This chapter describes how, because traffic congestion is essentially a regional phenomenon, regional approaches are necessary in coping with it as effectively as possible. Up to now in the United States, the complexity of such approaches and their conflict with deeply embedded attitudes favoring fragmented local governance over land uses have both impeded effective anticongestion policies. The time has come not only to reexamine these obstacles to effective action, but to overcome them by adopting truly regional policies that deal with key aspects of the many forces affecting traffic congestion.

This paper presents a catalog of 34 different proposed research and direct action policies aimed at futhering the two basic goals of public antidiscrimination policies: (1) ending unequal treatment of households in housing transactions because of their race or ethnicity, and (2) counteracting existing racial residential segregation by promoting stable racial integration. These 34 proposals have been derived from the many papers in this volume, plus a few suggestions by the author. Each proposal is evaluated against five specific criteria of desirability: potential effectiveness, government costs, private‐sector costs, ease of implementation, and political feasibility. A final overall evaluation of each is made, and all policies are divided into three priority categories: high, moderate, and low. Many recommended policies are synergistic. This whole effort should have very high overall priority in American social policy.

In March 1990, Secretary Jack Kemp of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) appointed a 22‐member commission to investigate the nature and extent of regulatory barriers to affordable housing, as well as what to do about them. Chaired by Thomas Keane, ex‐Republican governor of New Jersey, the Advisory Commission on Regulatory Barriers to Affordable Housing grappled with this issue for over a year, releasing its final report in early July 1991.1 As a commission member, I had an unusual opportunity to observe just how the commission worked and what it accomplished. This paper tries to put those two subjects in perspective. It has been written from the viewpoint of a longtime specialist on housing, who also served on the very first urban commission—the Douglas commission—23 years ago.2 Notes The views in this article are solely those of the author and not necessarily those of The Brookings Institution, its trustees, or its other staff members.