The 2007 Preserving the American Dream conference will be in San Jose this year, so I’ve been taking a close look at that region. San Jose definitely practices smart growth, so I presumed that, like Portland, congestion there would have greatly increased as planners tried to discourage driving.
When I examined the Texas Transportation institute’s data file for San Jose, however, I was surprised to find this was not the case. In fact, between 1989 and 1997, the amount of time the typical rush-hour commuter wasted sitting in traffic actually fell by a whopping 50 percent. During this same period, Santa Clara County (of which San Jose is the seat) gained well over 100,000 new jobs.
Who wouldn’t envy a place that could absorb that many new commuters and still cut congestion in half? How did they do it? Simple. They built new roads.
In 1984, Santa Clara County voters agreed to a ten-year, half-cent sales tax dedicated to new roads. They spent the money turning state routes 85, 87, and 237 into freeways and adding new lanes on U.S. 101 and I-880, among other freeways. Most of these improvements were completed in the early to middle 1990s.
This would have to considered an incredible success and a spit in the eye of everyone who says urban areas can’t build their way out of congestion. But then someone made a mistake (or maybe it was deliberate).
In 1990, California voters agreed to raise the state’s gasoline tax for highways. Part of the measure required all urban counties to create a “congestion management agency” that would decide how to spend the revenues to reduce congestion.
In 1995, Santa Clara County decided to merge the county’s transit district with its congestion management agency, thus creating the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) — the very same agency that I’ve previously described as the nation’s worst-managed transit agency.
This created an enormous conflict of interest. Any money that VTA decided, as the county CMA, to spend on transit, it got to keep for itself. Any money that it decided to spend on highways went to some other agency. VTA did not hesitate to take full advantage of this opportunity.
When the half-cent sales tax for highways expired, VTA put a measure on the ballot to renew it — but this time, roughly half the money went to light rail and other transit projects.
Then, in a bold move, VTA put another measure on the ballot just four years later to renew the sales tax for thirty more years. Only this time, all the money would go to transit, including an estimated $3.8 billion to extend BART to San Jose. Inundated by a slick advertising campaign that promised that the measure would reduce congestion, voters approved the extension. Why not? The previous sales tax measures did reduce congestion.
It ensures the medicine to spread properly into the desired parts making it effective and are there any side effects? There are lots of things that are known as reasons for the erectile brokenness issue. generic cialis mastercard They help in enhancing the male power and increase the vigor and vitality of masculine power. wholesale viagra Men don’t realize that intercourse takes more time for women, especially if they want to experience orgasm. get viagra australia link The drug was first synthesized and developed in 2003 by Eli Lilly and ICOS. uk generic viagra
A close look at VTA’s 20-year regional transportation plan told a very different story. The plan called for spending $1.56 billion on new road capacity. Not a cent of this money would come from the new sales tax — it would all come from federal and state gas taxes.
For transit, the plan called for spending a whopping $7.3 billion, more than $6.0 billion of which came from the local sales tax. More than half of that money would go to the BART line, and almost all the rest to new light-rail or commuter-rail lines.
The plan estimated that commuters in 2020 would face about 19 percent less congestion if voters approved the sales tax than if they did not. However, the plan did not compare 2020 congestion to congestion at the time the plan was written, so it is not clear if planners expected congestion to increase or decrease if the sales tax passed.
The plan also estimated that, if the sales tax passed, 7.5 percent of commuters would take transit to work, vs. 4.2 percent if the tax did not pass. The share of commuters driving to work alone would fall from 79.4 percent without the sales tax to 75.6 percent. The share carpooling, however, would increase from 13.6 to 14.0 percent. Assuming 2 to 3 commuters per carpool, this means that the rail lines funded by the tax would take just over 4 percent of cars off the road.
Since the plan was projected to reduce congestion by 19 percent, most of that reduction would have to come from the highway improvements, not the rail transit. (Okay, if you want to be an absolutely stickler about it, this isn’t necessarily true, but let me assure you that it is true. While taking 4 percent of cars off the road could conceivably reduce congestion by 19 percent, it is both extremely unlikely and the relief would be much more transitory than that provided by new roads.)
The bottom line: Given power over the region’s congestion management programs, VTA hijacked the sales tax that was dedicated to highways so that it could build its own rail transit empire.
The result has already proven to be a disaster for transit riders. Although awash with capital funds, when the dot-com-crash came, VTA lacked the money to operate all those shiny new trains (operating costs came from another half-cent sales tax). So, between 2001 and 2005, VTA was forced to cut back bus service by 19 percent and rail service by 12 percent. Transit ridership fell by 34 percent, only part of which was due to the 15 percent decline in jobs.
VTA’s hijacking will also prove a disaster for auto drivers. I have a pretty strong suspicion that the reason VTA’s transportation plan didn’t compare current congestion with 2020 congestion is that VTA didn’t want voters to know that its plan would cause congestion to increase. Of course, the plan did not contain any alternatives that would have spent more on roads and less on rail transit, so voters have no idea how much such an alternative could have reduced congestion.
The results ain’t so hot for taxpayers in general. Increased construction costs mean that VTA will probably come back to voters for another quarter-cent sales tax so that it can build the BART line — something that would not be necessary had VTA’s plan focused on roads and buses.
This is just one more reason why transportation should be funded out of user fees instead of sales, property, or income taxes. If Santa Clara County had a highway authority that had been funded exclusively out of road tolls, that agency would never have let the transit cabal steal its money to build choo-choo trains.
Santa Clara County voters can fix the problem, at least until the contract is let to start building BART. The county should separate the transit agency from congestion management authority. Voters should repeal the half-cent sales tax for transit. VTA should give up its BART and other rail dreams.
But Randel, in Portland, a light rail line carries as many people as 1.2 lanes of freeway! It must be true because our transit agency says so! See http://www.debunkingportland.com/Transit/RailAttractsDrivers2.htm follow the link to the Trimet fact sheet.
But the transit agency forgot to tell us that all those rail people were jammed, cheek to jowl, in transit vehicles (aka cattle cars), while the freeway people were comfortable in their in cars. If you compare apples to apples – cattle cars on both the freeway and tracks you get a very different conclusion:
Light rail carries about the same number of people as 1/3 of ONE lane of freeway. And no freight. (But it does carry some bicycles)
Of course one light rail line costs several times what one lane of freeway costs.
Thanks
JK
The City of Vancouver, BC does not have a free way running through it. In the past few years, the roads have been getting *smaller*. We have a thriving business district in our downtown, but no freeway goes there.
Yet, traffic in this city is not that bad. This is especially so, when compared to our southern neighbor, Seattle, (or San Jose, even further south).
Randal, you should know this. You’ve been here.
Why not have a discussion of the city of Vancouver and how it seems to defy most of the points that you posit? Smart growth works here.
I can’t understand why everyone tries to point to Vancouver B.C. as an ideal model for Portland? Not only is Vancouver in another country with an entirely different culture, but it also has a very large percentage of Asian immigrants [particularly from Hong Kong] who are accustomed to a ultra high density low standard of living environment.
“Smart Growth” works in Vancouver because the people up there actually want it for themselves. “Smart Growth” doesn’t work in Portland [or anywhere else in the US] because people only want it for their neighbors.
Please don’t overestimate the difference between Vancouver and its southern neighbors. I am an American myself. From my experience, the people who live in the West coast cities have more in common with each other than with people from other parts of the countries.
Also, if you knew anything about Vancouver, you’d realize that the main drivers of Vancouver’s Smart Growth are the white folk who really enjoy the city that they live in and want to keep it that way.
Vancouver has gone through the same self-selection process as San Francisco and Manhattan (and that Portland is going through), which is that the people who don’t want to drive much move into the city and those who want to drive move to the suburbs (and so do their jobs).
Canada does not collect as much transport data as the U.S., but from the data that are available (license registrations and travel diary data collected by the GVTA), per capita driving is flat in Vancouver but growing in its suburbs.
Also, there are no D.O.C. Neapolitan pizzerias anywhere in of the Vancouver region, so it hardly qualifies as world-class city worthy of emulation. Portland has at least two and I understand Minneapolis actually has a chain of D.O.C. pizzerias, so they pass the D.O.C. world-class city test. (Other cities that I know can pass this test are Washington DC and Phoenix.)
From my anecdotal perspective, people move out of Vancouver to the suburbs because they can’t afford to buy a house in the city. It is not because they prefer to supposed freedom to be able to drive (this might be because the traffic is worse in the suburbs).
I would bet that the self-selection is between those who feel they need a large house to live in vs those who feel they need the amenities of the city. Housing prices are an issue here and they will continue to be as long as the economy is booming.
You are right, however, the pizza here is generally terrible (with one or two exceptions). It is one strike against Vancouver.
werdnagreb,
You are fantasizing if you think high housing prices are due to a booming economy. Lots of places with booming economies have affordable housing. Vancouver’s housing prices are high because of the green zone and other land-use regulation. Were it not for supply restrictions, home builders would be able to meet almost any demand for new housing.
For example, the Vancouver metro area is growing at about 26,000 people a year. It has been unaffordable since the early 1970s, after growth-management planning by the GVRD and its predecessor, the Lower Mainland Regional Planning Board, began.
The Houston metro area has been growing by more than 100,000 people year. No growth-management planning, so it remains very affordable.
, werdnagreb From my anecdotal perspective, people move out of Vancouver to the suburbs because they can’t afford to buy a house in the city.
JK: Thanks for making on of the main points against smart growth – it costs too much and provides too little. It is a rich man’s way of driving out the riff-raff and racial minorities. It is racist at its very core.
, werdnagreb It is not because they prefer to supposed freedom to be able to drive (this might be because the traffic is worse in the suburbs).
JK: It might be because the average auto trip takes about ½ the time of the same trip on transit. It saves energy too since small cars use less energy than transit. See http://www.debunkingportland.com/Transit/BusVsCarTEDB.htm
, werdnagreb I would bet that the self-selection is between those who feel they need a large house to live in vs those who feel they need the amenities of the city.
JK: Just what are the “amenities of the city†I keep hearing about. (Other than higher housing costs, higher taxes, the ability to watch drug deals, being panhandled and the occasional traveling show that is not as good as can be seen on pay per view. All the good stores and many restaurants have moved to the burbs. Or do high density centers have a better class of adult toy store?)
, werdnagreb Housing prices are an issue here and they will continue to be as long as the economy is booming.
JK: Are you sure it isn’t that fact that high density is VERY COSTLY to build? See: http://www.debunkingportland.com/Smart/DensityCost.htm
Thanks
JK
Vancouver’s housing prices are high because of the green zone and other land-use regulation. Were it not for supply restrictions,
If it weren’t for endlessly repeating discredited canards, some wouldn’t have an argument.
But there is a land supply restriction, as it is hard to build supply-easing houses on, oh, water, wetlands, green spaces that the public demanded, steep slopes, mountain tops.
I guess the small minority’s “solution” is to to take away the vast majority’s choice of having nearby green space. No wonder the “solution” gets no play.
DS
JK: “Just what are the “amenities of the city†I keep hearing about.”
I live in the city and, although I am against the subsidy and regulation, love it. I love it so much that I am more than willing to pay big bucks for my space. I also prefer to vacation in cities. The amenities I seek are the beauty of the built enviornment and its constant state of change, few bugs and wild animals (I wish the remaining of the birds, squirrel, rats, racoons, etc. would just be eliminated), lots of different places to walk to, easy access to many freeways, a large choice of locally owned restaurants & coffee shops (more than one location and a restaurant is usually not worth eating at), people that are interesting and engaging, a high-energy atmosphere, a choice of parks within walking distance, no yard to care for, and a host of other real advantages that come with city living.
I also prefer to vacation in large cities.
That being said, people who feel differently than me should be free to live in low density places.
Argumentum ad simpletonum:
Smart growth developments are in great demand; hence their prices get bid up (of course people pay for amenities in McSuburbs too). The pent-up demand for SG is for the variety and number of amenities provided*, the good design (a large Houston builder is planning $1Bn of Smart Growth projects) and sense of community created (hmmm…maybe this is why some small minority ideologies don’t like them…).
The purposeful mischaracterization of ‘racist’ is an indicator of the weakness of the argument, as the sheer variety of housing types provided in SG developments and the broad demographic that demands them** expose this moronish argument for what it is: pathetic ululating. Or whining. Either way.
DS
* The report deemed “New Urban” communities such as Prospect, Colo., the most desirable areas in which to buy homes because they monitor sprawl, foster walkable amenities, and strike a development balance between homes, schools and businesses. The re-emergence of front-porch socializing, main streets and corner stores are key to America’s most popular neighborhoods.
“The scenes here really do revolve around a feeling of belonging, being joined by a common interest, being part of something bigger,” Enders says.
More than 90 percent of Americans consider the ideal neighborhood to be one where people live near one another, are friendly with one another, and have easy access to churches and transportation.***
** http://app.outreach.psu.edu/SmartGrowth/PressRelease/real_estate_PR.pdf
*** http://www.denverpost.com/lifestyles/ci_5418726
The comparison between Houston (a city surrounded by mostly swampland and other marginal farming land) vs. Vancouver (a city surrounded by mountains, ocean, and some of the most productive farmland in Canada) is not valid. There simply isn’t the land to develop on in Vancouver. You could argue that we should pave over our farmland, but that is simply not a feasible direction (and not relevant to this discussion, so I won’t go into it more).
But, more fundamentally, you seem to be implying that low housing prices trump all other goals. Of course, it is important, but so is preserving the environment, encouraging arts and culture, ensuring that the poor and elderly have enough to survive, providing greenery and open spaces, and supporting local agriculture. These are often at odds with low housing prices.
Houston seems to have promoted housing costs at the expense of all of the above (with the notable exception of arts and culture). I spent 4 years in Houston and know it fairly well. It’s a great city for some people, but I had to leave as soon as I could.
werdnagreb But, more fundamentally, you seem to be implying that low housing prices trump all other goals. Of course, it is important,
JK: Low housing prices leaves enough money for other needs like food, clothes, kid’s education, and medical.
werdnagreb but so is … encouraging arts and culture,…providing greenery and open spaces,
JK: More important than food???? Clothing and kids education???? This just shows hot totally bankrupt planning has become.
werdnagreb ensuring that the poor and elderly have enough to survive,
JK: A good start is low housing prices, so they don’t have to grovel before some bureaucrat to get money to survive.
werdnagreb These are often at odds with low housing prices.
JK: Only because of misguided planning policies. Otherwise people would place a monetary value with their actions instead of, silly planner’s surveys, and we would see housing priced drop dramatically with a corresponding INCREASE in everyone’s standard of living.
Thanks
Jk
This just shows hot totally bankrupt planning has become.
Please.
The facile “housing affordability” argument fools no one. The vast majority doesn’t listen to it because they don’t want to see an endless sea of cr*ppy roofs.
The vast majority wants what werdnagreb said the vast majority wants. If you have to characterize the vast majority’s wants as bankrupt, that shows the quality of the pathetic argument.
Get over it.
DS
“The re-emergence of front-porch socializing”
I don’t live there but have spent a lot of time with friends in typical sprawling snout house suburbs and the garage has replaced the front porch in these neighborhoods. When the door is open it communicates to the neighbors a “we are open”. Kids and friends then stop by and, with easy access to bikes, skates, and other toys the kids play in the cul-de-sac while parents sit in a garage sheltered from the sun and or sprinkles and enjoy a beverage and talk, wash the SUV, mow the lawn, etc. Why is this system so bad and front porches and rear-loaded garages so good?
Dan:
The facile “housing affordability†argument fools no one. The vast majority doesn’t listen to it because they don’t want to see an endless sea of cr*ppy roofs.
JK: You only get “an endless sea of cr*ppy roofs†in high density. On quarter acre lots, you get an endless sea of green lawn and trees and an occasional roof. Do you have a problem with grass and trees?
Thanks
JK
Argumentum ad simpletonum:
Do you have a problem with grass and trees?
I have a problem with simpleton ideological arguments who want to offer consumers a choice of 1/4 acre lots, 1/4 acre lots, 1/4 acre lots, or 1/4 acre lots.
Actually, the ideology is so marginalized that there’s no real problem with it as long as there are decent public speakers around. It was extremely easy to defeat I-933 in Washington, as the arguments for the measure were so imbecilic.
DS