Best of luck solving! If you'd like help or to support us, you can find the solution on our Patreon here: www.patreon.com/posts/147488...

I'm all for taxing the rich but when transit projects cost years & billions upon billions & > 3x projects in other countries.. it's a good time to start cutting costs & do better engineering

This was an awesome article. I generally think US infrastructure is stupidly large (why do we have a ton of long bridges over roads when a crosswalk would do?) so the 35 vs 25 ft station size is aesthetical as well as thrifty to me. Hope those costs come down!

Best of luck solving! If you'd like help or to support us, you can find the solution on our Patreon here: www.patreon.com/posts/138915...

Idk he voted in block with Rinck & Strauss on plenty of amendments. I think he'll happily go along with a Foster, Rinck, Strauss led agenda next year if those 2 win big

Best of luck solving! If you'd like help or to support us, you can find the solution on our Patreon here: www.patreon.com/posts/138389...

Quite possibly worth a whole separate post too. Since developer vitriol has a whole similar surface level trying to do good, bad PR problem into a "protecting property values of increasingly wealthy people" actuality. And is the theoretical cause of many blue cities' bad zoning choices

- We can have housing & trees too! This is where things get interesting & can just be "tree advocate 1" but nailing down policy is quite difficult & vitriole against developers is high

The "save the environment (at large)" argument is the most obvious one to debunk. Some additional arguments:
- preserving the tree canopy & preventing. Maybe the "tree equity" argument you do address - certainly a rebuttal of South Seattle vs other neighborhoods helps