The Washington Post (1/22/2011) reports the results of the Urban Mobility Report including all the unhappy ways in which the D.C. region ranks #1 in traffic congestion categories---including excess fuel consumed per commuter. Not surprisingly, the study has received a fair amount of media attention in this area. The author of another transit time report---Driven Apart---critiques the UMR, suggesting that his study asks policymakers "whether their goal should be to increase road capacity for the sake of increasing peak-period speeds, or instead to concentrate on land-use plans that don't segregate home, office, commerce and entertainment into widely separated zones reachable only by cars."
In this area, it is hard to escape the conclusion that such an approach, which is compatible with the "Urban Village" approach, would require more density, especially along mass transit arteries. If so, would housing near transit be affordable to many employees or just those who make close to six figures?
Link to the article and references---