There has been a lot of debate around the country regarding the role of public transit in cities that are well-developed and very spread out. What do you do in cities where suburban areas have already developed around the automobile? It includes areas such as Washington, D.C., Atlanta and Los Angeles. Is there a meaningful role in these cities to have light rail, heavy rail or commuter trains? As metro areas continue to expand in population and life expectancy rates rise, you can make a difference by building rail corridors and developing homes around those corridors. In both D.C. and Atlanta, developers are building housing areas for people who would like to ride public transit. The transit stations are essentially magnets for housing and offices. Now, it doesn’t help people who are already living in far out areas that are not near rails. But, you can provide an alternative for future residents. Some people prefer to pay more money for less of a house just to have a shorter commute that is near a public transit station. But there is no such thing as “building your way out of traffic congestion.” Supply creates its own demand when you build a road. It’s never going to mirror the systems in New York, New Jersey or Massachusetts where trains are a natural kind of thing because the population is so concentrated. But it’s not an either-or situation. You can gear plans toward people who would prefer not to sit in a car for hours to get to work.