[sustran] Re: Fw: Sprawl in Hungary (fwd)

Wendell Cox wcox at publicpurpose.com
Sun Feb 6 04:55:01 JST 2000


A few points in relation to Todd Littman's comments.....

1. FHWA study in question combines highway and transit expenditures. My
comments relate to highways and roadways alone. For data from 1993, which
demonstrates my points, see The Highway and Motorway Fact Book at The Public
Purpose website:

http://www.publicpurpose.com/hwy-us$93&c.htm

Highway user fees are generally equal to or greater than the expenditure on
roadways in the United States, at all levels of government. Much of these
fees is used for other purposes, which creates a deficit that is covered by
general taxation.

2. As regards external costs, there are two sides to this discussion. For
the other side, see The Urban Transport Fact Book at The Public Purpose
Website:

http://www.publicpurpose.com/ut-littman.htm

Also recommended is... "The Myth of Social Cost," By Steven N. S. Cheung
(Institute of Economic Affairs, 1978).

3. Would be interested in the transit investments that are less expensive
than urban roadways.

4. Public service costs tend to be higher, not lower, in higher density
inner cities --- this is the cost of providing the services and
infrastructure within the boundaries of the central cities. This has to do
with an inherently more costly cost structure, greater special interest
control, a comparative lack of innovation and other factors. See the
following paper at "Demogaphic Briefs and Urban Policy, at The Public
Purpose website:

http://www.publicpurpose.com/tor-demo.htm

Also see Helen F. Ladd, "Population Growth, Density and the Costs of
Providing Public" Services, Urban Studies, Vol 2, 1992, pp 273-295

Further, public service costs are typically fully paid by people who live in
suburban municipalities. Sometimes they get some of their services from the
central city, but pay the central city. The "failure to charge residents for
the higher public service costs associated with lower-density locations" is
thus puzzling --- lower densities do not mean the costs are higher, and
whether or not they are higher they are being paid by the users who live in
the lower density communities.

5. Disagree with the view that suburbanization is not generally a market
based response. Suburbanization occurs largely because of affluence and the
availability of more modern forms of urban transport. It began long before
the auto. It is absolutely overwhelming, and occurs at different rates
probably based upon differing market forces variations in the extent of
government intervention in the market.

In the United States and Canada, only three central cities that have not
annexed since 1950/1 have gained population --- Vancouver, which is up 169k,
compared to an increase of 1.1 m in the suburbs, Miami, up 115k, compared to
nearly 3m in the suburbs, and Los Angeles, which was more than 1/3 rural
land in 1950. Any review of inner city census data (core areas) generally
shows population losses of 20-50 percent, even in places like Portland and
Indianapolis, where annexation could mislead one to the view that inner city
growth has occured.

It is no less stark in Europe, where cities that have not annexed territory
have lost population, with all population growth in the suburbs --- examples
are virtually all of the UK cities, Paris (down as great a percentage as
Chicago), Copenhagen, Stockholm, Amsterdam, Rotterdam, etc.

In Japan the losses started later, largely because it took Japan much longer
to recover economically from WW2 --- but Tokyo is down more than 1m from
1965 and Osaka is below its 1940 population. All growth in metro Tokyo and
Osaka has been suburban since that time. Generally, in other Japanese urban
areas, the bulk of growth has been in the suburbs.

With respect to Europe and Japan, one might expect government intervention
in the market with respect to excessively high taxation of motor fuel and
auto taxes, combined with the high land costs, and the lower income
(purchasing parity) to militate against suburbanization. But these
government interventions and market forces have only slightly restrained the
trend.

Historical US city population data can be found at Demographic Briefs on the
Demographia website...

http://www.demographia.com/db-uscity1850.htm

Historical US metropolitan area populations (1998 area definitions) can be
found at Demographic Briefs on the Demographia website at:

http://www.demographia.com/db-usmetfr1900.pdf

Historical city and metropolitan area population information for the UK and
Europe can be found at Demographic Briefs on the Demographia website...

http://www.demographia.com/dbx-europe.htm

Additional European data will be found at Demographic Briefs and Urban
Policy on The Public Purpose website...

http://www.publicpurpose.com/dmx-eur.htm

Historical city and metropolitan area population information for Japan can
be found at Demographic Briefs on the Demographia website...

http://www.demographia.com/dbx-japan.htm

Historical city and metropolitan area population information for Canada can
be found at Demographic Briefs and Urban Policy on The Public Purpose
website...

http://www.publicpurpose.com/dmx-canada.htm

6.. Finally, the "growing popularity of loft apartments, neotraditional
development and gentrified urban neighborhoods" justifies a few comments....

a. Loft apartments and the movement back to the city is an important and
encouraging development. It is largely people with no children... because
the schools are lousy ... and often such developments have extra security,
if not special additional patrol efforts by local police.  Even so, the
numbers are miniscule compared to the population growth in the suburbs of
the same cities.

b. Neotraditional developments are an interesting case. They are, as often
as not, agents of suburbanization themselves.

For example, Celebration, in Florida, is being built on a greenfield
suburban site (as was the neotraditional icon, Seaside) ... it is
contributing to sprawl. There is no public transit. Much of the community,
when built out, will be more than walking distance from the commercial core.
And, the "mix of housing" ranges from well above average price to way
above --- hardly the type of development that one can imagine replacing the
1950s to 1980s middle income housing stock occupied by most Americans. But
most amazingly of all, it is being built at a density less than half that of
the average suburban density built since 1950. At this rate, an additional
100+ acres would need to have been developed in US urbanized areas of more
than one million from 1950 to 1990 (nearly 45 hectares).

McKenzie Towne in Calgary is a bit more successful, with higher densities
and paltry (rather than no) transit service. But it too is on a greenfield
site and contributes to suburbanization. Transit work trip market share is
less than the city of Calgary in general.

For a review of McKenzie Towne, see Demographic Briefs on the Demographia
website...

http://www.demographia.com/db-mckenzietowne.htm

Reviews of three other developments... Celebration, Habor Town (Memphis) and
Har-Ber Meadows (Springdale, AR) will soon be posted, with references at the
Demographic Briefs Urban Development Index on the Demographia website...

http://www.demographia.com/dbx-nu.htm

Other reviews will be posted in the future. Neotraditional development needs
to be considered for what it is --- an issue of architectural taste, not a
fundamental shift in urban development. Before long you will see early 1900s
treatments applied to traditional suburban developments on 1/2 and one acre
lots, and perhaps even on mobile homes. The style is attractive, and can be
placed on any size lot... even the large lots that Americans prefer.

c. Gentrified urban neighborhoods are already beginning to price the poor
out of their homes in places like Austin and Portland, as it did before in
its previous life in other cities in the 1970s and 1980s. I don't believe
that this is a positive development, and neither do the people to whom it is
happening.

Finally, I for one, applaud the limited success being achieved in central
city revitalization, and hope that it continues and expands. It would be
nice to have the cities compete again for middle income people, but they
will first have to get their houses in order, which they are not (poor
schools, high crime rates, high taxes, poor public services, special
interest control, etc). There is no doubt that if the government failures of
the past 50 years had not interfered in the market, US central cities would
be stronger today.

Best regards,
Wendell Cox


--
WENDELL COX CONSULTANCY: International Public Policy, Economics, Labor,
Transport & Strategic Planning

THE PUBLIC PURPOSE: Internet Public Policy Resource:
http://www.publicpurpose.com
     Transport Policy Discussion Group:
http://www.publicpurpose.com/ut-group.htm

DEMOGRAPHIA: http://www.demographia.com
     Urban Policy Discussion Group: http://www.demographia.com/db-group.htm

Telephone +1 618 632 8507; Fax  +1 618 632 8538 - P.O. Box 841- Belleville,
Illinois 62222 USA

"To facilitate the ideal of government as the servant  of the people by
identifying and implementing strategies to achieve public purposes at a
cost that is no higher than necessary."

"Pro-choice with respect to urban development: People should be allowed to
live and work where they like."

----- Original Message -----
From: Todd Litman <litman at vtpi.org>
To: Sierra Club Forum on Transportation Issues
<CONS-SPST-SPRAWL-TRANS at LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG>;
<sustran-discuss at jca.ax.apc.org>
Cc: <pucher at rci.rutgers.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2000 9:27 AM
Subject: Re: Fw: Sprawl in Hungary (fwd)




More information about the Sustran-discuss mailing list