Sustainability and Sydney:
Separating Reality from Wishful Thinking

Warren Centre
University of Sydney
15 March 2001

Numbers in "[ x ]" refer to slides available through this link

Shortly after [1] arrangements were made for this lecture, the Warren Centre asked me to provide a title, which you see above. In retrospect, with more time I would have chosen a better title, because what I want to talk to you is a much broader subject. As I will discuss later, I am not terribly concerned about sustainability in the popular sense, because the threats have been greatly overstated. The broader subject is the future of cities and urban planning.

I will take particular note of policies and trends in Portland, Oregon. Portland has led the world in adopting the transport and land use policies categorized as "smart growth," which involve forcing urban densities up, drawing rigid urban growth boundaries, neglecting highway investment and discouraging automobile use. I have encountered the work of Portland's missionaries on the shores of four continents. I am here to tell you that their gospel is false, that most everything they claim to have achieved you are ahead of them on and that the consequences of their misguided policies are only now becoming evident.


There is a general perception that low density development, or suburbanization,(the popular pejorative term is "urban sprawl") was invented in America after World War II, specifically in Los Angeles. It is generally understood that low density development has spread throughout what I will call the four colonies (Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the United States).

In fact, urban areas started suburbanizing much earlier than that, and in many more places. As soon as human beings were freed to travel by faster means, they started moving out of the inner cities. In Paris, for example, inner arrondissements lost population between the censuses of 1817 and 1831. In fact, Paris has been a paragon of sprawl. The Ville de Paris reached its peak population 80 years ago, and has lost more than 700,000 residents since 1954. At the same time, the sprawling suburbs of Paris have accommodated all of the growth in the area [3]. This is not just limited to Paris, Virtually all urban growth in major European cities has been in the suburbs over the past 40 years. Similarly, the largest Japanese cities have been losing population to the suburbs for 35 years. Indeed, in the developed world, there are only two central cities whose land area was fully developed in the 1950 to 1965 time frame and have not annexed major new territory that are currently at their population peak. And, they are immigrant cities --- Vancouver with the Chinese and Miami with the Cubans and Haitians. Surprisingly, the core of Los Angeles (which had much undeveloped territory in 1965) has also increased in population, but this too is an immigrant city, with large Latin American and southeast Asian populations.

(Note: Since this presentation was given, the 2000 US Census has added two major cities that have not annexed new territory and have achieved population peaks. These are New York, which had significant tracts of undeveloped land in Staten Island in 1950, and San Francisco, which is another immigrant city.)

Suburbanization has occurred largely because of rising affluence. As soon as people can afford it, they buy a car and move to the suburbs. Higher income societies are more automobile oriented and tend to have less dense development. The United States remains by far the richest major nation in the world, measured on a per capita income basis (purchasing power parity adjusted). Automobiles, low density development and high income all go together.

European suburbanization is evident in the data comparing the amount of new urban land area consumed to the change in population. In Europe, urban areas have expanded, while populations have declined. Australia and the United States have achieved similar densities of new development [4}. At the same time, the share of the urban area population in the central cities has dropped precipitously --- more than 30 percent in the United States, nearly 30 percent in Europe and 50 percent in Asia [5]. Australian central cities are down as well, but central cities here are much smaller. Few people think of Sydney as a city of 20,000, but it is, while the urban area is above four million.

Central cities that have not annexed new territory, or not combined with other cities have also lost large percentages of their population, and their population density. I live in the St. Louis area. The central city there, St. Louis, holds the distinction of having lost more of its population than any city since the Romans sacked Carthage. Fully 60 percent of the population has left St. Louis since 1950. But other cities are not far behind. Detroit and Manchester have lost nearly 50 percent of their population. But, one might say, Detroit, Manchester and St. Louis are depressed cities. Yes, but few would characterize Copenhagen, Paris and Osaka as depressed, yet their losses have been from nearly 20 percent to nearly 40 percent [6}

As people have moved to the suburbs, and as rural people have moved into the urban areas, generally to the suburbs, overall urban densities have declined. While more than doubling in population, the Tokyo urban area has lost density [7]. The same thing is true of Paris and Amsterdam [8, 9]. And, Sydney has experienced population density losses as well [10]. At the same time, the highest densities continue to be in the inner cities. The city of Tokyo is twice as dense as its suburbs, while Paris is five times as dense. New York's central densities are more than eight times that of its suburbs [11].

Surprisingly, Los Angeles is more dense than many places. Note that its central area density is greater than that of Chicago and Sydney and more than double that of Portland. And, its suburbs are also double the density of Portland. Sounds like Portland could learn from sprawling Los Angeles as well.


Public transport is often suggested as a solution to the problem of traffic congestion, which plagues urban areas throughout the west. But, in reality, public transport has virtually no potential to significantly reduce traffic congestion, because it is largely about downtown. But first, some background.

Around the developed world, there is an incoherence between transport and land use plans and the future as is projected by the same urban planners. This is illustrated by the case of Atlanta, where 55 percent of transport resources are to be spent on public transport over the next 25 years. The result of this emphasis will be inconsequential. The planners models indicate that motor vehicle travel will rise at approximately the rate of population increase --- more than 40 percent, while the number of trips diverted to public transport will be minuscule. The thin red line on the chart [13] represents the value obtained from using 55 percent of resources on public transport. Public transport is projected to rise from its current 2.56 percent market share to 3.40 percent. Big deal!

Now, it would be reasonable to spend 55 percent of resources on public transport if public transport were to carry 55 percent of the travel. Even if public transport carried 25 percent of the travel, it would only be misallocation. But 55 percent spent to obtain 3.44 percent is gross misallocation of resources --- something we cannot afford with our severe and worsening traffic congestion.

This "completely out of proportion" planning is not limited to Atlanta. The same or similar situation can be found throughout the four colonies: In New Zealand, Australia, Canada and the United States. In most urban areas, there are plans to spend a disproportionate share of transport resources on public transport, in exchange for which little in perceivable results will be obtained. The planners cannot even to torture their computer models to produce public transport results that are meaningful, at any level of investment.

The urban transport problem is not how to get people out of cars, because it is not the role of urban planners to be evangelists. The urban transport problem is simply this. Virtually everyone agrees, on all sides of the political and planning spectrum, that motor vehicle travel will continue to rise significantly. The job of urban planners and government is to plan and respond to this trend, not to change it.

Public transport basically serves two markets in western urban areas. First; public transport provides a welfare service for those who have disabilities or do not have access to cars. Second' public transport serves as an alternative to the automobile for people who work downtown. In a some places, public transport still serves a more general market throughout the urban core for people who would otherwise use automobiles, but this market has long since vanished in most urban areas, or has become very small (examples are the city of New York, central Toronto the north shore of Chicago and central Sydney).

Downtowns are very important. They usually have by far the highest densities of employment in the urban area. But, downtowns represent a small and becoming smaller market in urban areas that are experiencing not only residential suburbanization but also employment suburbanization. Research by Patrick Troy and Nariida Smith tells us that downtown Sydney, including Sydney, North Sydney and Haymarket, represents less than nine percent of the Sydney area's employment. The other two largest employment centers, Chatswood and Parramatta account for approximately one percent each. That means that 89 percent of employment in the Sydney area is not downtown [14]

Predictably, public transport's work trip market share is greatest in the downtown areas. This is evident in Sydney, including Sydney, North Sydney and Haymarket, where public transport's downtown work trip market share is 65 percent. This is a very impressive figure, putting Sydney in the same league as world leaders such as New York, Chicago, Toronto and Tokyo.

Chatswood is at a respectable 32 percent and Parramatta is at 26. But for the remaining 89 percent of Sydney's employment, the public transport work trip market share is only 12 percent [15].

Public transport is a strong competitor to downtown employment markets. This is because it is quick and few if any transfers are required [16]. It is only to downtown that quick, no-transfer service comparatively competitive with the automobile is provided. This is not a call for reorienting public transport services to serve suburban locations. Downtowns are the only locations in the urban area that have high enough densities to justify the region wide, high frequency service that is necessary to provide an alternative to people with a choice.

But outside downtown, Public transport is simply not a serious competitor to the automobile for work trips to locations outside downtown . Trips to other parts of the urban area require transfers and long travel times [17]. People with a choice will simply not put up with public transport for work trips to locations outside downtown, because it is considerably inferior to the automobile in travel time and convenience [18].

Because downtown is no longer dominant in terms of its share of employment, and because downtown is the only place that people with cars will ride public transport, there is virtually no hope for public transport as a solution to urban highway congestion. In short, you just can't get enough places fast enough on public transport. And so, in the United States, the average income of people who commute to work on public transport to non-downtown locations is far lower than that of all commuters and downtown commuters [19].

Throughout the four colonies, public transport does not account for a significant work trip market share anywhere but downtown or adjacent centers. Even in Denver, where a suburban office center now has more employees than the downtown area (Denver Tech Center), public transport's work trip market share is less than five percent. Parramatta, at 26 percent, may have the highest public transport work trip market share of any suburban employment center that is remote from downtown.

Downtown's public transport market share is already comparatively high, and not likely to improve significantly. Indeed, public transport's downtown market share has been declining in most urban areas for decades. Because public transport is only about downtown, there is no hope whatever of reducing regional traffic congestion through public transport strategies --- not in Portland, Dallas, Vancouver, Toronto, Sydney or Perth. Recognize the reality --- outside downtown employment markets, public transport is a welfare service. That is important, but is does not reduce traffic congestion.

This is not to suggest that public transport is not important to areas other than downtown. People without cars and with disabilities rely on public transport to the entire community. Generally people who commute to areas outside downtown on public transport have much lower incomes than those who commute to downtown.


The introductory slide [20] may appear to have a typographical error. Transport appears to be spelled "Tramsport." But it is not an error, it makes a point. Yesterday Randal O'Toole and I conducted a seminar in Christchurch. The attendees list incorrectly noted the names of the delegation from the national Ministry of Transport as being from the Ministry of Tramsport.

Well I am here to tell you that there is a Ministry of Tramsport. We have it in the United States. You have probably heard about the revitalization of light rail (trams) in the United States. A number of urban areas have built new systems and more plan to. It is important to understand what is driving this demand. It is political --- a result of the US political system that has incentives for what is termed "pork" (politically motivated federal government spending) to be distributed to particular congressional districts. A large amount of money is available to local governments to build light rail. Local governments are able to obtain from 100 percent to 400 percent in federal funding compared to their own investment. Light rail is not the object of pursuit, money is. If the money were available to dig holes and fill them up, urban areas would dutifully line up to obtain their share. That is what "Tramsport" is all about.

You have also probably heard about the great numbers of people that can be carried by light rail. In the US, proponents often claim that light rail can carry the equivalent of from eight to 12 motorway lanes of travel. While this is theoretically true, and might be achieved in Manila, with a fully grade separated system and a populace without cars, nothing remotely similar to such a volume is achieved in the four colonies. In the US, for example, the average new light rail line carries 20 percent of the capacity of a single motorway lane --- the best lines carry barely one-third [21].

In the Portland planners paradise, light rail has been an important strategy to try to get people out of their cars and reduce traffic congestion. One of the most important books in Portland's New Testament of planning is the gospel of light rail. But, strangely, light rail seems to matter not at all. Portland opened its west side light rail line in 1998, and yet traffic on the adjacent freeway has increased since before opening more that of any other radial (downtown oriented) corridor [22]. But Portland's light rail line has more to do with the pork laden American political system and a passion for spreading their new gospel.

Because so few automobile drivers are enticed to take light rail instead, the impact of light rail on traffic congestion has been virtually nil [23]. Obviously the two pictures on the slide [23] are the same, but the point is this --- before and after light rail is opened in US cities, there is no perceivable difference in traffic congestion. Because it removes so few cars from the road, light rail is exceedingly costly. With respect to each of the new light rail systems in the US, it would have been less expensive to provide each new commuter with a leased car --- in some cases a leased luxury car, such as the Jaguar XJ8 pictured [24].

Finally, it should be recognized that light rail is an obsolete technology. It typically operates at grade (not under ground or on viaducts), so it has to compete with automobile traffic. This means that it is slow. Buses can achieve faster operating speeds than light rail with the same prioritization measures. And express buses on motorways operate faster than light rail. Serious, grownup rail needs to be grade separated, like your State Rail system. It is only with grade separation that the speeds necessary to compete with the automobile are feasible. But, while light rail operates slowly, and gets few cars off the road, it surely carries a big price tag. A Harvard University study for the United States Department of Transportation found that whatever can be done with light rail can be done for one-fifth the cost per passenger kilometer by high quality bus systems.

Now we're back to the Ministry of Tramsport --- the only benefit of light rail not available for less from other strategies is building light rail itself. Light rail has become the sport of politicians. Serious efforts to deal with urban transport issues will have to wait.


As we noted above, the current conventional wisdom in urban planning is smart growth. It is the idea that cities need to become more dense, their geographical expansion needs to be stopped, people need to get out of cars, they should walk more, bike more and ride public transport more and so on. One might ask whose business it is of urban planners, but that is too fundamental a question.

This discussion will rely upon some useful and important research led by Dr. Jeffrey Kenworthy of Murdoch University in Perth and Felix Laube. Kenworthy and Laube have assembled an impressive array of statistics on urbanization and transport in 46 international cities, from 1960 to 1990. This is a sequel to similar work published by Dr. Kenworthy and Dr. Peter Newman a decade ago. While Dr. Kenworthy and I would probably have difficulty reaching agreement on the direction from which the sun rises, the useful work that he and his colleagues have published. This data is augmented by data from other sources, which I have compiled.

Higher densities do not improve the urban environment. European and Asian urban areas are considerably more dense than urban areas in the four colonies [26]. As would be expected, public transport market shares are considerably higher where density is higher [27]. Part of the reason for this is that more public transport service is provided. But in a more expansive, lower density urban area, such as in the four colonies, the comprehensive, high quality public transport systems of the Europe and Asia would be far to expensive.

One might expect that where public transport market shares are higher, road traffic would be lower. That is certainly the implication of the light rail and smart growth advocates. But the opposite is true. Where public transport market shares are higher, traffic congestion is more intense, the result of higher densities [28]. The same relationship can be seen in Australian urban areas, where higher densities are associated with greater intensity of traffic [29]. Research conducted for the US Department of Transportation indicates that, in the range of density typical of urban areas in the four colonies, a 10 percent increase in population density translates into an eight percent increase in the intensity of traffic [30].

But that is just the beginning. As more traffic is concentrated in a smaller area, speeds are reduced and there is more "stop and go" operation. This is evident in average speeds [31], where generally, higher densities internationally are associated with lower traffic speeds. It is likely that Australia's average speeds are lower than in the United States because of its failure to build comprehensive urban motorway systems.

And there is more. Air pollution is intensified as speeds decline. Air pollution intensity is greater where traffic intensity is greater. This is not surprising, as the lower traffic levels of Australia and the US translate into more healthy air quality [32]. US Environmental Protection Agency research shows that the optimal speed for minimizing automobile air pollution is 55 to 90 kph [33]. Slowing traffic, the inevitable result of densification, will worsen air pollution.

Air pollution is one of the issues often raised with respect to sustainability. The truth is that we have made incredible progress in reducing air pollution [34}. This has not occurred because we have given up our cars, because we drive more than ever. It has not occurred because we are using public transport more, because public transport market shares continue to decline. It is because of improvements in technology. And those improvements will continue, as improved technologies emerge, such as the fuel cell car, the hybrid cars such as the Honda Insight and the Toyota Prius. Moreover, there is a "built in" improvement is occurring, as older cars are retired, they are replaced by newer, far cleaner cars. In 20 years, air pollution from mobile sources will be a thing of the past.

That brings us to a more intractable problem --- traffic congestion. Proponents of smart growth often suggest that there is no point to providing additional road capacity --- that new capacity is just quickly filled up by new travel that is generated by the new highway (induced travel). This is like claiming that pregnancy is increased by building maternity wards. Research has been published to show this effect. One often quoted University of California study found that each 10 percent increase in highway capacity translated into a nine percent increase in vehicle miles traveled. But the study was incomplete. It was limited to the effect of new motorway construction and failed to review the impact on adjacent roadways or the rest of the roadway system.

Another study, by the Surface Transportation Policy Project (STPP), found little difference in traffic congestion trends between urban areas that built more roadways and urban areas that built less. STPP, however, failed to account for the differences in population growth. Adjusted for population growth, traffic congestion trends were substantially better among the urban areas that build more capacity [35].

And then there is Phoenix, Arizona which disproves the induced traffic theory by its actual experience. In the 1960s, Phoenix determined to not build a motorway system, seeking to avoid becoming like Los Angeles with its freeways. Phoenix limited its motorways to the national routes north and south through the community. As a result, by the early 1980s, Phoenix had a very low ratio of motorway lane miles per capita. But traffic had become very congested, and Phoenix learned that there was something worse than Los Angeles with its freeways --- Los Angeles without its freeways. As a result, Phoenix undertook a program of motorway construction and now has nearly as many motorway lane miles per capita as the average. Before building the new motorways, Phoenix drivers traveled further than the national average. Now, after completion of many miles of new motorways, Phoenix drivers travel less [36].


Another study by STPP found that consumers in more sprawling US urban areas have higher transport costs than those in less sprawling urban areas. There is no disputing this [38]. But there is more to life than transport, a point missed by STPP.

Housing costs are higher in the less sprawling urban areas, by a factor more than sufficient to erase the transport cost advantage [39]. Further, food costs are less in the more sprawling urban areas [40]. In fact, the cost of transport, housing and food combined are less in the more sprawling urban areas than in the less sprawling urban areas [41].

But there is more.

(1) People in the more sprawling urban areas spend less time each year traveling to and from work. People in the more sprawling urban areas spend the equivalent of four days in additional time traveling to and from work [42].

(2) People in more sprawling urban areas have more room --- the number of household rooms per capita is greater where sprawl is greater [43]. And while the data is not available, my experience suggests that the size of rooms is larger in the more sprawling urban areas as well.

(3) And then there is the matter of home ownership. Home ownership is the greatest source of wealth creation among middle income people in the four colonies. Public policies in many nations are geared toward encouraging home ownership. And, home ownership is higher where there is more sprawl. In the most sprawling urban areas, home ownership is 70 percent, compared to only 57 percent in the least sprawling areas [44]. This is very important. Home ownership represents the most important source of capital formation for lower middle income households.

Proponents of smart growth claim that suburbanization retards the quality of life. The evidence suggests just the opposite.


The most fervent evangelists of smart growth come from Portland (Oregon They claim great successes as a result of their policies. But their gospel is false. There is nothing particularly special about Portland, apart from its favorable geographical location and comparatively agreeable climate (if you like Tasmania).

Los Angeles is often perceived to be a particularly sprawling place. Yet, in reality, Los Angeles is the most densely populated urban area in the United States, and considerably more dense than Portland [46} Portland planners who are averse to doing their "homework" have suggested that corridor densities are higher in Portland than in Los Angeles, but that is not so. Wherever you look in the urban form, Los Angeles is about twice as dense as Portland, from the edge of suburbia to the highest density areas of the central city. Indeed, Los Angeles has been maligned on the issue of density. The largest expanse of above 4,000 per square kilometer density (10,000 per square mile) is in --- Los Angeles --- more than New York, more than Toronto, and yes, more than Portland [47, 48].

Even Sydney, not considered a dense city among its international peers, is considerably more dense than Portland [49]. And while Portland was mandating all development to be within its urban growth boundary, Sydney with no such boundary was developing at higher densities [50]. These are just two of the issues on which the performance of the Sydney area has been superior to that of Portland. Take, for example downtown public transport market share, where Sydney's 65 percent share is triple that of Portland. Or take Sydney's more than 125 public transport trips annually per capita, about four times Portland. Or take your regional rail system, that carries as many riders in three weeks as Portland's light rail line does in a year, and at much higher speeds. Of course, State Rail could be more efficient, and you couldn't afford to build it today if it weren't there. The point is that you have nothing to learn from Portland. Send the Portland planners home when they disembark to start their next missionary journey.

As I mentioned before, the tends in Portland give little in the way of genuine marketing material to the advocates of smart growth. Despite their urban growth boundary, during the 1980s, Portland densified slower than other western US urban areas [51]. Despite all of the government efforts to the contrary, automobile travel per capita is rising faster in Portland than in other large US urban areas [52]. And as they neglect their roadway system, the increasing number of cars in the restricted space within the urban growth boundary is increasing traffic congestion. Traffic is worse than that of any similar sized urban area in the United States [53]. I must say that having visited Auckland, where they have fallen "hook, line and sinker" for Portland's anti-growth policies, traffic congestion may be as bad as Portland.

Meanwhile, Metro, the regional government that oversees land use policy, has run projections of the impacts it expects from its draconian policies through 2040. And they are impressive. After confining all growth within the present urban areas, forsaking highway investment and building new rail lines, the public transport market share will rise from today's approximately three percent to six percent. At the same time, traffic will increase from 4,000,000 daily trips to 7,000,000 daily trips, on a roadway system not much improved from today [54]. If you like traffic congestion, I recommend the policies of Portland. And you get a bonus too --- air pollution will be much worse.

But the most perfidious outcome of Portland's wrong-headed policies has to do with social equity. For 50 years, we in the United States have been attempting to bring into the main stream of economic life a minority that had been oppressed both de jure and de facto for centuries. We have made progress, but have far to go. More and more blacks, along with more and more lower middle income people, are now able to own their own homes. Housing affordability is falling precipitously in Portland. The Housing Opportunity Index estimates the percentage of homes in an area that can be afforded by the median income household. From 1991 to 2000, Portland's Housing Opportunity Index dropped more than 50 percent [55]. That ranks Portland 79th out of the top 80 metropolitan areas for which there is data. But it is not just that Portland ranked last --- it ranked last with a declined more than twice as large as the urban area ranked 78th . Adoption of Portland's policies around the nation could nullify 50 years progress rather quickly.


Recently, many urban planners seem to be have placed themselves in the role of molding public opinion. Take for example the case of Christchurch, where a planning brochure asks the question, "Two Futures, One Choice [56]." Pictured are the two choices --- terrible traffic congestion, and a number of businessmen exiting a bus with smiles on their faces that would be plastered on the front of brochures if Robert Owen were still developing socialist utopias. I rode the bus for 15 years in Los Angeles. It was pleasant, but I do not remember ever seeing such smiles plastered on the faces public transport patrons --- nor have I in Hong Kong, Beijing, London, Paris, and so on.

Then the Christchurch brochure goes on to say that "Traffic will worsen unless we change the way we travel. What's your choice for the future?" But indicating what may be publicly financed intellectual dishonesty, the very projections of the public agency producing the brochure show that traffic will get worse regardless of the "future" chosen. If I were a resident of this New Zealand (haven been counted in the census March 6 is not enough!), I would be contacting my member of Parliament seeking legislation or regulation to remove regional councils from the role of evangelization.

I do not favor urban sprawl, suburbanization, smart growth or any government prescription for urban planning. A number of us got together in the mountains of Montana last year and drafted a set of urban development principles based upon freedom and markets. The most quoted line from that document is one in which in heartily believe: "absent a material threat to other individuals or the community, people should be allowed to live and work where and how they like." [57] That says it all.

No material threat has been identified that justifies restricting the freedom of people to live and work how they like. There is enough oil to last for the foreseeable future. Further, demand for oil is likely to fall, with the coming of hybrid and fuel cell cars. There is more than enough land to raise the food we require. If you are concerned about CO2 emissions, and I am not, take comfort in the fact that the new hybrid cars substantially reduce CO2 emissions. I am pleased that President Bush has taken us out of the Kyoto Treaty, partly because the evidence on which the theory is based has so many problems. You here in Australia can enact a carbon tax. We're not going to in America --- and the US Senate would never have ratified the treaty even if it had been submitted for consideration.

It all comes down to competing visions about the future. My view is that mankind has faced challenges through the centuries, met and defeated them. The progress, for example, that has been made in air pollution is stunning. That progress will continue, on multiple fronts.

As the son of a Protestant clergyman, allow me to conclude with a Bible story. You recall the 12 scouts sent by Israel into Canaan. Israel had wandered about the desert for 40 years. Now came the time to enter the land that had been promised them by God. The 12 went in, and 10 came back with serious reservations. The men of Canaan were so big, and we could never beat them. But there were two, Joshua and Caleb, who saw it another way. They knew that the forces of Israel could defeat the Canaanites and were happy to tell all about it. The rest is history. Israel took the promised land, though some complications may have arisen of late!

The problem of sustainability I see is that if we do not reject the dark visions, if not nightmares of the planners, the rich lives we now lead and our high standard of living will be taken away from us, for no reason.

Like Joshua and Caleb, let us march into the future in faith, not fear.


(c) 2001 --- Wendell Cox Consultancy --- Permission granted to use with attribution.
Demographia is "pro-choice" with respect to urban development.
People should have the freedom to live and work where and how they like.

is an undertaking of
P. O. Box 841 - Belleville, IL 62222 USA
Telephone: +1.618.632.8507 - Facsimile: +1.810.821.8134


Demographic Briefs | New Items | Book Store | Subscribe (Free)

Corrections Policy, Rights & Permissions

Related Web Site:
The Public Purpose
Internet Public Policy Resource