No Light Rail in Vancouver!

Home Grand Jury Findings Rail Supporters Europe Rail Neighborhood The Plan Cars The Bridge Publications No Tolls!
Light rail costs too much, does too little

More on Why Long-Range Planning Fails

Jan 18

2007

Commenter Dan says that my previous post on problems with long-range planning used “outdated examples,” so let’s look at a current example of long-range planning. The Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG) published its Metro Vision 2030, a long-range land-use plan for the Denver metro area, in 2005. That makes it a twenty-five year plan.

Metro Vision 2030 notes that the major challenges facing the metro area include:

 

In response to these problems, DRCOG’s vision for the region is:

 

In 2030, the Denver region will be a dynamic mixture of distinct pedestrian-friendly urban and suburban communities within a limited area. It will be distinguished by a transportation system that includes sidewalks, bike paths, bus service, rail transit and roads; plentiful parks and open space; and clean air and water.” (p. 5)

The Metro Vision plan calls for:

 

How does this plan reduce congestion, air pollution, infrastructure costs, and preserve open space? The simple answer is that it does not. In fact, it will significantly increase congestion, air pollution, and the burden on taxpayers. Its effects on open space are also questionable.

Contrary to what some planners believe, increasing density increases rather than reduces congestion. Planners like to believe that people will drive less if everything is closer together, but the truth is that an X percent increase in density results in less than an X percent decline in per capita driving. Even the latest in rapid transit and pedestrian-friendly design cannot help. DRCOG predicts elsewhere that its plan will increase congestion (measured in hours of delay) by 73 percent by 2025.

With added congestion comes more air pollution because cars pollute more in stop-and-go traffic. Page 73 of the Metro Vision shows air pollution declining, but this is because of reductions in tailpipe emissions. If DRCOG’s actually relieved congestion, instead of made it worse, pollution would decline even more.

The associated Metro Vision Regional Transportation Plan calls for spending $5.8 billion on regional road improvements (at least part of which will be privately funded) and $4.2 billion on rapid transit (all of which will be taxpayer subsidized). In other words, 42 percent of the region’s transportation capital funds will go for transit, even though DRCOG predicts that by 2025 transit will carry less than 3 percent of passenger travel (see p. 24). Contrary to wishful thinking, blowing a lot of money on transit will not reduce congestion.

The Metro Vision plan imposes other costs on taxpayers. Many of the 70 high-density, mixed-use areas will require subsidies in the form of tax-increment financing (TIF). Some planners claim TIF is not a subsidy, but the new development it funds imposes costs on fire, police, and other urban services without providing any revenues to cover those costs. One Denver-area fire district cited the cost of TIF as a reason why it had to increase taxes on everyone else in the district.

In addtion, far from saving money, infill development often costs taxpayers more than greenfield development. That’s because it is less expensive to extend urban services to new developments than it is to rip up streets in order to replace water, sewer, and other lines with larger capacity lines to serve denser development.

What about open space? Leave aside the question of whether open space really should be an issue in a state that is 97 percent open space, it is not clear that the open space the plan saves is as valuable as the open space it destroys. Planners consider large yards to be destructive of open space, yet Americans regard large yards as some of the open spaces that they enjoy the most. Taking people’s yards away by mandating compact development effectively reduces the amount of open space people use on a daily basis.

Metro Vision 2030 imposes another hidden cost on residents: unaffordable housing. The emphasis on multifamily and compact development means there will be plenty of these types of housing, but the housing that most people want — single-family homes with a yard they can use for gardens, play, and entertainment — is already priced out of sight in parts of the Denver area. Coldwell Banker says that a house that costs $155,000 in Houston would cost $357,000 in Denver and $536,000 in Boulder. DRCOG’s Metro Vision plan will only make this worse.

In short, DRCOG’s plan calls for making most if not all of the major problems it identifies — congestion, air pollution, tax burdens, and open space — worse, not better. It will also impose high housing costs on the region. DRCOG is committing billions of dollars to subsidies for rapid transit, high-density housing, and infrastruction for infill. It is adding billions of dollars to the cost of housing.

Why does this happen? Because there is no scientific basis for regional planning. Instead (to quote a paper cited by Dan in response to a previous post), DRCOG relied on “visioning, scenario-building, and persuasive storytelling”.

In what sense can this planning be called “rational”? DRCOG is not planning for what people want — people don’t want congestion and high housing prices. It is not planning for any particular future needs — Colorado is not going to run out of open space any century soon. This planning is merely some people trying to impose their preferences on other people. That is not rational planning. It is authoritarian government. It is exactly what Americans are supposed to be against.

25

Trackback  •  Posted in Planning Disasters, Regional planning, Transportation, Why Planning Fails  

Reprinted from The Antiplanner