Bad Employment Location Decisions

Annoying me to no end are decisions to locate major new employment opportunities in areas that have no access to regional rapid transit.  The most recent of these is the idea that Berkeley Labs would take the Golden Gate Fields horse racing track and redevelop it to bring all the employees together that were once in different places. 

This is a laudable goal however it's right next to a major freeway and will basically add more transportation costs to the University, AC Transit district while also increasing auto traffic (A mention of 2,500 cars).  I'm sure my taxes will have to pay for that stupidity.  Apparently downtown Oakland isn't good enough. 

I think Auto Row might be a good location for this campus, right next to Pill Hill and Kaiser hospital.  There's plenty of space for a few tall buildings, its ripe for redevelopment because of all the parking lots, and its on a major transit route, and fairly close to BART.  Another good place would be downtown Oakland.  There's plenty of space if they really took a look.  People seem to be lazy and look for what amounts to an urban greenfield.  They really need to get an imagination. 

Station Locations and Employment Centers

I don't quite get why folks in Bellevue are so set on keeping transit out of the center of the employment district. For some reason many of them irrationally believe that the line will end life as we know it, yet in all respects the line will improve the center's economic standing by providing more access to the jobs for the regional workforce. The solution of one Bellevue council member is to place a station along the freeway and provide a long walkway to the center of the district.

Others argue that Denver has a bus connection, so why should it be that big a deal that the employment center is connected to the train station by a bus? For one thing, Denver's bus mall is dedicated to transit alone and has buses coming so often that you can always see the next one approaching. I seriously doubt that a place which has fought against light rail so hard would put dedicated bus lanes downtown and run such a service. But really what is the point of rapid transit if it doesn't go into the center of activity? The more apt comparison is Bellview station in Denver (funny how the names are the same) right next to the tech center, which we have discussed in previous posts. That should be used as an example of what to avoid when locating a station near a major employment center.

Apparently there is a lot of research that discusses the issue as well. Robert Cervero has looked at this issue in a paper called Office Development, Rail Transit, and Commuting Choices. Ultimately the findings show that the further the station is away from office buildings are, the less likely workers are going to use transit. If the station is near the office, workers are three times more likely to take transit to work.

Also employment density matters as well. The greater the employment density, the more people will take transit. In the Bay Area, the Cervero paper cites statistics that for every 100 workers per acre more, 2.2 increase in commuting by transit. In the Twin Cities, Professor Gary Barnes of the University of Minnesota found that the central city and CBD were greater attractors of transit ridership than suburban offices. So for every increase in 1000 people per square mile in residential density, CBD ridership increased by 2.43%, central city destinations increased by 1.15% and suburban job locations increased by .63%. Ultimately where you are going matters just as much if not more than where you are coming from.

For light rail lines, transit ridership increases the more jobs are within a half mile of the station. Using LEHD data, if you look at recently constructed light rail lines and employment within a half mile of the station, the number of jobs is related to the number of riders that a line gets. Here are a number of recently constructed lines charted against workers.

So with all this evidence why would anyone ever think about running a line outside of an employment district instead of right through it to capture more riders? The goal should be to boost and improve accessibility for workers, who make up 60% of transit ridership, not make it harder for them to use transit.

Previous posts on this subject:

Importance of Employment Centers
When Road Engineers Do LRT

A Madison Strain of Crazy

I'm always a bit surprised (but shouldn't be) when I read an article like this about how extreme conservatives believe that folks interested in smart growth and livable communities are trying to push their lifestyle on everyone else. They raise the specter of the iron curtain and soviet apartment blocks that were designed and built in the same era as Pruitt Igoe and other poorly thought out urban renewal projects that followed the ideas of Le Corbusier in the United States and around the world. I would hope those mistakes would not be repeated, and all urbanists know better.

But everyone who reads here knows the histories and the market distortions of sprawl which has absolutely dominated the market over the last 60 years. If anything, its they who are forcing everyone to live their lifestyle, a sick distortion of the actual desires of at least some Americans such as myself who want to live in an urban walkable environment. By not providing a choice in living, or transportation, the opponents of livable communities are telling us that the actual market doesn't matter and that they know what is best even though they would like us to believe that their way is the choice of the people, even those who don't have a choice.

We know that not all in their circle believe this way and ultimately building cities shouldn't be a partisan issue. The road towards transit and walkability is a sustainable one from a fiscal and environmental standpoint. I think many times we overlook the power of fiscal arguments for the movement at our own peril. The research on sprawl is not good, and people are starting to get it, a bit late, but at least they are starting to see how value is created by cities and urbanism is a fiscally responsible choice.

For those who still believe we're forcing a move towards urbanism, if they continue down the same path, spending money in ways we can't afford to continue, they might find that they have less choice in the future rather than a real choice now.

When Road Engineers Do LRT

I mentioned in a previous post that I don't believe freeways are places for stations. I stand by that remark and worry that here in the United States, we're worried so much about the lowest cost we don't really care about the outcome on ridership, as long as it hits a target for cost effectiveness (the FTA kind) that makes us marginally happy.

Unfortunately using this cost index we're not maximizing our opportunities when we decided that the freeway is the place to be all the time outside of the CBD. I don't disagree with folks like Jarrett when they say that rapid transit has its best opportunities to run fast in the freeway. But at the same time, there are similar opportunities to leave the freeway ROW when it comes time to have a station and connect the places that people ultimately want to go, and the parcels that should be redeveloped into walkable districts.

I believe a perfect example of this is the Denver Tech Center. When they designed the T Rex project, why didn't they go forward with the option that would have allowed direct access to the center of the employment district? I imagine it was perceived cost compared to running time. It didn't matter that its where people wanted to go, when the train was moving it was running fast, so stopping on the other side of the freeway was a better option for the ridership modelers and the engineers designing the road.

It doesn't look like anyone was thinking of people when they designed the interchange. I'm sure they are happy with the way the light rail and freeway interchanges look and operate, but unfortunately the engineers did nothing for people riding the train to work in the second largest employment center in the Denver region. Now the line is on the other side of the freeway, away from the largest market forces in the area and not available to change the parking lots over because of the continued utility of the car. In the cold of winter people get to walk over an overpass above a bunch of cars driving at 65 miles per hour.

The map below shows a routing that would have been very easy to build in my mind and not cost much more money. You could have surface stops and a few cut and cover tunnels would be needed but nothing huge. It likely would have brought over time a jump in tens of thousands of riders over the long term. Simple ideas like this is why I don't like the idea of freeway running. It gives designers a free out when it comes to designing for people instead of cars. The map below also shows where the videos below that I took came from.


View Denver Tech Center in a larger map

Video 1



Video 2




I also still believe that its possible to have fairly rapid transit on arterial streets, we just need to do it right. Sometimes such as in Charlotte you get lucky with a freight ROW that runs parallel to a major arterial and a major freeway. In this instance, you have the best opportunities. But for the most part, major highways don't lend themselves to going places where people want to go on foot. While it might seem like a nice compromise, I think that we're selling ourselves short if we continue to build stops in the center of the freeway.

And ultimately in the United States where we don't seem to know how to design rapid transit, its perhaps best to keep it away from the freeway all together, especially if this mistake will continue to be made where it seems cost is more important ultimately than connecting major employment districts directly.

Begin the Begin

I think Tom Radulovich hits the nail on the head with the basic tenants of this post. Infill stations are a no brainer, especially where suggested and core capacity and operating should be addressed. Don't forget to check all the rosy ridership assumptions at the door. However I don't think we can just sit and rest on our laurels. We need to find ways to build in greater capacity within Oakland, San Francisco and to a certain degree San Jose so people don't rely on thier cars as much. And while there are several BRT lines on the books, that is not going to be enough to deal with the rising tide of need. The longer term needs to be considered right now including that second tube and more urban extensions. Currently the plan calls for that tube, but more and more outward extensions are planned, meaning more and more funding will go to places that shouldn't get it. It's an export of our tax dollars to elsewhere and a practice that should be rectified.

San Francisco should have built a true Metro long ago and I still believe that is one of the major things this city can do to enhance existing service and get people out of thier cars (There are also a million little things that should be happening as we speak) As other cities have shown, 10,000 passengers per mile is possible with greater network connectivity. If we have core rapid transit within San Francisco and Oakland with quality bus and trams as redundancies and networks, there's no reason why we can't get a million more trips a day. Sure that might sound like a daunting number, but we need to look into the future of what is needed.

When my grandmother was born, there were still streetcars in every major city and very little automobile traffic. In her lifetime, there has been a huge change. Systems such as BART and WMATA have been constructed and the region has invested billions in its highway systems. We CAN invest in our future again. There's no reason why another Great Society Subway can't be constructed. And for those who say we don't have the money or that we're asking for the impossible, take a look at yourself and ask why that is.

You can call me a dreamer or an ivory tower thinker. Worse things have happened. But I'd hate to look back and see some kid like me drawing fantasy lines on a map and wishing that we would have invested in his generation, instead of just thinking of ourselves and our own defecits of imagination. If we listened to the same types of people that said no then, we wouldn't have a BART or Muni system to worry about now. Imagine San Francisco without rapid transit at all.

While we might not be able to plan and construct Metros right now, we can start to think about how a better region can emerge from our planning. Just because we don't have money now doesn't mean we should toss out these ideas or shouldn't plan for them. It just means we need to incubate them, for that point in the future when they should bloom.

Cost Crash?

I wonder how many costs such as Fastracks in Denver are wildly overestimated in this current fiscal environment. The estimates of late from BART are encouraging even if their line is a skeptical investment.

...here's the latest. BART estimated it would cost nearly $250 million to begin construction this summer on the Fremont-to-Warm Springs extension. The low bid came in at $137 million, or 45 percent below the projected cost. The Bay Area Rapid Transit District still has to evaluate this bid before awarding a contract, so it's not a done deal. But the five next lowest bids are within $7 million of the low offer.

For more commentary on cost overruns, check out Orphan Road.

The Indigo Line

The Fairmount Line is the only T Commuter rail line that stays within the Boston city limits. It's also been neglected over the years with poor maintenance and limited stations through one of the more challenged neighborhoods in Boston. However there have been recent plans by the CDCs to add five or so stations and make this line a part of the rapid transit network and use the new station construction to get better service on the line as well as more opportunities for affordable housing. Because of the patterns of parcelization and built out nature of the corridor, it would be hard to expect a major renaissance but small progress is to be expected.

Better service would definitely improve the corridor too. It will be interesting to see how it works out. Recent planning and funding put forward by the Patrick administration suggests that this will be done soon but rejoicing should wait until its actually complete. For more information on this corridor, check out the report chapter by Reconnecting America that discusses tools and policies for revitalization. (Warning, 38MB)

Before You Walk Out the Door

I'm not sure who to believe on this one, but this seems like something the FTA could do. Now it's also the fault of Maryland if they didn't file paperwork necessary, but it seems like paperwork shouldn't stop anyone from getting funding. Though I'm not sure exactly how planning earmarks work with the FTA.

Baltimore City Red Line coordinator Danyell Diggs also blamed federal officials for the loss of funds."This is just one final anti-transit action by the Bush administration on its way out the door," said Diggs in an e-mail.

"We are looking forward to January 20 and a president who values transit as a means of strengthening communities." Milkulski spokesman Cassie Harvey said FTA officials decided to redistribute the funds outside Maryland after Congress failed to re-authorize New Starts, a federal program that funds mass transit projects nationwide.

Left Behind

As the Transit Space Race heats up, there will be winners, and there will be losers.

Atlanta has missed the boat on public transportation compared with some other cities, said the president of a national mass transit organization. Now that more people are driving less, the consequences could be grave. “You’ll get left in the dust,” said William Millar, president of the American Public Transportation Association....

...Millar pointed to cities like Charlotte, Denver and Salt Lake City that are building or expanding their mass-transit systems. He said they will be able to draw more employers with good jobs and offer a better quality of life.

Toronto's Rapid Transit Plan

Steve Munro as usual has the plan. Again, as I said before, they are spending more money on transit in this one city than we do through the federal new starts program. Priorities?

We already have a fabulous rapid-transit system…

…it’s called the freeway! That's what a board member of the Central Ohio Transit Agency said in Columbus. How do these guys get appointed to a transit board if they don't even like transit? It also seems to be an Ohio thing. Stephan Louis was on the Board of SORTA, Cincinnati's transit agency. From a 2006 Citybeat Article:

Someone who signed his name as Stephan Louis replied, "Good points throughout your piece. With me sitting on pivotal boards, rail won't likely happen here for some time, but not necessarily. In either event, the city of Cinn. is unlikely to remain in the top 25 metros by 2010."

If you read the article, he denies what he said, but its all on the internets. Can't hide from that.

Sloooow Subway Escalators

I was on the escalator going down the cavern that is the Dupont Circle station and thought, man these are really slow. I realize that the Budapest escalators would never be considered safe here, but man do they get the job done.

Slooowww Dupont Circle



Faaast Budapest

Sprawl and Regeneration in Budapest

Sprawl is not limited to the United States. In fact my favorite transit city is under attack from all flanks. Budapest is feeling the horrors of eurosprawl and like everywhere else, it comes with a cost.

"We've exchanged [Victorian-era] London-type smog for Los Angles-type smog," laments Janos Zlinszky of the Regional Environmental Center for Central and Eastern Europe. "The nature of our environmental problems is shifting."

Across east-central Europe, a region once blighted by Communist-era pollution, economic development is bringing on a new set of environmental problems and, in some cases, bringing back old ones.

The main culprit? American style suburbs. Never would have guessed.

Budapest's worsening air pollution is due in large part to the advent of American-style suburban housing developments and shopping centers, according to Andras Lukacs, president of the Clean Air Action Group. "Several hundred thousand people have moved out of central Budapest and gone to these new so-called residential parks in what used to be green areas," he says. "Each day they come back to their jobs here, but because public transportation isn't so good out there, they take their cars."

But public transit is awesome in the city. They are building two new subway lines in addition to the three they have already. During communism, the transit share was 80% but that system came with a heavy price including an underinvestment in all infrastructure. Many buildings are falling apart and have to have some really hefty scaffolding. Here is a photo I took of the big box sprawl. It was noticeable on the train so I took a shot. The photo below the sprawl is some building scaffolding that keeps building pieces from falling while they are repairing it.

"He Had No Transportation Experience"

Anyone know an arabian horse judge for the DOT job? Today in the Washington Post there was an expose on Tyler Duval, a Bush appointee because of connections ("It was a friend of a friend thing") and DJ Gribbin who was a family friend of Dick Cheney. Their goal is to reduce the roll of government in transportation expenditures and instead privatize everything. But transit means nothing to them because as it stands, it can't be sold off to the highest bidder. So as we've been saying, they have been trying to kill transit as evidenced by their recent try to get toll roads into the new starts program.

Even if the next president reverses its policies, the Bush administration will leave a legacy of new toll roads across the country, a growing number of public roads leased to private companies, and dozens of stalled commuter rail, streetcar and subway projects -- including the $5 billion extension of Metro to Dulles International Airport.

As mentioned in a post by Steve Davis at Smart Growth America, one of the targets Duval and Gribbin hope to get rid of with congestion pricing is earmarks. But as he also mentions, earmarks are a small part of the total expenditures with most of the money going to state DOTs who spend it without goals or measures of success on freeways. But many of the earmarks are projects that have merit, but can't wrestle funding away from We've seen this in the last week where there has been a fight over an earmark for the Central Corridor, a very worthy project.

But here's a catch with the congestion money giveaways. The funding for those pilot congestion pricing projects came from funds that usually go to replacing buses in cities and the small starts program. Congestion pricing has nothing to do with funding for buses in rural areas or in cities that need to replace older buses but have seen their funding continue to sucked up by gasoline prices.

"I couldn't believe they could get away with this, to just take that money away," said Mark Munson, director of the Regional Transit Authority in Dubuque, which has been frequently forced to deny trips to the elderly and disabled because there are not enough buses and volunteers can't fill all the gaps.

Duvall is unapologetic, saying the traditional pork-barrel process of divvying up transportation dollars is bad policy. The proof, he said, is the fact that increased government spending on transportation has not slowed congestion.

If pricing is implemented, there should be a real plan to give people an alternative of real rapid transit. The New York plan is great because they have plenty of alternatives to get places in the pricing zone. Ryan discusses the need to do both as well. And Frank at Orphan Road warns us to be wary of going too far.

This is the reason why it really matters who becomes President next. Political appointments really have a huge push on policy and if we keep the same trajectory, we'll be stuck with these two guys for 4 more years.

And if you think there were a lot of innocent contractors on the death star, Ryan has some conspiracy theories for you as well. I'm not sure if they are that far from the truth given what has happened since Bush took office.

US PIRG Releases Transit Report

The US Public Interest Research Group released a report titled 'A Better Way to Go' this week. If you're a transit advocate and need some ammo for any coming fights I highly recommend it. The chapter that most interested me was the one about underinvestment in transit. They did some digging and found out how much investment we've made in transit versus highways in this country and even I was shocked at the chart. And this is just highways...not local roads, parking spaces etc.


A few other pieces of information from the report:

Carbon dioxide from our automobiles equals the total emissions from Germany, Japan and Canada.

Commercial Parking lots in this country cover more space than the state of Delaware.

Rail saves a lot of oil with heavy rail systems like the subways in New York and Washington DC doing most of the heavy lifting. The chart below shows oil savings from LRT.

Transit provides a wide range of benefits including, reduced road expenditures, reduced cost from traffic accidents and reduced public and private costs to providing parking.

Investments in transit create 19% more jobs than equivalent investments in roads.

In 2005, the subsidy to highways was $39 billion dollars.

In 2005, the state expenditure on highways was $100 B dollars. Transit was $7.8B

And many more...

At the end of the report PIRG advocates that we stop spending money on new highways and shift to building more transit. The Interstate Highway Program has funded all of the necessary highways in this country and its time to fill the gap between what was neglected in the last half of the 2oth century.

You Work on Friday to Pay for Your Auto Dependence

Peter Newman is the person who gave us the term Automobile Dependence and has been an excellent fighter in the war against it. He also has been looking at density as it pertains to transit usage and walkability. What I like best about this interview in the Oregonian is that he refutes the myth and conservative talking point that planners and transit agencies are in search of the perfect city and ultimately want you to get rid of your car. I certainly don't advocate that as I own a car myself, but am lucky enough to use it very little.

Q: So you don't advocate some sort of wholesale getting rid of the automobile or that people will on a large scale in small or midsize cities not use cars at all?

A: No. The ideal city, I reject.

You can have carfree areas. I would say the city center of Portland is car free in that sense. There is a freedom from the car. You don't have to have a car there. You can live there, you can work there, in a way that enables you to have that freedom.

He also discusses the subsidies for automobiles that only recently have been gaining attention such as health care for auto accidents and big oil.

But to attack transit as being subsidized whilst not seeing the subsidies for car dependence is not a level playing field. We do those numbers in Australia, they're similar in America.

The politics is changing. We can no longer subsidize the increase in VMT - we have to subsidize the decrease in VMT. There is no choice in that.

And the kicker is he punches a hole in the freeway capacity issue. We've got to stop building wider freeways. He even suggests ripping them down like the Embarcadero or such as what should happen to the Viaduct in Seattle. I'm not sure if that is palatable for interstate highways but who am I to keep anyone from dreaming big. It's amazing how much tax base is taken away by these huge roads that move cars as fast as possible through cities instead of creating value.

Q: We have a $4 billion proposal to replace a six-lane highway bridge on Interstate 5 with a new bridge that would have six highway lanes, plus six auxiliary lanes. It would also extend light rail to the northern suburbs and have generous pedestrian facilities. It's been billed as having a little bit for everyone. Is that kind of project worth pursuing?

A: Four billion dollars is what you're going to need for building these transit lines and subcenters. Keeping the traffic moving is what you have to stop doing. VMT (vehicle miles traveled) reductions are not going to be promoted by that bridge. There will be a whole series of freeways taken down when they reach the end of their life in cities around the world. The one in Seoul (South Korea) came down. Now it's a beatiful river, and a park with transit. The mayor who did it is now the president.

Q: So increase rail transit, to the detriment of roads?

A: Any decent rail system can carry eight lanes of traffic equivalent - on this narrow little track. It's a capacity issue. You can only carry 2,500 people an hour down a freeway lane. You can get 50,000 an hour on a rail system - 20 times as much. That space is enormously valuable. There's no doubt in my mind that's what you've got to do.

This video is great. My favorite quote is when he states you are basically working one day a week to pay for your transport. I'm gonna make it Friday.

Transit Effectiveness Project

I went to a meeting tonight where there was a presentation on the transit effectiveness project in San Francisco. I wish I would have had my thumb drive as there were some fascinating maps with great data. I found them but they aren't high quality. Here is the link to the Geary data showing where people get on and off the bus. If only all transit agencies went and got this type of information, we would know a lot more about operations. The following maps are located in this presentation. All the screen shots below are courtesy of Muni.

Operating Speed: This shows where Muni is really slowed down by traffic. No Surprise that Van Ness and Stockton are some of the worst. I wish we would have had this data before the 3rd Street LRT project was started. Take a look at that street. Green. This is why data is important. It makes political decisions much easier. Now thats not to say that it won't get more congested as the are grows around light rail and it needed to become rail at some point, but there are many pressing needs in the city, mainly Van Ness and the long orange Geary.



Boardings: This shows where people board the buses. The most effective transit is on the main corridors and major traffic generators. It's interesting to note that where there is a high capacity spine, there are a lot of boardings. Most noticeable is along Mission BART. It shows how system boardings would probably improve if BART was expanded to Geary then down 19th such as proposed by SF Cityscape. It would improve boardings on the bus lines connecting to the stations.



Trips: The above observation is proven below in that there is a missing link between the Sunset and Richmond districts. The red dots are total trips between districts. Since there are a lot of trips North from the Richmond South towards SF State it would make a lot of sense to have rapid transit fed by east west buses.




Data. It's an amazing thing. According to one AC Transit board member at tonight's TALC meeting, they will be doing this soon as well which should bring some even more interesting results.

New Blogs for the Roll

Just thought I would share a few new blogs with folks. Give them a click.

Jacksonville Transit - Transit News from Jacksonville Florida.

Light Rail AZ - Discussing Phoenix Light Rail Issues.

Light Rail in Grand Rapids - A Discussion of Grand Rapids Transit Progress.

Street Heat - LA Transportation News.

Making Connections to the Airport

Recently there has been a lot of talk of connecting light rail with airports in cities around the country. There seem to be two discussions going on of how to connect to the airport; extending a line out to the airport, and running a line through the airport if its already passing the area.

If the city is building its first light rail line, I'm not sure a move to the airport alone is the best decision for a city to make. While its good to connect the airport to downtown for travelers, they don't make up a big enough share of transit users to justify a first line. The first line, as has been said a lot lately, should be a starter line that will get the highest ridership and connect the most destinations. Extensions can move to the airport and some airports might even be willing to build or pay for that connection such as TIA in Tampa.

In Sacramento, there is a discussion going on as to whether the DNA line should extend all the way to the airport. This is covered with good points by RT Rider. The line is going to go to Nantomas and I don't see a reason why at some point the line shouldn't be extended to the airport. Because so many people go to Sacramento to the state capitol, it would seem to me that there would be a lot more trips than general generated from the airport and would make the city a bit more competitive for jobs and growth.

In Dallas, some locals are upset that the new light rail line didn't get a tunnel to love field which it will pass along its alignment. It is silly for the federal government to base this decision on cost alone (cost effectiveness strikes again) because as Richard Layman discusses, there are much more external benefits that aren't counted in a traditional cost benefit ratio usually touted by the Reason foundation and the anti-transit faction who of course don't use that same measure for roads. But now, Dallas is looking to tax flights to pay for a people mover to connect the airport and light rail station in a subway.

Austin's Mayor and a council member have opened discussions recently to build light rail to the airport. If that line goes through Riverside and up Guadalupe, it would be a good extension, and could possibly spur TOD along Riverside towards the Airport. But perhaps a phase II scheme would be best.

Some here in San Francisco argue that BART to SFO should have never been built but rather Caltrain should have been electrified and a people mover connect the station to the airport. Obviously for me its easier with BART to the airport to get there because instead of a one seat ride I'd have a three seat ride. Obviously I like it, but it benefits me directly.

So what does this mean? Is it important to connect to the airport? Depends on who you ask. Personally, I think that an airport connection by rail is a sign that the city is moving in the right direction. It should be the goal of cities to make it easier for travelers to get places they visit without cars while also making it painless to get to the airport sans traffic jam. But the regional benefits and connections should be taken into account as well.

Those Who Do Not Learn From History...

Are Doomed to Repeat It.

Two big elections tomorrow. Charlotte and Seattle. This will determine the future of two regions. If I lived in either region I would vote for the transit.

Charlotte

The city is trying to change its development paradigm. By building an extensive transit network that includes streetcars, light rail, commuter rail and rapid bus, the region will certainly change the way it grows up. It's up to the citizens to decide whether they want to be a regional city or a national metropolitan area. Since the City of Charlotte has the tools to develop the right way around transit, there is no doubt that if the transit tax is retained, the city will continue to change.

Seattle

The Seattle region is a bit different from Charlotte. Chalk full of environmentalists that like to shoot their own feet and the usual car obsessed road warriors, this region just needs to get started. They've been fighting about this transit decision since the 1960s and still haven't gotten what they so desperately need, a core rapid transit system. But if you need proof that this should get done, one only need to look at the same thing being discussed 40 years ago. This is going to keep coming up, it'll also keep costing more. Start already will ya?