Michael Lewyn

<p> In a recent blog post (at http://www.planetizen.com/node/44518) Steven Polzin argues that drivers are more productive because they get places faster.  His post, in turn, generated an avalanche of critiques noting the negative externalities of auto travel (e.g. pollution, death and injury from traffic accidents, health costs of obesity, etc.). </p> <p> But what I&#39;d like to address is something else: the positive productivity benefits of transit use.  Let&#39;s suppose that it takes me 30 minutes to reach destination X on the bus, and 15 minutes by car.  Obviously, the car is more productive.  Right? </p>

<p class="ecxMsoNormal"> How can one measure the housing affordability of a city or region?<span>  </span>One common option is to focus on a region’s median home price (or the median home price divided by median income).<span>  </span>I’ve used this method myself, and regional medians will often be the best tool available. </p> <p class="ecxMsoNormal"> But sometimes, this method leads to absurd results.<span>  </span>For example, the median home price for metropolitan Atlanta is $150,000, which makes Atlanta seem like a remarkably affordable housing market.(1) </p>

<p> I was reading Wendell Cox&#39;s recent attack on the Center for Neighborhood Technology&#39;s affordability calculations, and was struck by one thing he wrote:<em>“transportation costs will be reduced in the future by the far more fuel efficient vehicles being required by Washington.”* </em> </p> <p> In other words, don&#39;t worry about Americans being impoverished by the cost of a car for every man, woman, and 16-year old in the House: the technological miracle of fuel efficiency will save us.  </p>

<p class="ecxMsoNormal"> A few weeks ago, Randall O’Toole  (a leading anti-anti-sprawl commentator) and Matthew Yglesias (a Washington-based pundit who primarily writes about politics, but occasionally veers off into planning issues) had an interesting discussion about the extent to which sprawl is a result of land use regulation.(1) </p>

Texas' strict banking regulation may be partially responsible for its economic health.