Advocacy & Safety - Washington Post article on DC transportation policy

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/05/AR2008070500564.html

Drivers Feeling Shunned by D.C.
City Less Welcoming to Suburban Cars

The District is escalating what some suburban commuters are calling its war against workers who drive into the city.

paradigm shift?

non linear effects and costs? :roflmao:

paradigm shift?

non linear effects and costs? :roflmao:

What are you talking about?

This is just an article that discusses a transportation policy -- or I should say idea(s) ... what gets implemented is another issue -- that includes ideas floating around the forum for a while.

Like it was ever easy to commute into DC in the first place. Suburban commuters should be working in the county to increase accessibility to the metro etc.

Now if Fenti has the b@lls to shut down Beach drive permanently I will be impressed.

-D

..just thought I'd bandy about a favorite catch phrase i've seen you repeat, part time epistemologist.....

boy, the change in transportation policy and pricing is likely to have 'non linear' effects in Washington DC.... make parking on downtown streets 10 bucks an hour??


will the revenue garnered from the increase in parking and fines offset the costs of increasing the liveability of washington dc? likely there will be 'non-linear' effects compounding & obscuring the results from changing policy inside the beltway.....

;)

personally, i think congestion pricing, increasing fines for traffic infractions involving encroachment on pedestrians, higher parking costs, and decreasing the driveability of urban cores are all positives, despite any cost/benefit analysis for motorists.

human scaled public streetscapes and the hedonic quotient should rule urban planning, not expediting single occupancy smog producers.

Suburban commuters should be working to get their buisnesses to move away from the inner city. Closer to the workers.

Suburban commuters should be working to get their buisnesses to move away from the inner city. Closer to the workers.

The problem may be the location of customers or at least those with whom they need to contact.

On the flip side, many jobs could be telecommuted. Any job that consists of sitting in a cube and working on a computer, can probably be telecommuted.

closer to which workers? what if they live on the other side of town?

increasing sprawl is so last century.

This'll be interesting.

The Metro has been setting ridership records lately, too. It used to be that maybe once a year they'd have over 800,000 riders; they've passed the 800K threshold a dozen times in the last month or two.

In my neighborhood, if you don't have a residential parking permit, you can't stay here for more than two hours (although you may not get caught for a while, you will at some point). It's been this way since long before I moved here in 2001. A couple years ago they even tightened the requirements for getting the permit.

I don't know if road closures are a good solution. Sometimes people need a particular stretch just to get someplace specific. I do think that making it less palatable to park a car in-town is a better solution.

Now they'll need to increase the capacity of public transit. They're not going to be able to carry very many more passengers with what they're got now.

Suburban commuters should be working to get their buisnesses to move away from the inner city. Closer to the workers.

by moving jobs and businesses to "suburban" locations you are creating a new "urban" center. As the businesses get established what was a suburb will become more of a city. Bek's point is well taken:
increasing sprawl is so last century

there's really no getting around it. well designed urban areas, ie. with good mass transit, fewer autos, integrated facilities with a focus on bikes and pedestrians are far more energy efficient than the old suburban model.

And finally, the cost of moving businesses to suburbs has no economic practicality. We are currently in a building lull and that will more than likely slow down before it amps up again, if it ever does. It's much easier on the pocketbook to make our cities more livable and efficient users of energy than it would cost to modify the suburban landscape in order to keep a few folks safely ensconced in their Macmansions 35 miles from a city center.

Like it was ever easy to commute into DC in the first place. Suburban commuters should be working in the county to increase accessibility to the metro etc.

Now if Fenti has the b@lls to shut down Beach drive permanently I will be impressed.

-D

That a major road like Beach has sections that are shut down on weekends and holidays is pretty awesome in and of itself. I'd hate to see it permanently closed to cars. It's a great, easy, scenic and generally low-traffic way to get into the city.

Fenty has been a wonderful advocate for running and cycling in DC.

Fenty has been a wonderful advocate for running and cycling in DC.

He just wants to make it into his own triathlon training grounds. :crash:

j/k.. ;)

..just thought I'd bandy about a favorite catch phrase i've seen you repeat, part time epistemologist.....

boy, the change in transportation policy and pricing is likely to have 'non linear' effects in Washington DC.... make parking on downtown streets 10 bucks an hour??


will the revenue garnered from the increase in parking and fines offset the costs of increasing the liveability of washington dc? likely there will be 'non-linear' effects compounding & obscuring the results from changing policy inside the beltway.....

;)

Hah! Well that was quite good. ;)

Those are interesting questions. All I have is speculation since these aspects are extremely difficult to predict with confidence. Just as a naive outsider, I have read opinions that Philadelphia hurt itself by increasing the cost of business inside its borders -- I recall that it has a relatively high municipal income tax for commuters -- since people responded by working elsewhere.

Some important points that should be considered while reading the article:


Just from reading newspaper articles, Metro -- the subway system -- is fairly close to capacity considering present resources and configuration.
My take is that the easiest way to increase capacity would be to purchase more Metro cars and increase the number of 8-car trains (instead of the typical 6-car or 4-car trains).
One issue with increasing the number of cars is that supposedly some stations are unable to handle 8-car trains. However, I have seen 8-car trains on the two busiest Metro lines.
Some lines/routes share tracks with others. This creates limits on how frequent one can send trains and the overall capacity.
Parking at the commuter lots of many Metro stations is limited.
The federal and DC governments have a "complicated" relationship. DC itself is far more liberal than the US population as a whole -- 94% of voters chose Kerry last election. But a lot of funds are tied to specific constraints. For instance, it isn't unusual for education funds to be tied to using a specific company's program which can create inconsistent strategies. Expect any federal funds for transportation alternatives to have such contingencies.
There are already satellite cities around/outside the Beltway providing alternatives for businesses.

i think americas' resistance to changing the status quo in regards to transportation policy has helped lead us to the morass we waddle in, collectively, in the USA today.

Suburbanites, stuck in traffic and spending their food budgets and health care money on gasoline? oh, the horrors.

other countries leap right in and start changing transportation policies (Denmark in the 1970's and inculcation of bike culture there..) without fear, endless studies, or special interests/PAC contributions rendering change far too distant and minor to have effect.

Dynamic, forward reaching changes in transportation policy are occurring in large cities across the country as mayors and city councils attempt to cut off autocentrisms' hydra heads.

He just wants to make it into his own triathlon training grounds. :crash:

j/k.. ;)


...and I love it!

i think americas' resistance to changing the status quo in regards to transportation policy has helped lead us to the morass we waddle in, collectively, in the USA today.

Suburbanites, stuck in traffic and spending their food budgets and health care money on gasoline? oh, the horrors.

other countries leap right in and start changing transportation policies (Denmark in the 1970's and inculcation of bike culture there..) without fear, endless studies, or special interests/PAC contributions rendering change far too distant and minor to have effect.

Dynamic, forward reaching changes in transportation policy are occurring in large cities across the country as mayors and city councils attempt to cut off autocentrisms' hydra heads.

I'm betting that there are many people who are wishing now that they had not voted to postpone subway/train/bus expansions in their respective cities. So many of these projects would have been completed and paid for if they had been implemented decades ago when they were first proposed.
I am thinking of the Los Angeles subway to the sea and the monorail and train projects in Seattle.
Our children and grand children will be pretty pissed that we spent all of their inheritance on Escalades and more freeway lanes instead of mass transit.

He just wants to make it into his own triathlon training grounds. :crash:

j/k.. ;)
And he's welcome to swim in the Potomac any time he wants to. :rolleyes:


.....And finally, the cost of moving businesses to suburbs has no economic practicality. We are currently in a building lull and that will more than likely slow down before it amps up again, if it ever does. It's much easier on the pocketbook to make our cities more livable and efficient users of energy than it would cost to modify the suburban landscape in order to keep a few folks safely ensconced in their Macmansions 35 miles from a city center.
On the contrary, DC is already surrounded by dozens of established "city centers". Tysons Corner alone has more existing office and and retail space than all but the largest cities in the US.

When I started my company and located my office in the Virginia suburbs (near Fairfax Circle) 12 years ago the choice was a "no brainer."
- $12/sf rent vs $30+/sf for downtown DC (both have gone up a bit, but I'm still paying under $20)
- easy access for my clients, most of whom were in Northern Virginia or Montgomery County Maryland.
- free parking for my clients and my employees
- close to my projects (80% in Northern Virginia, 15% is DC and Maryland, 5% out of area)
- close to my home (5 miles by highway and a nice 9 miles bike commute when I'm able)
- lower taxes (less than half of what I'd pay in DC)
- lower costs on everything from printing, office supplies, groceries, licenses.
- public transit access (Vienna Metro is about a mile, Metro bus stops at both entrances to the complex.)

I agree that there in no great need for new commercial developments in the far-out suburbs, and the city should be made more accessible with better mass transit and better bike routes. But there is also need for suburban centers, especially improvements to the existing ones. It doesn't make good environmental policy sense to have a couple of million extra people go into the city every day unless they need to be there. If the jobs can be located in the existing major suburban centers, closer to where the workers live, that will reduce the strain on the city and spread the commuting load around.

In recent years DC has become a more livable city. But it's not become a more affordable city. Much of the middle class has already been pushed out into the suburbs: Arlington, Alexandria, Baileys Crossroads, Annandale, Silver Spring, Prince George County. The population of DC is only about 600,000. The DC region is many millions of people. You're not going to get them all living in the city, or even into the inner suburbs, without sacrificing much of that livability.


I still miss the commute to my first job in this area almost 30 years ago - a four block walk.

And he's welcome to swim in the Potomac any time he wants to. :rolleyes:


On the contrary, DC is already surrounded by dozens of established "city centers". Tysons Corner alone has more existing office and and retail space than all but the largest cities in the US.

When I started my company and located my office in the Virginia suburbs (near Fairfax Circle) 12 years ago the choice was a "no brainer."
- $12/sf rent vs $30+/sf for downtown DC (both have gone up a bit, but I'm still paying under $20)
- easy access for my clients, most of whom were in Northern Virginia or Montgomery County Maryland.
- free parking for my clients and my employees
- close to my projects (80% in Northern Virginia, 15% is DC and Maryland, 5% out of area)
- close to my home (5 miles by highway and a nice 9 miles bike commute when I'm able)
- lower taxes (less than half of what I'd pay in DC)
- lower costs on everything from printing, office supplies, groceries, licenses.
- public transit access (Vienna Metro is about a mile, Metro bus stops at both entrances to the complex.)

I agree that there in no great need for new commercial developments in the far-out suburbs, and the city should be made more accessible with better mass transit and better bike routes. But there is also need for suburban centers, especially improvements to the existing ones. It doesn't make good environmental policy sense to have a couple of million extra people go into the city every day unless they need to be there. If the jobs can be located in the existing major suburban centers, closer to where the workers live, that will reduce the strain on the city and spread the commuting load around.

In recent years DC has become a more livable city. But it's not become a more affordable city. Much of the middle class has already been pushed out into the suburbs: Arlington, Alexandria, Baileys Crossroads, Annandale, Silver Spring, Prince George County. The population of DC is only about 600,000. The DC region is many millions of people. You're not going to get them all living in the city, or even into the inner suburbs, without sacrificing much of that livability.


I still miss the commute to my first job in this area almost 30 years ago - a four block walk.

While I realize this thread is about DC, DC may not reflect the rest of the nation... In particular are the very high rents and the desire to be "inside the circle" which is a reflection of the power brokers in the area and the potential to control funds (future profit) due to laws and potential contracts laid out by our governing bodies.

Meanwhile, DC transportation policy may not reflect the needs of the rest of the nation.

In the rest of the nation, it may be quite feasible to mix office space with residential space... but none the less, what guarantees are there that the work force will come from the area directly surrounding the available office space. For instance what incentive (other than the price of transport) does a worker have to live in a mixed community? This is the core of our current suburb "system" and the isolation of work zones... which was carried out in an era of cheap transportation.

In order to achieve that ideal of "a four block walk" to work, our vision of an "idealistic isolated suburbia" needs to be scrapped to encourage mixed commercial and residential... along with the thinking that mobility is cheap... and thus workers can live across town.

I'm for anything that clamps down on drivers.

I'm sorry,but I was in this area from '92-'00,and then came back in '05. Things are much worse than they used to be on the roads. People fragrantly break the laws,and show a haughty sense of entitlement when called on it. I'm amazed we don't have more ped and cyclist deaths. They need to bring back the traffic patrols they used to have.

There also is no reason for a good chunk of the traffic we have flowing through the city. The article was right when it cited that people use certain routes to circumvent using the Beltway. Lots of traffic just needs to go around. And there needs to be a much bigger push for carpooling. Way,way to many single occupency vehicles rolling around.

Meanwhile, DC transportation policy may not reflect the needs of the rest of the nation.

In the rest of the nation, it may be quite feasible to mix office space with residential space... but none the less, what guarantees are there that the work force will come from the area directly surrounding the available office space. For instance what incentive (other than the price of transport) does a worker have to live in a mixed community? This is the core of our current suburb "system" and the isolation of work zones... which was carried out in an era of cheap transportation.

In order to achieve that ideal of "a four block walk" to work, our vision of an "idealistic isolated suburbia" needs to be scrapped to encourage mixed commercial and residential... along with the thinking that mobility is cheap... and thus workers can live across town.

Also, what seems to get lost in many of these mixed use developments is any sort of green space. Yes, a sidewalk cafe, and a postage stamp park might be sufficient for an urban adult, but it doesn't cut it for anyone with children. We've made the sacrifice to purchase a house with a yard very close to the urban center, but it is something that doesn't come cheap. In this day and age parks are being closed instead of expanded and I don't think this detriment gets factored into many of these studies.

Also, what seems to get lost in many of these mixed use developments is any sort of green space. Yes, a sidewalk cafe, and a postage stamp park might be sufficient for an urban adult, but it doesn't cut it for anyone with children. We've made the sacrifice to purchase a house with a yard very close to the urban center, but it is something that doesn't come cheap. In this day and age parks are being closed instead of expanded and I don't think this detriment gets factored into many of these studies.

Good point... and perhaps linear parks are a good approach... where a singular park can actually serve a wider community and provide a decent distance for walking and green space for greater number of homes. Such a linear park can also serve as a traffic calming device by being the "soft edge" alongside a road.

Also, what seems to get lost in many of these mixed use developments is any sort of green space. Yes, a sidewalk cafe, and a postage stamp park might be sufficient for an urban adult, but it doesn't cut it for anyone with children. We've made the sacrifice to purchase a house with a yard very close to the urban center, but it is something that doesn't come cheap. In this day and age parks are being closed instead of expanded and I don't think this detriment gets factored into many of these studies.
I can tell you from first hand experience on many different projects, green space does enter the discussion as one of many competing concerns. But like the house with a yard "it doesn't come cheap". Someone has to pay for it. To require the developer provide it as a condition of development will mean a higher home price or a couple $/sf rent, which will freeze out of force out some home buyers, renters and small business. If parks are provided by public agency, then taxes need to be raised or bonds issued. The best approach I've seen is to allow development bonuses for green space that are big enough to compensate the developer for the cost.

But we digress.....:thumb:


btw Nothing wrong with a New York City approach of neighborhood parks and playgrounds.

I can tell you from first hand experience on many different projects, green space does enter the discussion as one of many competing concerns. But like the house with a yard "it doesn't come cheap". Someone has to pay for it. To require the developer provide it as a condition of development will mean a higher home price or a couple $/sf rent, which will freeze out of force out some home buyers, renters and small business. If parks are provided by public agency, then taxes need to be raised or bonds issued. The best approach I've seen is to allow development bonuses for green space that are big enough to compensate the developer for the cost.

But we digress.....:thumb:


btw Nothing wrong with a New York City approach of neighborhood parks and playgrounds.


I completely get that someone has to pay for it in the end. I am just saying, and I don't think you would disagree, that absence of green space definitely factors into people's housing decisions. But then it simply comes down to who is going to pay for it. And in some areas there is no having it, no matter the cost.
When you look at the original park plans for Los Angeles and Seattle it's just sad the lost opportunities.
I think developers and politicians, even though it's discussed, rarely put the appropriate value on real green space. I know that many kids do fine in NYC style parks, but it reminds me of a dog in a field when you get a kid in some real open space and they can run.

What makes it rough around DC (after all, the Post article focuses on DC...) is when jobs move. That 5-mile commute can become a 90-minute 25-miler.

We also can't build very high around here. Zoning laws effectively keep the Capitol and Washington Monument as the highest buildings in the city, and my neighborhood is categorized as a historical district -- there will be no development here, no replacing row houses with high-rise apartment buildings. Residential and office space is limited, so naturally, additional businesses & homes develop in the suburbs.

It's very much a megalopolis in the making. Multiple town centers joined by residential & commercial districts. You can't go anywhere and not encounter traffic.

I'm betting that there are many people who are wishing now that they had not voted to postpone subway/train/bus expansions in their respective cities. So many of these projects would have been completed and paid for if they had been implemented decades ago when they were first proposed.

Should I also point out that Metro's 25th Anniversary of its opening was celebrated the same year as the original design was completed?

Note ... I might be off by a year. But the point is that it takes a loooooooooong time to finish these projects.

Should I also point out that Metro's 25th Anniversary of its opening was celebrated the same year as the original design was completed?

Note ... I might be off by a year. But the point is that it takes a loooooooooong time to finish these projects.

I understand that, which makes it even worse that only now when we are seriously in the middle of all of this economic and transportation mess are these projects being brought back to the drawing table. Constituents are clamoring for immediate relief from their politicians and no one has the heart to remind them that they voted down many of the solutions multiple times in the past.

It's sad, because so much could be done, in a much shorter time frame if the political will was there.
I guess I'm thinking of the New Deal projects and such. It's just amazing how short sighted we are as human beings. Never thinking farther ahead than the next election cycle.

And finally, the cost of moving businesses to suburbs has no economic practicality. We are currently in a building lull and that will more than likely slow down before it amps up again, if it ever does. It's much easier on the pocketbook to make our cities more livable and efficient users of energy than it would cost to modify the suburban landscape in order to keep a few folks safely ensconced in their Macmansions 35 miles from a city center.

I read an interesting prediction recently - the author predicted that in 10-20 years, all those 4000 square foot single family McMansions will be occupied by large numbers of poor immigrants. Rich folks will return to the cities because it will simply cost too much in terms of time and money to commute from the far-out suburbs. So, those big houses way out in the suburbs will lose value, and become multi-family housing for the poor.

To those who have purchased big houses far out in the hinterlands, and large SUV's to get back and forth...sorry, you lose!

I read an interesting prediction recently - the author predicted that in 10-20 years, all those 4000 square foot single family McMansions will be occupied by large numbers of poor immigrants. Rich folks will return to the cities because it will simply cost too much in terms of time and money to commute from the far-out suburbs. So, those big houses way out in the suburbs will lose value, and become multi-family housing for the poor.

Around here, it's getting to be like that. Maybe not in the McMansions, but I agree, they're next on the list of soon-to-be-affordable housing.

I don't make a whole lot of money, and I'm single -- so I was able to afford a small (and I mean small!) place in the city. Everyone at work who has a family is living in neighboring communities because that's what they can afford while still appeasing the spouse's desire for square footage.

There are still some neighborhoods in the District where the housing values remain in the toilet, but if you want something new, 3 BDR/2 BTH, with a garage, and doesn't cost $750K, you have to go far away.

...no one has the heart to remind them that they voted down many of the solutions multiple times in the past.
I do.

I read an interesting prediction recently - the author predicted that in 10-20 years, all those 4000 square foot single family McMansions will be occupied by large numbers of poor immigrants. Rich folks will return to the cities because it will simply cost too much in terms of time and money to commute from the far-out suburbs. So, those big houses way out in the suburbs will lose value, and become multi-family housing for the poor.

To those who have purchased big houses far out in the hinterlands, and large SUV's to get back and forth...sorry, you lose!

Whoever owned that crystal ball needs to get a refund. It will be a long time before that prediction comes true, if ever. For one thing, most cities do not have one job center, but several...a few have many. For another, there's too much invested in those homes in the burbs and ex-urbs. Those folks have more than a bit of political clout and the demand for mass transit services will be met. The prediction ignores the very real potential that other means of powering vehicles will replace gasoline, or at least allow for lowered consumption.

As low-income families have to eat, they tend to have jobs. Unless the writer is talking about the mythical welfare families...something that doesn't exist for the most part...most poor people do work. They need to be near their jobs. If there aren't people using the services for whom they work, they will not be living in the far suburbs. Basically, whoever wrote that part of the prediction is pretty much an idiot.

Whoever owned that crystal ball needs to get a refund. It will be a long time before that prediction comes true, if ever. For one thing, most cities do not have one job center, but several...a few have many. For another, there's too much invested in those homes in the burbs and ex-urbs. Those folks have more than a bit of political clout and the demand for mass transit services will be met. The prediction ignores the very real potential that other means of powering vehicles will replace gasoline, or at least allow for lowered consumption.

As low-income families have to eat, they tend to have jobs. Unless the writer is talking about the mythical welfare families...something that doesn't exist for the most part...most poor people do work. They need to be near their jobs. If there aren't people using the services for whom they work, they will not be living in the far suburbs. Basically, whoever wrote that part of the prediction is pretty much an idiot.

I don't know if this is the article that SSP is referring to, but here is one on the failure of the suburbs from the Atlantic Monthly:
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200803/subprime
A little more in-depth than grayloons confident dismissal.

DC need money yo!! Dollar dollar billz y'all. :thumb:

Whoever owned that crystal ball needs to get a refund. It will be a long time before that prediction comes true, if ever. For one thing, most cities do not have one job center, but several...a few have many. For another, there's too much invested in those homes in the burbs and ex-urbs. Those folks have more than a bit of political clout and the demand for mass transit services will be met. The prediction ignores the very real potential that other means of powering vehicles will replace gasoline, or at least allow for lowered consumption.

As low-income families have to eat, they tend to have jobs. Unless the writer is talking about the mythical welfare families...something that doesn't exist for the most part...most poor people do work. They need to be near their jobs. If there aren't people using the services for whom they work, they will not be living in the far suburbs. Basically, whoever wrote that part of the prediction is pretty much an idiot.

During my trips to China in the Shanghai area, I discussed the living situation with a few people. Basically, anyone who can afford the housing lived in the city. If you had more money, you lived closer to the city center. The poor lived outside of the city and commuted in every day, sometimes spending several hours to get to their jobs. Of course, the "rich" sat in gridlocked traffic in the city averaging 5mph to get to their jobs but at least they lived closer.

I rather liked the Atlantic article - echoes what I've been thinking. I moved out to penturbia hoping the wave of suburbs would die out before it destroyed the landscape. There's been some damage, but mostly the great riding and open vistas are intact. We're starting to get minimal support. I can buy groceries on the way home by bike now. That's one thing the Atlantic article misses - many close suburban and formerly rural communities are a bit spread out, but easy bike ranges make the development of small town centers serving a 5 mile radius quite doable.

The other thing is that many people won't go to jobs. They won't be able to afford to. The jobs will come to them! Part of my work is talking on the phone, making a purchase order up, and collecting money via credit card. I don't see the goods, I just work naked.

Whoever owned that crystal ball needs to get a refund. It will be a long time before that prediction comes true, if ever. For one thing, most cities do not have one job center, but several...a few have many. For another, there's too much invested in those homes in the burbs and ex-urbs. Those folks have more than a bit of political clout and the demand for mass transit services will be met. The prediction ignores the very real potential that other means of powering vehicles will replace gasoline, or at least allow for lowered consumption.

As low-income families have to eat, they tend to have jobs. Unless the writer is talking about the mythical welfare families...something that doesn't exist for the most part...most poor people do work. They need to be near their jobs. If there aren't people using the services for whom they work, they will not be living in the far suburbs. Basically, whoever wrote that part of the prediction is pretty much an idiot.

Wishful thinking, perhaps? Per the Wikipedia entry for Kingwood, Texas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingwood,_Houston,_Texas):


Kingwood is a 14,000 acre (57 km²) master-planned community located in northeast Houston, Texas.[1]...Known as the "Livable Forest," it is the largest master-planned community in Harris County and second-largest within the 10-county Houston–Sugar Land–Baytown metropolitan area.

It's located 27 miles from Houston city center, and votes heavily Republican. Sounds like part of the problem to me.

Time will tell, but you may need to brush up on your Spanish so you can chat with your future neighbors. :D

Wishful thinking, perhaps? Per the Wikipedia entry for Kingwood, Texas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingwood,_Houston,_Texas):


It's located 27 miles from Houston city center, and votes heavily Republican. Sounds like part of the problem to me.

Time will tell, but you may need to brush up on your Spanish so you can chat with your future neighbors. :D

Wikipedia gives you no understanding of the community you are trying to kick. A 27 mile commute in Houston is not a long one. Kingwood residents who do commute have an easy one, even in rush hour, its not a long drive in terms of time. Not much, if any time is spent waiting in stop and go traffic, so less gas is wasted than along more congested routes. And, in your rush to condemn the community as part of the problem, you ignore the fact that not everyone works downtown. In fact, a minority of my community does so.

As for voting Republican, alas, this is a very Red area, but its much less of a problem than those who, in their zeal to move everyone downtown, fail to realize that to do so will displace large numbers of low income families. Or, maybe that is the intent, downtown for the well-off, talk about elitism. I guess your choice is to move the poor to the suburbs and let them starve as there will be no jobs.

The issue of where people live is a very complicated one. The inner city is not the mecca some paint it. Jobs no longer center just in the downtown area. Large urban areas have numerous centers drawing large numbers of workers. Complicating that even more is the fact that you may work downtown today, but tomorrow, either through a better offer or the fact that your company cut its work force, now must travel across town to one of the other work centers. Those who decry the suburbs and delight in predictions that they will die see only a narrow picture of where people live, why they live there, how a particular city is structured, and the costs of the move back to the city...if it is, indeed, a move back.

Basically, those who live in the suburbs have the clout to demand better transportation service if its needed to move them to their jobs. Legislators and local elected officials are going to work to meet those demands. Too much is invested in the subdivisions to leave families in a lurch. Governmental entities stand to lose too much in tax revenues should the suburbs fail. The answer to the problem is less dissing of the suburbs and more attention to how we can develop a matrix of transportation services beneficial to those who currently live in those suburbs, as well as those who elect to live close in. That said, I do see future building in outlying areas going into a decline.


BTW, I've never voted Republican and have worked to elect progressive candidates. My community is a pleasant place to live, close to shopping, quick to get out of town when we want, and close to work. As for learning Spanish, I do well enough to get by and would welcome more Hispanic neighbors. In fact, my next door neighbors are Hispanic, as are the ones two doors down and the family across the street. Diversity is a plus, but the scenario I see you predicting is a lily white upper income central city. Guess how they will vote.

I don't know if this is the article that SSP is referring to, but here is one on the failure of the suburbs from the Atlantic Monthly:
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200803/subprime
A little more in-depth than grayloons confident dismissal.

Interesting. I will have to read it in more depth later.