The challenge facing the nation's infrastructure is massive in scale, requiring ambition lacking since the New Deal and Eisenhower eras. Building on those historic models, the following op-ed suggests a "WPA 2.0" approach to infrastructure.
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.
Contrary to popular assumptions, large, transit-oriented cities have lower crime rates than smaller, automobile-oriented cities. Jane Jacobs was right! This column discusses this phenomenon and its implications for transport and land use planning.
Submitted by Todd Litman on September 3, 2013 - 11:31am
Conventional transportation planning tends to exaggerate congestion costs and roadway expansion benefits, and undervalues other transportation solutions such as improving alternative modes, pricing reforms and smart growth policies.
Planners are futurists, but with less pretension and jargon. Our work requires predicting how current trends are likely to affect future conditions and activities, and how communities should prepare. For example, let's predict self-driving cars.
Many people believe that cities are dangerous due to exaggerated fears of urban crime. Cities are actually far safer and healthier than suburban and rural locations, and smart growth policies can further enhance their safety and health advantages.