That’s the plan.
That’s how many passenger-car miles per person we have to average in 2050 to meet the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 80%. Today’s number is 18.5, up from 17.4 in 1990.
That’s just one metric from the new Climate Action Plan issued Friday by the City of Portland and Multnomah County. The plan calls for substantial restructuring of transportation and land use (including building out the Bicycle Master Plan and Streetcar System Plan being featured in open houses later this month).
I’ve picked out one number to stir the pot here, but in fact I think the plan is a masterpiece. It clearly and compellingly spells out the actions necessary on a broad array of fronts to combat (and prepare for) climate change.
I’ll bet this one wins some awards!
38 responses to “6.7 Miles Per Day Per Person”
Well, 6.7 miles per person powered by carbon-releasing sources…
And here’s one for Terry, from Page 16 of the executive summary, a goal for 2030: “Motivate all Multnomah County residents and businesses to change their behavior in ways that reduce carbon emissions.”
Hurrah for Social Engineering, or Social Motivation, or whatever… :-)
And here’s one for Terry
I have to defend him at least a little bit. “Social engineering” projects like building expensive MAX lines and subsidizing/giving breaks to development based on being near transit do cost money.
HOWEVER, he and probably many other people don’t realize that government intervention (“social engineering” or whatever) is what got us into this mess. Specifically, it costs more money to provide many services (streets, transit, water, sewer, electricity, telephone service, cable television, garbage pickup, recycling pickup, postal service, UPS/FedEx/DHL/other mailing services, pizza/other delivery services, police, fire protection) to lower-density developments, as well as money to extend those services to brand-new developments, but they often do not have to pay all of those extra costs.
In fact, Beaverton has not been able to build new schools (funded by all district residents) fast enough while Portland next door can’t keep theirs open. In addition, I believe TriMet might not need to have service cut hearings if they didn’t have to serve so much inefficient development.
I believe TriMet might not need to have service cut hearings if they didn’t have to serve so much inefficient development.
I remember hearing some years ago that ten residential units per acre was needed to support reasonable use of transit service. That seems — in principle — an attainable goal. Just set 12 units per acre as a target in residential neighborhoods, while preserving neighborhood character with a “stop at 12” rule on any given block. Let property owners put in skinny homes, rowhouses, subdivide into duplexes, great garden apartments, whatever, until the 12 unit per acre limit is reached.
That may create some grumbling, but going from eight homes per acre to twelve won’t seriously impact anyone’s livability, and it would eventually support cost-effective transit throughout the area. Nobody would be forced to do anything, and you wouldn’t even need any public subsidies. Just give private property owners a bit more freedom and flexibility to redevelop their own land.
Many neighborhoods have far more than 12 homes per acre–they’re called apartments. (Or condos, or whatever).
Trouble is, many homeowners (of detached dwellings) dislike having apartments nearby; especially the lower-rent variety, which tends to attract tenants that might be considered undesirable. People are frequently willing to pay a lot of money to not live near other people with less money (or who are of a different race or culture, etc), and will resist like heck. In some places, transit through the neighborhood is opposed for the same reason–a fear that it will invite or enable the “riffraff” to come by. The reason the Georgetown neighborhood of Washington DC doesn’t have a Metro stop, despite the Red Line running nearby, is that the locals feared degentrification of their neighborhood. Such fears proved absurd, of course.
I like the goal of bicycle mode share hitting 20% by 2030, though I wonder what it would take to get it to 20% by 2020?
“Motivate all Multnomah County residents and businesses to change their behavior in ways that reduce carbon emissions.”
Let’s start with Mayor Adams and streetcar activists and supporters changing their behavior. Digging up the streets to add rails is not only expensive and financially unsustainable requiring endless operating subsidies, but in itself it is also harmful to the environment spewing dust and dirt into the air. The same can be said about adding curb extensions. Both are usually done with diesel powered excavators and dump trucks along with other diesel powered construction equipment rather than with manual labor using pick axes, shovels, mules and for all you bicyclists out there, pedal power. It takes decades to recover the eco effects from building a light rail or streetcar line. Additionally, producing the steel rails is not eco friendly either. Compare that to constructing an electric trolley bus system that can run on existing streets by simply adding the overhead wires and no other modifications to roadways needed. Therefore, scrapping all the streetcar plans and replacing it with an electric trolley bus system plan should be one of the first steps of any such plan, but it is not.
Secondly, a couple of months ago when traveling East on NE Knott Street early in the afternoon on a Friday, I encountered no less than nine City of Portland Vehicles (I counted them) with only a driver. And, yes, some of them were maintenance vehicles, but some of them were also cars and pickup trucks. I wonder how much mileage is accrued on each and every City of Portland owned vehicle each and every day. That could be reduced significantly if city inspectors and personnel of all types were required to use public transit or ride a bicycle when performing their duties. Moreover, for just about every public meeting outside of downtown Portland that I have attended where Mayor Adams was present, he arrived there by motor vehicle, often times driven by a staff member. He (and his staff members) too could ride public transit to these meetings. The point is Mayor Adams should be making changes of behavior at the City government level before he attempts to dictate and provide lip service to taxpayers.
Third, although I have not yet read the entire document (downloading the report on a 56k system takes an inordinate amount of time), the first impression of this plan adds more shackles and handcuffs to the economy, especially for tourist based businesses patronized by Oregonians who drive there; less freedom of mobility and higher taxes for the average person/family that travels by car thereby contributing to private sector jobs and the economy. It also appears to include more taxpayer bailouts, subsidies and welfare for freeloading pedal pusher bicyclists; and Sam gets to bypass more public processes for his financially unsustainable hobby rail streetcars
In that Oregon now has the second highest unemployment rate in the nation, it only demonstrates the dictatorial green policy mindset is already not working Totally left out of this and other conversations about climate change is all the family wage jobs that are being lost and not replaced by only promoting and pursuing a green economy. As an example: the average wind farm when up and running only employs about a dozen people, six techs and six maintenance people. On the other side, one out of every seven jobs in the US, at least until this recent recession took hold, has been tied to the auto industry. Yet the mindset in Portland is to get people out of their cars thereby targeting the elimination of hundreds if not thousands of well paying private sector jobs. A vibrant economy requires products be produced in the US including Oregon and Portland, and serviced locally all by American owned companies. The largest employer around is the government. That is not sustainable. The largest employers should be in the private sector. The promoters this plan whom spread the fear of climate change just don’t get it when it comes to retaining jobs and protecting a private sector economy. If this plan is implemented with all its government socialism and spending, the economy will suffer and never be as robust as it once was. If (and a big if) humans are to blame for climate change, as long as there is continued population growth, climate change will occur with or without the plan, but the standard of living for all but the wealthiest of people will be significantly reduced. Effectively what is now known as the middle class will be totally wiped out becoming only worker bees for the affluent. This plan is definitely the administration mindset of a social engineering dictator.
Terry Parker:As an example: the average wind farm when up and running only employs about a dozen people, six techs and six maintenance people. On the other side, one out of every seven jobs in the US, at least until this recent recession took hold, has been tied to the auto industry
ws:It’s not the job of the economy to protect certain industries. The decline of the American auto makers is because they were producing the crappiest gas guzzling cars in the midst of an energy “crisis”.
Not unions or any nonsense like that (although they didn’t help any).
We should craft US policy that pads these industries which have been unwilling to adapt to a changing market and US trends?
PS: How many jobs were lost when we massively subsidized roads and made railroads compete in an unfair market some years ago? RR’s used to be one of the biggest employers around.
Terry Parker:This plan is definitely the administration mindset of a social engineering dictator.
ws:What exactly isn’t social engineering regarding the interstate-suburbia-drive for every need typology?
I’ve lived in it my whole life, and there is not one resembling quality that does not represent social engineering in this type of environment. Can’t walk to the store, terrible transit due to poor land use, homogenization of economic status, lacking public realm/engagement, exclusionary zoning, etc. etc. and etc.
At least in cities/denser neighborhoods I have way more options and choice.
One correction to my previous statement. Just prior to the recession, one out of ten jobs were tied to the auto industry. It was about four decades ago when one in seven jobs were tied to the auto industry.
Terry Parker Says: One correction to my previous statement. Just prior to the recession, one out of ten jobs were tied to the auto industry. It was about four decades ago when one in seven jobs were tied to the auto industry.
The numbers are not credible.
snip
snip
I don’t mind counting the people that work in repair shops or car washes in among the auto industry workers. (Restaurants are a different story, one assumes that most people are going to eat regardless of who employees them, and in any case, if you wanted to save those jobs, you wouldn’t do it by getting the union to accept pay cuts, since disposable income it pretty much what keeps restaurants open.) But if GM, Ford, Honda, and Toyota all stopped building cars today, there would still be plenty, (if not more,) jobs in the repair shops and the service centers than there are today. The parts suppliers would make some cutbacks, but depending on the supplier, the cuts could be large or small. For instance, people probably won’t buy many new seats to go in old cars, (but they might reupholster old seats,) but brake pad or tire suppliers would only have to make small cuts…
Good grief. In the US, about 90% of all trips are by automobiles. Other ways to get around (walking, mass transit, bicycling) face a severe impediment and danger from the presence of automobiles. No zero-emission automobile is gonna change this situation. Making urban and suburban areas safer to walk and bike is absolutely necessary. We must divert expenditures away from roads and into sidewalks, curb extensions, bike lanes and separate rights of way, and the best transit possible without a doubt, light rail and streetcar lines. Bus systems alone are not enough.
Autmobiles are a “Transportation Monopoly” and a “Constitutional Inequity”. They not only place an unjust hardship upon other means of travel, their sheer numbers limit their own utility.
Wells wrote: We must divert expenditures away from roads and into sidewalks, curb extensions, bike lanes and separate rights of way, and the best transit possible
And thus lies the problem of a “user pays” system…the user is going to expect that what they pay for the use of the service is returned in the form of investment in said service.
Don’t like it? Fine. Eliminate DMV, eliminate gas taxes, and force roads to be paid through the general fund…THEN we can have a discussion of taking money from roads and giving it to trains.
If you want “transparent costs”…well…we are pretty close to it, and yet people still CHOOSE to drive in overwhelming numbers. There are thousands of people right here in Portland who have access to MAX and Streetcar, and even bus service – but CHOOSE not to take it because it’s not beneficial to them.
without a doubt, light rail and streetcar lines. Bus systems alone are not enough.
And thank you for the anti-bus rant.
As we know here in Portland, rail funding has come through taking the money from bus service, causing a decline in bus transit quality. So the net result is LESS transit, not MORE.
As I have said before, rail based transit has a place, but you cannot strip the bus system. It’s arguments like this that help perpetuate the common opinion of the bus system, helps discourage bus ridership AND bus investment…and works negatively towards improving the total transit system.
It’s not about building transit…it’s about corporate welfare for rich, greedy developers to give them a transit line (that in the heyday of streetcar systems, the developers had to build and operate themselves – just as suburban developers are required to build their own street and water/sewer/utility infrastructure) while telling bus riders that they are not worthy of quality transit. How does that make sense???
Wells said:
Erik replied:
There’s nothing anti-bus in saying that light rail and streetcar lines are needed and that bus systems alone are not enough.
Likewise, it is not anti-turkey to say that turkey alone is not enough for a Thanksgiving dinner. Nor is it anti-violin that strings alone are not enough for a symphony.
It is true that you can get by, in either case (turkey dinner, string section) with just those… but you can’t characterize arguing for more as being antagonistic toward the one.
Erik, Bob R responded ably to your complaint about my insistence that buses are not enough. But, as for your ‘user pays’ economic theory, no matter how taxes are raised to pay for roads, automobiles present a severe impediment to the other fundamental means of urban/suburban travel. This is the “Constitutional Inequity” counter-argument to your ‘user pays’ theory.
Tri-Met is cutting under-used bus routes. If MAX or the Streetcar were under-used, they would be on the chopping block as well. Whatever.
Would a bus system “be enough” if we had the all stainless steel, battery powered, energy efficient buses being developed by Oakridge National Laboratories? Since these are battery powered they could be centrally charged at a biodiesel fueled generator.
http://www.aip.org/dbis/stories/2007/17082.html
For what it is worth, you might also note that these have been under development during the Bush Administration. These could be useful not only in city service, without the expensive infrastructure of light rail systems such as MAX, but also would be useful for low CO2 intercity service.
Whether or not a person believes the exact numbers of one in every 10 jobs being tied to the auto industry, family wage jobs are still being lost and not replaced by only promoting and pursuing a green economy. The average new car automobile dealership in Oregon employs approximately 60 people. (source Oregon Automobile Dealers Association) Therefore, the socialist political mindset in Oregon and Portland to get people out of their cars will eliminate thousands of family wage jobs, private sector jobs where the source of the paycheck is not coming from a taxpayer funded government entitlement program. Moreover, motorists contribute to transportation funding while bicyclists are freeloaders and transit fares cover only about one quarter of the cost of transit operations. Reducing motor vehicle travel requires higher taxes on everybody to fund more subsidies and programs.
Additionally, TriMet and streetcar ridership numbers are manipulated, jacked up and not credible with the some riders being counted twice. But they are used anyway to receive federal funding. Likewise – Sam’s less than financially self-sustainable hobby rail streetcar system is being included in this Climate Change Action Plan to manipulate what should be a separate open public process and discussion of transit mode alternatives and where to place those modes. In other words, this is yet another Sam Scam and one of his politically motivated socially engineered sneaky tricks to get his own way and dictate to others.
“Additionally, TriMet and streetcar ridership numbers are manipulated, jacked up and not credible with the some riders being counted twice.”
Proof?
FYI, formal ridership numbers have always been reported as boardings. Boardings != Distinct individual persons. So your claim isn’t even possible given the reporting method. It might be possible that individual _boardings_ are being double-counted, but I’d like to see your evidence of that.
Terry Parker Says:
Whether or not a person believes the exact numbers of one in every 10 jobs being tied to the auto industry, family wage jobs are still being lost and not replaced by only promoting and pursuing a green economy.
It’s not a matter of “belief”, Terry. The numbers are either right or they aren’t, and you use that “1 in 10” argument over and over.
Additionally, TriMet and streetcar ridership numbers are manipulated, jacked up and not credible with the some riders being counted twice.
So it’s OK to use “manipulated, jacked up and not credible” numbers, but not TriMet?
Terry,
It seems like with the advent of electric cars, or fuel efficient hybrids, or even a high mpg diesel like the German LOREMO. the whole fuel tax/road construction equation is going to have to be rethought. I don’t know why government encouraging (however obtusely) people to get out of their cars is any more socialistic than encouraging people to use power from Bonneville Dam instead of a private generator. I don’t like it however when things that have little value are designed into our transportation corridors to stymie personal automobiles. I would be more concerned with who is trying to capture that socialistic process. Are they looking for the best VALUE to our people–or a way to become Big Brother by contriving the most lucrative taxpayer funded, public works programs?
We are already a type of socialistic society called Welfare Capitalism. Hopefully we will never become Central State Planning, though it looks like were now in Pelosi/Liberal Theocracy mode of a Democratic Socialist semi-European state (There I said it).
But since nearly every political stripe wants us to get off of foreign oil—and it looks like we are getting closer to that every day—how shall we budget commonly used transportation modes when the revenue from fuel taxes plummets? I would rather analyze each mode on a cost/benefit basis than resort to political labels.
Also, Bob R. does one have to prove every statement? We are all smart enough to have a general sense of when something is costing way too much. None of us are driving Ferraris , are we?
Incidentally, guys, if you look at my link to the stainless steel bus it also says that it is a low floor vehicle. This would mean that making it into a two–level high capacity vehicle would not be nearly so difficult. Would 120 passengers, comfortably seated, on a zero emission city bus be within our reach?
Also, Bob R. does one have to prove every statement?
No, and I don’t ask everyone to prove every statement.
Terry in this case made a particularly bold accusation (although logically flawed). I’d like to see some proof. Do you mind?
but CHOOSE not to take it because it’s not beneficial to them.
They may also be choosing not to take transit because, as motorists, they don’t have to pay for things like 40%+ of the Big Pipe which is needed because of roads (source), or most, “free” parking. So much for “transparent costs”.
If MAX or the Streetcar were under-used
MAX is actually proposed to face cuts, too.
formal ridership numbers have always been reported as boardings
That’s not that different than how someone in a car “transfers” by going from one street onto another one. They would be counted as a vehicle on Street A as well as one on Street B.
It might be possible that individual _boardings_ are being double-counted
That actually might be possible, if someone gets on and off (e.g. to ask the operator something) or off and on (to let other people get off). BUT, it’s also possible that boardings are undercounted if someone is blocking the sensors. Moreover, I’m not sure that Automatic Passenger Counters are used to get the official MAX figures since I believe they only came about with the Type 3 (Yellow Line) trains, and the streetcar may not even have them. In those cases, counts are made by actual people.
But they are used anyway to receive federal funding
If the numbers were indeed inflated, other transit agencies might be doing the same things to compete for the Federal pie, canceling out any advantage.
dictate to others
Getting a streetcar line built doesn’t really dictate anything. People are still free to choose whether to use it or not.
An important measurement of light rail is its comfort. The distance one can comfortably ride light rail is twice that of a bus, in my estimation. Similarly, the streetcar offers a more comfortable ride than a bus on the same route. The more comfortable the ride, the more people will use transit. Electric propulsion is important, but so is comfort. Rail is also much more energy efficient than an electric bus.
Whatever, Terry, Ron, Erik. You get what you pay for. Pretending to be a spurious spendthrift doesn’t reassure me of your sincerity. I’m sure you’d enjoy destroying the planet, but you’ll have to try harder. Maybe you can employ some mad egotisitical scientist with a Destructo-Ray machine?
Wells, if the seats are constructed the same and you still have the same hard floor how is there any difference in comfort? It’s in your head. I’ve taken MAX enough times, mostly the smaller one to the airport. I don’t see a differnce other than that there is more floor room on MAX, but that is a volitional choice. My butt seems to be just as happy wherever it is.
In order to raise money for the federal taxation that is paying for light rail many people in other states are driving their polluting cars to their employment to make the income to pay those taxes. So where is the savings?
OK, back to the stainless steel buses. Here is how a low floor bus (I hope you read the article or Chris puts it up) could carry a lot of passengers even in a city like Portland. The low floor design (because the bus doesn’t have a driveline and rear differential) brings the floor down about two feet. Next, the only place you need much headroom is in the aisle, when people are going into their seats they don’t need as much. Therefore the taller aisle space can be curved and protrude into the floor area on the upper level. The seating on the upper level can be adjusted to fit around the protrusion in the center; perhaps with sideways seating. This, of course, isn’t as great as full seating on both levels but does help quite a lot. So the overall height probably wouldn’t have to be nearly as high as London double decker buses.
Do you think these would be adequate for Portland and similar cities? On the Oregon Coast the stainless steel buses would be corrosion free. There could be fresh batteries available at major stops, where they are recharged with windcharging systems or biodiesel generators. So a small fleet of these could serve the whole coastal Hwy 101 with some connections back to Interstate 5.
Trains don’t need to worry about things such as potholes, speed bumps, or other vertical obstructions on the rail surface–and for that reason, they have differently tuned suspensions.
Busses, running on the roadway, need to deal with these things, making for a bouncier, bumpier ride.
That said, I’ve nothing against either mode of transportation. Given that the rails to the coast are either out of commission (POTR) or otheriwse unsuitable for passenger travel (the Toledo branch, among others), busses would have to be part of any intra-state network.
A 120 passenger streetcar has about 30 seats while a 60 passenger 40′ bus has about 40. Would the average rider really rather do a daily half hour commute standing in a streetcar or sitting in a bus?
Ron, I would explain my position further, but your bus idea is so dorky, you wouldn’t understand. Whatever.
Wells,
Chris is going to put the article on the electric buses on PortlandTransport tomorrow. I think people would go for something with a low entry level (like a streetcar) and with a quiet electric drive. And if not in Portland, elsewhere then. Anyway, feel free to take whatever shots you want.
Ron, I would explain my position further, but your bus idea is so dorky, you wouldn’t understand. Whatever.
Please refrain from derisive remarks directed at fellow participants, thanks.
There is a good opinion piece (by a college professor) in today’s O that provides a good reality check about all the hype, social engineering and taxpayer subsidies being squandered to achieve a green economy.
Here is just one quote “Subsidies require tax dollars. Tax breaks mean that other taxpayers must pay more to achieve a given level of revenue. Market mandates lead to higher prices while displacing competing products and the jobs of those who produce them. These are all real costs paid by real taxpayers, consumers, businesses and employees.”
Read the entire article at:
http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2009/04/below_the_glow_of_our_bright_g.html
The seating configuration of a transit vehicle is, to a first order at least, independent of whether or not that vehicle runs on roads or rails. That a given streetcar is configured with more standing room than a given bus, doesn’t really say anything about the relative merits of busses or trains.
Certainly, sitting on a train is more comfortable than sitting on a bus; and likewise for standing.
Seating configurations are often based on application–a long-distance bus, or a charter, or a school bus will typically have ZERO standing room (every passenger gets a seat), but the “coach” configuration is impractical for transit vehciles which need rapid boarding/disembarking times and wide flexiblity in the number of passengers.
Of course, there are safety and weight limitations with busses that impose upper limits on the amount of standing room you can safely put in one. Some may consider this an advantage of busses–people can’t be crammed in them quite as tightly during rush hour as can be done with trains–but it limits the use of busses in higher-volume transit applications.
Wells wrote: automobiles present a severe impediment to the other fundamental means of urban/suburban travel
Your argument makes no sense…exactly HOW does an automobile present a “severe impediment”?
The mere presence of an automobile does not impede anyone from choosing to use any other form of transport. Despite living in what many of the rabid anti-bus folks decry on this forum as an “auto-centric environment”, I use the bus every day, twice (if not more) a day. The impediment in my using a bus has nothing to do with the automobile, it has to do with our region’s vicious anti-bus bias in which 99% of our capital funds, the vast majority of our so-called “stimulus” funds…virtually all the money goes against the bus system, and further requires subsidies from the bus system.
If there is such a “constitutional inequality” that you are arguing, then you ought to be front-center in demanding that TriMet fully reinvest in the bus system, including a full ten year moratorium on any rail based spending until the bus system is brought up to date. But you (and again, all of the rabid anti-bus/pro-rail folks here) are so adamantly against that because…well…of the anti-bus attitude.
Bob R. wrote: There’s nothing anti-bus in saying that light rail and streetcar lines are needed and that bus systems alone are not enough.
Maybe. But it was that identical attitude that got us to the last ten years of disinvestment in our bus system here in Portland, claiming that “buses aren’t enough”. Well, now we have a bus system that is pathetic and in need of major reinvestment and nobody is doing a damn thing about it.
Our region has declared that we’d rather have a very, very limited rail system and pathetic (or no) bus service in the rest of the region, rather than a fully invested, world class transit system for all residents.
Wells wrote: An important measurement of light rail is its comfort. The distance one can comfortably ride light rail is twice that of a bus, in my estimation. Similarly, the streetcar offers a more comfortable ride than a bus on the same route. The more comfortable the ride, the more people will use transit. Electric propulsion is important, but so is comfort. Rail is also much more energy efficient than an electric bus.
Again – TriMet makes its buses uncomfortable. Other transit systems have very comfortable buses (notably Seattle). Your arguments are purely personal opinion and subjective, and not shared by many other folks…your rant is nothing more than anti-bus rhetoric rather than productive discussion towards the merits of our transit system.
BTW – I find the Streetcar incredibly uncomfortable. I cannot fit in the seat facing the direction of the seat, and going through a curve is a jarring experience.
You get what you pay for. Pretending to be a spurious spendthrift doesn’t reassure me of your sincerity. I’m sure you’d enjoy destroying the planet
Yes, buses are going to destroy the planet. You have just relegated yourself to a mindless babble of a rant. (Note to Moderator: This is a response to a personally directed comment that was left unmoderated.) Rail has its purpose (which I’ve said many times before) but not at the expense of other transit. Rail should be an incremental progression of transit, not fodder for political gain by connected developers. Transportation has a purpose – to transport people, not a pawn in a political game which serves nobody.
EngineerScotty wrote: people can’t be crammed in them quite as tightly during rush hour as can be done with trains
Clearly one was not on my 12 bus last week after my original bus broke down, and the contents of two buses (both of which were already operating with standing room only) were combined into one 40′ TriMet bus (surprisingly, nobody was left behind).
Video of the experience is found here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1QtunzIAxQ
Something tells me that that bus was well over its rated capacity. :)
At any rate, what if someone had written the following?
You would, I expect, consider it rather silly. As, would I–the above is penned as an illustration, not because I agree with any of it. The point that I am trying to make–and others have tried to make–is you seem to believe that busses, and only busses, are deserving of transportation dollars–and that spending money on other modes (mainly rail in various forms) is diverting money that by rights, should be spent on busses. The opposite argument is ridiculous; given that there are certain transit roles rail is better suited for (just as there are others that bus is better suited for), it would seem that a more flexible system is the best way to go with limited transportation dollars. (This is especially true when you consider that the hundreds of millions of federal matching funds and such being used to build/expand MAX are simply not available for some of the bus system improvements you seem to want.)
I’m all for more improvements to the bus system. Rather than focusing on improving bus stops and adding air conditioning, though, I’d like to see the ridiculous slow paper ticketing system replaced with a modern electronic one–that change might save the agency money in the long run. But I just don’t see rail and bus as being in competition, or that one mode or another has any greater claim (moral or otherwise) to funding.
And I haven’t seen any evidence that Tri-Met management “hates” busses–that they apparently aren’t funding them as much as you think they ought to does not constitute evidence.
Give it up, Scotty. Erik’s convinced himself that there’s some kind of massive anti-bus conspiracy or something, that Tri-Met is disinvesting in the bus system, that Metro area leaders and planners hate buses, and he’s even dreamed up some “rabid anti-bus folks” to populate this forum. Of course, nobody here is even slightly anti-bus, but that doesn’t stop him from throwing paranoid accusations around.
And hey … how funny was it that after making up all this stuff about “our region’s vicious anti-bus bias” and “rabid anti-bus/pro-rail folks” and demanding an absurd moratorium on rail development, Erik accuses you of churning out “a mindless babble of a rant”?
But go ahead, Erik. Prove me wrong. Who are the “rabid anti-bus folks” on this forum? I’m curious, because I’ve been posting here for years now, and I still haven’t seen any.
The only anti-bus folks I’ve noticed are the folks who dislike transit altogether.