used for housing or businesses, also reduce density, thus making the city less compact and more auto-dependent.

Parking regulations, as explained by Donald Shoup in his book The High Cost of Free Parking are almost as important (if not more important) than zoning regulations in determining the density at which a developer can feasibly build.

Density isn’t the solution.

I’ll definitely agree with you that mandatory density isn’t the solution. However, liberalizing rules about how densely Americans can build (especially in cities and inner-suburbs) most definitely is part of the solution.

We would be happy if all transportation were funded solely out of user fees. Would that mean more highways or more transit? We don’t know and we don’t care. If new highways pay for themselves, that’s an indication that we need more. If new transit can pay for itself, that’s an indication we need more.

The idea, however, that there is some regulatory conspiracy forcing low-density development and that higher densities would “more profitable” (how can it be more profitable when it isn’t profitable today?) is a fantasy. There are few or no regulations regarding density in much of Texas, for example, and low density the lifestyle of choice for most of the people in Texas cities. Meanwhile, though transit is profitable in Hong Kong and parts of Japan. It loses huge amounts of money in Manhattan. If people didn’t drive to Manhattan and pay bridge tolls that are used to subsidize the subways, the transit system would fail tomorrow.

Density isn’t the solution. Opening up transit systems to competition and encourage private operators to find innovative ways to provide transit will work better.