Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

IT IS THE NEW URBAN REGION, PLEASE

—

by

James A. Bacon
in

Jim Bacon has been into the numbers again. See “States, Taxes and Laffer Curve” below. (This is a new post since some may not make it past Anon 5:31’s post.)

Good post Jim: Glad you noted the importance of human settlement patterns. That leads to the one concern we have with the post: The problem is not just using “state” data instead of “metropolitan region” data. One has to go much deeper into the data issue before any analysis is of real value.

For example:

Larry G. (is that you Larry Gross?) cites a report by Milken / Greenstreet that makes this case crystal clear.

First on Vocabulary: I am sure everyone who looked up the study noted the authors called this the “best performing ‘CITIES’” but the entries are the top 200 “MSAs” or parts there of (e.g. “MDs”) not a “city” on the list.

If you do not know what you are talking about, you do not know what you are talking about.

Even more important of the top 25 places on the list – what ever you call them – 20 are in New Urban Regions. These are not small, out of the way places, they are parts of New Urban Regions, just as you would expect.

What is more 11 of the top 25 places fall into just 4 New Urban Regions.

In other words there is no reason to spend much time looking at this or other badly aggregated information.

Using “state” data makes any analysis less meaningful than “metropolitian region” data, but not much.

We explore the newly in-vogue term “megaregion” in TRILO-G.

There are problems with going too big as well as too small with data aggregation. Think organic, in the food market and in the data.

charlie: Why “New Urban Region” not “state”? The reason is simple, the New Urban Region is the fundamental building block of contemporary economic, social and physical civilization.

Yes, there are some things that vary by state (or by county or nation-state) but not as many as vary by the organic components of society.

TMT: Think New Urban Region, not “nova,” where ever that may be.

Darrell – Chesapeake: Right on except it is Fundamental Transformation, not fundamental change, that phrase has been hijacked by the Business-As-Usual political spinners.

EMR

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

11 responses to “IT IS THE NEW URBAN REGION, PLEASE”

  1. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “In other words there is no reason to spend much time looking at this or other badly aggregated information.”

    Are you saying that because the information is not aggregated according to your favored definitions, no data has value?

    If I give you the weight of a car, is the answer wrong because you wanted the answer by component? If I give you the weight by component, is my answer wrong just because you define chassis, or drivetrain differently?

    RH

  2. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Here is an example of better data in action. EMR would no doubt say it is still flawed, because it isn’t aggregated properly.

    Notice that this new data brings New York and Chicago into the top five most congested lists, along with DC. All of these cities have excellent public transportation. Regardless of how it is aggregated, truth is truth.

    “INRIX’s data collection is unique in that it combines Department of Transportation road sensor information with GPS and toll tag data from commercial vehicle fleets like taxis and trucks. In addition, the company can incorporate factors like weather, construction, school schedules, and sports events into its traffic predictions.

    This type of hard data seems imminently more valuable than the modeling that has traditionally tried to define congestion, such as the work by the Texas Transportation Institute (TTI), and it is little surprise that TTI’s ranking of the most congested areas differs from INRIX’s. INRIX ranks the top five congested areas as Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, Washington DC, and Dallas. TTI ranks them (based on 2005 data) as Los Angeles, San Francisco, Washington DC, Atlanta, and Dallas. TTI bases its estimates primarily on survey data of travel habits and broad statistics such as traffic volumes and highway lane-miles. The flaws in this type of methodology have long been apparant, but no better alternatives existed.”

    RH

  3. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Here is another example of real data supplanting previously supposed “facts”:

    “As we learn to monitor and analyse what really happens out there, some complex and quite fascinating relationships are beginning to come to light. An example of this came when the latest Trafficmaster/RAC Foundation Journey Time Index was published in the U.K. It seems that high fuel prices, the credit crunch and the economic slowdown have resulted in decreasing traffic congestion, with jams down 12 per cent compared to 2007. It also found that the average speed on Britain’s motorways has slowed from 63.3 mph to 62.2 mph as motorists aim to conserve fuel, and despite slowing speeds, journey times have improved by 0.3%.

    The data for the survey is actually a by-product resulting from Trafficmaster’s other services in the UK which include an intelligent satellite navigation system, which uses live traffic informationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/traffic_reporting and real-time road speeds to calculate optimumoptimum routes and avoid traffic congestion, stolen vehicle trackinghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_tracking_system , and the provision of live traffic information to other aftermarket and factory-fit satellite navigation systems.

    …………

    This change in traffic trends is down to a general drop in the number of vehicles, particularly heavy goods vehicles, travelling at peak times. This could in part be due to the downturn in the retail and construction industries that predominately make up the commercial vehicle segment. The completion of a number of major road works also plays a major part in the dramatic decrease in congestion.”

    Imagine that: build roads, reduce congestion.

    Imagine that: economic slowdown, less congestion.

    RH

  4. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Or try this data on for size.

    “Housing remains relatively unaffordable in rural areas, the Bank of Scotland has said.

    A new report from the mortgage lender, the Scottish Rural Housing Review, shows that the cost of the average countryside home in Scotland is 21 percent above its equivalent in other areas in the UK. Moreover, first time buyers were found to be largely shut out of the rural market: just one in five people moving into these homes have not owned property before, down from 31 percent in urban areas.

    Moreover, the average price of a rural home was revealed to be 13 percent higher than elsewhere. A disparity in provision of social housing was also noted: with the cheap homes making up five percent more of total urban stock (15 percent to ten percent).”

    Not only are rural homes more expensive (more demand according to EMR’s argument) but most people buying them have previously owned homes – in urban areas.

    RH

  5. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    OK, I give up.

    Rural places are A) more expensive to buy in
    or B) less expensive to actually live in?

    “According to ACCRA cost-of-living data on BestPlaces.net, the standard of living you can enjoy in red Wasilla, Alaska for $93,000 would cost you $159,000 in blue San Francisco. Due to its remoteness and frigidity, Alaska isn’t a cheap place to live, but housing costs in exurban Wasilla are only 35 percent of what they are in San Francisco.”

    RH

  6. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Again “RH,” in his attempt to make a fool of Dr. Risse, has demonstrated that those afflicted with Geographic Illiteracy who rely on simple analogies end up documenting that they are simpletons.

    Let’s take “RH’s” car analogy and demonstrate the point Dr. Risse was made:

    The boundaries and the components of a “car” are easy to determine. If all the components of the car are weighted using common units of measure, then they will weigh the same as the car.

    The boundaries and content of a “region” are not easy to determine as demonstrated by how few get it right. Some use the outline of a jurisdictions created 100 years before the Model T was invented to determine the boundaries of the region; some consider only one or more irregular sections cut through the territory. A quick analysis of the Milken numbers demonstrate that.

    The weight of a car and the weight of its components are simple to determine. But the composition, conductivity and interrelationships of the components of a region are not.

    Dr. Risse put it correctly: “If you do not know what you are talking about, you do not know what you are talking about.

  7. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I’m not attempting to portray anyone as anything. I have no need to try to make a fool out of Dr. Risse.

    I’m merely pointing out that there are many pieces of data, many points of view, and many regimes where they apply and where they don’t. Some of these seem to refute EMR’s contentions.

    The boundaries of a car and its components are easy to determine only if we all agree. The chassis might be considered the frame, suspension, and wheels, and I suspect that would be generally acnowledged. The point of the analogy was that if EMR “defined” the chassis without the wheels, then by EMR’s logic the data would be wrong because it was aggregated “imprecisely”.

    Or, If you have a monocoque car, where does the frame stop and the body begin? Do you count wiring as a separate component, or just include it with electronics? The total weight is the same to be sure, but you could haggle endlessly over how it is defined into subregions.

    But as you correctly caught on, it doesn’t mean the total is wrong. that being the case I see no point in simply throwing out all the data: rather, you use what you have as best you can.

    Conceptually, it is no harder to define areas than it is to define auto or marine or aerospace components, so it comes down to whether you want to actually make progress, or just haggle over points. Rather than accepting data as it is and incorporating it in his model of the World According to Dr Risse, EMR would prefer to dismiss it as wrong or the messenger as a fool.

    I don’t feel any need to be offended by that: it isn’t my data and it isn’t my message. As a student, I’m free to ask questions. If my professor won’t or can’t answer them, then I’ll probably hire another professor, or just discount his credibility.

    Anyone can reach the right conclusion if they wait infinitely long for perfect data. Anyone can defend their position as unassailable because no “proper” data exists to refute it. How many people and researchers regularly use EMR’s classification of regions? If so many others are wrong in thier classifications, why would I believe he is any more right?

    Apparently it is “cheaper” to live in Wasilla than San Francisco, but more expensive to live in Alness than Inverness, and more expensive to live in Queens than in Houston. Maybe that’s because we have not defined all the externalities, and the true locational costs, as EMR claims. Whatever, the facts are what they are.

    The hard part is making good decisions under uncertainty, with the data you have. All EMR says is that there is no reason to look at this or any other badly aggregated information: the only correct way to look at things is his way.

    Sorry, I’m not sold yet. Put a price on the externalities and give everyone a share of ownership. Then let them buy and sell at will, and we will eventually find out what things are worth.

    We will find out the costs of public policy variables that affect any regions long-term economic growth when we find out what the sum of all the individual costs are. If you do that, you can choose any boundaries you like for your “region”. If someone else chooses different boundaries, they will have diffferent answers and both will still be right. But if you count some costs and ignore others,as EMR does, then every answer will be wrong.

    “If you do not know what you are talking about, you do not know what you are talking about.” simply strikes me as the perfect example of the self-prefacing circular proof that EMR is so fond of. With logic like that, it’s hard to be wrong.

    RH

  8. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “If we are going to talk about “change” it needs to be Fundamental Change.”

    EMR, 2007

    “…it is Fundamental Transformation, not fundamental change, that phrase has been hijacked by the Business-As-Usual political spinners.”

    EMR, 2008

    ?????

    RH

  9. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    EMR – I still believe that NoVA is quite material to reality — for political reasons. I work with a number of people who, in turn, work to influence elected and appointed officials in Fairfax County and surrounding areas.

    While it is challenging to compete with campaign contributions, there still are some elected officials in Fairfax County (Foust, Herrity, Frey, McKay) who are interested in the views of ordinary people on development. Of course, to have any influence with Fairfax officials, it helps to be a county resident. It is more challenging to try to influence other Virginia local officials and simply impossible to have an impact in D.C. or Maryland.

    Political boundaries are and will continue to be key.

    TMT

  10. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    TMT said:

    “EMR – I still believe that NoVA is quite material to reality — for political reasons.”

    Of course you are right, but…

    Where is “NOVA”?

    We define the Washington-Baltimore New Urban Region, the National Capital Subregion and of course the Virginia portion of the National Capital Subregion.

    These are all organic components.

    But where is “Nova” See our 11 August 2003 for a laundry list of “official” versions of what Nova is.

    This is one of the frustrations of discussing human settlement patterns. The topic is too complex to bring into every converstation, every relevant point.

    When conditions change, we change, until then, what we said in 1965, 1985, 1990, 2000, 2003 or early 2008 still stands.

    Also note you used the word “political.”

    That is the primary reason for the confusion and why there is a need for Fundamental Transformation in governace structure.

    More on that later.

    EMR

  11. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “The topic is too complex to bring into every converstation, every relevant point.”

    No more so than any other big topic. The point is to make good decisions under uncertainty, make good decisions with the data you have, within the boundaries you can reach.

    I once had a chemistry professor who sent his whole career synthesizing all the members of one family of compounds, searching for one with anti carcinogenic properties. After 43 years he concluded he had been barking up the wrong tree.

    Sometimes you make your own frustrations.

    RH

Leave a Reply

Read More