The End of Cheap Gasoline — Even the Big Oil Companies Can See It Now

Pardon my broken-record routine, but once again we are forced to confront the challenge of adapting Virginia’s economy to a petroleum-constrained world. Says the Wall Street Journal in a front-page story today: “A growing number of oil-industry chieftains are endorsing an idea long deemed fringe: The world is approaching a practical limt to the number of barrels of crude oil that can be pumped every day.”

Current global oil production runs about 85 million barrels daily. Industry experts are now pegging the upper limit of oil production around 100 million per day. That still allows some slack for growth in global demand — but hardly enough to accommodate China, India and other Third World economies as they reach a level of prosperity where masses of people can afford to buy automobiles.

Says the Journal:

The emergence of a production ceiling would make a monumental shift in the energy world. Oil production has averaged a 2.3% annual growth rate since 1965. … This expanding pool of oil, most of it priced cheaply by today’s standards, fueled the post-World War II global economic expansion.

The problems: the aging “giant” fields are playing out. New “giants” are increasingly difficult to find. And when they are, they’re located in increasingly challenging conditions, typically off-shore. Meanwhile, because of low-moderate oil prices in the 1980s and 1990s, the oil industry didn’t develop enough geologists and other skilled workers to meet today’s needs. The industry is increasingly constrained by manpower shortages and steep prices for drilling rigs and other equipment. Combine those economic factors with political decisions in many oil-rich countries to under-invest in their production infrastructure, and there is little hope that global supply can continue accommodating the growth in demand without steep increases in price.

In a few years, we’ll be looking back on $90-per-barrel petroleum and $3-per-gallon gasoline as the good old days.

I am optimistic that the U.S. economy can adapt. We’ll buy cars that get better gas mileage, or don’t use gas at all. People will find ways to drive less. But the “driving less” part of the equation is heavily dependent upon the shape of our human settlement patterns and the design of our transportation infrastructure. Infrastucture and buildings, which are slowly depreciating assets, are much slower to adapt — all the more so when the special interests who profited from the cheap energy era still dominate the political process and continue to push development into the outer edges of our New Urban Regions as if nothing had changed.

Sooner or later, we Virginians will have no choice but to change. The only question is how ugly things get — how much we will have compromised our living standards in a vain effort to put off the final reckoning — before we do.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

35 responses to “The End of Cheap Gasoline — Even the Big Oil Companies Can See It Now”

  1. Not Ed Risse Avatar
    Not Ed Risse

    Jim,

    When energy becomes more available at cheaper prices as the alternative energy technologies make breakthrough after breakthrough, will you and Ed leave us alone to live in whatever human settlement patterns we choose to pay for?

  2. Jim Bacon Avatar

    Not Ed Risse, Even if petrolem goes to $150 per barrel, I’ll be happy to let leave you alone and let you live in whatever human settlement pattern you choose to pay for. I could care less where you choose to live. All I care is that you pay the location-variable costs of your decisions instead of asking someone else to pay them for you. I’d also like state/local government to devise a transportation infrastructure more attuned to the realities of expensive energy rather than inexpensive energy, but that doesn’t affect your right to live wherever you want.

  3. Anonymous Avatar

    “Many assert that the travel and residential location choices made by Americans are impacted by powerful and peculiar U.S. policies. These include widespread large-lot residential zoning, exceptionally favorable treatment of home ownership and mortgages in tax laws, comparatively low taxes on gasoline and auto use, comparatively lax land use controls and extensive highway investments.

    The simplest way to illustrate the potency of people’s lifestyle references and the extent to which these are expressed is to look broad. There is growing evidence
    that suburbanization is the dominant settlement trend not just in the U.S., but also in many other developed nations. Paris has suburbanized as much as philadelphia and that similar
    transformations are underway in Stockholm, Toronto, Tokyo and other places. These are all cities that have the transportation systems and land use controls that most U.S. planners dream of.”

    http://www.usc.edu/schools/sppd/lusk/research/pdf/wp_2003_1017.pdf

  4. Anonymous Avatar

    “Even the simplest reckoning suggests the need to account for a tradeoff between the higher and lower costs of density. Lower densities imply a lengthier network, but denser networks imply higher facility/planning costs of their own. The calculation of a higher (or lower) infrastructure cost in any one case, or worse in any average across places or times, does not separate these tradeoffs out, let alone acknowledge them. (Start with a series of papers by Ladd and her numerous respondents.)

    Add to that the problem of conflating expense with performance. Suburbs may well have higher income residents who in turn demand, and receive, higher levels of service. (For the difficulties and necessity of separating out the cost from the demand dimensions of local demographics alone, start with Schwab and Zampelli, 1987.)

    The related “impact fee” aka “pay as you go” literature has also identified a number of thorny obstacles associated with attributing specific cost shares to new growth in general, as in the discussion of how to portion out social overhead in chapter 6 of 1993’s excellent Regulation for Revenue, by Altshuler and Gómez-Ibáñez and subsequent studies of fiscal impacts in practice.

    So my prior is that using simple comparisons of per-capita budget outlays to claim that “sprawl is more costly to service” is a rather rough, and quite possibly wrong, way to go……”

    http://planningresearch.blogspot.com/2006/08/cot-of-prawl.html

  5. Anonymous Avatar

    This paper challenges an emerging conventional wisdom: that transport energy consumption, and hence pollution, can be substantially reduced by promoting more compact cities. Such reasoning has quickly found its way from academic studies to official policy in many countries. Do the likely savings from such
    containment warrant the required draconian policies? An empirical assessment of transport energy consumption arising from decentralization is used to address this question. Two contextual reviews – of the compact city case and the strength of decentralization – precede the assessment. The conclusion is that
    energy savings will be minimal and that other policies might be more fruitful.

    “The Compact City and Transport Energy Consumption”

    Michael Breheny
    Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, New Series, Vol. 20, No. 1

    “It is wrong to think of the nation’s energy troubles as simply difficulties in energy supply. The real problem is finding a new balance between energy supply and energy demand, consistent with generally satisfactory overall economic performance.”

    http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11771

    RH

  6. Anonymous Avatar

    “All I care is that you pay the location-variable costs of your decisions instead of asking someone else to pay them for you.”

    There is evidence that rural areas and decentralized groups of small cities use less energy than large urban areas. If it turns out that the “Driving Less” part of your argument turns out to be wrong, or if it turns out that changing the settlement patterns has an unacceptable cost in terms of satisfactory economic performance, would you then support policies to promote more decentralized policies, as a way of reducing costs to others?

    RH

  7. Anonymous Avatar

    “The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function.” This is the opening line of a talk I have given over 1500 times since 1969. In this context, the exponential function is used to give a quantitative description of steady growth of, for example, a population.

    As we all know, quantities that grow steadily, at even modest rates, quickly become impossibly large. Yet non-scientists in the business and government communities continue to fight for “sustainable growth” of the U.S. economy and population. What are scientists doing to increase public comprehension of the impossibility of “sustainable growth?” The main role of scientists seems to be to avoid calling attention to the impossibility of continued growth of populations and of rates of consumption of resources and, instead, to focus on minor aspects of the related problems. In so doing, we are complicit in making the problems worse. For scientists, this opening line should be revised to read: “The greatest shortcoming of scientists is our unwillingness to apply our knowledge of the exponential function to the great problems that are facing the human race.”

    Albert A. Bartlett (University of Colorado at Boulder)

    RH

  8. So close but so far ….

    Jim:

    That was an excellent post. Oil prices are going higher and it is going to hurt America and Virginia. The only real question is how much it’s going to hurt. Smart moves now (although late) will reduce the pain in a few years.

    However, as Ronald Reagan once famously quipped, “There you go again.”. Your response to Not Ed Risse’s comment included the following:

    “All I care is that you pay the location-variable costs of your decisions instead of asking someone else to pay them for you.”.

    Just take the “location-” out of the sentence and it’s right. People should pay all the variable costs of their decisions, not just the location-variable costs. For example – let’s take one of the NIMBY areas in the Commonwealth. A few rich people control the political process – think Boss Hogg from the Dukes of Hazzard:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boss_Hogg

    The wealthy people decide that their views of the beautiful countryside are more important than allowing their “poor for generations” local neighbors any realistic opportunity for economic development. Boss Hogg and his friends don’t care – they are already rich. So, they stick with “no growth” programs that actually turn into “negative growth” programs. The variable cost of this decision is that Boss Hogg’s locality can’t pay for the level of government service that the people of the locality want. But that’s OK – Boss’ locality will just skim money from other people in other localities.

    So, is this unwillingness to accept economic devellopment a variable cost that Boss Hogg & Co. should pay for?

    And … RH is quite right. Distributed economic centers are the practical answer to the settlement pattern problems. The answer is not to ignore certain variable costs in order to shift focus away from the entire problem and onto just a piece of the problem.

  9. Anonymous Avatar

    The U.S. has 5% of World Population uses 22% of world energy and produces 20% of world GDP.

    For Europe the figures are 7.4%, 19%, and 20%.

    For China the figures are 20%, 13%, and 15%.

    If you divide the last figure by the first two, you get an index of production vs effort (both people and energy).

    That works out to 0.181, 0.142, and 0.057 for the U.S., Europe, and China.

    Arguably, Europe has denser development patterns than the U.S. and China even more so. Obviously settlement patterns are not the whole answer.

    The question is, are you willing to work 27% harder to live like the Europeans, or 210% harder to live like the Chinese, if it means you can consume less energy in the process?

    RH

  10. Anonymous Avatar

    “The question is, are you willing to work 27% harder to live like the Europeans, or 210% harder to live like the Chinese, if it means you can consume less energy in the process?”

    Actually, that is not fair: the index normalizes the amount of production. The question should leave out the comparative quality of life and read:

    “The question is, are you willing to work 27% harderlike the Europeans, or 210% harder like the Chinese, to live as well as you do now, if it means you can consume less energy in the process?”

    RH

  11. Anonymous Avatar

    The really interesting thing is that the figures quoted above are from the preface to an article that also makes this statement:

    “Reducing energy consumption not only brings environmental benefits, but can also result in cost savings for individuals, businesses and government agencies. Living in smaller dwellings, living closer to work, and utilizing public transportation are examples of ways
    to reduce energy usage.”

    http://css.snre.umich.edu/css_doc/CSS03-11.pdf

    The Chinese live in smaller dwellings, closer to work, and use public transportation, bicycles, etc. They use less energy.

    But it is hard to see how working 210% as hard for the same result is a “savings” to individuals, or the government. And, based on China’s experience, we can’t even say it necessarily results in less environmental damage, let alone actual environmental benefits.

    Sometimes it is hard to see how people reach the conclusions they do from the data they have.

    RH

  12. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    “Distributed economic centers are the practical answer to the settlement pattern problems.”

    tell me that this is not the way it is right now abound the DC/Va/Md beltway…

    and second.. tell me how you tell businesses where they can and cannot locate…

    For those who hammer on the “command and control” approach to settlement patterns.. I don’t see a whole lot of difference between telling people where to live or not.. or telling businesses where to locate or not.

    In the end.. what it is about… is.. are you paying for the choices you made about how FAR you want to live from where you work.

    And .. no.. if we suddenly switch from oil/gasoline to ethanol .. or electric.. I don’t see how that changes anything because you’ve just changed energy sources .. but from a proportional point of view.. if you still travel further than others.. just because you’ve changed from gasolie to electricity doesn’t change anything.

    If the EXPENSE of whatever fuel you choose starts to take too much of your take home pay.. THEN you might decide to not live so far away…

    but I would posit that fuel cost is not near so much an inhibiting factor as congestion and travel time.

    As long as someone has a relatively smooth flowing one hour commute.. to a nicer home than they could afford 10 minutes away – I think they’ll take that deal.

    Fuel would have to reach a cost equivalent to the gap in the monthly mortgage between the “close-in” home and the “far-away” home to disuade significant numbers of people.

    wrong?

  13. Anonymous Avatar

    “Distributed economic centers are the practical answer to the settlement pattern problems.”

    This is a nice idea, but from a business standpoint it makes no sense. If it did make sense then businesses would relocate from high rent urban districts to low rent suburban or exurban areas. There are 2 major reasons this doesn’t happen.

    1. For a business to operate it needs a good supply of labor. To optimize a business’ choice of labor they need to be able to draw from a large pool of potential workers. If a business locates inside the main core of DC it can attract labor from all over (3 million potential workers) whereas a business locating in Fredricksburg limits itself to a few hundred thousand workers at best. Do the savings in commercial rent make up for difficulties in attracting labor. In the case of some back office jobs sure, but the higher end positions that require more talent do better with a larger pool. This is basically economies of scale with labor rather than typical materials or operations.

    2. The other bigger problem is that businesses like to locate near other businesses and organizations they do business with. There are economies of scale gained by co-locating and having markets nearby. From both the buy side or sell side the advantages to co-locating far outweigh the negatives. Like I said before you can put some back room businesses in the far out burbs, but if you are going out there it often pays to look overseas as well.

    The distributed model works fine in the low tech world where a labor center can be located in any area and it will attract the necessary local and regional labor, think farms, plants, etc. High tech requires a different model since you must attract labor from everywhere and in order to do that you better give them a good reason to come and there needs to be a light at the end of the tunnel.

    ZS

  14. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    excellent!

    We also need to differentiate between a Kohls and a Oracle.

    Kohls is there because there are rooftops who will buy “stuff”.

    But ask Oracle why they are where they are and ask them why they are not in Fredericksburg.

    and the answers I think would mirror what ZS is saying.

    So.. for some companies.. you could tell them.. “we’ll give you a FREE Building” in Fredericksburg and they’d say “no thanks”.

    In fact.. “spec” “flex” office buildings are built all the time and they’re like any other commodity that is governed by simple supply and demand.

    If you accept ZS’s thesis – then would you also agree that the “more places” idea is a bit more to the simplistic wishful thinking than a implementable strategy – even at the state level?

    and to be equal opportunity – for those that like the idea of mixed-use or even balanced communities – you can build flex office space in a mixed-use in Chesterfield but ask yourself what you could do with that office space to convince ORACLE to locate there?

    and the answer is .. nothing…

    the the businesses that would locate in a mixed-use are what kind?

    Would they be the VW HQs or Garmin GPS’s?

    or would they more likely be some company that is providing local products and services – for the rooftops that surround that mixed-use?

    Take a “place” like Richmond.

    look at the total employment.

    Now substract out the VDOT, State Government, WalMart and Food Lion, Medical Jobs.. and who are the biggest private employers in that region?

    What do they make and where are the selling it outside of the Richmond area, outside of Virginia, outside of the US.

    Repeat this process for Roanoke, Harrisonburg, Lynchburg and Martinsville.

    I would posit that you’re going to end up with some very short lists.

    now back to the economic “super place” – NoVa.

    Take away the Fed government and all of it’s direct and “ripple” contractors and what exactly is the private economy in NoVa?

    You say you still want “more places”?

    Fine.. there’s a direct path.

    Get the Feds to move all the DOD and Homeland Security agencies to Fredericksburg.. Build a 200 mph high speed rail so these folks can get to their HQ meeting in the DC Area.. and we are .. done… instant “more places”.

    🙂

  15. Jim Bacon Avatar

    I agree with ZS 100 percent — I have made the same points repeatedly myself. Knowledge-based businesses locate where they can optimize their access to qualified employees and interact with vendors, suppliers, allies and partners. They cannot do that on the metropolitan fringe.

  16. Jim Bacon Avatar

    Larry, I have to stick up for the Richmond economy. It’s not Northern Virginia, but it does a lot more than administer state government. Richmond has as many Fortune 500 companies as Northern Virginia. We have a large, vibrant professional services industry — particularly lawyers and marketing/advertising. (The Martin Agency just landed the Wal-Mart account.) We have a large chemical/advanced materials sector: We make Kevlar and Spectra here. We have a respectable and growing biotechnology/life sciences industry here. We have a large insurance sector (Genworth, Anthem, Markel, Hilb Rogal) and a slew of mid-market investment banking firms. We have a healthy and diversified economy!

  17. Knowledge-based businesses –

    Well, as it turns out, I know a bit about that.

    The idea that knowledge based businesses locate near a large supply of labor proves that India does not exist! Unfortunately for your arguments, India does exist and has hundreds of thousands of people working on knowledge based business efforts for companies located in the United States(and elsewhere). The same is true in Manila, China, Vietnam, etc.

    So, a high tech business in Northern Virginia can successfully engage people from India but not from Fredricksburg.

    Do you hear how ridiculous that argument sounds?

    Second fallacy – the Federal government is all in DC and Northern Virginia.

    When Apollo 13 had a problem did they call Fairfax? Did they say, “Fairfax we have a problem”? No, they said, “Houston, we have a problem.”. NASA is distributed all across the United States. Why doesn’t NASA have to locate near a single population of talented people?

    Toyota, one of the world’s most successful automakers, designs their cars in California, engineers them in Japan and builds them all around the world. Meanwhile, some of the American companies try to do all the front end work in a single location – Detroit. Which approach is more effective?

    Third fallacy – nothing ever changes –

    The PC.
    Almost free long distance telephony (remember when Sprint ads touted “only a dime a minute”?).
    Kitihara’s Law – basically the same law for display technology as Moore has for chips (did you have a large flat screen TV monitor in your house in 1995?).
    New software like Blogger, Facebook, Del.icio.us, YouTube, etc
    Vastly improved video conferencing from HP (Halo), Cisco (TelePresence), Polycom, Teleris
    New low cost, high bandwidth protocols like MPLS
    And, of course, the 800 pound gorilla – the internet.

    It’s not 1994 any more. It will never be 1994 again. If it were 1994 this blogging site wouldn’t exist, none of you would have access to the internet, and the “distributed group” that is Baconsrebellion would never have met each other. And, technically speaking, this site barely scratches the technical surface of what’s widely available for collaboration sites. No disrespect intended to Jim – I know he wants to concentrate on the content.

    None is so blind as he who will not see.

    I’ll give you a mental exercise to help visualize the speed of change in technology:

    Imagine a single sheet of 8 1/2″ by 11″ paper.

    Now imagine that sheet of paper being folded in half.

    Now imagine the folded piece of paper being folded in half again.

    Keep folding the paper in half.

    Once you have folded the paper in half one hundred times, how thick is the paper?

    As high as your knee?

    As high as your shoulder?

    To the roof?

    In fact, assuming you started with a piece of paper 0.1 mm thick (pretty standard) the paper would be as high as the known universe is wide. In other words, it would go past the Sun, our planets, past Pluto (whatever it is) past the next galaxy and past the one after that until it was well …. everywhere.

    The math is 0.1mm times 2 to the 100th power.

    It’s an exponential growth curve.

    Just like Moore’s Law.

    And the growth of computer storage (that’s why YouTube exists).

    And other aspects of technology.

    Distributing work among many far seperate locations is not only possible it’s being done every day.

    And it’s a lot easier than bulldozing all the homes and rebuilding them in the settlement pattern de jour.

    Distributing employment patterns isn’t the best way forward it’s the only way forward.

    And no, people will not build distributed locations to employ poorly educated people in decent jobs. However, once you have a distributed employment location in Martinsville you also have a support system around that location. And there are jobs in the support system for those who squandered their opportunity at a decent education.

  18. Anonymous Avatar

    “Knowledge-based businesses locate where they can optimize their access to qualified employees and interact with vendors, suppliers, allies and partners. They cannot do that on the metropolitan fringe.”

    Nonsense.

    Booz Allen is creating a new center on the fringe, farther out than their Tson’s headquarters, precisely because that is where their prospective employees live.

    Your statemet is one of wish, rather than fact. We should plan on what is likely to happen, rather than what we wish would happen. That way we might have some hope of succeeding.

    RH

  19. Anonymous Avatar

    “tell me how you tell businesses where they can and cannot locate…”

    If you can’t tell businesses, then you can’t very well tell homeowners, can you? What’s the difference? It is their property in either case, or else you use the zoning laws, in either case.

    Why is one different from another?

    RH

  20. Anonymous Avatar

    “Fuel would have to reach a cost equivalent to the gap in the monthly mortgage between the “close-in” home and the “far-away” home to disuade significant numbers of people.”

    And if you did disuade significant numbers of people, what would happen? The value of those far out properties would fall precipitously, the cost of close in homes would rise because of competion for space – and the gap in mortgage payments between close in and far out would rise enough to cover the cost of fuel.

    RH

  21. Anonymous Avatar

    “Distributed economic centers are the practical answer to the settlement pattern problems.”

    I hear what ZS is saying, and yet economists have shown that archipelagoes of smaller cities ARE more efficient than a single larger one.

    One reason is that when it gets too large (and too congested) you can no longer actually attract people from all over. They will refuse to come.

    Another reason is that inter city transportation is better than in town transportation, especially for freight.

    And Larry is right: if we only consider the people who are actually doing something productive, then we are in big, big trouble. Everyone else is on one kind of subsidized welfare or another.

    RH

  22. Anonymous Avatar

    “The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency obviously thinks the concept has value; it awarded Raney a grant last year to conduct a study on the Hacienda Business Park in Pleasanton titled “Transforming Office Parks Into Transit Villages.” The list of study partners is a who’s who of serious regional players: Oracle, BART, the Metropolitan Transit Commission, the City of Pleasanton and a number of other organizations. “

    Evidently somebody likes the idea.

    RH

  23. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    I think the QUALITY of the discussions on BR have become Outstanindg!

    The blather to content ratio is getting better all the time.

    re: distributed economic centers vs the “flat world”.

    question: if we can hire folks in India to work for NoVa businesses via telephonics… why do folks have to drive from Fredericksburg to NoVa to accomplish the same?

    re: Richmond.

    I wans’t hitting on Richmond. I was trying to illustrate that there is a difference between businesses that exist to serve local needs and ones that “sell” to the world beyond that place and what that means for their economy.

    What distinquishes Martinsville from Richmond.. is exactly what Jim Bacon pointed out – a diversified economy that sells products and services to folks who live outside of Richmond.

  24. RH:

    We are obviously on the same wavelength. As to how to make businesses locate where society wants – it’s possible. We need carrots and sticks.

    Sticks –

    Society forbids large hotel complexes to be built on beaches that are the breeding ground for loggerhead turtles. So, there is a way to prohibit building where society does not want more building.

    The tax system is routinely used to encourage corporate behavior. For example, certain stock options granted to executives cannot be deducted as a pre-tax cost. Government, acting on behalf of society, could refuse to allow tax deductions for employees who live beyond a certain distance from a company’s facilities. The company would probably build satellite offices and wire them so that the employees can effective work from a distance.

    And before someone posts the “taxes are evil” commentary – I support “zero sum” tax reform. For every new tax or tax hike designed to change corporate behavior there needs to be an equal offsetting tax elimination or reduction.

    The tax-man already takes about 1/2 of everything I earn. I can live with that. What bothers me is that the government wastes money at an unbelievable rate. There is plenty of tax money being collected it’s just being squandered.

    The NIMBYs should pay for their NIMBYism. If certain localities want to “opt out” of their eminent domain responsibility they should pay for that decision. When people in New Jersey want to buy electricity generated in Appalachia – that’s good for Appalachia. When a few rich people who control NIMBY localities try to use political contributions to evade their responsibility to interstate commerce and the American economy they should compensate those they are hurting.

    Carrots –

    Virginia and Fairfax County just used incentives to convince VW – NA to locate in Fairfax County so there are incentives that will encourage corporate migration.

    The university system in Virginia could be used to great effect. Universities attract the kind of people that corporations want to hire. Other than George Mason, I don’t see Virginia’s universities making any serious effort to distribute their campuses for the economic betterment of the state. The state provides some of the operating budget required to run the universities. Maybe there should be more money offered if the universities have a plan to locate major campuses in areas of economic need within the state. That would be a much better use of the urban surplus than permanent “locality welfare”. Of course, the deficit localities might have to raise their real estate tax rates to the state average while the campuses are being built in their back yards.

    Larry –

    “What distinquishes Martinsville from Richmond.. is exactly what Jim Bacon pointed out – a diversified economy that sells products and services to folks who live outside of Richmond.”.

    I’ll bite. Why does Richmond have a diversified economy while Martinsville does not? And, more importantly, what can be done to make Martinsville more like Richmond – economically speaking?

  25. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    Why Richmond?

    If I knew the answer to that, I’d probably not be here twaddling this keyboard.

    🙂

    but I’m betting also that it’s not some formula that any old fool can just walk in and make happen either.

    and that is my point to a certain extent.

    If we don’t know why a company is.. where it is.. then do we have any “business” deciding to implement policies that encourage or discourage it from being where it wants to be?

    NoVa has to be virtually inique if the answer to it’s virbrant economy is to discourage prospective new business.

    It’s not a choice between NoVa and Martinsville.

    It’s a choice between Va and some other state… that has a place similiar to NoVa….

    read this:

    headline: Turbine maker Rolls-Royce to open plant in Virginia
    ….25 miles south of Richmond

    It had announced plans this month to close its turbine plant in Liverpool, England.

    you’d think these guys would want to be in NoVa or TW/HR.. because of this:

    …”will have the capability to create rotors for the F136 engine for the Joint Strike Fighter.”

    http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/11/20/business/NA-FIN-US-Rolls-Royce-Plant.php

    …”Virginia successfully competed with Georgia, Indiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, Ohio, South Carolina and Texas, as well as locations around the world, for the projects.”

    Virginia understood our business needs and worked hard to put forward a world class proposal. Rolls-Royce has had a strong relationship with Virginia since 1990 and this new facility builds on that partnership,” said Sir John Rose, Rolls-Royce Chief Executive.

    “These projects could not have come to fruition without the visionary professionals who recognized Rolls-Royce’s importance to Virginia,” said Jeffrey M. Anderson, Virginia Economic Development Partnership (VEDP) Executive Director. “A remarkable team came together, comprised of VEDP, Prince George County, Virginia’s Gateway Region, the Virginia Port Authority, the Virginia Department of Transportation, the Virginia Community College System, the University of Virginia, Virginia Tech, the Virginia Secretaries of Commerce and Trade, Education, Finance, and Transportation, and the Virginia Liaison Office, who worked tireless hours to get the job done. Congressman Randy Forbes, Virginia House of Delegates Speaker William Howell and State Senator William Wampler also personally interacted with company officials during the process.”

    “It is exciting to see Rolls-Royce take advantage of the wealth of opportunity that our Virginia universities provide,” said Dr. Thomas Morris, Virginia Secretary of Education. “In support of the company’s advanced manufacturing for its defense and civil aerospace businesses, the University of Virginia and Virginia Tech will provide research and development capabilities with a continuous pipeline of engineers.”

    Governor Kaine approved Governor’s Opportunity Funding in the amount of $3 million for each of the two projects to assist Prince George County. The company is eligible to receive state benefits from the Virginia Enterprise Zone Program and Community Development Block Grant funding, both administered by the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development. The Virginia Department of Business Assistance will provide training assistance through the Virginia Jobs Investment Program, assisted by a Virginia Community College System senior level manager to coordinate the delivery of workforce services.

    http://www.inrich.com/cva/ric/news.apx.-content-articles-RTD-2007-11-20-0151.html

  26. Anonymous Avatar

    Yeah, well. RR already has facilities in 20 states and Virginia isn’t one of them, except for headquarters in Chantilly. Looked that way, its about time VA got on the stick.

    RR has a huge Turbine and Aircraft engine plant in Indiana already. ???

    Maybe they came to Virginia to pick up a couple of more legislators to help get their projects funded. Maybe they didn’t want NOVA or HR because of congestion or air pollution concerns.

    Anyway, it is good news for South of Richmond. It might even result in some reverse commuting!

    RH

  27. Anonymous Avatar

    Larry, Rolls Royce is also putting plants in Prince Georges County, MD directly related to the JSF; check the recent WBJ.

    “The idea that knowledge based businesses locate near a large supply of labor proves that India does not exist”

    The distribution of knowledge based labor in India is similar to what is going on here where it is largely located in centralized big cities rather than distributed economic centers. Outsourcing businesses in India have the same issues of recruiting labor and being close to other businesses that US companies do. If you are running an accounting firm in India it makes more sense to locate in a big city with lots of potential accountants than in smaller cheaper areas where you would have to move accountants from other regions to your business location. Like in the US it doesn’t make sense.

    “So, a high tech business in Northern Virginia can successfully engage people from India but not from Fredricksburg.”

    Yes because of the pool of labor available, though it is starting to dwindle a bit in India so labor costs are rising. Large cities in India have far more knowledgable labor available than a place like Fredricksburg or Martinsville. Consolidation of knowledge workers in large metropolitans is what’s driving high tech business. The idea that economic distribution is the future would go completely against the trend of the past 15 years of worldwide urbanization.

    “question: if we can hire folks in India to work for NoVa businesses via telephonics… why do folks have to drive from Fredericksburg to NoVa to accomplish the same?”

    This assumes that most the business to India is in the form of call centers which it is not. Even in the US call centers are largely located outside major metropolitans due to costs. The NoVa, India, and other major metropolitan jobs are the ones that aren’t easy to put in cheaper areas due to labor or sales reasons. They are the ones that gain from the labor and market economies of scale of large metropolitans. e.g. Goldman Sachs is located in some of the most expensive RE in the world and pays some of the highest bonuses in the world to attract workers, but they could only do it in NYC since a place like NYC attracts an enormous number of potential knowledgable laborers. This is how GS can basically choose from the best of the best of the best to work there. They could never do that at an office park in some obscure location.

    “I hear what ZS is saying, and yet economists have shown that archipelagoes of smaller cities ARE more efficient than a single larger one.”

    This is probably true from an infrastructure standpoint, but like a lot of economics doesn’t always make sense in real business cases or when you take out the assumptions. This is like saying I should buy a small car because it’s more fuel efficient than an SUV, but consider no other factors.

    “Booz Allen is creating a new center on the fringe, farther out than their Tson’s headquarters, precisely because that is where their prospective employees live.”

    I wouldn’t consider this moving out of the central region. The Dulles Corridor still draws from a huge labor pool and they have proximity to their customers. Their headquarters are still in Tysons which is <10 miles away.

    ZS

  28. Anonymous Avatar

    ZS, good points.

    I think the idea was, on the groups of cities, that that they were more efficient economically. They produced more with less labor and less waste. Theoretically that would transfer to individual companies.

    If you look at the job density gradient in US cities vs European cities, it is much steeper here, and that is one of the things that contributes to our congestion problem.

    I think that is one of the things that drove Booze to the fringe. I’d say it was the fringe because there isn’t vey much West of there. Locating where their new facility is pretty much wipes out their access to a big chunk of people living East of the Potomac, just as you say. They have limited their selection of people. Some people will make the drive from MD, but it’s an open question whether they would have more people turn down job offers downtown, in Tysons, or in Chantilly.

    Goldman Sachs is downtown, but a fair number of financial houses have moved to Connecticut which is now experiences and office shortage. Why did they move? The bigwigs wanted to be closer to their boats in New Haven and Stamford. Considering the writedown GS took, they might be acquired by one of those out of town guys.

    There are a lot of ways at looking at this stuff, and probably all of them are a little bit valid. If we really get in an energy crisis, all bets are off, but evidently RR doesn’t see that happening if they are expanding their aircraft business.

    ????????? I’ve got more questions than answers.

    RH

  29. Anonymous Avatar

    What I’m saying in reference to Booz is that even though they are out at Dulles they can still draw from a large enough workforce, since essentially the metropolitan stretches to Leesburg. It’s a far different arguement from them say moving to Staunton, Culpeper, or someplace like that. What’s going on in NYC/CT is the same thing as the DC/Fairfax area. The businesses want to locate closer to their employees for convenience, but still must be able to draw a good selection of employees and maintain reasonable access to their markets. It’s a tradeoff that companies have to decide.

    My contention with the idea of distributed economic centers, which to me means lots of small to medium metropolitans that are more manageable as opposed to a few mega-metropolitans, is that the opposite trend has been happening for the past 15 years. It doesn’t make sense in the current business climate for companies to locate in smaller metropolitans. e.g. VW moved their HQ from one of the cheapest places in the country to one of the most expensive; it’s almost more per month here than what it costs per year in MI by sq ft.

    Where I grew up in MI is one of those places that has plenty of room for growth without new infrastructure, has a great university, and all these things, but will never recover barring unbelievable changes. It would take such an incredible amount of investment there to recover that it’s not even worth it; you can’t give office space away there.

    “I think the idea was, on the groups of cities, that that they were more efficient economically. They produced more with less labor and less waste. Theoretically that would transfer to individual companies.”

    Like I said this is probably true when you make a bunch of assumptions, which is what economists do to make models usable. Effecient labor doesn’t always mean more sales, higher margins, or more innovation, etc. It’s like statistics, you can make economic models do largely what you want with the right assumptions and right measurements.

    ZS

  30. Anonymous Avatar

    “It’s a far different arguement from them say moving to Staunton, Culpeper, or someplace like that.”

    Agreed. I think the cogent phase is that you need to have ENOUGH workers. All the ones availavble that you don’t use, don’t matter.

    “Effecient labor doesn’t always mean more sales, higher margins, or more innovation, etc.”

    Also agreed. It’s why I said theoretically it wouldl transfer.

    “…is that the opposite trend has been happening for the past 15 years.”

    Is that right? Isn’t that the same 15 years that has seen the growth of edge cities? We might be talking the same thing here. Arlington was once an edge city to DC and now Tysons is an edge city to Arlington and Reston to Tysons. Leesburg won’t be too far behind.

    I think we agree it isnt Staunton or Culpeper – yet, although for reasons of security, manageability, transportation and other reasons, maybe it should be.

    It makes me crazy to hear “you can’t give the office space away” while we are staring at a skyline of cranes building new and finer offices. We are recycling huggies and throwing away office buildings? Surely there is a better way.

    Maybe we need cap and trade permits on city office space.

    RH

  31. ZS:

    I just can’t buy your arguments. American companies outsource to India because there is a good labor pool and low wages. The well educated labor pool was created by a focused effort on the part of the Indian government and the Indian Institutes of Technology. It was no accident. In addition, India is still a very poor country with a very large percentage of uneducated people. Saying that Chennai or Bangalore is a metropolitan area completely misses the point. Austin, TX is not a major metropolitan area but it is a high technology haven. Charlotte, NC was not a major metropolitan area a few decades ago but it is now. Research Triangle, NC was built on tobacco but was rebuilt on technology and research when the politicians from that area realized that tobacco was a dead end (in a lot of ways).

    Goldman Sachs (aka Golden Stacks) may need to be in NYC to attract talent. However, WalMart attracts the best retail talent in the world to Bentonville, Ak (Population of 29,000). In addition, Bentonville is the home to The Whisler Group – a manufacturer of radar detectors.

    Boise, Idaho and Bend, Oregon – the list of small cities and small towns building a sustainable high technology economy just goes on and on.

    The belief that only metropolitan areas have a sufficient labor pool to attract talent may have been true for Ward Cleaver but is not true today.

    What is true today is that the backwards and incompetent Virginia state government just does not “get it”. Almost the entire state economy is dependent on sucking in money from the federal government and then distributing it throughout the state. And those who live on the federal government die on the federal government.

    Roanoke / Salem, Charlottesville, Lynchburg and other Virginia cities all could be part of Virginia’s non-Federal economic future. However, that would take vision, clarity of thought and disciplined execution from Virginia’s government. And let’s be honest – that just isn’t going to happen.

  32. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    I think it is interesting that quite a bit of NoVa labor force … does not live in NoVa but streams in via the interstates every morning.

  33. Anonymous Avatar

    “Is that right? Isn’t that the same 15 years that has seen the growth of edge cities? We might be talking the same thing here. Arlington was once an edge city to DC and now Tysons is an edge city to Arlington and Reston to Tysons. Leesburg won’t be too far behind.”

    I wasn’t referring to shifts within a metropolitan region, but rather a shift from small metropolitans (a few hundred thousand at most) to medium and larger metropolitans (million plus). It’s happening either through contraction and decay of existing cities or through massive growth.

    Most the cities Groveton mentioned are not small metropolitans. Austin is well over a million, same with Charlotte, I think the research triangle is close to a couple million, even Boise isn’t that small anymore. Like I’ve said the keys are access to employees and access to markets, which in today’s economy is difficult from a small area except when niche businesses can be carved out.

    WalMart in Bentonsville is the exception not the rule, and I’m not sure if they are best served being there, but that’s their choice. I would definitely argue about whether WalMart attracts the best retail talent, but that’s another issue.

    The comparison with India is merely that they are developing in the same way as is happening worldwide heavy urbanization particularly in key metropolitans. When a company goes to India looking to outsource some operations they don’t want to travel to every small town in India for whatever service they are looking for. They want to go to one or two major cities and have everything they need there. It’s a more efficient market for both buyers and sellers.

    ZS

  34. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    I would think that, large, well-established companies have more flexibility about where to locate depending on what kind of labor force they need.

    Smaller companies that are “incubating” need to be need where existing labor forces are I would think.

    When companies, big and small AND the Federal Government locates in NoVa – they all KNOW that their potential labor force INCLUDES people who live 50 miles away in the outer suburbs.

    Part of the allure in locating in NoVa IS.. the fact that the “pool” of labor is more than 100 miles in Geographic diameter.

    So… as previously pointed out, why would any company want to locate near one of the “edges” – like in Fredericksburg? What would be the advantages of doing that?

    what would be the disadvantages?

    Even the Feds don’t want to be in Fredericksburg if instead they can be in Belvoir or Quantico or a half dozen other Federal enclaves in the DC area.

    Why?

  35. E M Risse Avatar

    WRAPPING UP CHEAP GASOLINE

    What a worthwhile and enlightening post and string!

    It all started with a timely, informative and intelligent post. Great job Jim Bacon!

    That was followed by a sad attempt by “Not Ed Risse” to say something negative.

    If he / she / they understood anything written by Jim Bacon or EMR, they would know they were setting themselves up. They got it “right between the eyes.”

    There followed 32 comments by four “regular” contributors who seemed to present contrasting views.

    If fact if one sorts out the Vocabulary and the data they all agree and that may be the most important thing that comes from reading this string. More on that later.

    First a pause to note that Groveton is absolutely right: ALL variable costs should be fairly and equitably allocated.

    The reason EMR (and I suspect Jim Bacon but will not speak for him) focuses on the location-variable costs of goods and services is simple:

    Location-variable costs (along with energy related costs that directly impact location decisions) are the most uniformly mis-allocated.

    Why are they mis-allocated? Groveton provides the answer. Geographic Illiteracy and Spacial Ignorance.

    In attempting to refute “ZS,” Groveton cites what he implies are small, “other places.”

    The Austin New Urban Region has a population of over 1.7 million and the fourth largest urban agglomeration in the third largest and second most populous state in the nation-state with the largest economy on Earth.

    Greater Charlotte and Greater Raleigh Durham are two of the three major subregions in the Central Carolina New Urban Region that has over 5 million residents (somewhere between Bangalore (5.3 mil) and Chennal (4.4 mil).

    The Boise New Urban Region (or is it a large Beta Community is the Northern Rocky Mountain Urban Support Region?) is small but 600 k citizens is not Beta Village scale.

    Greater Bend, Oregon is only is about 80 k but is the second fastest growing MSA in the US of A. Like Missoula and other nice places to live that do not have a traditional Critical Mass, Bend has several good reasons for attracting more than its share of outside capital and energetic new comers.

    The reasons for desirable places with small mass are usually one or more of these three: State Capital, Major University, Far above average Amenity that draws visitors who decide to stay. More on Critical Mass later.

    All the commentors made some false assumptions due to failure to employ a robust Vocabulary and lack of a well considered Conceptual Framework. The poster who made the most posts – 16 out of 34 (35 if you count the double post) – made the most errors. That is to be expected not just because of having the most opportunities to error but because he / she / they always provide a maddening mix of common knowledge, interesting perspectives and bad conclusions based on the aforementioned Vocabulary and Conceptual Framework disability (aka, Geographic Illiteracy.)

    In the string there are three major misconceptions that are put forth as facts based on cherry picking quotes and misunderstanding spacial relationships:

    The Critical Mass of “Other Places”

    Euro Sprawl

    The Speed with which Settlement Patterns Can Change

    CRITICAL MASS OF “OTHER PLACES”:

    When we entered the field of designing and building human settlements 42 years ago those who talked intelligently about such things suggested that the Critical Mass of a functional place in the US of A was a population of 300,000 with a relative balance of “jobs and housing.”

    Now a Critical Mass is around 1 mil with a Balance of J / H / S / R / A.

    These are rough numbers and are impacted by the factors noted above.

    The largest 68 urban agglomerations in the US of A are all close to or above – some 20 times above – this criteria. These 68 places are where 85 percent of the population lives, works and plays.

    As “ZS” points out this is a Global trend with variations depending on the economic and social status of the agglomerating New Urban Region and the resources of the Urban Support Regions.

    Even a casual review of the office value / location data published from time to time by WaPo (latest version 12 Nov 2007) will help any novice understand the dynamics of central locations and Critical Mass. See “Where the Jobs Are,” 24 May 2004 at db4.dev.baconsrebellion.com

    In the 70s it was assumed that a Planned New Community could achieve Critical Mass with a population of around 100,000. This was the maximum size that could be achieved with the assumed market over a 20 to 25 year buildout. This was the time frame that the economic models showed as the maximum window for a break-even development project.

    All were planned and started within existing MSAs and what are now New Urban Regions. All failed to achieve Critical Mass and / or Balance. That is another story.

    The Planned New Communities now going up in China, Japan and elsewhere are targeted for around 300,000. (Do not confuse these with new Village or Neighborhood scale projects – again a question of Vocabulary and Conceptual Framework.) The viability of these agglomerations over time is an open question as noted below.

    The Bottom Line on Critical Mass?

    There are already more than enough “places.” The market documents that places must have a Critical Mass. It does not take a rocket scientist to see that all the existing “places” have Swiss cheese settlement patterns.

    We have argued that there needs to be at least 5 persons per acre within the Clear Edge and 10 persons per acre within the Balanced Communities that make up the urban fabric inside Clear Edges. (Those current Chinese Planned New Communities have densities of around 10 persons per acre at the Community scale.)

    The points Jim Bacon raises in his original post are reason to reconsider the 10 Person Rule. Ten persons per acre at the Alpha Community scale is the sweet-spot (low point of the Cost of Services Curve) for settlement patterns THAT ACCOMMODATE AUTONOMOBILES RUNNING ON CHEAP FUEL.

    First World citizens may be in for a step up in minimum Critical Mass to one that is dependent on the sweet spot for shared-vehicle systems – 100 persons per acre within 1/4 to ½ a mile of the station platform.

    EURO SPRAWL

    It is easy to drive a stake through the heart of the Euro Sprawl Myth. Everyone who can convert kilometers to miles and draw circles on a map can do it for themselves.

    We were alarmed in the 80s to read the first Euro Sprawl stories. They originated with a “man bite dog journalist and acquired an urban myth status. The myth is perpetuated by those who wanted an excuse to ignore the continuing growth of dysfunctional settlement patterns. “Everyone is doing it, so just relax.”

    Since a lot of money and false expectations of open land amateur speculators is riding on the back of this myth, a cottage industry has grown up citing one another’s proofs of Geographic Illiteracy.

    Having spent enough time in the EU to know it was a myth, S/P took the time to debunk the Euro Sprawl myth in Chapter 20 of The Shape of the Future. In this Chapter we cite the example of San Diego and Lyon and have since helped groups touring many Euro New Urban Regions with conversion tables. No one has (and no one who can convert sq kilometers to acres could) dispute the reality: Euro Sprawl as a myth.

    We gave up reading the Euro Sprawl trash sometime ago because we always found that when one takes the time to apply uniform terminology and accurate conversion factors there is no basis for any of the “Well the Europeans are doing the same thing we are with respect to human settlement patterns.”

    Of course the settlement patterns over the last 40 years in Euro New Urban Regions have been different than those of 200 years ago. In no New Urban Region in Europa are they building the four to seven story walk-up buildings common in the 18th, 19th and early 20th centuries.

    The market documents, however, the continuing value of those older buildings that now sport elevators and roof terraces in the Zentrums. Compare a 2,500 sq foot residence in the Paris New Urban Region at R = < 3 with one at R=10 or R = 20. The fact is that on a New Urban Region scale there is nearly an order of magnitude difference in “compactness.” Go to Toronto, Montreal, Ottawa, Vancouver, et. al. and see patterns that are about half way between US of A and EU. There are Regional and some nation-state differences but by in large these simple rules of thumb apply. Do not take our word for it do the homework yourself. Take a map of the Paris New Urban Region (there a lot of very good ones) and one of Dallas-Ft Worth (it will take some searching but they do exist). (Paris (pop 12 mil) and Dallas Fort Worth (pop 6 mil) work well because neither is on a harbor and most of the larger US of A New Urban Regions are. You get the same results with New York, Los Angles, Chicago, Washington-Baltimore, Philadelphia, or Boston New Urban Regions in comparison with any major urban agglomeration in the EU but the calculations are more difficult.) Do a radial analysis using the same scale and see what you see.
    SPEED AND EASE OF SETTLEMENT PATTERN CONVERSION

    “It is all in your head.”

    Look at the vast expansion of air traffic capacity happened last week! When enough citizens decided to miss the airport crunch, it disappeared. The same happened with the terrible congestion predicted for the 1975 Bicentennial in Washington-Baltimore and the Olympic congestion in Los Angeles.

    Those who support Business-As-Usual say “It will take FOREVER to change settlement patterns.” This is just silly because the current problems are caused by patterns of activity more than patterns of buildings.

    Look at what happened in the Zentrum of Toronto when the office building glut was solved by creating residential condos?

    The conversion would even faster if location-variable costs were fairly allocated.

    SO, WHAT DID WE LEARN?

    Get the words right and use the right data within a functional Conceptual Framework and most agree on the basics.

    A string that started about cheap gasoline and ended up settlement patterns and that is the only solution to energy cost and shortages.

    The “research” that purports to support different conclusions on these issue
    is proof that with access to the internet and the ability to obfuscate reality by using weasel words (Core Confusing Words) and a foggy concept of spacial reality.

    This is why the subject of MainStream Media, the subject of this weeks column is so important.

    EMR

Leave a Reply