The conventional progressive wisdom is that the Trump Administration will be bad for cities and for transit users. But in recent decades, a unified Republican government has been better for public transit than a divided government.
An efficient and equitable transport system must be diverse to serve diverse travel demands. Planners need better tools to quantify and communicate the benefits of walking, cycling and public transit to sometimes skeptical decision makers.
A significant portion of vehicle travel consists of chauffeuring: additional travel to transport a non-driver. The new Chauffeuring Burden Index calculates its direct and indirect costs. Why do these costs receive such little attention in planning?
Demographia's International Housing Affordability Surveys are widely used to compare cities and evaluate urban development policies, but there are good reasons to question their analysis methods, starting with their definition of "house."
Conventional evaluation often exaggerates congestion costs by using baseline travel speeds which exceed speed limits. This assumes that traffic speed compliance is a congestion cost that justifies major infrastructure investments to alleviate.
My recent column, "Evaluating Public Transit Funding Options," described various ways to finance public transit improvements. Such funding is sometimes criticized. This column examines and responds to common criticisms.