A new group called Mobility Choice claims to support the use of free-market tools to reduce America’s dependence on foreign oil. Their Blueprint for achieving this goal has a somewhat realistic understanding of the limits to using transit to achieving this goal.
“Public transit is often inefficient, inconvenient, and uneconomic,” the paper admits. The blueprint includes market tools such as HOT lanes and congestion pricing. The plan also suggests that, if we want to provide transit for low-income people who lack access to autos, vouchers make more sense than funding giant transit bureaucracies. All these ideas have been endorsed by the Antiplanner.
As if to further gain free-market credibility, the blueprint quotes an article published by the Cato Institute a dozen years ago. Despite the article’s title (“How Government Highway Policy Encourages Sprawl”), however, it does not really support the blueprint’s argument.
“The vast majority of America’s urban population prefers to live in the suburbs,” says a portion of the article that was not quoted by the Mobility Choice blueprint. “Indeed, suburban development predates urban expressway construction; urban growth followed the paths of new trolley and interurban train lines. There’s little reason for policymakers to be concerned about suburban sprawl or use government power to discourage it.”
Mobility Choice researchers must have skipped that paragraph, because too much of their plan is focused on using government power to discourage urban sprawl. Taken as a whole, the blueprint is far from a free-market plan.
Start with the goal: by focusing exclusively on “dependence on foreign oil,” the plan leaves out all sorts of other important issues, ranging from poverty to housing affordability. Any plan that focuses on just one goal, whether that goal is “getting people out of their cars,” “reducing greenhouse gas emissions,” or “reducing dependence on foreign oil,” is as much a top-down plan as any soviet-era five-year plan.
For example, the plan proposes to use electric rail transit “if justified by cost efficiency and oil displacement potential.” Cost efficiency requires a goal, and the only goal considered here is “oil displacement potential.” But the plan doesn’t propose to compare rail vs. other ways of reducing oil; instead, it proposes to rank alternative rail projects for their oil-displacement potential. Of course, states and transit agencies will quickly adjust their fanciful numbers to make it appear that their dream projects will reduce oil use.
The plan also proposes to “liberalize land-development rules” to allow more mixed-use developments that will supposedly reduce auto dependence. In fact, research by UC economist David Brownstone has shown that the effect of urban design on driving and oil consumption is “too small to be useful.” Specifically, Brownstone found in another paper that the average community would have to increase its population density by 40 percent — a change Brownstone considers highly unlikely — to reducing driving enough to save just 45 gallons a year per household.
Erectile dysfunction is a kind of disease for which a man loses the potency in front of a girl to go through the complete course of pregnancy. cialis india Other products which are used for the treatment of cardiac disease by promoting increased blood flow, but later its good result was detected over MED (male erectile dysfunction), thus it became popular for the cure of male impotency problem.Kamagra pills and jelly contains rich amount of Sildenafil citrate, thus it shows female viagra 100mg great effect within few minutes of pills intake. Sexual function problems occur regardless of age and social groups, suffer from this sexual dysfunction. order levitra donssite.com You need to consume this herbal supplement daily two times with milk or plain water for three to four months to enhance libido in males naturally. viagra no prescription online http://www.donssite.com/steertech/volvo-exhaust-repair-steering-repair.htm
Even if we agreed that urban form can greatly influence oil consumption, as I’ve noted here before, I don’t think existing zoning codes are preventing mixed-use developments. Practically every code I’ve seen has a “planned-unit development” option that effectively allows mixed-use developments. But I would be perfectly happy to simply eliminate zoning, allow homeowner associations to set rules for their neighborhoods, and leave vacant land open to any use for which their is a demand.
That’s not how Mobility Choice proposes to liberalize land-development rules. Instead, they propose that the federal government should make changes in zoning codes an important criteria for cities seeking federal transportation grants. What’s free-market about that?
Let’s say we agree that reducing oil use should be a major goal. Then instead of predetermining that electric trains and mixed-use developments are the solutions, why not just have the federal government pay cities for all verified reductions in oil usage?
But why do so many people take it for granted that reducing oil use is an appropriate goal? Supposedly, says Mobility Choice, our oil economy is subsidized because “the military cost of defending our access to oil” is not paid directly by motorists. The Antiplanner is skeptical that this cost is very high; the people who run our government seem as eager to make war on Serbia and Afghanistan, which have no oil, as on Iraq (which would have sold us oil without a regime change anyway).
But UC Professor Mark DeLucchi, an economist I respect, estimates that the cost of “protecting Persian Gulf oil for motor vehicles” ranges from 3 cents to 15 cents per gallon of gasoline. I suspect it is at the low end of this range, but even if it was at the high end, adding that much to the price of gasoline is not going to change people’s behavior as much as the Mobility Choice people seem to think.
A true free-market plan would recognize that people who buy gasoline are aware that the price of oil is volatile. They will each respond to this volatility in their own way, some by buying more fuel-efficient cars, some by living with gas hogs and accepting the risk that prices will shoot up at unpredictable moments. While I agree that costs should be incorporated into prices, there is little need for government action beyond that.
Let’s get the federal government out of the transportation business altogether. Let’s encourage local governments to repeal zoning codes. Let’s promote diplomatic solutions to peace in the Mideast and elsewhere so we won’t have to waste oil and lives sending people to war. Make sure BP pays the full cost of all the damage it has done in the Gulf of Mexico.
If truly necessary, add 15 cents to the price of a gallon of gasoline and give it to the Pentagon — but make sure that transit agencies (which are often exempted from taxes) pay that 15 cents as well. And while we are at it, eliminate all the other subsidies to various forms of transportation, letting people see that transit costs four times as much as driving and high-speed rail costs at least five times as much as flying. That would be a free-market solution to energy issues.
The Antiplanner wrote, quoting:
> “The vast majority of America’s urban population prefers
> to live in the suburbs,†says a portion of the article
> that was not quoted by the Mobility Choice blueprint.
> “Indeed, suburban development predates urban
> expressway construction; urban growth followed the paths
> of new trolley and interurban train lines. There’s little
> reason for policymakers to be concerned about suburban
> sprawl or use government power to discourage it.â€
Much of suburbia in the United States was built years before the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 (which established the Interstate system) was passed and signed into law by President Eisenhower.
There is a relevant article on NewGeography.com:
Twenty-first Century Electorate’s Heart is in the Suburbs
The Antiplanner wrote:
> Let’s get the federal government out of the
> transportation business altogether.
I must respectfully disagree. Not because the federal government has done such a great job (even though the Interstate system is a masterpiece of (IMO) “good” government spending) but because the nation needs a national, interstate transportation system, even if much of its operation is delegated to the states and private-sector entities (consider that very nearly all scheduled air service and very nearly all freight railroad service is provided by the private sector).
Much of suburbia in the United States was built years before the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 (which established the Interstate system)
So the 150 million people added since 1960 live in the suburbs built prior to Korean War? Who lives in the ~30-40 M units built since then?
No wonder there was a bubble, eh?
DS
as I’ve noted here before, I don’t think existing zoning codes are preventing mixed-use developments. Practically every code I’ve seen has a “planned-unit development†option that effectively allows mixed-use developments.
Arguments from ignorance are rarely, if ever, compelling.
BTW, Randal, your second Brownstone paper finds that a lower density of 1,000 housing units per square mile (roughly 40% of the weighted sample average) implies an increase of 1,200 miles driven per year (4.8%) and 65 more gallons of fuel used per household (5.5%) , and also We find that density directly influences vehicle usage, and both density and usage influence fuel consumption . There are some pet wingnuts here who base their rants on their belief that the paper you like is not true. Either the argument is inconsistent or it is not.
And also the model you like so much to base your argument on has a higher SD than the mean. Not sure how compelling that is for policy, but what is a little inconsistency among friends, eh?
Nonetheless, wrt to the changing density problem that everyone knows about, we already know that the build environment is durable, which is the reason why our unsustainable patterns are so problematic and need to change.
DS
– “I don’t think existing zoning codes are preventing mixed-use developments. Practically every code I’ve seen has a “planned-unit development†option that effectively allows mixed-use developments.”
This shows me that Mr. O’Toole knows very little about the development process. 1. With the exception of PUD’s or a portion of the code that explicitly defines Mixed-use areas, zoning codes absolutely prevent mixed use developments. 2. The PUD development process often consists of the developer standing before the governing body and duking it out with them to get what they want. It’s a hard task and in a business where the phrase “time is money” has never been more true, I think this statement is at least misleading if not 96.2% bogus.
– “But I would be perfectly happy to simply eliminate zoning, allow homeowner associations to set rules for their neighborhoods, and leave vacant land open to any use for which their is a demand.”
“Allow homeowners associations to set rules…” and “leave vacant land open to any use,” is completely contradictory. Also, homeowners associations can be just a tyrannical as local governments. And don’t give me that “you can move elsewhere” b.s. You can move to Houston, but you don’t.
– “The plan also suggests that, if we want to provide transit for low-income people who lack access to autos, vouchers make more sense than funding giant transit bureaucracies. All these ideas have been endorsed by the Antiplanner.”
I would like to read more about how this would work. Would a big transit agency be the one supplying the trip? A cab? Are there restrictions on trips? Can a trip be denied? Important questions, and ones that are currently accounted for in the existing system for transit dependent populations.
For a mixed-use area, the supposed need is to reduce traveling.
What are the odds that a resident will have a job & many shopping choices within a few blocks?
Those types of options are available in many CBDs, but how many can meet their needs in a small area?
Even for Manhattan, w/a density of 65,000, & only 1/2 having cars, & w/housing costs at 3X avg., most residents cannot meet their needs in a small area & the very widespread mass transit is still heavily subsidized.
Many people see to think that zoning makes the construction. For those familiar with CA, look at the RHNA (regional housing needs assessment). The Legislature & the MPOs have certain targets for new housing, so municipalities zone to allow such, yet the construction falls short. Buildings are not made just because of zoning. People are mixing up a Wendy’s marketing slogan, “Zone it & they will build.” Yes, property tax & sales tax are wanted. People prefer to spend their retail dollars at shops that have wide selections & reasonable prices. Large retail corps are much better at that than small independent stores. For housing, most prefer houses, with sizable yards. Some have to settle on smaller sizes due to location & price. Sure, some like the smaller ones; good for them.
Since over 85% have a car & that is the preferred mode of personal mobility, parking lots are needed. Parking doesn’t take an incredible amount of space, %-wise, less than all building square footage. Sure there are huge lots, but look at all the people that it serves. Multi-level parking can utilize less land, but is much more costly. With less parking, there will be fewer users of those businesses & more congestion.
Sure, zoning can shape, to some extent, but businesses have their own methods/ideas to build & attract tenants/customers, based upon what is wanted/demanded.
Developers construct what the market/consumers demands (what people want), & look for zoning that allows that or attempt to change the zoning.
Scott said: “For a mixed-use area, the supposed need is to reduce traveling.”
Wrong. Reduced traveling is a possible benefit touted by mixed-use development champions. The need is most often determined by developers that do a detailed market analysis (or by politicians that will stop at nothing to get a successful project under their belt). Planners hope for the first.
My beef is with Mr. O’Toole’s and your assertions that zoning is not preventing mixed use developments from being built. As someone who has worked for some time now in land development, I can assure that ain’t true. Most zoning codes from 10 years ago explicitly prohibit mixed-use, and developers would be building a whole lot more of it if they could. They would do this not because their trying to create some planning utopia where people don’t have to drive, but because in the right location you can make a good, if not great, return on your investment.
I think that if we abolished zoning we would see a whole lot of MU type of development. On the flip side, if we abolish zoning and give the power to HOA’s, we will see very few.
I am very surprised that people are saying that Home Owners Associations can be as bad as government zoning boards. I think thing 9 out of 10 them are much more dictatorial. But then again, I think there is a Constitutional right of kids to put a basketball hoop in their driveway.
On the other hand, home owners associations are voluntary, and property values will reflect how popular their rules are. The market will adjust.
bennet,
You don’t see being closer as a big advantage of mixed-use?
Almost any literature about mixed-uses touts that.
What is the advantage?
There are valid reasons why more mixed-use is not built. Many people do not want to live near stores, offices & that kind of traffic (pedestrian too & noise). Retail & office needs to be near high-traffic roads. More expensive, especially multi-level parking.
Do you see many people clamoring to live above a store or in an office building. Some apartment buildings have retail space, but the customer traffic is often too low to attract tenants.
Where are these areas that don’t allow mixed-use, but are appropriate for that & have demand? Sure NIMBYism might prevent some types of mixed zoning, but there have to be several existing conditions.
Mixed-use is high density.
There are not that many places of high density.
By city:
Density.portion
>10k . . 6.2%
8-10k .. 1.4%
6-8k . . 4.3%
Sure there are pockets of high density, but to add, without the necessary infrastructure, without people wanting & not compatible w/surroundings, does not usually work. Although, there are many developments, where builders start with 100s of acres & can build what they want, but people won’t buy/rent crowded stuff, usually.
Scott,
I love your zeal when it comes to posting here, but for the love of god, READ, then respond.
bennett, Just because I have debunked you, you don’t need to pretend that you meant something else. That’s partly sarcastic, in case you didn’t “get it” since “getting it” seems to be a shortcoming.
What do you think that I misinterpreted?
What does a supernatural being have to do with this?
I mentioned how a huge supposed benefit for mixed-use is reducing travel, which is minor & insignificant for most people, & it’s extremely hard to meet working & shopping needs withing a few blocks.
You disagreed, then contradicted that in your next sentence.
Something that I didn’t bring up is that you changed reasoning angles–about developers building if allowed. That is completely different than reasons/benefits/demands for mixed-use; those must exist for developers to build.
Then I asked you (@#9), What is the advantage, then, of mixed-use? Actually, I doubt that you understand that.
You then claimed that mixed-use is not built because zoning does not allow it. I addressed that head on.
I also asked for specifics on areas that don’t allow mixed-use & if they are even appropriate, meaning having several necessary conditions.
I am dismayed at how you think that I touched on other items not pertaining to what you typed.
I hate to turn the tables, just reversing the accusation, but it appears that you do not understand what I typed.
Would you rather than I quote you, & address each of your sentences with a paragraph?
It surely seems like you are just copping out, like Hman & Dan do often, in not addressing any specifics, but just making blanket general assertions, partly because your position cannot be supported.
Borealis wrote:
> I am very surprised that people are saying that
> Home Owners Associations can be as bad as government
> zoning boards. I think thing 9 out of 10 them are
> much more dictatorial. But then again, I think there
> is a Constitutional right of kids to put a basketball
> hoop in their driveway.
I have a lot of experience with HOA’s, having served on the Board of one for many years. They are a lot of work, and one of the key assumptions by some who advocate for them is that much of the work by the HOA is done for free. In my experience, it is hard to get that free labor.
There’s one good thing about HOA’s – they tend to be more responsive than large local governments, since they are generally quite small. But small can be had without HOA’s, through municipal incorporation, though in my state of Maryland, law makes it hard to create new municipalities. Then there are the systems of townships allowed in some states (though not in Maryland), which allows close-to-the-people government (HOA’s have some government-like powers but are definitely not governments). Wendell Cox has written about Pennsylvania’s system of townships (every square centimeter of Penn’s Woods is in a municipality), which tend to be small, and thus grass-roots-oriented government.
> On the other hand, home owners associations are voluntary,
> and property values will reflect how popular their rules
> are. The market will adjust.
Voluntary? Perhaps in the sense that people can avoid purchasing a home that is subject to an HOA! But if the HOA was created by the developer when a community was built (and its documents recorded in the county land records), then that HOA is certainly not voluntary for the owners of the homes under its jurisdiction.
bennett said: Reduced traveling is a possible benefit touted by mixed-use development champions.
then
Scott said: You don’t see being closer as a big advantage of mixed-use?
Almost any literature about mixed-uses touts that.
as a result
bennett said: READ, then respond.
Scott,
Why on earth do you think saying the exact same thing that I already said is debunking me? The difference in what we originally said is that to you the “need” for mixed use is reduced traveling. I think that that is a possible benefit, but not a need. IMO, the need for mixed use development is determined by the market participants that decide to build them.
As for specific areas that do not allow MU or have historically have not, here are a few that are coming around after almost a decade of code and zoning work I’ve participated in.
– The City of Dallas just passed a mixed use ordinance. Before that you had to get a variance. Not easy.
– East Colfax in Denver. D town finally passed the “main street zoning” ordinance mainly due to pent up demand for mixed use development projects that were previously illegal.
– The City of Austin had to pass a vertical mixed use overlay district to be able to build MU.
There are many cases of areas that have recently passed laws specifically allowing MU, because their old zoning codes prohibited them regardless of density. Euclidean zoning has historically prohibited mixed use, even in high density commercial areas. (see: http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Urban-Land-Use-Planning/Philip-R-Berke/e/9780252030796 for more information on this FACT).
bennet, In regards to MU, I could have typed “advantage” (or similar), rather then “need” to make it clearer. The meaning should not have been lost. That word is not a problem. It could have been worded, People’s travel need is reduced. People need to travel & reducing that is supposed to happen with MU. Regardless, you disagreed, typing “wrong.”
You never explained what the main need is that is met by MU.
Thanx for examples on one-use only zoning. I should have been more descriptive on my question, although the answer would be lengthy. Are the conditions appropriate for MU? Is there a different use zoning nearby? Proximity of uses is very similar to being on the same parcel.
I would say that in almost all cases of MU development I’ve seen the conditions for such development. Some MU projects can be relatively small, like on portions of E. Colfax. There it is a commercial corridor (1 street) that abuts SF neighborhoods, so the developments are not 10 stories. In Dallas most of the MU is in much higher densities and the scale is larger.
The problem was that in the examples I gave, even though the conditions for MU were good, it could not be built until the Euclidean zoning scheme was changed.
I think scale and densities are an interesting issue when it comes to MU. I feel that you can have MU even in the traditional SF densities. MU doesn’t have to be vertical. MU doesn’t have to include retail. With slight adjustments, the mono culture house farms could be made nicer with a couple of other uses every now a then and a few sidewalks. You could do this without changing the character of the area.
Like CPZ, I serve on a board, but for a larger District that oversees the HOA and several $M/yr in expenses. It is a quasi-governmental agency.
Colo has tried an experiment to lessen official government by pushing down some responsibility to local areas. It is, in effect, some of the duties of government taken on by utter, complete amateurs. There is an industry here that hires staff and lawyers to help the amateurs. We pay a lot of money to a firm – almost the equivalent of a year’s salary – for AFAICT considerably less than 40 hrs worth of work a week. We also pay a legal firm 4 figures a month and an accounting firm almost 4 figures a month. We bid out a very high amount (the lowest bid) for landscape maintenance, and this firm doesn’t do much for its fee and the extras are at least 45% high (I used to own a design-construction business). The fee we had to pay a firm for surveying boundaries to be converted to ArcGIS for the city was a jaw-dropper for me, at least twice as much as should have been charged. Most of the trees are dying as the District is in the middle and the City didn’t inspect the marginal Developer, and the District has no police power to compel action, so we must sue and spend more resident’s money for remedy.
So there are NO economies of scale here and the District is, as CPZ sez, more apt to be under local control. But we just had to raise the mill levy because all costs are localized, and everything costs more. And if I weren’t here, the landscaping company would be taking the residents for much, much more money.
This situation is common here on the Front Range, AFAICT. I’m not convinced decisions by amateurs are any better for the residents. They certainly benefit the HOA-MD support industry, that’s for sure.
But anyone purporting to “analyze” anything by cost – as we see here all the time – who supports HOAs is a fool or mendacious. They are not cost-effective. They are more closely controlled by local resident amateurs sure – in CA we called them ‘little Hit—s’ – but not cost-effective.
Arguing to get rid of governments by replacing with HOAs is ignorant or mendacious. My statement @4 upthread gives the benefit of the doubt.
DS
bennett,
Actually, I think that we are more in agreement that it seems. There was a mis-communication on residents’ travel needs being met as the big supposed advantage for MU.
Sure, it’s nice to be able to walk to a few places, providing that one can endure the negatives of crowded living conditions, albeit not negative to all. However, as mentioned before, what are the odds of having a job within the same area? How much shopping can be done within 1/3 mile?
There are probably (guessing) many more options to build MU, than are being done. Developers can gauge (not always accurately) what consumer & business buyers/leasors demand.
BTW, I first grew up in one of Chicago’s first new mixed use complexes–Marina Towers (two 60 story corncobs). The offices have been converted to hotel. The stores were a dismal failure, because of low traffic–including lack of exposure to pedestrians–too internal.
One of the general gists of libertarianism, in regards to urban issues, is less gov intrusion & less zoning. However, interfering with residential is a caveat. Single-family dwellings are not in consideration for MU, right?
Multi-family complexes can expect more noise & traffic.
However, that still will not necessarily provide enough customers. And cost of multi-level parking prohibitive.