A comparison of FPS-16 and GMD-1 MEASUREMENTS and methods for processing wind data. Phase II - Analysis of time variability of atmospheric parameters Final report

Comparison of FPS-16 and GMD-1 radar tracking and radiosonde measurements and methods for processing wind data - time variability of atmospheric parameter

Data analysis and archival

The purpose of this task is the acquisition, distribution, archival, and analysis of data collected during and in support of the Upper Atmospheric Research Program (UARP) field experiments. Meteorological and U2 data from the 1984 Stratosphere-Troposphere Exchange Project (STEP) was analyzed to determine characteristics of internal atmospheric waves. CDROM's containing data from the 1987 STEP, 1987 Airborne Antarctic Ozone Expedition (AAOE), and the 1989 Airborne Arctic Stratospheric Expedition (AASE) were produced for archival and distribution of those data sets. The AASE CDROM contains preliminary data and a final release is planned for February 1990. Comparisons of data from the NASA ER-2 Meteorological Measurement System (MMS) with radar tracking and radiosonde data show good agreement. Planning for a Meteorological Support Facility continues. We are investigating existing and proposed hardware and software to receive, manipulate, and display satellite imagery and standard meteorological analyses, forecasts, and radiosonde data

Housing in the nation’s micropolitan areas: A first look

Micropolitan area is a newly defined unit of analysis for examining housing affordability. Before the creation of micropolitan areas in 2003, U.S. counties were categorized as either metropolitan or nonmetropolitan. The category of micropolitan area allows for a more detailed analysis of housing affordability conditions in areas with populations less than metropolitan areas but more than nonmetropolitan areas. Variables examined in this analysis of micropolitan areas include demographic and housing characteristics. A policy section highlights how the findings from this analysis may be applied to micropolitan geography

What does smart growth mean for housing?

Barely noticed amid the returns from the 1998 midterm elections was a quiet revolution that goes to the heart of how and where Americans live. While most news accounts focused on the high-profile candidate elections, voters across the nation-in Democratic and Republican areas alike-approved more than 160 state and local ballot measures intended to preserve open space and limit urban sprawl. The coalition forming around the idea of limiting sprawl includes environmentalists, farmers, big-city mayors, and some developers. But perhaps most important, the so-called smart growth movement also includes many suburban voters who are fed up with growth. For example, suburbanites in New Jersey-who swept Republican Governor Christine Todd Whitman into office a few years ago on her promise to cut taxes-overwhelmingly supported her proposal to devote about $1 billion a year in taxes and user fees to help preserve half of the state\u27s two million acres of open space over the next ten years. The idea of land preservation is so appealing to many suburbanites that they are willing to pay for it, in contrast with their typical distaste for more taxes

Community acceptance of affordable housing

Despite historically low interest rates, organizations across the nation have become increasingly concerned about the impacts of regulatory constraints and anti-growth sentiments on the availability and cost of housing. This concern is by no means limited to a few “high cost” areas like Boston and San Francisco. It can also be found in Iowa City, where new single-family houses were recently selling from $150,000 to$375,000 (prices readily considered affordable in many larger metropolitan areas) and even in rural areas where spill-over growth and “drive to qualify” solve the commuter’s affordability problem while creating unforeseen affordability problems for the rural native. Today the residents of communities where jobs and population are expanding do not automatically assume that growth is good. Quite the contrary, they raise a skeptical eyebrow and demand “positive” growth. Developers must justify their proposals to the public (particularly neighbors to their developments) throughout zoning applications and subdivision reviews. With inadequate supplies of land zoned at densities to support affordable housing, opponents of development can place substantial pressure on public officials to deny the required zoning or to significantly modify the development, making it more expensive and possibly unfeasible. Neighbors are rarely opposed to development in general, just the specific development near them, a sentiment dubbed “Not in My Back Yard” or NIMBY. Similarly, local public officials are rarely “anti-growth” but want to be sure that new development will have a positive fiscal impact on local government. Since the tax revenue streams associated with residential development are complex and only partially captured by the locality, the presumed (or even estimated) fiscal impact of residential development is often negative

Target marketing can help attract city residents

While suburban growth continues, city living is regaining popularity. It is common knowledge that urban neighborhoods often attract young, single professionals, but a more precise identification of potential city dwellers could help cities understand and develop their comparative advantages. Now, perhaps more than ever, cities need to know which people want to live in them and how their vision of urban life may be accommodated by public policy. A common concern expressed among urban mayors is that the quality of their city services, especially schools, stacks up poorly against that of most suburbs. Improving public education is often cited as the key to attracting suburbanites to cities. Enhancing school quality is indeed an important element in any urban revitalization effort, but it may be less critical than is commonly assumed. Consider that households made up of married couples with children under 18 now account for only a quarter of the nation\u27s total, down from 4 in 10 households in 1970