Search

Among a number of variables shown to affect pedestrian route choice, path length and turns have stood out as the most consequential. Turns have been considered the superior variable by some architectural scholars of urban street networks, while transportation planners and geographers believe distance to be paramount. The longstanding debate between these two approaches has been reinvigorated with the emergence of big data and advanced computational methods. In this paper, we provide much-needed clarity to this debate by demonstrating how the relative effect of turns depends on the spatial properties of street networks. We postulate that certain properties of street networks make it possible to reduce the number of turns without substantially increasing route distance, and suggest that data from such environments are likely to show a large effect of turns on route choice. Conversely, networks where a reduction of in turns is necessarily accompanied by an increase in distance are expected to reduce the effect of turns. We test these hypotheses by examining the effects of both distance and turns on pedestrian route choice using a path size logit model calibrated on over 10,000 anonymized GPS traces of pedestrians each in San Francisco, CA and Boston, MA. We find that the effect of distance is consistently larger in magnitude, while the effect of turns depends on network geometry. Only in specific street networks can turns alone explain route choice behavior as well as distance. Our findings suggest that turns, as well as other environmental qualities of a route, should be considered in addition to, not in lieu of, distance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many local governments are adopting inclusionary zoning (IZ) as a means of producing affordable housing without direct public subsidies. In this paper, panel data on IZ in the San Francisco metropolitan area and suburban Boston are used to analyse how much affordable housing the programmes produce and how IZ affects the prices and production of market-rate housing. The amount of affordable housing produced under IZ has been modest and depends primarily on how long IZ has been in place. Results from suburban Boston suggest that IZ has contributed to increased housing prices and lower rates of production during periods of regional house price appreciation. In the San Francisco area, IZ also appears to increase housing prices in times of regional price appreciation, but to decrease prices during cooler regional markets. There is no evidence of a statistically significant effect of IZ on new housing development in the Bay Area. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Problem: Over the past several decades, inclusionary zoning (IZ) has become an increasingly popular, but sometimes controversial, local means of producing affordable housing without direct public subsidy. The conversation about IZ has thus far largely ignored variations in the structure of IZ policies, although these variations can impact the amount of affordable housing produced and the effects of IZ on production and prices of market rate housing. Purpose: We provide a detailed comparison of the ways in which IZ programs have been structured in the San Francisco and Washington metropolitan areas and in suburban Boston. Methods: We create a unique dataset on IZ in these three regions by combining original data collected from several previous surveys. We use these data to compare the prevalence, structure, and affordable housing output of local IZ programs. Results and conclusions: In the San Francisco Bay Area, IZ programs tend to be mandatory and apply broadly across locations and structure types, while including cost offsets and alternatives to onsite construction. In the Washington, DC, area, most IZ programs are also mandatory, but have broader exemptions for small developments and low-density housing. IZ programs in the Boston suburbs exhibit the most heterogeneity. They are more likely to be voluntary and to apply only to a narrow range of developments, such as multifamily housing, or within certain zoning districts. The amount of affordable housing produced under IZ varies considerably, both within and across the regions. There is some evidence that IZ programs that grant density bonuses and exempt smaller projects produce more affordable housing. Takeaway for practice: Although variation in IZ program structures makes it hard to predict effectiveness, IZ's adaptability to local circumstances makes it a particularly attractive policy tool. IZ programs can easily be tailored to accommodate specific policy goals, housing market conditions, and residents' preferences, as well as variations in state or local regulatory and political environments. Research support: This article is adapted from a longer working paper written with financial support from the Center for Housing Policy, the research affiliate of the National Housing Conference. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]