Density Creates Congestion and Degrades Affordability.

December 9th, 2014

COST Commentary: This article is about the study and conclusions of a respected, competent university professor regarding the impact of population density policies in Portland, Oregon. Portland is regarded by many as the MECA of modern light rail due to its early adoption and rapid implementation of modern light rail.

Portland’s congestion is about the same as Austin’s after Portland has spent billions of dollars on its light rail system. Portland’s unfunded liabilities are substantially greater than Austin’s due to its transit employees’ obligations. Portland’s general fund has suffered in numerous ways due to its development incentives which have negatively impacted its police, fire, emergency and other basic city services.

Portland’s land use regulations have resulted in housing costs which are 22% higher, while Hosehold income is 4% lower, than Austin’s resulting in the loss of 40% of Portland’s public school enrollment which peaked at approximately Austin’s current enrollment which started to decline three years ago.

There are no “models” of success in pursuing the path Austin is on regarding transportation and land use.

Expert: More density in Portland will drive up housing costs

Created on Tuesday, 02 December, 2014 06:00, written by Jim Redden

PSU real estate professor says Metro assumptions are flawed
Regional plans to increase density will drive up housing costs, burden the poor and cost local governments billions they do not have, according to a new study by a Portland State University real estate expert.

The study analyzes the 2014 Urban Growth Report released in September by Metro, the elected regional government. The report says cities within the region can accommodate all predicted residential growth during the next 20 years by increasing density.

“This report deserves special attention by citizens and professionals in the local business community because it distorts economic data and will lead the region to make decisions that will harm economic growth,” says the study, which was written by Gerard C.S. Mildner, academic director of PSU’s Center for Real Estate.

State law requires Metro to maintain a 20-year supply of buildable land within the growth boundary. The Metro Council must decide whether to expand it every five years or so, and the next decision is scheduled for 2015. The report was prepared by Metro staff to help guide the decision. The Metro Council will consider adopting it at 2 p.m. on Thursday, Dec. 4.

Mildner’s “Density at Any Costs,” the study is the first independent housing analysis of the Metro report. Many of its findings also apply to the draft comprehensive land-use plan update under consideration in Portland, which also envisions higher density. The study was posted on the center’s website on Monday.

The Metro report predicts a reversal of historic home building trends during the next 20 years, with most new housing being multifamily apartments and condominiums in urban centers and along transit corridors. But Mildner’s study says that reversing the housing mix would substantially increase housing costs in the Portland region in the next 20 years, making it the fourth most expensive metropolitan area in the country, just behind San Francisco, Washington, D.C., and San Diego. Portland is the 15th most expensive metropolitan area in the county, behind Phoenix, Chicago and Denver.

And, according to Mildner’s study, local governments would have to spend billions on subsidies and infrastructure improvements to support these new multifamily buildings, including development incentives and new mass transit lines.

But Metro spokesman Jim Middaugh dismisses Mildner as one of several “libertarian-minded activists” in the region working to repeal Oregon’s land-use planning laws. He says the region does not have enough available land to support even a 50/50 mix of single family homes and multifamily housing in the future.

“The kind of development Mildner and his supporters espouse would require adding a minimum of 4,000 acres to our UGB every six years,” Middaugh says. That’s the equivalent of a parking lot with more than a million spaces — an area three quarters the size of Forest Park. A million cars would form a bumper-to-bumper line from Portland, Oregon, to close to Portland, Maine.”

According to Middaugh, “Metro’s goal is to work with local cities and towns to make sure that wherever new growth happens, it’s well-planned, efficient for taxpayers and good for our local economy. That’s what voters in this region value. That’s what local cities are asking for. That is what Metro is doing.”
Mildner denies the accusations, saying he is only trying to understand the implications of Metro’s land-use planning decisions.

According to PSU, the Center for Real Estate was formed in 2004 as a partnership between the Schools of Urban Studies and Planning and Business Administration to manage the real estate programs at the university and serve as the link to the real estate community. Mildner has a B.A. in Public Affairs from the University of Chicago and a Ph.D. in Economics from New York University. His research is focused on the economics of local government, including growth management, rent control, municipal sports stadiums, housing markets, land-use regulation and urban transportation.

Mildner has written or co-written numerous papers raising questions about land-use planning policies like those in Oregon and the Portland area. He has consistently said government efforts to restrict where growth can occur frequently have unintended consequences, including higher housing costs and additional taxes required for mass transit systems to move urban dwellers around.

Taller buildings?

Metro planners prepared the Urban Growth Report to help guide the council’s growth boundary decisions. They are based in part on an in-house computer modeling program called Metroscope and an analysis of land-use plans adopted or under consideration by the cities within the boundary.
Mildner says he received several Metro staff briefings on the 2014 report while serving on a number of local land-use groups in his official capacity.

“Most of the business leaders were concerned about land availability for industrial supply. My expertise is housing policy and no one was looking at that section of the report. The more I looked at, the more I was appalled,” says Mildner.

Among other things, Mildner says the projected increase in multifamily housing will double rents during the next 20 years. That is partly because the taller buildings envisioned in the report are the most expensive to build.

This will be especially true in Portland, Mildner says, where the report predicts that 60.2 percent of all new residential construction will happen. According to the report, 92 percent of that construction will be multifamily housing — and 37.9 percent will be the same density as the Pearl District. That will require many of the new buildings to be more than five stories high, which require steel construction and underground parking.

“The amount of the increases in prices required by the Metroscope model is staggering … In terms of income inequality, the large projected increases in housing costs work greatly to the disadvantage of low-income households,” according to the study.

But Mildner’s study says the government housing subsidizes required to achieve such density levels are also staggering — almost $3 billion in developer incentives. They range from $10,000 per unit in Tigard to $50,000 per unit in central Portland.

“While the report says that there subsidies are, ‘based on existing programs,’ none of these programs are currently producing housing on this scale,” according to the study. “Moreover, nothing in the Urban Growth Report suggests where these subsidy dollars will come from.”

You can find Mildner’s report at: Milner’s Report.

Urban Rail’s $90 Billion Investment Fails to Improve Total Mobility

December 8th, 2014

COST Commentary: The article below evaluates modern urban rail systems implemented in 23 U.S. cities over the past 40 years at a cost of more than $90 billion (2013 dollars), primarily taxpayer dollars. Its findings are depressing in that the rail systems have not relieved congestion as promised in almost every case. Many promises of increased affordability have also been unfulfilled.

Although Austin is in the group of cities, with rail implementations since 2000, experiencing a small growth in transit ridership percentage for work commuting, Austin alone, as also in Dallas and Houston, has experienced a decline in transit work commuting percentage. In fact, Austin has less total transit ridership today than 15 years ago. This total transit reduction in Austin must be a major consideration in determining the most effective use of Austin’s limited transportation dollars which are primarily taxpayer funds.

Almost 99.7 % of all Austin trips are on roadways. If cost-effective mobility is the primary criteria, then it is obvious where limited taxpayer funds must be spent: improving our roads. This serves the greater-good of all elements of the community: private, public transit, commercial, emergency, sharing, for hire and other government vehicles.

Spending huge proportions of limited transportation funds to serve a miniscule few is not responsible or sustainable and will degrade the mobility and quality-of-life for all.

The article below is by Wendell Cox who started many years ago as a major believer in the promises of public transit. Cox was a major supporter driver in the early implementation of rail in Los Angeles. He found, through difficult experience, rail did not live up to its promises. Cox has become on of the world’s most knowledgable experts in transportation and housing affordability. He uses sound, analytical analyses to address these issues instead of less informed assumptions, feelings and emotions which are used by so many.

by Wendell Cox 12/05/2014 in

For more than 40 years, US cities have rushed to build new rail systems (indeed I was part of such an effort, see Los Angeles: Rail for Others). This article examines the trend in transit and driving alone work trip market share in 23 cities (metropolitan areas) that have built new rail systems that have represented material expansions of regional transit systems. These new rail systems include Metros (”heavy rail”), light rail (not streetcars) and commuter rail (suburban rail). The capital costs of these systems have been at least $90 billion (2013$), based on Thoreau Institute web site information.

A Policy Perspective

The perspective is that of a policy board member (which I was) and a belief that more transit (generally a good thing) is better than less. Thus, from the beginning of my career on the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission (LACTC), I was interested in obtaining the highest ridership possible within the constraints of available funding. As the LACTC considered building rail, a foremost objective was the hope for reduced traffic congestion, as we were assured by consultants that rail would attract drivers out of cars and reduce traffic congestion. To do this the rail system would need to reduce automobile travel.


The work trip market shares of 2013 (from the American Community Survey) are compared to those of the US Census immediately preceding the opening of the rail system, except where otherwise noted. This latest data is compared to work trip market shares for the Censuses preceding rail system openings, using current (2013) metropolitan area boundaries. This method favors transit, since metropolitan areas have grown spatially, and the more recently added areas (counties) would have had lower transit market shares in earlier censuses. The method also favors transit because in a growing metropolitan area (which excludes only Buffalo among the 23 cities) merely retaining transit work trip market share will generally not reduce traffic congestion, because highway traffic volumes tend to rise with population.

Transit Work Trip Market Shares

Overall, the average transit work trip market share in the 23 cities declined from 5.0 percent to 4.6 percent from the Census year preceding opening to 2013 (Figure 1).

• The cities with rail systems opening after the 2000 Census did by far the best. In 2000, these cities had an average transit work trip market share of 3.0 percent. By 2013, this had risen to an average of 3.4 percent. The cities in this category include Austin, Charlotte, Houston, Minneapolis-St. Paul, Nashville, Phoenix, and Seattle.

• The cities with rail systems opening after the 1990 Census experienced a modest decline in transit work trip market share, from 3.8 percent in 1990 to 3.7 percent in 2013. The cities in this category include Baltimore, Denver, Dallas-Fort Worth, Los Angeles, Riverside-San Bernardino, Salt Lake City, and St. Louis.

• The cities with rail systems opening after the 1980 census saw their transit work trip market shares decline more significantly, from 4.8 percent in 1980 to 3.9 percent in 2013. This category includes Buffalo, Miami, Portland, Sacramento, San Diego, and San Jose.

• The largest average transit work trip market share losses occurred in the cities with new rail systems that opened following the 1970 census. These metropolitan areas experienced a decline from 12.9 percent in 1970 to 11.1 percent in 2013. The new rail systems in this category were San Francisco’s Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART), Washington’s Metrorail and Atlanta’s MARTA.

Driving Alone Work Trip Market Shares

Overall, the driving alone work trip market share rose from 72.3 percent to 76.0 percent (though complete data is not available for 1970), an increase of 3.7 percentage points (Figure 2). The driving alone work trip market share declined in only 4 of the 23 cities. In each of the decadal categories, the change in work trip market share was greater in driving alone than in transit (Figure 3).

• The cities opening new rail systems after the 2000 census did the best in curbing the drive alone market share, but still experienced a loss. On average, the drive alone work trip market share increased the least in the cities, from 77.1 percent in 2000 to 77.7 percent in 2013, a rise of 0.6 percent.

• The cities opening new rail systems after the 1990 census experienced an increase in the drive alone work trip market share from 75.2 percent in 1990 to 77.4 percent in 2013 for a loss of 2.2 percentage points.

• The cities opening a new rail systems after the 1980 census experienced an increase in the drive alone work trip market share from 69.3 percent in 1980 76.3 percent in 2013, for a loss of 7.0 percentage points.

• Comparable driving alone data was not obtained in the 1970 Census, which makes it impossible to directly compare the “before and after” Census work trip market share data for new rail systems opening during the 1970’s. However, each of the three new rail systems opened after the 1970 census added substantially to their ridership following the 1980 census (Note). Even so, the drive alone market share from 1980 was substantial, from 60.2 percent to 67.9 percent in 2013, an increase of 7.7 percentage points. The biggest drive alone gains were in Atlanta, which built MARTA and Washington, which built Metrorail. San Francisco, with its Bay Area Rapid Transit system (BART) experienced a smaller drive alone market share gain from 1980 to 2013 (Table).

Transit Alone Metropolitan Area Gains and Losses

Overall, the transit work trip market share declined in 13 of the 23 cities. Among the 10 cities with an increase, the change was less than one percentage point in all but two, Seattle and San Jose.

The strongest transit market share gain was in Seattle, at 2.3 percentage points (from 7.0 percent to 9.3 percent). However, most of Seattle’s transit market share gain was related to bus and ferry service, which accounted for 80 percent of the transit gain. San Jose had the second largest gain, at 1.1 percentage points (from 3.1 percent to 4.2 percent). Riverside-San Bernardino (0.8 percent to 1.5 percent) and Phoenix (1.9 percent to 2.6 percent) tied for third best transit market share increase, with 0.7 percentage point increases. Charlotte had the fifth strongest increase, rising 0.5 percentage points, from 1.2 percent to 1.7 percent.

The largest transit market share loss was in Atlanta, which fell from 7.3 percent in 1970 to 3.1 percent in 2013, a loss of more than one-half. Buffalo suffered the second largest loss, from 6.6 percent to 2.9 percent, a decline of 3.7 percentage points. Highly touted Portland experienced the third greatest transit market share loss out of the 23 cities, falling from 7.9 percent to 6.4 percent, a 1.5 percentage point loss. Washington had the fourth largest decline, falling from a 15.5 percent transit work trip market share to 14.2 percent, a loss of 1.3 percentage points. In Washington,much of the Metrorail ridership was diverted from bus services and car pools.

Baltimore (from 7.7 percent to 7.0 percent) and Dallas-Fort Worth (from 2.3 percent to 1.4 percent) tied for 5th largest decline, with a loss of 0.9 percentage points.

Drive Alone Metropolitan Area Gains and Losses

The largest drive alone gains were in Buffalo (15.3 percentage point gain from 1980) San Diego (12.0 percentage point gain from 1980), Washington (11.9 percentage point gain from 1980, due to the lack of 1970 data), Atlanta (9.4 percentage point gain from 1980, due to the lack of 1970 data), and Baltimore (6.2 percentage point gain from 1990).

The largest drive alone market share losses were in Seattle (1.9 percentage point loss), Charlotte (0.7 percentage point loss), Salt Lake City (0.5 percentage point loss), and Sacramento (0.2 percentage point loss) while Denver remained constant.

New Rail Systems: Successful Simply in Being Built

The overall transit work trip market shares in the 23 cities declined 0.4 percentage points. By comparison, in the same cities, driving alone increased by an average of 3.7 percentage points (Figure 4). These results are considerably more modest than the claims made by rail proponents. It is fair to say that the new rail systems have not changed how people travel in cities, despite costing at least $90 billion.

It might be expected that this laggard performance would dampen the ardor for rail. Yet, many public officials and civic boosters consider virtually any system that opens a success. Tom Rubin, former Chief Financial Officer of the Southern California Rapid Transit District (a predecessor to the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority) wryly suggests that for many political interests, the success of urban rail is demonstrated by its getting built.

Despite the unfortunate politics of transit, success requires carrying more passengers, as many as the available funding will permit. The test of urban rail is not how many people are on the trains, but how many drivers leave their cars at home to ride it.

Note: BART’s (California) ridership has more than tripled since 1980, while Washington Metrorail’s ridership is up approximately 40 percent. MARTA’s (Atlanta) ridership has increased substantially since 1980, with the first line having opened only in mid 1979.

This commentary is adapted from a presentation in November at an international transit conference in Shanghai.

Wendell Cox is principal of Demographia, an international public policy and demographics firm. He is co-author of the “Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey” and author of “Demographia World Urban Areas” and “War on the Dream: How Anti-Sprawl Policy Threatens the Quality of Life.” He was appointed to three terms on the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission, where he served with the leading city and county leadership as the only non-elected member. He was appointed to the Amtrak Reform Council to fill the unexpired term of Governor Christine Todd Whitman and has served as a visiting professor at the Conservatoire National des Arts et Metiers, a national university in Paris.
Photo: Atlanta MARTA train by RTABus (Own work) [CC-BY-SA-3.0], via Wikimedia Commons

Why Transit Takes Twice as Long to Get to Work

November 15th, 2014

COST Commentary:

Transit takes twice as long as driving, but that delay is not an issue to some transit users, Randal O’Toole writes in his blog, The Antiplanner, article below. In that case, O’Toole suggests, self-driving cars will completely alter people’s perceptions of travel time. “If people who own self-driving cars are willing to travel 50 minutes to work, instead of just 25, it will quadruple their housing choices and completely change the shape of urban areas.”

Self Driving technology is advancing rapidly. At least four states have allowed a total of hundreds of thousands of test miles on their highways. Self-driving cars are projected to significantly increase the capacity of roadways, perhaps double today’s capacity, and to be much safer. Self driving will also significantly alter the use of expensive land such as in Central Business Districts (CBD) by reducing the need for large numbers of parking spaces as self driving vehicles can park remotely. In addition, transit use will experience major changes and the use of 19th century technology train transit will be greatly reduced. In total, mobility will be far more cost-effective.

Why Do Transit Commuters Take Longer to Get to Work Than Drivers?

by Randal O’Toole in his blog, The Antiplanner

Nationwide, the average worker spends 24.7 minutes, each way, traveling to and from work. People who drive alone spend 24.4 minutes; people who carpool spend 28.0 minutes; people who walk take 11.9 minutes; and people who take transit take 48.7 minutes.

In other words, people who take transit spend almost exactly twice as much time en route as people who drive alone. Why? The simple answer is that transit is slower. But this flies in the face of the idea that people have a travel-time budget that limits the total amount of time they are willing to spend traveling each day (or week).

Is the travel-time budget idea wrong? Or do people who take transit have different travel-time budgets than people who drive? Or is the travel-time budget different if, when you are traveling, you can relax and read your iPad or do something else entertaining than if you have to face the work and stresses of driving?

The travel-time budget notion implies that we arrange our lives so we won’t have to spend more time than we want getting to and from work. That means we choose our home location partly based on where we work and we accept jobs only within a certain distance from home (or move if the distance is too great). If a new technology, such as streetcars in the 1890s or automobiles in the 1910s and 1920s, increases our commute speeds, then the distance we are willing to travel can increase without increasing the time we spend en route.

The fact that transit takes twice as long, on average, than driving leads many to conclude that transit riders have less choice than auto drivers. Perhaps they are victims of racial or income discrimination in housing and forced to live farther from work than they would like. Perhaps they are one of two earners in a household that can only afford one car, and their home location is determined primarily by the work location of the other income earner.

To test this, we can look at data for individual urbanized areas. Average travel times to work can be calculated using tables B08136, Aggregate Travel Time to Work by Means of Transportation to Work, and C08301, Means of Transportation to Work, of the American Community Survey (ACS) for urbanized areas. The same tables are available for cities, states, and other geographic units, but urbanized areas are the best in this case as each urban area is something close to a single economic unit (at least, closer than any other geographic area).

Divide the aggregate travel times by the numbers of people using each mode to get the average times. Table B08136 only has driving alone, carpooling, transit, walking, and “other,” so we can’t break out bicycling. Table B08136 is also not available for some important urban areas, such as San Antonio, even going back to 2010. But the numbers are available for most other major (and many minor) urban areas. For this discussion, I’ll use 2013 data unless otherwise noted; the numbers don’t change much from year-to-year.

The first thing to note is that, where transit travel times average twice driving times on a nationwide basis, in the New York urban area transit times are just 76 percent more than times for people who drive alone. This isn’t because New York transit is so much faster than in the rest of the country; average transit travel times in New York are actually longer, at 50.3 minutes, than the national average of 48.7. Instead, it is because New York drive times are so much slower, at 28.6 minutes for driving alone (vs. 24.4 nationally). This isn’t necessarily because New York is more congested; instead, it is at least partly because it is a much larger urban area than most, so the data pick up more people who are willing to travel long distances to work.

New York also has a very high percentage of workers who live in households without cars: 23.8 percent vs. the national average of 4.5 percent. New York also has the highest share of transit commuters earning $75,000 or more per year (it’s 32.9 percent for New York state; unfortunately, these data, in table B08519, aren’t available for urbanized areas). In other words, a lot of people who take transit in the New York urban area could afford to own cars, but they take transit anyway despite the transit time penalty.

Based on these data, it is clear that people who lack choices and are forced to take transit despite the time penalty are only partly responsible for the time penalty. Instead, at least some of the penalty is probably because people who take transit don’t think their time is wasted and so don’t count it as a penalty.

Of course, transit supporters have been saying for years that this is an advantage of transit over driving. While this argument has failed to persuade many more people to ride transit, it does suggest that self-driving cars will completely alter people’s perceptions of travel time. If people who own self-driving cars are willing to travel 50 minutes to work, instead of just 25, it will quadruple their housing choices and completely change the shape of urban areas.

Land Use Policies Blamed for Poverty and Greater Inequality

October 31st, 2014

COST Commentary: This is a very informative article related to the major negative impacts of policies which attempt to contain growth. These policies are variously called: “urban containment,” “smart growth,” “growth management,” and “livability.”

One often hears these land use policy terms regarding Austin’s long range plan: Imagine Austin. This plan promotes higher density and reduced “spreading” of the city. As noted in the article below, it is necessary to maintain a balance and recognize that higher density produces greater congestion and higher costs. This density, congestion and cost relationship is discussed throughout this site.

by Wendell Cox 10/29/2014

The political leadership and others in New Zealand are talking about the consequences of its land use policies. Under the “urban containment” land use policy (also called by terms like “smart growth,” “growth management,” and “livability”) in effect in every urban area, house prices have doubled relative to incomes over the last 25 years. The principal causes have been the restrictions inherent in urban containment policy, such as making most suburban land off limits for housing development, (which raises its price, like rationing oil raises the price of gasoline), and requirements for upfront payment of large development impact fees (which can also be higher than they need to be). The association between urban containment policy and unaffordable housing is consistent with both with both economic theory and also considerable economic research. The title of a report by Paul Cheshire, Professor of Economic Geography at the London School of Economics best indicates the reality: “Urban Containment, Housing Affordability, Price Stability - Irreconcilable Goals.”

New Zealand Housing Unaffordability and Consequences

According to the 10th Annual Demographia Housing Affordability Survey, Auckland, the nation’s largest city is now the 7th least affordable out of 85 major metropolitan markets rated. Auckland’s median multiple (median house price divided by median household income) is 8.0, approaching triple the level that prevailed before the adoption of urban containment policy. The other largest cities, Christchurch and Wellington have seen house prices relative to incomes double since they have adopted urban containment policy (which were 3.0 or less). Obviously, when houses cost more than necessary, households have less discretionary income. This leads directly to two consequences with respect to affluence and poverty.

The first consequence of these policies is that households have less discretionary income (income after paying taxes and for necessities) to spend on other goods and services. Obviously this means a lower standard of living. This generally leads to a weaker economy, other things being equal, because households with less money are not able to purchase as much in goods and services as they would be able to afford if house prices had not been distorted.

The second consequence is greater poverty. When the price of housing rises, discretionary incomes can fall enough to force lower income households into poverty.

Land Use Policies Blamed for Poverty and Greater Inequality

Recently, Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Bill English said in an October 7 press conference that New Zealand’s land use policies have led to higher levels of poverty and increased inequality: “Inequality in New Zealand would have been improving had it not been for growing housing costs. So our planning processes have probably done more to increase income inequality and poverty in New Zealand than most other policies.” Finally, the Deputy Prime Minister noted that house price increases have impacted the lowest income households most.

Minister English had previously expressed concern about the extent to which land use policy had driven up house prices, in his preface to the 9th Annual Demographia Housing Affordability Survey: “It costs too much and takes too long to build a house in New Zealand. Land has been made artificially scarce by regulation that locks up land for development. This regulation has made land supply unresponsive to demand (see: “Unblocking Constipated Planning” in New Zealand”).

There was “pushback” on the Deputy Prime Ministers comments from the city of Auckland and the Green Party. Others saw it differently the well-read national blog, Whale Oil, however, opined that the Deputy Prime Minister “is onto something.” Whale Oil continued “The squealing in unison means English is putting the pressure in the right places.”

Housing Minister Nick Smith has decried the situation in Auckland: “We’ve got a rigid Metropolitan Urban Limit (urban growth boundary) prohibiting any new housing developments beyond the artificial line drawn 15 years ago.” At the same time, he said that resulting land cost increases had been more responsible for higher house prices than any other factor. Auckland accounts for approximately one-third of the nation’s population and has been growing rapidly, accounting for more than one-half of the nation’s population growth between the 2006 and 2013 censuses.

On the government’s website, the Housing Minister expressed the government’s interest in reforming the Resource Management Act, which governs land-use planning. “It is the price of land and sections that has gone up so rapidly in unaffordable housing markets like Auckland, and it is the Resource Management Act and how it is implemented that is largely responsible for this cost escalation. The new law allowing Special Housing Areas is a short-term fix but we must address the fundamental problem with the Resource Management Act if we are serious about long-term housing affordability.”

Business Concerns

Business interests are also raising concerns.

The Property Council (similar in its advocacy function to the Urban Land Institute in the United States) has indicated support for the reforms.

Other business support comes from ANZ Bank New Zealand Chief Executive Officer David Hisco. In expressing concern noting that” “The elevator of economic progress in New Zealand has always been home ownership for everyone - right across the socioeconomic spectrum. But at the current pace of house price rises we risk creating a generation of disenfranchised, second class citizens – ‘Generation Rent.’” He continues: “The housing affordability issue is a housing supply issue, pure and simple. In 1974 there were 34,400 new homes built. Last year there were 15,000 - less than half. It’s no wonder houses doubled in price in under a decade in Auckland. The solution is simple – urgently build more houses. To do that in places like Auckland we need to build more suburbs and allow intensification in existing areas.”

In noting that the poor are the “biggest victims” of Auckland’s land use policies, Eric Crampton(on Kiwiblog) says that Auckland should be allowed “to build both upwards and outwards: which would be a great step in reducing child poverty.” Moreover, the Prime Minister, John Key, has expressed a particular interest in reducing child poverty.

Building upwards and outwards is not an option under the urban containment dictum favoring intensification and prohibiting green-field suburban development.

A similar connection between housing costs and high rates of poverty is indicated by California, which has the highest poverty rate, adjusted for housing costs, of all states as well as the District of Columbia. California’s major metropolitan markets have severely unaffordable housing costs, with a median multiple of 7.1. This is lower than Auckland (8.0), New Zealand’s one major metropolitan market, but higher than Australia’s (6.3). Dartmouth economist William Fischel and others have associated California’s high housing costs with its land use policies. Fischel further noted that before these policies were implemented, house prices were about the same in California as in the rest of the nation, which have since more than doubled relative to incomes.

New Zealand: Land Use Policy Leader

There is virtual consensus among the world’s governments that the standard of living should be improved and poverty eradicated. Yet, many governments have adopted land use policies that raise the price of housing, which has the inevitable effect of lowering standard of living and more poverty. New Zealand’s government is seeking to restore an appropriate policy balance.

Wendell Cox is principal of Demographia, an international public policy and demographics firm. He is co-author of the “Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey” and author of “Demographia World Urban Areas” and “War on the Dream: How Anti-Sprawl Policy Threatens the Quality of Life.” He was appointed to three terms on the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission, where he served with the leading city and county leadership as the only non-elected member. He was appointed to the Amtrak Reform Council to fill the unexpired term of Governor Christine Todd Whitman and has served as a visiting professor at the Conservatoire National des Arts et Metiers, a national university in Paris.
Photograph: Downtown Auckland (by author)

City would spend fortune for few riders, traffic snarls

October 22nd, 2014

COST Commentary: The title of this posting is the title printed on the op-ed published in the Statesman, October 20, 2014. This is a very good Statesman created title. The title below is the one submitted and which is on the Statesman web site.

City’s light rail proposition manipulates voters

By Jim Skaggs - Special to the American-Statesman, Sunday, Oct. 19, 2014

Light rail is guided by a few Austin government and business leaders projecting a pretense of openness and transparency. Instead, concealment has prevailed. Objectivity was denied by avoiding unbiased evaluation of alternative solutions. Rail’s merits have been championed primarily by those with conflicted self-interests.

The City Council’s conditioning of the $600 million rail bonds on future council’s authorization of $400 million in roads, without voter approval, is schemed voter manipulation. The city’s proposed “roads” provide little congestion relief, being mostly studies, upgraded overpasses, an upgraded airport entrance and transportation center; many of the projects supporting rail. This reflects disdain and distrust of voters’ judgments about tax money priorities.

No real alternatives to rail were evaluated. City committees started with: Where should the downtown rail go? This ignores total transit ridership declines in Texas’ four largest cities, which are among the fastest growing in the U.S. Every proposed rail route over many years has been different. Austin is young and growing. This fixed transit, with highest cost and least flexibility, is not part of a solution.

The city states this is the “initial investment” with “much more to come.” Concealing rail’s longer term costs and tax impacts is unconscionable. This bond and road commitment will double Austin’s debt — tying the hands of a new 10-1 council and providing no bond flexibility for future needs.

The city, Capital Metro and Chamber of Commerce support rail with assertions of reducing congestion. Studies show no congestion relief because congestion will increase. Austin’s teaser, “10,000 cars off the road daily,” is contradicted by their statement that the train will attract 6,500 new, daily transit riders in 2030. Other riders shift from buses to train. If every new rider previously drove alone before riding the train, only 6,500 cars (30 days of new cars arrivals) would be off the road. More than 8 million daily, area trips in 2030 make this rail insignificant, except in cost.

This $1.4 billion ($147 million per mile) rail will cost much more, considering hidden costs such as the train overpasses and other rail costs disguised in the road plan. Also, average cost overruns, of early rail estimates, are 40 percent. Therefore, taxpayers will pay more than $500,000 for each new transit rider: An incredible tax waste for so few.

The train doesn’t improve congestion but causes significant congestion by removing two potential car lanes from busy streets and forming 4 miles of track “barrier,” parallel to Interstate 35, along the east side of downtown and the University of Texas. Vehicles crossing this track face delays every five minutes during peak hours.

This rail presents the most negative community impact in Austin’s history. Taxes will continue rising, congestion will increase with dwindling road improvements, overall transit will degrade with reduced bus service and affordability will continue to decline, leading to decreasing citizens’ quality of life.

Since 99.7 percent of today’s more than 6 million (8 million in 2030) daily people trips are on roads, the most cost-effective way of meeting citizen’s aspirations, and reducing congestion, is to develop comprehensive road systems, providing shared infrastructure supporting private, carpool/shared, public transit, commercial goods/services, emergency, school, and government vehicles.

Three road upgrade projects — 183 A, 290 East and MoPac Boulevard — will greatly improve daily trips for more than 500,000 people, sharing 113 new lane miles. This train is estimated to serve 6,500 new transit trips, an average of 4 to 5 miles in 2030 when these roadway corridors will serve 700,000 people, 100 times the train and with longer trips. Total cost of these roads is approximately equal the rail’s cost in today’s dollars. Citizens need much more of this efficiency.

Rail will not produce additional tax base. People come to Austin for jobs, not trains. The only train employment increases will be implementation and operations which taxpayers almost fully pay as they highly subsidize the few riders.

Please vote “no” on this manipulative, ineffective, city rail Proposition 1. The new 10-1 City Council will develop responsible approaches to address numerous citywide congestion areas. This is the only cost-effective solution to enhanced mobility and quality of life for all citizens. This also allows Cap Metro to focus its funds on needed regional transit improvements instead of wasting taxes on an ineffective train that will reduce overall transit service and increase fares, hurting those who need the most help.

Skaggs is founder of Citizens Against Rail Taxes (CART).

UT’s ‘The Daily Texan’: Standing Alone; Tall, Proud and Strong.

October 17th, 2014

COST Commentary: Thank you to ‘The Daily Texan.’ These article are examples of the wisdom of youth. They display some of the great, Texas common sense which is missing in so much of Austin’s rail rhetoric over the past 30 years. There are numerous “common sense” considerations which too many people have ignored in the emotionally charged campaign surrounding Austin’s bond proposition for the proposed light rail.

‘The Daily Texan’ is the only local newspaper to date to oppose Austin’s light rail as described in the article below. ‘The Daily Texan’ was also the only local newspaper to oppose Cap Metro’s proposed light rail which was defeated in 2000. Time has proven ‘The Daily Texan’ to be correct. Every time a light rail route has been proposed over the past 25 years, it has a different route. Hugely expensive, fixed rail transit for a rapidly growing area, with lower density, is not a responsible choice for flexible, cost effective transit to meet growing, changing needs. Rail has not lived-up to its promises in any city like Austin. In addition, rapidly advancing technology will further make outdated trains a totally irresponsible transit choice for cities like Austin today or 100 years from today.

There are two editorials from ‘The Daily Texan’ following this ‘COST Commentary.’

1. The truth is: Austin’s Light Rail proposition will increase congestion throughout the city; the reverse of the City’s sales pitch and “vision” of lower congestion. Austin’s plan of higher population density and constrained, congestion laden streets will hamper mobility and quality-of-life for all. None of the major Texas cities or other similar cities have reduced congestion with rail transit. Rail is the most expensive, with the highest tax subsidies, of any normal transit option. This results in degrading overall transit because communities cannot afford to build build enough fixed rail to reach large numbers of those needing daily transit to wide-ranging destinations.

2. The City states “We have to start somewhere” and this initial rail line is just the beginning of a network of rail. This initial and increasing tax “bite” is totally unaffordable and will accelerate the continuing departure of low and medium income citizens, resulting in substantial declines in public school enrollment and the closing of dozens of schools. Austin already has the fastest growing “cost-of-living” growth and the most “overpriced housing” of all the nation’s large cities. The rail strains affordability and does nothing for congestion.

3. The City states the light rail will remove 10,000 cars (this is really car trips) daily from the roads. (A two-way work commuter is 2 car trips). While this is a dubious claim, as shown by solid analysis, lets use it. The City also states there are 110 people and 70 cars per day moving to the Austin area. Each car has an average of 3 trips per day or about 200 total new trips arriving each day. Therefore, if the rail takes 10,000 car trips off the road, they will be replaced by new arriving car trips in 50 days and we are back where we started with traffic. This means $1.4 billion is proposed to be spent to delay traffic build-up by 50 days at a cost of $28 million per day. This is clearly not cost effective: We could pay 50 people to stay home or pay companies to allow 50 car drivers to work at home for 50 days. This would cost a lot less. But, it will be even less than 50 days of very small value because there will be more than 100 new cars arriving each day in 2030 when the train is “removing 10,000 cars per day”. Therefore, there will only be 33 days of traffic build-up delay at $42.4 million per day.

4. This rail bond and its interest will use up almost all bonding capacity for some time, and, taxes keep rising if the city continues to add rail lines as planned. Austin already has more than $8 billion in bond debt payback. This rail bond will completely ‘tie the hands’ of the new 10-1 council and prevent them from issuing needed bonds, for other city needs, during their entire term.

5. This proposition is not authorizing the $400 million for “roads.” The City plan is to authorize the roads without citizen’s voting. These road commitments are actually transfers of funds to TxDoT, which performs the work, and could be done anytime, with or without, this rail proposition. But, this would not create the illusion (some call it manipulation or blackmail) that the roads are tied to the voters’ rail authorization.

6. The true cost of the rail will very likely be more than $2 billon when the related costs are considered: Bond Interest of at least $200 million; about one-half of the $400 million road package is to support the light rail; and, overruns which must be paid by taxpayers. Average overruns for such projects are about 40% and are not covered by federal funds if Austin receives any at all.

7. This bond creates the biggest taxpayer gamble in Austin’s history. The federal government has a long line of other funding requests which are ahead of Austin and federal funding availability is very questionable. The City of Austin has no limitation on how much it can spend for planning, engineering, design, environmental, etc. prior to the receiving approval for matching federal funds several years in the future. If federal funds are denied, all Austin tax money spent to this date and as much as $70 million of the bond money spent during these several years will be wasted.

8. The exact cost of the trains annual operations are not known at this point. They have been roughly estimated, by the City, as $22 million. If their costs are as poorly estimated as the current train’s costs, this burden will put Capital Metro in a deep financial hole, resulting in cut-backs in bus service and higher fares; both of which primarily burden those who need daily transit and have no alternative.

The train’s supporters include the City Council, the Chamber of Commerce and the Real Estate Council of Austin. None of these organizations seeked or allowed alternative views to be presented by knowledgable professionals prior to approving resolutions to support these rail bonds. None of these organizations revealed the planned long term cost and tax implications for Austin citizens.

We have been here before. Let’s not forget what we learned. Many of today’s rail promises are eerily similar to the ones made about the current red line. The Red Line has achieved none of its major promises:

1. Rail ridership remains well below expectations and Cap Metro’s overall transit ridership has been stagnant for 15 years while the population has grown 56%. The Red Line rail did not change this trend as ridership is down this year and projected to be down next again next year. Stagnant transit ridership has existed in the U.S. for more than 50 years. The four major Texas cities are among the fastest growing major U.S. Cities, but, have less total transit ridership today than 15 years ago, before spending billions on rail transit.

2. The Red Line was advertised to reduce congestion but no one has noticed this. Most observe there are more people delayed in vehicles being stopped by the Red Line than there are riders on the train.

3. The Red Line cost twice as much as committed to voters. Cap Metro promised 2004 voters that the Red Line’s operating costs would be $2 million per year when it opened in 2007. It actually opened in 2010 and operating costs are now $14 million. Cap Metro reports this train costs about $20 per average passenger ride which is almost 5 times the cost of a bus passenger ride at about $4. This clearly indicates the system is highly subsidizing train riders who generally own cars and can afford to pay more and placing the financail burden on: 1. lower income citizens through higher bus fares, and, 2. on all taxpayers.

4. The Red Line was described as “environmentally friendly” but it would be less polluting if all the rail riders were in individual cars.

Summary: Let’s not make a huge mistake doing the same thing that a previous, much smaller mistake has taught us. The proposed light rail’s estimated, but dubious, ridership is only 6 times the Red Line commuter ridership. However the proposed light rail’s capital costs will be a minimum of 10 times the red line and, likely, much more with transparency and competent analyses.

We need mobility which cost-effectively serves the 99% of daily trips which are on our roads. The sharing of road infrastructure is the most cost-effective way to efficently serve the daily needs of private, public transit, shared, hired, emergency/public safety, commercial and other government vehicles. Passenger rail is the most expensive form of transit and cannot effectively serve the community’s multiple needs. We clearly cannot afford to provide this rail “alternative,” for so few, at the expense of achieving the needs and aspirations of all citizens for effective mobility. Trains will limit and constrain our mobility while degrading transit for those who need it the most. In human time, greater mobility has provided greater quality of life.

This November, vote no on Proposition 1 bond package

Published in ‘The Daily Texan’ (University of Texas), October 13, 2014

Without a doubt, rail is a polarizing issue in Austin politics. On Tuesday, Student Government passed a resolution declaring support for Proposition 1, the Green Line urban rail and bond proposal. In July, given information and perspectives of the moment, this editorial board begrudgingly offered its endorsement for Project Connect’s urban rail plan. After further consideration and deliberation, it is only with sincere disappointment that this board must withhold our endorsement of Proposition 1, to be voted on this November.

While $600 million of the bond will go toward rail, $400 million of the bond is earmarked for road improvements. Perhaps an effort to shove a sub-par rail proposal down the public’s throat by enticing them with bundled road funds, the bundling of these two projects is unfortunate. Roads need improvement to alleviate traffic, and this disapproval of Proposition 1 should not be taken as disapproval of road improvement. Rather, the flaws of the urban rail plan outweigh the benefits of the linked road improvements.

There are two facts about public transportation that must be acknowledged before moving forward. First, the purpose of public mass transit, contrary to many pro-rail advertising campaigns, is not to ease congestion of personal vehicles. Public transportation provides an alternative to congestion, but it will never be the solution. Second, like public schools and municipal parks, public transportation is a necessary public service, not meant to be inherently profitable but sustainable enough to facilitate the everyday travel of a functioning community. With these two considerations, we must avoid auto-centric, capitalistic conversation regarding urban rail.

The route north of the river has caused the most controversy. While Project Connect, the plan’s creator, constantly touts the ‘data-driven’ plan, we question the metrics used in this designation. Project Connect used projected, as opposed to current, density data to drive its route proposal. Areas surrounding the Red Line have not seen this projected density growth that justified its creation, and we fear that, if passed, the Green Line will suffer a similar fate.

Capital Metro often references the “success” of the Red Line to boost confidence in voters that it can handle this new project. Though riders and Francine Pares, communications manager at Capital Metro, testify that at peak hours the Red Line is so full that there is standing room only, this is not a viable metric for measuring the real success of the line. Initial ridership projections of the Red Line estimated 3,000-4,000 riders per day growing to eventually 8,000-10,000 daily. In August, Pares said “more than 60,000 MetroRail trips are taken each month,” but keep in mind that a single person can make multiple trips in a day. This averages to around 2050 trips per day, less than initial estimates and nowhere close to projected growth. The fact that the Red Line has standing room only is a testament to the size of the vehicle rather than true demand. The “success” of the Red Line is dubious at best.

Furthermore, central corridor advocates overemphasized the risk of losing possible Federal Transit Administration funding, necessary for the current rail proposal, if they proposed a Lamar-Guadalupe route. They argue that because the city had just installed Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) using FTA funds on the same route, a request for funding on this route would be rejected. In addition to the explicit grant language containing provisions for future development funding along the BRT route disproving this claim, Scott Morris from Our Rail group provided a memo obtained from Capital Metro where an FTA representative is quoted saying the administration would consider funding for development along the BRT route should the city introduce new priorities.

With this new proposal, many look back nostalgically on the 2000 light rail proposal, thinking, “If only we had known!” This redesigned route of this current proposal is a reaction to the 2000 “rail fail,” attempting to address issues that led a narrow margin of 2,000 more people to vote “no” at the turn of the century. But Austin has changed, and this proposal has not adequately adapted. More people than ever understand the need for comprehensive public transportation improvements. It’s a curious fact, and a daunting omen, that so many rail advocates have come out against this rail plan. Though we support transit initiatives that will make our city livable and affordable, we oppose this proposal.
COST Commentary: We strongly support Mr. Smalley’s comments below regarding Austin’s current light rail proposition, its negative impact on the community and Cap Metro’s very poor Red Line rail performance, which has a cost per rider of $20 or 5 times a bus rider. However, we temper our views of the Houston light rail performance by noting that Houston’s overall transit ridership today is 20% below its ridership in a ‘bus only’ system before the first Houston light rail was implemented. This is while Houston’s population has grown 35% in the past 15 years. In Austin, Cap Metro’s Red Line rail implementation has been followed with a reduction in total transit ridership, which Cap Metro projects will further decline next year. This is while Austin’s area population has grown 56% in the past 15 years. All four major Texas cities are among the fastest growing in the nation and their total transit ridership has decreased in the past 15 years while spending billions on rail

Proposition 1 rail is expensive white elephant

BY CLAY SMALLEY In The Daily Texan,’ October 9, 2014 at 10:53 am

In 2000, there was a ballot proposition for a light rail line in Austin. If the measure had passed the vote, Austin would have a robust light rail system running from downtown all the way out to 183 along the Drag and North Lamar Boulevard. It was, and still is, the most heavily traveled bus corridor in Austin, at the time carrying the 1L, 1M, 101 and bits and pieces of other routes that happened to pass by UT and downtown. And with good reason: The corridor has the highest population density and job density of any in the city. If built, the line would carry 40,000 passengers each day and cost $300 million — numbers very similar to the successful Houston MetroRail, which happened to begin construction the following year.

The 2000 vote in Austin, however, failed by a very thin margin — eight tenths of a percent. As a result, Capital Metro substituted the MetroRapid buses for the light rail, and built the completely separate Red Line commuter rail.

Fast forward to now — Project Connect, a partnership between the City of Austin, Cap Metro and other transit agencies, will be putting a questionable light rail plan to the vote in November. Phase One of the construction would consist of light rail starting at the Austin Convention Center downtown, running north along San Jacinto Boulevard and Trinity Street to pass by the east side of UT, then jogging over to Red River to the Hancock Center, crossing the existing Red Line with an expensive bridge or tunnel and following Airport Boulevard to the derelict Highland Mall.

This line would carry half the passengers per day that the 2000 proposal would. At a hefty price tag of $1.4 billion in taxpayer dollars, though, it’s not much more than a shiny, expensive version of the bus route 10, and it’s such an awful plan that even former Cap Metro transit planner Lyndon Henry is against it.

What happened? Why did Project Connect choose this route, instead of retrying the Guadalupe-Lamar route? While the 2000 vote failed, it still passed within the city limits of Austin, whose residents are the only ones voting on the bond initiative this time around. Has anything significantly changed about the city that makes this corridor better?

Smooth Ride, or Bumpy Start?

Let’s look at some real-life examples of light rail systems around the country. The aforementioned Houston MetroRail was planned as an upgrade to the most heavily traveled bus corridor and designed to be a backbone to the transit network of the city. The initial segment followed a near-straight line from downtown Houston to an outlying park-and-ride near the former Astroworld amusement park, tying together popular destinations and job centers such as the Texas Medical Center, the Museum District, Rice University, and the Reliant Stadium complex. This was the north-south axis of job density across the center of Houston. In other words, light rail just made sense there.

And it saw packed trains from Day One. By the end of 2004, the year the Houston MetroRail opened, it saw 33,000 boardings on a typical day. The line has since been extended on the opposite side of downtown, and two more lines are being built as I write. They plan on expanding the system even further to stitch together all the employment centers of the city as well as beefing up the bus system to serve all the Houstonians farther away from the rail system. For such a car-oriented city, Houston is doing a fantastic job of balancing out its modes of transportation.

But an equally car-oriented city, San Jose, has been struggling to make its light rail system work since its inception. In the late ‘80s, when everyone was scrambling to buy a Macintosh or a PC with Windows 3.0, the local governments of the booming Silicon Valley wanted to complement the growth with a light rail system. With the Santa Clara VTA’s bus network to build off of, they were taking a huge gamble. The plan they came up with was one linking the downtown of San Jose, some neighborhoods of single-family homes, and vast expanses of parking lot with small office buildings peppered throughout. They crossed their fingers, expecting the rail line to induce growth, with tightly-packed office buildings and homes replacing the scarcely populated parking lots, driveways and front yards. This was the only way the light rail system could score enough riders to keep it financially stable.

Today, the Santa Clara VTA Light Rail has failed to live up to its projections, carrying 30 percent fewer passengers at an operating cost 30 percent higher than the average light rail system in the United States. It costs taxpayers in the rest of the region $10 to subsidize every round trip, and less than 1 percent of the county’s residents even ride the trains regularly. It’s important to note: There is such a thing as bad light rail.

How does this compare with the plan here in Austin? If the 2000 Guadalupe-Lamar plan had passed, our city would have a light rail system similar to the one in Houston. It would serve all the existing walking-oriented parts of the city, including Downtown, UT, the Drag and West Campus as well as some other areas that would be more conducive to walking if they were given a little push, like the Triangle and the area around Lamar and Airport Boulevard. Trains would have been packed from the day the line opened.

And all it takes to make a San-Jose-style light rail line is to move a good line a mile east. The Project Connect line still passes through Downtown and UT but eschews state office buildings to instead serve downtown parking garages and follows San Jacinto Boulevard, an incredibly inconvenient route for the cash-cow West Campus riders. North of the University, Red River is full of low-density residential areas, with vociferous neighborhood associations that will fight tooth and nail to prevent the neighborhood from getting denser. The closest this line gets to a dense business district is near the HEB at Hancock Center, which is still an island in the middle of an ocean of parking lots. We shouldn’t put rail where we think density may be at some point in the future — rail should go where density already is.

The Consequences of Building the Wrong Route

“Won’t it take another ten to fifteen years for another light rail proposal to be put to a vote? Austin needs rail now to fix congestion!”

This is an argument I’ve unfortunately heard quite a lot. Despite what any politician says, public transit doesn’t do anything to relieve car congestion — it simply provides an alternative to it. Consider New York City: Driving around Manhattan is hell, and will likely be that way for the foreseeable future. But fortunately, there’s a cheap, quick way of getting around that is immune to car congestion, and that is the New York Subway. You may end up on a crowded train with your face in someone’s armpit for a while, but at least you’ll get to where you’re going on time.

The only way to reduce car congestion is to make it less convenient to drive. But few people want more toll roads or a higher gas taxes — unpopular ideas. So, Austin will see congestion for as long as people drive cars.

As for the lengthy waiting period, it isn’t as lengthy as it seems. It happened to be 14 years between this light rail proposal and the previous, but the average turnaround time is about 3.8 years - and grassroots organizations like AURA are working to make it even shorter. We shouldn’t rush into a bad, expensive plan if it won’t take us that long to wait for a good one.

So what if this rail line isn’t perfect? Why should we let the perfect be the enemy of the good? As it turns out, this rail route can’t even be considered good — it’s worse than building nothing. CapMetro’s Red Line commuter rail is running at full capacity, but still needs a whopping $18 subsidy for every boarding, or in other words, CapMetro loses $18 every time someone rides the Red Line. The commuter buses it replaced only needed a $3 subsidy for every boarding. So what did CapMetro do to compensate for this hefty loss? They diverted money from serving the bus system, resulting in route removals (anyone remember the Cameron Road and Wickersham Lane shuttles?) service cuts and fare hikes (or as Cap Metro calls it, fare restructuring).

This rail is something Austin can’t afford to screw up. No matter what, this proposition will only make transit worse if it passes. The resulting reduction in bus service will only encourage us, and everyone around us, to drive more - the exact opposite effect of what a transit project should do.

If you feel that cutting more bus routes will help Austin grow and develop, go ahead and vote “yes” on Proposition 1.

At least Austin will get a shiny choo-choo.

Smalley is a computer science senior from Katy and a member of Austinites for Urban Rail Action.

Commissioner Gomez, Travis County, Pct. 4, Opposes Austin Light Rail

October 1st, 2014

COST Commentary: This letter from Travis County Commissioner Margaret J. Gomez to the ‘Democratic Precinct Chairs’ expresses our sentiments very well. As stated by the commissioner, this is absolutely not a partisan issue. However, the pro rail political action committee (Pac), Let’s Go Austin, seems to have shifted their major campaign thrust from addressing key rail issues to trying hard to provoke a partisan conflict with the ‘Citizens Against Rail Taxes’ (CART) Pac.

‘Let’s Go Austin’ has fabricated an array of egregious, false statements regarding numerous people who are opposed to this light rail for the reasons stated by Commissioner Gomez in her letter below and in a short speech she made publically at the CART Pac initial press conference. We greatly respect her courage in standing up for the greater-good of citizens she represents and all of the region’s citizens. Austin’s new 10-1 Council will need this same level of courage as they address numerous Austin issues which the past few Councils have allowed to deteriorate resulting in major affordability issues with rapidly increasing cost-of-living, gentrification and declining public school enrollment.

COST’s many reasons for opposing Proposition 1 are stated in recent postings on this site under ‘News Articles.’

CART is committed to work together, as a community, to achieve affordable mobility improvements which will serve the most people in their needs for effective mobility from the greatest number of trip origins to the greatest number of destinations. This is a major ingredient in improving citizens’ quality-of-life:

Greater Mobility provides Greater Quality of Life.

Margaret J. Gomez
Travis County Commissioner, Precinct 4

Dear Democratic Precinct Chairs:

I am writing as a concerned citizen to ensure families understand Prop 1 on the
November 4 ballot and its long-term impact on their budgets. It is crucial that we
think of urban rail as a financial issue-more precisely an affordability issue, and
not a partisan issue. There has been much talk about how Austin is not an
affordable place for families to live. Ifwe are serious about changing that, we must
think about how a billion dollar bond issue will affect Austin families.

This issue is not partisan; it affects every resident’s pocketbook in every section of
Austin, regardless of party affiliation. As a long-time resident of Austin who has
participated in almost every election, including bond elections to improve the
quality of life for families all over Austin, I have had to take a deep breath about the
urban rail issue. Every time I walk neighborhoods in Austin to educate voters about
my record and Travis County’s record in giving a 20 homestead exemption to
homeowners, I have gotten complaints about rising taxes, even for those who have
done nothing to improve the value of their homes except ordinary upkeep. At that
time, I promised them that I would bring the issue to the attention of City Council
members, and I have kept that promise.

Travis County granted $77 million in homestead exemptions in 2014. That amount
did not affect the County’s ability to fund the criminal justice system, emergency
services, EMSjStarFlight and roads for which we are statutorily responsible. We
still have a $900 million budget to address our obligations. I am appealing to all city
council candidates to very seriously consider a 20 homestead exemption for
families who have long supported City of Austin government with their taxes.
It appears to me that the affordability issue needs to be addressed before asking
Austin residents to take on a new $1 billion debt.

The urban rail plan calls for building 9.5 miles from Highland Mall to Grove Drive in
East Austin along Riverside Drive, at a cost of $147 million per mile. Moreover, it
will further decrease the supply of affordable rental housing and displace many
more people in Precinct 4.

Project Connect anticipates 18,000 boardings per day by 2030, which equals 9,000
riders going round trip. 3,250 of those riders will be new to public transportation,
with the remainder being previous bus riders. These 3,250 new riders will cost
taxpayers $430,769 each.

The $1 billion debt is just the beginning, according to the City of Austin. Two
proposals to extend the line will be forthcoming. If this bond issue passes, the City
of Austin’s bond debt will be doubled
, leaving new Council members very little
ability to meet the needs of their constituents. The fair and just action would be to
let the new council members be part of the solution after they are sworn in.
Maintenance and Operations costs are not on the ballot, but those expenditures will
amount to $22 million paid by taxpayers annually.

The fact that we failed to plan for future growth is not a good reason to approve this
$1.4 billion phase one proposal. Did we really believe that if we didn’t build roads
no one would come? This fix is too expensive for low- and middle-income families,
whose numbers in Austin are rising. Austin has had the second-largest increase
in suburban poverty among big cities between 2008-2012.
Why are we not
concerned about this?

I urge you to consider very seriously whether this proposal makes fiscal sense.
Other issues deserve this kind of investment, but if the City of Austin says it can’t
afford $35 million a year for homestead exemptions, why can it afford $1.4 billion
for expensive urban rail projects. If you think your taxes are too high now, wait until
the full bill comes in for both the rail AND the medical school! Thank you for your


Margaret J. Gomez
Travis County Commissioner, Pet. 4

“Smart Growth” & “Urban Containment” Produce Higher Cost Housing and Degraded Standard of Living

September 27th, 2014

COST Commentary: The article below addresses issues which Austin city policies have been steadily leading to. Austin has the possibility to be a much greater city, but, is using Portland as one of the cities to emulate. Portland began to introduce a long series of “smart growth’ and urban containment” policies and regulations 25-30 years ago. The long term result has been major gentrification, a 40% drop in public school enrollment, housing prices which are still well ahead of Austin’s rapidly rising prices and transit agency/government unfunded liabilities which threaten major restructuring. The head of Portland’s transit agency stated that if additional revenue sources are not found, transit service will need to be cut 70%.

The Austin area has significantly higher housing prices than its other, three major Texas cities. In addition, the cost of living in Austin is rising at one of the fastest rates of any major city in the U.S. and Austin’s debt per capita is growing rapidly.

It is time to stop these trends which will lead to degraded quality of life for all citizens. Austin has already demonstrated great potential, but has been misled by several past government administrations.

Another recent posting dealing with these negative Austin trends is: Density and Trains Do Not Make Austin a City. This posting has additional COSTCommentary.

Austin officials have established a plan which has placed the city on a path of densification and commitment of an overwhelming share of transportation funds to rail transit. This is a total misguided path and will continue to lead Austin in Portland’s path, achieving the same results and degraded quality of life for its citizens.
Note: There are numerous additional references in this article on the newgeography site. Click on the title below to access them.


by Wendell Cox, 09/10/2014 in

In a New York Times column entitled “Wrong Way America,” Nobel laureate Paul Krugman againreminds us of the high cost of overzealous land-use regulations. Krugman cites the work of Harvard economist Ed Glaeser and others in noting that “high housing prices in slow-growing states also owe a lot to policies that sharply limit construction.” He observes that “looser regulation in the South has kept the supply of housing elastic and the cost of living low” (Note 1).

Supply is the Issue

Krugman specifically cites Houston, Atlanta and the Sunbelt for their lower house prices and less restrictive housing regulation. In contrast, he points to New York and California as having high house prices and greater housing regulation. Krugman further observes that the secret of growth is “not getting in the way of middle- and working-class housing supply.”

This concern about housing supply is echoed by former World Bank principal planner Alain Bertaud who notes that the solution to the housing affordability problem “is to increase the supply of land” (Note 2). Bertaud further points out that “Restricting land supply and imposing too many controls also stifles business growth.”

Wrong Way Cities

However, the real problem is not a “Wrong Way America” that “gets in the way of middle- and working-class housing supply, but “Wrong Way Cities” (metropolitan areas) that have adopted land use regulations severely restrict the supply of land for urban development. The price increasing policies are often referred to as “smart growth” or “urban containment” and routinely involve restricting the supply of land for development through urban growth boundaries, large lot suburban, and exurban zoning and other strategies.

This destroys what Brookings Institution economist Anthony Downs (p. 36) calls the “competitive supply of land.” The result is higher house prices, because, all things being equal, the price of a good or service is likely to increase if its supply is severely limited. Otherwise, OPEC oil supply restrictions would never have raised concern.

Where more traditional, liberal land use policies remain, housing remains affordable. For example, during the housing bubble, an analysis by the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas attributed the lower, and still affordable house prices in Atlanta, Dallas-Fort Worth, and Houston to avoiding more restrictive land use polices: “… these markets have weathered the increased demand largely with new construction rather than price appreciation because of the ease of building new homes.”

Housing and the Standard of Living

Housing is the largest category of household expenditure. Moreover, housing costs vary far more between metropolitan areas than other expenditure categories, such as transportation, food and apparel. As a result, housing is the most important driver of the standard of living, especially for middle and lower income households. Where house prices are higher compared to incomes, households have less in discretionary income — the amount left over after taxes and necessities. With less left over, a lower standard of living and greater poverty is inevitable.

The differences are even greater for young households moving to metropolitan areas with restrictive land use policies. These households must pay elevated house prices, not having benefited from the lower housing costs that longer-term residents were able to lock in by purchasing years ago.

The higher housing costs prices can more than offset higher wages. Thus, a prospective domestic migrant may choose to move to Houston rather than New York, because Houston’s wages, although lower, translate into higher discretionary incomes and a higher standard of living.

These price increases create a “double hit” to the standard of living. Not only do households have to pay higher house prices, but they usually get less, as house size and lots are reduced in size as a result of the more restrictive regulations. Indeed, regulations in California are being interpreted to make it difficult, if not impossible to build the detached housing most Americans prefer (See:California Declares War on Suburbia). The irony is that smart growth advocates claim this increases “housing choice,” an Orwellian turn of phrase if there ever was one.

It is no wonder that young and aspiring households are drawn to metropolitan areas where housing is more affordable. Meanwhile, house prices have escalated strongly in the restrictively regulated metropolitan areas of California and the Northeast despite low demand. This has much to do with the significant domestic migration loss, as Paul Ganong and Daniel Shoag of Harvard have indicated. Between 2000 and 2013, more than 4,000,000 loss in net domestic migrants between 2000 and 2013, according to Census Bureau data.

The problem is acute for lower income households, which are disproportionately minority. The Thomas Rivera Institute, a Latino oriented research organization, found that California’s land regulations “are making it particularly difficult for Latino and African American households to own a home.”

The Consensus

There is virtual agreement that more restrictive policies are associated with higher house prices. The only issue in dispute is the extent of the impact. But even seemingly small differences can be important. Downs (p. 36) characterizes a modest 10 percent differential to be socially significant, because of the number of households that the higher prices made ineligible for home purchase.

In fact, the differences in house prices relative to incomes are substantial, ranging up to a nearly250 percent difference between Atlanta and San Francisco. The differences are so significant as to attract the attention of economists like Krugman, Glaeser and others for their influence on domestic migration. This is socially significant.

The Risks

No city in the United States can expect immunity from low housing affordability due to overly restrictive land use regulation, even in more depressed areas with lower housing demand. This is illustrated by Liverpool, in the United Kingdom, where smart growth policies are well entrenched. Liverpool has lost a larger percentage of its population since 1950 than any of the other 1,700 urban areas in the world with more than 300,000 population. Yet Liverpool has seen its housing affordability deteriorate to among the worst in the UK, US, Canada, Australia or New Zealand.

The smart growth planning philosophy now pervades virtually all of the urban planning community, which seeks its spread to virtually everywhere (Note 3). Current targets include Minneapolis-St. Paul (see Thrive 2040: Toward a Less Competitive Minneapolis-St. Paul), andSan Antonio and the rest are on the list. The research is clear, where there is more restrictive land use policy, house prices can be expected to rise relative to incomes.

Cities for People

Current urban policy is misdirected and needs correction. Fundamentally, urban policies should be aligned with the purpose of cities. Cities are for people. People have moved to cities principally for economic reasons, as they aspire to better standards of living. Public policies that raise the price of housing substantially interfere with the reason that cities exist.

There is a need for a paradigm shift. Currently in-vogue urban policy focuses on tactics, such as urban form, legally mandated higher densities, mode of transport and urban design (”place-making”).

Economist Glaeser writes that “Bad policy puts place-making above helping people…” Bad policy should be discarded. The focus should instead be on the fundamental objectives of improving the standard of living and reducing poverty. At a minimum, this requires housing that is affordable (See Toward More Prosperous Cities).
Note 1: In the column, Krugman suggests that differences in housing regulation are more important than business regulation and taxation in explaining the migration patterns that have people generally moving from higher cost areas with higher housing costs to lower cost areas. There is strong research on both issues, and both issues are important.

Note 2: Housing affordability refers to the price of houses across the entire spectrum of income, not just low income housing.

Note 3: Perhaps the most frequently cited justification for restrictive land use policies is greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction. A growing body of research indicates that urban land use policies are a generally minor and expensive means to that objective and that technological improvements are far more effective. Smaller scale strategies are also better than “one-size-fits-all” land use regulation. It is notable that the most comprehensive US review (Jones and Kammenat the University of California, Berkeley) of GHG emissions at the local level (zip codes) found: “Generally … no evidence for net GHG benefits of population density in urban cores or suburbs when considering effects on entire metropolitan areas.” They suggest “an entirely new approach of highly tailored community strategies.”
Wendell Cox is principal of Demographia, an international public policy and demographics firm. He is co-author of the “Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey” and author of “Demographia World Urban Areas” and “War on the Dream: How Anti-Sprawl Policy Threatens the Quality of Life.” He was appointed to three terms on the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission, where he served with the leading city and county leadership as the only non-elected member. He was appointed to the Amtrak Reform Council to fill the unexpired term of Governor Christine Todd Whitman and has served as a visiting professor at the Conservatoire National des Arts et Metiers, a national university in Paris.
Photo: Minneapolis-St. Paul, by author

Randal O’Toole’s Light Rail Presentation in Austin

September 24th, 2014

COST Commentary: Randal O’Toole recently visited Austin to provide education briefings regarding rail transit in general and specifically about Austin’s proposed light rail, The City’s Proposition 1 on the November election ballot near the end of the ballot. His briefing can be found on his blog AntiPlanner. His briefing is filled with facts which support the view that this is absolutely the wrong solution for Austin’s congestion problems and will actually increase congestion while imposing a huge tax and cost increase on 99.7% of the citizens who will never use this rail.

Below is a brief sketch of Randal O’Toole.

Randal O’Toole is a Senior Fellow with the CATO Institute and is one of the nation’s foremost rail transit experts. He has recently written two papers addressing light rail transit in general and specifically Austin’s proposed light rail. The first, short paper is an op-ed published in the Austin-American Statesman on June 2, 2014. The second is a longer critique of Project Connect’s Austin rail plan. These articles can be found at:

Austin/Project Connect’s Proposed Light (Urban) Rail is Very Misguided

Although often criticized as “anti-rail,” Mr. O’Toole is a “life-long lover” of trains, having taken his first train trips as a toddler. Since the formation of Amtrak in the early , he has traveled more than 200,000 miles on U.S. and Canadian trains as well as trains in Europe, Australia, and Asia.

Mr. O’Toole helped restore to operation the nation’s second-most powerful steam locomotive, the Spokane, Portland & Seattle 700. He also maintains a large web site called “Streamliner Memories” which details the history of passenger trains in America.

O’Toole states: “While I think riding in a dome car is the most elegant form of intercity travel, I don’t believe other people should have to subsidize my hobby.”

He is also an active cyclist who has never commuted to work by automobile. Recently, Randal did a cycling tour of the southern island of New Zealand.

If So Many People Support Mass Transit, Why Do So Few Ride?

September 24th, 2014

COST Commentary: The article immediately below describes a long term dichotomy regarding public transit: The vast majority of U.S. citizens have historically supported public transit, even as a declining percentage of citizens use it. My prediction regarding this gap is below.

It is clear that citizens throughout the nation have made reasoned mobility decisions which best support their desired quality of life. These decisions have resulted in the negative public transit trends discussed here and throughout this site.

The largest use of public transit is work commuting but public transit is less than 5% of the total, behind drive alone and carpooling. Excluding New York, work-at-home is also ahead of the use of public transit throughout the nation. About 65% of the nation’s work commuting is in six pre-automobile cities: New York, Boston, Philadelphia, Washington DC, Chicago and San Francisco. About 96% of U.S heavy rail transit is in these cities. The rest of the nation’s transit ridership is very small as it is spread over many cities throughout the nation.

Total U.S. transit ridership has been stagnant and small for more than 50 years while many billions of tax dollars have subsidized the expansion of transit. Therefore, the percentage of citizens choosing transit has significantly declined. Work commuting has declined from just over 12% to less than 5% since 1960 when this data was first reported in the U.S. census. Meanwhile, the cost of public transit has risen faster than inflation, creating an increasing burden on all taxpayers.

Austin is no exception. Its public transit work commuting 2.3%, declining for many years, and is 5th behind drive alone, car pool, work-at-home and all other (includes bike & walk). Austin does have two major negative distinctions: Its average bus ridership is 10 people, well below other similar cities and its fare recovery of less than 10% is one of the lowest in the nation for a major city. Austin’s total transit ridership has also been stagnant and small for the past 15 years. It is actually lower last year than 15 years ago and Cap Metro projects further declines this year and next year. Austin’s substantial investment in transit, its commuter rail and a 56% increase in population have made no difference in this negative ridership trend.

My prediction: The decreasing use of transit and the increasing costs are resulting in a beginning of closing the gap between transit riders and transit supporters. Transit supporters and riders will recognize the value of cost-effective transit solutions and will cease to support the runaway costs of ineffective transit, which can only serve to reduce the entire community’s quality-of-life. We need to start this in a very big way in Austin as “brakes” are applied to the proposed light rail in Austin’s Proposition 1, near the end of November’s ballot. This will began to close the “gap” and serve the greater-good of the community.

The second article below from a year 2000 issue of ‘the Onion,’ has the famous title:

“98 Percent Of U.S. Commuters Favor Public Transportation For Others”

The article contains several comments and quotes from people about the future growth of transit and its role in mobility. For those not familiar with ‘the Onion,’ it is a clever news satire organization. This parody contains similar comments to those we still hear today regarding the merits of transit, especially train transit; in spite of the overwhelming and growing experience that transit is a small and declining portion of mobility and an increasing portion of taxes. Much as the Onion article satire suggests ways to increase transit use, 14 years ago, the article below makes a shallow attempt at suggesting the possible enhanced future roll of transit. Not likely; the current declining trend has existed for a long time and swiftly moving new technology can produce a paradigm shift in transit and mobility which will further antiquate 150 year old train technology.

The reckless pursuit of ineffective transit, which is the highest cost transit mode, is resulting in a growing economic burden on taxpayers who must subsidize it, and, to decreasing and higher cost transit service for those who need it. This is a losing combination for the community. We need cost-effective transit which will serve the most people needing it, from the most trip origins to the most destinations. Inflexible, extremely high cost rail transit such as the proposed $1.4 billion, 9.5 mile light rail will only degrade mobility and the overall community.

If So Many People Support Mass Transit, Why Do So Few Ride?
Closing the support-usage gap will be key to a strong public transportation future.

By ERIC JAFFE in CITYLAB, September 22, 2014.

Every transit advocate knows this timeless Onion headline: “98 Percent Of U.S. Commuters Favor Public Transportation For Others.” But the underlying truth that makes this line so funny also makes it a little concerning: enthusiasm for public transportation far, far outweighs the actual use of it. Last week, for instance, the American Public Transportation Association reported that 74 percent of people support more mass transit spending. But only 5 percent of commuters travel by mass transit. This support, in other words, is largely for others.

What’s more striking about the support-usage gap is that it doesn’t just exist on paper. In addition to saying they support transit funding, Americans back up that support with their own pocketbooks. Time and again at the polls, people are willing to raise local taxes to maintain or expand the transit service that so few of them actually use. According to the Center for Transportation Excellence, there were 62 transportation measures on ballots across the country in 2012—many with a considerable transit component—and nearly 80 percent of them succeeded.

Nor do these investments necessarily pay off in greater transit usage over time. Recently, transit scholars Michael Manville and Benjamin Cummins analyzed 21 local transportation funding ballots from 2001 to 2003, and found that, on average, these tax increases were approved by 63 percent of the vote. Yet a decade later, the share of commuters who drove alone in these places had fallen just 2 points, from 87 to 85 percent, while the share of transit commuters had stayed the same, at 5 percent. At best, the behavioral shifts were modest; at worst, they didn’t exist.

People believe transit has collective benefits that don’t require their personal usage.

One of the clearest examples of the disparity comes from Los Angeles County. In 1980, about 7.5 percent of commuters used transit. That year, voters approved a permanent half-cent sales tax increase to pay for transportation initiatives, including lots of transit upgrades, but by 1990, the share of transit commuters had declined to 6.5 percent. That year, voters again approved a half-cent increase by a two-to-one margin, with nearly all the money going to transit. But the transit commute share was still at 7 percent come 2008, when yet another transportation ballot, Measure R, was passed by two-thirds of the vote.

So why do so many people support transit—not just with their voices but their wallets—when they have no intention of using it? The conclusion reached by Manville and Cummins largely echoes that of the Onion: people believe transit has collective benefits that don’t require their personal usage. Maybe voters think transit will reduce traffic congestion, or improve the environment, or help low-income residents, or translate into economic development. So long as someone else uses transit right now, everyone else will win in the end.

This outcome may seem obvious, but the data behind it are truly staggering. Take a look at one analysis Manville and Cummins perform on a transportation survey conducted by the National Resources Defense Council in 2012. They found no statistical connection between respondents who supported transit funding and those who wanted to drive less, or even those willing to use transit if it were more convenient. But respondents who believed “the community would benefit” had a700 percent increase in odds of being a pro-transit voter. The researchers write in the journal Transportation:

Put simply, Americans are more likely to see transit as a way to solve social problems than as a way to get around.

This doesn’t have to be a bad thing, so long as people indefinitely keep paying for transit they don’t use. Perhaps that’s even a sign of societal maturity. But problems will arise if voters stop agreeing to devote their taxes to transit, because the broader benefits they’ve hoped for fail to materialize. Of course, the reason these benefits don’t emerge is that the very people supporting transit aren’t riding it: traffic congestion isn’t going to get any better, after all, if every driver waits for someone else to shift to the subway or the bus.

There’s an even worse outcome already happening in some places: the wrong types of transit riders get subsidized with public money. Since transit ballots must often appeal to wealthier suburban communities to gain enough support to pass, much of the subsequent funding goes toward the commuter rail serving these areas. That leaves city bus riders who need good service most with a smaller slice of the pie. Transport scholars Brian Taylor and Eric Morris recently reported that rail riders get 31 percent more public funding than bus riders, on the whole.

Total inflation-adjusted transit subsidy per unlinked trip by mode: 1995 to 2009. (Taylor & Morris,Transportation, 2014)

Where all these trends converge is the realization that truly supporting transit requires more than just voting to support transit. To make a real dent in mobility trends, cities will need to make driving more expensive at the same time that they make transit more appealing. “So long as many transit supporters prefer to drive, new transit spending may neither increase transit ridership nor reduce driving,” write Manville and Cummins. “Taxing driving, in contrast, could accomplish both.” But it doesn’t take the wisdom of the Onion to know that’s an idea far less than 98 percent of commuters will support.

Report: 98 Percent Of U.S. Commuters Favor Public Transportation For Others

the Onion, Nov 29, 2000

WASHINGTON, DC–A study released Monday by the American Public Transportation Association reveals that 98 percent of Americans support the use of mass transit by others.

Traffic moves slowly near Seatte, WA, where a majority of drivers say they support other people using mass transit.

“With traffic congestion, pollution, and oil shortages all getting worse, now is the time to shift to affordable, efficient public transportation,” APTA director Howard Collier said. “Fortunately, as this report shows, Americans have finally recognized the need for everyone else to do exactly that.”

Of the study’s 5,200 participants, 44 percent cited faster commutes as the primary reason to expand public transportation, followed closely by shorter lines at the gas station. Environmental and energy concerns ranked a distant third and fourth, respectively.

Anaheim, CA, resident Lance Holland, who drives 80 miles a day to his job in downtown Los Angeles, was among the proponents of public transit.

“Expanding mass transit isn’t just a good idea, it’s a necessity,” Holland said. “My drive to work is unbelievable. I spend more than two hours stuck in 12 lanes of traffic. It’s about time somebody did something to get some of these other cars off the road.”

Public support for mass transit will naturally lead to its expansion and improvement, Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority officials said.

“With everyone behind it, we’ll be able to expand bus routes, create park-and-ride programs, and build entire new Metrolink commuter-rail lines,” LACMTA president Howard Sager said. “It’s almost a shame I don’t know anyone who will be using these new services.”

Sager said he expects wide-scale expansion of safe, efficient, and economical mass-transit systems to reduce traffic congestion in all major metropolitan areas in the coming decades.

Morning rush hour on one of Los Angeles’ economical, environmentally friendly buses.

“Improving public transportation will do a great deal of good, creating jobs, revitalizing downtown areas, and reducing pollution,” Sager said. “It also means a lot to me personally, as it should cut 20 to 25 minutes off my morning drive.”

The APTA study also noted that of the 98 percent of Americans who drive to work, 94 percent are the sole occupant of their automobile.

“When public transportation is not practical, commuters should at least be carpooling,” Collier said. “Most people, unlike me, probably work near someone they know and don’t need to be driving alone.”
Collier said he hopes the study serves as a wake-up call to Americans. In conjunction with its release, the APTA is kicking off a campaign to promote mass transit with the slogan, “Take The Bus… I’ll Be Glad You Did.”

The campaign is intended to de-emphasize the inconvenience and social stigma associated with using public transportation, focusing instead on the positives. Among these positives: the health benefits of getting fresh air while waiting at the bus stop, the chance to meet interesting people from a diverse array of low-paying service-sector jobs, and the opportunity to learn new languages by reading subway ads written in Spanish.

“People need to realize that public transportation isn’t just for some poor sucker to take to work,” Collier said. “He should also be taking it to the shopping mall, the supermarket, and the laundromat.”

©2007 Coalition On Sustainable Transportation