Proponents of compact development argue
that rebuilding American urban areas to higher
densities is vital for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Compact city policies call for reducing driving
by housing a higher percentage of people in
multi-family and mixed-use developments, reducing
the average lot sizes of single-family homes,
redesigning streets and neighborhoods to be more
pedestrian friendly, concentrating jobs in selected
areas, and spending more on mass transit and less
on highways.
The Obama administration has endorsed these
policies. 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.
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.
Proponents of compact development argue
that rebuilding American urban areas to higher
densities is vital for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Compact city policies call for reducing driving
by housing a higher percentage of people in
multi-family and mixed-use developments, reducing
the average lot sizes of single-family homes,
redesigning streets and neighborhoods to be more
pedestrian friendly, concentrating jobs in selected
areas, and spending more on mass transit and less
on highways.
The Obama administration has endorsed these
policies. 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.
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.
Randal O’Toole is a senior fellow with the Cato Institute and author of The Best-Laid Plans: How Government Planning Harms Your Quality of Life, Your Pocketbook, and Your Future.