A few weeks ago, a San Diego news outlet breathlessly reported that, “When more people live near a trolley station, more people use the trolley.” A careful look at the numbers shows, however, that the reason why more people in some areas use the trolley (San Diego’s light rail) is because there are more people, not because people in dense areas are more likely to ride transit.
The article reported “a strong correlation between daily activity at trolley stations and the number of people who live within a half mile of each station.” This was important, the writer noted, because when San Diego has proposed transit-oriented developments (TODs), “people who live in the area affected aren’t usually thrilled about the prospect of increased density, and the parking and traffic concerns that come with it. Often, those residents are wary of the idea that density spurs ridership,” notes the article. “But the data mostly proves developers and city planners right.”
Actually, it doesn’t. While the correlation between density and transit was moderately strong (correl=0.40), it was also not very steep. The slope of the line representing the relationship between density and ridership was 0.55, which means doubling the density results in 55 percent more riders. If density led people to ride more, doubling the density should result in more than double the number of riders. Since that doesn’t happen, the increased number of people are probably traveling by car a lot, which means local residents were right to be wary about TOD proposals.
A writer with data-oriented fivethirtyeight.com recently compared urban area densities with per capita transit trips. He found that, “Among all 290 cities, there’s a clear relationship between trips per resident and both total population (the r-squared is 0.41) and population density (r-squared = 0.21). . . . But if we look only at the 248 urban areas with fewer than 1 million residents, the total population relationship (r-squared = 0.0002) and population density relationship (r-squared = 0.07) disappear.” (The writer confuses “city” with “urban area”; in fact, when he says either one, he means urbanized area.)
sildenafil 100mg uk Do not mix these tablets with Blood pressure pills like Nitrates or poppers, or never cocktail with Grape fruit juice, wine, and other beverages as it may increase or decrease the heart rates resulting in serious heart attack or stroke leads to sudden death. While the Kamagra pill is a potent alternative to brand viagra 100mg why not try this out, it will only result in an erection if they are not coming out of REM sleep at that time. All kamagra buy cheap levitra drugs contain Sildenafil Citrate with a net quantity of 100mg in each pill or jelly. Also the PDE5 enzyme is the main threat which does not leaves the man for lifetime and so one can only be provided by sex. in fact a recent research out of 100 there are about 80% of the choose here levitra price men who are facing this disorder. That’s fine, but you don’t have to limit the sample to urban areas of under a million people for the correlation between density and transit to disappear. He’s correct that there is a reasonably strong correlation when all urban areas are considered. But dropping just New York and San Francisco and the correlation for the remaining 288 urban areas is just as low as for the 248 areas smaller than one million (r-squared = 0.65).
If not density, what influences transit ridership? Two things: job concentrations and age. Having hundreds of thousands of jobs located at the hub of a hub-and-spoke transit system is the most important factor in transit ridership. New York City has nearly 2 million jobs in a 7-square-mile portion of Manhattan. The Chicago Loop has 500,000 jobs. Downtown Washington has 380,000; downtown San Francisco has 300,000. Philadelphia and Boston are both around 240,000. No other urban area has more than 200,000.
At about 137,000 jobs, downtown Los Angeles is far from the biggest job center in its urbanized area. According to Wendell Cox’s data book on downtowns, the region has at least three other job centers with far more jobs than downtown L.A., and none of these are transit hubs. So the fact that the Los Angeles urbanized area has the highest density in the country (about 7,000 people per square mile vs. 5,300 for the New York urbanized area) doesn’t particularly help transit ridership.
The second factor is age, or specifically having a lot of young people who can’t yet afford cars. In other words, college towns. As the fivethirtyeight writer found, Athens, GA has the nation’s fourth-highest per capita transit ridership, while places like Champaign, IL; State College, PA; and Iowa City, IA also rank high.
If the only goal for local government is to increase per capita transit ridership, perhaps Portland’s strategy of pricing families with children out of the housing market and subsidizing high-density, mixed-use developments for Millennials could be considered a success. By just about any other standard, however, Portland is a disaster.
If Antiplanner looked more closely at the graph in the San Diego report, he would have noticed that the data contains four fairly obvious groups. What makes a station fall into one groups or another I don’t know, but before correlations are done the groups need to be separated out.
“Portland’s strategy of pricing families with children out of the housing market”
So there is a city government committee that meets to form and carry out a strategy to price families with children out of the housing market? Who heads the meeting?
Again, supply and demand, the latter fueled by cheap credit and monetary policy, are the significant culprits. Look at the Case-Shiller 20; you’ll see a bubble partially re-inflated. In Seattle, we’re having bidding wars again, and a news article detailed how a house sold recently far above asking price; it was paid for with cash.
Speaking of cash, nearly half of all house sales are paid for with cash, indicating that investors are parking their newly printed FRNs in real estate instead of buying government bonds that have no real return when accounting for inflation. Many parking cash in real estate are foreign buyers, many from China. The beginning of decoupling? They can’t keep buying US government debt forever. Perhaps they’re finally waking up to the fact that the Fed Gov is not going to repay any of the $17 trillion+ and may not even be able to service the debt.
Let’s get real about the forces that are pricing families out of city centers.
“When more people live near a trolley station, more people use the trolley.”
All this proves is that if you put a trolley station in a neighborhood of 100,000 people you will likely get more riders than if you put it in a neighborhood of 10,000 people. But you will have a much lower proportion of the populace using the trolley in the larger area – especially if the larger populace has more choices.
If I run a McDonald’s in an area with 100,000 people, I will sell a lot more burgers than if there are only 10,000 people. But will I sell 10 times more – doubtful, unless there are no other choices as to where to eat. (Which is unrealistic)
So unless you require everyone to use the trolley or to eat at McDonald’s, tis is a very meaningless conclusion.
“Let’s get real about the forces that are pricing families out of city centers.”
Good idea. You are doubtless correct that speculation can inflate housing prices. However, isn’t it strange that this only occurs in areas where government severely limits housing construction? Speculators, like most other people, want to profit by their actions. They can see that in areas that housing construction will increase supply in response to an increase in demand that housing speculation is not profitable. In areas where construction is severely limited by regulation, they can see there is huge opportunity for profit.
Actually, if doubling the density attracts 55% more riders than higher density does result in higher ridership. Unfortunately, it also results in more car use. But consider this: if I double the density in an area around a light rail station then 55% of the additional one-way trips attracted to the area because of the increase in density might come by transit. If I double the density in an area around no transit than 0% of the additional one-way trips will come by transit and 100% by car. If we have to have an increase in density, then it should be accompanied by transit. Traffic is bad all around Los Angeles, but compare it around downtown LA versus Century City and Irvine and there is a difference. The most famous congested freeway in the United States is I-405, not US-101 or I-110.
“A few weeks ago, a San Diego news outlet breathlessly reported that, ‘When more people live near a trolley station, more people use the trolley.’ A careful look at the numbers shows, however, that the reason why more people in some areas use the trolley (San Diego’s light rail) is because there are more people…”
Hahahahahah! Classic.
“However, isn’t it strange that this only occurs in areas where government severely limits housing construction? ” [Emphasis added.]
Evidence?
You’re implying causation where there could be other more significant factors at work.
Are speculators looking for places with UGBs because they know this affects value? Or do they park their money in high-demand markets where it’s easy to cash out? I mean, why would they buy real estate in rural areas or in small towns? Demand is too low, and selling the property would be more difficult. Value isn’t likely to increase very much.
And it’s not just speculation. It’s inflationary monetary policy, which fuels speculation. Effects are most prominently felt in high-demand markets where newly printed FRNs get dumped into housing.
Case-Shiller 20 is comprised of:
Atlanta, Boston, Charlotte, Chicago, Cleveland, Dallas, Denver, Detroit, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Miami, Minneapolis, New York, Phoenix, Portland, San Diego, San Francisco, Seattle, Tampa and Washington, D.C.
How many of these have UGBs?
Every city in Oregon is required to have an UGB. Why aren’t housing prices in Medford, Klamath Falls, and Pendleton rising as quickly as those in Portland? Could it be…demand? And the fact that speculators are going to look at in-demand markets like Portland and Seattle over Pendleton and Yakima?
Frank asks: “Are speculators looking for places with UGBs because they know this affects value?”
When first started frequenting this blog there was a commenter, I believe his name was Ettinger, who claimed to do exactly that. He claimed to look for places that were about to implement “onerous” land use policies and speculatively buy property to flip. Funny enough we haven’t heard from ettinger since about 2008. Hmmm.
Thanks for the info, bennett. I’ll have to search the archives.
The news is in: Seattle’s median house price tops 2007 peak. The bubble has been re-inflated.
Please tell me how the UGB is responsible for the 2007 peak, the decline, and the 2014 peak. Riiiiiight.
From the article: “Although the housing inventory locally is up slightly, we just don’t have enough of the right inventory in the right neighborhoods to satisfy the demand,” Mike Gain, CEO and president of Berkshire Hathaway HomeServices Northwest Real Estate, said in a listing service news release. “The lack of supply leads to multiple offers and many properties selling for above their list prices.”
The right inventory? Single family homes with a yard. The right neighborhoods? Queen Anne, Magnolia, East Lake, Capitol Hill, Ballard, Fremont, Wallingford, Madison Park, Ravenna, Laurelhurst, Green Lake.
People want to live in these neighborhoods, not in Kent, Federal Way, Des Moines, and they want houses. Please tell me specifically how and to what degree King County’s UGB is affecting these neighborhoods.
Frank – “So there is a city government committee that meets to form and carry out a strategy to price families with children out of the housing market? Who heads the meeting?”
Yes we have a regional government called Metro – Their purpose is to manage the Urban Growth Boundary specifically to limit the availability of affordable housing and keep prices high, while the Portland Development Commission in conjunction with the Portland City Council manages infill housing, and tailors Portland neighborhoods to meet specific income goals and housing is priced accordingly. The least affordable are closest to the central core, leaving specific neighborhoods available to lower middle income families further out. the problem is that those neighborhoods can’t support grocery stores, and the property tax revenue needed to improve, and maintain streets and infrastructure are used to keep the central core up to snuff, while the outlying neighborhoods go to hell.
“Their purpose is to manage the Urban Growth Boundary specifically to limit the availability of affordable housing and keep prices high”
Prove it.
I’m not an expert on Portland and I don’t know what Metro’s intent is. They could have the highest intentions. However, there is no doubt that their policies increase housing costs which prices families out of the housing market.
I believe that there is an old saying cocerning the road to hell being paved with good intentions.
I believe that land use policy, be it a UBG, zoning or otherwise has an impact on the value of real estate. Unlike Mr. O’Toole, I don’t believe that these things were “THE” cause of the housing bubble, but I can’t deny that land use policy factors into the price of housing. Much like the global pant-shitting of the financial sector in recent years, I think people that want to point to one aspect and say “This is it! Blame this!” are fools. These bubbles are complex and rely on a variety of factors to inflate themselves.
But seriously, am I the only on that noticed that Mr. O’Toole is saying that “‘When more people live near a trolley station, more people use the trolley” is completely false, and that according to him the reason more people are riding the trolley is because more people live near the trolley station?
Didn’t anybody else have an aneurism when they read that?
No aneurism needed, Bennett.
See my post from August 6th above. Explained simply.
I get it John. I even get the sentiment of Mr. O’Toole, that is, higher density doesn’t magically make people transit users.
However, the wording in the post is hilarious. He refutes a statement by making the exact same statement! My head exploded. I’m just surprised I’m the only one. No worries, I’ve picked up the pieces and am okay now.
I have lived near a Max line for over 20 years and rarely use it, because it does not go to where I’m going, when I need to be there, in a timely manner.
The old express bus that drove in traffic, was much faster if you were going downtown.
But seriously, am I the only on that noticed that Mr. O’Toole is saying that “‘When more people live near a trolley station, more people use the trolley” is completely false, and that according to him the reason more people are riding the trolley is because more people live near the trolley station?
It was poorly worded, but the point is still salient. He was arguing that the greater population base near stations would account for higher ridership, as opposed to a greater propensity of those living near stations to use transit.
I would also point to another missing variable: income. Many of San Diego’s higher density neighborhoods are also among its poorest. Many zero-car households, and probably also a large number of non-native English speakers. It would be important to parse the effect of income from the effect of density. One would think that a ‘GIS specialist’ would be capable of this, and would want to do so, especially given the amount of noise in the correlation between the two variables he presented.
Frank – First if you don’t believe me you are no different than any other planner who refuses to learn from their failed assumptions, and the economic and social damaged caused by those failed assumptions.
Here is a link to a series of articles by the Oregonians, on the failures of the central planning going on in the Portland Metropolitan area.
http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/east_portland_tell_us_your_sto.html
From that article:
For a generation now, elected officials and urban planners have made promises to East Portland. They’ve pledged new parks and sidewalks, economic revitalization and pedestrian-friendly “20-minute neighborhoods.”
Is that what you want, Tombdragon? 20-minute neighborhoods where you [get to/have to] (pick one) walk everywhere? I thought your and the Antiplanner’s ideal was big box stores separated by parking lots and high-speed streets. Isn’t that what freedom is all about?
“if you don’t believe me you are no different than any other planner who refuses to learn from their failed assumptions, and the economic and social damaged caused by those failed assumptions.”
So I’m just supposed to believe you? That’s not how debate works.
I’m a libertarian but also an empiricist. I’ve asked you for evidence and you’ve failed to provide it. An article about central economic planning (to which I’m opposed) is not evidence for your point. Come on. Step up your game. You’re making libertarians look bad.
So go ahead and lump me in with statist planners if it makes you feel better.
And fucking pay attention for once.
Freedom is about telling you to fuck off, gilfoil.
So Frank you aren’t very through, or believable. That link is to a series of 20 newspaper articles illustrating my point, yet you don’t even look and see that because you have a preconceived idea as to what you expect to see. The promises of Planning are a lie – pay attention – the articles show planners for what they are – incompetent – but you refuse to look at the evidence that you asked for. Why? I’m not impressed Frank, you are the epitome of the same flaws we are experiencing from the planners here in Portland.
“link is to a series of 20 newspaper articles illustrating my point”
Lazy, lazy, lazy.
You claimed: ““Their purpose is to manage the Urban Growth Boundary specifically to limit the availability of affordable housing and keep prices high”
I responded: “Prove it.”
You responded “if you don’t believe me you are no different than any other planner”.
And then you posted a link to TWENTY different news articles that supposedly “illustrate” your point. No specific link to a specific study or article. No quotes.
LAZY.
I’m not going to do YOUR work for you.
Now provide evidence for your assertion or move on.
Frank they all do – All the specific articles illistrate how Metro, the City of Portland, and the Portland Development Commission has adopted policy, within the Urban Growth Boundary the artificial keeps housing prices high, restricts they type of development, and drives jobs out.
Here try this
http://reason.org/files/c5ba9be86e1bda65352dcf0e87a46c5a.pdf
http://www.buildingthepride.com/faculty/blgordon/445%20Documents/Article%20-%20Managing%20Urban%20Growth,%20Lessons%20from%20Portland.pdf
http://sustainablefreedomlab.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/A-Portlanders-View-of-Smart-Growth.pdf
Frank here is another article that is an example of how Metro plans to make housing more expensive.
http://www.debunkingportland.com/docs/metrourbancentersreport.pdf
Tombdragon,
Thanks for your response.
Listen, I don’t post Reason or Cato or FEE or Fox News or anything else that others can dismiss as biased, even though attacking the source rather than the arguments and facts presented is a logical fallacy.
But to address one source you’ve provided, Reason lists increased housing prices as an unintended consequence of UGBs.
Page 1: “Urban-growth boundaries, however, have potentially negative, if unintended, side effects.”
Page 13: “While considered by many as one of the most successful examples of growth boundary implementation, the Portland case also reveals many of the pitfalls and unintended consequences that can result from their application. More specifically, the Portland experience provides a useful perspective on how growth boundaries may start with one purpose and then be transformed into a vehicle for achieving new and sometimes unanticipated objectives. The potential impact of a growth boundary on housing prices is also becoming clear in Portland. ”
“…housing affordability has suffered… These outcomes, albeit unforeseen and unintended, must also be considered when evaluating growth boundaries.”
In fact, the word unintended appears 20 times in the Reason article. The quotes above and this article itself refutes that “Their purpose is to manage the Urban Growth Boundary specifically to limit the availability of affordable housing and keep prices high”. This is an UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE of their actions, not their actual intent. Even libertarian Reason admits this.
So.
First: You need to provide studies from non-ideological sources (not libertarian or conservative think tanks) that show that UGB is a significant driver in housing costs.
Second: You need to find and cite and quote some non-ideological source that shows that “Their purpose is to manage the Urban Growth Boundary specifically to limit the availability of affordable housing and keep prices high”. That is, you need to show intent; even your first provided ideological source (Reason) does not show intent. Rather, it lists higher prices as an unintended consequence.
I’m not going to go through the other sources you listed to find evidence. Again, that’s YOUR job as the person making the claim.
You just don’t like the fact that I provided the information you requested. I have to live in Portland, and experience the effects of the implementation of the Urban Growth Boundary.
“…I provided the information you requested.”
You have done no such thing.
“I have to live in Portland, and experience the effects of the implementation of the Urban Growth Boundary.”
No you don’t. I escaped Portland, and so can you.
You may not be used to having to provide actual evidence in your 2000+ comments on OregonLive, but it’s different here.
Even seventh grade students can provide reliable evidence in the form of quotes and citations and then explain how the evidence supports their assertion.
You. Can. Do. Better.
OK – Frank – my opinion is that Metro, and the City of Portland specifically plan to divide the City and Metro area by income, and the Urban Growth Boundary is their primary tool for implementing their plans.
Here is another study that concludes that the UGB is the primary cause of high housing costs.
http://www.scu.edu/civilsocietyinstitute/events/upload/SVHousing.pdf
And NO, I can’t move, because if I sell my current home I couldn’t afford to replace it with another, or qualify for a loan. Our combined income is less than half of what it was 5 years ago. We are at the mercy of the City of Portland, and feel trapped here. It took my wife 5 years to find another job, after being laid off, and my business income is about one-fifth of what it was 7 years ago.
My perceptions are based upon my experience living here. Yes I comment on Oregonlive, so what? Portland, and Oregon, has gone from a economic powerhouse in the 1960’s to a boat anchor sucking the life out of its people and the nation, primarily due to its Land Use, Urban Renewal, UGB, Smart Growth Policy’s and Transit Oriented Development. You don’t like my take on it, good! It’s not all that rosy here in East Portland, and it seems as if that is just the way Metro, the State of Oregon, and the City of Portland has “Planned” it to be.
“And NO, I can’t move”
Funny. That’s not the story you told on OregonLive FOUR DAYS ago:
Seems like you have a plan.
When Portland sent me that “loud and clear” message, I left. I’m not sure why anyone wouldn’t cut their losses and leave Portland AND Oregon, especially given the income tax. Come to WA and keep 10% more!
“Here is another study that concludes that the UGB is the primary cause of high housing costs.”
Whether or not the UGB is the primary cause of high housing costs wasn’t your original assertion. Your assertion was that the UGB was the intentional and nefarious plan of planners to increase housing prices and run the people out of town.
As for the evidence, an “occasional paper” written by someone with a BS in Poly Sci and published by a libertarian think tank is not the most reliable…
Dealing with the paper, comparing SF to LA and SD is odious at best as SF is geographically limited, and that, like Seattle, clearly drives prices. People would prefer to live in Queen Anne, not North Bend; they would rather live in Noe Valley, not Antioch. Supply is limited by geography, a word that does not appear once in the “study” linked.
Sure we have plans to move, well see if we can swing it.
Kind of sad that you are so limited in your scope. Kind of like Portland.
Good luck leaving Portland. If you really want it, you can make it happen. You seem pretty miserable there. However, if the UGB has truly made housing prices go up, you should be able to sell for more than what you paid. Right?
As for how “sad” it is that I’m “so limited in [my] scope”, that doesn’t really make sense given the context.
By “my scope” do you mean what counts as information rather than opinion? If so, that is not “my scope”; it’s the scope of epistemology. Knowledge is a bitch, enit?
Even more “sad” is your inability to produce a reliable source that supports your original claim (and the AP’s claim as well) that Metro’s “purpose is to manage the Urban Growth Boundary specifically to limit the availability of affordable housing and [to] keep prices high”. But you already admitted that’s pure opinion.
As for evidence that the UGB is a significant driver of housing prices, bring some reliable, peer-reviewed, published evidence. I’ve searched, but have found none.