Michael Lewyn is a professor at Touro University, Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center, in Long Island. His scholarship can be found at http://works.bepress.com/lewyn.
Density Reduces Driving (Even At Pretty High Densities)
Research supports the argument that increased densities reduce vehicle miles traveled, even in areas with minimal transit service.
Do Environmentalists Feed The Fire of Climate Change Denial?
Despite the extreme weather events of the past year, most Americans are still not persuaded that climate change is primarily the result of human activity. Why not?
No, Cars Are NOT Greener than Buses (Even Almost-Empty Ones)
Even in cities without world-class transit systems, transit can reduce car ownership to some extent.
The Not-So-Libertarian Argument For Sprawl
<p> In the 1990s, most public argument about suburban expansion was pretty simple. Environmentalists argued that sprawl increased pollution, while their opponents responded by invoking the free market. Environmentalists and other sprawl critics (including myself) responded that sprawl is the result less of the free market than of <a href="http://works.bepress.com/lewyn/28/">government subsidy and regulation</a>. </p> <p> Recently I have started to notice hints of a not-so-libertarian argument for sprawl: that pro-sprawl government policies such as highway construction open up real estate for development, and thus make housing affordable. </p>
Two Cheers for Romney
<p class="MsoNormal"> The conventional wisdom among Americans who spend lots of time thinking about public transit is that four more years of Obama will be good news, and the election of the Romney-Ryan ticket would be bad. I have to admit that this belief is by no means completely irrational: after all, President Romney will be much less likely than President Obama to veto a transportation bill passed by a Republican Congress, and might propose a mere austere budget than President Obama. Nevertheless, I think there are good reasons to believe otherwise. </p>