Sprawled Out: The Search for Community in the American Suburb

"Franklin is going to be one of the most connected cities in the area." When?

Back from a week out of town, and lots to catch up on.

First, a headline in the new Franklin Citizen newspaper: "Council approves new subdivision, easement to connect pedestrian trail." This quote attributed to Mayor Tom Taylor caught my eye:

"Franklin is going to be one of the most connected cities in the area."

With all due respect to the mayor, Franklin has a LONG way to go before it ends its current status as comically disconnected - - not a slur against Franklin specifically, mind you, but sprawled suburbs in general.

Franklin, as per typical suburban sprawl growth patterns,  consists largely of disconnected pods.

The photo above? That's the view of Victory Creek subdivision - - you can see peaks of houses over the trees - - from the playground at Pleasant View Elementary (which has access problems of its own discussed here). But don't try walking from the school to the subdivision; there is no connection, and you'll have to drive a circuitous TWO MILE route out to 51st street and then Drexel to the home you see mere yards away (.35 miles, to be exact).

Franklin has a long way to go before it's "connected" in any meaningful way.

6/27/07 addition - A reader comment:

That was always my criticism before my children were redistricted to Robinwood Grade School 4 miles away. I live in the High View estates (less than 1 mile as the crow flies) on 47th Street and there was no direct route to Pleasant View.

Photography Banned in Downtown Silver Spring, Maryland

What is public space today? In downtown Silver Spring, Maryland, they'll take your money, but you can't take a picture. From nowpublic.com, posted by by Bill Adler:

You're going to want to read the following two paragraphs twice because you're not going to believe them.

"This past Tuesday I went to downtown Silver Spring, had lunch, and then took out my camera and standing on Ellsworth Avenue, I began taking shots of the buildings with the blue sky and clouds as a backdrop. Almost immediately, a security guard approached and told me 'there was no picture taking allowed in Downtown Silver Spring.' 'What do you mean?' I said, 'I am on a city street, in a public place -- taking pictures is a right that I have protected by the first amendment.' The guard told me to report to the management office.

"There, Stacy Horan informed me that Downtown Silver Spring including Ellsworth Avenue is private property, not a public place, and subject to the rules of the Peterson Companies.  They have a no photography policy to 'protect them from people who might want to use the photographs as part of a story in which they could write bad things about us.'  And she told me that many of the chain stores in Downtown Silver Spring don't what their 'concepts' to be photographed for security reasons."

Photo by Chip Py, from this related story at The Washington Post

It appears that this street, Ellswoth Avenue, in downtown Silver Spring, Maryland is, in fact, a private street.

But when you peel back a layer, you find that actually it not pure private property, although the Peterson company is treating the street as private property.  This part of downtown Silver Spring was developed using public and private money, and what the Peterson Company claims to be its property is actually owned by Montgomery County, and leased to the Peterson Company.  As part of the lease agreement, Peterson has to allow the public to access Ellsworth Avenue, which is connected to city-owned streets on either end.

What's happened in Silver Spring, Maryland is an example of what's happening all around the Washington, DC area:  Police and security guards are claiming a right to bar photographers where no such law allows them to do that.  And when the police and security guards aren't barring photography, they're asking photographers for identification and an explanation -- again without a law permitting them to stop a photographer and ask for identification.

These events spurred Chip Py and Kate Mereand to form a Flickr group promoting photographer rights in Washington, DC, www.flickr.com/groups/dcphotorights.  This is group where people can post photographs that "security" has tried to bar, and can discuss issues and problems about photography in the Washington, DC area.  I asked Kate Mereand why she founded this group.  She said:

"I created DC Photo Rights in response to the numerous instances of harassment local area photographers have cited. I am an amateur photographer who has been shooting for about two years. I have found the DC amateur photographer society, especially through Flickr, to be a very supportive atmosphere. The city itself, however, seems to pose a constant challenge, especially to beginners.

"The specific impetus was a photographer who was harassed for taking photos from the street in downtown Silver Spring, MD. This struck a chord with me. I live and work in Silver Spring, and I have been a supporter of the development projects in the downtown area. These projects have faced some resistance, and I was saddened to hear that the downtown area that I often defend is associated with this sort of behavior.

"I am specifically interested, also, in the role that security guards at federal buildings play in this. Many incorrectly inform photographers that photos are illegal.  While this is prevalent with security guards everywhere, I find it more disturbing when federal security guard do this; many people regard there claims of protecting national security interests more seriously. And of course, in a few cases, photos of federal buildings are not allowed. So this often leaves photographers, amateurs especially, on uncertain grounds where easy victims of harassment.

"I think what is chilling now, however, is how often 'national security' and 'terrorist threats' are used as an excuse for illegal harassment and abuse. The most disturbing trend I see is when people are asked to present identification when they are not breaking any laws."

She added, "Often in this situation photographers are made to feel like a perpetrator of a crime, while they are actually the ones being victimized."

When the police ask for ID, they usually write down your information.  When you're approached by the police, or even by a private security guard, and quizzed about what you're doing, that can be unnerving and upsetting.  Why am I being questioned?  What's going to happen next?  Might I be arrested if I give the wrong answers?

It's been said time and time again, to the point of becoming cliche:  The world changed after 9/11.  We have to accept new security restrictions.  We have to be cautions, careful, questioning, even suspicious.  But being stopped in the street for completely lawful activity is not only un-American, and possibly unlawful itself, but it's likely to be ineffective, even counter productive.  Regarding photography as suspicious activity diverts valuable brain power away from thinking about real dangers.  Besides, terrorists can photograph sites surreptitiously if they want.

These are the issues that Kate Mereand and Chip Py's DC Photo Rights Flickr group is focusing on.

A protest has been scheduled in Silver Spring on July 4th to draw attention to this issue.  Photographers participating in the will be meeting at Ellsworth Avenue in Silver Spring, and then will walk and snap their cameras.  More information about this demonstration can be found here.

Disclosure:  I've contributed photos to the DC Photo Rights Flickr group.

The Middleton Hills Case Study (2001)

Further on the topic of Traditional Neighborhood Design (or Neo-Traditional Development), here a case study of Middleton Hills (near Madison) done back in 2001 by Jane Grabowski-Miller, Middleton Hills' Project and Design Director (she can be contacted at [email protected]):

New Developments and New Urbanism:
The Middleton Hills Case Study (2001)

Abstract: Middleton Hills began as a developer’s vision to create an alternative model for subdivision development. Together with consultant, Duany Plater-Zyberk & Company, the master plan and design regulations were developed for a new urbanist community in Middleton, Wisconsin. The municipal approval process was challenging due mainly to the revisions in engineering standards required to implement the project. Lot sales were promising the first year; most likely due to local publicity about an innovative new community based on old neighborhood principles. Sales decreased in the subsequent two years. It appeared that the "pioneers" had bought into the project and others had a "wait and see" attitude. Now in the fifth year of lot sales (circa 2001), with over 25% of the development built-out, the physical reality has taken shape. The public has been more informed about the new urbanism concept both at local and national levels. Market acceptance by consumers, builders, and developers seems to be steadily increasing, as well as sales.

(Architectural illustrations from the Middleton Hills web site)

Craftsman Style

Bungalow Style

Prairie Style

At last, a reason to use the phrase "fish monger" in a post

Here in Franklin, we make a Sendik's grocery store agree not to sell goods outdoors or offer outdoor seating. In Cudahy, however, they have the right idea. Sounds like a great plan and a wonderful public space if it succeeds.

All this with TWO Sendik's stores close by? Prediction: We may see people choose the more interesting public space in Cudahy for their fresh meat and fish, bypassing the strip-mall Shoppes and "can't sell outdoors" Fountains of Franklin.

This is why SITE PLAN is so important; people have to drive anyway, so why not drive an extra four minutes for a better, more interesting shopping (and social) experience?

From Community Newspapers:

Daily Market gets green light

BY DAVE FIDLIN

Three entities have come to a mutual developer's agreement for the Daily Market, crystallizing months of discussion about its feasibility in Cudahy.



Two of the three parties, the Community Development Authority and developer MK Realty LLC, approved the terms of the agreement on Monday. The Common Council, representing the city, gave its approval Tuesday.



The Daily Market is to be part of a larger mixed-use facility on land that will be redeveloped on two city-owned lots at the northwest and southwest corner of Packard Avenue and Library Drive.



MK officials said they hope to feature an array of vendors at the Daily Market, including butchers, fine chocolatiers and fish mongers, plus a wine store, coffee shop and deli.



As outlined in the agreement, construction on the complex is to begin Oct. 1 and be completed by April 1, 2009.

The Expectations Game 3: "Shoppes" Target COULD (and would) have gone green (and upscale)

Target Store planned for Davis, California

Further exploration of the Target development described at the City of Davis, California website is a real eye opener, and rather startling in contrast to how the city of Franklin seems to have capitulated for a standard-issue Target.

Let's talk about what could have been. This is an excerpt from an article in the Davis Enterprise, Sunday, October 8, 2006, via targetindavis.com:

From the outset, the City of Davis had a series of very specific conditions for the project:

• First, that there was only one suitable location in the City for a store such as Target, on Second Street near Mace Boulevard, next to an existing EPA Superfund site;
• Second, the store would have to be a registered "green" building, incorporating energy and water conservation features, other landscaping and environmental features, and a new bus stop, making it one of only 10 LEED® (Leadership in Energy Efficient Design) registered environmental retail buildings in the world;
• Third, the City worked with Target to create a 110-foot setback from the commercial property line, rather than the 25-foot setback currently allowed by zoning.

Target not only agreed to the conditions but went even further to create a store that is a design fit for Davis. The Target Second Street Crossing project also includes:

• A 3-acre greenbelt planted with trees to provide a natural buffer around the project and reduce noise from I-80 and the rail corridor;
• Trees to shade at least 50% of the parking lot;
• Covered bike parking and bike accessibility;
• Recharge stations for electric-powered vehicles;
• Landscaping and run-off control methods, and;
• The use of wood, stone and other design features to make the store unique to Davis.

Very different from the attitude in Franklin, Wisconsin: "We're just lucky to get a Target."

Target is very receptive to green development and community design issues when it works with a city that can make green development and community design a priority. See the Target environmental philosophy here.

"Target goes green to please Davis" article in the extended.

The Expectations Game 2: Standing behind the local developer (and "We need local shopping")

Casper Green is president of the Franklin Senior Citizens group. Just to name a few of his endeavors, he was instrumental in creating a senior meal program dining site here. He's also an active volunteer, works on Franklin's Personnel and Negotiations committees, participates in his church and its choir, and visits homebound seniors. Mr. Green is a familiar fixture at various city meetings, keeping tabs on city issues and reporting back to the senior community. Deservedly so, he was inducted into the Milwaukee County Senior Hall of Fame this year; to call him an asset to the community is quite an understatement.

Mr. Green was kind enough to return my call recently to discuss development issues as they impact the senior community, the Shoppes at Wyndham Village project in particular. As I described a few days back, the special Plan Commission meeting regarding the Shoppes site plan was a full house, mostly made up of senior citizens mobilized by Mr. Green to support the project.

Were the senior citizens actually "mobilized"? This is not a supposition on my part; Mr. Green confirmed it when I spoke to him.

Though he demurred at my suggestion that he has influence over the senior community, Mr. Green has a history of activating the senior voting block. In 2001, when debate over renovating an abandoned fire station for a senior citizens center was put on hold as officials explored the possibility of placing the center in City Hall, Mr. Green made his intentions clear. The mayor at the time, Fred Klimetz, vetoed the common council's decision to spend $1.1 million on the renovation, saying the firehouse was not centrally located and was never meant to be used as a public meeting facility.

From the May 2nd, 2001 edition of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

Casper Green, who heads the 300-member senior group, urged the council to override the mayor's veto and suggested its members would retaliate at the polls against those who blocked the fire station proposal.

"You're either with us or against us, and we do remember," Green said.

Then-alderman (now mayor) Tom Taylor moved to override Klimetz's veto (later withdrawn when temporary space was suggested). Klimetz and more than a few aldermen disappeared from Franklin government soon afterward as a pro-development common council was swept into office.

Pro-Mark Carstensen

Mr. Green said he's never been to a Sendik's, but checked out the new Target in Oak Creek and was very impressed. "Beautiful layout. Very well kept, not cluttered up. As senior citizens wanting a place to shop, we like Target," he said. "I've been told that this Target store will be the best in the state, if not the whole country."

What became obvious during our conversation is that, first and foremost, Casper Green holds Wyndham Hills developer Mark Carstensen in very, very high regard; "An honorable corporate citizen of Franklin, true to his word." He also mentioned that Mr. Carstensen contributes money to the local seniors, as does Icon Development.

"People fight him with excuses, not reasons," he said.

“You said 'they' fight him. Not 'they' fight the development?" I pointed out. "You said 'they' are actually fighting Mark Carstensen the person.” Mr. Green clarified that he didn’t mean to make that implication.

But then, later in our conversation: “When someone is against Mark, we …”.

I interrupted to call attention what he'd said; “It appears that you feel that a criticism of the development or elements of the development is personal criticism against your friend Mark Carstensen.” Once again, he assured me that that was not the case. Yet I could not help feel that, in Mr. Green’s eyes, if you hinder the progress of Shoppes at Wyndham Village, you hinder his friend personally.

When it became clear that Mark Carstensen may need support to get "Shoppes" off the ground and through the city bureaucracy, Mr. Green said he told the seniors to be sure to attend the special plan commission meeting. And they came out in great numbers to support Mark Carstensen, if not the Shoppes at Wyndham Village.

Mr. Green mentioned the comments made by Doug Wheaton, Franklin’s Director of Economic Development, at the meeting. “He’s sharp. He could have taken lots of other jobs; he’s a lawyer,” he noted. “You heard his remarks, how he recommended going ahead. And he has nothing to gain from saying that.”

I disagree: “But isn’t his mandate as Director of Economic Development to bring in new business? That’s his job; we want him to aggressively bring in business and commercial development, and if he gets this new retail center approved, that’s good for his department and him professionally. Wouldn’t he be apt to want 'Shoppes' to succeed regardless of site plan issues that he considers minor?”

“No, he doesn’t benefit,” Mr. Green insisted. His faith was unshakable, and his irritation with me evident.

The Franklin Plan Staff, by the way, reports directly to the Director of Economic Development.

Site plan and the elderly

I mentioned site plan issues; how might an elderly person with mobility difficulties move among the various buildings and be able to enjoy multiple stores and amenities independently if they must traverse a bleak landscape of landscaping islands across uninterrupted parking space? Couldn’t the buildings be arranged in a manner that makes them more accessible from one to another? Mr. Green explained that the original site plan that he recalls seeing had the building grouped closer together and the large anchor stores at the Drexel side of the property. “Mark had to move them after meeting with the neighbors across the street and hearing their concerns.”

I explained an overarching issue: that the ingredients seem wonderful, but the vehicle-centric and sprawled site plan makes the Shoppes just another strip mall, not to mention further enforces the segregation of our elderly and physically challenged population by making it difficult for them to move among the buildings in a public space shared by people of all ages - - the nominal city center of Franklin. Mr. Green indicated that he didn’t think that would be a problem; the elderly could get in and out of Target easily.

Regarding the fairly unimpressive Target architecture - - what if the Target store remains less-than-great? Mr. Green was unwavering in his unconditional faith in city government: “If the mayor and common council say ‘no,’ then Target can’t build,” he asserted.

It appears that the expectations of Mr. Green and local seniors with whom he works are met.

Toward more transparent community development: Here's how it should be done

With all due respect to Franklin's over-worked, under-staffed Planning Staff, I'll be frank; keeping up on just a few developments here in Franklin is anything but easy. While materials are provided when I ask through an open records request, there is definitely a "if you don't ask we can't/won't tell" vibe. I can't, for example, simply "subscribe" to any and all new documents pertaining to Fountains of Franklin or Shoppes at Wyndham Village; I have to ask for each document specifically. How do you find out that a new site plan or document exists or was generated? Good question.

Want to attend any and all meetings wherein a certain project is discussed? You have to try to nab meeting agendas from multiple commissions to determine whether a project you're interested in will be discussed (Common Council, Plan Commission, Economic Development, etc.).

Take a look at how the city of DAVIS, CALIFORNIA presents ongoing development issues on its web page, in this case pertaining to a planned Target Store.

This is the way to do it. Each project has its own dedicated page (see the nicely designed Projects Page). Every development page has easily accessible and well-organized pdfs of all documents and site plans (under "Documents" and "Environmental Review" tabs), meeting schedules, updates and recaps, and a city staff contact.

Imagine this kind of online access to site plan material:

Simply outstanding and a model for all communities.

The gas tax is ALL we use to cover the costs of roads and freeways? BUNK.

In a post entitled "Pay the fare, even if you don't ride," Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel columnist Patrick McIlheran "rails" against the folly of rail transit. Look at Chicago, he says, "as railed-up as a place realistically could be":

And it's still sucking taxpayer money at a nearly unfathomable rate.

Rail advocates often respond to this by asking, rhetorically, how much taxpayers must spend to keep up roads for cars. Quite a bit, in Wisconsin, certainly. But that's money collected specifically from drivers, who pay it via our gas tax. In Illinois, they additionally pay it via tolls, as well as having a gas tax that, in total, is higher than ours.

The sentence in bold pretty much ignores the last couple generations of federal policy as McIlheran tries to assert that only users of roads and freeways pay for them.

A) Does he mean to say that our spending on freeways, roads, parking, etc. is all supported by the gas tax alone? I beg to differ.
B) As the title of his post implies (I guess it's meant to fire up fellow conservatives who are loath to drop a dime outside their own field of need and want), is it some great sin to help subsidize a sensible, usable transit system - whether you use it or not - that will help get non-car owners to work, relieve congestion, and lower our dependence on foreign oil (the cost of which can be measured in dollars, lives, and limbs)?

Heaven help us if we toss dollars at anything that does not immediately and directly benefit us personally.

[As I write this, I note James Rowen at The Political Environment is on the case.]

Interestingly, an earlier post of McIlheran's states:

Lefties lately have been trying to contrast themselves with normal people by saying they're in favor of a "we're all in this together" ethic. By contrast, they contend, conservatives are about the idea that "you're on your own," which allows liberals to acronym it down to YOYO.

Whatever amuses their juvenile minds.

I hadn't heard of "YOYO" before, but I certainly believe what McIlheran describes. I listened to the local WISN midmorning radio host  - - - who was, as per usual,  following the lead of conservatives across the country (and directly lifting, it appears, this specific post) - -  call Hillary Clinton "a socialist" and "dangerous" for expressing the "we're all in this together" ethos in a recent campaign speech. He was kind enough to look up and read the definition of "Socialism" for the listeners.

I'm no big fan of Clinton, but I can't disagree with the (fairly bumper-sticker) ideas she promoted. She said, in part:

"I prefer a 'we're all in it together' society. I believe our government can once again work for all Americans. It can promote the great American tradition of opportunity for all and special privileges for none."

The radio squawker (as well as the right wing blogosphere) pointed out that statement specifically. They were beside themselves that she should suggest such things - "simply un-American!"

Fascinating. I'll digress:

Right wing bloggers seem especially fond of relating battlefield stories of bravery and self sacrifice - there's something we agree on. The soldier who goes over the top to sure death in order to provide cover for retreating comrades; the courageous men at Normandy who stood at the front of the landing vehicle knowing they would shield the men behind them with their bodies as German machine guns fired at them utterly unimpeded; the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan who  bare themselves to countless threats every day to clear roads for their fellow soldiers' convoys. These are heroes, no question.

At what point in their post-military debriefing are they told: "Now, toss that 'we're all in this together' crap over the side before you get stateside, or else you're a stinking Socialist ."

 

Shoppes at Wyndham Village: Part 2 - The expectations game

I'd planned to discuss the Plan Staff recommendations for Shoppes at Wyndham Village, but a conversation with local activist Casper Green coupled with recent postings from Franklinnow.com bloggers prompted me to explore the "expectations" topic a bit instead.

Expectation 1: Good for the economy is good enough for me

In response to the concerns of blogger Greg Kowalski regarding Target's architectural choices at the "upscale" Shoppes at Wyndham Village" and his post regarding a much more attractive Target complex in Santa Monica, CA,  Fred Keller is brutally honest in his "eFishwrap blog": "Simply put: 'I don’t care what Target looks like.'

Mr. Keller gives voice to a somewhat common attitude among those who profess to anything other than complete apathy regarding local commercial development and its impact on the community.

From his blog:

1. TARGET IS THE MOST GENEROUS CORPORATION IN AMERICA.

Our community will benefit directly from Target’s generosity.

2. IT IS OF LITTLE IMPORTANCE TO ME WHAT THE FACADE ON TARGET’S WYNDHAM VILLAGE LOOKS LIKE.

A Target is a Target, and this ain’t Santa Monica, California.

My hunch is the vast majority of Frankliners could care less about Target’s facade or even their corporate generosity. Most simply expect Target to be “Target.” That is: A department store where they can expect choice, convenience, service and value.

It’s as simple as that. Am I going to fast for anyone?

3. TARGET HAS A PUBLICALLY STATED ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY AND IS RESPECTFUL OF THE COMMUNITIES AND SENSATIVE TO THE ECO-SYSTEMS THEY OPERATE IN.

Greenpeace, and Al Gore may not approve of Target’s Environmental Philosophy, but I applaud it.

Mr. Keller's point #1 has basis in fact: Target Corporation contributes 5% of their pre-tax operating income to schools and nonprofit agencies in the communities where they have stores. In 2003 and 2004, Forbes ranked Target Corporation as “America’s Most Generous Corporation.”

Point #3 is also relevant; Target, when compared to Wal-Mart, is certainly more sensitive to local communities and their economic infrastructure. (Not to mention they have infinitely better design sense).

Point #2 is the one that jumps out at me: "IT IS OF LITTLE IMPORTANCE TO ME WHAT THE FACADE ON TARGET’S WYNDHAM VILLAGE LOOKS LIKE. A Target is a Target, and this ain’t Santa Monica, California."

"A Target is a Target" is simply wrong. Take it from a man who did a personal appearance tour at 12 Targets across the country in 6 days (it's a long story...). Target stores vary greatly, to say the least (on the outside).

However, Mr. Keller's viewpoint - - expressed in a refreshingly frank manner - - is indicative of the attitude of the public at large. For a vehicle-centric, suburban-sprawled society, the physical manifestation of the store where you buy your batteries and underwear is of little consequence. It's just another stop in the drive-park-shop-drive-park-shop rhythm to which we've grown accustomed; we've long since lost "sense of place" in our commercial and municipal structures.

And, really, it's not the job of the public to worry over the details of community-building and the construction of public spaces. The average person thinks short-term and in a very self-interested manner: I want it fast and cheap and there better be a parking spot close to the door.

Given that level of expectation, who can disagree with Mr. Keller?

Next: The Expectation Game 2: Standing behind the local developer (and "We need local shopping")

 

Twin Cities soar with transit, Detroit sinks without

Milwaukee: Detroit redux - -

Minneapolis' Metro Transit reported six million rides in its first year of light rail, 61 percent higher than predicted. The Twin Cities regional population jumped nearly 3 percent since 2000, a healthy growth rate.

Meanwhile, the Census reported that Detroit, where a struggling network of buses are the only regional transit option, lost 50,000 residents since 2000, more than any other American city, returning Motown to its 1915 population.

One big reason for the stark difference is that, while Detroit's racially hostile city-suburban relationship frustrates efforts to develop regional transit, the Twin Cities's regional cooperation and steady pressure from transit advocates produced a more balanced transportation system.

When Transit Works

By Dave Dempsey

Open Access Article Originally Published: September 14, 2005

The Twin Cities' Hiawatha Line offers fast, quiet light-rail service to 17 stations between downtown Minneapolis and Mall of America with connecting bus service timed to match train schedules.

Just last June the Twin Cities, one of the Midwest's fastest growing metropolitan regions, celebrated the first anniversary of the Hiawatha Line, a light rail route linking downtown Minneapolis with the region’s airport and the Mall of America.

A few days later, the U.S. Census dropped Detroit — which has one of the worst public transportation systems of any major metropolitan region anywhere — from its list of America's 10 largest cities.

This is hardly a coincidence, as hundreds of transit advocates from across the nation gathered in Salt Lake City for the Rail-Volution Conference are learning. This weekend's conference celebrates the remarkable boost modern public transit systems are giving to dozens of American cities. There is no longer any doubt that a powerful link exists between effective public transit and a region's economy.

Minneapolis and Detroit offer prime examples. Minneapolis' Metro Transit reported six million rides in its first year of light rail, 61 percent higher than predicted. The Twin Cities regional population jumped nearly 3 percent since 2000, a healthy growth rate.

Meanwhile, the Census reported that Detroit, where a struggling network of buses are the only regional transit option, lost 50,000 residents since 2000, more than any other American city, returning Motown to its 1915 population.

One big reason for the stark difference is that, while Detroit's racially hostile city-suburban relationship frustrates efforts to develop regional transit, the Twin Cities's regional cooperation and steady pressure from transit advocates produced a more balanced transportation system.

Patience and Vision

But the Hiawatha line's arrival also shows how much effort it takes, even without racial divisiveness, to build quality transit. When it was first proposed in the 1970s, conservative politicians attacked light rail as a waste of taxpayer money. Now, however, Russ Adams of the nonprofit, Minneapolis-based Alliance for Metropolitan Stability says it is clear how wrong that claim was.

"The critics of light rail made a very bad miscalculation of the public's growing desire for transportation choices," Mr. Adams said. "Our region now recognizes what a terrible mistake it has been to focus on a single-solution approach."

The Metropolitan Council, a planning agency, provided a forum and official advocacy for light rail in the state Legislature. Finally, in the 1990s, the tide changed, thanks to patient advocacy, widespread opposition to freeway expansions by neighborhoods targeted for such projects, and a Minneapolis congressman who directed $334 million in federal funds to the $715 million Hiawatha light rail corridor.

The line, which began service on June 26, 2004, was an immediate hit. Metro Transit reports that it averaged 19,700 rides per weekday between January and May of this year, and that 57 percent of its riders use light rail at least five days a week.

Pragmatism vs. Partisanship

In fact, some observers say, the line is so popular that the Minnesota Legislature's inaction on additional transit during its 2003-2004 session may have cost 13 Republican members of the state House, many of whom opposed funding more transit, their jobs. The same trend was observed last November in Colorado, where voters replaced Republican lawmakers opposing Denver's $4.7 billion regional transit initiative and swung the state Legislature to the Democrats for the first time in a generation.

"Increasingly it's clear that pragmatists…best represent the interests of hard-pressed suburban commuters," the Minneapolis-based Star Tribune editorialized after last November's surprising local results. "Indeed, Twin Cities voters are happily discovering what's long been true elsewhere: Better transportation doesn't have to be a partisan issue."

Former Michigan Governor William G. Milliken, a moderate Republican, told southeast Michigan's leaders the same thing during his speech at the Mackinac Regional Conference, on Mackinac Island, in May.

Mr. Milliken knows the story well: In 1976, while he was governor, U.S. Transportation Secretary William Coleman offered $600 million in federal funds to build regional transportation in southeast Michigan. But distrust between the largely white suburbs and largely African-American Detroit doomed the proposal.

"It would have brought people together, to and from every point of the region," Mr. Milliken laments. "It would have helped people get to jobs."

Opposition to regional transit for metropolitan Detroit persists. Democratic Governor Jennifer M. Granholm invoked Mr. Milliken's vision of "one Michigan" in her 2002 election campaign and appointed him to co-chair a panel that drew up a Smart Growth plan for the state in 2003 that includes transit. But suburban Republican state legislators prefer laying pavement, not rails.

Let's Get Together

Of course, successfully transit is no cure-all. Minnesota's Republican Governor Tim Pawlenty recently vetoed a bipartisan bill that would have provided an additional $200 million annually for transit by 2011, including a half-cent regional sales tax for expanded transit, bicycling, and walking in the Twin Cities region. Now large cuts in the region's bus system loom.

It's a strange decision: Public transit has helped the Twin Cities' metropolitan unemployment rate to register a strikingly low 3.7% in May 2005. Compare that to 7.5% unemployment in metro Detroit, the highest of any major metropolitan region. Business is flocking to Hiawatha light rail corridor. The Metro Council forecasts 7,150 new housing units, more than 19 million sq. ft. of new commercial space, and up to 68,000 new jobs by year 2020 along the Hiawatha line. Transit success has shifted the conversation among Twin Cities residents from whether to where to build the next line.

Meanwhile, Mr. Milliken says the failure of metropolitan Detroit to capitalize on the 1976 federal transit offer is among his chief regrets. Pointing to Toronto and Chicago, two cities that developed outstanding regional transit systems and now thrive economically, he asserts that Michigan would be "light years ahead" had its most populous region embraced a regional transit plan 30 years ago.

David Dempsey, the Great Lakes policy advisor for Clean Water Action and a consultant to the Michigan Environmental Council, is the author of Ruin and Recovery: Michigan's Rise as a Conservation Leader, and On The Brink: The Great Lakes in the 21st Century. Reach him at [email protected].