Urban Returns

Tipping points

Here are a couple of interesting pieces on  the "tipping point" theory of racial segregation.

Why do racially-segregated neighborhoods exist and persist?  The standard explanation  is that whites don't like to live near, say, African-Americans; when African-Americans start moving in, whites start moving out.  Real estate agents steer whites away from African-American neighborhoods and vice versa.  And let's not forget the legacy of de jure segregation, which herded African Americans into a few neighborhoods; residential patterns typically change slowly.  The standard explanation relies on more or less overt, conscious racism.

There's clearly some of that going on.  Most cities -- Austin included -- had either de facto or de jure rules that relegated African Americans to just a few, exclusively African-American neighborhoods.  Although I consider Austin as a fairly racially tolerant place today, it is still  strikingly segregated:

Legacy costs

Here's a thoughtful piece from Aaron Renn on an unintended consequence of the Clean Water Act.   EPA mandates are forcing Cleveland to spend $5  billion to overhaul its sewer system.   That's a lot of money for any city, but especially for a struggling rust-belt town.   Cleveland will be forced to raise water and sewer rates dramatically, and probably a bunch of other taxes, too.

Cleveland can't go anywhere, but its residents can.   (This is a city where the police and firefighters openly celebrated an Ohio Supreme Court ruling that allows them to move to the suburbs.)  Renn predicts -- accurately, I think -- that the higher taxes will speed up the depopulation of Cleveland as homeowners have one more reason to move to the suburbs.   In fact, the mandate will kick the city twice:   Cleveland must not only raise taxes, but it will lose money that it could have spent on other improvements that would have attracted suburbanites back to the city.

Cleveland needed to make dramatic improvements in water quality; after all, this is the city whose river famously caught fire in 1969 (which itself provided much of the momentum for the Clean Water Act).  But the Cuyahoga is now clean; residents fish from it, in fact.  Spending another $5 billion to get that last 10% improvement is a bad use of money when Cleveland has more pressing needs.  And it is counter-productive to drive residents to the suburbs to leave rotting infrastructure sitting unused in the central city.

Renn suggests that the federal government assume the cost of replacing ancient sewer systems.  That might be the only solution.  The federal government has no incentive to weigh costs and benefits accurately when it can simply issue a mandate.  And the moral hazard risk is smaller than one might think:  the city's main "crime" is being old enough to need a new sewer system.

Guarding against strategic behavior by a city is tricky anyway since, again, its residents can simply move when things get bad.  Rather than stick central cities with crippling legacy costs, it makes more sense for the federal government to issue reasonable regulations and pick up the tab for unforeseen costs.  

(Cross-posted at Austin Contrarian.  Comment there.)

Sorting

I've written recently about Glaeser and Resseger's research showing that workers in skilled cities tend to become more productive as their cities grow while workers in unskilled cities do not.   I've also written about Abel et al.'s paper showing that while workers in all cities tend to become more productive as their cities grow denser, workers in skilled cities are especially likely to benefit.  The latter  receive, on average, three times the productivity gains of workers in the least skilled cities.  Growth and densification are good if yours is a highly skilled city.  

But the Glaeser and Abel papers also raise another possibility:  perhaps skilled cities are better off keeping out the unskilled than growing without bound.   

This is arguably an implication of their work. (And one I don't like, by the way.)   Both Glaeser and Abel define highly skilled cities to be those with high percentages of college-educated workers.  The higher the ratio of B.A.s to high school grads, the more skilled the city under their definition -- and the more the workers benefit as the city grows.

One way to keep a high ratio of skilled to unskilled is to price out the unskilled.  The most effective way to price unskilled workers out of a city is to keep the cost of housing high.  And, indeed, the highly-skilled cities on the coasts are adept at (and notorious for) using rigid land-use regulations to inflate home prices.  (Or were until recently; more on that later.)   The incumbent homeowners in these cities of course benefit from a tight housing supply since it raises the value of their properties.  But perhaps their skilled workers benefit too.

I speculated about this  last October without the benefit of Glaeser ir Abel's research:

Perhaps the elites in the superstar cities sense it is better to surround themselves with a uniformly high-quality workforce.  They want to spend their time with other elites; letting in lots of less-skilled workers would introduce so much static, just as if Harvard were to throw open its doors to anyone with a half-decent high school transcript.  In other words, an influx of less-skilled workers might dilute the experience for the high-skilled.

I got my undergraduate degree from Ole Miss and my law degree from Yale.   I studied harder at Ole Miss, took harder classes and spent a lot more time with my professors.  I thought law school was mostly boring and had a suburban home and the premium cable channels by my third year.  But I probably got a better education at Yale than Ole Miss merely by hanging around a bunch of people who were smarter than me.  There were economists, physicians, mathematicians, political scientists, a Broadway actor, an Olympic miler  and, of course, a bunch of smart new college graduates  from all over the country (but mostly from the Ivy League, Standford and Berkeley.).  It was a small class of 175.  It was impossible not to keep up with new ideas or trends because someone you bumped into would know about them.  I wasn't paying a gazillion dollars for the law school classes, I was paying for the spillovers.  It was a fair price.

The housing markets in  LA, San Francisco and New York function as giant sorting machines.  By setting home prices so high, they weed out all but the most skilled -- except for the class of relatively unskilled who are supported by price controls or subsidies.  They're using the  Ivy League model.

So are they better off?  Yes, clearly, if they can shunt the less skilled elsewhere and  continue to grow and densify.  But it's hard to do both.  High prices, in fact, require that the housing supply be kept tight  in order for prices to stay high.  Otherwise, the new supply of housing would drop home prices and the riff-raff (from their perspective) would come flooding back in.  But perhaps merely increasing the density of skilled workers will yield the productivity gains yielded by  growth and densification.  Their motto could be, "We get smarter, not bigger."

I think this is probably wrong, though.  What matters is being close to other people with the same skill set; that's where the knowledge and productivity spills occur.  A software developer benefits from having a lot of other smart software developers around; a musician benefits from having a lot of other good musicians around.  Adding more software developers or musicians who aren't quite as skilled shouldn't dilute this benefit because we city-dwellers largely control whom we interact with.  Firms, in fact, segregate themselves by quality all the time.  Deepening the labor pool simply can't hurt.  I think cities like San Francisco and New York would be even more productive if they loosened their growth restrictions and allowed in more people.

And even if were true that the San Francisco model can achieve greater productivity without growth, there's always the risk that its  sorting machine might break. To wit, a housing market collapse.  Skilled workers cash out what they can and move elsewhere.  Lower home prices attract the less-skilled who had been priced out of the market.  A political and regulatory climate makes the city less hospitable entrepreneurs, who benefit from cheap space and light regulation.

It will be interesting to see what happens to productivity in these wealthy, slow-growth cities as the recession wears on.  My guess is that they will have to begin growing vigorously again if they want to recapture the productivity they had at the peak of the housing boom.

TTI hyperbole

There is no question that congestion is a serious problem in this country -- and a crippling problem in some cities.  Nor is there any question that congestion is much worse than it was ten years ago, even if high gas prices and the recession have caused it to level off in some places.

But the Texas Transportation Institute is guilty of a bit of hyperbole when it announces that "[t]he overall cost [of congestion](based on wasted fuel and lost productivity) reached $87.2 billion in 2007 – more than $750 for every U.S. traveler."

TTI uses free-flow traffic as its baseline for measuring congestion.  In particular, it defines "Delay per Peak Traveler" to be "[t]he extra time spent traveling at congested speeds rather than free-flow speeds divided by the number of persons making a trip during the peak period." (Summary report p.1)

Honestly, free-flow speed is not the optimum baseline.  There is no realistic, hypothetical state of the world in which we would experience perfect, free-flow traffic everywhere.   It would not be feasible to build enough roads (or charge enough for them), particularly since free-flow speeds would entice more drivers onto the road.   So to imply that there is $87 billion of waste to be saved -- and I think TTI does imply this -- is simply wrong

Anthony Downs makes this point in Still Stuck in Traffic, pp. 23-24 (available on-line at Google Books).   He makes several other reasonable criticisms of TTI's methodology.   He nevertheless recognizes that  TTI's methodology and findings are useful, and he does not dispute (nor do I) that congestion is a serious problem that we can't simply build our way out of.

Density and congestion, etc.

Whenever I see new data on cities, I'm always tempted to match them to the cities' weighted densities, if for no other reason than no one else does it.  And so with the Texas Transportation Institute's latest report on city congestion.  TTI found a wide range in hours lost due to congestion per year -- e.g., in 2007, Lost Angeles drivers lost an average of 70 hours per year to congestion;  Cleveland drivers, just 12.  (The relevant TTI table is here (pdf).)  Does weighted density partly explain this variation?

The answer is "No," based on my admittedly simplistic analysis.  

Below the jump I have three charts plotting, for 33 cities, weighted density, standard density and total population against hours lost per traveler to congestion.   (The 33 cities include the 31 largest urbanized areas -- excluding New York City, which is always an outlier -- and Austin and Honolulu.) 

As the scatter plot shows, weighted density explains virtually none of the variation in congestion (adjusted R² = .06).   Standard density explains a bit more  (adjusted R² = .19).  And total population, a bit more than standard density  (adjusted R² = .28). 

Environmentalists should advocate water pricing, not conservation campaigns

Environment Texas is lobbying City Council to increase its water conservation budget by one-third.  We're in a severe drought, you know.  Just like we were last year.

We're also in a recession.  The city has no spare change lying around.  Why, it's even offering an on-line budget "simulator" so ordinary citizens can see first-hand the hard trade-offs the city must make.

If only there were a way to encourage deeper conservation during this parching drought while simultaneously protecting our city budget.  If only there were some way to make our good residents understand just how precious water is right now without another million-dollar advertising campaign by the city.

There is, of course.  Just raise the price.  I assure you -- no, I swear to you -- that there is a price that will bring water use down to the necessary level.  As a bonus, the city will garner more revenue that it can use to plug its budget gap.  As a bonus on the bonus, the city can dispense with its costly conservation and rebate programs and use that money to plug the budget gap.  And as a triple bonus, Austin's residents can get out from under the stringent water restrictions.  They will be able to water their yards when they want -- but they will use a lot less water, if they choose to water at all.

I understand the political opposition to raising prices, even if I despise it.  The suburban lawn-watering lobby is a powerful player in this town.  But I don't understand why environmentalists refuse to get on board.

I know that some of them do support price increases and some of them helped push through price increases last year.  But those price increases were not nearly high enough and, anyway, prices need to be flexible.  We should charge high prices during a drought and lower prices when water is plentiful.  I haven't seen any environmentalists pushing that pricing scheme.

But the real problem with the environmentalists' approach is their willingness to buy both boots and suspenders.  Even those who want to raise prices also want to impose watering restrictions and pay gobs of money for conservation programs.  If we price water right, these last two are unnecessary.  In fact, they are a dead-weight loss.  They make us collectively poorer without providing any corresponding cost-justified gain.

So why don't environmentalists support pure water pricing?  I think it is the kumbaya spirit that animates many environmental groups.  A kind of "we're all in this together" mentality.  And a tinge of moralizing, which makes them more comfortable with imposing a code of conduct like the city's watering restrictions and issuing solemn commandments such as, "Thou shalt not waste water."

I'm not mocking them.  Well, I sort of am, but I don't mean to be mean-spirited.   Environmentalists' collective action and earnest commitment are valuable commodities in a society that often seems determined to squander its natural resources as quickly as possible.  But communitarianism is very, very expensive.

(Cross-posted at Austin Contrarian.  Comment there.)

Back and forth

It never surprises me to hear suburban commuters bash congestion tolls.  But I am surprised when a sophisticated transit blogger bashes them.  Yonah Freemark, who writes the very good the transport politic, is the guilty party.  He and Ryan Avent have been going back and forth and back again.  

Yonah's objection is equity:

A huge percentage of the U.S. population pays far too much for transportation; to put it simply, most working adults have no choice other than to own a vehicle and often to drive it dozens of miles every day. Making driving more expensive is a great way to devastate the already impoverished.

It’s true, tolling highways would save “money, time, lives, and emissions.” But it would also sacrifice the mobility of a large segment of America, because the reduced congestion would be a result of the poor and the middle class choosing not to drive because of expense, not because of choices made by the wealthy.

He argues that our public transit systems are too underdeveloped in most places to cure this inequity.

Ryan responds with several good points, but I want to elaborate on why the regressivity argument leaves me cold.

First, congestion tolls are less regressive than toll opponents claims.   The low-income do pay tolls, which means they value the time savings more than the price of the toll.   Plenty of low-income drivers take the toll lanes on SR 91 in California, for example.  The reason many do is that they have little flexibility in their schedules.  They have to be at work or at the daycare center at a specific time.  To compensate for congestion, they must leave much earlier to guarantee a timely arrival.  They thus suffer two types of costs:  scheduling delays and travel delays.  (The value of scheduling delays is very hard to measure, which means that studies like the TTI report almost surely understate the cost of congestion.)  Affluent professionals often have more flexibility.

Second, tolls encourage a number of shifts.  Yes, shifts to transit, which seems to be Yonah's main concern, at least when the transit system is underdeveloped.  But they encourage other shifts, too.  Shifts to other routes and shifts to other times.   Commuters are the least likely to be nudged to other routes or times.  The most sensitive are those who use congested roads for local trips.  Take the soccer mom who hops in the SUV and enters a congested highway to get to the grocery store a mile down the road.  She imposes enormous costs on others.  Tolls make her internalize those costs and nudge her to use the local streets. 

Perhaps this is regressive.  But it doesn't evoke much sympathy from me.  A congestion toll is a charge for getting in everyone else's way.   Behind every claim of regressivity is the assumption that drivers are entitled to get in everyone else's way even when it is not worth all that much to them. 

And that leads to my last point.  The regressivity argument wouldn't move me even if it were true. This is one of those cases in which our desire for efficiency should trump our concern with regressivity.

Here's an apt analogy.  An amusement park owner decides to throw open the gate to all comers on a first-come, first-serve.  Naturally, a long line forms.  But this isn't a typical line where newcomers go to the back of the line.  No, in this queue, newcomers elbow their way to the front of the line and force everyone behind them to wait a little longer.  

Naturally, chaos ensues.  No one leaves for the park knowing how long it will take to get in.   There is "queue rage" and general aggravation.  The park owner loses business.  And many low-income parents find themselves worse off because they have a smaller window of free time and dislike the chaos and aggravation as much as anyone else.  (I've always thought it patronizing to assume that low-income drivers put such a low value on their time and aggravation.)

Now, in the real world, the queue would never work this way.  Those at the rear of the line would use informal sanctions (fist fights) to deter queue jumpers.  And, in fact, there would be only a short  line to get into the park in the first place because the owner would charge for admission.

But this is exactly the crazy system we use to ration highway access.  For whatever reason, our cultural norms have evolved to tolerate a free-for-all.  In almost every other situation we ration scarce goods using price.  Sure, that's regressive in the sense that the poor have less money to spend on things.  But we tolerate some regressivity elsewhere because we recognize that (1) the gains in efficiency outweigh the equity concerns; and (2) there are better ways to ensure an egalitarian distribution of wealth than creating artificial shortages, chaos and mayhem.

Regressivity is not the be all and end all.

Welcome

This is a new blog.  Sort of.   I have been blogging for the last three years at Austin Contrarian, where I've written about urban economics, demographics, New Urbanism, congestion pricing and such.  I like cities and I like to write about them. 

But at Austin Contrarian I also spend a lot of time  writing about local land-use fights, Austin's noise ordinance, the intricacies of Austin's land-use code and other things that must bore those who do not live in Austin (and many of those who do).  For the sake of both groups of readers, I am moving my general writing about  cities -- anything not specifically about Austin -- to this blog.  I have cross-posted here every such entry from my AC archives, which explains why this "new" blog has almost three years of entries. 

If you are new and want a better idea of what I write about, just scroll down.

Punching above its class

The Texas Transportation Institute has issued its annual report on congestion in American cities.  As usual, Austin doesn't do well, punching well above its class.  Tthe average Austin traveler experienced an annual delay of 39 hours in 2007.    That's up from 32 hours in 1997, although no worse than 2006.   

Ryan Avent puts the Austin figures in perspective:

The average traveler in the New York metro area faces 44 hours wasted per year, for instance, while the average traveler in Los Angeles loses 70 hours per year to congestion, even though New York’s metropolitan population is much, much larger than LA’s.  More interesting still, Austin and Raleigh aren’t that far behind New York with 39 and 34 hours wasted annually, despite the fact that both metro areas have less than two million people while greater New York is home to 20 million people.

TTI also calculates the percent of peak period travel that is congested.   Austin again fares poorly -- its roads are congested for 70% of the peak travel period: 

By comparison, Dallas's roads are congested for only 66% of the peak travel period.  Houston is marginally worse at 73%.   Austin's peers include New York (69%), Detroit (71%) and Baltimore (69%).  

One has to wonder what damage Austin's congestion has wrought to downtown.   Businesses want to locate where their employees can get to them, and high peak-period congestion means that commuters must fight traffic to get to work most of the time.   I suspect Austin's downtown suffers more heavily from peak-period congestion than any other employment center in the area since MoPac and I-35 -- the principal commuter routes to downtown -- are the two most congested roads in the area.     Eventually we must recognize that our congestion will  stunt downtown's growth.   We wil lose the economies of scale and agglomeration benefits that a vibrant downtown would  yield.

You know, of course, that there is only one solution.

Skilled cities II

While I'm in this nerdy mood, let me point to this paper by Jaison Abel, Ishita Dey and Todd Gabe:

We estimate a model of urban productivity in which the agglomeration effect of density is enhanced by a metropolitan area’s stock of human capital. Using new measures of output per worker for U.S. metropolitan areas along with two measures of density that account for different aspects of the spatial distribution of population, we find that a doubling of density increases productivity by 10 to 20 percent. Consistent with theories of learning and knowledge spillovers in cities, we demonstrate that the elasticity of average labor productivity with respect to density increases with human capital. Metropolitan areas with a human capital stock that is one standard deviation below the mean level realize around half of the average productivity gain, while doubling density in metropolitan areas with a human capital stock that is one standard deviation above the mean level yields productivity benefits that are about 1.5 times larger than average.

This is a little technical, so let me translate:   Cities tend to become more productive as they grow denser.   On average, a city's workforce becomes 10% more productive when the city doubles in density.   But that average obscures the importance of skills.   Less skilled cities benefit a lot less than skilled cities from densification.   In fact, skilled cities, on average, enjoy three times the productivity gain from denser growth than less skilled cities.   This is yet more evidence of the increasing returns and agglomeration benefits from density.

This is a nice complement to the Glaeser and Resseger paper.  Glaeser and Resseger found that workers in skilled cities become more productive as the city grows, while workers in unskilled cities do not.   Abel et al find that workers in skilled cities become more productive as the city grows denser; workers in unskilled cities, less so.

The authors also test their conclusions using a variant of weighted density. They find even greater productivity gains (20% on average) when a city doubles its weighted density.

The authors use a coarse form of weighted density.  They weight urbanized area density by county subdivisions.  But how you chop up a city matters when calculating weighted density.  In order to calculate weighted density, you first divide the city into a bunch of smaller regions.  You then assign each region's density a weight equal to its share of the populations.  In general, weighted density increases as you chop up the city into smaller regions.

I used census tracts for my weighted densities.  There are many more census tracts than county subdivisions.  I thus got a lot more stratification than they did -- e.g., their top weighted density was 19,000 ppsm, while mine was 33,000.  How you divide a city for calculating weighted density is somewhat arbitrary, but I think using census tracts makes more sense than county subdivisions, which are more or less arbitrary.  I suspect the authors would have found even greater returns to density had they weighted density by census tracts rather than by county subdivisions.  

H/t Richard Florida.