The reason why Seattle has grown so much in transit usage relative to other cities is because they made it illegal to build more suburbs and to build car infras

The reason why Seattle has grown so much in transit usage relative to other cities is because they made it illegal to build more suburbs and to build car infrastructure. This is in contrast to a lot of the other regions mentioned in the article which while they invested in transit, also invested in roads and did not regulate suburban development. The article mentions these exact policies as a reason for transit growth: “[Seattle] has made efforts to centralize jobs in downtown areas” and “Portland’s urban growth boundary has been effective in limiting car-centric sprawl” (Seattle has an UGB as well). This was not a market choice and was deliberate on the part of the planners who want to promote a specific lifestyle. Good luck getting an apartment building or office tower approved in Seattle if you build enough parking for your tenants to all own a car or for a large portion of your employees to drive to work. The major downside of the policies is an increase in street parking and congestion (because people don’t get rid of their cars at the same rate planners expect them to) and an increase in the price of houses (not housing) due to simple supply and demand reasons. Buying a house in the Seattle metro area is a great investment: as long as Amazon keeps hiring the number of people wanting houses will go up and since the supply of houses is fixed (or increasing slower than population growth or even decreasing), your home’s value will rise. If you like Seattle’s preferred lifestyle, or already own a house, it’s a great place to live, but if you aspire to own a house and aren’t rich, then good luck and you may want to consider moving.