Send your JPEGs to sarah [@] streetsblog [dot] org, or tag them with "kidbikes" and "streetsblog" in Flickr. Your deadline is next Tuesday, November 24.

Our past slide shows have been on bike traffic, space hogs, work bikes and crummy transit conditions. Check them out if you haven't already.

The piece, by Haya el Nasser, starts out talking about how population is falling in many of the suburbs that grew most quickly over the last few decades -- places like Bellevue, Washington. These communities have become known as "boomburbs." But their boom days are past -- for now. Some have begun losing population.

Will light rail pave the way to a different future in Irving, Texax? Photo: pinecone.

Robert Lang, a professor of sociology at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas who coined the term "boomburbs," put it this way: "The irony is that if they want to keep growing, they must grow as cities, which is diametrically opposite of how they got so big in the first place."

And transit will be key to that transformation:

Population has declined since 2006 in Irving, Texas, but the city is prepared for healthy growth as soon as a light-rail line to Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport is completed. "Eventually, you have to shift your focus to not just booming growth but redevelopment," Mayor Herbert Gears says. "That (rail) line is what's given us the opportunity to create an urban center."

Condominiums, apartments and retail are planned along the transit line. The city projects a 240,000 population by 2015, an 11% jump.

Growth in Henderson, Nev., near Las Vegas, has slowed but not stopped. "With the slowdown we've seen, it gives us an opportunity to take a breath," says city spokesman Bud Cranor. Henderson is focused on creating "green" jobs and a more sustainable urban environment, he says.

The article highlights what is emerging as a powerful unifying argument for smarter development: economics. It's an approach that could bring conservatives and liberals together. And it will certainly be part of Transportation for America's upcoming discussion on conservatives and public transportation.

Photo: hebedesign via Flickr

While researching a recent pedestrian death in Savannah, I ran across this television news report, which I think deserves to be examined on its own. If I’m hearing him correctly, this is the message delivered by a Savannah Chatham Metropolitan Police officer:

"Someone could be looking down at their cellphone. Next thing they know they look up and there’s a kid in the road or a person in the road where they are not supposed to be at. And they don’t have time to stop. And like I said, pedestrians will lose that battle every time."

Perhaps this short comment from the officer was taken from a longer segment in which he railed against distracted driving. I hope that’s the case and if so, I commend him for it. But if not, it suggests a terribly casual attitude toward an awfully dangerous practice.

Sustainable Savannah links to Tom Vanderbilt's recent excellent essay on Slate, "In Defense of Jaywalking." Read it if you haven't already. It is a concise and well-researched examination of the biases against pedestrians -- biases that are reflected in media coverage and law enforcement, but most importantly, in street design.

First, Steve Davis at Transportation for America reports on the meeting T4A and several of its partners had with U.S. DOT Secretary Ray LaHood on Monday. The meeting was to deliver a petition with more than 4,100 signatures gathered after last week's release of the "Dangerous by Design" report on pedestrian fatalities:

U.S. DOT Secretary Ray LaHood with James Corless of Transportation for America and Barbara McCann of the National Complete Streets Coalition

With the petition and a copy of Dangerous by Design in front of him, LaHood listened intently as T4 America’s James Corless and others talked about the epidemic of preventable deaths -- and what we can do to turn the tide and keep pedestrians safe.

Secretary LaHood was hopeful that federal transportation policy can better accommodate all users and keep them safe, and that now is the right time to make that change.

“I think this Congress gets it now,” Secretary LaHood told us. “Certainly in part because of advocates like you.” He acknowledged that making the streets in our communities safe and accommodating for everyone dovetails well with the Obama administration’s focus on livability.

He stressed that safety is the top consideration for everything they do at USDOT and urged T4 America to take the report directly to Congress as they continue discussions on the full six-year transportation bill. He also asked for more copies of Dangerous by Design (on their way, Mr. Secretary!).

We'll be keeping an eye on developments.

It quotes a leader in the Wisconsin Republican Party painting transit-oriented development as a red menace: "This has been done before," Dane County Republican Party spokesman Bill Richardson said on a Madison radio show. "The Soviet Union and in East Berlin and all those places. They built these ... very ugly high-rise apartments, and they jammed people into these."

We were happy to see that Streetsblog Network member The Overhead Wire posted a quick response to this nonsense:

What kind of development is really being forced on Americans? (Photo: co-plex via Flickr)

[E]veryone 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, it's 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...

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.

It will be interesting to see how the division over transportation policy among conservatives develops in the next few months. Will the ideology of fear trump more evidence-based economic analysis? What do you think?

The blog's author, Bill Lindeke, writes about the recently concluded "Blue Zones" project that was conducted in Albert Lea, Minnesota, under the sponsorship of the AARP and the United Health Foundation. The five-month project aimed at encouraging people to make incremental changes -- such as eating healthier food and walking more -- that could extend their lives and improve their overall well-being.

Reports on the success of the experiment are mixed. That's hardly surprising, writes Twin City Sidewalks, since the autocentric infrastructure of most American communities is such a powerful shaping force in our everyday lives:

Not too many people have access to this kind of infrastructure anymore. (Photo: Christopher Alexander's "Timeless Way of Building")

Lately, the public health world has been trying to change this fabric, and to make exercise and movement a part of American everyday life again. But that is a very difficult thing to do, precisely because all these systems of movement, shopping, interacting, and living are everywhere. In most Minnesotan homes, we need cars to do just about anything. Most of the time, you don't have a choice to walk or bike to do an errand.

So, efforts like Albert Lea's Blue Zones project are really tilting at windmills (just like this blog, in fact)...

Of course I found it excellent that the city identified sidewalks as a key factor in reinstalling walking within everyday life. It's just a very difficult thing to actually accomplish, because of the interlinked nature of movement patterns. Even if you have a sidewalk, without a corner store or small library (without a giant parking lot in front of it), the actual concrete slab doesn't do you much good.

It took 50 years to change our cities so that walking and biking are nearly impossible. It's going to take a long time to make them easy and convenient again.

Is the idealism of something like the Blue Zones project ultimately productive? Or does it simply play into stereotypes about dreamy idealism that can't effect real change?

Let us know what you think in the comments.

In Chicago, the Active Transportation Alliance rallied at an intersection where a pedestrian was killed in a hit-and-run last month to demand safer conditions in that city. Five Chicagoans have died in the last month after being hit by drivers.

From the Active Transportation Alliance blog:

A Chicago sidewalk near the spot where Martha Gonzalez was killed by a hit-and-run driver October 13. (Photo: Steven Vance of Steven Can Plan)

Active Trans and Center for Neighborhood Technology called on our leaders today to make streets safer for pedestrians. Transportation for America, a national campaign, released a national report that ranks Chicagoland 41st in a list of the 50 most dangerous metropolitan areas in the country for pedestrians.

We gathered at 18th and Halsted streets this morning with representatives from Chicago Police and the 25th Ward to talk about street design and the laws that make it easier for drivers to disregard pedestrians.

Martha Gonzalez was a victim of fatal crash at that intersection last month and it was powerful to have her family there.

Tell your senator to support HB43! This legislation would require drivers to STOP for pedestrians. These deaths are preventable and we have solutions that have proven effective in other communities. Call on your leaders to act now!

The report ranked Louisville, Kentucky, as the seventh most dangerous metro area with more than 1 million residents. Network member Broken Sidewalk notes that this is in spite of a relatively high rate of spending on pedestrian infrastructure:

If Louisville is spending among the most per person for pedestrian improvements but still ranks among the worst metro areas for safety, then we’re either not putting our money in the right places or there’s a more fundamental problem that must be addressed.

I’m not going to try and diagnose these problems right now, but I would be willing to guess that addressing speed will be a key factor. Dangerous by Design points out the alarming truth about a pedestrian’s survival rate when struck at various speeds. When hit at 20MPH, your chances of recovery are good at 95 percent.  As speed increases, survival rate drops rapidly.  At 30MPH, the rate stands at 55 percent and at 40MPH your chances of survival are only 15 percent. Considering so many of Louisville’s arterials have a posted speed limit of 45 (or sometimes more) miles per hour, it’s no wonder that so many pedestrian deaths occur on arterial roads.

I clicked through right away, because that line had so much resonance for me.

The post turned out to be a link to a story from the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel by Richard L. Birch. He's a business writer who lives in Milwaukee but also has an apartment in Almería, Spain, where his wife's family is from.

Here's what he writes about re-entry into his native country:

Photo: Sprawled Out

Arriving home from Spain, we drove through Milwaukee from Mitchell International Airport, and the eerie calm of sealing ourselves behind car windows settled over us; the "carness" of our life here spread out like a gray pall all around us.

Instead of people, conversation, shopping, eating and attending to business on the hoof, we were surrounded by access roads, parking lots, highways and bridges until we eventually passed under the shadow of the hulking three-story garage whose gloomy, and empty, cavern overshadows our magnificent art museum.

We Americans are all infrastructure -- and no people...

What's the cost for living our American way? It's not just the thousands of dollars for the second car, insurance and gas. We also have to support a lake of concrete around us -- and gas, electric and sewer lines to stretch out past the near-vacant belts beyond the older suburbs. Property taxes in Almería on our condo are one-twelfth our taxes in Milwaukee, even though the value of the two homes is roughly the same.

One-twelfth. Oh, and they throw in free health insurance.

It's a powerful piece of writing. Click through yourself to read it all.

Is there hope that momentum is shifting away from this kind of lonely landscape? Over at NRDC Switchboard, Kaid Benfield writes about a new report from PriceWaterhouseCoopers and the Urban Land Institute on the prospects for the real estate market in the United States. The report, Benfield writes, projects a gloomy future for the kind of sprawling development that Birch drove through after landing in Milwaukee.

Benfield writes:

In a section titled "markets to watch," the report also advises investors to favor convenient urban office, retail, entertainment and recreation districts where there are mass transit alternatives to driving. Investors are advised to shy away from, among other things, fringe areas "with long car com­mutes or where getting a quart of milk means taking a 15-minute drive."

Money in Memphis has gone to big projects like the FedEx forum, not to improving the downtown's streetscapes.

At the precise time that city elected officials were delivering uplifting rhetoric about the importance of downtown to the overall economic health of the region, to attracting and retaining talent and to its role as “welcome mat” to Memphis, it was engaged in a financial sleight of hand that largely set downtown adrift.…

[W]e have a proposal. We think that the Center City Commission should invite teams -- architects, residents, urbanists, young professionals and others – that would survey downtown and send in recommendations to Center City Commission.

After all, we walk the streets. We know downtown block by block. We know every special spot and every ugly wart. We know every unsightly sign put up by MATA, we know every landscaping mistake and we know every place trash accumulates.

Why not appoint us as special hit squads that’ll issue reports on the state of downtown and recommendations for improving things? We would demand downtown improvements, a design ethos and for regular reports that could be shared with elected officials on what has to be done for the city’s core to be healthier and more competitive.

I visited Memphis last spring and was struck by its unrealized potential -- both in terms of downtown infrastructure and human resources. Several people I met talked about how much they love the city and want to stay there -- but how they are being forced out by a lack of opportunity.

Smart City's post is an indication of how much potential energy there is in that place. How amazing would it be if City Hall could have the foresight and humility to take their suggestion and tap some of it?

Today on the Streetsblog Network, a story about some kids in Los Angeles who did their research and came up with several good ideas about improving conditions for bicycle commuters. Then they ran up against the reality that the public forums on the city's bike plan weren't so public. But they didn't let that stop them.

Stephen Box at SoapBox LA reports:

The FIRSTteamWestside (For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology) is a group of kids who prepared a presentation that they intended to give at the Bike Plan (draft) workshops.

Their mission was to develop a plan to improve local transportation. They did the research and they prepared and they discovered that the public workshops were not the robust public arena they desired, so they adapted.

Their coach reports, "The kids were hoping to give a presentation at one of the "public forums" but were badly disappointed when they found out that members of the public would not be allowed to speak so they posted it on YouTube and submitted the link at labikeplan.org."

The kids give an amazingly articulate and informed statement, recommending additional bike cars for the region's commuter rail system. The future is coming.

More from the network: The Transport Politic looks at the importance of aligning transitways with walkable neighborhoods. On Transport discusses the concept of "lifestyle centers" and their aspirations to create a sense of community in a suburban mall setting. And Intersection 911 reports on the 38 percent bump in Philadelphia bike commuting during the SEPTA strike.

Crowding is just one indignity transit users have to face. Others include inadequate bus shelters, nonexistent or vandalized seating, blocked entrances -- you know the stuff.

Send us your pictures of crummy transit service and infrastructure where you live and we'll put together a new slide show. You can e-mail JPEGs to me at sarah [at] streetsblog [dot] org, or tag them with "streetsblog" and "transitfail" in Flickr. Get your submissions in by next Thursday morning.

Portland Transport has a post on the connection between cul-de-sac development and safety for all street users, as discussed at the Congress for the New Urbanism Transportation Summit in Portland.

What are the dangers of cul-de-sac development? (Photo: TheMuuj via Flickr.)

For me the highlight presentation on opening day…was about the safety effects of different street network types.

The study was based on looking at all cities in California with population of 40,000 or greater. The surprising finding was that cities built before 1950 are safer (in terms of both serious injuries and fatalities for all classes of users: auto drivers/passengers, cyclists and pedestrians) than cities built after 1950.

The differences appears to be in the type of street network. Compact street grids seem to be safer, compared to the arterial-collector-local street 'tree' style of street network popular in post-war development.

No link to the study itself yet, but we're interested in hearing more.

Elly Blue writes:

Multi-use paths like the
Hawthorne Bridge have the
highest injury potential. Photo: Jonathan Maus

There’s a constant chorus -- sometimes soft, sometimes overpoweringly loud -- in every conversation about bike infrastructure in America. Its refrain: You’re safer without any bike lanes, separated lanes, cycle tracks, bike boulevards, off-road paths. Just take the lane, follow the rules, wear your helmet, and you’ll be fine.

A group of scholars at the University of British Columbia have found otherwise. They conducted a literature review, looking at all available studies linking bicycle safety with infrastructure. Their conclusions will be counterintuitive for some.

“Results to date suggest that sidewalks and multi-use trails pose the highest risk, major roads are more hazardous than minor roads, and the presence of bicycle facilities (e.g. on-road bike routes, on-road marked bike lanes, and off-road bike paths) was associated with the lowest risk.”

“One of the major advantages of infrastructure-based improvements, compared to personal protective devices such as helmets, is that safe infrastructure provides population-wide protection for all cyclists,” study co-author Meghan Winters said in a press release.

The study's abstract draws these conclusions:

Evidence is beginning to accumulate that purpose-built bicycle-specific facilities reduce crashes and injuries among cyclists, providing the basis for initial transportation engineering guidelines for cyclist safety. Street lighting, paved surfaces, and low-angled grades are additional factors that appear to improve cyclist safety. Future research examining a greater variety of infrastructure would allow development of more detailed guidelines.

I'm sure that many of our network members will want to dig deeper into this one. 

Fortunately, the problem is beginning to get some more attention, in part because of the actions of advocates like those at the National Complete Streets Coalition, who are working to implement complete streets policies around the country and at the federal level.

Curb cut to nowhere, near the spot where a driver killed a St. Louis woman using a wheelchair in the street.

Yesterday, he marked a sad anniversary on his blog:

Four years ago today Elizabeth Bansen was struck and killed by an SUV as she returned home from the market two blocks east of her apartment. Although the accident occurred around 6pm, the driver didn’t see Bansen in her wheelchair on the street.  On December 6th 2007 I posted on the jury finding the city negligent in Bansen’s death since the sidewalks were not passable.…

Yesterday I drove over to see the couple of blocks along Delmar to see if the sidewalks between the housing and the market were corrected.  Sadly, the situation is exactly like I found it in December 2007.

In Jackson, Mississippi, the situation is just as bad. There, one persistent man -- Dr. Scott Crawford -- has worked to draw attention to the pathetic condition of the local sidewalks.

We first heard about Crawford nearly a year ago through Transportation for America, when he sent them some pictures documenting the lack of access to bus stops for people with disabilities. Crawford's advocacy got attention from local news outlets. And just a few days ago he was featured in a major USA Today story about how the nation's crumbling and inadequate sidewalks are putting wheelchair users at risk across the country.

The Bicycle Coalition of Greater Philadelphia links to a local TV news story about how illegally parked cars and even construction materials are frequently blocking newly created bike lanes in that city.

The view from the bike lane in Philadelphia. Photo by Bikes on Transit via Flickr.

Meanwhile, our Twitter friend @keg41 linked this morning to an LA Times story about the growing number of cyclists in that city and the debate over how best to integrate bikes into an overwhelming car culture. The piece is pegged to the ongoing trial of a Brentwood physician who allegedly used his car to assault two cyclists on the road where he lived, but it goes on to provide a fairly thorough overview of some public health issues associated with biking, including the debate over whether bike lanes are good for bikers. Perhaps the most significant thing about the article is that it doesn't treat biking as something cute or quirky or trendy.

In St. Louis, some farming goes on right next to the airport.

[It's] basically the integration of agri-business and suburban development. The idea is introduced in three ways: introducing food gardens into yards of less than one acre, utilizing land awaiting the next economic boom and developing "farm-cultured" communities.…

But St. Louis offers many opportunities to bring agriculture close to our homes. Flying into and out of St. Louis on a regular basis I often have an excellent view of suburban agriculture. A wedge of land on the east side of I-170 at the eastern end of Lambert's main runway is being used as an active farm.

Whether it be corners of underutilized land near our airport, wedges of land next to an Interstate or vacant lots awaiting development, there is a great opportunity to create sustainable and locally produced food. 

More from around the network: World Streets rounds up the always rich seasonal report from the Victoria Transport Policy Institute, which this time includes a crucial study of consumer housing preferences and the implications for future development.

And we have two tales of suburban churches. One, according to Greater Greater Washington, is looking to possibly raise funds by repurposing its huge suburban lot, perhaps as a walkable neighborhood. Another, we learn from Indianapolis's Circles and Squares, is considering surrendering its historic building to the wrecking ball and selling its prime location to a CVS.

That implicit trust -- the necessity of it and the fragility of it -- is the topic of today's featured post from the Streetsblog Network, by Boston Biker. It's a long post, worth reading in full, but here are some of the most salient points:

Photo by Joe Nangle via Flickr.

If you think about it, almost all of our traffic control systems are either lights, or paint, or other similar “symbolic” control devices. You trust others and they trust you. On an average trip you are placing your very life in the hands of hundreds, if not thousands, of total strangers... The reason why you are alive to read this is because no one has crossed the center line, or run a red light, or any of the many other things they could have done easily and killed you...

This is why I think people who drive cars get so upset when cyclists run red lights. It is not because cyclists are breaking the rules (everyone does that, and often), it is because they are breaking the shared trust. It is offensive to the group because that trust is what keeps them alive. If you are a cyclist and you run red lights this is not something you should brush off lightly...

This idea works for just about any person driving/riding any kind of transportation. Car drivers run red lights also, they also make turns with no signals on, bikers go the wrong way down streets, pedestrians walk out against the signals...etc...etc. The point is each and every time anyone does this, not only are they breaking the rules, they are breaking down the shared trust...

So how do we rebuild this trust? The same way you build any other kind of trust. Slowly, and deliberately. Stop at that red light, walk with the signal, use your turn signals. It is going to take time, and it is going to happen slowly, and you will not be able to get anyone else to do it with you. You have to set that example. Every time you stop at a red light and you make it clear you are going to follow the rules, the person in a car next to you can see that at least some bikers don’t run reds. Every time you yield to a cyclist when you are making a left hand turn in your car the cyclist gets just a little grain of trust back in drivers. Every time you wait till the walk guy comes on to cross the street you show other walkers how it is done. It is the only way I can think of to make any real kind of steps towards rebuilding the shared trust in Boston. The nice thing about this system is that it is free, and the more you do it the better things get. There are other ways (better infrastructure, better enforcement) but they all cost a lot of money, and can not be implemented tonight on your ride home.

Idealistic? Sure. But I've been riding and walking like this lately (I've always driven like this). Partly I've been inspired by the Biking Rules initiative of Transportation Alternatives, partly inspired by a desire to get home to my family in one piece.

For the most part, my experiences have been pleasant and I have felt safer overall. A couple of times pedestrians have thanked me. A couple of times, drivers have kindly indicated it's safe to make a left turn in front of them. In general, I feel less angry and stressed. Maybe I've changed a few minds about bikers along the way.

Sure, I still get yelled at -- most recently by a woman who stepped out in front of me mid-block from behind an SUV. I was riding in the bike lane and I came to a dead stop three feet away from her, but that didn't stop her from berating me as "one of those bikers who just thinks they can do anything." Her last words to me were, "Go ahead, go hit someone else."

I guess I haven't won her trust yet, and she hasn't won mine. But as someone who has been riding a bike in New York for my whole life -- and has seen amazing improvements -- I'm willing to give it time.

The future of transportation in this country is currently under debate by a bunch of old folks in Washington. But what about those who will live in that future, people now in their 20s and younger?

How to influence their transportation choices is the topic of today's featured post on the Streetsblog Network. Lewis Kelley, a student at the University of Montana who writes the Imagine No Cars blog, has this to say:

Photo by carfreedays via Flickr.

We…can't think of the "young" as being a monoculture. Here in Missoula, there are two high schools with two different cultures. One is set in our urban core with almost no parking; most of the students walk, bike, or take our public transit (since there is no room for school buses to park and drop off kids). There must be between 100-200 bikes parked at the high school every day. The other is more suburban, and has a parking lot the size of several football fields with kids getting there with either a vehicle, dropped off by parents, or on a school bus.
Local culture is probably the most important factor. If there is no bicycle culture present in a city, the work that must be done to get people on board with bicycle transportation and for them to see the need to get out of the car is hugely increased. All the blogs, books, and newspaper articles written about the new trend, environmental, and health concerns will do little.… social interaction person to person is probably the most powerful and effective way to spread such ideas.

Kelley is right. Infrastructure and planning choices that emphasize safe passage for pedestrians and cyclists are a primary factor in opening the door for active transportation choices. If you design a school so that it makes sense to bike there, kids will do that. They will have fun doing it and tell their friends how much fun it is and then their friends will want to do it, too.

If you design a school so that they can only get there by car, that's what they'll do. That's what will be cool.

And the choices they make as adults will likely be heavily influenced by those experiences -- as will the impact they as individuals have on the global and local environment.

Those gray heads in Washington have a pretty heavy responsibility. The future doesn't really belong to them. And it's going to look a lot different from the past. It would be great if they could remember that.

More from the network: Crossroads wants transportation to be an issue in the 2010 Pennsylvania race for governor. Urban Velo is looking for your pictures showing how much you love biking in the city. And Muscle Powered writes about the mean streets of Nevada.

There's still time to submit photos for our next slide show. We're looking for pictures of bikes at work -- hauling, delivering, getting the job done. International submissions are definitely welcome.

The shot below, showing the Santa Cruz candy man on his way to hawk his wares on the boardwalk, captures the spirit perfectly. It comes from Richard Masoner, the author of Streetsblog Network member Cyclelicious.

A couple of specific items on our wish list: messengers, pedicabs and food delivery. The ordinary stuff, you know?

In case you didn't get a chance to see our two earlier slide shows, check them out. One is on bike traffic (that beautiful thing), the other on cars and trucks hogging space that could be used by people.

Send your pics to me at sarah [at] streetsblog [dot] org, or tag them with "streetsblog" and "workbike" in Flickr.

We want to put up the results on Friday, so get your pics in by Thursday morning if you can.

And thank you.

Alpert is referring to his recent discussions with elected officials in the DC area about how to address the long-term transportation and economic needs of this fast-developing region. What he has found is disheartening, if perhaps not surprising. The politicians can envision spending essentially limitless resources on widening and expanding highways that lead to sprawl, but they can't imagine getting the money together to improve transit and encourage development that allows people to live closer to their work:

Photo by shawnblog via Flickr.

That's the conventional wisdom among most elected officials: We "have to do something" to add road capacity, but transit projects are so difficult as to be nearly laughable. Yet freeway projects are not cheap. As we saw from ACT's alternative plan for the I-270 corridor, you can build a lot of transit for the price of some freeway lanes. It's just that leaders are too accustomed to viewing road capacity as a necessity and transit as a luxury.

Sure, more people drive today than take transit along those routes. In fact, virtually nobody takes transit between Tysons Corner and Bethesda for the simple reason that there isn't any. But transportation expansion, whether roads or transit, will primarily serve new commuters, not the existing ones. The current roads and rails move the people who move today. The new infrastructure we build will govern the locations and modes of new commuter growth. If we choose transit, we'll get new transit riders...

Leaders in Maryland and Virginia just need to stop saying "we have to" build more freeways and big office parks at the edge of the region, and instead encourage infill development and expand our great transit infrastructure.