Central hubs for TODs

This is a photograph I took in Ballston in Arl...

More: people, vehicles, cost, etc.

Benefits are very questionable for coercing people into transit station areas.
Economic Development—while improving some areas, it can take capital and resources away from other areas; in other words redistribution. Areas that became “cheap” become more affordable to offer opportunity for investment. TIFs can take away future government revenue from normal services. Additional retail sales or similar in one area will mean less spending elsewhere. Read more of this post

Regional Planning in the Bay Area, the MPO—MTC

Bay Area Transit

The MTC’s priorities are out of line with the way people want to move/transport. In general, the SF Bay Area is really whacked on priorities, that’s why housing costs are so high and flora and fauna are given preeminence. The Bay Area is almost doomed without building more lanes.

Despite the efforts of ABAG and its compact development push, congestion and living condition will worsen.
More people need more more roads., and space. Duh! For San Jose, go south–Coyote Valley. It’s a shame that enviro-wackos are anti-human. The Bay Area has lost citizens–more positive domestic outflow. The pop. is growing due to births and immigration. Read more of this post

Walkability is over-rated

Transit Oriented Development and Renewal of No...

Walking to & from a station is not real goal. Origination at home, near destinations is.

Cars are great, but at the light you wait. People are out of shape, eating more than a grape. Transit is late, while congestion makes one irate. Would it be nice if destinations were real close? How realistic is that goal? One chooses the location of their home, and then seem to want to have more businesses locate near them. Sounds selfish and devoid of a realistic reality. How about finding a location with plenty of businesses?  Read more of this post