Much of what we know just ain't so. After years of proselytizing by
politicians, planners and protagonists, many of us are dumbstruck upon
learning that most people really do want to live in the suburbs, that Smart
Growth a.k.a. "Congestifying" is more expensive than "sprawl" and that buses
are less "green" and energy efficient than automobiles.
Back to the cities
The Wall Street Journal
published an article July 6 with the subtitle, "The condo bust should lay to
rest the notion that the American love affair with suburbia is over." It
notes virtually every survey shows the majority of Americans prefer the
suburbs, including a "Smart Growth America" poll that shows roughly 13
percent of Americans prefer urban living, 33 percent prefer the suburbs and
another 18 percent like the exurbs. If more people truly wanted to move back
to the cities as often claimed, there would not be a glut of condos in
downtown San Diego at 30 percent to 50 percent discounts.
Housing in city centers and so-called village cores costs more per square
foot for developers, homebuyers and government. To promote smart growth
cities have to dig up and replace undersized water and sewer mains, whereas
in the suburbs infrastructure is paid by developers. Higher densities beget
higher land costs making housing less affordable in downtowns and village
cores as a few days house hunting makes painfully clear.
Mass transit vs. more freeways
The U.S. Department of Energy Transportation Data Book shows since 1991 when
CAFE standards for vehicle became effectual automobiles have used less
energy per passenger-mile than buses, 3,437 Btu per mile vs. 4,348 Btu for
transit buses (2008). The time cost of mass transit is equally dramatic
since it takes roughly twice as long on average to travel from home to work
on a bus or trolley as it does by car. If time travel is valued at $15.47 an
hour, this amounts to around $44 billion nationally in lost productivity for
bus riders. Steven Polzin, director, National Center for Transit Research
notes, "We often hear about the "cost of congestion" but nobody speaks of
the cost of slower modes of travel"
Nationally, public transportation accounts for only about 2 percent of trips
according to the Census, 3 percent in San Diego where it's mindboggling to
learn that more commuters walk and bicycle to work than ride mass transit.
Smart growth isn't green
The smart growth fad congestifies more people and more automobiles in
relatively small core areas, which can't help but increase air pollution
especially near park and rides where most auto tailpipe pollution emanates
from "cold starts" and "hot soaks."
Thomas Rubin, controller-treasurer of the Southern California Rapid Transit
District from 1989 to 1993, asks and answers the question on pollution:
"Which is 'greener' -- uses less energy and produces fewer emissions --
riding a transit bus or driving a car? While results will vary depending on
the particulars of the bus, the car, and how they are utilized, on average
in the United States, moving a passenger one mile in an auto uses less
energy, and produces less emissions, per passenger-mile (one person
traveling one mile) than carrying that person one mile in an urban transit
bus."
Federal Transit Administrator Peter Rogoff at a May 18 industry conference
poses these questions: "At times like these, it's more important than ever
to have the courage to ask a hard question: If you can't afford to operate
the system you have, why does it make sense for us (U.S. government) to
partner your expansion? If you can't afford your current footprint, does
expanding that under-funded footprint really advance the president's goal
for cutting oil use and greenhouse gases ... Or are we at risk of just
helping communities dig a deeper hole for children and our grandchildren?"
Transit protagonists like to point out highways are also subsidized.
However, from a 2003 study, the Reason Foundation reported mass transit
subsidies were 65 times greater per passenger mile even though "highways
carried 96 times as many passenger-miles of travel as transit."
For San Diego the highest quality of life stems from living where we choose,
driving a car that takes us where we want to go when we want to go, in
comfort and safety, and which enables us to conveniently get to work in half
the time it takes on a bus or trolley. A quality of life that allows us
freedom to live in cities -- or suburbs with less congestion, less air
pollution and less greenhouse emissions. An added benefit, many suburban
backyards double as safe miniature parks for kids at no expense to the
taxpayers.
Purportedly, the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG)
will be allocating more funding to roads and freeways in its
updated Regional Transportation Plan while transit spending will be more
proportionate to the number of people who use it. Since freeways carry up to
five times more people than light rail, it's nice to see our tax dollars
being spent getting the biggest bang for the buck in improving our quality
of life.
