A weekly monitor of how Trump’s orders and actions are impacting planners and planning in America.
The Make Autorail Great Again Act would withhold federal funding to the system until the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA), rebrands as the Washington Metropolitan Authority for Greater Access (WMAGA).
Sam Staley is Associate Director of the DeVoe L. Moore Center at Florida State University in Tallahassee where he also teaches graduate and undergraduate courses in urban and real estate economics, regulations, economic development, and urban planning. He is also a senior research fellow at Reason Foundation. Prior to joining Florida State, he was Robert W. Galvin Fellow at Reason Foundation and helped establish its urban policy program in 1997.
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small"> </span> <p style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt" class="MsoNormal"> <span style="font-size: small"><span style="font-family: Calibri">For those following the intense debate over intercity passenger rail in the US, the following recent news items might have a few planners scratching their heads:</span></span> </p>
<p> I recently had the pleasure of sitting on a panel convened by the <a href="http://www.lincolninst.edu/">Lincoln Instititute of Land Policy</a> to discuss the Tea Party and its effects on local planning (a <a href="/node/46583">topic I've discussed earlier on this blog</a>). At one point, the moderator asked if there were any successful techniques that planners could use to effectively deal with Tea Party activists. This was an intriguing question, but also one that I thought was a bit odd. Controversy and conflict are not new to planning; they are built into the very process of American planning because of its inherent openness and inclusiveness.
<p> Last summer, most of the nation was justifiably outraged when<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/25/raquel-nelson-this-will-never-end_n_908448.html"> Raquel Nelson was convicted of vehicular homicide</a> because her four-year old son stepped off a median into <a href="http://www.ajc.com/news/cobb/pedestrian-convicted-of-vehicular-1014879.html">oncoming traffic and was killed</a>. Common sense alone should have kept this case from going to trial, but I believe this case should have raised a bigger and more encompassing issue for planners and a question of social ethics: What is the responsibility we take as individuals for the choices we make living in an urban environment? </p>
<p> In August, I moved into a high density apartment complex just 1.5 miles from my office and a five minute walk to a bus stop. One of the central advantages of the building's location was its access to alternative transportation modes. While I could park my car for "free" (the real cost is built into the lease), I was interested in keeping it parked as much as possible. Now, after nearly three months of experimentation, I'm ready to give up the bus, and the reasons are central to understanding the future of transit in the US. </p>
<p> For a while now, I've wondered if we have been mislabeling the development around well functioning transit stops as transit-oriented developments (TODs). This may seem odd, because numerous studies have shown that property values can increase by 20% to 40% percent around transit stops, particularly rail stations (although the increases are uneven). </p>
