3 Miles Per Hour

The front page of last Sunday's Los Angeles Times featured a story that hardly seems like news to anyone in our city: traffic is horrible, especially on the Westside. The title of this blog post was derived from a statement in the article: "MTA research shows that during the evening rush, it can take as long as 19 minutes to drive just one mile of Wilshire near the San Diego Freeway." Read the whole article, by Martha Groves and Sharon Bernstein, here.

While Groves and Bernstein made a valiant effort to describe the traffic woes on the Westside with a bevy of mind-boggling statistics, their analysis was conspiciously short on solutions. Although congestion problems in our metropolis may seem intractable, political leaders and policy makers cannot afford to ignore them; horrendous traffic diminishes our quality of life and threatens the long-term economic health of our region.

Fortunately, there are many people on the local scene who are looking for ways to fight traffic. Walter Moore, who made waves with a maverick campaign for Mayor of Los Angeles last year, recently published "Unlock Gridlock," a thoughtful essay on some of the policy choices that can extricate us from our congestion morass. In order to further discussion on this important topic, I'd like to offer a critique of Moore's essay along with some of my own recommendations.

(Exerpts of Moore's essay are displayed in bold italics)

Traffic is worse for at least three reasons: increased population density, rent control, and the "non-portability" of Proposition 13.

Population Density
The number of people per square mile in Los Angeles rose from 6,322 in 1980, to an estimated 8,472 in 2005.

It is absolutely true that increased density leads to congestion: more and more people are trying to move about in the same space. However, Moore seems to have missed the central point of the Times article: traffic problems on the Westside aren't related to population density, they're related to employment density. After all, the headline read "Job Boom Makes Driving a Chore on the Westside," not "Housing Boom Makes Driving a Chore on the Westside."

Consider the following quotes from the Times story:

"Job growth has transformed the area into the region's premiere commercial hub, second only to downtown Los Angeles in the number of jobs."

"So many workers drive to Santa Monica from other parts of the region that the city's population nearly doubles during the day, to 150,000 from 87,000 at night."

"The MTA projects that the Westside's population will jump by an additional 15% and jobs by 23% in the next 15 years."

What we have on the Westside is a severe case of jobs-housing inbalance. There are far more jobs on the Westside than dwelling units to house those who work at those jobs. Over the last 20 years, increases in employment density, not population density, have created traffic problems. If the MTA is correct in assuming that employment density will continue to increase faster than population density, things will only get worse.

And just how dense is the Westside, anyway? According to Demographia, a Web Site run by libertarian Wendell Cox, in 1998 population density in the region was 3,416 people per square mile, far short of the City-wide population density of 7,975 people per square mile. By contrast, most of Central and South L.A. had population densities of more than 10,000 people per square mile. West L.A. ranked #18 out of 18 City regions in terms of population density.

Can we prevent increased population density? Absolutely. The City of L.A. can stop granting variances for bigger and bigger buildings; stop subsidizing the construction of same with our tax dollars; and start enforcing the building and safety code to prevent overcrowding (e.g., by preventing people from living illegally in garages).

Angelenos know why West L.A. is less dense than the rest of the City: its wealthy and politically powerful residents have fought most attempts to build substantial amounts of new housing in tony neighborhoods like Brentwood, Cheviot Hills, Holmby Hills, Westwood, and the hillside communities of the Santa Monica Mountains. Furthermore, people on the high end of the income spectrum have little economic incentive to "double up" or "triple up," sharing their homes with other families, or to convert their garages to rental units.

As the supply of housing has been constrained on the Westside, prices have increased dramatically. To wit, this quote from the Times article: "Primarily because housing is so expensive, only about 30% of these workers actually live on the Westside, according to a Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority study. That leaves more than 300,000 people a day commuting to the area."

It's quite telling that Demographia lists the impoverished Rampart district as having the highest population density in the City: 34,398 people per square mile, which (according to Moore) puts it on par with Tokyo. In Rampart, people do "double up" and "triple up," convert their garages to rental units, and even rent out trailers in their back yards. Ironically, Central and South L.A. are the places where zoning is most permissive and where most taxpayer-subsidizied "affordable housing" is placed. Angelenos know traffic is not nearly as bad in Central and South L.A. as it is on the Westside: that's because there aren't jobs in those communities.

Contrary to Moore's "conventional wisdom" concerning population density, it might actually make sense to build more housing on the Westside because it will bring people closer to their jobs. Housing "overcrowding" is a problem in Rampart and Watts, not in Brentwood and Holmby Hills.

Rent Control And The "Non-Portability" Of Proposition 13
Not only do we have more people on the road, but they're driving longer distances to get to work. Why don't people move closer to their jobs? Economics.

The City of L.A.'s rent control laws apply to 56,295 registered properties with approximately 550,000 units. People living in those hundreds of thousands of units have a tremendous financial incentive to stay put.

Someone with a below-market-rent apartment would prefer to drive 20 miles to work rather than lose it. Conversely, someone else, who commutes in the opposite direction, will never have the opportunity to rent the apartment -- at any price. So instead of having two people walking to work, we wind up with two more cars on the road, clogging traffic and burning gas.

There are many reasons why people move, and research by the United States Census indicates that the most compelling factor is "New/better house/apartment," cited by 18.5% of survey respondents. "Wanted to own home/not rent" was cited by 11.5% of those same respondents. Such sentiments shed doubt on Moore's contention that people cling to rent-controlled apartments. People living in rent-controlled units have an incentive to stay put, but it is hardly "tremendous," as many of those people (especially the more prosperous ones) quickly seek out better apartments or buy their own property.

In Los Angeles, it's important to remember that only apartments built in 1978 or earlier are rent-controlled. In 2006, those units aren't exactly "the cream of the crop." Discerning renters, especially those who work at high-paying jobs on the Westside, are interested in newer apartments with modern amentities and are inclined to "upgrade" relatively often.

If people endure 20 mile commutes in order to cling to rent-controlled apartments, they probably work outside the City (even people who live in Rampart are much closer to Century City than that). It's more likely that people endure long commutes because they like the amenities their building offers, their neighborhood, and/or their local schools. "Real life" is about much more than the economics of rent costs.

Take this example: the yuppie writing this post is about to give up his rent-controlled apartment in Hollywood for a much nicer unit in Studio City, as the complex has far more amenities despite the fact that it is not rent-controlled. Before you label me a fool on economic grounds, let me share that there were other factors in my decision, i.e. the realities of my "real life" beyond my housing costs. Besides, I've only lived in my apartment for 3 and a half years, so my rental price is not too much "below market." I suspect that my landlord will rent my soon-to-be former unit for not much more than what I paid.

The "non-portability" of Proposition 13 -- for those under age 55 -- has the same impact. The longer a person has owned a home here, the more his property taxes will go up if he buys another home, closer to work. Rather than pay thousands more per year in taxes, homeowners who change jobs opt to endure longer commutes, thereby aggravating the gridlock.

I share Moore's concerns over Proposition 13. It's problematic, to say the least.

Moore has a point about homeowners not wanting to "upgrade" or change location because of the higher taxes they will face. But while Moore thinks this concern merits an expansion of Proposition 13, I think the oppositie: we should repeal Proposition 13. If property taxation is tied to the actual market value of said property, homeowners won't have an incentive to hold onto homes that no longer fit their lifestyles.

Proposition 13 is a relic of an ancient era that isn't very relevant today. In the 1970's, runaway inflation led to runaway increases in property taxes relative to "real" property values and income, especially for retirees on a fixed income. In the 2000's, runaway increases in property values have no relation to inflation or "real" income. It's a whole different ballgame; inflation and wages have increased in the single digits while housing prices have multiplied several times over. Property owners who "got in" prior to 1999, including retirees on a fixed income, have enjoyed unprecedented increases in wealth (i.e. the equity in their homes) while their "real" income hasn't decreased.

Even Howard Jarvis didn't think Proposition 13 needed to be "portable" for everyone. The results of such a move would devastate local governments. While Moore and others with a libertarian bent may think that the best way to kill the "bureaucratic dragon" is by depriving him food (i.e. money), the policies of Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush demonstrate that lower taxation does not lead to lower spending at any level of government. Local governments would turn to higher sales taxes and other levies on business, making it even harder for Southern California to attract new employment.

Not only would the expansion of Proposition 13 "freeze" government budgets, it would reduce them, possibly to the point of making it impossible to provide essential services like police protection and trash disposal. Consider this scenario under a "portable" property tax strucutre: a person who moved into their house in 2002, before Proposition 13 was expanded, sells his house to someone who bought their previous house in 1992; the new owner brings his 1992 property tax rate with him, substantially decreasing the amount of funding the local government can collect on that house.

Can we repeal rent control? Can we extend the "portability" of Proposition 13 to all homeowners, instead of just those over 55? Yes, but only if L.A.'s voters are willing to fight developers who want to avoid having to compete with a flood of 550,000 rental units suddenly entering the market.

Moore is right: rent control and Proposition 13 have "the same impact" on housing affordability. People are less inclined to move on to more appropriate dwellings if their housing is subsidized by the government. I think we should get rid of both rent control and Proposition 13 and use land use regulation as a means to create "affordable" housing. Do both, or do neither.

What remains, though, is the need for a "safety net" for working people with low incomes and retirees with fixed incomes. Let's replace rent control and Proposition 13 with new regulations that only help those who truly need it.

<<<>>><<<>>><<<>>>

There are a couple additional issues that Moore failed to touch upon.

1) Public Transit

According to the Times article, "The Westside is the most densely populated area in Los Angeles without a light rail or subway line." It's ironic that we've provided Central and South L.A. with a plethora of transit options, none of which connect them to the Westside, which has the second highest density of employment in the region. The primary purpose of transit is to get people to jobs, not from one job-poor area to another.

Consider Downtown Los Angeles: All the Metrolink commuter-rail lines converge there, as do three (and soon to be four) Metro Rail lines, as well as countless bus routes. And yet, Century City, Westwood, Santa Monica, and other Westside employment hubs are starved for transit connections. More public transit is not likely to dramatically reduce traffic congestion, but it will keep it in check and prevent it from getting much worse.

We need to extend the Wilshire subway to the Westside. We also need to create a transit corridor linking West L.A. to LAX and the San Fernando Valley. Does Moore, with his libertarian bent, support the massive investment required?

2) Mixed-Use Development

Most of the vehicle trips on the Westside, and in much of Los Angeles, don't have anything to do with commuting. Across the United States, the number of cars and the amount of VMT (vehicle miles traveled) has grown far faster than actual population for a simple reason: people can't get much done without driving. Housing, employment, and services are segregated and dispersed to an ever-increasing (and ever unsustainable) degree.

Developers are not the enemy. We have land use laws that regulate them and have the power to bend them to our will. Our own political leaders and urban planners are often the enemy, clinging to antiquated concepts of urban growth that keep people from being able to walk to a corner grocery store or dry cleaner. Of course, developers are major contributors to the politicans that make land use decisions; if you have a problem with that, advocate publicly-funded elections, don't just criticize zoning policies.

New housing and office developments on the Westside and elsewhere should include civic spaces and local services that support walkable communities where people can buy bread, drop off their kids at day care, or enjoy open space without getting in their cars. Rather than railing against growth, as Moore does, let's decide where growth should occur and how it shoud look. This is not a new idea; despite their density, older neighborhoods like Rampart and Boyle Heights avoid crippling traffic by offering their residents shops and services within walking distance. Future development on the Westside can do the same.

<<<>>><<<>>><<<>>>

Gridlock and overcrowding are the results of public policy choices, not fate. We need not accept our city's deterioration. We have no obligation to let others turn L.A. into another New York, Tokyo or Manila.

Moore is right, public policy got us where we are and it can get us out. However, I do not accept his pessimistic view that our city faces "deterioration," instead it faces rejuventation, but only if citizens educate themselves on the "real issues" and not the "stalking horses" of libertarian demogagues. Portions of Los Angeles are already similar to New York, Tokyo, and Manila, but the City is a unique place that deserves creative solutions. There are no "others" here, as we are all in this together.

To sum up my points:

1) Increase housing densities in areas close to employment. Stop dumping housing in areas that already have Tokyo-like densities and move it to places people want to live and can get to their jobs quicky.

2) Repeal rent control in the City of L.A. and overturn Proposition 13 in the State of California. Replace them with economic controls that are a "safety net" only for people who can genuinely demonstrate need for assistance.

3) Encourage the expansion of mass transit to the Westside conmensurate with its role as the second largest employment center in the region.

4) Require that future development include a mix of uses to decrease the amount of VMT (vehile miles traveled) unrelated to commuting. Create neighbrhoods where people can walk to from their homes to jobs, stores, day care centers, and parks.