|
Wendall Cox, writing for NewGeography.com, can see the future of urban development, and he doesn't like it. In an article called, "Enough 'Cowboy' Greenhouse Gas Reduction Policies", Mr. Cox rails against the efforts that some states are making toward addressing our land-use patterns. In particular, Mr. Cox takes aim at California's SB 375, which has the aim of creating communities that offer their residents a choice in transportation modes, thereby reducing the state's dependence on automobile travel and oil, and the emission of greenhouse gases.
Mr. Cox basically takes offense at the state's efforts to create higher-density, mixed-use, walkable, and transit-accessible communities. He states:
Higher densities are likely to worsen the quality of life in California, while doing little, if anything to reduce GHG emissions.
This is based on two assumptions: 1) that higher density equals more traffic congestion and 2) that higher density equals higher housing prices.
More in the extended entry.
|
Mr. Cox makes his first assumption by observing the automobile traffic in California. His thinking goes like this: Los Angeles is very dense. Los Angeles has terrible traffic. Therefore, density leads to traffic.
Mr. Cox uses the often quoted but ultimately misleading "fact" that "the Los Angeles urban area is 30 percent more dense than the New York urban area." If you use the standard way of calculating population density, then Los Angeles turns out to be more dense than New York. But you and I, and I suspect Mr. Cox, all know that this isn't true in reality. Using standard density is about as useful as totaling the number of Big Macs sold last year, dividing the number by the U.S. population, and assuming that I actually ate that many Big Macs. (For a more useful look at population density, read this post).
But back to the assumption that density leads to traffic congestion. This assumption holds true only if individuals are forced to drive for every single trip that they make, as most people must do in Los Angeles. Here's the truth: automobile use, in any metropolitan area larger than 500,000 people or so, leads to traffic congestion. The key is to create communities that are dense enough so that enough housing is easily accessible to rapid transit. Then people can leave their cars behind. If there is a market or other amenities near the transit station, all the better, since that person won't need to drive to the store later.
Mr. Cox also contends that if given choices, people will not give up their driving habits. However, the success of new transit lines in Phoenix, Charlotte, Salt Lake City, Denver, and Dallas shows that people will do just that. Additionally, New York City has shown that a city can experience growth in population and employment and still keep traffic levels constant. That is, only if alternatives are readily available.
Mr. Cox's second assumption, that higher density leads to higher housing prices, is also unfounded.
Finally, California's prescriptive land use regulations have destroyed housing affordability. By the early 1990s, land use regulation had driven prices up well beyond national levels relative to incomes, according to Dartmouth's William Fischell. Over the next decade the rationing effect of California's excessive land use restrictions tripled house prices relative to incomes, setting up the mortgage meltdown and all that has followed in its wake.
California's land use restrictions had the effect of being anti-growth, not pro-density. Higher density tends to increase the number of overall units available for consumption. The law of supply and demand tells us that this could only have a downward pressure on housing prices. Its true that higher density increases the cost of construction, but that is the cost of housing per square foot, not necessarily per bedroom. In addition, if we do not increase density, then we will need to continue our outward march of development. By moving outward, we are not necessarily reducing a family's cost of living. In fact, if a family was to "drive until they qualify," meaning they move further out from the central city in search of lower home prices, they will have much higher transportation costs than if they had settled in a more central location. It was found that when housing and transportation costs are taken together, a family living in a far-flung suburb will often have higher costs than a family that is closer to the central city.
Mr. Cox believes that a better way is to hope for better fuel efficiency in our automobiles and that more people will begin to work from home. A better answer, though, may be for more people to work closer to home. |
STATE BLOGS
