Measure S gives city leaders a moderately satisfying smack across the face. As satisfying as that may be, Measure S is remarkably bad planning and development policy at the expense of the vast majority of Angelinos.
Many households spend more than they can afford on housing and transportation, but the latest International Housing Affordability Survey is wrong to recommend sprawl as the best solution. Real solutions must reduce both housing and transport costs.
The dust from the November election is far from settled, but Los Angeles is already headed back to the ballot box in March. The big ticket item for planning in the city: Measure S, also known as the Neighborhood Integrity Initiative.
Randal O'Toole claims that light rail transit is more dangerous than bus or automobile travel, but he fails to account for exposure or overall safety benefits. This is a good example of bad statistical analysis.
Conventional traffic safety programs emphasize ways that individuals can help reduce their risk, but new research indicates that safety depends largely on community planning decisions that affect how and how much people drive.
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."