Category Transportation

Demographics + Transportation Costs + Lower Crime = More Urbanization

WSJ: Suburbs a Mile Too Far for Some Demographic Changes, High Gasoline Prices May Hasten Demand for Urban Living Messrs. Boseman and Wells embody trends that are dovetailing to potentially reshape a half-century-long pattern of how and where Americans live: The drivable suburb — that bedrock of post-World War II society — is for many a mile too far. In recent years, a generation of young people, called the millennials, born between the late 1970s and mid-1990s, has combined with baby boomers to rekindle demand for urban living. Today, the subprime-mortgage crisis and $4-a-gallon gasoline are delivering further gut punches by blighting remote subdivisions nationwide and rendering long commutes untenable for middle-class Americans. Peter Gordon contends that urbanism correlate less with gas prices than crime rates: Harry Richardson and Soojung Kim and I presented a conference paper earlier this year where we looked at the cycles of suburbanization-exurbanization since 1969. Our Figures 2a-2g and Tables 3-4 and 3-5 show the “rural renaissance” of the early 70s and how that reversed as the price of gasoline spiked in the early 1980s. But the following cycles of reversal of reversal and so forth did not track gasoline prices. The largest metros came back again in the late 1990s when gas prices were very low. The suburbanization-exurbanization-ruralization cycles that we found tracked the ebb and flow of crime rates better than gasoline prices. It makes sense to me. Those who prefer urban living had possibly been discouraged by higher urban crime rates of the past. Nonetheless, gas prices will have some long-term effect on where rational people choose to live. If crime continues to subside, could this be the perfect storm? Demographics + higher transportation costs + low crime –> high degrees of urbanization over the next decade. Let’s hope cities welcome the […]

CTA “Super Station” Mothballed

Photo by flickr user mss2400 Thanks, DBM for the tip: Faced with runaway costs, the CTA and City Hall slammed the emergency brakes Wednesday on ambitious plans to build a “super station” in downtown’s Block 37 to speed express trains to both Chicago’s airports. A combined $213 million has been spent on the project, yet there is not much more than a massive hole in the ground to show for it. At least an additional $100 million would be needed to complete the subterranean station, the CTA estimated. “The Block 37 curse continues,” said Joseph Schwieterman, a transportation and urban planning professor at DePaul University who has for years doubted the viability of the transit project. read the Chicago Tribune article here: CTA ‘super station’ in a hole Damn. I was really looking forward to the express connection to the airports. Had I not gone back to grad school, I would have worked on the subway station and tunnel design. But, I was always suspicious of how/if trains would actually be express without adding significant amounts of track and switching. With any major Chicago public project, always be suspicious that it will cost what the politicians say. The common joke is that there is a factor of 2.5: actual cost / original announced cost. The funny thing is that the factor seems pretty close to accurate. I wonder if there is any real data on that. I definitely recommend reading Here’s the Dealby Ross Miller, to learn the long history of Block 37 and political meddling in Chicago’s downtown.

Want Density? Turn the Free Market Loose

Matthew Yglesias – What Price Density The solution, as Ryan Avent says, is to build denser communities. We ought to build more transit infrastructure, of course, but it’s cheaper to use what we already have more intensively. And, of course, it’s more practical to build new infrastructure if there’s a reasonable expectation that it will serve intensive development. Beyond that, density also serves to make walking and biking more practical for more trips. And best of all, getting denser could be accomplished mostly through growth-enhancing relaxation of regulatory burdens. And of course if the supply of housing in central cities and nearby suburbs were radically higher, then it would be much easier for people to afford to live in them. Instead, restrictions on the supply of conveniently located housing lead to high prices and the “drive until you qualify” phenomenon that’s currently leaving many Americans in deep trouble as they try to pay for fuel. In general, relaxing density restrictions will ease housing prices. But, a couple notes: Creating more socialized infrastructure, whether transit or roads, disperses development. High densities create demand for transit, not the other way around. Transit creates demand to locate near the stations, but not elsewhere. This is because as commuters are diverted from roads, congestion subsides, allowing drivers to commute from further-out places. So, if density is the goal, I would privatize highways & parking, while putting the breaks on construction of new public highways & parking prior to building new expensive transit. If individual commuters were to pay for their use of the roads, many would alter their habits and perhaps where they choose to commute to / from. The change in location preference will, no-doubt, increase density. Building densely has higher construction costs per unit as land costs are dispersed among more units, […]

CATO Podcast: Transportation

Today, I was listening to CATO’s Daily Podcast about transportation with Samuel Staley of the Reason Foundation. I started listening to him talk about the best ways to plan highway systems and said to myself, “Oh boy, here we go again another so-called “free-market” person talking about how the government can ‘pave our way out of congestion’.” “We’ve got the space, and we’ve got the land, and we’ve got the wealth” to pave away congestion. That’s a very collective “we” for a supposed free-market person to use. But, after about 5 minutes of that, he goes into how we now have the technology to privatize highway use and are 15 years away from the technology to privatize even local roads. Now we’re talking. We need to actually begin to tie those traditional market mechanism to the products that are being developed and implemented at the local level, and that’s something we’ve never been able to achieve before. It’s an exciting time for transportation policy. If, transaction costs are no longer the obstacle to privatization, society needs to start shattering these bureaucracies and selling the roads to the private sector. I think the biggest hurdles to privatization are peoples’ perception/biases and politics. People never paid for roads before, so it’ll take effort to convince them it is not as free as the air we breath… download mp3

Airport Protectionism?

Richard’s Real Estate and Urban Economics Blog – Federalism and Taxis Taxicabs in the Washington area are regulated by various jurisdictions–DC cabs may not pick up fares in Virginia and Maryland, Virginia cabs can’t get passengers in the District and Maryland, and District Cabs are forbidden from pick ups in Maryland and Virginia. In New York, they charge an additional $15 surcharge fee to take a taxi to Newark, NJ. It seems like interstate protectionism to me, nudging me to use LaGuardia or JFK.

Free Market Impostors

I subscribe to the CATO Institute’s Daily Dispatch email. I enjoy ready the daily briefings of current events from a free-market perspective. But, once in a while, my capitalist stomach turns when they mention transit, usually accompanied by a quote from Randal O’Toole. Usually he bashes some transit plan, and gives some statistics about the inferiority of transit. Here’s a quote form the most recent Dispatch: Cato senior fellow Randal O’Toole writes: “A mile of rail transit line typically costs more to build than a four- to eight-lane freeway and typically carries fewer than half as many people as a single freeway lane mile. Federal funding for rail transit comes out of gasoline taxes and other highway user fees, and in most cases those funds would be more cost effective if spent on other transportation facilities.” Does this sound particularly “free market” to you? He’s just saying one socialist system is better than the other. On top of that he consistently presents only half the facts. You don’t even have to dig into his sources of data to know he is pulling a trick on the reader. Can you detect the deceptions? Yep, he discusses construction costs and completely neglects land costs, then focuses on cost/mile (as opposed to the more relevant cost/trip), while falsely inferring that the costs of automobile use is fully paid by fees and gas tax. Out in the country, land may be cheap and costs can be neglected. But, in urban areas where transit becomes more competitive, land is significantly more expensive. If one neglects land costs, one could justify tearing down several 60 story, $1000/sf office buildings Midtown Manhattan to build a 10 lane highway instead of an underground subway. I have a hard time respecting anyone who willingly neglects real costs (not just […]

Roads: US vs Europe

Pick Your Road: The U.S. vs. Europe, by Bryan Caplan In the U.S., we have low gas taxes, low car taxes, few tolls, strict zoning that leads developers to provide lots of free parking, low speed limits, lots of traffic enforcement, and lots of congestion. In Europe (France and Germany specifically), they have high gas taxes, high car taxes, lots of tolls, almost no free parking, high speed limits (often none at all), little traffic enforcement, and very little congestion. I’ve never driven in Europe, but I can’t imagine enduring city driving in the European cities I’ve been to. Those drivers are nuts! But, I’d venture to say that costs of driving in Europe are closer to reflecting the true costs, as opposed to the US’ tax, build with Pork, then neglect highway systems to spend on other pet projects system. The US socializes and subsidizes auto-transportation, while Europe socializes and penalizes. I imagine the European systems is closer to resembling a free-market transportation system than the US. But, we’ll probably never know for sure…

Happy 125th, Chicago’s L

Stephen Smith at rationalitate picked up on a Wired article and posted Thomas Edison builds the first el: today is 125th anniversary of the debut of Thomas Edison’s elevated electric railway demonstration in Chicago. The project was financed with $2 million in private funds, through the newly-incorporated Electric Railway Company. It’s enough to make you nostalgic for the days when the government wasn’t so involved in transportation and regulating land use, and that it was actually possible for the market to come up with transportation solutions We’ve come along way in destroying transit by government over-spending since the good ol’ days…. photo by flickr user harshilshah

Mixed Incentives and the True Costs of Driving

From the Freakonomic Blog – Mixed Messages on Auto Use: We wrote not long ago about the various negative externalities produced by driving — congestion, pollution, accident risk, etc. — and how pay-as-you-drive insurance might help impose the true cost of driving on each driver. … And here’s another case of mixed messages on auto use, or at least mixed incentives: The U.S. Department of Transportation has issued a press release saying that Americans have started to drive considerably fewer miles than before. And here’s another case of mixed messages on auto use, or at least mixed incentives: The U.S. Department of Transportation has issued a press release saying that Americans have started to drive considerably fewer miles than before. This post and the comments made me think about how little people actually think about the full costs of driving. People don’t typically think about the wear and tear on their car or the depreciation as they put on miles. The IRS’ mileage rates are intended to reflect these costs on top of the costs of gas, but many people think they are getting reimbursed extra for their mileage. Sure, if you are driving an older, fuel-efficient car, you’ll make money on your business travel… What if drivers were to pay the full costs of the roads they use? Would they start to look at the full cost of driving choices?