Skip to content

Roundup 4-7-2017

April 7, 2017

Contents

Transportation – All Over the Place

— What They Said (or Not)

— Dancing With Ferries

— One More Thing

Transportation – TBX-ing

– The Express Lane Bill, Update

– Redo or Just a Smiling Face?

Transportation – Makeover

Economic Development – VC

Channel District – Condos?

Bayshore – Condo Update

Transportation – Trail Blazing

________________________________

Transportation – All Over the Place

As usual, there was much transportation news this week.  We’ll start with more local happenings

— What They Said (or Not)

HART has been working on an update to its transit development plan.  As part of that they did a workshop presentation on Facebook.   And it is very interesting.

Transit Now Tampa Bay was kind enough to take screen shots some of it, including results of the 2015 Hillsborough County survey (they do not say it, but it seems to be basically the Go Hillsborough public outreach) regarding transportation priorities.  First, the overall map of the survey effort:

From Transit Now Tampa Bay – click on picture for Facebook page

We are not sure what the black dots denote (they seem to correlate with the outreach meeting locations which were often placed in location that were inconvenient to large swaths of the area they supposedly covered, but the list is no longer posted so we can’t be sure).  Whatever they are, they leave some big gaps on the map.  In any event, Transit Now Tampa Bay also posted the screenshots of results of the transportation priorities by locations (Note that on the map the West Tampa dot is actually in Town and Country.  The Central and East Tampa dot is in West Tampa. And the Thonotosassa dot is in the “Northwest” while the Northwest dot is in Thonotosassa though that probably does not make much of difference).:

From Transit Now Tampa Bay – click on picture for Facebook page

From Transit Now Tampa Bay – click on picture for Facebook page

From Transit Now Tampa Bay – click on picture for Facebook page

From Transit Now Tampa Bay – click on picture for Facebook page

From Transit Now Tampa Bay – click on picture for Facebook page

From Transit Now Tampa Bay – click on picture for Facebook page

From Transit Now Tampa Bay – click on picture for Facebook page

From Transit Now Tampa Bay – click on picture for Facebook page

From Transit Now Tampa Bay – click on picture for Facebook page

From Transit Now Tampa Bay – click on picture for Facebook page

From Transit Now Tampa Bay – click on picture for Facebook page

From Transit Now Tampa Bay – click on picture for Facebook page

So what do we learn from all this?

In Tampa and the near County, transit improvements were either the top or near the top (even in Westchase/Town and Country/Carrollwood).  Even Plant City had a major desire for transit.  On the other hand, “Northwest” (Odessa/Keystone/Cheval) and Brandon/South County were more interested in roads.

Of course, that is not all that surprising because the near County is about the same density as the City of Tampa overall, though not necessarily specific neighborhoods in Tampa (see Town and Country, Carrollwood, even the core of Brandon, City of Tampa), with some being quite a bit higher, like Egypt Lake.

We could say that, given the foregoing, it is a bit odd that the Go Hillsborough plan, while increasing some buses including, for no apparent reason, to the South County, did not really address the desire for a real transportation/transit vision, especially in the western half of the County.  And we could say that it is even odder that when the County found $800 million over a number of years to spend, they chose to dedicate it all to roads – not even funding some extra transit in the areas that showed a definite desire for it.  But, sadly, from years of experience, that is exactly what we have come to expect.

— Dancing With Ferries

Which brings us to ferries. With the Cross Bay Ferry test showing improved performance (though still averaging just 258 people a day), there was more ferry news this week.

. . . Hillsborough County laid the groundwork Wednesday to make water transportation a permanent fixture in the Tampa Bay region.

Commissioners voted to keep in reserve $22 million from the BP oil spill settlement with the hope it could one day go toward expanded ferry service, including a route between the downtowns of Tampa and St. Petersburg.

However, commissioners also said getting there will require re-imagining a project that has stalled for years due to federal red tape, environmental concerns and lack of funding.

“For this project to materialize, to be successful, it must involve a public-private partnership,” County Commissioner Ken Hagan said. “The challenge in my mind is determining the best model.”

It always was a public-private partnership, but we’ll set that aside for now.  Earlier coverage in the week had this:

For several years, Hillsborough County has had a standing agreement with two companies, HMS Ferries and South Swell, to bring commuter ferries from south county to MacDill Air Force Base. But a mix of federal red tape, environmental concerns and lack of funding has stalled the project.

Hillsborough County Commissioner Ken Hagan wants the county to rework the agreement with the hopes of getting boats in the water sooner than later.

On top of that, Hagan is proposing the county build a marina or two using the $22 million it received two years ago in the BP oil spill settlement. The marina, or marinas, would service the ferries and also create a public space, boat slips and maybe waterfront space for businesses that can generate money for the county.

But the Commission did more:

On Wednesday, commissioners asked staffers to renegotiate that arrangement into a long-term deal of up to 20 years. In a new deal, the county also would like to see HMS Ferries and South Swell take on all the risk — and potential financial reward — of the entire project. In return, the county would write the companies a check, though it’s not clear for how much. The project was estimated to cost the county $25 million to $30 million.

“This would mean likely paying more up front but in doing so we can achieve a long-term agreement for 15 or 20 years,” Hagan said, “and we will not be responsible for all of the other issues associated with this project.”

Additionally, commissioners want a new deal to guarantee service from south county to Tampa as well as a route between the downtowns of Tampa and St. Petersburg. The current agreement says market demand would dictate whether those routes are offered. Many area leaders and ferry advocates believe that demand was demonstrated by the six-month ferry pilot program linking downtown St. Petersburg to downtown Tampa that is scheduled to end April 30.

Which is all well and good, if you can get it.  But, even if they get a total rewrite of the proposal, it does not alleviate all the other issues.  And it is not at all clear that a deal can be struck for all those services. Plus:

Still, much remains up in the air. The county has set aside $750,000 for a study of the project that will, among other things, determine a viable launch site in south county. The Schultz Preserve is one potential location.

Tampa and St. Petersburg would have to agree to the terms of any deal that services their cities, and they would also likely have to contribute to the project. Hillsborough, Pinellas County, St. Petersburg and Tampa each put in $750,000 to the pilot program but it’s not clear that kind of rare regional cooperation could be replicated to support a more ambitious expansion.

Even if they received the go-ahead tomorrow, it will take three years before the boats are operating full time, said Ed Turanchik, who represents the two private companies.

In other words, there is a lot to do.

The first problem is that we do not know where these marinas will be, though from the ferry project location, presumably the marina(s) will just be another chunk of money for South County while neglecting the needs of the rest of the County (and, the comments of a certain commissioner near the end of this article notwithstanding, we doubt many, if any, in the north of the County has discussed them nor with they really benefit). Nor do we know what the marinas will really entail or if the previously stated Port and environmental concerns  can be taken care of.

The second problem is that it does not solve the supposed problem at the MacDill end.

The third problem is that it is not clear the ferry company will agree.

Other than that, we are fine with this general idea (we have no details). . . except, fourth, it still does nothing for transit on the ground which is where most people travel. It is also notable that South County, where the ferry will presumably go, has some of the least support for transit options, but the County still wants to put money for transit there before putting money where people really want it.  There is no mention of ferries to Town and Country.  Nothing to the biggest employment center – Westshore.  Obviously nothing to the USF region.  Really, nothing, unsurprisingly, for the areas that really want transit.

We have nothing against the MacDill ferry idea as a general concept though we understand that it is just a commuter tool to a limited location.  We have something against throwing money at roads then throwing a little money on the ferry without dealing with the big void in proper transit on land because, simply put, the vast majority of people in the area will not be served by any ferry service.  And even for those who want to use it, there would need to be very good transit connections to get them to a ferry.

It is also worth noting that:

Hagan recently joined a majority of commissioners in rejecting a proposal to fast-track the ferry project using money set aside for transportation needs. Instead, commissioners voted to plan, design and engineer the project and make a decision on how to pay for it later.

Now, it’s Hagan’s hope that the county and the private companies can come to a new agreement that pushes more of the risk — and potential reward — to the private sector. In return, the county would agree to a long-term deal, up to 20 years, and public subsidizes would be unlocked if certain conditions are met and milestones are reached.

Setting aside that the money referenced above was set aside for roads – not “transportation needs” in general, the County playing field project ($15 million) + Bass Pro Shops subsidy ($6 million or so) would pretty much cover the ferry cost.  Not to mention that most of the road maintenance in that money should have come from other fees, freeing money for transit.

As we have said, we have nothing against ferry service.  But it is not substitute for actually dealing overall transit with the problem the County Commission tries so hard to avoid dealing with.  We still need a comprehensive, coordinated transportation system – not a piecemeal approach done on the cheap that does not even address the biggest needs.  Sadly, the latter is what is what we have come to expect.

— One More Thing

Which brings us to a blog post by a local transportation activist.  We are not going to go through the whole thing but there is an interesting analysis of the economics and performance of a variety of local transit including the Cross Bay Ferry, the bus, the streetcar, and the downtowner. You can read it here.  After going through all the numbers, he concludes:

These are different services that provide for different uses and all have good reasons to be invested in the key questions is: what is your goal with your transportation dollars. Then measure your investment against that goal.

As long as Tampa Bay is looking for a silver bullet solution to all it’s goals it will bounce from train plan to bus plan to ferry plan to “AVs solving everything”— while actually solving almost nothing. We need a methodical approach that evaluates these tests and looks to build an actual transportation system on real metrics and concrete goals.

Then we need the political and community will to fund it. 

There may be some debate about the goals (and short term, medium term, and long term goals may be different though the County – and to a lesser degree even the City – does not seem to really have any specific goals except to be seen to do something), but we totally agree with the approach.

Transportation – TBX-ing

Now on to more state level issues.

– The Express Lane Bill, Update

A few weeks ago we discussed a proposed bill in the state house to limit express lanes and tolls. (see “Transportation – Another Interesting Bill” )  Last week, it had a vote in the House Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee, failing by a vote of 6 for and 8 opposed. (For vote details see pg 19 of this pdf.) The vote probably kills the bill and leaves the way open for the full TBX and its deleterious effects on the neighborhoods in central Tampa that are leading the way in becoming more walkable and urban.

Interestingly, one of the no votes was a state rep from a mostly South Tampa district.  (though the district does not include the neighborhoods that would be directly harmed by TBX. ) What is odd is that this state rep is also a founder and Board President of a Walk Bike Tampa (not to be confused with Bike/Walk Tampa Bay  – these names are getting into Life of Brian territory):

Walk Bike Tampa was founded in the summer of 2015 by two residents of the City of Tampa, Hannah Strom and Jackie Toledo, who met at a local transportation meeting and shared their concerns for bicycle and pedestrian safety. Together, they decided that Tampa needed a citizens-based advocacy group focused on promoting connected bicycle routes, safe routes for cyclists and pedestrians throughout the city, and pedestrian-friendly streets.

They quickly discovered that there were many other people just as passionate about creating a safe Tampa. They also discovered that safe infrastructure for pedestrians and cyclists was a community value shared across political, generational, and socioeconomic lines. Today, Walk Bike Tampa has an nine-person board and a very active executive committee that are working with other community groups and political leaders to make Tampa a walkable, bikeable, and livable city.

The co-founder of which gave a really good quote to the Times:

“When you design a system that is only focused on cars for generation after generation, people are really left to fend for themselves,” said Hannah Strom, who formed Walk Bike Tampa in September with local transportation engineer Jackie Toledo. The Tampa Bay area is the nation’s second-deadliest metro for pedestrians, she noted.

We support that quote and the stated goals of the organization.  And then there is this post on their Facebook page from March 24, 2017, linking apparently favorably to an article about LaCrosse, Wisconsin fighting a state highway plan.

We are not sure the reason for the state rep’s vote.  There may be good reasons for it.  We are not sure why she supports TBX, particularly the harmful aspects of it (this support for TBX of it was given before the Howard Frankland problem was fixed.

It seems to us that spending $6-9 billion on highway widening and express lanes that do not serve most people in the area (and that does not even reroute traffic from Pinellas out of central Tampa) and that is not part of a coordinated, systematic approach to a transportation infrastructure (which TBX clearly isn’t, especially since it was set in motion long before a the regional transportation/transit study even was proposed), not to mention harming rising urban neighborhoods, is perpetuating exactly the “system only focused on cars for generation after generation.”

We are open to hearing her reasoning on all this and how she reconciles these positions.

– Redo or Just a Smiling Face?

Speaking of TBX, ever since the Howard Frankland mess, FDOT has said it was going to reset the whole TBX effort.  It was not clear whether that meant redesigning it or just better public relations.  This week we learned a bit more:

The Florida Department of Transportation is hoping a trip to St. Louis can help revive its controversial plan to add toll lanes to nearly 100-miles of the Tampa Bay interstates.

The local DOT office will take a group of about 20 politicians, activists and business members to Missouri in April to learn more about how transportation planners and community members there came together and compromised on a highway construction project.

The rebuilding of Interstate 64 through St. Louis did not include adding toll lanes, but it did face significant opposition from the community — just like the Tampa Bay Express project has faced here.

“It started off probably not as well within the community as they would have liked, either,” Tampa Bay DOT secretary Paul Steinman said during a planning meeting for the trip last week. “They found ways to work with the community… and to compliment the neighborhoods surrounding those projects.”

Um, ok.  FDOT could easily compromise.  Local officials could actually learn what is in the plan.  We are not sure what the problem they think this trip will solve will be – maybe they should ride the St. Louis light rail while thinking about it. (And the local officials there can try to figure out how St. Louis managed to build a rail system that has parts in two states, when we can’t coordinate buses in two counties that used to be one).

A $12,500 federal grant will cover the cost of 10 citizens — including those who oppose TBX — to attend the two-day peer exchange April 11-12. Bay area politicians and business leaders, along with DOT, are paying their own way. State officials expect the trip to cost the agency just under $5,000 for its five representatives, including the local project lead, Bill Jones.

This trip is the main thrust of the “reset” of TBX that state leaders called for last December following more than a year of public outcry against the project that would have added managed toll lanes that could cost commuters up to $2 a mile. Building the new lanes would also have required bulldozing homes in minority neighborhoods around downtown Tampa.

The state also scrapped its plan to rebuild the Howard Frankland Bridge in 2019 after the Tampa Bay Times reported that DOT’s plan would have added a toll lane but taken away a free lane, a tradeoff that surprised many local politicians.

“We’ve taken a step back as a department,” Steinman said. “We want to make sure we can move forward in such a way that we truly engage not only the folks in the downtown area but also in a regional manner.”

Other parts of the reset include redoing the environmental impact study for TBX and also paying for transit studies that will evaluate the downtown Tampa streetcar and other options such as rail lines and express bus.

To us, that sounds like repackaging what they have already proposed.  It might be worth considering changing the project to focus on the things that clearly need fixing (like why not do the bottleneck first) and dropping the silly elements, like the express lanes and the 18 lane wide sections.  It also might be worth having meeting with local officials to go over the plan mile by mile so they know what is in the plan.

We are all for people talking and we all for public outreach, but that involves being open to changes.  If FDOT is doing that, great.  If this is just an effort to repackage what they had before, they likely will get the same result.

And anything done to the interstates still needs to be part of a coordinated transportation plan that takes into account the area in 2017, not 1995, which TBX is not.

Transportation – Makeover

There was an article in the Times regarding a proposed makeover of Fowler Avenue (which is a mess).

If Mark Sharpe’s hopes are realized, Fowler Avenue will one day turn green.

Grassy medians and wider shoulders with lots of trees, buffered bike lanes and wider sidewalks for walkers and joggers would make over what he calls the “barren wasteland” of asphalt, the main thoroughfare through the 19-square-mile swath of North Tampa that Sharpe and his team want to revitalize.

An engineering firm has translated their vision into a design concept that has been shared with the Florida Department of Transportation, which would make the decision on any changes to the road.

When people drive along Fowler, Sharpe said, they’re headed toward one of the top research universities in the nation, the University of South Florida; one of the top cancer institutes in the world, Moffitt Cancer Center; one of the most recognized theme parks in the world, Busch Gardens; and the fourth busiest VA hospital in the nation.

“Fowler Avenue ought to be reflective of that. We see it as an innovation gateway.”

We are not sure what an innovation gateway is, but, yes, Fowler should be nicer.  So what is the idea?

In the concept design by Sam Schwartz Engineering, Fowler would be reduced from eight to six lanes between Bruce B. Downs Boulevard and 56th Street, with space between the bike paths and travel lanes and wide shoulders to cut the distance pedestrians have to travel to cross Fowler.

Mid-block crossings would accommodate pedestrians in the busier sections, said Jeffrey Trim, project manager with the engineering firm.

Green space would be expanded and travel lanes narrowed to slow traffic. The sidewalks would be widened from 5 feet to 8 feet on the south side and 12 feet on the north side. The effort is to encourage more walkers, joggers, bike riders and public transportation users.

* * *

Within the next decade, Sharpe predicts, automated, driverless vehicles will carry paying customers along the public transit lanes.

It takes too much time and effort now for people who work in the area to leave their buildings, walk to their cars and drive somewhere to have lunch or run errands, Sharpe said.

A reconfigured Fowler Avenue and adequate public transit would free up people for short trips, making it easier to get to businesses along the route.

Aside from the midblock crossings, we have nothing against those general ideas as concepts.  However, everything is in the details. Here is a diagram from the Times article of what Fowler might look like between Bruce B Downs and 50th:

From the Times – click on picture for article

The first thing that has to be said is that when trying to fix Fowler, the Innovation Alliance is playing a weak hand. This is the area in question.  Basically nothing addresses the street or is anything but designed for cars – including USF. (Of course, the area farther west is even worse).  So all credit for trying to them for trying to make it better.  That being said, we have a few concerns.

Take the slowing of traffic.  We have said a number of times that road diets (we consider this a baby diet) are fine but need to be done after there are alternatives.  Otherwise, they just create a more congested road.  In the case of Fowler, no one in the foreseeable future is going to be walking to their destination, especially right around USF.  USF is not built that way (the core of the campus is in the middle of a former airfield – that does not encourage people walking to it) and nothing else in the area is built that way.  It is not like they are reconnecting an old urban neighborhood.

That may also explain why the sidewalks are around 250 feet from each other on the outside of what appears to be drainage ditches.  Nothing encourages walking more than having to cross a six lane road by walking 250 feet then walking next to drainage ditches. (Though at least the sidewalks are not right next to the road, like much of the area.)

We also found a presentation from the engineer from January (here). On page six, there are some renderings of the road and some diagrams that appear to show all the left turn lanes removed.  We get the aesthetics of narrowing the road and removing turn lanes.  We get that it makes it nicer for people to cross.  However, how exactly is that going to work around USF on a morning when classes are going?  Where are all the cars going to go?

It’s not that we wouldn’t like more transit.  Clearly we would.  But it is not there.  And even autonomous vehicles have to turn. (And, given the layout of USF and the area, it will take people pretty much just as long to walk to autonomous vehicles, get in traffic and go to any lunch spot as it would to get in their own cars, especially if someone is blocking the road trying to turn left.)

The bottom line is that we are all for making the area around USF nicer.  We are all for alternative transportation and making it nicer for walking and biking.  But changes need to be practical, too.  The biggest thing holding a redesign of Fowler around USF back is the layout of USF and the fact that everything in the area has riffed off of USF’s car-centric design.

We do not want to say nothing can be done, because it can.  And we do not want to put down the effort to make the area better.  We are all for it.  And we know the Innovation Alliance leader is working hard on some large issues. Making Fowler a little nicer to experience is good, but we are not sure how the proposed road changes will substantially change the core issues which made the road that way in the first place.

If you want to have your say, there is a workshop on April 12 at MOSI from 5:30 to 7:30. (See the announcement here)

Economic Development – VC

It’s time to check in with venture capital spending.  From the Times:

The Tampa Bay metro market was home to 14 venture capital deals worth a combined $54.6 million, part of a VC funding effort statewide that backed 63 deals totaling $244.2 million in the first quarter of 2017.

The deals and the funding amounts continue to typify Florida and Tampa Bay’s modest standing in venture capital activity in the country. Led by $8.3 billion in quarterly venture capital funding in California — the VC epicenter of this country and planet — Florida ranked 11th among states in total venture capital funding. And Tampa Bay landed at No. 20 among major metro areas based on VC funding amounts.

Or from the Business Journal:

There were 14 venture capital deals in the Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater metropolitan area in the first quarter of 2017.

That made the Tampa metro the 24th most active metropolitan area for venture deals in the first three months of the year, according to the PitchBook-NVCA Venture Monitor.

We are not sure why they have different local rankings from the same report, but it really doesn’t matter. Back to the Times:

To appreciate the profound difference in funding scale, the San Francisco metro area alone attracted $5.1 billion in the first quarter. That’s about 20 times the size of funding received in all Florida deals in the quarter. And it’s nearly 95 times the size of Tampa Bay’s funding in the first three months of this year, according to fresh data released Tuesday by Pitchbook and the National Venture Capital Association.

Roughly calculated, we got about .3% of all VC for an area with about .9% of the US population.  Not great, but it is an improvement. You can get the report here.   We’ll see if it maintains, gets better or goes back down.

Channel District – Condos?

There was a subscription only article in the Business Journal regarding the developer of Grand Central and Channel Club.   They had previous proposed a 33-story condo building, Del Villar, before the recession (like Channel Club).  Nothing came of it.  It seems they may be considering a new condo project for the same location. From the Downtown Partnership website:

The neighborhood has come so far, Stoltenberg said, that Mercury Advisors is considering another condominium project, on land that the group has owned since 2006, at Channelside Drive and East Whiting Street. It would be a boutique project, with 61 units priced between $750,000 and $1.3 million.

From the developer website:

Rezoning approval has been obtained for this residential condominium tower in the Channel District. The complex is located in close proximity to the Florida Aquarium and the redevelopment area’s proposed by Tampa Bay Lightning owner Jeffrey Vinik and the Tampa Port Authority. These redevelopments will lead to two billion dollar investment in the area with parks, entertainment and work and live space. 

Currently the project is undergoing final revisions and the goal is to start pre-sales on this residential condominium complex in the second quarter of 2017.

This is what the old design looked like:

From Mercury Advisors – click on picture for website

The apartment market in the Channel District appears to be strong for now, but there hasn’t been a condo project in a while.  It will be interesting to see how strong the market for that is.

Bayshore – Condo Update

Speaking of condos, in the more mature Bayshore market, it seems pre-sales for the Virage are going well.

More than 50 percent of the condominiums in the luxury tower planned on the former Colonnade restaurant have been reserved — though the developers are only launching a formal sales center this week.

Ascentia Development Group, which will build Virage Bayshore in a joint venture with Batson-Cook Development Co., said Wednesday that deposits have been accepted on more than half of the 71 units in the 24-story tower. An exact number of reserved units was not disclosed.

Which is good.

Jay Tallman, principal with ADG, previously told the Tampa Bay Business Journal that construction could begin with as little as 30 percent of the units sold. A spokesman said Wednesday that the project will likely begin construction in early autumn.

We look forward to it.

Transportation – Trail Blazing

There was an interesting report on abcactionnews.com regarding a proposed trail link around Dale Mabry:

Plans are underway to find a better, safer way to cross Dale Mabry Highway and close what transportation leaders are calling a critical gap in the Regional Trail System.

The Hillsborough Metropolitan Planning Commission is working to find a feasible, safe pedestrian and bicycle trail crossing at Dale Mabry Highway.

They are talking about possibly putting in a major pedestrian trail crossover near Dale Mabry and I-275. This would allow pedestrians and bicyclists to go right over the six-lane highway.

Currently, the trail is located on the south side of I-275 and now terminates at Church Street.

* * *

Right now, the Courtney Campbell trail from Safety Harbor allows a pedestrian traveler to find their way to the Cypress Point Park. Through the park, a trail is being constructed to connect to Westshore Blvd. There is a gap between Westshore and Lois Ave at this time, but there are plans for a connection.

Creating a crossover could help one day connect the Pinellas County trail via the Courtney Campbell Trail to downtown Tampa and beyond to Manatee county, which is one possible destination.

Once the MPO has assessed if and where a Dale Mabry Crossing is feasible, they said they will engage in community dialogue to get feedback on the route and assess how the other planning and implementation projects are or will be supporting the goal of a connected trail system.

We definitely support the creation of a trail system and Dale Mabry is definitely an impediment to any surface trail.  A bridge over Dale Mabry is probably going to be kind of hot most of the year (though not much hotter than crossing the Courtney Campbell trail).  And the connections to any trail at this junction is a little complicated.  Helpfully, the MPO has posted a preliminary overview of their ideas here.

The one key element to having a useful trail is to keep it out of traffic and in its own right of way on either side of Dale Mabry.  Having a nice bridge that leads to having to bike in the street would not be very useful.

There is another thought, though it is not determinative.  The MPO document considers a crossing both north and south of I-275 at Dale Mabry.  While the bridge is going to be hot, it may make sense to keep the trail north of I-275 as much as possible to shield people from the sun at least part of the year.  And, of course, we don’t want to hear that the trail is contingent on TBX.  It shouldn’t be.

We look forward to seeing what they come up with.

Advertisements
One Comment leave one →
  1. HouseofG permalink
    April 9, 2017 10:14 AM

    In case you didn’t catch this piece by The Economist this week:
    http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21720269-dont-let-people-park-free-how-not-create-traffic-jams-pollution-and-urban-sprawl

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: