Houston tops affordability and innovation, big US homes, Houston's winning secret sauce, and more
A few smaller items this week:
- US vs European homes graphic below: "A good visual showing how huge US living spaces are compared to European. The average person below the poverty line in the US lives in more square feet of living space than the average European." (HT Michael). This is an often unsung advantage of Texas and especially Houston: not just lower home prices but how much home you get, plus the amenities of master-planned communities. But wow, those Mormons in Utah build some big homes for some big families! (click the graphic to enlarge it)
- A great tweet from John Arnold: "Houston has bad weather, no natural beauty, and little history. But that’s a feature, not a bug. It means government has to be responsive to the people to create a place people and businesses want to locate. It must be efficient with taxpayer money and consider tradeoffs. It must create an ecosystem that leads to a high quality of life for its residents. Lose this focus and the city fails. There is no presumption that residents must acquiesce to the city; the city must work for the residents. Turns out there’s great demand for this concept: the city has gone from the from the 45th largest in the US to the 4th largest in 100 years. It's a simple concept but one I find wanting in many legacy cities with more natural advantages."
- Houston needs this - more private operators covering suburb-to-work center routes that METRO doesn't.
- Houston #6 on Top Metro Areas for University Innovation Impact, just barely behind the SF Bay Area and the only metro in the southern US in the Top Ten.
- High interest rates don't help, but Houston still requires the third-lowest income in the country among major metros to afford a mortgage (behind St. Louis and Detroit). HT Oscar. (click the graphic to enlarge it)
Labels: affordability, home affordability, Metro, quality of place, rankings, tech, transit
Metro 2023 Annual Report: stats improve, but $13.93 boarding subsidy remains excessively high
This week we're lucky to have another one of
Oscar's excellent analytical posts.
---
Metro's 2023
annual report, covering the 12 months ending September 2023, was recently posted online.
This is the third annual report fully affected by the Covid transit downturn.
While ridership and financial statistics continue to improve, operating cost and boarding subsidy continue to remain excessively high.
We can see in this plot that ridership was down 50% in 2021, 36.3% in 2022 and 23.8% in 2023. So there is steady progress toward pre-Covid ridership. At 68.6 million, ridership remains 33.3% below the 2002 peak of 102.8 million.
Metro's operating budget exceeded $1 billion for the first time in actual dollars in 2023, coming in at $1.006 billion, although inflation-adjusted values exceeded $1 billion in 2017, 2019, and 2020.
The following plot shows Metro ridership on a monthly basis through February 2023, which had the best ridership performance in the post-Covid era. Overall ridership in February was down 14.7% versus the 12 months prior to Covid, which is better than the national average of
down 24.2%. We can see in this plot that ridership gains are being powered by traditional bus service, which is only 4.8% below the pre-Covid average.
The next plot shows the operating cost per boarding and taxpayer subsidy per boarding, which benefited from improved ridership. For the 68.576 million boardings, the operating loss was $955.3 million. Subsidy per boarding was $13.93, down from $15.10 (inflation adjusted) in 2022. Operating cost per boarding was $14.59, down from $16.36 (inflation adjusted) in 2022.
Even with improvement, the 2023 values are far higher than historical values, and the operating cost is much higher than the national average.
Looking at data in
APTA national statistics (see spreadsheet tab 73), in 2019 the national average operating expense per boarding was $5.20, and Metro was $9.50. In 2021, the most recent data available at APTA, the national average was $11.25 and Metro was $17.57.
Last year I reported that a regular weekday Metro rider making two boardings (with no transfers) for 250 days per year received an annual subsidy of $7,550 dollars, which was equal to the annual operating cost of a new small sedan for 12,000 miles per year driving. With the subsidy reduced and the cost of car ownership going up, I could find only two new cars using the
AAA calculator with an annual ownership cost less than
the 2023 Metro ridership subsidy of $6,965. As shown in the plot, they are the bare-basic Kio Rio and Nissan Versa. For 5-year-old cars, it still takes a small economy car to be below the subsidy.
Even with the improved performance, the $6,965 annual taxpayer subsidy per regular rider remains shockingly high.
The next plot shows major Metro budget items. Metro received yet another huge influx of federal funds in 2023, a $221 million operating grant and $252 million total grants including capital grants, lifting total revenue to $1.37 billion. Metro received mind-boggling Covid operating grants totaling $714 million in 2020 and 2021, while fare collections in those two years was down only $81 million compared to 2019 fare revenue. The annual report states the following:
"Operating grants (includes capital grants authorized by the FTA for use in maintaining capital assets) are primarily used to maintain transit vehicles and operating specific transit programs such as METROLift and METRO STAR Vanpool. ... The significant increase of $216.7 million in FY2023 primarily related to the funds from the ARP Additional Assistance, Urbanized Area Formula Program and preventative maintenance program." [sic]
The problem with these huge grants which have no correlation to ridership is that all cities receive them, and of course all the expense gets piled onto the $34.6 trillion
national debt.
Sales tax revenue exceeded $1 billion for the first time in 2023, coming in at $1.028 billion. Infrastructure assistance, generally used for road maintenance and improvement, was $193 million, down 4.3% from the 2022 inflation-adjusted value of $202 million ($196 million actual).
The next plot shows Metro fare revenue and average fare collected per boarding. Average fare per boarding plummeted after Covid and continues to worsen, dropping to $0.66 cents in 2023, which is the lowest value in the plot (which starts at 2001), and probably the lowest ever in the history of Metro on an inflation-adjusted basis.
The next plot shows the average fare collected as a percent of the cost of providing the service for a boarding. With an average fare of $0.66 and a cost per boarding of $14.59, the fare covers 4.5% of the cost, which is a slight improvement from 4.3% in 2022.
In April 2023 I posted an
article called "Does Metro's Advertising Budget Influence Local Reporting". The local media seems to treat Metro very nicely. For example, I never saw any media outlet report that the per-boarding taxpayer subsidy was $17.57 in 2021 and $15.78 in 2022. Could the favorable media treatment be due to Metro's large marketing budget, with millions of dollars being spent on advertising? Metro's marketing budget spiked upward to $18.2 million in 2023, the second-highest value in the plot which goes back to 2010.
Metro's New Leadership
Mayor Whitmire recently appointed a new
board chair and new
board member.
A good goal for the new Metro leadership is to lower the $13.93 taxpayer subsidy per boarding back to pre-Covid levels of around $10 per boarding. Ten dollars is still a very high subsidy, but a reasonable goal to achieve.
Reaching this goal will require continued ridership recovery and, most importantly, curtailing excessing spending and working to improve the efficiency of operations.
I would also be interested in knowing more about the low average fare collection per boarding. The official Metro fare is $1.25, and rates for Park & Ride service are much higher. Yet Metro's average fare collected is only $0.66, the lowest since 2001 and probably the lowest in Metro's history (on an inflation-adjusted basis). What's the reason for this? Is Metro not collecting fares? Is Metro giving more and more riders discounts or free rides?
Labels: Metro, transit
Mayor Whitmire balances city budget without new taxes or a garbage fee
In a surprising turn of events, Mayor Whitmire of Houston has unveiled a groundbreaking plan to balance the city's budget without resorting to new taxes or fees. How, you ask? By turning the volume up on noise ordinance fines, especially for those booming car sound systems that seem to think the entire city is their personal concert hall!
It's no secret that Houstonians love their music, but sometimes that love can get a little too loud for comfort. Mayor Whitmire has decided to tackle this issue head-on. Starting today, fines for noise ordinance violations will skyrocket.
Imagine a world where your favorite jam could cost you a pretty penny if played at a volume so loud your entire car is rattling. Mayor Whitmire's plan is simple yet effective: the louder you blast your tunes in public spaces, the heavier the fine. Beyond that, fines will triple from 10pm to 7am as well, and after a third violation vehicles or venues will be confiscated and auctioned off! It's a surefire way to encourage everyone to enjoy their music responsibly, without disturbing the peace for others.
Projections indicate the fines in Midtown alone will be able to cover the new firefighter pay deal.
Critics may say it's a bit extreme, but supporters argue that it's a small price to pay for a harmonious city. Plus, think of the revenue boost for Houston's coffers! Who knew that turning down the decibels could turn up the dollars?
So, if you're cruising through Houston with your bass booming, beware! Mayor Whitmire's ears are tuned in, and your wallet might just feel the beat in more ways than one. Cheers to a quieter (and financially sound) Houston!
Hope you enjoyed this year's April Fools post ;-D
Here are previous years if you missed 'em and would like a chuckle:
The #1 way to revive urban cores, CA attempts the greatest white elephant project in history, Australia's home-building restrictions finally catch up with it, and more
Some smaller items this week:
"Magical thinking caused politicians and the media to back this boondoggle in the first place, and more than 15 years later, incredibly, the spell still hasn't broken."
"The plan admits that the agency expects to spend more on the 171 miles between Merced and Bakersfield than the $33 billion it had projected the entire 463-mile project would cost when voters approved it in 2008. ...
Meanwhile, in light of the pandemic, the agency has modestly reduced its ridership expectations from 35 million trips per year to 27.6 million. This is still more unrealistic than the cost projections. In 2019, Amtrak’s high-speed Acela carried less than 3.6 million riders in a corridor with a higher population than the LA-SF corridor. While California is promising higher speeds than the Acela, the Northeast Corridor has the advantage of really being two corridors anchored by New York, America’s largest city. The California corridor has no similar mid-point metropolis; the Fresno urban area has fewer than 725,000 residents compared with New York’s 19.5 million. Incidentally, to the extent that the 27.6 million turns out to be too high, the supposed savings from not having to expand road and airline capacities dwindles."
Labels: education, growth, high-speed rail, home affordability, land-use regulation, rail, rankings, zoning
Houston's affordability may not have eroded as much as you think
There has been a lot of buzz recently about Houston's decline in affordability. In addition to a sudden pandemic-induced surge of demand meeting limited supply, a lot of that decline can be attributed to mortgage interest rates moving up so much during the late pandemic, but prices have increased as well (see charts, HT Patrick). But I think there are some factors distorting that data to make our affordability decrease look larger than it actually is...
Here are the three pre vs. post-pandemic factors that I think are distorting the data:
- Different types of houses being purchased: the pandemic normalized remote work and drove lots of people out of the city to far suburbs and exurbs, where they may have bought larger houses on larger plots of land than the normal pre-pandemic house profile (and fewer in-city townhomes).
- Wealthier buyers: I’d guess the pandemic buyers skewed wealthier, more upper middle class, remote-friendly professions moving to larger homes in the farther suburbs and exurbs. Different buyer demographics changes the profiles of the homes being bought, which would skew the price of the median sale upwards.
- Fewer first-time buyers: Much higher mortgage interest rates knock out a lot of potential first-time buyers from buying less-expensive starter homes, which skews the median home sale price higher.
As you can see, these variables can make the median home sale price an unreliable indicator of what home values are really doing in the metro. What would be more interesting would be if we could find out what those existing homes that were selling for ~$200k ten years ago are selling for now? (a more true measure of inflation in house prices) I’d bet those homes aren’t going for $320k now – probably more like mid to upper 200s. But that's data we don't have. So just take it with a grain of salt next time you see a headline about Houston's decline in home affordability...
Labels: affordability, home affordability
Inside the new Jurassic World Exhibition in Katy
I was fortunate to attend last week's media preview of the new Jurassic World Exhibition at Katy Mills Mall (even Katy's mayor was there - see pics), and I'll admit it was pretty darn cool. Inside a giant tent they have a series of staged experiences you move through with lots of great interaction, especially for kids (and plenty of Instagrammable stuff for the adults too, lol). The dinosaurs range from babies with handlers (puppets) to humans in costume (raptor paddock show) to some very impressive large animatronics (T-Rex and more - see pics). The raptor paddock show with the human handler was the most curious to me, as I couldn't understand how they would be able to make an animatronic dinosaur realistically walk? Turns out they didn't - they put a human in costume instead. But it sorta works (especially for kids) because it's fairly dark and you're behind a high-security fence. Definitely check it out for a fun family afternoon.
You can see my complete photo and video album of the experience here
(see if you can find the "behind the scenes" pic using Night Mode on a Pixel 7 Pro phone to see in the dark ;-)
Here's the Chronicle article and the press release overview:
The award-winning Jurassic World: The Exhibition is now open at Katy Mills. Jurassic World: The Exhibition, a 20,000-square-foot family-friendly immersive experience has now become one of the fastest selling exhibitions in history since its launch and has welcomed over 8 million visitors. After touring cities around the world including London, San Diego, Denver, Dallas, Chicago, Philadelphia, Paris, Madrid, Seoul, Chengdu, Guangzhou, Shanghai, Toronto, Atlanta, Sydney, Cologne and Berlin, this global sensation makes its return to Texas.
This must-see attraction has been created by NEON, a global leader in immersive and epic experiences and produced in conjunction with Universal Live Entertainment, a division Universal Destinations & Experiences.
Jurassic World: The Exhibition is a family-friendly exhibit of massive proportions based on one of the biggest blockbuster franchises in cinema history. Visitors walk through the iconic Jurassic World gate, where they will explore richly themed environments inspired by the beloved films, coming face-to-face with life-sized dinosaurs, such as the towering Brachiosaurus, Velociraptors including fan-favorite Blue, and the most fearsome of all, the mighty Tyrannosaurus rex! Guests will imagine what it would have been like to roam amongst these breathtaking creatures, and even interact with baby dinosaurs, including “Bumpy” from the popular animated series Jurassic World: Camp Cretaceous from Universal Pictures, Amblin Entertainment and DreamWorks Animation, currently streaming on Netflix.
The Exhibition welcomes multiple generations of Jurassic World fans to venture to the remote island made famous in the movie franchise.
Some of the elements on the interactive journey that await visitors include:
- The Ferry: The journey begins aboard a ferry and a walk through of the iconic “Jurassic World” gates.
- Land of the Giants - Walk under the towering Brachiosaurus that is part of the gigantic sauropod dinosaur family, the largest creatures to ever walk the earth.
- Creation Lab: The Creation Lab is where guests can enjoy a hands-on experience and learn more about the science behind dinosaur DNA. They’ll also learn more about coprolites and the various species of dinosaurs that live at Jurassic World.
- The Raptor Paddock: Guests can walk up to the Raptor’s paddock, but don’t get too close! These creatures have sharp serrated teeth and sharp-clawed hands and feet. Their large, recurved claw is used for slashing and pinning prey.
- Gyrosphere Valley: This is the perfect place to take a picture with a baby dinosaur and discover what is under the dirt at the Dig Site. Continue the journey through this picturesque valley to climb into a life-sized gyrosphere.
- Feeding Time: The highly intelligent and extremely dangerous Indominus Rex is one of the most formidable creatures in the park. Visitors can watch as she is fed her daily meals.
- T. rex Kingdom: A high voltage fence is the only thing that separates visitors from the mighty Tyrannosaurus rex.
Jurassic World: The Exhibition will be in Houston at Katy Mills for a limited engagement. Tickets are available now at Jurassicworldexhibition.com.
(I think I saw somewhere that it's here until October, but don't quote me on that)
Labels: tourism
A more reliable Texas electricity grid at a lower cost
Bill King has an excellent blog post on the reliability issues with the Texas electricity grid, including during Winter Storm Heather in January, concluding with:
"Because of cheap natural gas prices and the significant contribution of wind and solar, Texans enjoy some of the lowest electricity prices in the country, running 18% below the national average. But that low cost comes at a price – an inherent lack of reliability in its grid. And it is a savings that is wiped out many times over when a storm like Uri does billions of dollars in damage, not to even mention the human toll.
The Texas grid held in this storm, but the long-term issue of building a reliable grid is Texas in far from over."
The core issue is that solar and wind are cheap but not reliable, yet they are displacing more reliable natural gas (referred to as "dispatchable power"). ERCOT is looking at very expensive ways to improve reliability, essentially subsidizing natural gas. I have two thoughts on how to reduce this cost.
First, the crypto miners: they are a net good for Texas as they help pay for new capacity, but the state should not be paying them tens of millions of dollars when we need them to shut down so we can have their power during peak times. They’re welcome to take advantage of our cheap power 99.9% of the year, but the other 0.1% of the year when we need it, they need to go offline with no compensation. That should be the deal.
Second, I think it’s important to remember that rare rolling blackouts are not the end of the world. The problem with Uri was the power went out for days, but most people can handle losing a half-hour or hour of power just fine, even if it’s freezing outside. We don’t need to pay for 100% reliability – 99.99% is good enough (less than an hour a year without power) or maybe even just 99.9% (about 9 hours without power in small intervals spread over the year). The grid just needs to be robust enough that ERCOT can properly implement short-duration rolling blackouts when needed without the grid going down for days like Uri. The difference between 100% reliability, 99.99%, and 99.9% might not sound like much, but it could easily be tens of billions of dollars in extra costs that would have to flow through to ratepayers.
But overall I agree there will have to be limits on how low a percentage we allow dispatchable power to be of our power mix.
Labels: infrastructure
The Benefits of Congestion Relief
The Antiplanner has an excellent post that deserves its own dedicated post over here because it gets at what's wrong with one of the most pernicious fallacies regarding highway congestion relief. Key excerpts (bold highlights mine):
"Data published by the University of Minnesota Accessibility Observatory a few months ago reveals some of the benefits of congestion relief that resulted from the COVID pandemic. I’ve used 2019 data in the past to show that residents of U.S. urban areas can reach far more jobs in a 20-minute auto drive than a 60-minute transit trip. The latest data for 2021 reveal that the number of jobs reachable by transit or bicycle was about 9 percent greater in 2021 than 2019, but the number reachable by a 20-minute auto drive was 66 percent greater.
On average, over 50 urban areas and for trips of 10 to 60 minutes, auto users were able to reach 48 percent more jobs in 2021 than in 2019. Solid lines show 2021 and dotted lines show 2019.
The Texas Transportation Institute documents that congestion in U.S. urban areas dramatically rose between 1982 and 2019. The average number of hours of delay imposed on individual commuters grew by nine times. This growth was because many cities had made a deliberate decision not to try to relieve congestion under the argument that increased capacity simply leads to more driving.
The response to this should have been: So what? Very little driving is frivolous. Instead, most of it is people trying to get to work, school, shopping, health care, friends and relatives, or recreation activities. Then there are trucks moving freight, bringing construction materials and services to work sites, and so forth. Anything that results in more such travel is a good thing because it means more economic activity, more income for people, and more access to better housing, lower-cost consumer goods, and other benefits. The sign of failure is if the new road capacity isn’t used, not if it is.
...
Since 1992, the earliest year data are available, U.S. transportation agencies spent more than $320 billion ($420 billion in today’s dollars) constructing and reconstructing rail transit
On the other hand, if cities had spent even a quarter of the hundreds of billions of dollars spent on rail transit projects since 1992 on highway improvements instead, the congestion relief those improvements would have provided would have allowed far more economic activity, giving low-income people access to better jobs and everyone access to more affordable housing and other benefits. Like most wars, the war on the automobile has done far more economic harm than the negligible benefits it provided."
Labels: commuter rail, costs of congestion, infrastructure, mobility strategies, rail
