A Different Perspective on Congestion


Via Planetizen, a group of leaders from Atlanta visited Vancouver, BC and came away with a different perspective about congestion.


33 responses to “A Different Perspective on Congestion”

  1. Thank God we live in the United States where many voters still realize that socialism at any level doesn’t work.

  2. Now a traffic light at the edge of city limits signals that the interstate from Tijuana to Canada has come to a stop and is now a city street.

    That’s great, when Vancouver is literally at the end of the road. There’s nothing to the west but a lot of water. There’s nothing to the north but a mountain range. To the south is the U.S. border. And to the east, are a handful of suburbs that are just like any other suburb, and then hundreds of miles of mountains and praries.

    That isn’t the same as Portland – Portland is a literal crossroads. Take out the Interstate through downtown, and you’ll have gridlock. Vancouver is the end of the road, everyone’s going to Vancouver.

    The city also has invested strongly in transit, including electric buses, rapid rail, commuter rail, streetcars and ferries.

    Note that Vancouver has made a truly intermodal investment in transit. Unlike Portland, where 100% of transit investment is MAX or Streetcar. Zero investment in busses.

    So when the provincial government interferes with their vision for the region, the municipalities are resentful and rebellious.

    Very true. Transit investments are ignoring the needs of the suburbs. Many would rather see the suburbs go away. If Portland wants to control its destiny, that’s fine – but then let’s abolish Metro and the 2040 Growth Concept, and let Portland decide its own fate – and the same for every other suburb/county. A regional plan must include the region, and not be dominated by Portland. What works downtown doesn’t work in Hillsboro or Gresham, or in Oregon City or in Sherwood.

    the Vancouver region is not without its problems. The lack of affordable housing, the number of homeless people, the prevalence of drug addicts and the growing number of immigrants have strained the urban area.

    Just like Portland. Like Vancouver, Portland has no plan to deal with these problems. (OK, there is a plan, installing public toilets.) By creating density, we force out lower income people, creating more homeless, and more social problems. No solution in sight, except to, to borrow a phrase from our Commander-in-Chief, “stay the course”.

    Density isn’t necessarily the problem, but forcing density without accomodating all walks of life is because it is a one-sized-fits-all solution. There is no room for low-to-moderate-income housing. The token “affordable housing” spaces don’t meet the demand, and only are available to the poorest of the poor. Just as Vancouver is suffering from that problem, so is Portland.

    At least in Vancouver, everyone gets health care.

  3. Few, if any, cities in Europe have freeways that (at-grade or elevated, at least) pierce their city centers.

    They all have bypass freeways that you can access a few kilometers from their city centers via Parkways.

    There is absolutely no reason why regional freight truck traffic from Mexico needs to drive through downtown Portland on its’ way up to Seattle. It can run around the city, along 205.

  4. What a NIMBY thing to say! Maybe the people in the east part of town don’t WANT the traffic any more than YOU do. Just what exactly is so “special” about downtown versus any other part of town? I still like the I-605 idea – a Longview – Salem bypass.

  5. ^ you’re joking, right?

    The I-5 Portland-Vancouver corridor has the largest population count & density in Oregon/SW Washington. Moving through-truck traffic to the outskirts of the city absolutely makes sense as it will limit its impact to the fewest amount of people for the fewest dollars.

    Tell you what, Greg: if you want a 605 truck freeway, how about you pay for it? 50 mile freeway, $1 mil/lane mile, 4 lanes = $200 million. I took a conservative cost number, but you can pay for the whole thing if you’d like.

  6. I was joking about the 605 idea but not about you being a NIMBY :)

    Actually (I think) what would make more sense is three additional rail tracks, move the entire alignment to the east side of the river, electrify them and have double-decker container freight cars. It looks like BNSF and UP are planning this in many areas to alleviate congestion. Get all the through freight traffic off the road and then see if we still have a congestion problem on I-5 through Portland.

  7. Greg, for once I agree with you. There is absolutely no reason why 600 trucks/hour need to drive through Portland without stopping. I understand local freight, but through freight should be put on a train, (cab and all, like they do in the chunnel if that is easier,) and moved as quickly and efficently as possible. Right now the capacity doesn’t exist to move that much via rails, but adding a couple more tracks would fix that.

    Load the trains every hour or half hour south of Eugene, and unload them north of Longview. There could be another two route for trucks going up/down 84 that would load/unload at the Dallas, with trains to both Eugene and Longview. And having the trucks be carried by the trains would probably be cheaper than driving the trucks that distance anyways.

    The only problem: We need a couple Billion to build the system. And the only place with that sort of money is the CRC and the aren’t actually interested in solving the problem, they just want to widening the bridge.

  8. It can run around the city, along 205.

    I205 runs through the middle of the city now.

    I think the problem is that there isn’t really all that much traffic that does not stop somewhere in the region. So who cares whether it uses I5 or I205.?

  9. Load the trains every hour or half hour south of Eugene, and unload them north of Longview. There could be another two route for trucks going up/down 84 that would load/unload at the Dallas, with trains to both Eugene and Longview.

    This service already exists:

    http://www.uprr.com/customers/intermodal/index.shtml

    But a significant amount of truck traffic is local and not suitable for intermodal loading – for example, the dozens of trucks that leave the Safeway and Fred Meyer distribution centers out of Clackmas, the UPS and FedEx trucks that leave the Portland area hubs for outlying points (like the Oregon Coast), construction trucks to area work sites, restaurant delivery trucks, etc.

    A lot of traffic originates at Rivergate and ends up in the Willamette Valley. It makes no sense to route them east onto I-205 just to get back to I-5 – it burns more fuel and causes more pollution.

    Why don’t more trucks go on the rails? Poor rail service. With a truck you’re largely in control of your load; if there’s a wreck a truck can detour (i.e. use I-205 instead of I-5, use 99W/99E, even use U.S. 97 from Weed to Ellensburg). If the Union Pacific mainline is shut down…there aren’t any options.

  10. Erik said:
    This service already exists

    Really? You mean, there are 48+ piggyback trains that average 60 mph, running everyday across the Columbia? Someone should tell BNSF, they only count 32 a day, and many of them are automobiles, amtrak, or grain, and they move pretty dang slowly.

    The intermodal service is suffering from lack of capacity, both in terms of departures per day, (5/week from Portland,) and lack of (good) track to actually run on. (Those 5 trains a week from Portland, for instance, take 8-10 days to get to Dallas TX.) Most of the area you mention in California, for instance, is single track, so yes, a wreck shuts down the entire system. If it was 2 or 3 tracks, if the tracks were rated for something faster than 25 mph in the first place, and if you could count on enough departures per day that missing the deadline didn’t mean that you had to wait a day (or three,) for the next train, then people would use it. As it is now, it is faster to drive a load from SF to Portland than it is to put something on the train, not even counting the time it takes to unload or load at either end.

    “But a significant amount of truck traffic is local and not suitable for intermodal loading”

    You have to pick a side. Either Vancouver BC can get away with not having a freeway system because there isn’t anything (big) past it, or it can’t. Earlier you were arguing that it could, now you are saying it can’t? Are you saying that Vancouver BC doesn’t actually exist, or that it has 50% unemployment, or what exactly?

  11. “Actually (I think) what would make more sense is three additional rail tracks, move the entire alignment to the east side of the river, electrify them and have double-decker container freight cars. It looks like BNSF and UP are planning this in many areas to alleviate congestion. Get all the through freight traffic off the road and then see if we still have a congestion problem on I-5 through Portland.”

    Spot on! I agree with you. :)

    And, for the record, I’m not really a NIMBY per se. In fact, I despise most of ’em. But I’d rather see dollars get spent in making Portland an awesome place to live and work, rather than get ugly stuff built that harms the public and private realms (places where people live).

    Big freeways in the city center make life more inhospitable, and if you have toured as many other cities around the world as I have (that are far better places to live), you too would be against major infrastructure projects that negatively affect livability.

    What would I like to see instead? Eliminate noise and air pollution from the central city and build 100-200 thousand new moderate-income housing units in the central city.

  12. If we charged for more of the true costs of roads and/or let local citizens make decisions…

    a) There probably wouldn’t be freeways inside cities, seeing they’re expensive (especially if local users had to pay the extra costs) and disruptive (Remember the Mt. Hood Freeway or I-505?)

    b) If there were freeways, they would go around cities and maybe be primarily for longer-distance travel (think of 1/4-1/2 the exits). instead of serving new development (“sprawl”)

    c) The rail system would have been invested in, at least at even a fraction of the Interstate system, and it would be 1st-world.

    d) The road system would be used more efficiently (e.g. through transit and shorter delivery routes) and there would be enough space for local deliveries

    Also, there seems to be a fair amount of affordable housing in the central city. But I agree that, besides benches and toilets, social services are being cut.

  13. Last I checked the citizens of the Portland Area WERE making their own decisions whenever they pass taxes to increase road capactiy; but if you mean that small set of people who want everyone to spend two hours riding mass transit to and from work (and everywhere-frickin-else), then no, the “citizens” don’t. I’m just waiting for the politicians to catch on with that…

  14. Big freeways in the city center make life more inhospitable

    How has I-5 and I-405 made Portland “inhospitable”?

    Clearly, SoWa (next to I-5) is growing, so I-5 isn’t harming it. The Pearl is near I-405, so obiviously I-405 isn’t a problem. The Rose Quarter and Convention Center straddle I-5 with a MAX station underneath it; it too is not a problem (I-5 makes for a convenient rain shelter, actually). I’m lost as to how freeways have made Portland inhospitable, when Portland is clearly benefitting from good vehicular access to all parts of the town, that more people are moving into the Portland region, and that there are not wastelands along the freeways where people cannot live (thus the defintion of inhospitable).

  15. Matthew rumbled:

    You have to pick a side. Either Vancouver BC can get away with not having a freeway system because there isn’t anything (big) past it, or it can’t. Earlier you were arguing that it could, now you are saying it can’t? Are you saying that Vancouver BC doesn’t actually exist, or that it has 50% unemployment, or what exactly?

    What do any of my comments that you apparently quoted out of context have to do with your ramblings; I never mentioned anything about Vancouver BC not existing or its 50% unemployment rate. (I believe you were trying to take points I was making about Portland, and applying them to Vancouver. Portland (Oregon) is not Vancouver (either Washington, or British Columbia).

    Stop putting words in my mouth and form a logical argument next time.

  16. If this were Germany….the Nazi autobahns were the model for the Interstates…I-5 would be what we call I-205. Meanwhile, I-5 would end in north Portland feeding into Marine Dr, Lombard, Columbia and various s-boung arterials. It would resume somewhere south around Tigard/Rt 217 area.
    The Sunset highway and I-405, which destroyed Goose Hollow, then a student ghetto, would never have been built. When your cities have been destroyed by bombing, you don’t improve them by destroying even more for roads. My German wife’s view of downtown Portland when she first saw it in the mid 80’s was “looks like you lost the war…Portland looks more bombed out than Frankfurt.”
    Anyway, I want the eastbank riverfront back for a beach and meadow, like in Dusseldorf where I saw a guy herding his sheep! Vancouver absolutely did the right thing; Portland follows in fits and starts, but freeways still have a strangle hold on the City. Time for them to go.

  17. “How has I-5 and I-405 made Portland “inhospitable”?”

    You have got to be kidding! Do you even live in Portland?!

    North Portland as a community was severly damaged by I-5/84/405 construction; the lack of any new buildings along I-405 for at least 30 years due to its dramatic drop in desirability… CTLH neighborhood was gutted and lost about half its land area to roads, highways, and bridge ramps… do I need to say more?

    You can see a similar thing that happened to Powell Boulevard – almost noone lives along this stretch of street west of 30th.

  18. the citizens of the Portland Area WERE making their own decisions whenever they pass taxes to increase road capactiy

    Rightly or wrongly, I was thinking of citizens who would be directly affected by the neighborhood destruction and pollution caused by a freeway (maybe not “inhospitable”, but try “less hospitable/livable”) . However, it also goes for the little control that citizens have over state and especially Federal taxes. I don’t think I-405, etc. would exist with entirely local funding.

    Also, if we priced vehicle use better, increased transit use would lead to much better service–I agree that a 2-hour trip is a failure. Or people would work/shop closer to home, a better idea.

  19. You have got to be kidding! Do you even live in Portland?!

    Born, raised, lived in the Portland/Portland metro area for all but three years of my life. What about you?

    North Portland as a community was severly damaged by I-5/84/405 construction; the lack of any new buildings along I-405 for at least 30 years due to its dramatic drop in desirability… CTLH neighborhood was gutted and lost about half its land area to roads, highways, and bridge ramps… do I need to say more?

    Was that because of the freeway? Or was it because there was an active railroad yard there? And what was there first, I-405 (dating since the early 1970s) or the Hoyt Street Yard (dating from the early 1900s)?

    Did the construction of I-405 result in a massive abandonment of all properties within five blocks of the freeway? No. In fact, the Pearl is growing (after the railroad yard was abandoned), in spite of I-405 being there. And even Hoyt Street Properties has the Fremont Bridge as part of its logo.

    Don’t see the same along I-84 either. Sullivan’s Gulch was a natural barrier; and the Union Pacific’s mainline was routed through Sullivan’s Gulch many years before I-84. Numerous new business parks have been built in that corridor; not to mention Providence Medical Center and the Lloyd District – surely the Lloyd District isn’t a “wasteland”, is it? (If it is, someone forgot to tell Metro, whose headquarters is located there; and TriMet, whose capital planning department is nearby.)

    I-5’s construction through North Portland is questionable (yes, it did divide communities), but the area around I-5 is not “dead”. Houses line the freeway, and many of those neighborhoods are being rejuvenated. MLK and Interstate have seen numerous projects to focus the neighborhoods to those streets. If anything, Interstate Avenue was approaching “death” status years ago because of neglect by the city.

    You can see a similar thing that happened to Powell Boulevard – almost noone lives along this stretch of street west of 30th.

    Powell Boulevard isn’t a freeway. It’s a surface street. And west of 30th is a commercial/light industrial zone, and has been for years. It’s also near a railroad yard.

    The Ross Island Bridge was built in 1926, so whatever “drop” in residential units can’t be attributed to a freeway; the nearest freeways are I-5 (on the opposite side of the river from Powell Blvd.), and I-205 (several miles east of 30th). Is the goal to eliminate all industry in Portland?

  20. “Is the goal to eliminate all industry in Portland?”

    I think the goal is to remove those pesky cars and trucks.. that and force everyone to live in condos, ride their bicycle to their job at the local coffee shop, and shop at a small grocery store up the street. Basically emulate a 3rd world slum.

    “almost noone lives along this stretch of street west of 30th”

    why must it be a goal to have people living in every nook and cranny available? Powell is high traffic commercial strip with several industrial areas tied in. Residential areas make more sense behind commercial areas and away from through streets [similar to 162-164th or the new 192nd in Vancouver].

  21. “Vancouver is literally at the end of the road.”

    So true! A number of years ago I went on an eight day rail excursion using Budd built RDCs that began in North Vancouver, BC (across the Lions Gate Bridge) and traveled over the entire system of the British Columbia Railway, including the now closed coal mine line where the coal trains were powered by electric locomotives. This was a first time event for the railway that was repeated annually in several of following years, but no more. In the majority of Cities and towns, the Mayor and/or other public officials greeted us upon arrival or at dinner, in part because it was unusual for 200 passengers to arrive by train in a town with no regular passenger service (North of Prince George). One overnight was in a town called Chetwin where the passengers outnumbered the locals. Much of the ground traveled was remote timber producing lands with dirt roads. The railway was a primary link, so much so that there was even one passenger car on a siding that was used to carry children to and from school. Needless to say, the areas around Portland are far more populated than North of Vancouver, BC.

    “If we charged for more of the true costs of roads and/or let local citizens make decisions…”

    If we charged transit riders for more of the true costs for the use of transit (now 79% taxpayer subsidized) and bicyclists more of the true costs of bicycling (now 100% taxpayer subsidized), letting the local citizens decide would then be an honest and equitable decision. However the political special interest forces controlling the current mindset at PDOT and Metro will not even bring equity to the table, nor will they even currently include a discussion of increasing transit fare box revenues or a bicycle tax as part of any public survey. This is probably because that would be the direction the majority of the public would want our elected officials to take as a first step, a system of alternative infrastructure that is primarily financed by the users and not taxpayer subsidized by the non-users. In the best interests of the public and taxpayers, it is time Counselor Brian Newman, who is the person at Metro now charged with coming up with a transportation funding package/solution put these issues on the table and ask the public about them.

    Finally, as for the Vancouver, BC tour the Atlanta delegation received; it appears as if this was another one of those rose colored glasses guided tours that never got off the beaten path. Were they told that SkyTrain (their version of Max) now has armed guards to protect passengers? Were they given an opportunity to talk and ask questions with the local people (including dissenters) about having their transportation and housing decisions made for them? Did they go to the outlying communities where transit only goes downtown and discuss the transport systems there? Were they told about the extreme high costs of housing compared to wages in the city? I doubt it!

  22. Terry, you are always railing on cyclists for not paying their share of infrastructure costs, and while that may be a valid point from a literal interpretation of the word equity, I have to wonder:

    what percentage of regional transportation funds are spent on bicicle infrastructure? I doubt it is more than 2%, and I think that is being generous. If it is anything more significant, please let us know.

    What about historically? How much have we spent on bicycle indrastructure in the last 50 years? I bet it is an insignificantly small percantage.

    And finally, how much damage to bikes do to streets vs. cars? They spent a very small amount of money striping a bike lane on Vancouver/Williams, with no measurable impact on traffic flow…when it does come time to resurface those streets, whose fault will it be, the bikes or the cars?

    Cars have been the only game in town (read: the US) for the past half century or more, and throwing some funding scraps to an alternative mode in order to give people choices does not an injustice make.

  23. Erik, you completely missed the point. Virtually every residential property fronting any of the freeways in Portland had their property values decline significantly immediately following construction, many became rundown, and little development occurred prior to 1995.

    Pollution was, and still remains a health hazard for those living along freeways, particularly regarding benzene, particulate matter, noise, and leaded gasoline (phased out in the mid-80s).

    Not to mention the thousands of units of housing (primarily occupied by black families) removed from north Portland for the construction of I-5 and Memorial Coliseum in the 60s.

    How the hell can you argue that forcing thousands of people to move for the construction of a freeway does NOT impact that community in a negative fashion? If you destroy a community, then there isn’t anything left to benefit!

    But I guess that the destruction and isolation of the Lower Albina community of North Portland and the displacement of poor black families are irrelevant in the course of increasing mobility for wealthy whites.

  24. Erik, you completely missed the point. Virtually every residential property fronting any of the freeways in Portland had their property values decline significantly immediately following construction, many became rundown, and little development occurred prior to 1995.

    So if the freeways are so bad, exactly what happened in 1995 that made those same exact freeways so much better?

    Are you saying that land values around Highway 217, U.S. 26, I-5 south, I-84 and I-205 crashed immediately and created a “dead zone”?

    Anyone knows that the I-5 route through North Portland had severe socialeconomic drawbacks, but it did not make North Portland “inhospitable”. North Portland is thriving. North Portland has been in decline since 1946 after the end of World War II, and all of the jobs that resulted from the war (the Liberty Ship yards). The Vanport Flood then wiped out many of these homes, sending more neighborhoods and residents into further poverty. I-5 hadn’t even been built yet.

    If North Portland is “inhospitable” why aren’t there scores of condemned, boarded up homes? Why isn’t the area a declared EPA Superfund site?

    Memorial Coliseum (and the Portland Public Schools headquarters, the Convention Center, Lloyd Center) are separate issues. Portland has a long history of using “the greater public good” to push away people who have little financial or legal means to fight for their homes. Maybe that should be Portland’s renaissance – making Portland a “hospitable” community for anyone who wants to work for a home, instead of acting like an expensive prostitute to the next developer waving a wad of $100 bills for a good time in bed. I’m sure the North Portland community would appreciate the rebirth of the community instead of the gentrification of it, forcing longtime residents out while newer, rich white yuppies move in.

  25. “instead of acting like an expensive prostitute to the next developer waving a wad of $100 bills for a good time in bed.”

    Erik,

    With comments like that I am having a hard time taking you seriously at this point. Moreover you are posting so much and from one point of view that I find it getting in the way of reading actual dialogue here. For someone who speaks of equity, would you please consider the number of your posts and the impact that your disproportionate number has on those of us who read this blog?

    Thanks.

  26. What does the number of my comments have to do with anything?

    It seems as though I am capable of bringing up valid points about the state of transportation planning, and the disparity it is creating among residents, and that such runs counter to what TriMet and Metro believe in planning for that discriminates against its own residents.

    However, when I bring up those points, that the best anyone can do is to attack me instead of the points that I bring up.

    Further, I have a right to defend myself, so if you want to challenge my point I will return in kind.

    Finally, show me that Metro is seriously committed towards the livability of current residents, and has taken the step to make decisions that don’t further line the pockets of developers who have, to use a less offensive term, plenty of cash to influence public servants with. Show me that TriMet is seriously committed towards improving transit accessibility towards current residents, instead of focusing on building MAX lines with a primary goal of increasing development potential. The facts are clear; TriMet is more interested in development than providing transit equity; and Metro is more interested in development than taking care of what we already have (ironically they argue for the $64,000 buzzword “sustainability”).

    In other words, I am bringing up valid questions that I would like to see answers for. Hawthorne’s point of view is, “Shut up, you don’t have a right to know.”

  27. What does the number of my comments have to do with anything?

    Excessive repetition of the same argument is against the rules. I’m not saying you’ve done that, but you are ahead of the next most frequent commenter by about a factor of 50%.

  28. Erik said “Hawthorne’s point of view is, “Shut up, you don’t have a right to know.”

    Actually, I didn’t say that- you did. My point of view is that I like to hear many different voices. When you monopolize the blog those voices are not heard as well. You frequently write from an emotive point of view, often your facts are incorrect and you repeat themes often. Not so interesting is my point of view.

    Now, as for your “valid points”: “The facts are clear; TriMet is more interested in development than providing transit equity; and Metro is more interested in development than taking care of what we already have.” Actually, you have not really “proved” this- you just seem to believe it. Repetition does not equal truth and shouting doesn’t equate to being heard.

    Sort of the tragedy of the commons, enit?

  29. often your facts are incorrect

    Fine, please show me that my facts are incorrect.

    I will show you that I am correct:

    Source: TriMet Fact Sheet (http://www.trimet.org/pdfs/publications/factsheet.pdf )

    “TriMet’s 44-mile Metropolitan Area Express (MAX) light rail system with 64 stations connects the cities of Portland, Gresham, Beaverton and Hillsboro, and the Portland International Airport. MAX provides 33% of weekday transit trips and…is a catalyst for transit-oriented development—more than $6 billion in development has occurred within walking distance of MAX stations since the decision to build in 1980.

    Fact (Source: Metro’s home page, http://www.metro-region.org ):

    “Metro’s programs help developers build vibrant downtowns and centers and livable streets.”

    Fact: Metro’s proposed transportation plan was rejected by the federal government, because it focused too much on rail project expansion. Metro also clearly discriminates against necessary highway/roadway projects in its transportation planning. This is in part because Metro acknowledges that rail in part successful because of its development potential, not solely on ridership/utility alone.

    Fact: TriMet has not added a new bus route in many years to add quality transit service to existing, underserved neighborhoods.

    Fact: Within the last several years, several bus routes have been discontinued, and other routes have seen service frequency decreases. Fact: TriMet has never decreased service frequency on MAX, even when ridership warrants a decrease (i.e. outbound, midday, and late night trips).

    Fact: Fred Hansen, when he took over the TriMet post, stated that he wanted to restructure the bus replacement program, so that TriMet would order smaller numbers of busses each year instead of large purchases every several years.

    Fact: Fred Hansen then threw away his own creed, by ordering the smaller number of busses every few years. In 2004, 2005 and 2007, no new busses had been purchased (or are planned for purchase this year), leaving a deficit of 150 busses that TriMet is behind on its own replacement schedule (based upon the Federal Transit Agency’s 15 year average lifespan of a heavy transit bus.) Meanwhile, in these years millions of dollars were spent on non-bus capital projects.

    Fact: TriMet has snubbed ordering articulated busses, even through ridership supports the use of those busses on certain routes. Many busses have to pass over stops (and riders) because of overcrowding conditions, thereby denying service to passengers who desire to use public transit.

    Fact: TriMet has snubbed purchasing cleaner busses like hybrid busses; despite other transit agencies investing heavily in this technology.

    Fact: 1/3rd of TriMet’s fleet of busses are high floor busses, and virtually all of those busses lack air conditioning. However, TriMet retrofitted all of the Type I LRVs with air conditioning – why did TriMet not do the same with the bus fleet?

    Fact: TriMet has depleted its contingency fund by funding light rail projects; resulting in less funds available for improving bus service.

    By the way, if “repeating themes” is wrong, then why is it OK to repeat support for light rail/Streetcar? It seems like it’s okay to repeat when it’s pro-rail, but it’s not OK to repeat when it’s for bus service, or providing quality transit in underserved areas.

    And, since you seem to have no problem telling me that I’m wrong, prove to me that I’m wrong. Telling me I’m wrong doesn’t make me wrong, just as you state that me stating something doesn’t make it right. As you can see, I have stated my sources, and I’ll be happy to back up anything that I haven’t stated my sources for. I don’t care if your point of view is “interesting”, prove to me why I should support the direction we are going. Why should I support more light rail/less bus service, a tax increase for TriMet, raising the gas tax, more Streetcar? Supporting these things for the sake of supporting it doesn’t win my vote and my pocketbook. I don’t pay taxes so I can watch a Streetcar go by, I pay taxes so that when I need public transit, something shows up to take me where I need to go. Right now, I am paying taxes so that someone in the Pearl District (who received a tax credit/abatement) gets a Streetcar that is fare free, while I am lucky to see a 17 year old, non-air conditioned, barely-ADA compliant bus show up on time (and without a mechanical failure). Why should I join your point of view?

  30. Curious.

    Erik, if you live in Tualatin, then why do you care if Portland wants streetcars? Shouldn’t Portlanders decide that?

  31. Erik: Fact: “Metro’s programs help developers build vibrant downtowns and centers and livable streets.”

    And your point is that this should not be a goal? Did you know that Metro’s goals are the result of an extensive public input process that has been affirmed in multiple polls?

    Erik: “Fact: Metro’s proposed transportation plan was rejected by the federal government, because it focused too much on rail project expansion”

    That is not a fact- not even close. All of Metro’s regional transportation plans have been approved by the federal government. What source do you have for this incorrect statement?

    Erik: “Fact: TriMet has snubbed ordering articulated busses, even through ridership supports the use of those busses on certain routes.”

    It’s true that after a brief experiment that TRIMET has not invested in articulated buses. It is also a fact that you are a fan of articulated buses. Where is the “fact” that ridership supports the use of those buses?

    Erik “Fact: TriMet has snubbed purchasing cleaner busses like hybrid busses; despite other transit agencies investing heavily in this technology.” And your point is? They have experimented in this area…I would support a more aggressive approach…but with people like you in the region who will punish anyone for every changing course why would they take a more experimental approach?

    Erik: “By the way, if “repeating themes” is wrong, then why is it OK to repeat support for light rail/Streetcar? It seems like it’s okay to repeat when it’s pro-rail, but it’s not OK to repeat when it’s for bus service, or providing quality transit in underserved areas.”

    Erm, don’t put words in my mouth. I am not a “rail fan.” The issue I have with you is not your point of view it is the egocentric belief that you should be able to post more than anyone else. Your views are just your views and I like to hear from a range of people.

    Erik: “O don’t care if your point of view is “interesting”, prove to me why I should support the direction we are going.

    I’m not trying to have an “interesting point of view. Nor am I intersted in proving to anyone why we should go the direction we are going. I am not “we.”

    Erik: “Why should I join your point of view?”

    I don’t have a point of view that I am trying to convince you of beyond asking you to be respectful of the commons and allow other people space to write.

  32. Powell is high traffic commercial strip with several industrial areas tied in.

    It seems to me that was basically the point wasn’t it? That Powell had been transformed to the point that no one lives along it any more. You can look at similar east-west streets, Division, Hawthorne, Belmont and Burnside and still see a mixture of residential and commercial. Far from trying to get rid of automobiles those streets all accommodate them by including on-street parking.

    The issue is not whether to accommodate automobiles, but how. And how to meet a number of other values rather than exclusively serving the needs of automobiles. Drive through Laurelhurst and you will find a large number of expensive, single family homes on Burnside.

  33. Mr./Ms. Hawthorne:

    It’s true that after a brief experiment that TRIMET has not invested in articulated buses

    TriMet purchased the 700s (Crown-Ikarus articulated busses) in 1981. They were retired in 1997 after 16 years of service. A fleet of over 70 busses was purchased.

    That’s hardly a “brief experiment”. Those busses did have problems, true. (For example the ADA lifts had to be removed, and they had reliability issues at first.)

    After the busses were retired, a number of routes that formerly had articulated busses had overcrowding issues right away – like the 12 and 57. TriMet’s answer was “frequent service” which helped somewhat. Today, the 12 line is frequently having to pass up potential riders because it is in crush mode.

    One frequent argument is that busses cost more to operate (in part because of labor costs). Articulated busses would allow one driver to carry more passengers; however it’s clear that doing this would make busses more financially attractive, and thus MAX less financially attractive.

    Erm, don’t put words in my mouth. I am not a “rail fan.” The issue I have with you is not your point of view it is the egocentric belief that you should be able to post more than anyone else. Your views are just your views and I like to hear from a range of people.

    I never once called you a “rail fan” so I find it a bit ironic for you to tell me that I’m putting words in your mouth. Please find one quote of mine where I specifically called you a “rail fan”. Nice personal attack.

    I don’t prevent anyone from airing their point of view. I don’t prevent anyone from coming on this forum and discussing their beliefs. I do feel that TriMet is squelching those who are bus dependent and live in outer areas and feel this is an appropriate forum to discuss, since it is a forum about our region’s transportation system.

    I don’t have a point of view that I am trying to convince you of beyond asking you to be respectful of the commons and allow other people space to write.

    So, you want me to shut up, but you don’t want to try and convince me that I’m wrong, or that my facts are misguided.

    Just as some others are accusing me of blaiming TriMet for living in Tualatin, are you blaming me for coming to this webpage?

Leave a Reply to Matthew Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *