Pols should accept urban realities

By John Hood
Posted 10/15/19

RALEIGH — In 2012, 92 percent of North Carolina workers commuted to their place of employment by automobile. By 2018, that share had dipped to 90 percent.

But before mass-transit advocates get …

Sign up to keep reading — It's FREE!

In an effort to improve our website and enhance our local coverage, MyDailyRecord.com has switched to a membership model. Fill out the form below to create a free account. Once you're logged in, you can continue using the site as normal.

Pols should accept urban realities

Posted

RALEIGH — In 2012, 92 percent of North Carolina workers commuted to their place of employment by automobile. By 2018, that share had dipped to 90 percent.

But before mass-transit advocates get excited, I should hasten to add that the share of North Carolinians commuting by public transportation remained the same, at a miniscule 1 percent. Moreover, the decline in auto commuting from 2012 to 2018 occurred entirely among those who carpool. The share of commuters driving alone stayed the same at 81 percent, as did the share of those walking (2 percent) and using other modes such as paid ridesharing (1 percent).

So if carpooling went down, what went up? The share of North Carolinians who work mostly from home rose two points, to 6 percent. The least-expensive, least-frustrating, and least-polluting way to commute is not to do it at all.

Politicians have been talking a lot about the implications of rapid growth in our urban and suburban areas. Such talk is valuable — as long as policymakers keep certain realities in mind.

One such reality is that, no matter how much politicians may wish it were otherwise, North Carolinians are unlikely to flock in significant numbers to mass transit as a means of getting to work. I think it is entirely appropriate for cities to fund bus systems as a low-cost mobility option. That doesn’t mean transit will be truly “mass” in North Carolina in the foreseeable future.

If your goal is to alleviate traffic congestion, far more productive would be to reduce the extent to which people enter vehicles of any kind in the first place, and how long they stay in them. That means rethinking zoning and other regulations that create artificial separation between where people live, work and shop.

I’m not just talking about working from home, in other words, although policymakers ought to make sure they aren’t unnecessarily blocking people from setting up businesses in their homes, for example. I’m also talking about mixed-use developments. More North Carolinians walk to work than take transit. I don’t want the government to try to force mixed-used developments on unwilling sellers and buyers. But I also don’t want government to get in their way, as is now too often the case.

Relaxing zoning codes, minimum lot sizes, and other regulations would have another welcome benefit in North Carolina’s urbanizing areas: downward pressure on housing prices and rents. We have artificial restrictions on supply. Even if more-affluent North Carolinians are the ones most likely to buy downtown condos or rent in trendy high-rises, their decisions would free up other housing stock for other customers.

There is an emerging consensus that we currently practice “exclusionary zoning.” But here’s another reality policymakers need to accept: you can’t fix the problem with “inclusionary zoning,” with ordering developers to set aside some units as affordable housing. In the places this has been tried, reports Mercatus Center research fellow Emily Hamilton, it was either ineffectual or actively counterproductive, hiking the overall cost of housing.

The answer is to dismantle the barriers themselves. Let’s get started.

John Hood (@JohnHoodNC) is chairman of the John Locke Foundation and appears on “N.C. Spin,” broadcast statewide Fridays at 7:30 p.m. and Sundays at 12:30 p.m. on UNC-TV.

Comments

No comments on this story | Please log in to comment by clicking here
Please log in or register to add your comment