Eco-nomics: The Streetcar and the Incentives of Fixed-Route Transit

[Photo Credit: Jamie Francis, The Oregonian]

The Oregonian reports that the Feds have approved $75 million for the east-side streetcar project.  This begs the question, why fixed-route surface transit?  It is no faster than busses, much more costly to implement, less flexible in terms of scheduling and cannot adapt its route to changing ridership patterns.  I suppose the best answer is that it is a commitment device that can spur development in areas in which such activity is considered desirable.  In so doing it can promote even more density, which is generally a good thing for local economies and the environment.  I suppose it might be more energy efficient, but I am a bit skeptical, especially relative to electric busses like those in SF that get power from overhead lines.  I am no expert or even much of a casual student of transit, so I am wondering why the feds are endorsing it so enthusiastically.  What have I missed or what should be added to the discussion?      

Shameless Cross-Posting on a Busy Day: Weekly Unemployment Claims Fall

Busy as heck these days, but I just had the happy duty to confer a PhD degree on one of our grad students who is off to a tenure-track faculty position in PA.  Good work!  Since I am so busy in general I am going to let Kelly Evans of the Wall Street Journal's 'Economics Blog' cover one little sign that the light at the end of the tunnel may be piercing the darkness:

Another week and another encouraging sign: The Labor Department’s tally of new claims for U.S. unemployment benefits, released this morning, fell by 14,000 last week to a level of 631,000. This is still a high level, of course, but the four-week average of new claims — which smoothes out weekly volatility — also declined, to 637,250.

The four-week average is being very closely watched by economists right now, given this simple series has historically had impressive power for predicting when recessions are coming to an end. As we noted a couple weeks ago, Robert J. Gordon, an economics professor at Northwestern University who sits on the committee tasked with dating recessions, is one who finds enormous value in this series. Going back to the late 1960s, he has found that the four-week average of new claims peaks about a month before the declared end of recessions with remarkable accuracy.

As of right now, the four-week average claims series peaked at a level of 659,500 in the week ended April 4. If that number holds, based on the series’ past performance it would mean the recession ended somewhere between late March and early May — a far more optimistic read on the economy than any consensus forecast (the latest WSJ survey of economists shows on average they expect the recession to end in September). “The end of the tunnel may only be weeks away,” says Mr. Gordon.

Of course, the length and depth of this recession — which began in December 2007 — could mean the series doesn’t have as much predictive power this time around. It also won’t be clear for many months when the recession actually has ended, because even if signals coming from the data improve, theNational Bureau of Economic Research’s dating committee, of which Mr. Gordon is a member, likely won’t declare an “official” end for quite some time. For example, the committee didn’t pinpoint December 2007 as the starting date of the current recession until a full year later.

And meanwhile, the government’s data also contained an increasingly worrisome piece of information: The total number of workers receiving jobless benefits jumped to nearly 6.3 million for the week ended April 18, a far higher figure than has been previously recorded by the Labor Department. With such high levels of workers on jobless rolls, it could keep a lid on any hopes for a recovery, particularly as the unemployment rate, now 8.5%, is expected to hit double digits.

I'll just say that it is the last paragraph that I find myself agreeing with. It is too far early to call the end of the recession - I think we are in for a rough rest of 2009. Also, we should expect some uptick in industrial activity (and thus employment) as inventories have been depleted, but this does not mean demand has recovered.

Ack!

The Portland Business Journal is reporting that the Rose City Cafe in PDX is closing. This is terrible news! It is rare to find such a nice, quiet, relaxing and not-half-bad but reasonably priced restaurant in an airport. My early morning flight routine has always been to check in a bit early and then have a relaxing breakfast there. Sigh, just another sign of the terrible economy.

Should Universities Re-Imagine Themselves?

A reader asks for my take on this opinion piece that appeared in The New York Times on the 26^th of April. The essence of the piece is that the old organizational structure of the university based on disciplinary integrity is outdated and we should move to an interdisciplinary model driven by important questions. It is written by a religion professor at Columbia University.

There are three main points I want to make. The first is the flaw of logic that is so large you could drive a cruise ship through it. This is the assertion that we need to break down the old disciplinary groupings and focus instead on cross-disciplinary problems. Religious studies scholars should talk to political scientists, for example, to solve the religiously motivated political tensions that exist in the world. The problem here is: where do the religious studies experts and political science experts come from so that they can get together and solve all the worlds problems? Without training in traditional disciplinary programs, there is no expertise, no canonical education that produces precisely the type of expert that Prof. Taylor speaks of. Without the discipline-based education what you would get are students who are knowledgeable in many things but experts in nothing. This is a huge distinction that is lost on many people. As a public policy student I became very knowledgeable and could have been a very useful member of society in applying that knowledge. But it was in the core economics education I received that gives me the expertise to apply economics to public policy questions. It is people like me, in other words, that create the knowledge that the generalists use. I think an inevitable result of breaking down discipline specific programs would be the prevalence of ‘good sounding ideas’ but no real way to study just how good they really are.

This leads to the second point. It may be that religious studies students are studying things of no real use, but this is a problem of religious studies not academics in general. I have a hard time thinking of any research in economics that is not directly relevant and valuable to contemporary real world problems. In fact, economics is often accused of straying too far into other disciplines so you might think we are eager to see these lines blur, but this is wrong. Without the intense core economics education such intrusions in other fields would be useless, it is precisely the economists eye on a psychological problem that adds value (and a psychologists eye on economics as well). Rather than blaming academia as a whole for the failings of religious studies, Prof. Taylor, the chair of the religion department at Columbia, should be focusing on why his own discipline has been so stuck in medieval ways.

The last point is that economics has already responded to the changing marketplace for higher education and research (which is perhaps why economics is so successful). Our dissertations today look nothing like those of medieval dissertations or economics dissertations of thirty years ago. Economics has become flexible and our dissertations are usually just bundles of papers on diverse topics because this avoids precisely the sub-sub field problem described by Prof. Taylor. Our graduates are in high demand and not just for academic jobs, but in government, business, consulting, banking and even journalism. Clearly the training and expertise we provide have a high value precisely because of how applicable they are to real world problems.

Two other more minor points also need to be made. First Prof. Taylor argues for an end to tenure, but without tenure, the incentive is to avoid researching the hard questions and rather focus on areas that are popular, have good funding and are easy to publish in. This is not what you want out of university scholars. Tenure is not job security for life, but it does represent intellectual freedom. It does have incentive problems but the alternative is not attractive. [And, as pointed out on this blog before, tenure is a part of compensation, without it you would likely have to increase faculty pay]

Second, as is pretty clear from my comments, think Prof. Taylor is startlingly myopic – unable to see past the problems of his own field - but yet he is quite ready to generalize his problems to the entire academy. For instance, teaching via teleconference might be effective when you are just delivering a long speech on say, early Christian thought, but trying to teach economics that way is unlikely to be successful as there is a lot you have to do to build mathematical models, draw the resulting graphs, perturb them to make predictions and quiz student to make sure they get it. There is a lot of value added to being in the same room, not to mention all the help faculty provide outside of class.

All of the problems he lists are really problems of fields like religious studies where, essentially, the problem is lack of jobs. Clearly the presence of PhD students for whom there are no jobs in his department is what motivates Prof. Taylor to write this. It can be read as a desperate attempt to say, "religious studies PhDs really are valuable, it is just that the old structure devalues them!" So the answer is: they should be hired by political science departments... But it is not the structure of higher education that has devalues religious studies, but religious studies as a field itself that has done it. If the important questions are about religion and politics, that is where the field should place emphasis.

Fortunately, economics is very responsive to markets and remains a valuable field both in and out of the academy. Almost all economics PhDs in the US have a job in their field within a year of getting their degree. As I have mentioned before, university graduates earn wages that are about 75% higher on average than high school graduates, so universities must be doing something right. But Prof. Taylor never mentions undergraduate education, funny that...

The Portland Housing Market: The February Case-Shiller Numbers

Sigh...here we go again.  The Case-Shiller numbers are out and they are grim.  There is no end in sight to the erosion of home values in Portland, we just seem to be picking up steam.  Here is a graph of the the raw numbers for PDX, Seattle and the 20 city composite:

Here are the year to year percentage changes in the Portland numbers:



However you look at it, the story is not pleasant. The usual caveats - these are February numbers, heavily influenced by property values in suburban developments, etc. - all apply. But with unemployment so horrendous, it is hard to see where and when it will all end.

Update: From Calculated Risk, something to make you feel better.

What is a Song Worth?

It seems to me, people are always getting into trouble trying the figure out the 'inherent' value of stuff when economics, eons ago, figured out that a good's worth depends on how valuable it is to people and how scarce it is.

This NPR story this morning about music pricing is another example of this phenomenon. Sure, the same music can sell for radically different prices, but the price itself tells you nothing about its value. Its value to a consumer is a function of that consumers tastes, income, ease of purchase, etc.

The music industry thrived on their ability to make music scarce but this ability is quickly diminishing and they are left to scramble to figure out a new model. But the music isn't less valuable now, it is just not as scarce. This is good news. We are all better off in this new world. The only losers are the few bands and performers that would have been superstars that can no longer corner a market. The rewards to being a good band are still there, just not as humongous.

Robert Frank coined the phenomenon of the huge rewards to the very top performers in markets were performance can be mass produced, 'winner-take-all-markets.' These markets produce a lot of contenders but few winners. I imagine a music industry in the future that has nearly as many contenders but many more winners, all with a modest reward.

Update: A reader points me to this New York Times 'Economic View' article by the aforementioned Bob Frank discussing the role of winner-take-all markets and other markets in the equity of progressive taxes.

Beeronomics and Eco-nomics: Globalization and the Cost of Bottling

[Photo Credit: Angelo De Ieso II of Brewpublic]

Mike Weksler of Portland's Green Bottling e-mailed me yesterday with this dilemma:

In January of this year my cost to purchase a case of 12 22oz amber beer bottles went up $.65. It is less expensive for me to purchase my bottles from China, ship them here, and rent a facility to store them than it is for me to purchase them from the local distributor.

What is worse is that the local distributor gets the bottles from an OI plant that is in NE PDX, 3 miles from our HQ.

I don't like the idea of sending our money away from the local economy, and the extra fossil fuels that I would have to consume to get my glass shipped to PDX.

I could also choose to buy my bottles from a plant in OK for $1.20 per case less than I spend now as well.

I am rushing off to Eugene so don't have time to comment too much, but will try and do so later. The standard trade argument would be: well, we should not want to make bottles here, just the high value-added beer and by letting China make the bottles we are all better off (us and the Chinese) . A rejoinder to this is that the cost of shipping is artificially low as the shippers do not have to pay the true cost of carbon usage, so while it may be privately profitable to source bottles from China it is not socially profitable. [This assumes, by the way, that the China plant is not more energy efficient than the PDX plant, which I think is a safe assumption]

The answer? Well, a global carbon tax that accurately reflected the cost of carbon emissions would get the prices right, but let's get real, that 'aint gonna happen anytime soon. So what do you tell a guy like Mike, who is trying to do the right thing, but who knows that if he goes local, some other person could start another bottling business that sources from China?

What do you think?

My Whereabouts

Slow blogging for the rest of this week.  Tomorrow (Friday) I will be at the economics department of the University of Oregon to give a research seminar.  The seminar is at 3:30 in the department and, I believe, is free and open to the public.

I will be presenting some recent research on the effect of abortion laws on marriage.  This is NOT a paper that takes any stand whatsoever on the abortion rights debate, it simply seeks to understand the incentives abortion laws create in marriage markets and examines evidence that these incentives matter in the real world.  

You can view it here. 

The Name is Arshavin

The team is Arsenal.

This is for the benefit of the far too many students who have confided in me their support of Manchester United. You can have your Ronaldo, Portuguese Poser, we'll do just fine with our little Russian fella.

OK, OK, I'm a Portland homer too:

Two-Sided Risk and the (Portland) Paulson Plan

Merritt Paulson is obviously weary of sounding like he is threatening the city so, in his opinion piece today in the O, he very carefully makes a point that I have mused about before: without this deal to bring MLS and build a new baseball park, will the city be considerably worse off then it is today?

People who criticize the deal seem to assume that Paulson (or a new owner) can afford business as usual, but I am not at all sure that is true. Beavers crowds are paltry and Timbers crowds are not much better - are these franchises viable in the long run as tenants of PGE park? I doubt it. The Beavers are probably going to need to move anyway and the Timbers are not going to service the debt to PGE park. Without a permanent tenant in PGE park, the city is on the hook for all of the past debt. So while the risk of doing the deal has been discussed ad-nauseum, the risk of not doing a deal seems pretty high as well.

The risk to the servicing of the existing debt exists in either scenario, the appropriate question is: is it higher or lower with the plan? This is the story I wish the The Oregonian would cover.

Eco-nomics: Renewable Energy and Carbon Taxes

[Wind, wave and solar power all in one! Photo/graphic credit unknown]

In my previous post I discussed how wind power does not necessarily displace carbon emitting power generation, but, here in the Northwest, often displaces clean hydro power. In the comments, reader Brian talks about the problem more generally. Here are his comments in their entirety:

The problem with the wind tax credit is that it is an indirect approach toward reducing coal generation. The direct impact of the credit is to make wind more profitable, but the indirect desired result is really uncertain, and if you re-read the WW article you will notice that it is completely silent on the success of the system on reducing coal generation, and the dependence on the hydro system isn't mentioned at all.

A tax credit for wind is far more politically palatable than increasing the tax burden on coal generation, but we risk the possibility that we are picking favorites, and we are not allowing the market to find the right mix of conservation and alternative sources. It is highly likely, from an economics perspective, that the resulting outcome is inefficient.

Spoken like a true economist, and absolutely correct. The point is that supporting one particular type of clean energy circumvents the markets ability to reward the most cost effective and cleanest energy source. It also poses the risk of substantial public investment in a technology that ends up not being the most successful and thus has the potential of being wasteful.

Which leads us right back to a carbon tax. If we tax carbon appropriately, we 'get the prices right' and the market can be expected to produce an efficient outcome, just as Brian says. This is also part of the point I have made a number of times about the Governor's plans to create a 'green economy' for the state: it can't be based on particular businesses or industries, but rather creating an environment that is attractive for whatever firm has the next great idea. This means high quality schools and research institutions, a good infrastructure and a efficient and flexible government that is ready to support any new business.

And, of course, revenue from carbon taxes can fund such investments...

Eco-nomics: What Are the True Benefits of Wind Power?

A friend called me when the WW cover story on wind energy came out. He thought Jacquiss missed a big part of the story. I have been meaning to post on this for a long time (as you can see by the date on the story) but I have not had time to poke around more.

The basics are thus: Jacquiss points out the heavy subsidy that wind energy gets through things like the Business Energy Tax Credit. This is often thought of as a good thing because wind energy displaces environmentally damaging coal and natural gas based power generation. But the reality is not nearly so simple.

Since we get a lot of our energy from hydro we have a source of energy that is easily adjustable - much easier than a gas or coal fired power plant which can't just stop and start easily. So PGE and other wind utilities pay Bonneville to spill water when the wind is blowing hard.

This is not at all to say that wind energy credits are not worth it, or that in the long run we are better off if we subsidize the infrastructure now, rather it to simply say that if we are going to accurately weigh the cost of all of these subsidies to the state (and Jacquiss does a good job of this) we need to be clear about the actual benefits of wind power.

So if you are a customer of wind energy (like I am) it might come as a surprise that your wind sourced power is not offsetting coal and natural gas at anything close to one-for-one, in fact you might be offsetting hydro much more than coal and natural gas.

As I said above, I thought it might be fun to poke around and see what I could find out, but then I remembered that I have a real job. So if you know something about this chime in and add or correct at will.

[Photo credit: Thomas Boyd/The Oregonian]

How Bad is the Current Crisis?

From Menzie Chinn at Econbrowser comes this graphic lifted from the IMF's latest World Economic Outlook. Menzie makes two points that I have made as well: a recession is bad enough but a recession with a credit crisis is worse and a recession with a credit crisis and a worldwide downturn is even worse.



The answer: really, really bad.

Federal Fiscal Stimulus

I was chatting the other day with a friend who works in a federal agency that is in line to get a bunch of federal stimulus money. He made a couple of interesting points. First, he said that federal agencies are not set up to deal with windfalls of cash. They are structured to operate within a budget and so it is not that easy to just 'ramp up.' His, like other agencies, has a prioritized list of projects, but the ones that did not make it on to the actual 'to do' list with the normal budget were shelved and not ready to turn on like a switch. Second, he said that they basically have not received any money yet and initial monies will be small to see how well agencies do at spending it quickly and effectively and future allocations will depend on this evaluation.

That all speaks to two points. First, when asked about bright spots, I mention that the federal stimulus hasn't really gotten started yet and so we can expect that the stimulating effects of this spending to be on the horizon. Second, given the terrible shape of state budgets, I still can't believe that a big part of federal stimulus was not block grants to the states. Every $1 states cut back in spending counteracts a $1 of federal stimulus money. If you want quick and effective stimulus, block grants are the way to go. Is it too late to shift some money to this purpose? I don't think so and I can't understand why it is not part of the discussion (but then I am not a particularly savvy political observer).

Spectator Sports and Economic Growth

I have said this before but as The Oregonian has once again put it on the front page it bears repeating: No evidence for the positive is NOT evidence for the negative.

I am, of course, referring to the link between investing in spectator sports and the economic growth of the city.  Here is what we know: when you look carefully at the basic measure of economic growth, GDP per capita through time, and introduce a sports stadium and/or new sports franchise there is no apparent 'bump' in the data.  Or more precisely, sometimes you see a bump from the direct construction spending, but it is temporary.  From this you can conclude that there is no evidence that such investments create a measurable spurt in local economic growth.  You CANNOT conclude, however, that such investments do not spur growth because you cannot compare it with the counterfactual (like you could in a lab - see yesterday's post).  The fact is that any sports franchise investment is a relatively small part of any city's economy and finding a measurable effect on overall growth would be so extraordinary as to rouse suspicion that the correlation is spurious.  

Think of a study which looked at the the GDP of Denver over the last 50 years and controlled for many other factors that effect the local economy including, for example, revenue from natural resources.  Then you add the addition of the Rockies baseball team and see if there is a jump in the time series.  Nope.  But does it mean the rockies did nothing for the local economy?  No, it means that there is no identifiable boost, but since we don't know what growth would have looked like absent the Rockies we can never truly say anything meaningful about what their presence has meant for growth.  

My guess is that investments in sports franchises are not considerably more or less stimulating for growth than any other average business investment in the short and medium term.  The difference in my mind is the much bigger social welfare that spectator sports provide than, say, a new restaurant.  Just look at the folks that turned up for the Blazer rally yesterday.  What this means is that you may not get outsized private returns on the investment but you may get outsized public returns.  

What I don't know, and will probably never know, is what such franchises do to the long term trajectory of the growth of a metro area.  Would Portland be any different if the Blazers never arrived?  I don't know, but I suspect that, just like theaters, museums, concert halls, spectator sports make a place a nice and stimulating place to live and are part of the decision to live somewhere.  So I suspect that the Blazers have had a small role in making Portland a desirable place to live over the past 30 plus years and this cumulatively has created a different growth trajectory than there would have been without them.  Since Oregon does a particularly bad job of educating its residents, we benefit from the flow of educated people who choose to live here, and cultural amenities, including spectator sports, are important in this regard.  

This leads to the argument that we should spend more on education.  This argument is powerful, but the city's investment in the stadium is an investment in a revenue generating asset paid for by borrowing from the future.  Conflating this with current investment education is a mistake - it is not a zero sum game.  I would love it if investments in public school buildings could lead to increased future revenues that would pay for such investments, but the reality is that they don't - or at least not ones the city can capture.  

The essential story of economic growth is the mixing of educated workers, technology, capital, infrastructure, etc.  To put it simply, you need to create educated people AND a local economy in which they can be productive.  I think that given the relatively small cost to the city and the potential benefit to the residents of the city it is worth it.  But as always, I get a lot of personal benefit from spectator sports and soccer in particular, so I am inclined to think the overall benefit is large. Judging from the movement of the poll, I am in the minority.

Oregon's Taxes

From Kari Chisholm comes this graphic produced by the (partisan) Oregon Bus Project:



A nice simple breakdown of where the money comes from and where it goes.

Economist's Notebook: Cooking Stoves

While we are on the topic of development, The New York Times has a story today about the use of cooking stoves in low-income countries and their effect on the climate. The basics are that the stuff they burn: wood, dung, charcoal, releases lots of soot or black carbon and this soot can act as a heat absorber and help warm the surface of the earth.

But there is another problem with these stoves: they appear to be extremely detrimental to the health of users. The aforementioned Poverty Action Lab has a working paper that summarizes the current research.

Photo Credit: Adam Ferguson for The New York Times

Economist's Notebook: Development Economists in the Laboratory

I have conducted research in a wide array of fields of economics: urban economics, industrial organization, labor economics, growth, international economics, environmental economics, political economy and public policy. But I am, first and foremost, a development economist. Like any academic discipline, economics has trends and fads that come and go and development is no exception. The latest trend is in randomized experiments. The leading institution for this work is MIT where the Poverty Action Lab supports studies based on randomized experiments. There is a growing debate about the value of such experiments, due, in my view, in large part to the zealous promotion of such research by its champions and their concurrent dismissal of natural experiments and other attempts to tease out causality from data.

The problem is, in essence, the fact that the world is complex and messy and as most human actions and interactions do not happen in a controlled environment, understanding the mechanisms that govern human actions and interactions is exceedingly difficult. Mostly we do as careful a job as we can, present as convincing a story as we can, but we never prove anything. However, in the standard empirical analysis, we are often dealing with data from a large population which makes generalizations relatively straightforward.

Randomized experiments, like for example, talking a set of schools in India and randomly selecting some to get computers and then studying the effects allows economists to (somewhat) control the environment and make a stronger causal statement. However, the generalizability of such trials is questionable. So too is the economic underpinning of the trial itself. Without having some ideal of the overall economic mechanism we might not really understand much at all. For example, do households respond to their kids access to computers in certain ways that has spillover effects that are positive or negative.

My take is that more data is always good, but that experimentalists (many of whom are the most influential voices in development economics) are wrong to dismiss more standard empirical work. I think experimental evidence is interesting, but often does not tell us much about the world in general. Empirical work based on theory is not always convincing but much of it provides good evidence to support or dismiss theoretical hypotheses and tells us a little more about the world in general. In other words, both have a role and a place in economics. What is distressing to me, then, is how much attention is paid to randomized experiments and how little attention is being paid to theory and related empirical testing. I don't think it is healthy to focus so narrowly on one approach.

I was happy, therefore, to read Steve Levitt's take:

A few months ago, Princeton economist Angus Deaton offered his vision for development economics.

In his piece, he rails against the movement toward relatively atheoretical, randomized experiments, calling for closer ties between theory and empirics. “The great economists should be trying to do something that is harder.” Now, in an excellent new paper, Harvard economist Guido Imbens fires back.

Imbens argues that Deaton is too dismissive of the special value that randomized experiments have in assessing causality, and that natural experiments, while not as good as randomized experiments, are far better than Deaton gives them credit for.
While it might seem difficult to mostly agree with both Deaton and Imbens, given that they espouse polar opposite views, strangely enough that is where I stand in this debate.

On the points Imbens makes, I think he is exactly right. However, what Imbens minimizes, in my opinion, is the importance of models and theory for motivating empirical research, including randomized experiments.

Given a question, of course you want a randomized experiment to give you the best answer possible. What I think has happened too much in economics recently is that the availability of experiments has trumped the asking of good questions. Or, put another way, anyone can do program evaluations based on true randomization, so why should some of the world’s best economists be devoting so much of their time to such exercises?

The great economists should be trying to do something that is harder.

Here is Poverty Action Lab's Abhijit Banerjee and Esther Duflo's take.

Is Economic Growth Good or Bad? Redux

In an earlier blog post I included some preliminary back and forth between me and Rob Dietz of the Center for the Advancement of a Steady State Society. On Monday we had our discussion at the Corvallis City Club. Here is how it was reported in the Corvallis Gazette-Times.

Note, however, that my middle initial is not 'D' but 'M' for MUNRO:

Casteal Foulais na theine!

To Save or not to Save?

Architects, preservationists, design-types are up in arms about the proposal to demolish the Memorial Coliseum to make way for a AAA baseball park. They cite it as a shining example of the International Style of architecture. I'll admit that this is a style that I often think of as functional, ugly, boring, abrupt, etc. But I do have a soft spot in my heart for the Coliseum - I attended Blazer games, rock concerts and other events there and I was always impressed by two things: One, when you are inside, the wall of glass creates this wonderful transparency that is unmatched in any other arena I have been in. There is not the feeling of being enclosed when you are on the concourses like you are in the Rose Garden. Two, the structure is so simple - a big box around a concrete bowl - that it allows you to think about structure and design at the same time.

But it is aging and doesn't really have a major tenant, so it is worth saving? There have been proposals to turn it into a number of other things, most notably perhaps a multi-sports recreational facility. But though discussion have gone on for years, no obvious use for which it is the appropriate size and shape has arisen. Do we really need two arenas? Is there an economic model to support substantial investment in the old structure? It is worth noting, perhaps that many sports arenas of similar vintage have been demolished, off the top of my head I can think of Denver, Philadelphia, Indianapolis, Houston and Boston as cities that have said goodbye to (sometimes) beloved arenas - Boston especially. If these cities could not justify a secondary use for their arenas, I am not sure Portland can. Still, I do wish there were a way to save it.

What I wonder, as an economist, is if there is such a deep seeded attachment to the building among the general population of Portland. I suspect not, which destroys any public good argument for preserving the building. But I could be wrong. What do you think?