Roger published a post regarding oil addiction addressed to One Southern Indiana President Michael Dalby. I made a comment about something Dalby once said to me, and, rather than address the concerns raised by the original post – namely, how advocating an increase in regional oil dependency equates to leadership – someone using the handle “Michael” challenged me with the following:
Jeff, how is it that you and only you can possibly be right? As I look back at years of public hearings and input on this project, I see an open process that through negotiation and compromise has brought us to where we are today…two bridges and the re-work of Spaghetti Junction. Tyler Allen ran his campaign as a referendum on the ORBP and got less than 8,000 votes (while the three candidates that openly support the project garnered over 80% of the Democratic vote). I believe the majority of citizens in this region want a comprehensive and safe transportation solution for the next 50-100 years. That’s what we are working toward.
I’ll take the first part first with the rest to follow:
Jeff, how is it that you and only you can possibly be right?
Unlike Michael does here, I’ve never made the claim that it is I alone who is singularly correct in assessing regional transportation plans. My point has always been the exact opposite: a large and growing body of evidence from around the country frames the Ohio River Bridges Project as anathema to regional economic progress and sustainability.
What follows is an extremely brief examination of a small amount of that evidence, the tip of a proverbial ‘berg based on a short short this morning. It took longer to format it for Blogger than to gather it. Readers will notice that many of the references made here are from several years ago, further making the point that they do not constitute radical new ideas but rather information commonly available for quite some time.
Earlier this decade, the City of Louisville hired the Brookings Institution, a nonprofit public policy organization based in Washington, DC, whose mission “is to conduct high-quality, independent research and, based on that research, to provide innovative, practical recommendations that advance three broad goals: Strengthen American democracy; foster the economic and social welfare, security and opportunity of all Americans and secure a more open, safe, prosperous and cooperative international system.”
The Brookings Institution was charged with making recommendations to move the Louisville metropolitan area, including Southern Indiana, forward as Louisville and Jefferson County, KY, governments were about to merge. It’s report, BEYOND MERGER: A Competitive Vision for the Regional City of Louisville, found the region to be facing two major challenges: “a workforce that is limited in size and skills that will hamper the city’s ability to mature its low-wage, service economy to a higher-wage one” and “the region is growing in a decentralized and divided way that will ultimately harm the area’s quality of life and hinder low-income households’ access to opportunities.”
The transportation section of the report presents several findings:
1. While other transit options have gone largely ignored, we have been aggressively building roads at a rate far greater than peer cities.
2.Due to that construction, the number of miles driven in urbanized Louisville have grown much faster than the population.
3. That increase in Vehicle Miles Traveled has led to increased congestion.
4. While those new roadways have been aggressively pursued, existing ones have not been properly maintained.
4. They did mention one positive: TARC ridership had increased.
Excerpts from the heading “What This Means”:
The region’s aggressive road-building strategy may not necessarily improve mobility. Granted, the Louisville transportation system remains less snarled than troubled systems in cities such as Atlanta. But rising congestion and increasingVMT combined with deteriorating road conditions are clearly making it harder for Louisvillians to get around. Meanwhile, transit remains a limited option for most residents thanks to the region’s intense focus on freeways and arterials. Taken together, these trends pose a serious threat to the region’s quality of life.
Current transportation patterns could also exacerbate growth and environmental imbalances across the region. Aggressive road building—coupled with proposed large-scale transportation corridor projects—can redistribute business and residential development. Recent evidence suggests that new highways and interchanges become conduits for decentralization. In this fashion, proposed transportation improvements in eastern Jefferson County could weaken older sections of the new Regional City, further isolating the western corridor.14 Pollution tied in part to motor vehicle exhaust emissions, at the same time, continues to complicate economic development planning. From 1998 to 2000, the counties with the worst ozone air pollution in the states of Indiana and Kentucky were both in the Louisville metropolitan area. Clark County, Indiana and Oldham County, Kentucky each offer the most unhealthy air in their respective states. Oldham recently replaced Jefferson County as the worst in Kentucky.15 And these ratings have impacts beyond their undesirable health effects, including the possible loss of federal transportation funds.16 TARC, the regional public transit system, is actively responding to these negative trends with reduced fares, and plans to add electric buses and light rail to its fleet.
Current trends could also undermine the region’s leadership in the distribution and logistics industry. Louisville’s competitive advantage in freight handling depends on the uninhibited movement of goods through and between the region’s major air and rail hubs, its port, and its interstate highway net- work. However, the efficiency of all of these facilities would be compromised by the traffic delays, deteriorating roads, and decentralized development that could result from an ill-considered road-building program. That suggests the need for the Regional City to weigh carefully the full impact of all proposed transportation improvements so as to protect and grow its critical logistics and distribution sector.
Likewise, the Harvard Graduate School of Design produced a supplementary report, “Metro Louisville Moving Forward”, (sorry, no link yet) that specifically “questioned the priority of allocating $1.9 billion for highway improvements [the Kentucky and Indiana bridges project] while leaving the funding of a light-rail system to be addressed at a future time.” It’s hard to imagine that they would think, now that bridges project cost estimates have skyrocketed, that it would suddenly be a better idea.
Writing for the Infrastructurist, Yonah Freemark, a Gordon Grand Fellow from Yale University, named the Ohio River Bridges Project the #1 most ridiculous new road being built in America.
Hank Dittmar’s 2002 testimony to the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affiars’ Subcommittee on Housing and Transportation also provides clues to the depth of information available that reaffirms the Bridges Project in it’s current form as counterproductive. Mr. Dittmar is a member of the board of directors of the Surface Transportation Policy Project. His inclusion isn’t remarkable because of that affiliation but because of the sources upon which he’s able to draw to make his case.
Some excerpts:
Transit ridership has increased each of the last four years, revealing a growing interest in transit in a range of city types and locales. A preponderance of this ridership growth is in New York City, as a preponderance of transit use is centered in New York. However, many other cities and urban areas around the country are experiencing increased ridership. In fact, the greatest percentage increase in the first four quarters of 2001 occurred in communities with 50,000-99,999 in population, where bus ridership grew 10.25% over 2000 – which also was a banner year for transit. And what is happening in big cities like New York (2.9%), Washington (5.85%), and Los Angeles (15.8%) cannot explain an 11.7% increase in Albuquerque, 6.7% in Providence, 7.7 % in Denver, 5% in Boise City, or 15.67% in Oklahoma City.
——
A recent survey by Jones Lang LaSalle in its Property Futures publication found that 77 percent of New Economy companies rated access to mass transit as an extremely important factor in selecting corporate locations. According to the 2001 survey of 350 New Economy companies: “Employers concerned with staff retention regard the public transportation issue as critical. Young and cyber-savvy staff increasingly reject the traditional commuter lifestyle . . .Urban locations, though not always CBDs, will continue to be desirable. This is reinforced by the importance of public transportation to companies and workers.” An example in Atlanta was the decision by BellSouth to relocate its entire Atlanta metropolitan workforce – some 20,000 workers – into three locations within walking distance of Metro stations.
Moreover, overwhelmingly, replacement jobs continue to be located in established urban areas near transit. While some researchers have made much hay arguing that most “new jobs” are located in exurban locations, the fact remains that most job openings are for replacement jobs. As Qing Shen of the University of Maryland demonstrated in a recent study of the Boston metropolitan area, “pre-existing employment is still highly concentrated in the central city.” (Qing Shen, Winter 2001)
—–
By the late 1990s, real estate analysts began to see accessible urban locations in a new light as well. The 2001 issue of Price Waterhouse Coopers’ Emerging Trends in Real Estate continued to advise investors to seek out opportunities in what they dub 24-hour cities, with mixed-use development and mass transit access. According to the report, which is compiled from dozens of interviews with real estate investors and professionals:
“Major 24-hour metro markets maintain their pre-eminence while some suburban areas struggle with sprawl and congestion issues. ‘Subcities’—our new term for suburban locations that are urbanizing and taking on 24-hour market characteristics—show particular promise for investors.” (Price Waterhouse Cooper and Lendlease, Emerging Trends in Real Estate 2001,) Recent brownfields legislation should improve the interest in existing urbanized locations even more.
Increasingly, real estate investors are looking for value in established communities. Price Waterhouse Coopers’ Emerging Trends report for 2002 – prepared post 9/11 – warns investors away from apartments, retail, and auto dependent suburban locations, while advising investors to buy and hold in 24 cities.
Interviewees have come to realize that properties in better planned, growth-constrained markets hold value in down markets and appreciate more in upcycles. Areas with sensible zoning (integrating commercial, retail and residential), parks and street grids with sidewalks will age better than places connected to disconnected cul-de-sac subdivisions and shopping strips, navigable only by car. Booming populations and wide-open spaces in the Sunbelt’s expanding suburban agglomerations can provide developers and investors with short-term opportunities to cash in on growth waves – but the returns, on average have not been competitive . . . Markets served with mass-transportation alternatives and attractive close-in neighborhoods should be positioned to sustain better long term prospects as people strive top make their lives more convenient. (Jones Lang LaSalle, 2001)
—–
The consumption of transportation has a major impact on household budgets for all Americans. The American Automobile Association estimates the annual cost of owning and operating an automobile at $7,363 in 1999. About 75% of that cost is fixed costs such as car payments and insurance, and this means that there is little financial incentive for drivers to drive less once they made the investment in a car. Nationally, transportation expenditures account for 17.5% of the average household’s budget, according to an analysis of Bureau of Labor Statistics data by the Surface Transportation Policy Project and the Center for Neighborhood Technology (STPP & CNT, Driven to Spend, 2000). The proportion of household expenditures that is devoted to transportation has grown as our use of the automobile has grown, from under 1 dollar out of 10 in 1935 to 1 dollar out of seven in 1960, to almost 1 dollar out of five from 1972 through today.
The transportation burden borne by American households falls most heavily upon the poor and lower middle class, as the less a family makes, the more of its budget goes to transportation. The poorest quintile of American households spend 36 percent of their budgets on transportation, while the richest fifth spend only 14 percent. This means that the poorer a family is, the less money it has available for other expenses such as housing, medical care or savings. In fact, transportation takes up the second largest percentage of the household budget, ahead of food, education, medical care and clothing, only behind expenses for housing.
—–
The growing proportion of consumer expenditures that is devoted to transportation inhibits families from devoting their income to saving or investing, and indeed may be part of the reason why so many families have to send two people to work. For the fact is that spending on transportation by poor families, unlike spending on home ownership or investing in education, has a very poor return on investment because autos, unlike houses, are depreciating assets. Ten thousand dollars invested in a car declines to a value of about four thousand dollars in ten years time, while investment in home ownership builds equity and often appreciates. Similarly, investment in college education for one’s children increases their earning power over their lifetime. The fact that the poorest families must spend over a third of their income on transportation means that they are least able to invest in activities that offer them the opportunity to build wealth. It is indeed ironic that many progressive social scientists believe that the best way to help former welfare recipients secure jobs is to give them automobile purchase assistance, thereby trapping them into the poverty cycle even more profoundly, as the poor typically end up with less reliable cars which are more expensive to operate and maintain.
Some lending institutions are also changing loan criteria to reflect the hundreds of dollars in savings per month that can be experienced in denser, transit rich neighborhoods. The Location Efficient Mortgage (SM) a product of Fannie Mae and a consortium of groups called the Institute of Location Efficiency, allows prospective homebuyers in denser transit-rich neighborhoods to use their transportation savings to help them afford a home in these neighborhoods. The program, which has been introduced in Chicago and Seattle and San Francisco, is under study in Atlanta, Portland and Philadelphia, and Fannie Mae has announced plans to introduce a less comprehensive product with smaller savings in Minneapolis-St. Paul and Baltimore. In essence, financial institutions are now sending a message – if you save money by driving less, we’ll take that into account and offer you more funds to purchase a home. This kind of market adjustment is a positive response to the economic benefits of transit investment upon households.
—–
As indicated earlier, real estate investors are recognizing that development near transit has locational advantages, and a new style of development is emerging in response to this fact. Transit oriented development is the new term used to characterize mixed use, walkable development located within one-half mile of a transit stop, and evidence indicates that as new transit systems – whether light or commuter rail or rapid bus – are introduced, development follows. A recent study by the University of North Texas found that the new DART system in the Dallas region has already generated over $800 million in development, and that the full system is projected to generate $3.7 billion in economic activity upon build out. (University of North Texas, 2000). Typical of these projects is Mockingbird Station, which features a multi-screen cinema, upscale retail, office space and 211 loft apartments within walking distance of the light rail stop. The project was built without public subsidy.
The potential for transit oriented development to build economic value and staying power in a region is evidenced in the National Capital region by both Montgomery County, Maryland and Arlington County, Virginia. My organization is completing a case study of Arlington County, which has pursued a policy of concentrating its development activity along the Rosslyn-Ballston Corridor since the construction of the Washington Metro. Our forthcoming study found that development along transit allowed the County to capture over 13 million square feet of office space and 2 million square feet of retail since 1980. The corridor has increased in population from 19,838 in 1980 to 34,485 in 2000, reversing a steep population decline in the Seventies. Land value within the corridor near the four stations increased by 81 percent from 1992-20002, an average annual increase of 6.1 percent, generating over $109 million in property taxes in 2002 alone. The corridor generates approximately 33% of the County’s real estate tax on 7.7% of the County’s land. According to the study, “Even with the economic downturn and the residual affects of the 9/11 incident (which affected Arlington directly through the bombing of the Pentagon and the subsequent shut down of National Airport and several major arterials), February 2002 vacancy rates were at 10%. This is half of the vacancy rate of suburban office concentrations in outlying Virginia such as Tyson’s Corner and Reston. Office rents in the Rosslyn-Ballston Corridor also command a rent premium over other office locations in the Northern Virginia marketplace.” (TransManagement, Inc. for Great American Station Foundation, forthcoming)
The National Association of Realtors and Transportation for America commissioned a survey in 2009.
A results summary:
To accommodate future U.S. population growth, which is expected to increase by 100 million by 2050, Americans favor improving intercity rail and transit, walking and biking over building new highways. When asked what the federal government’s top priority should be for 2009 transportation funding, half of all respondents recommended maintaining and repairing roads and bridges, while nearly one third said “expanding and improving bus, rail, and other public transportation.” Only 16 percent said “expanding and improving roads, highways, freeways and bridges.”
When asked about approaches to addressing traffic, 47 percent preferred improving public transportation, 25 percent chose building communities that encourage people not to drive, and 20 percent preferred building new roads. Fifty-six percent of those surveyed believe the federal government is not devoting enough attention to trains and light rail systems, and three out of four favor improving intercity rail and transit.
Those results have been echoed locally as well:
In order to update its long range plan recently, TARC utilized community outreach to help determine direction.
Results Summary:
• Community outreach conducted as part of the report mirrored prior studies: Louisville residents desire convenient, fast, frequent and affordable transit. Community leaders and residents highly value existing bus service, would like to improve services for seniors and ranked a light rail system and intercity passenger rail as the top improvements that they would use.
• A look at TARC’s short-term and long-term financial outlook illustrates that TARC must have new or greatly expanded funding sources in order to develop advanced transit modes such as Light Rail or commuter rail or even to significantly expand existing bus service.
• New avenues for expansion of transit services may come from changing federal transportation policies and funding, prompted by the current economic crisis and the recent spike in gas prices. (The report was completed in advance of recent discussion regarding economic stimulus funding for transit.)
Though admittedly unscientific, Business First conducted its own Business Pulse Survey poll to gauge what its readers were thinking about 8664, asking, “What do you think of Louisville Metro Council’s decision to examine the 8664 proposal?” 55% of respondents answered “It’s worth examining the merits of the proposal.”
Respected urban development consultant Aaron Renn (a Southern Indiana native), has also chimed in against the Bridges and for 8664.
Here’s a recent video featuring several, local well-known thinkers, developers, philanthropists, and representatives expressing disdain for the Bridges project and support for 8664.
So, it’s hardly me and only me and I’ll remind again that this only a tiny fraction of readily available information pertaining to urban transportation planning and impacts in general and Louisville or Louisville-like situations more specifically. If Michael would care to begin his refutations here, I’ll follow up with more information regarding his other claims later.
