by 
On
his
second
day
in
office,
Transportation
Secretary
Sean
Duffy
directed
federal
transportation
agencies
to
“give
preference
to
communities
with
marriage
and
birth
rates
higher
than
the
national
average,”
to
which
my
friend
Bob
Poole
responded
with
a
profound
“huh?”
Matthew
Yglesias,
meanwhile,
fretted
that
this
policy
could
backfire,
erroneously
claiming
that
directing
funding
to
low-density
communities
with
higher
birth
rates
would
make
housing
in
such
communities
even
more
expensive,
which
would
reduce
birthrates.
As
I
noted
in
an
article
published
by
the
Institute
for
Family
Studies,
it
may
seem
strange
for
the
Department
of
Transportation
to
get
involved
in
family
policy,
but
in
fact
it
already
has
been
involved
in
such
policy
for
many
years
through
the
Federal
Transit
Administration.
That
agency’s
transit
capital
grant
program
(which
was
specifically
cited
in
Duffy’s
memo)
favors
grants
to
communities
that
provide
“transit-supportive
land
use,”
meaning
zoning
and
subsidies
favoring
high-density
housing.
Recent
economic
research
has
found
that
the
Baby
Boom
was
due,
in
large
part,
to
federal
policies
that
promoted
homeownership.
The
report
didn’t
say
so,
but
94.3
percent
of
owner-occupied
homes
in
the
United
States
are
single-family
homes
(including
mobile
homes),
while
only
5.5
percent
are
multifamily,
so
increasing
ownership
of
single-family
homes
appears
to
be
a
good
way
of
increasing
fertility.
FTA’s
housing
policies
were
based
on
the
explicit
assumption
that
high-density
housing
in
transit
corridors
would
lead
to
more
transit
ridership
and
the
implicit
assumption
that
more
transit
ridership
would
save
energy
and
reduce
greenhouse
gas
emissions.
Neither
of
these
assumptions
are
true.
Research
by
the
Cascade
Policy
Institute
showed
that
people
living
in
transit-oriented
developments
in
the
Portland
area
were
not
significantly
more
likely
to
ride
transit
than
those
living
elsewhere.
This
is
confirmed
by
the
fact
that,
despite
building
hundreds
of
transit-oriented
developments,
Portland-area
transit
ridership
was
declining
in
the
five
years
before
the
pandemic.
Data
in
the
National
Transit
Database
also
shows
that
transit
is
hardly
green.
Outside
of
New
York
and
one
or
two
other
urban
areas,
transit
uses
more
energy
and
emits
more
greenhouse
gases
(including
emissions
from
the
power
plants
that
supply
electricity
for
electric-powered
transit)
than
the
average
car
or
light
truck.
Transit-oriented
housing
is
also
sometimes
claimed
to
be
more
affordable
housing,
but
that
is
a
complete
lie.
As
I’ve
noted
here
many
times
before,
the
elevators,
steel,
concrete,
and
interior
non-living
areas
such
as
lobbies
and
hallways
all
increase
the
costs
of
multi-story
housing,
so
the
four-
to
six-story
buildings
going
into
most
transit-oriented
developments
cost
about
twice
as
much,
per
square
foot,
as
single-family
homes.
Read
the
rest
of
this
piece
at
The
Antiplanner.
Randal
O’Toole,
the
Antiplanner,
is
a
policy
analyst
with
nearly
50
years
of
experience
reviewing
transportation
and
land-use
plans
and
the
author
of
The
Best-Laid
Plans:
How
Government
Planning
Harms
Your
Quality
of
Life,
Your
Pocketbook,
and
Your
Future.
Photo:
Darker
colors
show
higher
fertility
rates
measured
in
births
per
thousand
women.
CDC.
Go to Source
Author: Randal OToole
