The Myth of the Compact City
Why Compact Development Is Not the Way to
Reduce Carbon Dioxide Emissions
by Randal O’Toole
Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood
and Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
Shaun Donovan have agreed to require metropolitan areas to adopt compact-development policies
or risk losing federal transportation and housing
funds. LaHood has admitted that the goal of this
program is to “coerce people out of their cars.”
As such, compact-development policies represent a huge intrusion on private property rights, personal freedom, and mobility. They are also fraught with risks. Urban planners and economists are far from unanimous about whether such policies will reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Some even raise the possibility that compact city policies could increase emissions by increasing roadway congestion.
As such, compact-development policies represent a huge intrusion on private property rights, personal freedom, and mobility. They are also fraught with risks. Urban planners and economists are far from unanimous about whether such policies will reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Some even raise the possibility that compact city policies could increase emissions by increasing roadway congestion.
Such reductions are insignificant compared
with the huge costs that compact development
would impose on the nation. These costs include
reduced worker productivity, less affordable housing, increased traffic congestion, higher taxes or
reduced urban services, and higher consumer costs.
Those who believe we must reduce carbon emissions should reject compact development as expensive, risky, and distracting from tools, such as carbon taxes, that can have greater, more immediate,
and more easily monitored effects on greenhouse
gas emissions.
Read the Full Policy Analysis by clicking on the link above.
Read the Full Policy Analysis by clicking on the link above.
No comments:
Post a Comment