It's Time to End Single-Family Zoning

Local planning in the United States is unique in the amount of land it reserves for detached single-family homes. This privileging of single-family homes, normally called R1 zoning, exacerbates inequality and undermines efficiency. R1’s origins are unpleasant: Stained by explicitly classist and implicitly racist motivations, R1 today continues to promote exclusion. It makes it harder for people to access high-opportunity places, and in expensive regions it contributes to shortages of housing, thereby benefiting homeowners at the expense of renters and forcing many housing consumers to spend more on housing. Stacked against these drawbacks, moreover, are a series of only weak arguments in R1’s favor about preferences, aesthetics, and a single-family way of life. We demonstrate that these pro-R1 concerns are either specious, or can be addressed in ways less socially harmful than R1. Given the strong arguments against R1 and the weak arguments for it, we contend planners should work to abolish R1 single-family zoning

Behaviour, Preferences and Cities : Urban Theory and Urban Resurgence

The resurgence of big, old cities and their regions is real, but it is merely a part of a broader pattern of urban change in the developed countries, whose broadest tendency is urban emergence, including suburbanisation, and movements of population to certain 'Sunbelt' regions. The problem is that it is difficult to accommodate explanation of both resurgence and emergence using the main explanations in the field today. These include: theories of the knowledge or creative economy, urban amenities, diversity and tolerance, and urban beauty. In most of their common specifications, they do well for either resurgent or emergent cities, but not for both at the same time. This suggests that these ideas, interesting as they are, require much greater specification and, in some cases, overhaul, in order to offer satisfactory responses to the diversity of patterns of urban growth. By examining some of these deficiencies, we conclude that urban theory needs a better understanding of urban choice behaviours and especially the effects of bundling, the limits to preference substitutions and the relationship between past and present preferences, in order to become fully effective in explaining urban resurgence and urban emergence. When these aspects of choice and preference are better integrated into urban theory, then the 'exogenous' causes of urbanisation can be made more endogenous and, in addition, they can be applied better to both emergence and resurgence. Urban research can, by so doing, also potentially become more policy-relevant

Charging Drivers by the Gallon vs. the Mile: An Equity Analysis by Geography and Income in California

This study used data from the 2017 National Household Travel Survey California Add-On sample to explore how replacing the current state vehicle fuel tax with a flat-per-mile-rate road-user charge (RUC) would affect costs for different kinds of households. We first estimated how household vehicle fuel efficiency, mileage, and fuel tax expenditures vary by geography (rural vs. urban) and by income. These findings were then used to estimate how much different types of households pay in the current per-gallon state fuel tax, what they would pay if the state were to replace fuel taxes with a flat-rate road-usage charge (RUC) that would generate revenues similar to the current state fuel tax (2.52¢ per mile driven), and the difference in household expenditures between the fuel tax and RUC. We find that rural households tend to drive more miles and own less fuel-efficient vehicles than urban ones, so they pay comparatively more in fuel tax and would pay more with the RUC as well. However, this rural/urban variation is less for the RUC than the fuel tax, so moving to a flat-rate RUC would redistribute some of the overall tax burden from rural households (that drive more miles in fuel-thirsty vehicles) to urban households (that drive fewer miles in more fuel-efficient vehicles). Transitioning from the fuel tax to RUC would also generally shift the fuel tax burden from lower-income to higher-income households, with one exception: expenditures would rise for low-income urban households. However, the variation in the tax incidence between the gas tax and RUC is quite modest, amounting to less than one dollar per week for both urban and rural households at all income levels

Effective Conservation of a Rare Amphibian through Partnerships

Local conservation efforts can improve the status of sensitive species, particularly narrow endemics. Cooperative, voluntary conservation may benefit some species more than listing. Management through regulations should be considered if non-regulatory efforts fail. Maintain and monitor compatible land uses

Pay-As-You-Go Driving: Examining Possible Road-User Charge Rate Structures for California

This report lays out principles to help California policymakers identify an optimal rate structure for a road-user charge (RUC). The rate structure is different from the rate itself. The rate is the price a driver pays, while the structure is the set of principles that govern how that price is set. We drew on existing research on rate setting in transportation, public utilities, and behavioral economics to develop a set of conceptual principles that can be used to evaluate rate structures, and then applied these principles to a set of mileage fee rate structure options. Key findings include that transportation system users already pay for driving using a wide array of rate structures, including some that charge rate structured based on vehicle characteristics, user characteristics, and time or location of driving. We also conclude that the principal advantage of RUCs is not their ability to raise revenue but rather to variably allocate charges among various types of users and travelers. To obtain those benefits, policymakers need to proactively design rate structures to advance important state policy goals and/or improve administrative and political feasibility