http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/30/opinion/30friedman.html?bl&ex=1209787200&en=d28d3e2b48717a14&ei=5087

Kim, there is more going on behind the scenes to support a “car-based” infrastructure than meets the eye. It’s really never as basic as people voting with their wallets/wheels. Perhaps Scott could provide some concrete examples, but I know that industries like car, oil, and construction have been getting major subsidies from the fed for years, making driving and building new homes more affordable than it really is.

If these same tax breaks were shifted over to things like public transportation, sidewalk improvement, and rehabbing homes, and away from sprawl-generating policies, more people would probably choose to live in the city because it would be cheaper. Then density would return to all cities…maybe even to zoning-deficient Houston. Even without big breaks, many communities, like Decatur, promote “smart growth” and walkable communities because many people see the current policies as unsustainable and not very environmentally friendly to say the least.

Current policy isn’t likely to change anytime soon…so for now we’ll just have to settle for higher gas prices doing the dirty work for convincing folks to move back ITP.

“A big reason Angelenos drive everywhere is that they can park everywhere, generally free. Businesses must provide parking spaces according to a strict schedule. This raises the cost of doing business and hugely lowers the cost of driving. Free parking is, as Donald Shoup of UCLA put it in a recent book, “a fertility drug for cars”.”

You can find the entire article at http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10924156&CFID=3698177&CFTOKEN=65468904