Tuesday, April 18, 2006

A World With One Billion Cars

Yesterday's Wall Street Journal published a special section entitled "One Billion Cars" that explored the ramifications of an increasingly auto-centric world. According to a graph in the report, the global fleet of cars and light trucks in 2005 was roughly 750 million. The number should shoot well past 1.0 billion by 2020, and 1.2 billion by 2030. Global gasoline consumption is expected to surge from roughly 275 billion gallons of "gasoline equivalent" in 2005 to 400 billion by 2030.

Now, I'm not one of those alarmists who thinks that we're running out of oil. As gas prices rise, free markets will introduce new technologies -- witness the new petroleum-cracking catalysts unveiled recently by Richmond-based Albemarle Corporation, which can refine lower-quality oil reserves more efficiently -- and new substitutes like bio-fuels. Whether those technologies/substitutes can come online fast enough to compensate for increasing demand from China, India and other developing nations, however, is questionable. Combine rising global demand with unstable oil supplies, and the price of oil is likely to continue increasing. U.S. crude oil futures set a new record yesterday, hitting nearly $71 per barrel.

As noted in a previous post, "Virginia's Vulnerability to Oil Shocks," Virginians consumed 527 gallons of gasoline per capita in 2004. Of course, that understates the impact on motorists, because not everyone drives. Virginians consumed 979 gallons per motorist in 2004, according to the Division of Motor Vehicles. Each $1 increase in the price of gasoline taxes relieves the typical driver of nearly $1,000 in after-tax, take-home pay. A household with two drivers sees a reduction of nearly $2,000 per year!

I cannot stress this enough: Our scattered, disconnected, low-density pattern of development is a significant contributor to the increase in Vehicle Miles Driven and gasoline consumption. Over the past half-century, Virginians have built an autocentric physical infrastructure adapted to a cheap-energy world but maladapted to an expensive-energy world. All the signs are there for anyone who's paying attention. But our political leaders continue their Business As Usual transportation and land use policies, differing only in the extent to which they are willing to dedicate new revenue streams to perpetuate the ancien energy regime.

The issue in the 2006 transportation debate is not just $1 billion a year in taxes: It's the nearly $15 billion a year Virginians spend on gasoline, the $20 billion a year a few years from now and the $25 billion a year a few years after that. In a classic case of the blind leading the blind -- blind politicians leading blind citizens and egged on by blind editorial pundits -- our elected leaders are redoubling their commitment to energy-intensive transportation and land use policies that will diminish Virginians' economic competitiveness and standard of living for decades to come.

8 Comments:

At 10:32 AM, Blogger Ray Hyde said...

Our scattered, disconnected, low-density pattern of development is a significant contributor to the increase in Vehicle Miles Driven and gasoline consumption.

You keep saying that, and yet my wife and I with two cars burn a thousand gallons a year combined, and we are in Jepip. I could probably save more fuel by upgrading the insulation on the house than I could by moving the household. I probably use more fuel while flying on commercial airliners every year than I do in the car. Even if you could save some fuel by relocating 25% of the population (which isn't apparently a given) there are a lot of other places to look for savings.

So, I'm atypical, maybe.

But lets take a guy who lives in the average house in PW and decides he is going to save fuel by moving to transit friendly Arlington. The difference in the median home price is going to cost him $450 a month on his mortgage. (What was it you were saying about mortgage subsidies?) If he is the median income earner it is going to cost him 12% of his take home pay. If he saves 20% in fuel, or a thousand dollars a year (at $5.00 a gallon) that's not much of a bargain. Then he still has to pay to ride the Metro, if it goes to where he actually works.

 
At 1:37 PM, Blogger Jim Bacon said...

Ray, you miss the whole point. Yes, right now, someone has to move to Arlington to live in a pedestrian/transit friendly community without scattered, disconnected, low-density settlement patterns. And, yes, the super-high housing costs would eat up any money he saved in driving expenses -- and more!

The question you neglect to ask is why is Arlington so bloody expensive? Because of its scarcity value. Because the vast majority of development that has taken place since Arlington was built out has been.... scattered, disconnected and low-density. The remedy to Arlington's sky-high real estate prices is to build more communities that offer what Arlington offers. Once Arlington-style development patterns predominate, Arlington real estate will lose much... not all, because, after all Arlington is in a central location... but much of its scarcity premium.

 
At 1:40 PM, Blogger James Atticus Bowden said...

Jim: Let me see if I understand.

Build more high density development?

 
At 1:45 PM, Blogger Jim Bacon said...

JAB, Yes, build more high-density development... not mandated by local government, but when supported by market forces. Right now, government intrudes in the real estate marketplace by restricting the density of development, creating scarcities in areas where real estate is in high demand, and pushing development to locations where it is less desirable from a market perspective.

 
At 4:06 PM, Blogger James Atticus Bowden said...

Jim: Sign me up for your team.

I need to learn a lot more about zoning laws.

Germany (which does it the wrong way with oppressive laws) when it was W Germany in the late 80s was the size of Oregon, had 80 million people and was 40% forest. People lived in far fewer square feet. Not recommending how to get there,but it's interesting to see it done.

I see higher density commercial and housing developments here in Newport News and James City County/Williamsburg. Yet, to be determined if it will 'work'. Meaning, will the locations will stay a low crime area where people feel safe?

My neighbors are adamantly against it in Poquoson. Funny, I looked at that land in '89 on the water and thought it would be perfect for condos. Better not run for city council.

 
At 11:48 PM, Blogger Ray Hyde said...

Once Arlington-style development patterns predominate, Arlington real estate will lose much... not all, because, after all Arlington is in a central location... but much of its scarcity premium.

So let me get this straight. In order to have more Arlington style development we are going to spend billions more in Metro subsidies in order to lower the value of the homes of some of our wealthiest residents.

Arlington has been very careful to keep the high density just along the Metro Corridor: my brother owns a single family home there. While I'm sure he would sell in a heartbeat to the developer that waves the most money, his neighbors would turn out in droves to oppose another high rise intrudingon their neighborhood.

You can Google News on density and see dozens of descriptions of meeting where people turn out to fight density, primarily because they know it brings congestion. In every kind of neighborhood, from dense to none.

Lets say you are right, we increase the density in my brothers neighborhood, and their value goes up, but not as much as the current development, and the current development comes down in value a similar amount, because now there is more of it.

That sounds like a wash. But if the new development needs and equivalent amount of Metro, then its a loser.

We go out to the third ring and make more density. Now we increase the costs there and lower the value of the first two rings some more. Pretty soon there is no more incentive to do this, and anyway, we made enough new homes near the center we don't need any more. It only cost us another $300 bilion in Metro subsidies to the developers.

The end result is that property out where I am or Poquoson is near worthless and you can have open space for nothing: free - no cost. Now the people in the formerly expensive center have lost much of their value, and averybody outside the fourth or fifth ring has lost most of their value. How do you think you are going to sell this politically?

Then of course there is another problem. Some people are willing to trade space and price for money and fuel. Since you have now turned every thing outside the clear edge into Oklahoma, you might as well line up the wagons and have another land rush.

If this sounds ridiculous, it's because it is. I wouldn't suggest running for city council - unless you live in Oz.

 
At 12:21 PM, Blogger James Atticus Bowden said...

Ray: I was JK, just kidding about running. I am not as dumb as I look (or read).

I think you are raising a central question.

Should governments provide central transportation spokes - dates backs to canals, roads and railroads - and let the private sector do the rest? Or what about letting the private sector do it all? Probably a dumb question.

Most of my neighbors don't want more high density housing. Yet, there are higher density housing developments in other towns.

 
At 3:37 PM, Blogger Ray Hyde said...

I see a problem in that many people are opposed to more density, thinking that it will bring more congestion and more expense. My observation is that they are correct. Denser areas are more complex, more expensive, harder to manage, etc etc etc.

On the other side are people who believe we face apocolypse if we don't find a way to prevent any sort of change: they insist on maximum protection of land, air, water, wildlife. My observation is that they are correct, too.

In the middle are people that want more jobs, more business, more opportunity, and more parkland next to their home.

Not everybody can win, and we are going to have some of each. If you have more density and more parkland and have them both where you can use them, then what is the result? More local density and less overall density? What is the best mix? If you have more local parks, doesn't that add to the disconnected areas that Jim talks about. What is the value of open space you can't use and enjoy? How much can you enjoy it with your jetskis, snowmobiles, and ATV's before you destroy what you came for? If you favor more density and think it will lower prices does that mean you favor density in the lowest cost areas where affordable housing is needed most? How about the highest cost areas where affordable housing is needed?

Jim says government is subsidizing sprawl by mandating large lots, and seperate zoning uses. OK, but isn't it also subsidizing the high cost of homes in dense areas? And isn't the government doing so because of long standing requests from the populace? Are those requests self serving because they know it will improve their property values? If none of us are paying our own way, then who do we point the finger at when it comes to subsidies?

Is Arlington expensive because of its scarcity value, or is it something else? Is Metro subsidizing the area or is the area density subsidizing Metro. Is the density there because of the jobs, and therefore the jobs and the employers are necessitating a special service (transit)just to deliver thair needed input a(labor).

Jim is arguing that we don't expect people to move closer in to save gas because it makes no economic sense. We can make it have more sense if we build enough dense housing so that it is oversuppplied and the cost falls. Eventually the low cost and prospect of saving on fuel will entice people to move closer in and become more pedestrian friendly, and that will help solve our transportation crisis.

As a solution to our transportation crisis, that method is going to take a very long time, and meanwhile the clock is still ticking on the lives of people sitting in their cars because of congestion caused by density.

Even if you agree with Jim's argument our transportation crisis is because we don't want to raise the capital to fix it. How, then, are we going to raise the capital to double the number of dense housing units? We can't expect capitalists to do it if it is going to halve their profitability on their existing properties.

If we ever have the homes and prices that will entice the outlivers to move closer in, what happens to the properties they moved out of? The prices fall and people move back out. So all Jim has told us is that building excess houses lowers the price of homes, and it will probbly lower the price everywhere, to various extents.

Except that, we are going to have 2 million more residents who will have to go somewhere, so there won't be any excess housing units.

I wouldn't begin to know the answers, but I do know a circular argument when I see one.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home