The policies after World War II that discriminated against high density and mixed use development created an illusion that people prefer the "suburban, auto-oriented lifestyle", Lee says.
"In addition to restricting building heights and mixed-use development, these zoning codes almost invariably force developers to provide parking for new construction projects, whether the market demands it or not."
Lee says that even though rail tends to be a wasteful government project, it is not alone
"They pursue wasteful highway projects, wasteful airport projects, wasteful stadium projects, and so forth. And there are examples of rail projects-like the expansion of the New York and DC subway systems-that seem like they're unlikely to become boondoggles."
Comments
have always thought this
can't figure out why libertarian groups wouldn't be equally opposed to both aspects of the government intervention favoring driving or transit. Many think it is because they are pro driving, but when pressed, they oppose pro-driving government intervention as well. They are just much less quiet (to their detriment) about that side of it. I have always thought there is a lot that smart growthers and libertarians can agree on when it comes to land policy.