Sunday, May 15, 2005
Roger Rabbit Unframed
The University of California Institute of Transportation Studies publishes yet another refutation of the myth that General Motors destroyed American streetcar systems in order to force people to drive. It is amazing this myth has lived on for so long, so one more refutation is a good thing.
This one comes from transportation researcher Lyn Long at UC Irvine and she makes a couple of new points. First, she notes that many streetcar lines were originally built by real estate developers to entice people to move to the suburbs. The cost of the streetcar line was not covered by fares but by home sales, so it was not likely that fares would be able to cover the cost of rebuilding the lines a few decades later. More important, by the time the lines needed to be rebuilt, most of the people in the suburbs had acquired automobiles and so they weren't riding the streetcars anyway.
Long also debunks "transit nostalgia," the idea that we once enjoyed a golden age of transit that we let slip through our fingers by buying automobiles. In reality, she says, streetcar companies "were reviled as monopolistic and greedy operators whose trolleys were filthy and so slow that sometimes it was faster to walk."
In the end, Long believes the car is here to stay, and warns that few proposed rail projects in California are likely to succeed. Rail-transit advocates are "fighting a mode that has beat out all other technologies," Long concludes. "We'll never be a transit-dependent society."
This one comes from transportation researcher Lyn Long at UC Irvine and she makes a couple of new points. First, she notes that many streetcar lines were originally built by real estate developers to entice people to move to the suburbs. The cost of the streetcar line was not covered by fares but by home sales, so it was not likely that fares would be able to cover the cost of rebuilding the lines a few decades later. More important, by the time the lines needed to be rebuilt, most of the people in the suburbs had acquired automobiles and so they weren't riding the streetcars anyway.
Long also debunks "transit nostalgia," the idea that we once enjoyed a golden age of transit that we let slip through our fingers by buying automobiles. In reality, she says, streetcar companies "were reviled as monopolistic and greedy operators whose trolleys were filthy and so slow that sometimes it was faster to walk."
In the end, Long believes the car is here to stay, and warns that few proposed rail projects in California are likely to succeed. Rail-transit advocates are "fighting a mode that has beat out all other technologies," Long concludes. "We'll never be a transit-dependent society."
Las Vegas housing prices rise
For two decades, Las Vegas has been the nation's fastest-growing metropolitan area, yet its housing has remained very affordable -- until about two years ago. Then housing prices began to rapidly rise, increasing by 50 percent in just over two years. As this story reports, prices continue upward.
Realtors are so naive. "What's driving appreciation is the growth of the city," says the past president of the Greater Las Vegas Association of Realtors and owner of a major local realtor. If that is true, then why weren't prices growing before 2001? (In fact, they were growing, but no faster than local incomes, whereas now they are growing much faster than incomes.)
The real problem is that Las Vegas has run out of land. More than 90 percent of the land in Nevada is federally owned. In the past, the Bureau of Land Management has made regular sales of land to developers to allow them to keep up with the demand for housing. But land sales have slowed thanks to environmental objections. The price rise has seen more speculative buying. Any increase in land sales could burst the bubble of this speculation, leading prices to fall again.
The hook for this story is the release of the National Association of Realtor's first-quarter 2005 home price data, which shows how prices have appreciated in the past year. The spreadsheet also shows prices back to 2002, indicating that Las Vegas prices grew from less than $160,000 in 2002 to more than $290,000 in 2005. These numbers represent the median price of homes sold so may not be strictly comparable if, for example, homes in one metropolitan area are larger than in another.
Realtors are so naive. "What's driving appreciation is the growth of the city," says the past president of the Greater Las Vegas Association of Realtors and owner of a major local realtor. If that is true, then why weren't prices growing before 2001? (In fact, they were growing, but no faster than local incomes, whereas now they are growing much faster than incomes.)
The real problem is that Las Vegas has run out of land. More than 90 percent of the land in Nevada is federally owned. In the past, the Bureau of Land Management has made regular sales of land to developers to allow them to keep up with the demand for housing. But land sales have slowed thanks to environmental objections. The price rise has seen more speculative buying. Any increase in land sales could burst the bubble of this speculation, leading prices to fall again.
The hook for this story is the release of the National Association of Realtor's first-quarter 2005 home price data, which shows how prices have appreciated in the past year. The spreadsheet also shows prices back to 2002, indicating that Las Vegas prices grew from less than $160,000 in 2002 to more than $290,000 in 2005. These numbers represent the median price of homes sold so may not be strictly comparable if, for example, homes in one metropolitan area are larger than in another.
Wisconsin may repeal smart-growth law
A Wisconsin joint legislative committee has passed a bill repealing that state's smart-growth law. The law requires cities and counties to do smart-growth planning aimed at curbing urban sprawl. The governor favors the law and is likely to veto any repeal of it. But committee members argued that one-size-fits-all legislation has no place in a state where communities range from Rusk County (population 15,000 with virtually no growth) to Milwaukee County (population 950,000 with negative growth) to Dane county (population 440,000 with fairly rapid growth).
Smart-growth advocates responded predictably, accusing the committee of favoring dumb growth. Various pro-planning organizations have called upon the committee to reverse its decision. Still, the fact that a prominent committee has dared to say "the planning emperor has no clothes" is an important first step.
Smart-growth advocates responded predictably, accusing the committee of favoring dumb growth. Various pro-planning organizations have called upon the committee to reverse its decision. Still, the fact that a prominent committee has dared to say "the planning emperor has no clothes" is an important first step.
