[sustran] Re: More on Denver thread

[Wendell Cox]

My comments preceded by WC:

DEMOGRAPHIA & THE PUBLIC PURPOSE (Wendell Cox Consultancy)
http://www.demographia.com (Demographics & Land Use)
http://www.publicpurpose.com (Public Policy & Transport))
Telephone: +1.618.632.8507 - Facsimile: +1.810.821.8134
PO Box 841 - Belleville, IL 62222 USA
----- Original Message -----
From: Todd Litman <litman at vtpi.org>
To: <sustran-discuss at jca.ax.apc.org>
Sent: Monday, 29 October, 2001 13:16
Subject: [sustran] Re: More on Denver thread


>
> Mr. Cox's arguement reflect the assumptions that:
>
> * Increased wealth leads to increased automobile ownership and
> lower-density development.
>
> * Increased automobile ownership and lower-density development lead to
> reduced transit use and cost effectiveness.
>
> This leads to the conclusion that North American suburbs represent the
> optimal transportation/land use system that all consumers wish to attain.
> There is plenty of evidence that these assumptions are true, but there are
> also intreguing indications that they are neither universal or without
> limits or alternatives. Rather, there is evidence that at least some
> wealthy people prefer a less automobile-dependent community, particularly
> if they have a high quality level of transit service. Let me give just a
> few of the indications that this is true that I've run across:
>
WC: and so long as they are free to choose, that's find. For years, hundreds
of thousands of wealthy people have lived on the upper east and west sides
of NY without cars. The general case, however, is that increased auto use is
associated with higher incomes. Go to any developing world country where
income is increasing and look at the increase in auto ownership. China is a
case in point, and there are others.

> * U.S. transit ridership has grown at a faster rate that automobile travel
> during the last five years, despite growth in consumer wealth.
>
WC: only because the numbers are skewed by New York's performance, and much
of that has to do with the creation, 50 years later than other places, of
transfers between bus and rail so that many trips that used to be completed
by walking are now completed by a transfer to the bus.

> * Property values in traditional urban neighborhoods in Seattle, Portland,
> San Francisco and other cities have increased dramatically, provided that
> those areas have other attributes valued by residents such as safety, good
> schools and prestige. This suggests that a portion of the value that
> households placed on moving to the suburbs reflected social conditions,
not
> their physical attributes. (Decisions Data, Puget Sound Housing Preference
> Study, Puget Sound Regional Council (www.psrc.org), 1994.)
>
The 2000 population data shows the same --- almost all growth in US metros
in the suburbs.

> * Home buyers are willing to pay a premium for housing located in New
Urban
> communities. (Mark Eppli and Charles C. Tu, Valuing the New Urbanism; The
> Impact of New Urbanism on Prices of Single-Family Homes, Urban Land
> Institute (www.uli.org), 2000.)
>
WC: Home buyers have no choice if they want to live in new urban
communities, because they are exceedingly expensive. Some people like
neighborhoods that remind them of 1900, others like neighborhoods that
remind them of 2001. > * Many European cities and towns have redeveloped
their urban centers based
> on a less automobile-dependent model, often with rail transit as a key
> feature. (TRB, Making Transit Work; Insights from Western Europe, Canada
> and the United States, Special Report 257, Transportation Research Board,
> National Academy Press (www.trb.org), 2001.)
>
> * Residents of communities with rail systems tend to spend significantly
> less on transportation than residents of automobile-dependent communities.
> This suggests that rail transit "leverages" land use changes that improve
> accessiblity and provide consumer benefits. (Barbara McCann, Driven to
> Spend; The Impact of Sprawl on Household Transportation Expenses, STPP
> (www.transact.org), 2000.)
>
WC: And they spend more on housing and food, by more than compensating
amounts... see my article in Environment &
Climate News (March), directly refuting the findings of this research (or,
shall we say, putting the findings into a somewhat broader context). Fact is
that, in the US, more sprawl is associated with a lower cost of living and a
higher quality of life.

http://www.heartland.org/

> Property values tend to increase significantly near transit stations,
> indicting consumer preferences and economies of agglomeration. (Jeffery J.
> Smith, Does Mass Transit Raise Site Values Around Its Stops Enough To Pay
> For Itself (Were The Value Captured)?, Geonomy Society
> (www.progress.org/geonomy), 2001. Also available at the Victoria Transport
> Policy Institute, http://www.vtpi.org.)
>
> I believe that it is quite possible that as households become wealthier,
> what many really want to purchase is better quality neighborhoods, more
> comfortable-convenient-prestegious transit, and transportation choices
such
> as carsharing, and that suburban communities with universal automobile
> ownership are really a second-best alternative for a significant portion
of
> consumers.

WC: My judgement is the opposite. Lets talk in 2025.
>
> This all suggests that extrapolating past trends, economic analysis of
cost
> per line-mile or per passenger-mile, and transportation planning based on
> congestion reduction impacts, are simply inadequate to evaluate transit
> investments. There appear to be other significant factors, many of which
> seem to justify rail transit investments. This is not to say that rail
> transit is always superior to buses or highway investments, but it does
> means that transportation planners must use a more comprehensive model and
> do a better job of listening to consumers.
>
> Best wishes.
>
> -Todd
>
>
> At 04:15 PM 10/28/01 -0600, you wrote:
> >This debate could rage for years. After sending my original note, I was
> >sorry that I had not clarified the point. My point had to do with the
former
> >"colonies" --- US, Canada, New Zealand and Australia, where the land use
> >tends to make transit investments real losers and incapable of competing
> >with highways. Elsewhere this may not be the case. Especially in the
> >developing world, authorities need to understand that the only hope for
> >limiting the growth of auto use as people become more affluent is to
provide
> >comprehensive region wide transit systems that make people NOT WANT to
buy
> >cars. This means providing as much public transport as possible within
the
> >constrained budgets availalbe, it means priority for buses, jitneys,
> >rickshaws and it means it is time to stop building Metro systems that
cannot
> >sustainably provide an alternative to the automobile for most of the
trips.
> >
> >Of course, I disagree with Todd. I am quite of the view that cost per
> >passenger mile is an appropriate measure. I wonder if Mark Delucci
realizes
> >the blunder he made? Presume he will soon be clarifying his research.
> >
> >Meanwhile, my offer remains outstanding, though limited to the former
> >colonies;
> >
> >
> >DEMOGRAPHIA & THE PUBLIC PURPOSE (Wendell Cox Consultancy)
> >http://www.demographia.com (Demographics & Land Use)
> >http://www.publicpurpose.com (Public Policy & Transport))
> >Telephone: +1.618.632.8507 - Facsimile: +1.810.821.8134
> >PO Box 841 - Belleville, IL 62222 USA
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: Todd Litman <litman at vtpi.org>
> >To: <sustran-discuss at jca.ax.apc.org>
> >Sent: Friday, 26 October, 2001 10:11
> >Subject: [sustran] Re: More on Denver thread
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Neither costs per line-mile nor costs per passenger-mile are
appropriate
> >> units of comparision between highway and rail project. (This is similar
to
> >> comparing housing investments based only on land costs while ignoring
> >> differences in construction, utility and tax costs.) A better unit is
cost
> >> per passenger trip, which includes additional costs such as parking and
> >> vehicle expenses. The best unit is a comparision between the
incremental
> >> benefits and incremental costs of each project (i.e., Net Present
Value).
> >>
> >> Both urban highway and urban transit projects are expensive. Delucci
made
> >> the mistake of comparing average transit costs with average highway
costs,
> >> rather than under urban conditions, which is where major transit
> >> investments make sense.
> >>
> >> For discussion see the "Comprehensive Transportation Evaluaton",
> >"Measuring
> >> Transportation" and "Least Cost Planning" chapters of our Encyclopedia
> >> (http://www.vtpi.org/tdm).
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> At 03:30 PM 10/25/01 -0500, you wrote:
> >> >You get the last word Eric.
> >> >
> >> >Dont have the time to go further into it at this time, except to say
that
> >> >after having challenged people on a couple of lists to come up with a
> >single
> >> >highway project that is more expensive than a competing rail project
on a
> >> >cost per pkm basis, there have been no valid takers. A few people have
> >> >provided examples, but always fall into the logical error of comparing
> >cost
> >> >per mile rather than cost per pkm. I know that there are all sorts of
> >ways
> >> >to distort economics to come to such conclusions, but, as many know
here,
> >> >even Mark Delucci of UCBerkeley, no highway advocate, found total
costs
> >> >(direct and external) of transit to be higher than that of highways.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >DEMOGRAPHIA & THE PUBLIC PURPOSE (Wendell Cox Consultancy)
> >> >http://www.demographia.com (Demographics & Land Use)
> >> >http://www.publicpurpose.com (Public Policy & Transport))
> >> >Telephone: +1.618.632.8507 - Facsimile: +1.810.821.8134
> >> >PO Box 841 - Belleville, IL 62222 USA
> >> >----- Original Message -----
> >> >From: <BruunB at aol.com>
> >> >To: <sustran-discuss at jca.ax.apc.org>
> >> >Sent: Thursday, 25 October, 2001 16:22
> >> >Subject: [sustran] Re: More on Denver thread
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> I guess I don't want Wendell to have the last word. I would like to
> >> >elaborate
> >> >> on these points a little further.
> >> >>
> >> >> In a message dated 10/25/01 2:34:34 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> >> >> wcox at publicpurpose.com writes:
> >> >>
> >> >> << With respect to new rail systems, it can generally be posited
that
> >the
> >> >>  subsidy of trips that are all or part on rail will be more highly
> >> >subsidized
> >> >>  than those on buses, due to the very high capital subsidy for rail.
US
> >> >>  transit agencies treat capital as manna from on high --- something
> >free
> >> >that
> >> >>  does not have to be accounted for.
> >> >>
> >> >> We all agree that the rail capital investment can be quite high. I
also
> >> >agree
> >> >> that public transport agencies can often view these investments as
> >"free
> >> >> money", but it is not only the public transport agency's viewpoint
that
> >> >> counts here. These investments can also be justified as alternatives
to
> >> >> highway projects that are also expensive and have higher social and
> >> >> environmental costs.
> >> >>
> >> >> << Whatever one can do with feeder buses to rail can also be done
with
> >> >feeder
> >> >>  buses to trunk line buses. One of the more intractible  problems in
> >the
> >> >US
> >> >>  has been the bias of transport planners in comparing modes.
> >> >>   >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Trunk bus systems can work fine too, but they also need some
investment
> >in
> >> >> separation from general traffic and traffic signal pre-emption if
they
> >are
> >> >to
> >> >> work reliably and with attractive speed. But they do not work as
well
> >as
> >> >rail
> >> >> systems when demand is quite high and the number of buses required
> >becomes
> >> >> very large. But the real operating performance difference comes in
> >systems
> >> >> with highly peaked demand.
> >> >> Rail consists can have additional cars added at low marginal cost to
> >> >increase
> >> >> peak capacity, whereas every unit of bus capacity costs equally much
as
> >> >the
> >> >> last.
> >> >>
> >> >> Eric
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> Sincerely,
> >>
> >> Todd Litman, Director
> >> Victoria Transport Policy Institute
> >> "Efficiency - Equity - Clarity"
> >> 1250 Rudlin Street
> >> Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, Canada
> >> Phone & Fax: 250-360-1560
> >> E-mail:  litman at vtpi.org
> >> Website: http://www.vtpi.org
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Todd Litman, Director
> Victoria Transport Policy Institute
> "Efficiency - Equity - Clarity"
> 1250 Rudlin Street
> Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, Canada
> Phone & Fax: 250-360-1560
> E-mail:  litman at vtpi.org
> Website: http://www.vtpi.org