Plan|it|Calgary Draft Municipal Development Plan and Transportation Plan

[Wooster]

Originally Posted by jawagord

Interesting critique on the possible costs of Calgary's push to increase core density. Higher housing costs, higher transportation costs, longer commutes, inpediments to new businesses in calgary's future? I think the author is saying Mr. Nenshi "you got some splainin to do"!

http://www.policyschool.ucalgary.ca/...ure-arnott.pdf

Unfortunately, I think the author's lack of actual knowledge of the local context hurt the analysis. You go through the document and you find yourself saying "nope, that's not really true" over and over.

Some of the basic premises that drive the analysis and assertions are simply incorrect.

[jigglysquishy]

Originally Posted by jawagord

Interesting critique on the possible costs of Calgary's push to increase core density. Higher housing costs, higher transportation costs, longer commutes, inpediments to new businesses in calgary's future? I think the author is saying Mr. Nenshi "you got some splainin to do"!

http://www.policyschool.ucalgary.ca/...ure-arnott.pdf

What an absolutely bizarre critique.

I have many issues with the article, but in particular he consistently claims that Calgary has spent more on mass transit than roads. That is factually incorrect. Calgary over the past thirty years (if you include provincial dollars) has spent far more on road infrastructure than mass transit.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by jawagord

Interesting critique on the possible costs of Calgary's push to increase core density. Higher housing costs, higher transportation costs, longer commutes, inpediments to new businesses in calgary's future? I think the author is saying Mr. Nenshi "you got some splainin to do"!

http://www.policyschool.ucalgary.ca/...ure-arnott.pdf

I read it too. Got about 20 pages in and had to stop because it had so many errors, misunderstandings, poor metrics, horrible methodology, poor assumptions, and non-sequiturs. Here are just a few:

- Consistently points out Calgary is an anomaly in terms of both employment concentration (correctly) and transit ridership (also correct) but just fails to make the connection. It's why transit ridership is so high.
- Wonders how Calgary can strive for substantial increases in transit ridership over the next several decades, and then later cites how Calgary's transit ridership has massively increased in the last 10 years
- Misuses office, retail and industrial floor area as a proxy for employment density, while completely missing institutional employment. This is why the Foothills/UofC/ACH is completely looked over
- Uses the TTI as a measure of congestion. Horrible, horrible, horrible metric. For critiques see: Here here here and especially Here
- Ignores efforts at non-CBD focused transit investments, such as cross-town BRTs
- Uses the four-stage model to predict traffic, which is a poor predictor of behavior
- States that because population projections are low (which is a good point), a intensity-focused land use strategy would result in increased rents, but doesn't say the same for a greenfield strategy. If your population projections are wrong, then no matter how you planned growth, you will be short on supply. Assumes that a laissez faire strategy to land supply can't also apply to increasing density in the existing city. Good job there urban economist!
- Also makes claim that low-population projections were used to justify land-constraint policies. This is incorrect. Infrastructure capital costs and maintenance were the primary justification for the intensification strategy. This only because more, not less, pronounced in high growth scenarios
- Neglects to include transportation in the cost of living analysis- while housing is the largest cost for Canadian households, transportation is the second. Omitting it is a huge error
- Makes the claim that planners are essentially all pie-in-the-sky idealists, while economists make judgements based on data. Two errors here. First, while some planners may be idealists, planning does incorporate economics, engineering, etc when making analyses. Second, to say economists base their theories and models on data or research is laughable. Look at how long it took the field of economics to deal with the criticisms of rational choice theory (which essentially all economics is based off) by the behavioural economists such as Richard Thaler, Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky. Consistently showed over and over again through numerous experiments that people do not behave economically rational, but economists just refused to believe it for decades. Kahneman and Tversky won a Nobel for it, but most in the economics field still learn about rational choice theory. Economics was, and still is to a large degree, a field that tries to fit the real world to the model and not the other way around. Read Thaler's "Misbehaving" or "Nudge" or Kahneman and Tversky's "Thinking Fast and Slow" on this.
- Claims that "congestion" will increase in the intensification scenario, yet his own data show that in that scenario trip times are massively lower than in a greenfield scenario- avg ato commute time of 48 mins compared to 138 mins. This is the largest error and misinformation of the entire report. Commute times in an intensification scenario are almost a third of those under a greenfield scenario, yet the report claims congestion will be worse. This is a blatantly misleading conclusion. So bad, whoever the hell reviewed it should be ashamed.

That is all for now. Ugh.

[Spring2008]

140,000 new city-proper residents over the past 4 yrs while Plan It, MDP etc have started to become a major focus. If we don't continue to expand the urban focus, nobody will move here. The suburbs are becoming more and more insignificant for the younger, educated generations across the world.

Originally Posted by jawagord

Interesting critique on the possible costs of Calgary's push to increase core density. Higher housing costs, higher transportation costs, longer commutes, inpediments to new businesses in calgary's future? I think the author is saying Mr. Nenshi "you got some splainin to do"!

http://www.policyschool.ucalgary.ca/...ure-arnott.pdf

[ClaytonA]

Originally Posted by fusili

... blatantly misleading conclusion. So bad, whoever the hell reviewed it should be ashamed.

That is all for now. Ugh.

^This.
As a U of C alumni, I have defended the school from charges in some quarters that the University's name is "for sale" two or three times. I know at least one case when it allegedly was.

While I may not always agree with others points of view, they have a right to that point of view and it adds to the discussion when that discourse is at a standard that is at least defensible. Credability is critical as a university sanctioning junk science debases the actual science the institution does and anyone associated with the University (i.e. alumni). It's your reputation as an alumni too. This document is at the academic level of something presumably thrown together in an hour by Friends of Science under the University's name.

The sneer at the planning profession is unprofessional and unbecoming as well. It comes off as juvenile.

As a U of C alumni, I'm embarassed. The lead author's credability really loses as well. A quick google search doesn't provide a quick way for alumni to provide feedback to someone at the U of C; anyone know of one?

[fusili]

Originally Posted by ClaytonA

The sneer at the planner profession is unprofessional and unbecoming as well. It comes off as juvenile.

Especially considering how flawed his methodology is and how poor the theory connects to data, which is the exact critique he launches at the planning profession.

[sim]

I also didn't get too far into it, before becoming embarrassed.

Along with the multitude of criticism above, I'd add that a lot of the smart growth and "spatial containment" influences come from urban and spatial economics. Going through some of the references, it didn't appear that really any of that research was acknowledged.

But without getting all academic and theoretical and expanding the peer comparison beyond the insular North American borders, all a person has to do is look to Vancouver. Empirically, they basically prove his entire premise incorrect (the longer commute part). Here is what they didn't do - "invest" in more and more road capacity, save for a few big projects (failing, incidentally).

In any case, it's worth investigating the director of that particular school a little further. Generally, without getting too conspiratorial, it's suggestive when the director also sits on the board of directors of a rather large oil company. The tend to slant "laissez faire".

[sim]

Originally Posted by fusili

Look at how long it took the field of economics to deal with the criticisms of rational choice theory (which essentially all economics is based off) by the behavioural economists such as Richard Thaler, Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky. Consistently showed over and over again through numerous experiments that people do not behave economically rational, but economists just refused to believe it for decades. Kahneman and Tversky won a Nobel for it, but most in the economics field still learn about rational choice theory. Economics was, and still is to a large degree, a field that tries to fit the real world to the model and not the other way around. Read Thaler's "Misbehaving" or "Nudge" or Kahneman and Tversky's "Thinking Fast and Slow" on this.

If a person was going to read only one of these two, which one would you recommend?

[MasterG]

Originally Posted by sim

I also didn't get too far into it, before becoming embarrassed.

Along with the multitude of criticism above, I'd add that a lot of the smart growth and "spatial containment" influences come from urban and spatial economics. Going through some of the references, it didn't appear that really any of that research was acknowledged.

But without getting all academic and theoretical and expanding the peer comparison beyond the insular North American borders, all a person has to do is look to Vancouver. Empirically, they basically prove his entire premise incorrect (the longer commute part). Here is what they didn't do - "invest" in more and more road capacity, save for a few big projects (failing, incidentally).

In any case, it's worth investigating the director of that particular school a little further. Generally, without getting too conspiratorial, it's suggestive when the director also sits on the board of directors of a rather large oil company. The tend to slant "laissez faire".

This is an embarrassment to the U of C name, what a shoddy piece of crap. That schwarma study that circulated around a few months ago had more academic rigour. As an alumni I will be writing an letter of complaint.

[para transit fellow]

I wonder if the author actually read any of the City of Calgary planning documents...

but this line just slays me...
" Since the author is an outsider to the city, the arguments put forward are not expertly informed, and some may be off-base"

[fusili]

Originally Posted by sim

If a person was going to read only one of these two, which one would you recommend?

Nudge is much easier to read and much better. Misbehaving is basically an autobiography of Thaler's economics career and how he and others tried to break down the dominant dogma over several decades and how they were ultimately successful. Basically a history of behavioural economics. Read Nudge.

[jawagord]

Originally Posted by fusili

I read it too. Got about 20 pages in and had to stop because it had so many errors, misunderstandings, poor metrics, horrible methodology, poor assumptions, and non-sequiturs. Here are just a few:

- Consistently points out Calgary is an anomaly in terms of both employment concentration (correctly) and transit ridership (also correct) but just fails to make the connection. It's why transit ridership is so high.
- Wonders how Calgary can strive for substantial increases in transit ridership over the next several decades, and then later cites how Calgary's transit ridership has massively increased in the last 10 years
- Misuses office, retail and industrial floor area as a proxy for employment density, while completely missing institutional employment. This is why the Foothills/UofC/ACH is completely looked over
- Uses the TTI as a measure of congestion. Horrible, horrible, horrible metric. For critiques see: Here here here and especially Here
- Ignores efforts at non-CBD focused transit investments, such as cross-town BRTs
- Uses the four-stage model to predict traffic, which is a poor predictor of behavior
- States that because population projections are low (which is a good point), a intensity-focused land use strategy would result in increased rents, but doesn't say the same for a greenfield strategy. If your population projections are wrong, then no matter how you planned growth, you will be short on supply. Assumes that a laissez faire strategy to land supply can't also apply to increasing density in the existing city. Good job there urban economist!
- Also makes claim that low-population projections were used to justify land-constraint policies. This is incorrect. Infrastructure capital costs and maintenance were the primary justification for the intensification strategy. This only because more, not less, pronounced in high growth scenarios
- Neglects to include transportation in the cost of living analysis- while housing is the largest cost for Canadian households, transportation is the second. Omitting it is a huge error
- Makes the claim that planners are essentially all pie-in-the-sky idealists, while economists make judgements based on data. Two errors here. First, while some planners may be idealists, planning does incorporate economics, engineering, etc when making analyses. Second, to say economists base their theories and models on data or research is laughable. Look at how long it took the field of economics to deal with the criticisms of rational choice theory (which essentially all economics is based off) by the behavioural economists such as Richard Thaler, Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky. Consistently showed over and over again through numerous experiments that people do not behave economically rational, but economists just refused to believe it for decades. Kahneman and Tversky won a Nobel for it, but most in the economics field still learn about rational choice theory. Economics was, and still is to a large degree, a field that tries to fit the real world to the model and not the other way around. Read Thaler's "Misbehaving" or "Nudge" or Kahneman and Tversky's "Thinking Fast and Slow" on this.
- Claims that "congestion" will increase in the intensification scenario, yet his own data show that in that scenario trip times are massively lower than in a greenfield scenario- avg ato commute time of 48 mins compared to 138 mins. This is the largest error and misinformation of the entire report. Commute times in an intensification scenario are almost a third of those under a greenfield scenario, yet the report claims congestion will be worse. This is a blatantly misleading conclusion. So bad, whoever the hell reviewed it should be ashamed.

That is all for now. Ugh.

I think you should send your critiques to the author, it would be interesting to see what their response would be. Kudos to you for reading much farther than I could!

[sim]

Originally Posted by fusili

Nudge is much easier to read and much better. Misbehaving is basically an autobiography of Thaler's economics career and how he and others tried to break down the dominant dogma over several decades and how they were ultimately successful. Basically a history of behavioural economics. Read Nudge.

I had both in my hands the other day and ended up getting neither - Thaler overload - so that's helpful. Thanks!

[mersar]

Originally Posted by MasterG

This is an embarrassment to the U of C name, what a shoddy piece of crap. That schwarma study that circulated around a few months ago had more academic rigour. As an alumni I will be writing an letter of complaint.

I urge you to do that.

Though I'm not surprised. My impression of the SPP is that they aren't really interested in doing very much in terms of high quality research, most of the publications I've seen come out of there are quite laden with inaccuracies like this one. That or extremely right wing bias.