The Sunday Oregonian had a full section on the outlook for transportation (they also had outlook sections for a number of other hours).
What do we think, did they get it right?
The Sunday Oregonian had a full section on the outlook for transportation (they also had outlook sections for a number of other hours).
What do we think, did they get it right?
5 responses to “Outlook”
was not impressed wlith the transport section…
They got a lot right…leading with a critical piece on the bike element, failing only to mention the police stings that compromise the Bikeways strategy. Then, MAX, commuter rail and Streetcar…clearly they are looking to the future and not in the rearview mirror, recognizing that the roadway system is pretty much done, and that it is other modes that will have to be built out to pick up new trips.
Then Mayer’s data based piece on actual traffic flows on key freeways makes two essential points…1. 100 road projects are funded and in the pipeline and 2. there is a ton of capacity in the existing freeway network that begs for more efficient use.
More socially engineered political spending and propaganda was the basic message.
As an example; Commenting on bicycle infrastructure, Roland Chlapowski’s statement “Most of the low hanging fruit has been plucked” says more about where the funding to pay for bicycle infrastructure is siphoned and pilfered from rather than the exorbitant price tag of painting stripes and providing freebee bike facilities. The complacency is not establishing a user tax on bicycling.
I thought these pieces were excellent, and represent some of the better reporting I’ve seen from the O in quite some time.
And it’s hard for the car nuts to argue with the message that 60% of congestion is not caused by bottlenecks or a lack of capacity — it’s caused by accidents, other incidents and the weather. So, why blow money on increasing roadway capacity, when a 60% improvement could be had simply by managing the existing system better?
Bicycling and transit infrastructure, on the other hand, still have a long ways to go to build the capacity necessary to accommodate additional system growth. And I think the articles do a good job of painting this picture.
I was pleasantly surprised to see such serious talk in print about expanding the regional commuter rail network, and about Kulongoski’s proposal for a statewide rail study! It’s about time.
I was pleasantly surprised to see such serious talk in print about expanding the regional commuter rail network, and about Kulongoski’s proposal for a statewide rail study! It’s about time.
The state passenger rail plans have been in existance for years (I had a copy of the 1993 Rail Plan, and I think the 1997 Rail Plan is available as a .PDF file on ODOT’s website.) It just hasn’t been updated recently but it’s supposed to be released later this year or next.
The problem with the Passenger Rail Plan is that it is horrendously unrealistic. The 1993 plan suggested building THREE separate passenger corridors from Portland to Eugene, with the “Westside Line” (via McMinnville) electrified as an “interurban” line, and even suggested a MAX line to travel along the I-205 corridor through West Linn. Fortunately these two plans were dropped in the 1997 revision.
Today the state can’t even seem to get people to ride the two state-sponsored Amtrak trains between Portland and Eugene and they often run at far less than capacity, yet cost $5 million a year to operate (from the state general fund) – in fact ODOT’s entire budget is funded through user fees and gas taxes, except for that $5M allotment for the passenger train.
Yet for someone who wants to commute from Salem to Portland, good luck. There’s I-5, there’s River Road, there’s 99E…or there’s the three-bus-minimum smorsaborg of Cherriots, SMART and TriMet. McMinnville to Portland? Good luck.
We need to stop focusing on mode, and start focusing on need.