Keep the City Urban: My Overarching View on the Future of Development in Syracuse

I’ve written a lot over the last couple years about how I envision change in Syracuse. Most have focused on specific neighborhoods within the city or the decision about I-81. While I plan on continuing to write out specific ideas in regards to development within the city, I think it’s appropriate to explain my overall view when it comes to planning.

These are overarching themes that you will continue to see throughout my work and how I believe they can lead us to a more connected and vibrant city in the near future. Many of these do not require a great deal of investment, but instead just a simple change of policy to guide future development. With ReZone Syracuse still in the works, Blueprint15 being discussed, and a decision on I-81 looming, this is the time that everyone should be staking out ground on what they believe the city can achieve. This is our moment to define what our community should be like moving forward.

Before getting into the specific categories below, I want to focus on the main title of this piece, “Keep the City Urban.” Something that has happened to cities throughout the country was this feeling that we need to adapt and take on more suburban characteristics to compete with the suburbs. This includes an emphasis on single family homes, shopping malls, big box stores, parking lots, etc. Each of the items I’ll address take the view opposing these types of developments. We should be embracing what makes cities unique and providing a true alternative lifestyle to the suburbs, one based on interconnected neighborhoods, walkable streets, accessibility for all age groups, and, most of all, a dense network of different cultures working together. Good urban planning and urban design can help us reach towards these goals.

Implement and Urban Growth Boundary

This doesn’t apply directly to the City of Syracuse, but instead to Onondaga County. Former County Executive Joanie Mahoney had discussed the need to limit new development within the county to our current footprint, and she was right to do so. Onondaga County has had a stable population for 40 years, and yet we have continued to expand outward. This is disastrous for our municipal budgets, having to pay for more infrastructure with the same or less tax money than we previously had, and is also disastrous for our environment. The further people live from the city center, the further they must drive to reach most employment centers.

We should look to Portland in regards to their work using an urban growth boundary, but we should be much stricter when it comes to not expanding the right to develop. Unless our community grows exponentially, we have developed more land than we need. If anything we should be working to bring some of those living in the exurbs back in towards the city. Any future development should be infill development that increases the density of our communities.

This will likely face backlash, especially amongst those living and representing those further out communities, but we must focus our development in productive ways that add to the cohesion of our region, not put ourselves in silos far from each other.

I recently read a blog post titled “Upstate Most Earn ‘Parity’” in which the author breaks down why Upstate communities have not earned the right to demand more funding for their transportation systems because they have not done enough to come up with a plan to control their sprawl. In her eyes, additional transportation funding would be wasted because we haven’t put together a framework for how our communities will develop moving forward, so we will constantly be needing to extend lines outward to serve fewer and fewer people. I whole heartedly agree with her on this. We have not done enough to curb sprawl and create a unified vision for our county and region.

She also brings up a few other ideas that I will address later in this piece, including the idea of high speed rail across New York State.

Get Rid of Single Family ONLY Zones/ Redefine a Single Family Home

America has been sold the idea that the quickest way to the middle class is to own your own home. I won’t get into the political and economic history of this ideology, but I will address the need for our urban centers to move away from exclusive zonings for detached single family homes.

The ReZone Syracuse effort has preserved detached single family zonings across a handful of neighborhoods within the city. When looking through the code I just can’t help but feel it would benefit our city to turn every one of these zones into One and Two Family zones. This wouldn’t prevent single family homes from existing, but would give home owners and developers the option to create a more dense community if the so choose.

While this is a good first step, we should also be redefining what a single family home can be. One thing we are missing in Syracuse, especially when you look to our fellow Upstate cities of Albany and Troy, is a stock of townhouses and row houses. These homes allow for dense, urban development while still providing the opportunity for home ownership and green space. These should not be the townhouses found in suburban developments, along winding roads without sidewalks and hidden among parking lots.

This can be referred to as the “missing middle,” as its not quite dense apartment living but a much more walkable community than our current detached single family neighborhoods. They line the street with an attractive street wall which invites neighbors to be part of the street instead of pushed back into a guarded home. Think of the brownstones in Brooklyn or the row houses in Philadelphia.

We should also be pushing for more investment in condos throughout downtown and the more densely populated business districts. If we are to work within our economic system that emphasizes home ownership, we should be providing residents with more urban options, instead of relying on an outdated want to compete with the suburbs. Again, keep the city urban, provide those who find an urban environment appealing with more options.

In the zoning examples below from ReZone Syracuse, the pale yellow is all detached single family homes, prominent in the less diverse neighborhoods within the city. The darker yellow is a combination of 1&2 family homes, most noticeably on the Northside. The brownish yellow color is multi family homes, more prominent as you move towards Downtown from the Southside. Downtown and the immediate areas around it are the newly minted mix-use zone in various shades of purple. Finally the red commercial zones dominate Erie Blvd. and section of the Southside.

View fullsize

Eastwood

View fullsize

East Side

View fullsize

Erie Blvd.

View fullsize

Downtown

View fullsize

Southside

View fullsize

Northside

Mix-Use Instead of Single Use

Mix-use is finally getting its day in Syracuse, after decades of our daily needs being separated by zoning. Our old, traditional neighborhoods, like Little Italy on North Salina St., have continued to have mix-use development, while the rest of our city was split between housing and commercial development. Downtown has been pushing towards mix-use for over a decade now, and ReZone Syracuse is looking to finally put this desire in code through a large part of our city. This is all good news, but it doesn’t go far enough.

Erie Blvd. is left out of the mix-use development, remaining almost solely commercial, even while its prime real estate to take advantage of a bus rapid transit (BRT) system, as well as the cross state bike path that will be running right through the heart of the city. It can also follow the path of the new Dewitt zoning that’s looking to concentrate growth along the corridor in dense developments. Erie Blvd. was once the most vital artery of our city as the Erie Canal, there’s no reason we can’t connect back to this history with mix-use development.

Parking Maximums Not Minimums

Within minutes of speaking with me about planning we will probably address the subject of how there is too much parking. Most people will disagree and complain about the fact that they often have to circle forever to find an open spot. In fact they are identifying the real issue, too much free parking. Free parking has led more people to drive because they’ve been subsidized a spot to put their car for the 95% of the time they’re not in it. By requiring businesses to build off-street parking we had further subsidized the use of cars and our restructuring of the city around them. This goes against everything I mean when I say “keep the city urban.”

Hidden parking rules hurt our cities. Will Chilton and Paul Mackie of Mobility Lab explain.

We should not require any businesses to build parking spaces, but instead encourage active development along bus lines where it’s more efficient to move people. This will become even more apparent in my following topic as to why this will work. But to focus on parking; it adds unneeded costs to development that raises rents for both businesses and home renters alike, it chops up the streetscape making it unappealing to walk across large swaths of near vacant land, and it promotes more driving which has a negative impact on the environment, our health, and our economy.

Instead we should focus on introducing parking maximums that cap how many spaces a development can build, while also giving them the option of not building any. This leaves it up to the business or the apartment building to decide whether it is beneficial to them to have spaces on their property or if they believe street parking is sufficient. It’s not saying parking will be taken away, it’s just allowing businesses to decide what works best for them. And if we begin to focus on transit oriented development (TOD), which I highly recommend, more people may be able to access their businesses and get to work without use of a car to begin with.

Real Bus Rapid Transit/ Free Public Transit/ Revive Ontrack

Bus rapid transit (BRT) has been around for decades, but has only recently caught on in the US at a major scale, although only a few lines are truly BRT and not just priority lanes. Most BRT systems in the US simply paint a red lane down the side of the road that reads “Bus Only,” while also reducing the number of stops and introducing off-vehicle fare payment. While these are important steps and can drastically improve service, it doesn’t live up to what BRT can be.

Streetfilms LA’s Orange Line BRT system

The Orange Line is Los Angeles is probably the greatest example of a BRT line in the US, as it runs on completely separated lanes in the middle of the road designated only for buses and emergency vehicles. This removes all other traffic and allows the bus to operate with the same efficiency as a light rail or subway line. This is what a BRT line should be like. New York’s buses struggle to keep up due to cars constantly parking in bus lanes or using them as turn lanes. BRT systems need lanes that are curbed to keep all unwanted traffic out and ideally in center lanes to show its priority. These curbs can contain vegetation or other decorative designs that show a level of care and concern for the system.

There are multiple streets throughout Syracuse that could be more efficient if we implemented BRT properly, including Erie Blvd., James St., and Salina (both North and South). Every college in the Syracuse area should include at least one stop and have frequent service as those are all major employment destinations as well as a major source of riders since many students do not have cars. But these systems must be implemented with daily commuters in mind.

This is also why I believe our public transportation system should be free. If we truly see the purpose of government and public transit as being the great equalizer we should be putting our money towards programs that benefit the greatest number of people. By making public transit free you not only benefit current riders and low income workers, but you also start to attract new riders who may decide it makes more sense to live without a car when they can hop on a bus so easily, especially when there’s a new and improved system. This is an idea I’ll be exploring in much greater detail in future writings, but it’s a topic that people should be considering.

Another aspect of our transit conversation should be the revival of OnTrack. I won’t go too far into this topic here as I have already laid out my case on this topic in a previous post, The argument essentially breaks down to providing more palatable options for commuters as people tend to have higher opinions of trains than buses. If you are interested in reading more please see my piece “I-81: A Chance to Change Our Relationship with Transportation.”

City Beautiful: This idea of free mass transit is not as crazy as you might think.

Bike Lanes for Everyone

This goes along with the idea of improving access to public transit as we must also focus on alternative modes of transportation. Already we’ve been seeing bike lanes pop up throughout Syracuse, some are much better than others (looking at you ‘sharrows’), but its encouraging to see them at all. What the city should be doing is every time a road is up for a complete repaving we should be looking at how we can include bike infrastructure on the new surface. This can be as simple as a few painted line (personally believing every bike lane should be painted bright green to bring more awareness to it) or a completely separated lane for enhanced safety along busier streets.

Currently our bike lane network is almost completely disconnected. Until we can find ways to connect these lanes it’ll be tough to convince an infrequent rider to venture out onto the city streets and contend with traffic. The Empire State bike path that is to follow the length of the Erie Canal is a huge boon for bike infrastructure and we should be using it as a catalyst for more lanes, especially in order to connect it to the Creek Walk and our Loop the Lake effort. We should be a destination for bike riders no matter the season, which means we should be plowing all of our bike lanes with the same frequency as we plow roads.

Implementing these lanes along with the introduction and hopeful expansion of Sync (the new Syracuse bike share program) could transform our relationship to transit. We should have a Sync station at every BRT stop, allowing for us to solve those “last mile” issues.

View fullsize

East Genessee Street through Syracuse.

Build Stronger Connections with New York and Toronto

The final major theme that I will continue to address is strengthening our connections to the two thriving metropolises within hours of our city. Often we think of New York City and Toronto as these distant places completely disconnected from the economy and world of Syracuse and Upstate New York. When we think that way we are shutting down the possibilities our location provides us.

Above I mentioned a blog post about Upstate needing to earn its parity with Downstate. Within that post, the author describes how a high speed rail (HSR) from Toronto to New York, passing through Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse and Albany, could completely revitalize our cities. I agree with this. Currently the average train ride from Syracuse to NYC takes 5.5 hours. A flight takes 45 minutes, but with a great deal of time going through security and then getting from the airports to the central business districts.

HSR could make it more viable for businesses to locate certain offices in Upstate cities with it taking only a couple hours for transit between Syracuse and NYC, or maybe even just an hour to get to Toronto. We should be looking for ways to tie ourselves to these global cities, especially through our universities. We have highly respected educational institutions throughout our region that should be vying to capture investments from companies in these major markets.

I also believe SUNY ESF should be part of more conversations in our region as the world looks to move more towards environmentally friendly technologies. We have one of the premier institutions on that subject in our backyard, and yet we let it become overshadowed by its proximity to Syracuse University. We need both institutions to work within our city to reshape it as a progressive home to forward thinking individuals.

The Road Ahead

As I said, these are the major themes that will continue to come up in my individual pieces. I truly believe Syracuse and our Upstate neighbors have strong bones that can be built upon, we just need to think about policies and planning that can strengthen our urban cores and create modern cities that are leading the way on both environmental and equity issues. These two issues go hand-in-hand and can be addressed with many of the ideas I’ve laid out here. I hope this piece helps to clarify my thoughts moving forward and begins a conversation with anyone who reads this.

I’d love to hear feedback on these ideas as it only helps to shape how I look at these issues.

A Streetcar named Salina

"Streetcar Suburb" is a term I've come across a few different times over the years. The idea is as streetcars expanded outside of traditional downtown areas, dense business and residential areas sprouted up directly along the route. In older cities you still see remnants of these neighborhoods, usually in the form of local business districts where small cafes and restaurants still exist. They tend to be the most walkable parts of the immediate neighborhoods as well as their major thoroughfare. 

In Syracuse these areas are extremely prevalent, from James Street to South Ave. Out of all of the former streetcar routes, the length of North and South Salina Street help create what functions as Syracuse's Main St. This route stretches the length of the city, through the heart of Downtown, with businesses and dense residential neighborhoods the entire way.

When I started to search for a bit of Syracuse's streetcar history, I came across a blog post from 2011, calling for a reinvestment in and rebuilding of the Salina St. streetcar:

As I read through his arguments, I could only think of how much things have changed in the years since its writing. In 2011, Downtown was just starting to rebuild and businesses were only just starting to migrate back into the city. In the years since this growth has only quickened and we're now looking at ways to bring that growth into the areas immediately north and south of Downtown.

I've previously written about how and why OnTrack failed and ways in which we could improve the system along that route. This streetcar proposal solves many of those issues, the biggest one being stops in residential areas. OnTrack failed as a commuting option because it only stopped at destinations, and only a handful at that. This streetcar has the right mix of residential and commercial stops, allowing for commuters to take full advantage of it.

Proposed Syracuse Streetcar along Salina Street.

It would also benefit from many of the new developments occurring along its route. Hotel Syracuse is back up and running creating an anchor institution in the south end of Downtown, Red House Theatre has now moved just down the block from the Landmark Theatre creating a more centralized theatre district, a new food hall will be constructed starting next year, the old Post Standard building is being reinvented as a mixed use facility, and the continued growth of Destiny USA and the development at the Inner Harbor. All of these help create density and attractions that will require ease of access.

In order to make this work, the streetcar must be built in the right way. Tracks need a right of way that is separated by a barrier from auto traffic. Without this barrier the streetcar would be little better than our current bus system. They should also run directly down the middle of the street as they had in the past, with street center loading and unloading. By placing this system in the center of the road shows its priority and its permanence. 

The street, as is, holds 4 lanes of auto traffic along with street parking. With the streetcar we would remove the center two lanes of traffic for the tracks and barrier. We would also want to remove the street parking for the length of Salina and replace them with a protected bike path. This would certainly get pushback, but this would allow the street to truly be complete. Our main street should be built for people, not for cars. Focusing Salina on a streetcar with additional bike paths would allow it to be the most accessible street in the city. These improvements put the emphasis on people.

The city of Syracuse needs to take inspiration from the past when planning for the future. Our city was originally built in ways that promoted dense growth and as we look to grow again it should be along our deep streetcar roots. 

I won't reiterate all of the points made in the original post, as I feel its worth reading in its entirety, but I wanted to also draw attention to the placement of the train storage on the South Side. This is an incredible opportunity to create well paying maintenance and operation jobs in a neighborhood of the city in need of that sort of investment. With the available space and the need for jobs, it would be a boon for the community and the city as a whole. 

Keeping the Snow Belt Moving

Stuck in a snow bank while driving home from the gym, my thoughts immediately went to an idea that I've been bouncing around for quite some time; there has to be a better way to get around during the winter.

Waking up extra early to shovel and clean off cars, hoping the plows have come by but at the same time hoping the end of the driveway isn't covered in the heavy snow they leave behind. Why do we see driving as such a convenience in this weather? This has been a question I've asked myself for years and have yet to come up with a satisfying answer. I routinely come back around to the solution: We need to invest more in public transit.

This may be counter intuitive to most people. Why would I want to add time to my commute when I can just drive myself? Why would you want to wait for a bus in the cold and snow? Public transit doesn't bring me to my exact destination, why would I take it?  These are valid questions to ask and there are answers to each of them:

• Invest in bus rapid transit (BRT) to improve service times and cut down on time between buses (10-15 minutes max), helping compete with commuting individually.

• Create transit maps that are easy to understand, color coding lines.

• Institute monthly transit passes, encouraging riders to use the system often without worry of paying more.

• Bus shelters with heating systems can help make the wait easier, along with digital countdowns to the next bus.

• Partner with autonomous vehicle companies in creating a micro-transit system between bus lines to deliver passengers to their final destinations.

I have previously written about using the I-81 decision in Syracuse as a chance to reevaluate our public transit systems, and that must start with a blank slate. Centro should take a fresh look at population and job centers throughout the city and come up with a plan that serves the most amount of people in the most efficient manner. This should lead to simplifying routes and focusing on providing excellent service along those corridors. The current wheel and spoke service style radiating out of Downtown is insufficient. A more grid-like structure may serve the community better as it would provide more transfer points, cutting down commute times.

While evaluating routes, Centro should focus on creating BRT routes through the city. Past studies have identified two corridors that would benefit most from a BRT system (Eastwood to OCC, Destiny USA to the Syracuse University hill), but they may find a couple more that could be beneficial.

These BRT routes should have designated bus lanes, possibly separated by a median, allowing for buses to travel removed from traffic, along with censors controlling street lights. This would create a system more similar to light rail, providing efficient service for a fraction of the cost. To speed up loading and unloading, fares should be collected before entering a separate covered boarding area (much like subway systems work). All of these investments will allow BRT to create an efficient system.

The key to the success of these routes in winter will come down to policy. For this we can take cues from Copenhagen. During the winter months, the city prioritizes clearing bike paths and bus lanes first before they touch the rest of the city streets. They prioritize transportation methods that move the most amount of people most efficiently. In Syracuse this would mean plowing these newly created bus lanes before the rest of the streets.

All of this efficiency would be wasted if the system is not easy and comfortable to use, especially in winter. There are a few simple solutions to these problems. First is the importance of ease of use. Bus maps should make use of color coding, much like subway systems do. With the simplified bus lines, the map should be easy to identify transfer points. These maps should be posted at every bus stop, which should all have enclosures.

In the long run there should be fewer bus stops, but every bus stop should have an enclosure with a heating system. This would allow passengers to wait in the warmth away from dangerous winds. While going to school at the Rochester Institute of Technology, our main bus stops all had simple heating systems that could be turned on by any passenger waiting. It would last for about 5 minutes before turning off automatically. Such a system could be applied to bus stops throughout the city, especially along the BRT routes. 

At each of these stops, there should be countdown clocks for the next bus. The hardest part of waiting for any form of public transit is not knowing for sure when they are arriving. Without a countdown, even 5 minutes feels like an eternity. 

All of these work together to help make using public transit easier and more pleasant, but the last suggestion is the easiest to implement; monthly Centro cards. For one flat rate, passengers should be able to use the system as often as they wish. This would encourage people to use transit often because they would want to get the best deal they can. It allows people to budget their transit as well. With one flat rate, you can add that to your monthly finances just as you would rent or a mortgage, and have the peace of mind that you don't need to worry about having enough cash on you for a ride home at night.

If all of this is invested in and is successful, it still does not solve the problem of not delivering you from door-to-door. This is where some real innovation comes in. In recent weeks companies like Toyota have given us previews of autonomous minibuses with the idea that they could be used for ride hailing purposes. Instead, they should be incorporated into public transit systems to solve the door-to-door issue. 

The system could work like this: Using a newly created Centro app, you put in a destination much like you would on Uber and Lyft, but instead the autonomous minibus comes to pick you up. It is assigned to your nearest transit station, so anyone within that zone will be delivered along with you to the stop. You jump on BRT and travel most of the way to your destination. When you arrive, minibuses are waiting to deliver you and the other passengers to your final destination.

Now this last part may be a years away before its viable, but we should be planning for the future and how to incorporate these new technologies. Public transit should be taking cues from ride hailing apps and make itself easier to use and more appealing.

All of these solutions circle back to the original problem of how to make the winter easier to overcome. One issue that plows have in winter is attempting to avoid cars parked on the streets, narrowing their paths. At the same time, those cars get buried beneath the snow being plowed, making them harder to move in the end. Its a vicious cycle that results in streets not being cleared, cars getting stranded and making commutes more dangerous for everyone. That's one reason we see such an increase in accidents and injuries on the roadways during the winter, along with incidents with pedestrians who are forced into the streets. 

With an improved mass transit system that competes with private car ownership in convenience, and bests it in cost, you can begin to convince people to give up their cars. With fewer cars on the streets, they can be cleared much faster, while also allowing people to avoid the less than ideal task of clearing off cars and digging them out. It would keep people safer.

If we begin to plan and implement bold ideas on transit, businesses and workers will notice. The type of workers cities want to attract are pouring into cities that have invested in public transit and are forward thinking about development. Businesses want to locate in these cities because they see a commitment to their citizens and their needs. The economic corridors along the transit lines would attract investment as they see a stability in these centers, resulting in density and walkability.  This creates a positive cycle that leads to more investment.

Its time to plan big and overcome the frozen state of our city.

I-81: A Chance to Change Our Relationship with Transportation

Personal vehicles have effectively consumed our thoughts when it comes to transportation; how can we fit more vehicles on the road? How can we move those vehicles as fast as possible from one place to the other? Where can we put these vehicles when their owners are not using them? This is how our society has structured our planning and development for over 60 years. It is also why the conversations in Syracuse, NY about what to do with I-81 are too narrow. They revolve solely around the impact on personal vehicles without seeing the broader opportunity of the moment.

As I-81 has reached the end of its useful life, the New York State DOT is considering whether to rebuild the viaduct that cuts through the heart of Syracuse (at a cost of $1.7 billion) or reconfigure the city's grid of streets to handle increased traffic (around $1.3 billion). While the community grid option allows for neighborhoods to reconnect and develop together creating economic opportunities, it is still putting preference towards those who can afford a personal vehicle. 

This narrow view of transportation not only reflects our economic bias towards those who can afford car ownership, but this view has in fact hurt the economy as a whole. As development expands outward instead of inward, municipalities must spend more and more money on maintaining roads and other basic infrastructure. This maintenance drains tax money that could be used in other, more productive ways, such as investing in innovative technology centers and research. This also requires workers to spend more money on maintaining their vehicles and purchasing gas, instead of patronizing local shops, or even investing in their own small business. The Oregon Transportation Research and Education Consortium performed a study that showed people who bike or walk as a means of transportation spend more over the course of a month at businesses than those who drive. This can come from many factors, but one is simply that by passing a small business on foot gives you time to see more, or smell the food from inside, attracting you in. This is vital for small businesses to thrive.

Beyond the economic issues involved in development centered around personal vehicles is the environmental and health impacts. According to a 2009 report by the Duke University Center on Globalization, Governance and Competitiveness, personal vehicles emitted .89 pounds of CO2 per passenger mile, compared to .87 pounds for a mostly empty bus. When that bus nears full capacity that drops down to .24 pounds per passenger mile, and even further down to .14 pounds in a full bus. You can also look at the health issues associated with private vehicle ownership. Beyond the pollution entering the air due to exhaust, commuting in your vehicle is also associated with higher stress levels, higher weight and blood pressure, and lower fitness levels due to inactivity during commutes and traffic. These are all strong predictors of heart disease, diabetes and some types of cancers. Meanwhile, taking public transit sees an increase in physical activity among users, helping lower these same risks.

With a budget $400 million less than rebuilding the viaduct, there is an opportunity to truly rework our transportation network. If we invest a large portion of what would've been spent on the viaduct on developing bus rapid transit (BRT) for CENTRO and revitalizing OnTrack, we can provide a level of service that will not only provide a much needed service for those without vehicles, but may also begin to attract those who would usually use personal vehicles.

The RTC-SU Corridor mimics the former path of OnTrack.

In order to make a transit system work you need buy-in from all classes of people and for it not to be seen as as a system for the have-nots. Reports have already been developed on where BRT would be most effective through the city of Syracuse, one line of which mimics the former path of OnTrack, a failed light rail system that has been defunct for over a decade. Instead of creating a BRT path, I recommend reinvesting in and expanding OnTrack north and south of the city for the simple reason that people have an attraction to rail systems that buses cannot compete with. Light rail has a perception of being more efficient and cleaner than buses, even if that efficiency isn't always the case. In order to attract new users to public transit, though, it may be valuable to play upon this perception. 

We must also learn from the mistakes that OnTrack made right from the start. With its limited service and infrequent run times, the network never had a viable chance at being a commuting option. It is important to ensure that the trains run at a high frequency (every 10-15 minutes) during rush hour periods, from 6:30am-9:30am and 3pm-6pm, as well as late night hours on the weekends. Investment in permanent stations in northern and southern neighborhoods, as well as extensions further north to the Syracuse airport, are imperative to creating a system that will attract riders. The original track did not emphasize neighborhood use and instead only connected limited destinations, which further restricted use as a commuter train.

For this proposal to have the most success the investments must be made before any work on I-81 begins. By having the infrastructure in place, with having park and ride spots identified for commuters and increased service ready to go before the highway comes down, we have a chance to attract commuters with a promise of easing the transition. If we can change the travel habits of commuters, there will be a chance to identify economic corridors where investments can be most fruitful. Businesses will respond to the financial commitment along these lines and will be able to see the benefits of foot traffic, not just vehicles passing by. This is a once in a generation chance to reshape not only our transportation network, but also allow for a more inclusive economic development for the region.

---

Economic Impact of Non-Driving Commutes: https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2012/12/cyclists-and-pedestrians-can-end-spending-more-each-month-drivers/4066/

Environmental Differences Between Buses and Private Vehicles: https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2012/11/can-we-please-stop-pretending-cars-are-greener-transit/3960/

Health Issues Related to Driving: http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/lifestyle/healthandwellness/536203/stress-pollution-fatigue-how-traffic-jams-affect-your-health/story/