If anyone else posted this I would think it’s too far fetched to believe. I’m still unsure, tbh.

Does the 40% take into account housing cost? In my area walkable housing comes at a significant premium.

As public servants, we have to spend wisely but every efficiency comes with a cost, to the people left behind and to the people picking up the pieces.

I wish I knew his name, because I think of him and his neighbors every time I see a politician railing against wasteful spending, or a new department head touting efficiency upgrades.

Not that he minded doing favors for his neighbors, but the bus lines they depended on had moved and reduced services, and he had a lot of neighbors who needed to get to work, or court, or school, or shopping, and couldn’t afford taxi fare or cars of their own.

He was skeptical, as with all people who have watched big public projects come and go, but offered his insight -

He didn’t mind the future noise or disruption. He wasn’t worried about his property values. He was just happy about the chance to not be the neighborhood chauffeur.

I looked a little out of place in my brand new reflective vest scrutinizing their cars - clearly not fixing things or writing tickets.

In one neighborhood an older gentleman came out to chat - my partner and I explained we were doing field work to prepare for the new Red Line planned for the city.

Not surprising - lower income folks are more likely to have to walk in areas without proper pedestrian infrastructure, while higher income folks are usually walkers by choice in areas designed for their safety and comfort.

It’s a pretty generic cable stay bridge - not bad, but I was hoping for something a little more distinctive.

Only if administered by a private company instead of your friendly local transportation authority.