Strategies for increasing affordability often involved trade-offs between various goals and impacts. It is important to consider all of these factors when evaluating potential solutions to unaffordability.
Earlier this year, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development devoted an entire issue of a quarterly newsletter to land use regulations and the idea that local laws are strangling the nation's supply of affordable housing.
In Vancouver, British Columbia, dramatic reductions in automobile travel and resulting benefits demonstrate that integrated TDM and smart growth policies can help create cities that are healthy, wealthy, and wise.
Housing policy is not just about houses, it is also about people, and the determination of who may live in a community. We challenge communities to proclaim, “Yes in our backyard! We welcome new neighbors. We favor more diversity.”
What amount of expansion, population and vehicle densities, housing mix, and transport policies should growing cities aspire to achieve? This column summarizes my recent research that explores these, and related, issues.
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.