Tag Archives: Urban Areas

Transportation

Addressing Texas High Speed Rail Concerns

3 Comments

The proposed new high-speed rail (HSR) project in Texas has become a lightning rod for criticism. While the project is different from the now cancelled publicly funded HSR projects in Florida, Michigan, and Ohio and the ongoing project in California, critics remain concerned.

The Texas project supported by Texas Central Railway (TCR) is fundamentally different from the U.S. public government approach in several ways. First, it focuses on one specific corridor (TCR chose one out of 97 it had identified). HSR succeeded in France and Japan because both countries build their first HSR lines on the most optimal corridor, not the most shovel-ready. Contrast that with the Obama Administration’s plans to give money to nearly 40 states. The TCR project is focused on true 200 mile-per-hour high-speed rail while the government program has a multitude of aims:

  • build HSR
  • improve existing rail
  • build political bridges
  • develop passenger rail

Second, the Texas developers are seeking advice and parts from the Japanese, who operate the most successful HSR line in the world. TCR plans to use higher-speed Japanese Shinkansen trains which will travel fast enough to offer 90-minute trip times. Many of the government-funded rail lines are upgrades of existing lines with top speeds of 110 miles per hour.

Third, TCR’s line will link two of the quickest growing metro areas in the country. The metro area populations of Dallas and Houston are expected to double. Contrast that with Los Angeles and San Francisco that are seeing little if any growth in population.

Fourth, both are privately funded. While TCR will not accept grants or subsidies, it will consider existing federal credit assistance such as Railroad Reinvestment and Financing (RRIF) or Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation (TIFIA) loans. TIFIA financing requires an investment-grade rating while RRIF is being strengthened to include similar provisions. TCR might also seek DOT approval to issue tax-exempt private activity bonds (PABs), which are widely used on highway P3 concession projects. Such bonds are backed solely by project revenue. Taxpayers are not on the hook in case the project defaults; only the bond-buyers are.

Project opponents have raised legitimate concerns but none of them should delay the project. Some farmers and ranchers are concerned that their properties will be acquired through eminent domain. However, TRC only needs about 100 feet of eminent domain. Additionally, the agency plans to use eminent domain (as other private parties including pipelines companies and electric companies do) as a last resort and only after making market-value offers. Further, if there are abuses of the system, Texas has a detailed appeal system already used for the Keystone Pipeline.

Others are concerned that taxpayer subsidies will be required. Whether TCR can build its project within the budget estimated is an open question. Given the challenges of breaking even on HSR in a low-density state such as Texas, skepticism is appropriate. However, as long as taxpayer funds are not used, project sponsors should be allowed to try to build the train. If the project later requires taxpayer subsidies, Texas taxpayers should kill it. While the financial realities are a legitimate concern for those who invest equity in the program or buy bonds, the program should receive the same level of legal and regulatory scrutiny as any other private railroad project.

Transportation

Tunnels are a Solution to Relieving Traffic Congestion

2 Comments

Due to the policy of building freeways through communities and the resulting highway revolt, most U.S. metro areas now have unfinished freeway networks. With the economy and traffic congestion growing, it is time to consider filling the missing links in these freeways. Fortunately, with the advent of tunnel boring machines (TBMs), it is now possible to cost-effectively build tunnels under densely populated neighborhoods. These tunnels can help complete unfinished freeways. These tunnels can also encourage transit service by offering free usage of premium lanes at no charge. Most importantly, these tunnels will have no adverse impacts on the neighborhoods above them.

Tunnels have proven an effective alternative to surface freeways across the world. For example, to protect Versailles, the French built a highway tunnel under the historic estate. The tunnel keeps traffic flowing while protecting the national landmark. The Port of Miami built a tunnel, allowing trucks to access the Port of Miami and bypass city streets. This tunnel reduced cut-through traffic and helped rejuvenate city neighborhoods. In Washington State a tunnel is being constructed to replace the seismically deficient SR 99. In addition to providing a better travel alternative, the tunnel will allow better connections between Seattle’s neighborhoods and Puget Sound waterfront. While Seattle TBM broke last year delaying the project, the TBM has been fixed and construction is progressing.

Building tunnels is not cheap. Costs typically range from approximately $100-$500 million per lane mile. However, building surface roads in such areas can often reach $50 million or more per lane mile to build an elevated section if right of way is needed. Further, the lost economic costs of congestion are much higher than $500 million. In Chicago alone, reducing congestion by 10 percent would save business $1.3 billion per year in business-related expenses and $455 million in labor market expenses. This assumes a 10 percent improvement; 20 percent would double the benefits.

Which metro areas in the U.S. could benefit from tunnels? The largest metro areas such as Chicago and Los Angeles could benefit from multiple tunnels, between 2 and 7, depending on the cost-benefit analysis. Other large regions such as Atlanta, Dallas, Houston and Washington D.C. could benefit as well. Tunnels are not appropriate in all situations but they are an important key to reducing urban congestion.

 

Transportation

Simplify USDOT Regulations for Transportation Planning

Today, I want to offer the sixth of my recommendations to reform U.S. surface transportation policy. My colleague David Hartgen and I suggest simplifying Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations regarding transportation planning.

Since 1964, federal laws and amendments (23 USC 134 and 49 USC 5303) have required that states and urbanized areas exceeding 50,000 population carry out a short-term and long-range “continuing, cooperative and comprehensive multimodal transportation planning process” as a condition for federal aid. Sensible at first, the “3C” process now mandates a wide range of required assessments, including air quality, environmental justice, congestion management, safety, maintenance, efficiency, freight, pedestrian-bike, economic growth, fuel consumption, and other requirements. Although some requirements have been eased for smaller regions, recent regulations call for expanded time horizons and new “planning factors.” More rules for climate change, international trade, active transportation and sustainability are likely. These requirements and frequent updates have a negative impact on smaller regions with fewer staff.

For regions with fewer than 200,000 people, eliminate all long-range transportation planning mandates and require 10-year TIP (Transportation Incentive Program) updates. For regions greater than 200,000 population, eliminate or reduce regulations for air quality monitoring and conformity, environmental justice, congestion management, economic impact, safety, fuel consumption, and 40-year planning horizons. For the TIP, remove the option that projects come from a long-range transportation plan. Review other requirements for possible reduction or elimination.

Recent reviews of metropolitan transportation plans find that many are dense documents full of feel-good unachievable goals only marginally related to transportation. Frequent update cycles mean “planning never stops.” Worse, they generally ignore rising congestion and infrastructure maintenance, and depend heavily on federal/state resources for implementation. But the federal role is declining as local, state and private roles increase. After completion, most plans are ignored and shelved until the next update. The cost of this wasted and inefficient planning is substantial — about $500M annually. In short, transportation planning has become a convenient catch-all for pushing other local goals, and a hurdle for self-certification and funding continuation, not a sensible effort to establish future transportation visions.

These changes would bring federal requirements into line with the declining federal role in local transportation issues. Most projects are local in impact, not national. The cost of current planning, about $1B annually, could probably be halved, leaving more resources for implementation, which would speed project development and create jobs. Localities would have more control over essentially local transportation decisions.

Transportation

U.S. Regulations Limit Private Transit

Many large, urban communities are interested in offering high-quality low-cost private transit service. But federal regulations and union rules make providing such service cost prohibitive. The following story examines transit service in an Atlanta metro county with the highest percentage of transit-dependent riders in the state. It shows how the private market offered high-quality service but could not succeed under the current regulations.

Clayton County voters were stuck with two mediocre options on November 5th. They could either vote to increase their sales tax by 1% and receive bus service and future high capacity transit, or vote no and receive no service. Consequently, Clayton residents voted for what they viewed as the best subpar option.

Clayton County used to have bus service. Back in 2001 The Clayton County commission entered into a contract with the Georgia Regional Transportation Authority (GRTA) — a statewide entity that provides transit service — to provide fixed-route bus service in Clayton County. In 2001, GRTA contracted with the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA) to run several bus routes in Clayton County. However, in 2004 upon examination of MARTA’s high costs, GRTA opened a competitive request for proposals to solicit alternative bids. At that time First Transit, a private operator, took over operations of the system. While First Transit ran a more efficient, more effective system, some folks clamored for a bigger system. With the assurances of MARTA that it could run a better system, Clayton County commissioners switched back to MARTA service in 2007. Soon after assuming control MARTA significantly increased the cost of providing its service. The Clayton County commission went along with this increase although it took money out of the budget for other priorities. However, after MARTA wanted another significant increase in funds in 2010 to provide the same services, the county commission balked and public transit service was discontinued.

After public transit service was discontinued, private transit services began operations. In 2010 Quick Transit, a private transit service, began operating service along four of the former C-TRAN routes. South Side Transportation and several other companies also began offering transit service in Clayton County using 7-15 person vans. While these companies were able to fill part of the gap in service, most operated illegally and were unable to market themselves. As a result, many Clayton County residents did not know such service existed. Private sector operations are not illegal because of safety or equity issues but because government regulations subject privately run services to pointless regulations such as uniform color and transit vehicle size that make it challenging for private services to compete with government services. Such laws provide government services a near monopoly and guarantee that private agencies will be unable to fill the void.

The best option, short of private service, is contracted service. Many transit agencies throughout the country contract out service. Ridership and cost data show that such service is both cheaper and of better quality. Agencies that contract out service have farebox recovery rates of over 40% while the typical in-house rate is less than 30%. Outside agencies have a higher percentage of their vehicles on time and a smaller breakdown rate. While this option is not as ideal as true private service, it offers significant advantages to the status quo.

 

Transportation

Metropolitan Planning Organization Long Range Plans Should Focus on Mobility

All metropolitan areas around the country are required to draft a long-range transportation plan. Congress mandated long-range plans when it passed the Intermodal Surface Transportation Equity Act (ISTEA) of 1991. Congress’ intent was for metropolitan areas to plan for the regional movement of people and goods.

Unfortunately, many of today’s regional transportation plans include all sets of non-measurable goals that have nothing to do with transportation. Parts of the planning process have been captured by special interests that are seeking to use transportation funds for non-transportation purposes. Let’s examine one of the more “realistic” plans — Los Angeles — in more detail.

The planning framework is one of the biggest problems. Past plans would focus on quantitative goals to improve mobility such as decreasing the travel time from Los Angeles to Anaheim by five minutes or increasing transit service coverage to 50 percent of the region. But the 2012 plan focuses on “feel-good” goals centered on what political leaders want Los Angeles to become. Further, the plan deemphasizes mobility and congestion relief to focus more on Livability, Prosperity and Sustainability.

Predictably, this lack of focus does little to reduce congestion. Despite spending one half a trillion dollars over the next 20 years, truck delay on freeways is expected to worsen significantly. Truck delay on arterials will also deteriorate significantly. Both freeways and arterials are expected to remain at least as congested as today. The only relief will be in high occupancy vehicle lanes, where congestion will decrease slightly.

Worse, there will be 30 freeway segments where average speeds are less than 15 miles per hour during afternoon rush hour. These slow segments are not just a roadway problem but a transit problem as well. Since many of these freeways lack HOV lanes or express toll lanes, transit buses and vanpools are stuck in the same congested travel as everyone else.

The next problem is state mandates. California SB 375, in particular, makes congestion worse. The bill — The Sustainable Communities Act — sets regional targets for greenhouse gas uses. Yet, most scientists calculate that California has already met the 2025 standards set in the bill. Today’s vehicle fleet generates 98 percent fewer hydrocarbons, 96 percent less carbon monoxide and 90 percent fewer nitrous oxides than vehicles 30 years ago.

The biggest problem may be the region’s funding or lack thereof. SCAG estimates that the L.A. region has $305 billion in current revenue. However, $119 billion of this is local sales tax revenue that is subject to major swings based on the economy. $33 billion of this total is federal funding. Since federal government transportation funding relies on declining fuel tax revenue and general fund bailouts there is no guarantee federal funding will remain consistent after two years time, let alone 20 years. Finally, SCAG is counting on $220 million in new revenue. The assumption that any new revenue sources will be approved is questionable.

So how do we reform the planning process? First, transportation planning should be reformed so the primary goal is mobility. To the extent that environmental issues are real, they can be incorporated into the plan. But they should not unrealistically constrain development. Finally, plans should be required to be fiscally realistic without the need for unrealistically large new revenues.

 

Transportation

China’s New Urbanization Plan

The Prime Minister of China, Li Keqiang, hopes to see 60 percent of the Chinese population living in cities by 2020 as a result of his “National Plan on New Urbanization.”

  • In 2013, 712 million Chinese residents were living in cities while 600 million were living in rural areas. The urbanization plan seeks to coordinate the development of cities and towns, expecting 100 million new urban residents by the end of the decade.
  • Because those living in China’s cities earn 3.23 times more than those living in rural areas, the state hopes that the plan will boost consumption spending, raising China’s consumption from 34 percent of GDP up to 45 to 50 percent by 2020.

China’s economy is complicated, because it uses central planning along with free markets. Real estate is China’s most popular industry, and land developers lease land from the Chinese government for a leasing fee, then develop it privately. There have been problems, however, with such government involvement. For example, when the city of Ordos in Mongolia built 100,000 apartments with government support, 90 percent of the buildings remained entirely empty because the government misestimated demand for housing in the area.

As more people move to China’s cities, demand for government investment and development will increase. The government could limit its involvement and allow the free market to work.

Xinyuan Zou is a research associate at the National Center for Policy Analysis.

Energy, Land Issues, Property Issues

Suburban Nation: U.S. 86 Percent Suburban

From Jurisdictional to Functional Analysis of Urban Cores & Suburbs

For decades there has been considerable analysis of urban core versus suburban trends. However, for the most part, analysts have been jurisdictional, comparing historical core municipalities to the expanse that constitutes the rest of the metropolitan area. Most core municipalities are themselves substantially suburban, which can mask (and exaggerate) the size of urban cores and understate the extent of suburbanization.

Our new City Sector Model evaluates the more than 8,900 zip codes in the 52 U.S. metropolitan areas that have more than 1,000,000 residents (“major metropolitan areas”) based on travel behavior and urban form. There are four categories, including  (1) Pre-Auto Urban Core, (2) Auto Suburban: Earlier, (3) Auto Suburban: Later and (4) Auto Exurban. It is recognized that automobile oriented suburbanization was underway before World War II, but it was interrupted by the Great Depression during the 1930s and was small compared to the democratization of personal mobility and home ownership that has occurred since that time.

Canada: A Suburban Nation

The City Sector Model is broadly similar to the groundbreaking research published by David L. A. Gordon and Mark Janzen at Queen’s University in Kingston Ontario (Suburban Nation: Estimating the Size of Canada’s Suburban Population) on the metropolitan areas of Canada. Gordon and Janzen concluded that the metropolitan areas of Canada are largely suburban. Among the major metropolitan areas of Canada, the Auto Suburbs and Exurbs combined contain 76 percent of the population, somewhat less than the 86 percent in the United States.

All U.S. Major Metropolitan Area Growth Has Been Suburban and Exurban

Virtually all population growth in U.S. metropolitan areas (as currently defined) has been suburban or exurban since before World War II (the 1940 census). The historical core municipalities that have not annexed materially and were largely developed by 1940 have lost population. Approximately 110 percent of their metropolitan area growth has occurred in suburbs and exurbs. Further, among the other core municipalities, virtually all of the population growth that has occurred in annexed areas or greenfield areas since 1940.

Identifying the Pre-Auto Urban Core

Not being constrained by municipal boundaries is important because core municipalities vary substantially. For example, the core municipality represents less than 10 percent of the population of Atlanta, while the core municipality represents more than 60 percent of the population of San Antonio. The City Sector Model applies data available from the U.S. Census Bureau to estimate the population and distribution of Pre-Auto Urban Cores in a consistent manner.

At the same time, the functional analysis is materially different from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) classification of “principal cities.” It also differs from the Brookings Institution “primary cities,” which is based on the OMB approach. The OMB based classifications classify municipalities using employment data, without regard to urban form, density or other variables that are associated with the urban core. These classifications are useful and acknowledge that the monocentric nature of US metropolitan areas has evolved to polycentricity. However, non-urban core principal cities and primary cities are themselves, with few exceptions, functionally suburban (some of the most significant examples are Mesa, Arizona in the Phoenix area, which had a population of only 7,000 in 1940 and Arlington, Texas, in the Dallas-Fort Worth area, which had a population of only 4,000. Their populations, now both 350,000 or more are virtually all automobile oriented suburban).

The City Sector Model Criteria

Because of the substantial interest of urban planners in minimizing the use of automobiles and restoring transit, walking and cycling as primary urban travel alternatives, it is important to identify the extent of automobile oriented suburbanization to the greatest extent possible. Better information is required, regardless of an analysts’ orientation. (As an aside, this author believes that the data shows planning efforts to lead to lower standards of living and greater poverty, which is discussed in Toward More Prosperous Cities).

A number of data combinations were tested for the Pre-Auto Urban Core, to replicate as closely as feasible the 2010 population of the core municipalities that have virtually the same boundaries as in 1940 and that were virtually fully developed by that time (the Pre-War & Non-Suburban classification in historical core municipalities). The following criteria were accepted (represented graphically).

  •  The Auto Exurban category includes any area outside a principal urban area.
  •  The Pre-Auto Urban Core category includes any non-exurban with a median house construction date of 1945 or before and also included areas with a population density of 7,500 per square mile (2,900) or more and with a transit, walk and cycling journey to work market share of 20 percent or more.
  •  The Auto Suburban Earlier category included the balance of areas with a median house construction date of 1979 or before.
  •  The Auto Suburban Later category later included the balance of areas with a median house construction date of 1980 or later.

Additional details on the criteria are in the Note.

Results: 2010 Census

 The combined Pre-Auto Urban Core areas represented 14.4 percent of the population of the major metropolitan areas in 2010 (2013 geographical definition). This compares to the 26.4 percent that the core municipalities themselves represented of the metropolitan areas, indicating their large functionally suburban components.

The Auto Suburban: Earlier areas accounted for 42.0 percent of the population, while the Auto Suburban: Later areas had 26.8 percent of the population. The Auto Exurban areas had 16.8 percent of the population.

The substantial difference between U.S. and Canadian urbanization is illustrated by applying an approximation of the Gordon-Janzen criteria, which yielded an 8.4 percent Pre-Auto Urban Core population. The corresponding figure for the six major metropolitan areas of Canada was 24.0 percent. This difference is not surprising, since major Canadian urban areas have generally higher densities and much more robust transit, walking and cycling market shares. Yet, the Gordon-Janzen research shows Canada to be overwhelmingly suburban.

Population Density: As would be expected, the Pre-Auto Urban Core areas had the highest densities, at 11,000 per square mile (4,250 per square kilometer). The Auto Suburban: Earlier areas had a density of 2,500 per square mile (1,000 per square kilometer), while the Auto Suburban: Later had a population density of 1,300 per square mile (500 per square kilometer), while the Auto Exurban areas had a population density of 150 per square mile (60 per square kilometer).

Individual Metropolitan Areas (Cities)

The metropolitan areas with the highest proportion of Pre-Auto Urban Core population are New York (more than 50 percent), and Boston (nearly 35 percent), followed by Buffalo, Chicago, San Francisco-Oakland and Providence, all with more than 25 percent.

It may be surprising that many of the major metropolitan areas are shown with little or no Pre-Auto Urban Core population. For example, five metropolitan areas have no Pre-Auto Urban Core population, including Phoenix, Riverside-San Bernardino, Tampa-St. Petersburg, Orlando, Jacksonville and Birmingham. By the Census Bureau criteria of 1940, two of these areas were not yet metropolitan and only Birmingham (400,000) had more than 250,000 residents. Only the larger metropolitan had strong Pre-Auto Urban Cores. Many of the newer and fastest growing metropolitan areas were too small, too sparsely settled or insufficiently dense to have had strong urban cores before the great automobile suburbanization that followed World War II. Further, many of the Pre-Auto Urban Cores have experienced significant population loss and some of their neighborhoods have become more suburban (automobile oriented). Virtually no urban cores have been developed since World War II meeting the criteria.

Thus, no part of Phoenix, San Jose, Charlotte and a host of other newer metropolitan areas functionally resembles the Pre-Auto Urban Core areas of metropolitan areas like Chicago, Cincinnati or Milwaukee. However, new or expanded urban cores are possible, if built at high enough population density and with high enough transit, walking and cycling use.

Despite the comparatively small share of the modern metropolitan area represented by the Pre-Auto Urban Core in the City Core Model, the definition is broad and, if anything over-estimates the size of urban core city sectors. The population density of Pre-Auto Urban Core areas is below that of the historical core municipalities before the great auto oriented urbanization (11,000 compared to 12,100 in 1940) and well above their 2010 density (8,400), even when New York is excluded. The minimum density requirement of 7,500 per square mile (not applied to analysis zones with a median house construction data of 1945 or earlier) is slightly less than the density of Paris suburbs (7,800 per square mile or 3,000 per square kilometer) and only 20 percent more dense than the jurisdictional suburbs of Los Angeles (6,400 per square mile or 2,500 per square kilometer). Some urban containment plans require higher minimum densities, not only in urban cores but also in the suburbs.

The United States: An Even More Suburban Nation

In describing the Canadian results, Professor Gordon noted that there is a tendency to “overestimate the importance of the highly visible downtown cores and underestimate the vast growth happening in the suburban edges.” That is true to an even greater degree in the United States.

—–

Note: The City Sector Model is applied to the 52 major metropolitan areas in the United States (over 1 million population). The metropolitan areas are divided into the principal urban areas, with areas outside categorized as exurban. The principal urban areas in Los Angeles and San Francisco encompass the smaller Mission Viejo and Concord urban areas, which are adjacent. As a result, some smaller urban areas, such as Palm Springs (Riverside-San Bernardino metropolitan area), Lancaster (Los Angeles metropolitan area) and Poughkeepsie (New York metropolitan area) are considered exurban. Areas with less than 250 residents per square mile (100 per square kilometer) are also considered exurban, principally for classification of large areas on the urban fringe that have a substantial rural element.

The Pre-Auto Urban Core includes all non -– exurban areas in which is the house construction date is 1945 or before. In addition, the urban core includes areas that have a population density of 7,500 per square mile (2,900 per square kilometer) or more and a transit, walking and cycling journey to work market share of 20 percent or more, so long as they are in the urban area.

The analysis zones (zip codes) have an average population of 19,000, with from as many as 1,000 zones in New York to 50 in Raleigh.

—–

This article is adapted from From Jurisdictional to Functional Analysis of Urban Cores and Suburbs, originally published in newgeography.com. That article contains charts, tables and representative maps.

Energy, Land Issues, Property Issues

Smart Growth and Livability: The Road to More Intense Air Pollution and Traffic Congestion

1 Comment

Population Density and Air Pollution: For years, regional transportation plans, public officials, and urban planners have been seeking to densify urban areas, using strategies referred to as “smart growth” or “livability.” They have claimed that densifying urban areas would lead to lower levels of air pollution, principally because it is believed to reduce travel by car. In fact, however, EPA data show that higher population densities are strongly associated with higher levels of automobile travel and more concentrated air pollution emissions.

This is illustrated by county-level data for nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions, which is an important contributor to ozone formation. This analysis includes the more than 425 counties in the nation’s major metropolitan areas (those with more than 1 million in population).

Seven of the 10 counties with the highest NOx emissions concentration (annual tons per square mile) in major metropolitan areas are also among the top 10 in population density (2008). New York County (Manhattan) has by far the most intense NOx emissions and is also by far the most dense. Manhattan also has the highest concentration of emissions for the other criteria air pollutants, such as carbon monoxide, particulates, and volatile organic compounds (2002 data). New York City’s other three most urban counties (Bronx, Kings, and Queens) are more dense than any county in the nation outside Manhattan, and all are among the top 10 in NOx emission density.

Traffic and Air Pollution: More concentrated traffic also leads to greater traffic congestion and more intense air pollution. The data for traffic concentration is similar to population density.[7] Manhattan has by far the greatest miles of road travel per square mile of any county. Again, seven of the 10 counties with the greatest density of traffic are also among the 10 with the highest population densities. As in the case of NOx emissions, the other three highly urbanized New York City counties are also among the top 10 in the density of motor vehicle travel.

There is a significant increase in the concentration of both NOx emissions and motor vehicle travel in each higher category of population density. For example, the counties with more than 20,000 people per square mile have NOx emission concentrations 14 times those of the average county in these metropolitan areas, and motor vehicle travel is 22 times the average. All of this is consistent with research by the Sierra Club and a model derived from that research by ICLEI–Local Governments for Sustainability, both strong supporters of densification, show that traffic volumes increase with density.

Public Health: These data strongly indicate that the densification strategies associated with smart growth and livability are likely to worsen the concentration of both NOx emissions and motor vehicle travel. But there is a more important impact. A principal reason for regulating air pollution from highway vehicles is to minimize public health risks. Any public policy that tends to increase air pollution intensities will work against the very purpose of air pollution regulation—better public health. The American Heart Association found that air pollution levels vary significantly in urban areas and that people who live close to highly congested roadways are exposed to greater health risks. The EPA also notes that NOx emissions are higher near busy roadways. The bottom line is that—all things being equal—higher population density, more intense traffic congestion, and higher concentrations of air pollution go together.

All of this could have serious consequences as the EPA expands the strength of its misguided regulations. For example, officials in the Tampa–St. Petersburg area have expressed concern that the metropolitan area will not meet the new standards, and they have proposed densification as a solution, consistent with the misleading conventional wisdom. The reality is that this is likely to make things worse, not better. Officials there and elsewhere need to be aware of how densification worsens air pollution intensity and health risks and actually defeats efforts to meet federal standards.

Growth That Makes Areas Less Livable:
There are myriad difficulties with smart growth and livability policies, including their association with higher housing prices, a higher cost of living, muted economic growth, and decreased mobility and access to jobs in metropolitan areas. As the EPA data show, the densification policies of smart growth and livability also make air pollution worse for people at risk, while increasing traffic congestion.

Additional details will be found at Wendell Cox, ” Population Density, Traffic Density and Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) Emission Air Pollution Density in Major Metropolitan Areas of the United States,” http://www.demographia.com/db-countynox.pdf.

This article is adapted from a Heritage Foundation web memo (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/09/how-smart-growth-and-livability-intensify-air-pollution)