'Can Transit Tame Sprawl?' Some Have Doubts
If higher housing costs mean lower transit costs, and vice-versa, can improved public transit provide sufficient incentives to rein in sprawl? Not, according to Anthony Downs, if NIMBYs continue to push local governments to reject higher densities.
"Housing and transportation costs are inversely related. In outlying settlements, households with more than one worker usually need two or more vehicles to get everyone to their jobs. That increases their transportation costs. Because their homes tend to be built on lower-cost rural land, however, their housing costs are relatively low. Conversely, in denser urban areas that are well served by public transit, households with two or more workers can get by with one vehicle or even none. For these households, transportation costs are likely to be a lower percentage of their budget than their rural counterparts. But urban land is usually valuable real estate, so their housing costs are likely to be steeper."
- Login or register to post comments
- Email this page
- Finding Ways to Create "Emerald Necklaces" in Built-Out Cities - Mar 19, 2010
- High Speed Rail Sprawl - Mar 18, 2010
- New Argument for Public Transit: Better for Texting? - Mar 17, 2010
- Why do People Choose to Ride Transit? - Mar 17, 2010
- 'Sea-Change' Coming To Transportation Planning - Mar 16, 2010




















