New Urbanism is official. Not merely a transitory fashion or a conceptual aesthetic, the publishing of Emily Talen's work New Urbanism & American Planning: The Conflict ofCultures ensures that from now on even those criti­ cal of the hybridized, resurgent neo-traditionalism of the Congress for the New Urbansim will have to acknowledge them, just as the New Urban­ ists today have to acknowledge the Congres Internationaux d'Architecture Modern. Talen, an Assistant Professor in the Department of Urban and Regional Planning at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, has created the type of book that can be found in the canon of every trend­ turned-movement: a reframing of history which places the ideology of the converted at the end of the tale. Yet, while New Urbanist writers may have a well earned reputation for placing polemics over research and romance over history, in this book Talen makes a considerable contribution to the field of planning - regardless of what one thinks of Seaside, Florida. The reason for this has to do with the scope of her subject, which is not New Urbanism but rather American urbanism, and in framing the topic this way the author grants herself ample intellectual room to explore.

Search a well-stocked library or bookstore for works on urban form and you might reach the same conclusion drawn by Robert Bruegmann: "Most of what has been written about sprawl to date has been written about com­ plaints" (p. 3). But what separates Bruegmann, a professor of art history, architecture, and urban planning at the University of Illinois at Chicago, from most people is what he does next. "[S]o many 'right-minded' people were so vociferous on the subject that I began to suspect that there must be something suspicious about the argument itself" (p. 8). The result of this questioning is a work lauded by Alexander Garvin on the book's jacket as no less than "the most important book on the American landscape since Jane Jacobs' The Death and Life of Great American Cities". This surprisingly ebullient endorsement from one of the most public personalities in city planning should make us all take notice.

This study and report is about street trees and intersection safety in urban contexts. The study derives from a rather simple, straightforward observation: that on the best tree-lined streets the trees come close to the corners. They do not stop at some distance back from the intersecting street right-of-way. Indeed, in Paris, a city noted for its street trees, if the regular spacing of trees along the street runs short at an intersection, there is likely to be an extra tree placed at the corner. For at least 250 years, the finest of streets the world over have been associated with trees. Elm or oak shaded residential and commercial main streets remain as memories, but seldom as realities, of the best American urbanism. In the automobile age, a real concern with safety has resulted in street tree standards in the United States that dictate long setbacks from intersections, ostensibly geared to achieving unobstructed sight lines for drivers. But are street trees the safety problem they are purported to be? And are other physical, controllable qualities more important for preserving sight lines at intersections?

This study and report is about street trees and intersection safety in urban contexts. The study derives from a rather simple, straightforward observation: that on the best tree-lined streets the trees come close to the corners. They do not stop at some distance back from the intersecting street right-of-way. Indeed, in Paris, a city noted for its street trees, if the regular spacing of trees along the street runs short at an intersection, there is likely to be an extra tree placed at the corner. For at least 250 years, the finest of streets the world over have been associated with trees. Elm or oak shaded residential and commercial main streets remain as memories, but seldom as realities, of the best American urbanism. In the automobile age, a real concern with safety has resulted in street tree standards in the United States that dictate long setbacks from intersections, ostensibly geared to achieving unobstructed sight lines for drivers. But are street trees the safety problem they are purported to be? And are other physical, controllable qualities more important for preserving sight lines at intersections?

California passed its landmark climate change legislation, Assembly Bill (AB) 32, in 2006, ushering in a new era in state policymaking. Faced with a challenging new environmental mandate to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, state policymakers grappled with how to comply.

One result was the passage of another piece of landmark legislation in the state – Senate Bill (SB) 375 – in 2008.

SB 375 aims to achieve greenhouse gas reductions from land use and transportation through better coordination of local and regional development plans. The law requires that regions (through regional planning organizations, in cooperation with local governments) develop

“Sustainable Communities Strategies” to achieve more efficient land use and transportation by aligning some planning processes that traditionally had been disconnected. However, SB 375 does not require that local governments comply with the Sustainable Communities Strategies nor does it redirect or create new funding sources to support sustainable planning practices or projects.

This report identifies state and regional policies and programs that could support the objectives of SB 375. The Center for a Sustainable California (CSC) research team first evaluated the policy context surrounding SB 375. Secondly, the team identified policies (proposed and existing) from California and elsewhere that contribute to accomplishing climate policy goals by linking land use and transportation. In addition, the team interviewed a number of stakeholders, representing various organizational perspectives, to ask for their views on a range of potential state and regional policy actions aimed at strengthening SB 375 implementation. Finally, the team developed this report, to present cumulative research findings on policy challenges that threaten to undermine effective SB 375 implementation and to recommend a set of priority actions to address these challenges.