Transit Advocates Want the Working Poor to Use Bikes by uda13689

VIEWS: 56 PAGES: 21

									No. 1687
September 10, 2003


         Transit Advocates Want the Working Poor
             to Use Bikes and Buses, Not Cars
                             Wendell Cox and Ronald D. Utt, Ph.D.

   As fiscal year 2003 comes to a close, Congress        share. Public transit’s share of urban travel has
will attempt to complete major transportation leg-       plunged 75 percent in four decades, from a 7.1
islation to reauthorize the federal surface transpor-    percent share in 1960 to 1.8 percent in 2000. At
tation program for another six years. With total         some point, ridership will be so low that transit
spending of $247 billion to $370 billion at stake,       will lose the political support it needs to make its
lobbyists and advocates for various industries and       annual $7 billion claim on the highway trust fund.
causes are working overtime on behalf of their           Among the social forces combining to put transit
favorite programs.                                       at risk is welfare reform in the mid-1990s and its
   Among the most aggressive of these advocates          success in raising low-income households to eco-
are those who support more spending on transit           nomic self-sufficiency and financial independence.
(e.g., trolleys, buses, light rail, and commuter rail)   Much of this has occurred by putting former wel-
because they have the most to lose. As much as 20        fare recipients to work.
percent of federal transportation funding goes to           As federal welfare policy focuses on raising
transit, which serves less than 2 percent of travel-     incomes and putting people to work, welfare ana-
ers. Transit advocates know there is a risk that         lysts have recognized the importance of transpor-
Congress may recognize this astonishing waste of         tation and mobility in linking the unemployed to
money and shift the funds to highway programs,           the widest choice of good jobs. Because transit is
which serve the overwhelming majority of travel-         slow and reaches only a fraction of the places offer-
ers and commuters.                                       ing employment in any metropolitan area, many of
   Of the many rationales offered in defense of dis-     these same experts have come to realize that ready
proportionately high transit spending, the most          access to an automobile is the key to a good job
novel put forth this year is the bizarre claim by the    and a prosperous work career.
Surface Transportation Policy Project (STPP) that           In 1999, President Bill Clinton earned the ire of
auto ownership by the working poor leads to a            anti-car environmentalists when he succeeded in
more limited standard of living and diminished           changing food stamp eligibility standards to ensure
home ownership opportunities.
   Members of lower-income households who can-                       This paper, in its entirety, can be found at:
not afford cars account for a majority (approxi-                   www.heritage.org/research/smartgrowth/bg1687.cfm

mately two-thirds) of today’s transit riders, and the     Produced by the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies
emergence of prosperity among this group threat-
                                                                       Published by The Heritage Foundation,
ens transit with the loss of its captive constituency         214 Massachusetts Ave., NE, Washington, D.C. 20002–4999
and further shrinkage of its miniscule market                               (202) 546-4400 heritage.org

                                                           Nothing written here is to be construed as necessarily reflecting the
                                                           views of The Heritage Foundation or as an attempt to aid or hinder
                                                                        the passage of any bill before Congress.
No. 1687                                                                                   September 10, 2003

that the working poor could buy a car without            less sprawl would lead to more affordable housing
jeopardizing their benefits. Subsequent studies by       and more home ownership.
scholars at the Brookings Institution and the Pro-          To support its theory about the inverse relation-
gressive Policy Institute have shown the value of        ship between transportation costs and home own-
auto mobility to upward mobility. According to one       ership, the STPP has presented data for 26 large
recent Brookings Study, “Most welfare recipients do      U.S. metropolitan areas. However, a casual exami-
not have access to a dependable automobile, and          nation of the data confirms no such relationship.
research indicates that lack of access to an automo-     Indeed, the data show precisely the opposite: The
bile is one of the most prevalent barriers to employ-    greater the degree of sprawl, the lower the transpor-
ment.”                                                   tation costs, the more affordable the housing, and
   But the transit advocates challenge this bipartisan   the greater the regional home ownership rate.
belief in the importance of auto ownership to sus-          The lessons for Congress from the STPP’s mis-
tainable employment. An STPP representative testi-       placed effort and revealing data are that automo-
fied to Congress:                                        biles continue to gain market share, are the
     It is indeed ironic that many social                preferred and most cost-effective form of mobility,
     scientists believe that the best way to help        and have an important role to play in helping low-
     former welfare recipients secure jobs is to         income families gain financial independence.
     give them automobile purchase assistance,           Despite these obvious advantages, the federal trans-
     thereby trapping them into the poverty              portation program has suffered from an advanced
     cycle even more profoundly, as the poor             case of mission creep over the past several decades
     typically end up with less reliable cars            and now spends tens of billions of dollars on mar-
     which are more expensive to operate and             ginal projects that benefit only a small fraction of
     maintain.                                           the traveling public.
   Instead, the STPP urges the government to fund           Whether it is money for the renovation of cov-
bicycles, car-sharing programs, and more transit. As     ered bridges, thousands of pork-barrel projects,
Congress crafts the new federal transportation bill,     buses and trolleys, historic preservation, hiking and
there is a risk that some Members may actually           biking trails, maglev research, or highway beautifi-
believe this kind of advice and divert scarce federal    cation programs, all of these diversions are funded
financial resources to counterproductive programs        by the fuel taxes paid by motorists who suffer from
that both waste money and hurt the poor.                 worsening congestion because of these diversions.
   Not content simply to get the poor onto bikes,        This year’s reauthorization of the transportation
the STPP also urges land use restrictions to force       program is a good place to start restoring balance to
people to live in more compact communities that          the program and begin funding projects that people
lend themselves to greater transit use and less car      actually want to use, such as more road capacity.
dependence and ownership. In support of greater             —Wendell Cox, Principal of the Wendell Cox Con-
land use regulations, the STPP contends that more        sultancy in St. Louis, Missouri, is a Visiting Fellow at
sprawl leads to more transportation spending and         The Heritage Foundation, and Ronald D. Utt, Ph.D., is
that greater transportation spending comes at the        Herbert and Joyce Morgan Senior Research Fellow in
expense of home ownership and housing afford-            the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies
ability. Conversely, as the STPP hypothesis argues,      at The Heritage Foundation.
No. 1687
September 10, 2003


            Transit Advocates Want Working Poor
               to Use Bikes and Buses, Not Cars
                            Wendell Cox and Ronald D. Utt, Ph.D.

   As fiscal year (FY) 2003 comes to a close, Congress
will attempt to complete major transportation legisla-
tion to reauthorize the federal surface transportation    •    As much as 20 percent of federal trans-
program for another six years. With total spending of          portation funding goes to transit, which
$247 billion to $370 billion at stake, lobbyists and           serves less than 2 percent of travelers.
advocates for various industries and causes are work-
ing overtime on behalf of their favorite programs.        •    Skeptics of smart growth policies and
                                                               other restrictions on development and
   Among the most aggressive of these advocates are            land use argue that such regulations
those who support more spending on transit (e.g.,              tend to harm those with moderate
trolleys, buses, light rail, and commuter rail) because        incomes by raising house prices and
they have the most to lose. As much as 20 percent of           apartment rents.
federal transportation funding goes to transit, which
serves less than 2 percent of travelers. Transit advo-    •    People who use transit because they do
cates know there is a risk that Congress may recog-            not have a car face limited mobility
nize this astonishing waste of money and shift the             choices and diminished job prospects.
funds to highway programs, which serve the over-
whelming majority travelers and commuters.                •    Contrary to the STPP’s claims, the avail-
                                                               able data show that roadway conges-
   More recently, transit advocates have linked their          tion is lower and housing is more
efforts more closely to the smart growth/new urban-            affordable in metropolitan areas with
ism movement in an effort to be more topical and               higher degrees of urban sprawl.
force land use practices into new patterns that would
encourage individuals to use more transit and fewer
cars. But as the smart growth movement gains critics
who note the adverse impact of land use restrictions
on housing costs, transit advocates run the risk of
being seen as proponents of regulations that impede
home ownership among families with modest                       This paper, in its entirety, can be found at:
                                                              www.heritage.org/research/smartgrowth/bg1687.cfm
incomes.
                                                                   Produced by the Thomas A. Roe Institute
   The Surface Transportation Policy Project (STPP),                     for Economic Policy Studies
one of America’s more prominent pro-transit advo-                  Published by The Heritage Foundation
cacy groups, has countered this criticism by claiming                    214 Massachusetts Ave., NE
                                                                      Washington, DC 20002–4999
                                                                      (202) 546-4400 heritage.org

                                                           Nothing written here is to be construed as necessarily
                                                              reflecting the views of The Heritage Foundation
                                                          or as an attempt to aid or hinder the passage of any bill
                                                                               before Congress.
No. 1687                                                                                               September 10, 2003

that efforts to reduce sprawl and expand transit                 growth costs. Over the past few years, analysts at
spending will actually promote home ownership. As                The Heritage Foundation, the Brookings Institution,
this report demonstrates, no evidence supports the               the National Center for Public Policy Research, Har-
STPP’s hypothesized relationship between transit                 vard University, Tufts University, and the National
and home ownership: In fact, even the STPP’s own                 Bureau of Economic Research have published
data show exactly the opposite.                                  reports concluding or acknowledging that the more
                                                                 commonly applied smart growth regulations imperil
The High Cost of Smart Growth                                    home ownership opportunities or that the absence
   Over the past several years, many skeptics of                 of such restrictions improves the prospects for
smart growth policies and other restrictions on                  minority home ownership.3
development and land use have argued that such
regulations tend to harm those with moderate                     Environmentalists Counterattack
incomes by raising house prices and apartment                       As the evidence of disproportionate harm to the
rents. Such growth control regulations in common                 less well-off builds, advocates of growth controls
use today include impact fees, oversized lots, growth            and their allies in the environmental movement and
boundaries, and mandated amenities—all of which                  the transit industry have been searching for ways to
raise costs and restrict supply.1                                challenge the claim that growth controls increase
   In response to such criticism, many smart growth              housing costs and hurt the poor. Typical of the
advocates either deny that their policies are costly or          defensive effort getting underway is a July 2003
contend that the cost increases are minor and are                report by the STPP that, notwithstanding all evi-
offset by other benefits. At the same time, however, a           dence to the contrary, attempts to link the existence
small but growing faction of growth control advo-                of sprawl to burdensome automobile costs that in
cates endorse the prospect of higher prices as a nec-            turn absorb a share of a family’s income that could
essary cost of achieving elitist goals, as did the               otherwise be devoted to buying a house.4
California planner who recently argued:                             In other words, the STPP claims that sprawl
     If a community or region refuses to grow,                   reduces home ownership. This hypothesized rela-
     the result may be higher prices, economic                   tionship between cars and houses leads the experts
     displacement and hardship, and dangerous                    at the STPP to urge the “working poor” to reject auto
     crowded housing in exchange for keeping a                   ownership and turn to public transportation or bicy-
     desirable quality of life for the “already                  cles so that they can afford to become home owners.
     landed” middle and upper income groups.                     The STPP also recommends that government spend
     If the local voters are willing to pay this                 more on public transportation and bicycles to give
     price, why should planners try to prevent                   the poor more transportation choices.
     it?2                                                           Cars are apparently acceptable for the better off,
   Despite denials by smart growth advocates, a                  and the STPP acknowledges that “For middle- and
growing body of academic evidence demonstrates                   upper-income families, the cost of transportation is
that lower-income households seeking home owner-                 taken for granted.”5 The poor, however, are differ-
ship bear a disproportionately high amount of smart              ent: “But for the poorest American families the high


1. See Wendell Cox and Ronald D. Utt, “Smart Growth, Housing Costs, and Homeownership,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder
   No. 1426, April 6, 2001.
2. Chris Williamson, “Is No Growth Also Smart Growth?” Scanning Planning, Spring 2002, p. 21.
3. Edward I. Glaeser and Joseph Gyourko, The Impact of Zoning on Housing Affordability, Harvard Institute of Economic Research,
   Harvard University, March 2002; Matthew E. Kahn, “Does Sprawl Reduce the Black/White Housing Consumption Gap?” Hous-
   ing Policy Debate, Vol. 12, Issue 1 (2001), pp. 77–86; “Smart Growth and Its Effects on Housing Markets: The New Segrega-
   tion,” National Center for Public Policy Research, Washington, D.C., November 2002.
4. Surface Transportation Policy Project, “Transportation Costs and the American Dream: Why a Lack of Transportation Choices
   Strains the Family Budget and Hinders Home Ownership,” July 2003.




page 2
No. 1687                                                                                               September 10, 2003

cost of owning and maintaining a car may put                      words, the extra benefits of car ownership offset the
homeownership out of reach.”6                                     extra costs. Although the STPP denies the existence
   The STPP report offers no meaningful evidence                  of such a relationship, it is largely alone in this
to support this claim. Instead, it relies on the                  belief. Most other social welfare advocates on both
reader’s intuition to accept that a cost connection               sides of the political spectrum believe that access to
exists between cars and homes. Indeed, what little                an automobile is essential to economic advance-
data the STPP does provide prove nothing about                    ment.
the postulated relationship between homes and                     The Job Benefit in Auto Mobility
cars, and the report completely ignores the more
                                                                     For example, President Bill Clinton proposed
firmly established positive relationships between
                                                                  relaxing auto ownership restrictions in food stamp
car ownership, employment, and economic oppor-
                                                                  eligibility requirements “so that people can access
tunity.
                                                                  reliable transportation to get to work without sacri-
   Instead, the report focuses only on costs, not                 ficing their food stamp benefits.”9 An October 2000
outcomes or benefits. For example, the STPP notes                 press release from the Clinton Administration in
that the working poor who drive spend 21 percent                  support of the eligibility change noted: “One
of their income on commuting, while “the working                  national study found that twice as many welfare
poor who were able to take public transportation,                 recipients with cars were working than those with-
bicycle, car pool, or walk to work spent far less.”7              out cars, and 25 percent more low-income families
But did more of the latter own their own homes                    with cars were working than those without cars.”10
than the former? On this, the STPP is silent. The
                                                                     More recently, a May 2003 Brookings Institution
STPP also cites a study that claims an “inverse rela-
                                                                  survey found:
tionship between increasing car and truck owner-
ship and diminishing family savings.”8 But if the                      Most welfare recipients do not have access
two events are connected, what does this mean for                      to a dependable automobile, and research
home ownership? Again, the STPP fails to make the                      indicates that lack of access to an
connection, most likely because there is none.                         automobile is one of the most prevalent
Since World War II, both home ownership and                            barriers to employment. Research further
vehicle ownership have soared—an accomplish-                           indicates that car ownership improves the
ment the STPP analysis implies could not have hap-                     likelihood that low-income people will get
pened.                                                                 and keep work, and improves access to
                                                                       better jobs.11
   But it did happen, thanks to rising prosperity.
For the most part, the growth in ownership of both                   According to another recent Brookings study on
types of valuable assets reflects the extra mobility              transportation policies for the working poor:
and freedom that automobile ownership allows                           In recent years, new sources of federal
individuals, often giving them access to better jobs                   funds have helped agencies initiate transit
and the means to buy a house and a car. In other                       services aimed at moving low-income

5. Ibid.
6. Ibid., p. 2.
7. Ibid.
8. Ibid. This improbable assertion is at odds with research cited below, which shows that higher rates of low-income automobile
   ownership are associated with lower unemployment rates. It would also seem likely that household savings are likely to be
   higher where there is higher employment.
9. News release, “President Clinton Signs Farm Spending Bill,” U.S. Department of Agriculture, October 28, 2000.
10. Press release, “President Clinton Announces Transportation Grants to Help Low-Income Families,” White House, October
    16, 2000.
11. Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy, Survey Series, Brookings Institution, May 2003, p. 12.




                                                                                                                         page 3
No. 1687                                                                                                  September 10, 2003

     adults into the labor market. By contrast,                    found among non-Hispanic Whites would eliminate
     policymakers have paid far less attention to                  45 percent of the unemployment gap between the
     increasing automobile access among the                        two ethnic groups. Similarly, if the Hispanic auto-
     poor. Given the strong connection between                     mobile ownership rate were increased to that of
     cars and employment outcomes, auto                            non-Hispanic Whites, 17 percent of the differential
     ownership programs may be one of the                          would be erased.14
     more promising options and one worthy of                         It is easy to see why cars can help close the unem-
     expansion.12                                                  ployment gap. At average transit operating speeds of
   An earlier study on a similar subject by the Pro-               15 miles per hour, a maximum “job shed” of 175
gressive Policy Institute, a think tank affiliated with            square miles can be accessed in 30 minutes. In real-
the Democratic Leadership Council, noted:                          ity, however, the actual job shed would be much less
     In most cases, the shortest distance between                  because of the necessity of transfers and limited ser-
     a poor person and a job is along a line                       vice areas. On the other hand, a person with an
     driven in a car. Prosperity in America has                    automobile can expect to average 30 miles per hour
     always been strongly related to mobility and                  and reach a job shed of 700 square miles in 30 min-
     poor people work hard for access to                           utes. This vastly increases employment and other
     opportunities. For both the rural and inner-                  opportunities, offering a better quality of life.
     city poor, access means being able to reach                      In spite of the long-standing bipartisan support
     the prosperous suburbs of our booming                         for improving low-income access to automobiles
     metropolitan economies, and mobility                          and the growing body of evidence indicating that an
     means having the private automobile                           automobile offers the working poor much greater
     necessary for the trip. The most important                    access to better jobs, the STPP has maintained that
     response to the policy challenge of job                       such access should be discouraged. In June 2002,
     access for those leaving welfare is the                       the STPP took its case to Congress when STPP board
     continued and expanded use of cars by low-                    member and former director Hank Dittmar
     income workers. Across the country, state                     expressed his opposition to greater auto mobility for
     and local decision-makers are inventing                       the poor in testimony before a Senate committee:
     new programs to do just that and devising                           It is indeed ironic that many social scientists
     new ways that public funds can help.13                              believe that the best way to help former
   Since transit service is so much slower than cars                     welfare recipients secure jobs is to give them
and is focused principally in the core and central                       automobile purchase assistance, thereby
business districts of major metropolitan areas, peo-                     trapping them into the poverty cycle even
ple who use transit because they do not have a car                       more profoundly, as the poor typically end
face limited mobility and diminished job prospects.                      up with less reliable cars which are more
Much of a given metropolitan area simply cannot be                       expensive to operate and maintain.15
accessed by transit. This imposes a significant eco-                  Recognizing that effective advocacy in Washing-
nomic burden according to Steven Raphael and                       ton requires that one offer a counter-solution as an
Michael Stoll of the University of California, whose               alternative to the one you oppose, the STPP revealed
research indicates that raising the rate of automobile             what it thought government should be doing to
ownership among African–Americans to the rate                      accommodate the mobility needs of low-income

12. Evelyn Blumenberg and Margy Waller, “The Long Journey to Work: A Federal Transportation Policy for Working Families,”
    Center for Urban and Metropolitan Policy, Brookings Institution, July 2003, p. 2.
13. Margy Waller and Mark Alan Hughes, “Working Far from Home: Transportation and Welfare Reform in the Ten Big States,”
    Progressive Policy Institute, August 1, 1999. See also Anne Kim, “Why People Need Affordable Cars,” Blueprint: Ideas for a New
    Century, February 11, 2003, at www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=251220&kaid=114&subid=143.
14. Steven Raphael and Michael Stoll, “Can Boosting Minority Car-Ownership Rates Narrow Inter-Racial Employment Gaps?” at
    repositories.cdlib.org/iber/bphup/working_papers/W00-002.




page 4
No. 1687                                                                                               September 10, 2003

families. In a letter to Senator James Jeffords (I–VT),           sprawl and household transportation spending is
the STPP proposed that government create and                      exactly the opposite of what the STPP claims—
fund “Bike Purchase Programs and Car Sharing Pro-                 using the same data on the same set of metropolitan
grams to help low wage earners secure reliable and                areas as the STPP used in its report.
affordable transportation options.”16 One can only                   In its most recent report of July 2003, the STPP
imagine the ridicule that some Senators would have                hedges its bets by noting that “the sample size is too
heaped upon such a “let them eat cake” proposal if                small to allow a rigorous statistical analysis,” but
it had come from a fiscally conservative organiza-                then adds that “a quick glance at the list of metro
tion rather than one supported by environmental-                  areas shows that in many sprawling metro areas,
ists, unions, and transit system contractors.                     families spend a much larger portion of their
End Sprawl, Use Transit?                                          household budget on transportation than in more
                                                                  compact, transit- or pedestrian-oriented areas.”18
   Although the STPP’s postulated relationship                    Yet a lingering glance over the STPP’s data would
between cars and homes has no basis in fact and is                reveal precisely the opposite, as presented in Table
at variance with the findings of most social scien-               1, which categorizes the STPP cities by degrees of
tists regardless of where they stand on the ideologi-             sprawl.
cal spectrum, the STPP has persisted in its efforts to
keep the poor on the bus. In addition to advocating               Measuring Sprawl
bike and bus subsidies, the STPP recommends                          There is no precise definition of “sprawl.” In this
changes in land use and residential development                   analysis, sprawl is defined by population density, or
patterns in order to push people onto transit as a                the number of inhabitants per square mile of land
way to resolve the nonexistent relationship between               in the area. The more sprawling a community is
transportation costs and home ownership.                          (i.e., the greater the share of single-family detached
   As the STPP sees the world and its deficiencies,               houses on large lots, few or no apartments and
the suburbanization of America is the heart of the                town homes, and shopping centers surrounded by
problem, which it believes has led to increased                   vast parking lots), the lower will be its population
transportation costs as people living in “sprawling”              density. Conversely, traditional cities and older sub-
suburbs make greater use of their cars than they                  urbs with their smaller lots and preponderance of
would have if they had remained in inner-city                     multi-family housing would have much higher
neighborhoods with greater access to public trans-                population densities. For example, Manhattan’s
portation. In a letter to Congress’s Millennial Hous-             population density is 70,000 per square mile,19
ing Commission, the STPP argued that its earlier                  and Hong Kong’s is 83,000, while Atlanta’s urban-
“report, Driven to Spend, found that residents of                 ized area has only 1,800 people per square mile.
more sprawling metro areas tend to spend a much                      This measure of sprawl would also seem to con-
higher proportion of their family budget than resi-               form with the STPP’s definition: The STPP report
dents of more compact, traditional metro areas with               contrasts the differences between “sprawling” cities
good public transportation service.”17                            and those that are “compact,” meaning more dense.
   That statement, however, has no basis in fact. In              Using people per square mile as the measure of
fact, data presented later in the current report dem-             sprawl, the 26 metropolitan areas cited by the STPP
onstrate that the relationship between degrees of

15. Hank Dittmar, President, The Great American Station Foundation, on behalf of the Surface Transportation Policy Project, tes-
    timony before the Subcommittee on Housing and Transportation, Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, U.S.
    Senate, June 26, 2002, p. 7.
16. Nancy Jakowitsch and Kate Bicknell, letter to Senator James Jeffords, June 14, 2002.
17. Michelle Garland and Nancy Jakowitsch, letter to Millennial Housing Commission on behalf of STPP, June 29, 2001.
18. Surface Transportation Policy Project, “Transportation Costs and the American Dream.”
19. In contrast, the density of the New York urbanized area including Manhattan is only 5,300 per square mile.




                                                                                                                         page 5
No. 1687                                                                                                  September 10, 2003

can be arranged in        Table 1                                                                                    B 1687
quintiles     by     the
degree of sprawl.                          Consumer Expenditures per Household
   The first column of                                                                                  Transportation,
Table 1 shows these                         Urbanized                             Transportation and   Housing, and Food
measures for each of Degree of Urban Population            Transportation              Housing             at Home
the five degrees of              Sprawl      Density         Expenditures            Expenditures        Expenditures
sprawl, with the          Least Sprawling      5,379             $8,164                 $25,552             $29,045
“most sprawled” met-      Less Sprawling       3,542             $8,165                 $24,125             $27,023
ropolitan        areas20  Middle               2,956             $8,426                 $22,934             $26,341
averaging a density of    More Sprawling       2,639             $8,279                 $21,602             $24,732
2,146 per square mile     Most Sprawling       2,146             $7,249                 $20,334             $23,363
(Atlanta, Boston) and     Average              3,318             $8,071                 $22,910             $26,110
the “least sprawled”
regions having a den-
sity of 5,379 people
per square mile (San Source: Ranked using data from Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Expenditures:
Francisco and New 2000–2001.
York City). Table A in
the Appendix ranks these 26 metropolitan areas by
density and by the five degrees of sprawl: least               Household expenditures are lower where
sprawling, less sprawling, middle, more sprawling,          sprawl is greater. The STPP argues that sprawl is
and most sprawling. Each quintile includes five met-        associated with higher consumer expenditures for
ropolitan areas, except for the middle quintile, transportation and housing. In fact, the opposite is
which contains six.                                         true. When “food at home” is added to the equation,
                                                            the disparity becomes even greater. Indeed, the low-
The Advantages of Sprawl                                    est transportation expenditures per household were
   Ranking areas by their degree of sprawl allows in the “most sprawling” areas ($7,249) and were
more precise inferences about the influence of $915 less than households spend in the “least
sprawl on transportation costs and allows the valid-        sprawling” areas.21 (See Table 1.)
ity of the STPP’s assertion about the relationship             The least sprawling areas had transportation
between the two to be assessed. This sprawl index           expenditures of $8,164, or 13 percent above the
can also be used to determine the influence of most sprawling areas. Similarly, the lowest transpor-
sprawl on other important measures of well-being            tation and housing expenditures were in the most
that are believed to be adversely affected by sprawl.       sprawling areas, at $20,334. The highest transporta-
For example, if sprawl raises transportation costs—         tion and housing expenditures were in the least
as the STPP contends—and higher transportation              sprawling areas, at $25,552, and were 26 percent
costs limit home ownership, then the data should            above the most sprawling areas. Finally, when food-
reveal a negative relationship between sprawl and           at-home expenditures are added, the lowest figure is
home ownership. But the data presented in this also in the most sprawling areas: $23,363 per capita.
report show that no such relationship exists in the         The highest figure is in the least sprawling areas, at
cities listed by the STPP. Indeed, transportation           $29,045, or 24 percent above the most sprawling
costs, housing prices, home ownership, and traffic          areas. (See Figure 1.)
congestion are all more favorable in communities
with more sprawl than in communities with less                 Housing affordability is greater where sprawl
sprawl.                                                     is greater. Another measure of the American dream

20. This is based upon the density of the core urbanized area (continuously built-up area) within the metropolitan area.
21. For detailed data, see Table A in the Appendix.




page 6
No. 1687                                                                                                           September 10, 2003


                       Figure 1                                                                           B 1687



                                   Consumer Expenditures per Household
                                  Expenditures per Household
                      $35,000

                       30,000                                                                   $29,045
                                                                   $26,341       $27,023
                                                   $24,932
                       25,000       $23,363

                       20,000

                       15,000

                       10,000

                         5,000


                                     Most           More           Middle            Less       Least
                                                             Urban Sprawl Quintile


                      * Total of expenditures for transportation, housing, and food at home.
                      Source: Ranked using data from Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Expenditures:
                      2000-2001



            Table 2                                                                                                 B 1687


                                                   Housing Affordability
                                      Urbanized                                                         Affordability:
           Degree of Urban            Population       Median House              Median                    House
               Sprawl                  Density            Value              Household Income           Value/Income
           Least Sprawling               5,379               $213,100                 $49,688                  4.29
           Less Sprawling                3,542               $171,680                 $49,958                  3.44
           Middle                        2,956               $129,150                 $48,256                  2.68
           More Sprawling                2,639               $116,840                 $44,899                  2.60
           Most Sprawling                2,146               $127,020                 $46,663                  2.72
           Average                       3,318               $150,696                 $47,907                  3.15


           Source: Ranked using data from U.S. Census, 2000, at www.census.gov




                                                                                                                                page 7
No. 1687                                                                                                 September 10, 2003

is the affordability of home ownership,      Figure 2                                                                     B 1687
as measured by the relationship
between housing prices in a region and                                  Housing Affordability
the income level of that region. As the
                                                     Affordability*
data reveal, housing is by far the least     5.0
affordable in the least sprawling areas.
                                             4.5                                                                    4.29
Median house values are highest in the
least sprawling areas, at $213,100, or       4.0
82 percent above the $116,840 of more        3.5                                                     3.44
sprawling areas.  22 (See Table 2.)
                                             3.0         2.72                         2.68
   The less sprawling areas have the                                     2.60
                                             2.5
highest median household incomes,
although the least sprawling areas rank      2.0
nearly as high, at $49,688 per house-        1.5
hold. This is 11 percent above the low-
est value, $44,899, in the more              1.0
sprawling areas. The median house            0.5
value in the least sprawling areas is 4.29
times the corresponding median house-                    Most           More         Middle          Less           Least
hold income. Similarly, in the less
                                                                               Urban Sprawl Quintile
sprawling areas, median home values
are also high, at 3.44 times income. The     *Median house value divided by median income. Lower is more affordable.
most affordable housing relative to          Source: Ranked using data from U.S. Census, 2000, at www.census.gov.
incomes is in the more sprawling areas,
where         median      Table 3                                                                                          B 1687
house values are
2.60 times median                                               Home Ownership
incomes. The mid-
dle     and      most                          Urbanized                Home                African-
sprawling        areas    Degree of Urban     Population              Ownership:        American Home           Hispanic Home
have similar house               Sprawl          Density                   All             Ownership              Ownership
affordability ratings,     Least Sprawling         5,379                 59.0%                41.1%                  43.3%
of 2.68 and 2.72,
                           Less Sprawling          3,542                 63.1%                40.7%                  43.4%
respectively.     (See
Figure 2.) In other        Middle                  2,956                 65.5%                46.2%                  46.1%
words, the greater         More Sprawling          2,639                 69.1%                41.1%                  47.9%
the sprawl, the            Most Sprawling          2,146                 66.9%                40.4%                  39.7%
higher the share of        Average                 3,318                 64.8%                42.1%                  44.2%
the local population
that can afford to
become home own- Source: Ranked using data from U.S. Census, 2000, at www.census.gov
ers.
   Home ownership is higher where sprawl is                      precisely the opposite of STPP’s hypothesized rela-
greater. If housing prices are more affordable in                tionship between home ownership, cars, and urban
sprawling areas, then one might expect home own-                 sprawl. Contrary to the STPP’s assertions, however,
ership rates to be higher in more sprawled areas—                the lowest home ownership rate is in the least

22. For detailed data, see Table B in the Appendix.




page 8
No. 1687                                                                                                 September 10, 2003

more and most sprawling catego-            Figure 3                                                           B 1687
ries.23 (See Table 3 and Figure 3.)
   As the fourth and fifth columns of                              Home Ownership Rate
Table 3 show, home ownership rates                  Home Ownership Rate
tend to be lower for minorities due to 80%
their generally lower incomes. Minor- 70                            69.1%
                                                       66.9%                     65.5%
ity home ownership is thus an indica-                                                            63.1%
tor of lower-income home ownership 60                                                                   59.0%
rates. The least sprawling areas have
slightly lower than average African– 50
American and Hispanic home owner- 40
ship rates. The highest African–Amer-
ican home ownership rates are in the 30
middle sprawl areas, while the highest
Hispanic home ownership rates are in 20
the more sprawl areas. The lowest 10
minority home ownership rates are in
the most sprawling areas. However, if
transit-rich Boston is excluded from                   Most         More        Middle           Less    Least
the most sprawl category, the African–
                                                                           Urban Sprawl Quintile
American home ownership rate rises
to the second rank, while the His- Source: Ranked using data from U.S. Census, 2000, at www.census.gov.
panic home ownership rate becomes
third.24
                                                                Table 4 illustrates this tendency in the Northern
   For example, a breakdown of the home owner- Virginia suburbs of Washington, D.C. In the inner
ship patterns by income class in Washington, D.C. suburbs, where land and housing costs are high,
(a sprawling metropolitan area), reveals a striking households with incomes below $35,000 represent
relationship between sprawl, income, and home only a tiny fraction of the home owners, whereas as
ownership. As noted earlier, one attraction of outly- many as 50 percent to 70 percent of the home own-
ing communities is lower land prices than are ers in the outer suburbs—where land and homes
found in communities closer to the metropolitan are cheaper—have incomes of $35,000 or less.25
center. Lower land prices, in turn, contribute to
lower housing costs. As a result, moderate-income               Transportation is better where sprawl is
households and entry-level buyers typically seek greater. Residents of the most sprawling areas also
their home ownership opportunities in outlying face fewer transportation problems, according to
communities because comparable housing in the data from the U.S. Census and the Texas Transpor-
closer-in communities is often unaffordable.                 tation Institute. The shortest average one-way work
                                                             trips (24.2 minutes) occur in the more sprawling

23. For detailed data, see Table C in the Appendix.
24. In other measures discussed below, the most sprawl category exhibits less favorable results than the more sprawl or middle
    sprawl categories. A principal reason is that Boston is included in the most sprawl category, ranking 23rd in urbanized popu-
    lation density among the 26 metropolitan areas. The U.S. Census Bureau reports that in 2000, the Boston urbanized area
    covered more land area than the Los Angeles urbanized area, despite having less than one-third the population. Yet Boston
    has one of the nation’s strongest downtown areas and other characteristics that make it, according to some measures, more
    like the more dense and transit-oriented areas like New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, and San Francisco. Thus, traffic tends to
    be worse in Boston than for areas of similar density, housing affordability is worse, and home ownership—especially minor-
    ity—is lower.
25. D’Vera Cohn, “For Lower-Income Buyers, a Surge in Homeownership,” The Washington Post, December 24, 2002, p. A1.




                                                                                                                           page 9
No. 1687                                                                                                    September 10, 2003


                                  Table 4                                              B 1687



                                    Virginia Home Ownership:
                                Household Income of $35,000 or Less
                                     Outer Ring:
                                     Manassas Park                               68%
                                     Stafford County                             55%
                                     Fauquier County                             53%
                                     Loudoun County                              45%
                                     Manassas                                    40%


                                     Middle Ring:
                                     Prince William County                       39%
                                     Fairfax City                                38%
                                     Fairfax County                              37%
                                     Falls Church                                32%


                                     Inner Ring:
                                     Arlington County                            15%
                                     Alexandria                                  11%

                                     Sources: U.S. Census, 2000, at www.census.gov,
                                     and D’Vera Cohn, “For Lower-Income Buyers, a
                                     Surge in Homeownership,” The Washington Post,
                                     December 24, 2002, p. A1.



            Table 5                                                                                              B 1687


                                                       Transportation
                                      Urbanized         Journey-to-Work           Roadway           Annual Transit
           Degree of Urban            Population           Travel Time:          Congestion         Place Miles per
               Sprawl                  Density                2000               Index: 2000            Capita
                      Least                 5,379              29.5                    1.34              1,866
                      Less                  3,542              28.0                    1.30              1,402
                      Middle                2,956              28.0                    1.14               802
                      More                  2,639              24.2                    1.09                685
                      Most                  2,146              26.3                    1.07                937
                      Average               3,318              27.2                    1.19              1,125


           Sources: Journey-to-work travel time from U.S. Census, 2000, at www.census.gov;
           roadway congestion index from Texas Transportation Institute; and transit place miles
           per capita from Urban Transport Fact Book, at www.publicpurpose.com/ut-msaservice.htm.




page 10
No. 1687                                                                                              September 10, 2003

areas, while the longest trips (29.5       Figure 4                                                             B 1687
minutes) occur in the least sprawl-
ing areas.26 (See Table 5 and Figure                                 Work Trip Travel Time
4.) Commuters in the least sprawl-
                                                 One-Way Travel Time in Minutes
ing areas spend nearly one work-           35
week (39.6 hours) more traveling
                                                                                                          29.5
to work each year than is spent by         30                                       28.0            28.0
commuters who live in the more                       26.3
                   27                                                 24.2
sprawling areas.        Similarly, the     25
roads are most congested in the
least sprawling areas and least con-       20
gested in the most sprawling areas.
                                           15
   The Texas Transportation Insti-
tute’s Roadway Congestion Index
                                           10
averages 1.34 for the least sprawl-
ing areas, indicating that roadways          5
operate at 34 percent above their
rated capacity (as measured by
trucks and autos per lane mile)                      Most           More           Middle           Less Least
during peak periods. In the most
sprawling urban areas, roadways                                               Urban Sprawl Quintile
operate at an average congestion
index of 1.07, or 7 percent above Source: Journey-to-work travel time from U.S. Census, 2000.
capacity.
   These relationships between sprawl and conges-               portation expenditures tend to be higher in regions
tion also undermine another important STPP con- where transit service is least, housing and food-at-
tention: the value of transit service in relieving home expenditures tend to be much lower, offset-
congestion. As the next section demonstrates, tran- ting whatever cost benefit consumers derive from
sit service levels are highest in the least sprawling subsidized transit systems. (See Table 6.)
but more congested areas, with 1,866 place miles
per capita annually.28 In contrast, the more sprawl-               The result is that the lowest overall household
ing areas have the lowest transit service levels, at an         expenditures are in the least intense transit urban
average of 685 place miles per capita annually.                 areas ($24,451). The most intense transit urban
                                                                areas have overall expenditures of $28,652—over
The Cost of More Transit                                        17 percent higher than the areas with the least tran-
   Higher Consumer Expenditures, Less Afford- sit service. Although total transportation expendi-
able Housing, and Worse Traffic. The 26 metro- tures are lower in transit-intensive places, this may
politan areas were also ranked in quintiles based on            be more a function of fewer people owning cars, or
place miles of transit service per capita—a measure households owning fewer cars, than a reflection of
of transit intensity or service levels. Higher levels of transit representing a low-cost option. Indeed, tran-
transit service tend to be associated with the oppo- sit fares are nearly as high as the full cost of driving.
site phenomena that the STPP implies. While trans- In 1999, according to data collected by the federal
                                                                government, total expenditures on personal vehi-

26. For detailed data, see Table D in the Appendix.
27. The work trip time in the most sprawling areas is skewed higher by Boston, where greater use of transit means longer work
    trips, and Atlanta, where a substandard arterial street system artificially increases work trip travel times.
28. Place miles are the number of people that can be accommodated by transit seats and standing room times the number of
    miles of service operated.




                                                                                                                       page 11
No. 1687                                                                                                       September 10, 2003




           Table 6                                                                                                       B 1687



                             Transit Service Level and Consumer Expenditures
                                          Annual                                                           Transportation,
                                       Transit Place                                Transportation        Housing and Food
             Intensity of               Miles per              Transportation        and Housing              at Home
           Transit Service                Capita                Expenditures         Expenditures           Expenditures

                 Most                      2,505                    $7,793              $25,280                $28,652
                 More                      1,170                    $7,727              $22,774                $25,814
                 Middle                      916                    $7,472              $21,823                $24,965
                 Less                        658                    $9,101              $23,364                $26,899
                 Least                       419                    $8,381              $21,528                $24,451
                 Average                   1,125                    $8,071              $22,910                $26,110



           Source: Ranked using data from Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Expenditures: 2000–2001.




           Table 7                                                                                                       B 1687


                                   Transit Service Level and Home Ownership
                                         Annual
                                      Transit Place                               African–American
             Intensity of              Miles per               Home                     Home                Hispanic Home
           Transit Service               Capita               Ownership              Ownership                Ownership

                 Most                      2,505                  60.3%                  38.6%                   36.2%
                 More                      1,170                  63.5%                  41.0%                   38.6%
                 Middle                      916                  64.1%                  42.6%                   47.6%
                 Less                        658                  66.8%                  42.6%                   47.2%
                 Least                       419                  69.2%                  45.3%                   50.5%
                 Average                   1,125                  64.8%                  42.1%                   44.2%


           Source: Ranked using data from U.S. Census, 2000, at www.census.gov.




page 12
No. 1687                                                                                                        September 10, 2003

cles (purchase, financing, and operat-          Figure 5                                                                         B 1687
ing costs) were approximately $0.20
per passenger mile.29 The same year,                                  African-American Home Ownership
average transit fares per passenger mile               Home Ownership Rate
were nearly $0.18, and total rider and          50%
                                                                                                                         45.3%
taxpayer expenditures were $0.66 per            45                                           42.6%            42.6%
                                                                           41.0%
passenger mile—more than three times            40            38.6%
the cost for automobiles.30
                                                35
   It is a sad commentary on the evolu-
tion of transit costs that it is now much       30
less expensive to move people by car            25
than it is to move them by transit.             20
Low-income households that rely on
                                                15
transit would be far better served if
their fares and part of their transit sub-      10
sidies were used instead to purchase             5
the same type of mobility that 90 per-
cent of American households already
have—a car.                                                   Most          More            Middle             Less      Least

   Home ownership becomes higher as                                              Transit Service Intensity Quintile
transit service levels decrease, with a
greater difference among African–               Source: Ranked using data from U.S. Census, 2000, at www.census.gov
American and Hispanic households.
(See Table 7.) African–American                  Figure 6                                                                        B 1687

households in areas with the least tran-
sit service are 17 percent more likely to                               Hispanic Home Ownership
be home owners than are African–                           Home Ownership Rate
American households in areas with the           60%
most transit service. (See Figure 5.)                                                                                   50.5%
   Similarly, Hispanic households are           50                                           47.6%            47.2%
40 percent more likely to be home
owners in areas with the least transit          40                         38.6%
                                                              36.2%
service than are Hispanic households in
areas with the most transit service. (See       30
Figure 6.)
   Generally, housing affordability tends       20
to be greater where there is less transit
service. (See Table 7.) Indeed, New             10
York City, with by far the most exten-
sive transit service in the nation, ranks
second worst in both African–American                         Most          More            Middle             Less      Least
and Hispanic home ownership. Only
                                                                                 Transit Service Intensity Quintile
Boston, also one of the leading transit
urban areas, ranks worse. Traffic con-          Source: Ranked using data form U.S. Census, 2000, at www.census.gov.
gestion is also less of a factor where

29. Calculated from U.S. Department of Commerce and U.S. Department of Transportation data.
30. Calculated from U.S. Census Bureau and U.S. Department of Commerce data.




                                                                                                                                page 13
No. 1687                                                                                                    September 10, 2003


   Table 8                                                                                      B 1687
                                                                                                            onions for a cost of
                                                                                                            around 69 cents a serv-
                                                                                                            ing. Yet most individu-
      Transit Service Level, Housing Affordability, and Transportation                                      als spend much more
                           Annual
                                                                                                            than this and eat less
                        Transit Place        Affordability:
                                                                                                            healthfully (e.g., steak,
    Intensity of          Miles per              House           Journey-to-Work               Roadway      onion      rings,    and
  Transit Service           Capita           Value/Income            Travel Time          Congestion Index  mashed potatoes with
                                                                                                            butter) for reasons that
       Most                  2,505                 3.47                    31.1                    1.31     have little do with the
       More                  1,170                 3.51                    27.3                    1.25     food’s nutritional value
       Middle                  916                 3.18                    26.9                    1.18     or the need to sustain
       Less                    658                 2.35                    25.9                    1.08     life.
       Least                   419                 2.58                    25.0                    1.11        In the same way,
       Average               1,125                 3.10                    27.2                    1.19     households could dra-
                                                                                                            matically reduce their
  Sources: Ranked using data from U.S. Census, 2000, at www.census.gov, and Texas Transportation Institute. transportation costs by
                                                                                                            limiting car purchase
there is less transit service. (See Table 8.) Average                      and operation to pre-owned, fuel-efficient, compact
one-way work trip travel times are the lowest in the                       cars. Some do, but many want something new and
least intense transit areas, where commuters spend                         sporty, big and gas guzzling, or imported and expen-
an average of 45.6 hours less traveling to work each                       sive because those factors, which have little to do
year than is spent by commuters in the most intense                        with cost-effective mobility, give them pleasure.
transit service areas.
                                                                               More practical, however, are the many suburban
   These findings are contrary to the relationship                         households that choose to spend more on transpor-
between transit and home ownership that is postu-                          tation and save much more in housing costs, and
lated by the STPP and therefore cast doubt on the                          thereby buy even more housing services than would
wisdom of its recommendation that government                               otherwise be possible, in contrast to the STPP’s con-
should subsidize expanded transit service to assist                        tention. In most metropolitan areas, land and hous-
lower-income and minority households to become                             ing prices on the urban fringe tend to be much
home owners.                                                               lower than those closer to the center of the metro-
   Consumer Expenditures, Costs, and Quality of politan area. These houses on the distant fringe tend
Life. Although none of the STPP’s implied relation-                        to be the only ones that individuals of moderate
ships is consistent with the available data, the basic                     incomes can afford, as Table 4 illustrates for the Vir-
presumption that a certain level of transportation                         ginia suburbs of Washington, D.C. Thus, rather than
expenditures is somehow “forced” on helpless fami-                         being the burdensome expense that the STPP
lies by regional land use patterns and lack of trans-                      asserts, auto ownership opens up vast opportunities
portation choices is itself a highly dubious                               for prospective home owners of modest means to
proposition. Equally dubious is the implication that                       reduce housing costs.
land use patterns and commuting preferences have a                             Finally, as the STPP’s own numbers reveal, only a
significant influence on household transportation                          fraction of the typical household’s annual transpor-
costs.                                                                     tation costs is a result of commuting or driving.
   Individuals in a modern, prosperous economy                             Three-fourths of the cost of car ownership is essen-
buy products and services for reasons that often                           tially fixed overhead (e.g., purchase price, insur-
have less to with the specific utility of a product or                     ance, license, and interest on the car loan), while the
service and more to do with the pleasure and value                         other 25 percent (e.g., repairs, gas, oil, and mainte-
their use provides. A person can healthfully and                           nance) is accounted for by actual operations. Thus,
inexpensively sustain life by eating only green pea                        if someone limits his driving to non-work purposes,
soup flavored with a little chicken, carrots, and


page 14
No. 1687                                                                                   September 10, 2003

which may account for half of all driving, transpor-        In a class by itself, however, are the STPP’s rec-
tation costs shrink by only 12 percent, a portion of     ommendations that government fund bicycle pur-
which would be offset by money that must then be         chases, car-sharing programs, and more transit to
spent on transit fare.                                   help the poor. As Congress crafts a new federal
    Indeed, the STPP notes that the annual savings to    transportation program, there is a risk that some
commuters using transit versus driving is only           Members may actually believe this advice and
$515 per year. With the average household in the         divert scarce federal financial resources to counter-
26 metropolitan areas spending an estimated              productive programs that both waste money and
$7,633 per year on total transportation services, the    hurt the poor. Hopefully, those believers will be in
transit saving amounts to less than 7 percent of this.   the minority.
It is for this modest sum that the STPP is asking the       Whether it is money for the renovation of cov-
working poor to give up automobiles altogether.          ered bridges, thousands of pork-barrel projects,
                                                         buses and trolleys, historic preservation, hiking and
Conclusion                                               biking trails, maglev research, or highway beautifi-
   The lessons for Congress from the STPP’s mis-         cation programs, all of these diversions are funded
placed effort and revealing data are that automo-        by the fuel taxes paid by motorists who suffer from
biles continue to gain market share, are the             worsening congestion because of these diversions.
preferred and most cost-effective form of mobility,      This year’s reauthorization of the transportation
and have an important role to play in helping low-       program is a good place to start restoring balance to
income families gain financial independence.             the program and begin funding projects that people
Despite these obvious advantages, the federal trans-     actually want to use, such as more road capacity.
portation program has suffered from an advanced             —Wendell Cox, Principal of the Wendell Cox Con-
case of mission creep over the past several decades      sultancy in St. Louis, Missouri, is a Visiting Fellow at
and now spends tens of billions of dollars each year     The Heritage Foundation, and Ronald D. Utt, Ph.D., is
on marginal projects that benefit only a small frac-     Herbert and Joyce Morgan Senior Research Fellow in
tion of the traveling public.                            the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies
                                                         at The Heritage Foundation.




                                                                                                          page 15
No. 1687                                                                                             September 10, 2003


                                                    Appendix

      Table A                                                                                                   B 1687



                             Consumer Expenditures in Metropolitan Areas
                                     Urbanized                                Transportation       Transportation,
                                     Population       Transportation           and Housing       Housing and Food
      Metropolitan Area               Density          Expenditures            Expenditures    at Home Expenditures

          Los Angeles                   7,068              $8,104                $25,210              $28,417
          San Francisco                 6,130              $9,492                $30,369              $34,271
          New York                      5,309              $7,295                $25,188              $28,928
          Miami                         4,407              $7,469                $22,448              $25,765
          Denver                        3,979              $8,458                $24,545              $27,846
          Chicago                       3,914              $8,189                $25,126              $28,356
          Phoenix                       3,638              $8,910                $22,271              $25,094
          San Diego                     3,419              $9,161                $25,633              $28,157
          Washington                    3,401              $7,647                $25,620              $28,496
          Portland                      3,340              $6,917                $21,977              $25,012
          Detroit                       3,094              $8,093                $22,467              $25,468
          Baltimore                     3,041              $6,405                $19,482              $22,516
          Houston                       2,951              $9,566                $24,157              $27,418
          Dallas–Fort Worth             2,946             $10,516                $26,035              $30,127
          Philadelphia                  2,861              $6,606                $20,308              $23,431
          Seattle                       2,844              $9,372                $25,153              $29,085
          Cleveland                     2,761              $8,202                $21,346              $24,562
          Milwaukee                     2,688              $6,683                $20,133              $23,112
          Minneapolis–St. Paul          2,671              $9,176                $25,002              $28,345
          Tampa                         2,571              $9,292                $21,250              $23,599
          St. Louis                     2,506              $8,043                $20,278              $24,043
          Kansas City                   2,330              $7,445                $20,285              $23,745
          Boston                        2,323              $6,342                $20,096              $23,207
          Cincinnati                    2,238              $8,166                $21,367              $24,347
          Pittsburgh                    2,057              $7,715                $19,121              $22,133
          Atlanta                       1,783              $6,577                $20,800              $23,384
          Average                       3,318               $8,071               $22,910              $26,110



      Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Expenditures: 2000–2001.




page 16
No. 1687                                                                                    September 10, 2003


     Table B                                                                                             B 1687


                                 Housing Affordability in Metropolitan Areas
                                           Urbanized
                                           Population   Median House   Median Household   Affordability: House
    Metropolitan Area                       Density        Value            Income           Value/Income

     Los Angeles                               7,068       $203,300         $45,903               4.43
     San Francisco                             6,130       $353,500         $62,024               5.70
     New York                                  5,309       $203,100         $50,795               4.00
     Miami                                     4,407       $126,100         $38,632               3.26
     Denver                                    3,979       $179,500         $51,088               3.51
     Chicago                                   3,914       $159,000         $51,046               3.11
     Phoenix                                   3,638       $127,900         $44,752               2.86
     San Diego                                 3,419       $227,200         $47,067               4.83
     Washington                                3,401       $178,900         $62,216               2.88
     Portland                                  3,340       $165,400         $44,707               3.70
     Detroit                                   3,094       $132,600         $49,160               2.70
     Baltimore                                 3,041       $134,900         $49,938               2.70
     Houston                                   2,951        $89,700         $44,761               2.00
     Dallas–Fort Worth                         2,946       $100,000         $47,418               2.11
     Philadelphia                              2,861       $122,300         $47,528               2.57
     Seattle                                   2,844       $195,400         $50,733               3.85
     Cleveland                                 2,761       $117,900         $42,215               2.79
     Milwaukee                                 2,688       $131,900         $46,132               2.86
     Minneapolis–St. Paul                      2,671       $141,200         $54,304               2.60
     Tampa                                     2,571        $93,800         $37,406               2.51
     St. Louis                                 2,506        $99,400         $44,437               2.24
     Kansas City                               2,330       $104,700         $46,193               2.27
     Boston                                    2,323       $192,500         $52,792               3.65
     Cincinnati                                2,238       $116,500         $44,914               2.59
     Pittsburgh                                2,057        $86,100         $37,467               2.30
     Atlanta                                   1,783       $135,300         $51,948               2.60
     Average                                   3,318       $150,696         $47,907               3.10



    Source: U.S. Census, 2000, at www.census.gov.




                                                                                                             page 17
No. 1687                                                                                    September 10, 2003

      Table C                                                                                        B 1687


                                        Home Ownership in Metropolitan Areas
                                             Urbanized     Home       African–American   Hispanic Home
      Metropolitan Area                      Population   Ownership   Home Ownership       Ownership

      Los Angeles                                7,068      54.8%          39.0%             42.7%
      San Francisco                              6,130      57.8%          39.9%             44.1%
      New York                                   5,309      53.0%          30.7%             22.5%
      Miami                                      4,407      63.2%          50.3%             56.5%
      Denver                                     3,979      66.4%          45.5%             50.7%
      Chicago                                    3,914      65.2%          42.7%             48.8%
      Phoenix                                    3,638      68.0%          44.6%             51.8%
      San Diego                                  3,419      55.4%          32.3%             39.5%
      Washington                                 3,401      64.0%          49.4%             43.8%
      Portland                                   3,340      63.0%          34.4%             33.1%
      Detroit                                    3,094      72.2%          51.8%             54.9%
      Baltimore                                  3,041      66.9%          47.2%             47.7%
      Houston                                    2,951      60.7%          45.8%             47.3%
      Dallas–Fort Worth                          2,946      60.5%          42.5%             43.4%
      Philadelphia                               2,861      69.9%          53.0%             46.5%
      Seattle                                    2,844      62.9%          36.8%             36.7%
      Cleveland                                  2,761      68.8%          44.2%             47.0%
      Milwaukee                                  2,688      62.1%          33.4%             38.3%
      Minneapolis–St. Paul                       2,671      72.4%          32.4%             41.4%
      Tampa                                      2,571      70.8%          47.0%             56.2%
      St. Louis                                  2,506      71.4%          48.3%             56.7%
      Kansas City                                2,330      67.9%          47.7%             50.3%
      Boston                                     2,323      61.7%          30.4%             22.0%
      Cincinnati                                 2,238      67.1%          35.4%             39.1%
      Pittsburgh                                 2,057      71.3%          40.0%             49.8%
      Atlanta                                    1,783      66.4%          48.6%             37.2%
      Average                                    3,318      64.8%          42.1%             44.2%



      Source: U.S. Census, 2000, at www.census.gov.




page 18
No. 1687                                                                                                   September 10, 2003


       Table D                                                                                                        B 1687


                                         Transportation in Metropolitan Areas
                                          Urbanized
                                          Population         Journey-to-Work           Roadway         Annual Transit Place
      Metropolitan Area                    Density              Travel Time         Congestion Index    Miles per Capita

      Los Angeles                            7,068                   29.1                   1.59                801
      San Francisco                          6,130                   29.3                   1.45              2,308
      New York                               5,309                   34.1                   1.16              4,192
      Miami                                  4,407                   28.9                   1.28                973
      Denver                                 3,979                   25.9                   1.23              1,055
      Chicago                                3,914                   31.0                   1.31              2,149
      Phoenix                                3,638                   26.1                   1.27                420
      San Diego                              3,419                   25.3                   1.32              1,070
      Washington                             3,401                   33.2                   1.35              2,228
      Portland                               3,340                   24.4                   1.27              1,143
      Detroit                                3,094                   26.1                   1.22                440
      Baltimore                              3,041                   29.8                   1.10                802
      Houston                                2,951                   28.8                   1.09                614
      Dallas–Fort Worth                      2,946                   27.5                   1.10                531
      Philadelphia                           2,861                   27.9                   1.10              1,365
      Seattle                                2,844                   27.7                   1.23              1,056
      Cleveland                              2,761                   24.0                   0.97                800
      Milwaukee                              2,688                   22.1                   1.08                896
      Minneapolis–St. Paul                   2,671                   23.7                   1.22                640
      Tampa                                  2,571                   25.6                   1.13                387
      St. Louis                              2,506                   25.5                   1.03                702
      Kansas City                            2,330                   22.9                   0.81                346
      Boston                                 2,323                   27.8                   1.30              1,649
      Cincinnati                             2,238                   24.3                   1.13                504
      Pittsburgh                             2,057                   25.3                   0.77                969
      Atlanta                                1,783                   31.2                   1.32              1,217
      Average                                3,318                   27.2                   1.19              1,125



      Sources: Population density and journey–to–work from U.S. Census, 2000, at www.census.gov;
      roadway congestion index from Texas Transportation Institute; annual transit place miles per
      capita estimated from transit database.




                                                                                                                               page 19

								
To top