Property, Prosperity & Poverty: Trends & Choices in Land Use Policy Presentation by Wendell Cox Wendell Cox Consultancy Institute of Economic Affairs London 20 November 2002 Internet: publicpurpose.com & demographia.com Email: policy@publicpurpose.com
Urban Sprawl & Smart Growth 2
Birthplace of Smart Growth: London Green Belt 3
Smart Growth Preference: Urban Densities, Not Suburban 4
Smart Growth Preference: Public Transport, Not Motorways 5
Paris: Place de Republic 6
Nirvana (Portland) 7
Ub Urban Sprawl: World s Oldest Land Use Trend
Int l Urban Area Density: 2000 United States Australia Canada Europe Asia 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 9
US & International Sprawl 1960-1990 0% -5% -10% -15% -20% -25% -30% US Canada Europe Asia Australia Change In Density -35% In 10
Amsterdam 1960-1990 1.75 1.50 Land Area 1.25 1.00 0.75 Population 0.50 19 60 19 90 11
Paris is Not Paris 12
Copenhagen Suburbs 13
Stockholm: Arlanda Corridor 14
America from Disney World 15
Portland is Not Portland 16
Hypersprawl: p London Green Belt 17
London Area Population from 1931 14,000,000 12,000,000 10,000,000 Counties Adjacent to Green Belt 8,000,000 6,000,000 4,000,000 Outer London 2,000,000 Inner London 0 19 31 19 51 19 61 19 71 19 81 19 91 20 01 18
Urban Sprawl: The Causes Sprawl is caused by affluence and population growth, and which of these, exactly, do we proposed to prohibit? Greg Easterbrook The New Republic 19
The False Farmland Crisis i
US Land Use: 1950-2000 100 Urban 80 Farmland 60 40 Other 20 0 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 21
Open Space Sprawl Since 1950 New Open Space Created 22
UK Urbanization: 1,000 Years After Hastings 89% Urban 11% Oh Other 23
Agriculture Subsidies Agriculture prices considered too low. Large subsidies to agriculture (EU & USA). If farmland or agriculture were threatened, prices would be excessively high 24
Smart Growth: Denying Housing Opportunity
Housing Affordability: Portland & US 75% 65% 55% US 45% 35% 25% Housing Opportunity Index 19 91 20 00 Portland 26
Housing Affordability: Portland & Phoenix Population Growth Housing Affordability 50% 40% Phoenix 75% 65% Phoenix 30% 55% 20% 45% 10% Portland 0% 19 90 20 00 35% 25% Portland 19 91 20 00 27
Home Ownership by Degree of Sprawl Least Less Middle More Most 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 28
African-American (Black) Home Ownership: Tufts Report 60% 50% 55% 40% 45% 30% 20% 10% 0% Less Sprawl More Sprawl 29
Impact Fees: California Multiple li l Units Average Maximum Detached Houses $0 $2 5, 00 0 $5 0, 00 0 $7 5, 00 030
Planning Raises Housing Prices Land rationing: less land development competition Less competition among builders because less land development competition Potential for political corruption Brownfield requirement Amenities in building codes Costs of planning gprocess 31
The Cost of Planning US house price differences due to land use planning (Harvard) UK house prices increased by town planning ( 40,000/new 000/ Essex house: Jules Lubbock) UK consumer prices reported higher due to town planning 32
The Limits of Public Transport
Public Transport Market Share Portland New York Toronto Nagoya Paris Tokyo 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 34
Transit Market Share Dropping 0% -10% -20% Tk Tokyo -19% Toronto -20% -30% -40% -50% New York -56% Paris -33% -60% 19 60 19 90 35 Note 20
US New Rail: Cost per New Rider 36
Public Transport: Auto-Competitive Service Principally to Downtown (CBD) Central Business Districts: 5-20% of Metropolitan Employment 37
Central London Employment: 1961-1991 1,600,000 1400000 1,400,000 1,200,000 1,000,000 80 0,000 60 0,000 40 0,000 20 0,000 0 1961 1991 38
Little Automobile Competitive Suburb bto Suburb bservice 39
Roadways
International Urban Traffic: Vehicle Hours/Square Mile US Europe Canada Australia Asia 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 41
US Traffic Volumes (VMT) by Density 25 0,000 20 0,000 15 0,000 10 0,000 50,00 0 0 < 250 250-999 4,000-9,999 1,000-3,999 10,000 & O ver 42
Air Pollution & Vehicle Speed 2,500% 2,000% NOx CO NMHC 1,500% 1,000% 500% 0% 2.5 5 10 19.6 35 55 65 MPH: Grams per Mile Compared to 55 MPH 43
Average Work Trip Travel Times: 60 London Area 50 1996: Minutes 40 30 20 10 0 Central Inner w/o Central Outer SE England 44
Portland: World Class Traffic 65,000 60,000 Portland 55,000 50,000 US 45,000 Vehicle Miles Per Square Mile 40,000 19 90 20 00 45
Portland Planning Projection: Nearly All New Travel is Autos 60 50 New roadway travel 1990-2040 40 New Public <Transport Travel 30 1990-2040 20 10 1990 Travel 0 1990 2040 Million passenger miles46
Democratisation of Prosperity: From American Dream to Universal Dream
Property Rights & Prosperity 48
Home Equity as a % of New Worth 70 % 60 % US Households 1998 50 % 40 % 30 % 20 % 10 % 0% All Less t han $20, 000 $20,000- $50,000 49
Income per Capita: 1999 United States United States: Hispanic United States: Black Sweden Swedish Research Institute of Trade UK 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 50
The Japanese Dream 51
Responding to a Phony Crisis No problem has been identified of sufficient magnitude to justify coercive smart growth strategies. Smart growth strategies tend to intensify the very problems they are purported to solve. 52
Lone Mountain Compact absent a material threat to other individuals or the community, people should be allowed to live and work where and how they like 53
Wendell Cox Consultancy publicpurpose.com demographia.com email: policy@publicpurpose.com 54