tv Brookings Discussion on State Local Policymaking - Panel 2 CSPAN February 12, 2019 12:36pm-1:27pm EST
i'm really excited for both of these conversations. transportation is one that economists are really, really excited about and if you're a macro economist your idea is that you should just have more of it and that you shouldn't ever listen to any economists who study it because the answer is you just need more of it then there are the people that actually study it and know something about it and it turns out the answer, at least according to them, is somewhat more subtle than just needing more of it so we're going to hear some of that from matt turner who is from brown university. over the course of the obama administration, one of the issues i became increasingly interested is in is another -- and i was say that monica
tibets-nutt who is on the board of the mbta and the board of mass d.o.t. and the executive director of 128 business council will be joining in on the conversation on transportation issues. an issue that i became increasingly focused on in the obama administration was housing and partly this was trying to get at and understanding there's been reduction in die 'namisim in the u.s. economy. reduction in people moving from place to place and also after a century and a half of convergence of poorer states growing faster, poorer cities growing faster and catching up with the leaders i see divergence now and you see a couple cities that have been super successful pulling away from the others and in many respects leaving them behind and the causes of this are complicated, the solutions are
complicated but it became clear to us that at least part of the problem was that people were more productive in certain of these places -- san francisco, new york and the like -- they could be paid higher wages but those places were incredibly expensive and they were incredibly expensive in part for natural reasons, bays and the like, and in part for man-made reasons and policy changes about where things could be built so that was something we were trying to figure out about what we could do as an administration but of course most of what can be done is at the federal and -- at the state and local level so on that and to lead us off in the conversation, danny has figured out what we're supposed to do. he's at case western and the kennedy school seasonedand is g share his proposal with all of
you. >> what? >> who goes first? >> oh, danny, why don't you go first. >> okay, sure. so my policy is on housing affordability and for a long time we've known that lower income people struggle even in relatively cheap places but more recently as you talked about even mid--wage people found some very high productivity high-wage places have become unaffordable, even the middle of the income distribution and like you said there are many factors that lead into it but one of the key factors are regulatory constraints. it's not that we've hit a technological limit and no longer know how to add supply in those places. it's not that it's unprofitable to develop housing there but we've hit -- we've created regulatory barriers that have made this problem worse and
that's led to a whole bunch of macroeconomic problems. it used to be case that americans would move to the richest highest-wage parts of the country and that isn't happening anymore, especially for workers with less education, they're moving to mid-wage or lower wage places that are cheaper and that redestruction causes a whole bunch of problems, including, like you said, poorer places are no longer catching up to rich ones. that's something that's been true for most of american history. the poorer parts of the country are catching up, and that's stopped, that kind of segregation -- partially because of the segregation who have can afford to live there and it causes in addition to productivity losses and inequality it's also an environmental problem in that we know living in denser cities are more environmentally efficient. so my proposal, my policy proposal talks about strategies at different levels of government can pursue to sort of
address this problem which works in concert with the lower-income people but the fact that these high-productivity places have become so expensive so i provide some case studies of cities at the local level that have been successful at increasing supply either by relaxing some of the form and use constraints that have grown up or by simplifying the process that is needed for development, some places have been very effective and may provide examples for local policymakers. i talk about things state governments can do and there's a lot of room for action there either in providing incentives to local governments or overriding or limiting local restrictions and we've seen a lot of recent policy movement on that front. there's also room state governments can take in eliminating the second layer or multilayer regulatory check on development, this is what the
great bill fishel calls the double veto. that even if you have approval to develop at a local level you can be blocked at a hot regional or state level. then lastly and like you said this is a challenge for the federal government but the federal government can prix ride is incentives and we've seen a bunch of proposals to provide incentives for local levels of government to relax some of these constraints, the government does also have managed land and in some circumstances and through the tax code creates incentives that reward some of these limits on behaviors, creative incentives for less dense housing or more expensive housing that -- and you see a lot of -- some of these provisions disproportionately benefit places where these constraints are binding most tightly. so i really do think there that
there's a -- an opportunity for many -- for policymakers at many different levels of government and there's room for the federal government to sort of help to structure some of the individual incentives that lead to these restrictions. >> great. thanks so much for that. people have been here long enough that you know that we'll eventually get to questions so there should be cards for that and we had someone else on the panel who will discuss housing so i'll need special help on that top frick your questions but now we'll turn matt who spent years as one of the leader transportation researchers to tell us what we have wrong in our thinking. >> thank you, can you all hear me? transportation policy and economic opportunity. let me make four proposals.
first be where the trillion dollar infrastructure policy. two, find out what's wrong with public transit buses and try to fix it. three, raise the gas tax or reduce the federal contribution to the interstate highway fund, to intertate highway maintenance, four exexperiment with congestion pricing to manage traffic congestion on the highways. that's basically the 30-second version of the paper that is sitting out there beautifully formatted so let me take my remaining 4:30 and try to expand on that. the federal government buys a lot of our transportation infrastructure and they keep track, they keep inventories. the interstate highway system, every segment of the interstate highway system every year is -- has its roughness measure. the state highway administration drive a truck over it to figure out how rough it is. so you can figure out how bumpy
is an average segment of the interstate highway system every single year from 1992 on. who wants to guess what has happened? it's gotten smoother. every single greer 1992 on the federal interstate highway system has gotten smoother than the juror before. they also buy a lot of our buses and urban rail cars. the average age of a public transit bus in 2015, eight years. eight years old. the average age of a public transit bus in 1992? eight years old same thing for urban rail cars. 22 years old now, 22 years old in 2992. on average our investments in transportation infrastructure are meeting or exceeding depreciation on those three classes of assets. the idea that all of our transportation infrastructure is crumbling is false. some of it may be crumbling, not all of it.
second if you build big transportation infrastructure projects, highways, subways and so on, you will find economic development occurs in their service areas. people start businesses, build houses where there's access to subways or interstate highways, for the most part, that economic activity is not new, it is stolen from some place else, usually nearby. so if you think that transportation infrastructure is creating a lot of economic growth that's probably false. to the extent that we can measure the increment in aggregate economic growth that results from transportation infrastructure is not large compared to the cost of those project projects so be ware the trillion dollar infrastructure project that's $10,000 a household. if you want to take $10,000 a household to spend on transportation infrastructure projects that only make sense if you think everything is falling apart foryou think it will
induce economic growth then beware. that's two. . fix public transit buses. in 2015, the average public ran the transit bus served the same number of people that an average bus served in 1992. there's been no increase in the intensity with which those assets are used. the average lane mile served twice as many cars in 2015 as in 1992. the average urban rail car, subway or light rail car, served twice as many riders in 2015 as in 1992 so buses are failing. they are in an environment where the demand for month is increasing a lot. people are fleeing buses. buses disproportionately serve the poor so if we are interested in the outcomes the poor have in their lives and the labor market, we should try to understand why they are not
providing a service that poor people want to use. i don't know why but that is something we should do. congestion pricing. there's a -- traffic congestion is a big problem for country on urban interstates. it's a problem of peak load capacity. very few highways are busy at 8:00 p.m. they are busy at 5:30, they're busy at 6:30, they're not busy at 8:00, they're not busy at 9:00. there's wasted capacity. there's lane capacity that is not being used. we can -- 30 seconds. >> and i'll do the gas tax in the q&a. we provide people an incentive to use the off peak wasted capacity. we also change the relative
prices of cars and buses. that makes it easier to fill up the buses. that means the buses pay for themselves and it means that you can run the buses more often an. the roads are less busy and you can run them on shorter head ways. that's good for poor people. highway tax, we'll get to later. >> so monica, just from being in the thick of it, in massachusetts, would love to hear your perspective on mat's inside. and i'm particularly interested in all economists love congestion pricing. the arguments for it i think are overwhelming. but would love to hear what you think it's like in reality in a political context for that. >> honestly, i can't disagree with anything you've said. our bus infrastructure has not changed. at least in boston for 50-plus years, we are a legacy system,
we were the nation's first light rail so our system is about 127 years old. we are using a lot of the same infrastructure we did 120 years ago. and people always laugh about that. it's one of those things where it's serious. our signals are older than every single person working at the mbta and our highway system has not been updated in 40-plus years. our congestion is unreal. it gets worse every single year -- >> i'm not going to disagree with that. >> for the people in here, yes. and our rush hour runs from about 6:00 a.m. to 10:30. our evening starts around 2:30 and can run until about 7:00 or 8:00 p.m. we do not meet any of our residents' needs. with that said, there has been to be a shift in the way we
approach transportation policy and i think that's something as a policy maker that has been very, very hard to get a lot of my colleagues and a lot of our elected officials on board with. so we serve the commonwealth. the transit system operates in must wa municipalities. housing is also a huge, huge issue that we have. we have run out of housing. the housing that we do have is ridiculously expensive. about i would say around the average rent especially around the transit stations, you're looking between 3500 a month. people in massachusetts do make higher salaries, but that's still expensive and from a transportation standpoint, we're to blame for a lot of these
issues. every time we expand a station, it very really actually is for economic development. it's for a city that is ridiculously segregated. and speaking of the bus system, bus is probably one of the hot-button issues that we hear about every day. i think the previous panel talked about twitter. this is the way that the constituents communicate with us and the amount of emojis i get every commuting hour are pretty unreal. my mother gets very embarrassed about it. we carry 1.5 million people a day. and the majority of those people are unhappy with the product we're providing. one-third of those people are bus riders, majority low income neighborhoods. and we are near capacity on some of our more popular routes, but those routes haven't changed in a very long time. they do not match where we are with employment or housing. for us its breaking down the
silos of government, housing, economic development and transportation have to start working together or our state can fail. our transit system did in 2015. we closed for the first time in a hundred years and we closed because we failed because the infrastructure could not be cleared quickly enough for our winter storms. and by the third blizzard, the commonwealth came to a standstill. the mayor mentioned, you have these expectations, the grocery stores started to run out of food and our entire economy came to a standstill. transportation is very simply. we're there to provide access to education, access to employment. and we are failing on both of those. and for the business community, this is impacting them. most companies will have hundreds of employee vacancies. and our unemployment is really, really low. around 2.3%. but we don't have enough people.
and the reason we don't have enough people is because those people cannot afford to live where they work. and we do not have a transportation system that makes that connections. so we're failing on all three counts right now. and i think for us it's restraining our elected officials to understand that these things are important, to be flexible about the way we handle the infrastructure that we have which means taking parts of the right-of-way and giving it to buses. the reason i have the most faith in the bus system is it's the easiest things we can change. we're extending our light rail system for the first time in a very long time to the tune of $2 billion to connect communities that were previously unconnected. problem with that is we general tra fied all of those neighbors. now people in the middle class cannot afford homes in these neighborhoods and that was on us. we did that because of the lack
of coordination across the districts, across the state agencies and that from a transportation policy standpoint is what has to change. because if it doesn't, i think that the way we operate our cities especially those with legacy transit systems, we will fail. and we will continue to shrink our services down to the core which is going to provide less service to those who are dependent on our transit system. so at the end of the day, those three areas, if we do not fix them and fix them within the next five years, the commonwealth will look very, very different than it does now. and i think our economy won't be near as strong as it is now. >> so, monica, how much of that is you need new money versus this isn't about money at all. it's about being smarter about how you do everything? >> it's a tough question. because this is probably the biggest argument we have with the public.
many in the public think we need more money. and the honest truth is we really don't. do we need more innovative revenue streams, yes. we have to build our budget on the idea that something is going to happen. we do these projects because some senator lives in that neighbor. i love the idea of congestion pricing, our congestion is making it to where you cannot move within the city and i think we have been very slow to make progressive policies like that. we tried to pass the gas tax. it failed miserably mainly because someone understood what the impact was going to be. we did not communicate to the public. we didn't tell them how little it was going to be for every single household, for better
infrastructure within our communities. and for us, it's not a focus on rail. it has to be a focus on bus and not the cost of the bus, but the communication and partnership with the communities to give up the right-of-ways that it would take to actually run a bus system that works for everyone no matter the type of community and no matter the economic status of that individual. >> all right. we hear all these things about how resources are allocated within the transportation system. you gave some things, you thought too much smoothing roads, too little on buses or we don't use the buses well enough. is there any institutional change that could get this more right, change how we spend the money, how we distribute the money? because there's a lot of stuff we're spending too little on, areas we're spending too much on. >> i think that's a great question. i don't know the answer. let me tell you why i think it's
a great question. i used to live in toronto. i used to live in toronto and i would sometimes take the subway to go to the movies. in order to do that, every time i did that, i stood at a counter and bought a token twice. once to get on the subway and once to get in the movie. you've done this too. so somehow the institutions that are running subways are much less effective as providing services than the institutions that are providing movie tickets and i don't know how to run a subway system or a transit district better. but that experience suggests to me that there is room for improvement. the economics profit did a lot of work on how to regulate power in the '70s and '80s.
i think we can see what lessons we can take from public utilities and apply it to transit districts. i don't know what's going to come out of that, but i think that's an important thing to do going forward. >> is there anything on the transportation discussion you want to come in on and its intersection with some of the housing proposals you have? >> sure. i think that actually, you know, sort of the bigger national picture of maybe the infrastructure being adequate in certain places having real capacity constraints reflects well with the mirrors, what we see with the zoning requirements or the housing requirements. it's not that nationally we have some sort of shortage but that certain markets have become constrained and in the pricing out of people have caused a problem. and obviously transportation expansions open up new areas in those constrained cities where people can live and still make it into work and so it may be
that there's, you know, some bottlenecks in the system that -- where the capacity is constrained and the resources could be allocated there more efficiently or need increased resources. >> i want to get you -- the governor talked about the process around zoning and just how intensive it was with the community, that people have their expectations, their rights, their historic things. bob was talking about jane jacobs and the death and life of american cities. how would you deal with people who -- you're taking something away from a lot of people and they're not just sort of renters, they're neighborhoods we like the look of in some ways and how do you address that, how much do you think there are winners and losers here? how do you think about the rights that different people have to those wins and losses? >> this is the big problem.
it's funny writing a policy paper, there's lots of great ideas for how to increase supply. the problem is, what's feasible. and it makes sense that there's a lot of opposition to policies that expand development at the local level. people have a lot of their money. most cases, that's the biggest asset or huge chunk of people's wealth tied up in your home and you're very sensitive to home prices. so i think it's natural that there will be opposition. what we've seen recently is a bit of a political movement aimed at loosening some of these restrictions that had some political success. and i think we can draw some lessons from that movement which is to sort of build bridges across different communities to recognize the problem. i think a lot of -- we were speaking early about gent indication and i think the important thing to keep in mind
is that -- the places that are blocking development that don't have the restrictions in place. i think there are bridges to be built and we are seeing political movement and, you know, i think the task now is to sort of figure out in what cases have they succeeded and what are the lessons to draw from that? so there's also been plenty of efforts that have failed. so learning what works -- >> right. my sense is we've talked about two politically difficult things, one is expanding -- reducing land use restrictions, the other is congestion pricing. i think on congestion pricing and gas tax, i think a lot of the objections come from people who don't understand it well enough. if they understood it better, they'd understand how we'd all benefit. not entirely, some people drive a lot and it would hurt them own. with land use, how much is it
people who don't understand their own interests that's the problem or people that do? >> yeah. it's challenging. this is one of the few things if you look at the research, homeowners, it's bipartisan opposition to development near their house, the things that would lower their house prices. at least there can be a consensus on supporting the problem. but the -- i think there are some principles that we can learn from the successes that have been in place about how you make things feasible. one is i think they've been a little bit more successful at higher levels of government. so we can take a bigger view on the problem. another principle is broad-based reform. it's not, you know, my neighbor got some variance to do something but it doesn't apply to my land, sort of these broader reforms, let people
share in the benefits as well as open up development and so, you know, i -- i don't think i can solve the problem in the short run by saying people won't be sensitive to their house prices but there are things we can do in the long run at the federal level to weaken some of the tax initiatives. >> i know you were dying to talk about the gas tax. why don't you explain to us in the year 2019 as electric vehicles are moving across these highways, can you talk about that -- >> you could have done it in your first five minutes and you wouldn't have had to deal with that. >> part of the reason gas tax is
going down is because cars are getting more efficient. funding the interstate highway system from a gas tax, it's going to be a fail. following up on the question you just asked, one natural -- one thing you might do is think about tieing highway funding to housing starts. when you do that, you're creating a big constituency of people who want to build highways and pitting them against the people who don't want stuff built. and i think that might focus attention on the housing creation problem. how do you have a user tax -- the gas tax is a user people. the people who use the highway pay the gas tax and so it's a nice way to link usage of the tax tax. with electric vehicles, how do you do that? what's the user tax that matches -- >> vehicle miles traveled.
we have the technology for such a thing now. >> if you're able to measure people's mileage, then you can toll them per mile, right. so moving -- obviously you're going to have to move away from the gas tax over the 20 or 30-year horizon. but the notion of a user tax is one that i think we want to try to preserve whatever is the technological basis for moving cars around. >> so for you, monica, matt, anyone who knows the answer because i don't, it's just much more expensive doing any of this infrastructure stuff in the united states than it is in a lot of other countries and that expense is going up. the poster child of this is the subway. do we understand why this is? why you see so little productivity growth, so much higher costs here than other places? is there something we can do about that or that's just sort
of hopeless, that's what it costs and we have to optimize subject to that cost? >> i think there's a couple issues. every time i talk to my colleagues, i'm like, why? why am i planning in the united states? and i think -- >> because we need you. >> boston it is ridiculously expensive. every time we set out to build a project, that number that comes back never matches our internal estimate. and i think honestly it goes back to the previous panel talking about kpis. when you look at an agency like transport for london, they have an idea of what they're trying to achieve. it's not tied to net new riders. it's not tied to estimates from models. it's this is our strategic plan, this is how we're going to meet it and they have kpis that measure whether they're successful or not. we end up spending so much money in the united states for
changing plans mid project, expanding a plan, and that is the major difference, i think, between working here and working anywhere else in the world. and i think the other thing is the infrastructure for manufacturing of the vehicles we buy. it is very hard to buy trains in the united states. with the federal buy america, it does make it difficult because we don't have those factories in the u.s. massachusetts has to build a train factory so we could buy our trains. we spent a ton of money so we could spend more money and it continues to be an issue. and the same with buses. it is not easy to buy a good efficient bus in the united states. so you'll try and build a factory on the canadian border and have us give us the parts and then assemble them. it's a broken system. and i think until we get a more strategic system like you see in the more successful
international agencies, we're going continue to do this and that's where it's like, no matter how much money we raise, can you spend it efficiently. that's the big question mark. >> that was one of the answers i was fishing for. so i'm happy you gave it. buy america, it sounds great, but if you're running a city, you're running a transportation system, you have taxpayers and you're trying to deliver benefits for them, deliver them in the best possible way and i think as you think about these types of policies, thinking about that end of the process, what monica is going through is worth it. matt, do you have anything to add on this particular question? >> i have a question. >> sure. >> which is -- >> not for me, i hope. >> for monica. one of the claims i hear is that construction is expensive because of unionization. >> labor is tough. as a transit agency, 94% of our 6,900 employees are unionized
including executives. the amount of money we spend on overtime by trying to lower our budgets on the operating side end up costing us millions and millions and millions of dollars a year and the other thing is we get stuck in arbitration probably once every year. we've never won an arbitration. the construction companies bid for these projects, we pick the most positive financial one. you're going to have to deal with the wants and needs of each of ours 27 unions. 27 unions. it makes it impossible to build something. it really does. >> so i have one quick question on a slightly different topic. we'll get to all the great
questions we've accumulated here. we haven't talked anything about climate, climate change, green, a lot of progressive enthusiasm for a green new deal. just briefly, how does that fit in with, contradict, affect the ideas you've been talking about. danny first and we'll work our way down. >> sure. i tried to mention this a little bit at the beginning. perhaps i did a bad job. but there's a lot of research looking at, you know, where -- where people emit carbon. and it turns out that moving people out of some of these highly productive, dense places into places like phoenix or las vegas, that generates so much more carbon, you take someone from san francisco and they move to phoenix and that's just terrible for the environment. and so a lot of the restrictions that are in place are -- come
about via environmental review. and this environmental review often focuses on the local impacts. so if i -- if we allow this development in this town, what's going to be the consequence for the very local environment? and they don't take into account the larger global affects where -- if we prevented these people from moving to san francisco, what will that do to pollution globally, where it matters, not when we think about the effects really having an impact. so i think that perspective from -- that -- the reforms -- it's one of the things i talk about in the proposal is shifting the perspective towards this more -- this broader sense of environmental impact so you're not just worried about, you know, what's it doing to this particular wetland but you're thinking about, what's the broader consequence of
blocking this kind of development. >> great. just, fast, so we can get to all these great questions. >> people who live in cities tend to make higher wages than people who don't and have smaller environmental footprints. the ideas are ways to make the city to work more efficiently and pack more people into them, that's a win on all of these accounts. >> i think for my industry specifically, we're very dirty. we need to think about additional systems. we need to buy them within the united states and i would say the other thing is thinking about the impact to the unions by changing the way that we operate the system fundamentally. we will get a significant amount of push back for that. >> i would love to make this more of a lightning round with answers just like that. and, danny, we'll start with you. somebody's asking about microsoft gave the
$500 million -- or is going to be giving, for affordable housing in the seattle area. what do we think of private efforts on affordable housing? >> so, you know, certainly that's a -- that's a good thing, but i think those kind of efforts that specifically target affordable housing work best when their paired with some of the loosening of supply. if you have a place where supply is really restricted, you wind up with some of these efforts displacing other kinds of development or displacing other units. so i think some of the things we've seen proposed at the national level try to pair both efforts on the affordable end along with easing supply restrictions so you can make sure that those are increasing instead of shifting things around, increasing quantity instead of shifting things around. >> matt, someone wants to know,
you know, a lot of other countries around the world seem to have a lot more high speed rails in the united states, isn't that one way in which our infrastructure is different? >> true, other countries have more high speed rail. high speed rail is superexpensive in order for any of these things to pay for themselves, you need to be able to run it -- rhode island department of transportation, our bus network carries a million riders a year, generates $2 million in revenue, cost $20 million to run. capital intensive things like high speed rail are work. if you want those programs, you have to pay for them, and you pay for them out of general revenue. they have those programs. they cost the taxpayer an enormous amount of money. don't go into these programs with the idea that they're going to pay for themselves.
there are transportation invasio innovations out there that will pay for themselves. high speed rail is not one of them. >> is it worth the money, though? >> no. >> okay. we've gotten a couple of questions along the lines of how we need to rethink transportation in a world of ride sharing and then looking forward a world of vehicles. >> we knew what to do with taxes. we set up a system with decades, but i think in boston, we have such limited parking, we have congestion on our roads and what we're finding is, it's not people who got out of a single occupancy peek, it's somebody who didn't own a car, it's
something who's using uber and they're not paying anything. and they're useding our infrastructure and causing a signature amount of impact on our streets. we're not ready. we need to start thinking and working with these companies to actually develop policies and we haven't and autonomous vehicles, i don't know no idea how we're going to deal with them. >> getting sort of worried. is there another city i could live? >> there's some really nice international cities. >> we'll talk later. >> san francisco actually. they are taking on not only tncs but bike share and car share and using that data to inform land use policies and where they're putting more transportation infrastructure. that's a very interesting city right now. >> no one can afford to move there. >> there is that issue. >> the question about this, cities that have a lot of housing and transportation but
don't have a lot of economic activity, something we should be doing to keep people in those cities, get people to move to those cities, revitalize them rather than a neighbor in new york and have everyone swarm in there? >> certainly the problem of declining cities, that's a major economic issue and, you know, that requires a whole suite of solutions. it's not -- americans do still move. they're moving to places that aren't high wage like they used to. people are still moving to phoenix or central florida or places like that. not the high wage places. even if your concern is -- people are leaving buffalo or cleveland, the question is for this -- where do we want to give them the opportunity to go?
and it used to be the places that give you high wage hopefully it can be again. >> now, for -- this says monica, so i would like to start with you. somebody asked in your opening comments you emphasized the expansion of light rail in the past caused general tra fie indication. is there any way to improve in that area that doesn't cause that or we need to stop doing that and start doing buses which don't cause the problem. is that your full answer? >> we have to be much more progressive about our land use. and we have to hold them responsible, and they have to be affordable. not just affordable, but having workforce housing. we need both of them. if you can do that and if those projects are tied to policies around that, yes, you could get around them. politically, it's tough. but i think we're in so much of
a crisis that we have to start thinking differently because we've run out of other options. >> if you don't like gentrifcation, do you want the opposite? with that said, that's a little bit of being smart alec, that there are real costs on low income people who are displaced when high income people move in for sure. but beware of stopping gentrifcation because that doesn't look so good either. >> i can only speak for the boston metro region, we've created so much gentrifcation. we have divided our schools into segregated school systems that we have to think about gentrifcation because for the last 200 years, no one cared.
and so now once if you cannot give people a place to live, what -- who are businesses going to higher? it will destroy our economy. >> so, denny we have a question on how cities outside the u.s. generate housing. i know we talked about montreal. >> that's a great example that they have a lot of this midlevel zoning. so you have three plex, fourplex, which is something minneapolis has recently pushed for. tokyo was one of these superexpensive places. but they've permitted some very dense development, very tall buildings and tokyo prices have stayed flatten. so you can look to international examples to learn a lot. and i think you might see there's some room for bringing those models here. >> matt, equity implications of
congestion pricing? >> congestion pricing is likely regressive. congestion pricing is likely regressive. cars are a bigger share for poor people than rich people. gas prices are regressive. you want to worry about that. two ways you might do that, you take the money and you use it for public transit which is something -- buses in particular, which is active to poor people. you can help offset it. the other thing you can do is -- this all runs through trance responders. you can have, for example, an income qualified congestion dollars allow i can't answer gets $50 free which you can fund out of the revenue everybody else is paying. that doesn't affect the incentive properties of this congestion pricing and you can address the equity concerns in
that way. >> i want to give you each a chance to say, you know, very quickly something we didn't get to over the course of this panel before we end. is there anything really important we want to make sure that everyone knows and takes away from this discussion? >> i would say as far as transportation beyond having urban planners, architects, and engineers, we need more scientists. we don't understand the communities we're severing, the levers of how we improve those communities. we don't understand how to build a better product. it's from a lack of expertise. >> can i double down on that? denny do you also agree? >> sure. i was just saying this is something that you talked about before. the real challenge is at least in the problems i'm talking about is mustering the political will. i'm hoping that people out there
who are working in policy positions, you know, can kind of take some of the severity of the problems to heart. >> i think this has been a great discussion and i think what you need is more discussions between people who do social science and people who are, you know, really involved in these issues day in and day out on the ground. i'm glad that we could at least contribute partially to that. so thank you. [ applause ] >> a funeral was held today for john dingell. the casket is being flown from
michigan to washington, d.c. where it will lie in state. we'll have live coverage of the procession expected around 4:00 eastern over on c-span. and executives with t-mobile and sprint testify wednesday on their proposed merger before a joint house hearing. the deal would join the third and fourth largest u.s. mobile areaiers. you can watch live coverage of the hearing here on c-span3 or listen with the free c-span radio app. there are nearly 100 new members of the house of representatives this year. ohio, west virginia, maryland, mississippi, and washington are five of the states that added one new member. representative anthony gonzalez was a football star at ohio state before the indianapolis colts drafted him in 2007. after injuries cut short his professional football career, representative gonzalez earned his mba at stanford.
he's the first latino elected to ohio's congressional delegation. representative carol miller served over a decade in the state house before voters in west virginia's third district elected her to congress. politics runs in her family. she's the daughter of former congressman samuel divine who's seat would be filled by future ohio governor and 2016 presidential candidate john kasich. michael guest was a local prosecutor in mississippi before his election to the house. he's also a sunday school teacher at his local baptist church. representative david troen in his brother opened up a small liquor store in the early 1990s. and