116 responses to “Minneapolis Collapse the Result of Anti-tax Activism?”
I agree, although this fellow loses credibility for mentioning the Boston Big Dig Tunnel death, which was due to the contractor using glue which they knew wasn’t rated to hold the weight of those ceiling panels. You can’t blame that on the city of Boston, the state of Massachusetts, or the feds.
But it’s true that we aren’t willing to pay for what we really need. Most of us aren’t willing to pay for what we’ll need in the future, either.
Over the next few weeks, we are going to hear a growing debate over who is to blame for the bridge collapse. So far, I’ve heard:
Governor Pawlenty (for vetoing a spending bill)
The Taxpayers’ League of Minnesota (for encouraging smaller government)
The Hiawatha light-rail line (for spending money that could have been spent on the bridge)
Congress (for funding new projects but not maintenance)
Global warming
Who are your nominees?
The other thing that will happen is that everyone will jump on the infrastructure bandwagon. If there is money to be spent on infrastructure, then they will have an infrastructure project for you. The American Society of Civil Engineers thinks we need to spend $1.5 trillion on infrastructure in the next five years. This includes money for water, sewers, parks, transit, highways, airports — fifteen different categories in all. I haven’t looked at their numbers in detail, but I suspect they are heavily inflated and are merely the sum of the wish lists of fifteen different interest groups.
How should we decide where money should be spent? Charge user fees and spend money on things that produce enough revenues to cover their costs. Any other method will be susceptible to pork, which means for sure that the money will not be spent on the highest priority items.
I’m gonna choose the feds. The way the funding system works, a state would be insane to spend any money on maintenance instead of moving matching federal money into the state via new construction. I’m sure the guys from Freakonomics could probably draw a straight line from federal funding policy to lack of maintenance on infrastructure.
WW is really a terrible paper. Cute story, no substance.
I’m gonna choose the feds. The way the funding system works, a state would be insane to spend any money on maintenance instead of moving matching federal money into the state via new construction.
Except the state of Minnesota has turned down a bunch of money from the feds because it couldn’t/wouldn’t come up with local matching dollars. Wierd huh?
I think the blame lies with the usual suspects – politicians. And of course those of us who elect them. They think, rightly, that a large visible new project is going to be noticed by votes, but neglected basic maintenance won’t. And when it is noticed the blame will be passed around and diluted enough that it won’t change many votes.
So you sell bonds to be repaid with future revenue and spend the money on a new interchange at Jackson School Road and Highway 26. Bruce Starr gets heaped with praise for his leadership. And when the deferred maintenance becomes apparent everyone blames the feds, the highway engineers, the “legislature”, the governor … no one says “It was Bruce Starr’s fault”. And truthfully, they are right. Its not his fault. Its ours.
Engineers (design and maintenence both) are to blame. Period.
Oh that’s really fair. Engineers don’t have final authority over setting the budgets or picking the projects to which they are assigned. They can yell and scream all they want but its at the discretion of the politicians – that we happily elect to office so long as they promise not to raise our taxes.
Ross (as usual) gets it. WE elected these politicians who promised to keep our taxes low. Everything else flowed from there. We’ve gotten exactly what we asked for, folks. We didn’t want to pay to maintain our infrastructure, the inevitable happened.
And, we’ll continue to be at fault, as long as we put our own interests ahead of the nation’s. We’re a nation of consumers, not citizens.
I’m gonna choose the feds. The way the funding system works, a state would be insane to spend any money on maintenance instead of moving matching federal money into the state via new construction. I’m sure the guys from Freakonomics could probably draw a straight line from federal funding policy to lack of maintenance on infrastructure.
Agreed.
In Portland we have a transportation planning system that favors building MAX lines (and Streetcar and Tram systems) vs. maintaining existing transit fleets, favors new construction (MAX) over simple capacity improvements on existing roads, and trying to tie transit improvements to what should be a simple highway project (which while allows access to more federal funds, still costs more and takes longer to implement, and has questionable benefits over the highway-only solution).
While tax-cutting has been a part of the problem, so has tax spending (which resulted in the tax cutting, because legislating spending seems to create more problems than it solves and encourages certain government entities on finding loopholes rather than spending to the spirit of the law). Oregon has already addressed this by severely limiting how transit agencies can obtain funds (i.e. 100% of Oregon gas tax is restricted to highway projects) and Washington followed with a massive revamp on their vehicle registration fee schedule (note that after that was done, Washington voters did approve a five cent gas tax increase, but the list of projects was also within the law and there were no public transit projects in the list).
There is already sentiment within the Portland area that we can’t fund our necessities but we can easily find money for Streetcar and Tram projects that are of questionable need. We have no problem subsidizing rich out-of-state developers, but when it comes to helping out a single homeowner (who lived in the city for ten years and has no intention of moving) in East Portland, it seems there’s no money. Until we focus on what we have and what we need now there will always be a group that calls for leashing the government animal by cutting off funding, and an unfortunate consequence is that when the funds get taken away, even the necessities have to be cut back.
“Engineers (design and maintenence both) are to blame. Period.
Oh that’s really fair. Engineers don’t have final authority over setting the budgets or picking the projects to which they are assigned. They can yell and scream all they want but its at the discretion of the politicians – that we happily elect to office so long as they promise not to raise our taxes.”
Do some reading Joe, it appears the cause included some plates that were underdesigned (by engineers not politicians) and some overweight repair equipment and purhaps some unwarranted cutting going on (repairs overseen by engineers not politicians).
it appears the cause included some plates that were underdesigned (by engineers not politicians) and some overweight repair equipment and purhaps some unwarranted cutting going on (repairs overseen by engineers not politicians).
No one knows what caused the collapse. That is only the most recent speculation that has been in the media. It may turn out to be an engineering mistake. But there is little doubt that the decision to use inspections of the bridge, instead of reinforcing it, was an economic one made by political leaders or as a result of their decisions.
Eric,
The Tram supports the largest employer in the City and only research intitution in the region.
OHSU’s expansion to South Waterfront is a key piece of the region’s economic future.
The City’s share, $8.5M in TIF, was probably the best transportation investment ever made in this region. Family wage jobs are what make housing affordable.
“I think the blame lies with the usual suspects – politicians. And of course those of us who elect them. They think, rightly, that a large visible new project is going to be noticed by votes, but neglected basic maintenance won’t. And when it is noticed the blame will be passed around and diluted enough that it won’t change many votes.”
Right. If you look at Sam Adam’s street maintenance fee, it is kind of a political loser for him. Nobody ever gets credit for, “the bridge didn’t fall down,” and he has to spend a bunch of money (that the city doesn’t even have yet,) at the same time.
There are a lot of “quests for (temporal) glory” driving this infrastructure debate.
I’ve seen union groups crying for “rebuilding America’s infrastructure” for nigh on to two decades now. Of course construction unions would be huge beneficiaries of this. They can easily prove their point with photos of some bridge piling, with exposed rebar because the concrete has fallen away. Unions would gain members, get bettter contracts, get more dues to pay bigger salaries for the leaders, more clout in the political process. Politicians who fit in with that agenda would be hailed as the champions of progress, creators of jobs, providers of retirement security, far sighted leaders vaulting the country far into the future.
Those following a spendthrift course could depict themselves as having saved billions of unnecessary expenses, reduced an inefficient bureaucracy, stimulated private investment and private sector job creation. Richard Nixon would be a good example, at least in the economic aspect, if not the ethical part of it. With the onerous financial burden of the Vietnam War resolved he was able to become the far sighted internationalist who declared “I will go to China!” thus opening up a grand new era of international relations and diplomacy.
The truth is probabaly in the middle. We should replace obvious disasters waiting to happen. I personally don’t believe the US government should have a priority of creating employment. The way that is being done now is by having an open border policy and otherwise lax immigration policies (i.e overstayed visas, refugee programs, persecution categories) that allows an easily expanded labor force. Add federal spending and presto!—a claim to have provided millions of new jobs and a “growing economy.” A surefire remedy to an “It’s the economy, stupid” criterion of success. I believe institutions like this —examples The New Deal, The Great Society–take on a life of their own far beyond their original mandate. Pres. Clinton finally lived up to the task of undoing The Great Society legacy of LBJ and the corruption it had fostered. Many people remember enough of that lesson to not try it in some brand new fashion.
The I-35 collapse was an exceptional fluke. True a large number of people were killed or seriously maimed in that accident. Construction of a large project could also see deaths–from construction accidents. If anyone wants to keep score we have what–25 deaths–in the I-35? There are about 40 highway flaggers who die each year in the US, and these are the easily preventable accidents, Many more people are killed in material handling, safety violations, and equipment misuse accidents in construction—particularly heavy construction, projects. These don’t make it into the headlines.
Lenny,
Do you know anything at all about OHSU, their employees or affordable housing or transportation?
Take the blinders off.
The biggest use of the Tram is for a parking lot shuttle from the OHSU parking in SoWa to OHSU on the hill.
The vast majority of the 11,000 OHSU employees can’t afford to live anywhere near OHSU and certainly not in SoWa because there isn’t anywhere near enough affordable housing and it is getting worse.
Furthermore, surveys of those 11,000 OHSU employees shows the vast majority prefer/would like to live in a house with a yard.
So many live far enough away to afford it.
Eric,
OHSU’s expansion to South Waterfront so far consist of one totally business, property & TriMet tax exempt building.
The City’s share for the Tram is far more than the $8.5M in TIF.
And OHSU’s share comes from their struggling tax exempt quasi-governmental budget. Hardly free or private money.
Since you have such a low level of understanding of this matter I suggest you stop misleading the public.
This investment has not been shown to be worth it, let alone the best ever made in this region.
It’s stunning that you have such little awareness of the lack of affordable housing.
If you think the Tram is going to spill forth a bunch of family wages high enough to afford homes in the area you are not paying attention or are simply out to lunch my friend.
In the overall picture, SoWa will cost the taxpayers 100s of millions, if not a Billion or two, over 40 or 50 years.
This Urban Renewal scheme also will NOT provide adequate transportation as it will further congest the local area, will NOT provide enough affordable housing and will hobble basic services budgets for the 40 or 50 years it will take for property taxes to retire the debt.
ANY other misrepresentation to the public is reprehensible.
cannot help but think that 40 or more years of salt and corrosive chemicals used to de-ice may have weakened the structure.. worth a look… take a look at the terrible dAmage done to the undersides of caRS IN Minnesota..
How about right after we blow that 1.5 Trillion in infrastructure, we pay back all the people that lost their ass when the feds got involved heavily in transportation? How about we dump a ton to rebuild the electrified lines of the Milwaukee Road? ???
How about right after that we spend 1.5 Trillion on paying off the debt we owe to China now? Anyone noticed they have us by the balls? One blink and we lose every cent of wealth we have and fall into immediate depression. ???
How about the Government actually turn around the stupid financial system so that the only wealth that can be built isn’t derived from owing debt to the Federal Reserve? ???
The bridge, the financial situation this country is in, all that crap is interlinked and a solution needs to be had.
Blaming anyone for this bridge collapse is an utter waste of time and rather stupid at that. It’s probably EVERY FREAKING BODIES fault.
…and what is with this BS raise the taxes crap? We don’t need to raise the taxes, we need to quit spending 550 Billion a year on the military and invest that in the country. We need to quit losing 25 cents to every dollar paid into the Government to bull crap bureaucracy. This crap about raising this and that tax isn’t going to help a single situation, especially bridges falling down.
Blagh… again, some of the attitudes and disrespectful nature and disregard for others in this country on this blog has again left me rather speachless.
Blaming that anti-tax crowd!?! WTF.
…maybe, just maybe it wouldn’t be so bad if it was some kind of joke.
We need to quit losing 25 cents to every dollar paid into the Government to bull crap bureaucracy
Right. Here is the two edged cry of the anti-government crowd. We should reduce waste by getting rid of the bureaucrats, then we can complain about fraud because their isn’t sufficient oversight. There is waste in government, just is there is in every large business. And like any large business, there is a balance struck between accepting waste and spending the money it takes to root it out.
You can argue the balance is wrong right now, but it is plain silly and naive to suggest that you can pay for anything by eliminating waste. The money is going to go right back into the taxpayer’s pockets if they aren’t convinced government will deliver services with it.
Your complaint overlooks the fact that the city is on the hook for only a small percentage of the Tram — OHSU, under its contract with the city, pays for the vast majority of riders. The city doesn’t pay for anyone flashing an OHSU ID or visitor pass.
The biggest use of the Tram is for a parking lot shuttle from the OHSU parking in SoWa to OHSU on the hill.
If you mean bicycle parking, you’re on to something. I’ve witnessed this personally on several occasions – the parking lots are only partially full while the bicycle parking is overflowing. On multiple occasions I’ve also witnessed the streetcar filling up with arriving passengers from the Tram.
Maybe it is you who needs to take the blinders off. Just a thought.
“We need to quit losing 25 cents to every dollar paid into the Government to bull crap bureaucracy.”
I love arguments like this, cause they tend to be completely wrong. If you look at something like health care in this country, (which is mostly private, but there are some public portions like Medicare,) the overhead in the private parts of the system eat up about 25% of revenue. Then, of course, your for-profit HMO actually needs to make a profit, so that takes another chunk of the money… Medicare, on the other hand, spends about 2% of it’s revenue on overhead, and there is no profit that has to be sent back to the shareholders.
Of course, private company middlemen aren’t technically “bureaucracy” so it is hard for Rush to get excited about them…
The Tram supports the largest employer in the City and only research intitution in the region.
OHSU’s expansion to South Waterfront is a key piece of the region’s economic future.
The City’s share, $8.5M in TIF, was probably the best transportation investment ever made in this region. Family wage jobs are what make housing affordable.
So we should provide an enhanced subsidy to ONE employer, at the expense of the hundreds of others in the city/region?
Never mind the fact that OHSU existed at its current site since the 1930s, sans Tram. There is no reason why OHSU would have left the hill (as poor of a location it is) without the Tram. And all of that biotech industry that was trumpted up that would sprout at SoWa like Ross’s assertion that cars will asexually produce at the sight of a brand new roadway? None. Just a barge builder (that was there for decades), the OHSU building (that housed services previously existant on the hill), and a few condos that sell for unaffordable ranges. But a number of small businesses that pay property and income taxes were wiped off the map to make room for these condos.
By the way, how much are OHSU’s tram operators paid? Somehow I don’t think they earn $50,000 a year (after-tax income). And if they do, then I’d like to know why they get paid more than a TriMet bus operator.
OHSU…largest employer in Portland and only research institution in the region. Nothing more need be said.
To not make every effort to accommodate its growth is, at best, foolish. The Tram is a rounding error of latest freeway fantasy…Columbia River Crossing.
“In Portland we have a transportation planning system that favors building MAX lines (and Streetcar and Tram systems) vs. maintaining existing transit fleets,…”
>>>> That is because there is a large “rail cabal” in Portland, comprised of crony contractors, crony subsidy seeking developers, their politician friends who have bought this nonsense about how good LRT is, Euro-wannabe planners and bureaucrats, and activist hobbyist railfans who have inserted themseves into govt. agencies and advocacy.
The bottom line is that people like me, a transit user, have to suffer the results of a degraded transit system.
The bottom line is that people like me, a transit user, have to suffer the results of a degraded transit system.
I’m sorry you feel that way, Nick, because so many people like me, a transit user, enjoy the benefits of light rail and streetcars (as well as an extensive bus network.)
It may surprise you to know that at the recent streetcar conference, Charlie Hales said (while speaking in a panel discussion and without any outside prompting) that planners must not overlook the importance of a well-established bus transit system, and that Portland’s bus system carries 2/3rds of all boarding rides. Is Charlie no longer a member of the Cabal? :-)
There is no talking to you.
How do yo ignore just about everything I wrote above about OHSU and their employees, housing etc along with all of the other details about SoWa?
Lenny, do you honestly think yo need to repeat yet again that OHSU is..”largest employer in Portland and only research institution in the region”
I don’t think anyone needed you to mention it the first time. Let alone your countless one note drumbeat.
Why is it you apparently think that alone is a green light for every decision?
“Nothing more need be said”?
How foolish is that. Suppose reckless decisions are risking the largest employer?
You both fail miserably to demonstrate a clear understanding of how much the “city is on the hook for”.
In addition to the heavily propagandized figure of $8.5 million TIF, the city managed to transfer many other millions (under various labels)in TIF funds to OHSU during the run up in Tram costs and “negotiations”.
Your blinders are narrow and without even a clear frontal view.
The Tram was an instrument of deciet used along with the promise of 10,000 well paying biotech jobs to enable the spending of $100s of millions subsidizing the private developments in SoWa.
All in all the district is and will be a transportation nightmare without ANY real plan to accomodate the additional traffic generated by the 1000’s of added commuters, commerce and 8000 residents. That’s NO PLAN.
The small fraction of so called affordable housing included will now cost the taxpayers large sums to provide for and will only contribute to the increasing shortage of such housing which perpetually ignore.
Bikes and transit aint going to cut it.
The condo towers won’t be providing housing for average working families and their won’t be any big gains in family wage jobs triggered by this massive public investment.
Macadam, I-5, the Sellwood Bridge and Barbur will be further congested, workers will be moving further away to find the housing they want and can afford and basic services’ budgets will be hobbled for decades by the reckless spending.
But because of your wholesale misunderstanding, misguideness and near total disregard for the real world circumstances effected by these policies you tout this whole mess as working just fine.
You see a few bikes and people in streetcars through the tiny slits in your blinders and that’s enough for you.
Nothing more needs to be seen?
Pat, you began posting here just 4 days ago. The first thing you did was flame Ross and tell us all to ignore him because he doesn’t live here at this moment. The 7 posts that followed were riddled with insults and invective, and short on facts. It seems like there’s no talking to YOU. Good day.
“I’m sorry you feel that way, Nick, because so many people like me, a transit user, enjoy the benefits of light rail and streetcars (as well as an extensive bus network.)”
>>>> Now if I remember correctly, Bob, you stated somewhere else on this blog that you used transit about once a week, and that you have motor vehicles.
I am tempted to conclude that transit is more of a pastime for you.
Now I don’t drive, and use Trimet 4-5 times a week. In my personal oberservations as a rider, I have seen how LRT “fractures” the integrity of the system, usually causing more transfers and longer travel times than previously.
That’s what I don’t like: people who have cars and drive more than taking transit telling people like me what kind of transit system we should have. I surmise that that is the majority of pro-rail posters on this blog.
BTW, isn’t Charlie now selling streetcar systems, and no longer directly involved in Portland?
Do some reading Joe
I’ve been doing more reading on this topic than I care to admit. Ross beat me to the reply, and I agree with him that we may find that in this particular case there was an engineering problem that contributed to the failure, but it’s far too soon to definitively announce a singular cause and say “Period.” There remains the problem that (we) voters elect the politicians (promising us lower taxes) that select the (sexy, high-profile) projects that get the money that pays the engineers. There’s responsibility at every level, and it begins with us and our unwillingness to pay adequate taxes.
Why, again, are we so against having a sales tax that will force out-of-state visitors to help us pay for our infrastructure?
usually causing more transfers and longer travel times than previously.
If by usually, you mean “not usually”, you would be correct. As I have already shown with real data, about 20% of original #5 bus riders experienced no change or longer travel times or increased transfers. 80% saw an improvement, and now ridership has more than doubled.
I am tempted to conclude that transit is more of a pastime for you.
Don’t give in to temptation. Your conclusion (like so many it seems) would be incorrect.
Apparently in Nick’s world, people who own and use cars are incapable of judging the effectiveness of transit, and when they use transit it is just a “pastime”.
So when I ride the bus instead of rail, is that still a pastime? Or are my bus trips valid in your world and my rail trips invalid? Please draw a flowchart for me so I know what you will and won’t approve of.
“As I have already shown with real data, about 20% of original #5 bus riders experienced no change or longer travel times or increased transfers. 80% saw an improvement, and now ridership has more than doubled.”
>>>> I’m glad that you mentioned this again, as there are a few points I still have to address.
I apologize the my oversight about the 47 minute travel time on the old #5 bus outbound–I was looking at the morning rush. This was caused by northbound buses running around a loop in Jantzen Beach, and then waiting at the signaled on-ramp to I-5.
Because this occurred for about three hours in the PM, the way around this would have been to run some of the buses straight up I-5 instead, thus reducing the trip time. With this operation, trip time would have been hardly any longer than the projected MAX line. This would have been similar to the #19 Woodstock and #33 McLoughlin “split routes.”
Having ridden the Yellow Line several times, I would say that far more than 20% of riders are now worse off–more like at least half. (Another case of Trimet “analysis” of statistics?) And the people who are better off–what did they achieve? Up to 5 minutes faster, for 350 MILLION dollars? What about all the people who lost their local bus stops–now the stops are 10 blocks apart? What about all the people who now have to transfer to go further north? What about people who now take the longer #6 to avoid the transferring?
Now ridership has more than doubled? Every time you post, you seem to inflate the figure. First it was 80% more, then double, and now more than double. Yes, there does seem to be a lot more ridership now, but then again I-MAX has been open for three 3 years.
1) The demos of North Portland are changing a lot. Now you probably have a lot more hipsters who go downtown.
2) Higer gas prices–even the #4 Division bus I take on Sundays seems to have more riders.
3) Fare evasion–why take the bus when you can get away riding MAX for free? This seems to be an endemic problem with MAX.
Anything that MAX can do in this corridor, an operation of limited and local buses could have done just as well or better. All without degrading service for many riders.
I stand by by opinion: $350,000,000 down the drain. Too much experience with transit during my lifetime to buy all the puffery.
Joeseph says: “There’s responsibility at every level, and it begins with us and our unwillingness to pay adequate taxes.
Why, again, are we so against having a sales tax that will force out-of-state visitors to help us pay for our infrastructure?”
First, the cost to collect a sales tax FAR outweighs the taxes that visitors would pay. These visitors spend more here without a sales tax now that they would not spend with one. They also pay lots of taxes (gas, hotel, rental car, airport) without a sales tax.
Second, since you don’t think you pay enough taxes how much EXACTLY did you send in to the govt. in 2006 over what you owed. It is prefectly ok to pay more if you really think they it is needed. If the answer is zero you are saying that OTHER PEOPLE (like in the visitor comment) should pay more not you. That is BS.
“I am tempted to conclude that transit is more of a pastime for you….Now I don’t drive, and use Trimet 4-5 times a week.”
I don’t drive (regularly) either, and minimum I use it is 10 times a week, but some weeks it is up at 20-30 times. That is only 3-4 trips a day, since the average in Portland is 3.1, that isn’t even that much.
“In my personal oberservations as a rider I have seen how LRT “fractures” the integrity of the system, usually causing more transfers and longer travel times than previously.”
My personal observations based off of what you’ve posted here is that you don’t actually look at the route map or schedule, and have at least once, gotten on the wrong bus, and then complained that it didn’t take you where you wanted to go… But I digress.
“That’s what I don’t like: people who have cars and drive more than taking transit telling people like me what kind of transit system we should have.”
People that own cars, (or could, legally and financially,) that ride transit are what are called choice riders. (The majority of the riders on our system are choice riders.) Attracting more choice riders is one of the two ways the system can grow. (The other is to have all the living wage jobs leave town, so that people have no choice. Think Brazil. This is one of the reasons I support the tram.) If choice riders want more trains, and the system is hoping to increase it’s ridership, then TriMet is actually wise to listen to them.
Regardless, your argument that the Yellow line is worse then the #5 bus isn’t doing much for me. There are actual numbers that you can look at, (Bob has even posted them on this site,) and “more like at least half” of the ridership of the Yellow line isn’t worse off than they were for the #5 bus because they didn’t ever ride the #5 bus in the first place. You can say what you want about where they are actually trying to go, but the boarding count numbers are not lies.
Second, since you don’t think you pay enough taxes how much EXACTLY did you send in to the govt. in 2006 over what you owed. It is prefectly ok to pay more if you really think they it is needed. If the answer is zero you are saying that OTHER PEOPLE (like in the visitor comment) should pay more not you. That is BS.
The answer is zero, but you should know that’s not the whole of my opinion on the matter.
As I’ve mentioned elsewhere, in combination with a sales tax I believe that we could reduce the income tax for those earning below 115% of the median income (I am not included in that group). Thus, I would like to see those who can afford it, including myself, contribute more. In reality, it wouldn’t result in a significant increase in revenue if we just asked those who wanted to contribute more to do so; it would have to be a requirement. In addition to that, imposing a sales tax would result in additional revenue from sources that we do not see revenue from today. I believe this would result in an increase in tax revenue for the state (any economists care to prove me right/wrong?).
In a perfect world, I’d send the money I’m now paying the feds to Salem instead, or – better yet – to Portland, and the feds could make due with the measly cut that I’m currently sending to my local jurisdiction. I think our priorities are reversed; I’d like to see the majority of our tax dollars stay close to home.
And I’m not just giving lip service, I happily voted for the Multnomah County income tax a few years ago, and paid it, too. I’m not afraid to hand out more of my money for the greater good, I just want it to stay close to home.
Nick wrote: “Another case of Trimet “analysis” of statistics?”
I don’t work for TriMet, I did an independent analysis of their stop-by-stop boarding data. I posted all the tables here and my reasoning, and I linked to all the source documents. If that’s not good enough for you, oh well.
“Second, since you don’t think you pay enough taxes how much EXACTLY did you send in to the govt. in 2006 over what you owed. It is prefectly ok to pay more if you really think they it is needed. If the answer is zero you are saying that OTHER PEOPLE (like in the visitor comment) should pay more not you.”
$500. I didn’t directly give the state more money, but I do give money to the public schools (I don’t have kids,) and to fund mental health for the homeless, (both of which used to be [properly] paid for by our taxes until the state ran out of money.) That means I can stand around and say that people should pay more taxes, right? I think the state income tax rate should be 11%.
I don’t really like sales taxes, mainly because I see the paperwork my company has to file every time we ship something to a different state/city/county/etc… The system is so paperwork intensive, and I’d much rather raise an existing tax, then come up with an new one. If you want to make the system more progressive, change to a graduated structure, and raise the standard deduction. If you want to get visitors, raise the hotel tax, the rental car tax, airport fees, gas tax, whatever, but don’t make a paperwork nightmare…
Bob,
I get the impression you are some kind of a fraud and political hack. I could be wrong but that’s what you appear to be. Especailly when you dismiss a whole littany of germane aspects as “flame”, “insults” and “invective”.
There is a whole list of facts above and many more which you obvisouly are too biased to grasp.
Instead you choose to mislead people into believing the City is “on the hook” for less than they are, that the City investments are sound, that the results are positive and that more money and the same is needed. All the while ignoring a vast amount of misspending of countless millions which should be going to responsible and well managed public interests.
No “that’s not good enough”.
Neither is your offense at being challenged.
Just like our newspapers, Ross and Lenny, along with you and a few others, have been distorting every conceavable major expenditure our region has seen.
Your pretense that your agenda is providing for or managing growth is extremely insulting.
As SoWa, TriMet, Metro, Convention Center Hotel, Beaverton Round, TODs and other official malfeacence piles up debt, sucks the life out of basic services budgets and creates chaos of gridlock and housing shortages you are all to blame.
So go ahead and ride your bike around with your nose stuck up in the air but honest public debate is NOT what you are about.
“There is a whole list of facts above and many more which you obvisouly are too biased to grasp.”
I’ve read every single comment that you have posted since you’ve been here, and I don’t think you have posted a single fact or statistic to support anything you are claiming. Where is this “list of facts?” Where is A fact? I have seen none. You may think your opinion is the word of God, but it means nothing to me without a reasoned, logical analysis backing it up.
“I get the impression you are some kind of a fraud and political hack.”
Comments like these are NOT appropriate. I believe that your tone, lack of civility, and personal accusations consistently violate the terms of this website.
When representatives in Congress like Earl Blumenauer are siphoning off motorist paid gas tax dollars already paid into the Federal Highway Trust Fund for expensive frills like streetcars and to build bicycle infrastructure for freeloaders; by pursuing their own agenda with roadway dollars instead of using some of those dollars for maintenance on interstates and other federally funded roadways and bridges, they are the ones that should be held responsible for the disastrous bridge collapse in Minneapolis. Congress should not be allowing highway dollars to be diverted and divvied out for anything but roads. A national transit user paid farebox tax should be implemented to pay for transit projects, and a national bicycle user tax for specialized bicycle infrastructure. Motorists should not continue to be extorted, and in this case die, so Blumenauer, others in Congress and their groupies can pay for their whims and fantasies with highway dollars.
I pay gas taxes and I want them spent on alternatives to driving that reduce traffic, not to add traffic to the system. That inevitably will add more congestion, not less. You can disagree, but transit, sidewalks and bike facilities aren’t “frills”. They are cost effective investments in better transportation.
I pay gas taxes and I want them spent on alternatives to driving that reduce traffic, not to add traffic to the system.
Ross,
See the Oregon Constitution, Article IX, Section 3A:
Section 3a. Use of revenue from taxes on motor vehicle use and fuel; legislative review of allocation of taxes between vehicle classes.
(1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, revenue from the following shall be used exclusively for the construction, reconstruction, improvement, repair, maintenance, operation and use of public highways, roads, streets and roadside rest areas in this state:
(a) Any tax levied on, with respect to, or measured by the storage, withdrawal, use, sale, distribution, importation or receipt of motor vehicle fuel or any other product used for the propulsion of motor vehicles; and
(b) Any tax or excise levied on the ownership, operation or use of motor vehicles.
(2) Revenues described in subsection (1) of this section:
(a) May also be used for the cost of administration and any refunds or credits authorized by law.
(b) May also be used for the retirement of bonds for which such revenues have been pledged.
(c) If from levies under paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of this section on campers, motor homes, travel trailers, snowmobiles, or like vehicles, may also be used for the acquisition, development, maintenance or care of parks or recreation areas.
(d) If from levies under paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of this section on vehicles used or held out for use for commercial purposes, may also be used for enforcement of commercial vehicle weight, size, load, conformation and equipment regulation.
(3) Revenues described in subsection (1) of this section that are generated by taxes or excises imposed by the state shall be generated in a manner that ensures that the share of revenues paid for the use of light vehicles, including cars, and the share of revenues paid for the use of heavy vehicles, including trucks, is fair and proportionate to the costs incurred for the highway system because of each class of vehicle. The Legislative Assembly shall provide for a biennial review and, if necessary, adjustment, of revenue sources to ensure fairness and proportionality.
[Created through S.J.R. 7, 1979, and adopted by the people May 20, 1980 (this section and section 3 adopted in lieu of former section 3 of this Article); Amendment proposed by S.J.R. 44, 1999, and adopted by the people Nov. 2, 1999; Amendment proposed by S.J.R. 14, 2003, and adopted by the people Nov. 2, 2004]
Whether you want to have gas taxes going towards reducing traffic is besides the point, the voters of the State of Oregon in a democratic election voted to authorize this Constitutional Amendment. Thus you have two choices to deal with it:
1. Bring up an initative to repeal it (see Article XVII Section 2), or
2. Move out of Oregon and to a state that has no such law.
Earl isn’t siphoning off highway trust fund money for bicycling, that money came from the general fund. In any case, he only wants $1M a year, and it isn’t an earmark for Portland or anything, it is nationwide, so we are talking $20k per average state. To put that into perspective the CRC spends $20k every 3 hours just to push papers around and give away balloons. However, Terry, you would get a kick out of Rep McHenry of North Carolina’s response to Earl.
The issue being discussed was the federal gas tax, which has no such restrictions. Our elected representatives can spend it any way they choose.
And the limitation on the state gas tax allows almost any improvements to public highways, including those for pedestrians, bicyclists and transit.
“(3) – Allow the buying power of the gas tax to decline to the point where it’s irrelevant as a funding source.”
I don’t think the gas tax will be “irrelevant” in the near future. But it doesn’t cover the basic maintenance of roads any more, much less the cost of any new construction. It may be the solution is to further restrict its use to maintenance and reconstruction.
Lenny is misrepresenting OHSU, their employees and their affordable housing & transportation needs.
The biggest use of the Tram is for a parking lot shuttle from the OHSU parking in SoWa to OHSU on the hill.
The vast majority of the 11,000 OHSU employees can’t afford to live anywhere near OHSU and certainly not in SoWa because there isn’t anywhere near enough affordable housing and it is getting worse.
Furthermore, surveys of those 11,000 OHSU employees shows the vast majority prefer/would like to live in a house with a yard.
The result is many live far enough away to afford it.
OHSU’s expansion to South Waterfront so far consists of one, totally (business/property/TriMet) tax exempt building.
The City’s share for the Tram is far more than the $8.5M in TIF.
And OHSU’s share comes from their struggling tax exempt quasi-governmental budget.
Hardly free or private money.
This investment has not yet been shown to be worth it, let alone the best ever made in this region.
Here there is little awareness of the lack of affordable housing.
Tram is not going to spill forth a bunch of family wages high enough to afford homes in the area.
SoWa will cost the taxpayers 100s of millions, if not a Billion or two, over 40 or 50 years.
This Urban Renewal scheme also will NOT provide adequate transportation as it will further congest the local area, will NOT provide enough affordable housing and will hobble basic services budgets for the 40 or 50 years it will take for property taxes to retire the debt.
ANY other misrepresentation to the public is reprehensible.
Lenny doesn’t need to repeat yet again that OHSU is..”largest employer in Portland and only research institution in the region”
In addition to the heavily propagandized figure of $8.5 million TIF, the city managed to transfer many other millions (under various labels)in TIF funds to OHSU during the run up in Tram costs and “negotiations”.
The Tram was an instrument of deciet used along with the promise of 10,000 well paying biotech jobs to enable the spending of $100s of millions subsidizing the private developments in SoWa.
All in all the district is and will be a transportation nightmare without ANY real plan to accomodate the additional traffic generated by the 1000’s of added commuters, commerce and 8000 residents. That’s NO PLAN.
The small fraction of so called affordable housing included will now cost the taxpayers large sums to provide for and will only contribute to the increasing shortage of such housing which you perpetually ignore.
Bikes and transit aint going to cut it.
The condo towers won’t be providing housing for average working families and their won’t be any big gains in family wage jobs triggered by this massive public investment.
Macadam, I-5, the Sellwood Bridge and Barbur will be further congested, workers will be moving further away to find the housing they want and can afford and basic services’ budgets will be hobbled for decades by the reckless spending.
Yet, you tout this whole mess as working just fine.
You see a few bikes and people in streetcars and that’s enough for you.
You DO dismiss a whole littany of germane aspects as “flame”, “insults” and “invective”.
You DO choose to mislead people into believing the City is “on the hook” for less than they are, that the City investments are sound, that the results are positive and that more money and the same is needed. All the while ignoring a vast amount of misspending of countless millions which should be going to responsible and well managed public interests.
Just like our newspapers, Ross and Lenny, along with you and a few others, have been distorting every conceavable major expenditure our region has seen.
SoWa, TriMet, Metro, Convention Center Hotel, Beaverton Round, TODs and other official malfeacence piles up debt, sucks the life out of basic services budgets and creates chaos of gridlock and housing shortages.
Pat says” All in all the district is and will be a transportation nightmare without ANY real plan to accomodate the additional traffic generated by the 1000’s of added commuters, commerce and 8000 residents. That’s NO PLAN.”
While I have favored the extension of the Central Streetcar into SoWa ( as well as its extension to Lake Oswego) I agree that some additional investment in conventional infrastructure is needed. I think a bridge to SE Holgate Blvd, is needed. It could connect to SW Bancroft on the westside–with connections to I-5–and to Hwy 99E and Holgate on the eastsside.
I think this would be better than the proposed Caruthers Crossing.
Incidentally—although w’re drifting a long ways from the I-35 question: Why not get some old streetcars and equip them with diesel power units running on biodiesel, and use the existing tracks to Lake Oswego?
The vast majority of the 11,000 OHSU employees can’t afford to live anywhere near OHSU
If that were true, I guess OHSU would have to raise their wages. Otherwise they will have a hard time finding and retaining employees. But I doubt it is true.
surveys of those 11,000 OHSU employees shows the vast majority prefer/would like to live in a house with a yard.
I once wanted a house without a yard. I never found one for sale.
The result is many live far enough away to afford it.
There is no doubt that people do choose to live in less attractive housing because of cost. Housing close to OHSU is some of the most attractive there is and the only way to make it cheaper in the free market is to make it less attractive.
I think there is a real need to invest in affordable housing in the central core near OHSU. And that ought to be a strong component of public investment in South Waterfront.And I think there is a problem that a lot of lip service is paid to affordable housing, but it takes real dollars to do anything about it. And, as Pat points out, failing to provide a mixture of housing puts a real strain on the transportation system by forcing employers to attract workers from a much larger area.
There is no doubt that people do choose to live in less attractive housing because of cost. Housing close to OHSU is some of the most attractive there is and the only way to make it cheaper in the free market is to make it less attractive.
While the housing near OHSU is very attractive (part due to the history of the neighborhood), the topography of the area severely limits how much housing can be placed there. In other words, no one’s building new homes there.
But to suggest that housing further from OHSU (or downtown) is inherently “less desirable” is a myth. Why have thousands of new homes been built in Cedar Mills and Bethany? Or Happy Valley/Damascus? Camas/Washougal? Sherwood/Tualatin/Wilsonville? And yet each development sells out, prompting developers to build more of the same. That’s hardly “less desirable”.
The problem arises when those developers are largely funding their own infrastructure, in competition with close-in development such as SoWa and the Pearl in which taxpayers – not the developers – are funding the infrastructure. I don’t see Metro/TriMet launching new bus lines to serve the outer areas with the same level of service as the Streetcar is. If you live in the area north of U.S. 26, your option is a weekday rush-hour only shuttle van, or private auto. Shouldn’t a major goal of TriMet (and Metro, through its ability to assign federal flex dollars as well as general funds to repay bonds) be to provide transit service THROUGHOUT its service region – and thus provide quality bus service seven days a week, rather than focusing hundreds of millions of dollars in only a few select transit projects (namely Interstate MAX, Airport MAX, I-205 MAX, and the Portland Streetcar and Aerial Tram)?
If I recall, the full name of TriMet was the “Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon”, not the “Downtown Portland Transportation District of Oregon”?
Ross said,
“I think there is a real need to invest in affordable housing”
“Invest”? That’s truly funny. If our government planner’s plans don’t work out and the answer is to pay for housing with tax dollars that’s not “investing”.
It’s bureacracy mission creep, creating another government program, subsidizing or adding more dependency on government.
What I don’t get is why you and yours keep pretending this grand planners scheme is working when it’s obviously lessening the supplies of affordable housing and adding to the gridlock problem by forcing working families to move further away. At the same time it is devouring the same countless millions we are supposedly saving by stopping sprawl. What a joke that it. All we’ve done in turn around the savings and spent far more attempting to cram more people together through subsidized development and costly rail transit. And of course the burgeoning planning bureacracies are devouring many millions as well.
I can only imagine the miniscule and worthless work product that is produced in cubicle after cubicle at Metro, PDC and CoP planning offices.
All under the fantasy that they are “managing” or “planning” for growth.
In reality growth has been happening all over the region and these agencies are doing sqwat. They’re too busy trying to create little utopias versus managing the growth. That’s why UGB expanison sit frozen in time, North Bethany and Damascus are stuck in planners quagmire and none of our 23 cities have any, and have not seen any, plan for traffic or affordable housing.
What they work on or get from Metro is more planner’s schemes for more rail, streetscapes, TODs and “Centers” requiring huge tax subsidies while providing absolutely no benefit to our growing traffic or worsening affordable housing shortage.
I’ve read quotes from city councils saying they don’t really know what to do about these problems.
The only thing they seem to know is they need more money.
How perfect is that? A real confidence builder for the public. Makes us real eager to hand over more since they haven’t the slightest idea what to do with it.
Spin it all you want but reality bites.
Ross writes: “There is no doubt that people do choose to live in less attractive housing because of cost. Housing close to OHSU is some of the most attractive there is and the only way to make it cheaper in the free market is to make it less attractive.”
MHW replies: Well Ross this is not and probably never has been a free market.
All we’ve done in turn around the savings and spent far more attempting to cram more people together through subsidized development and costly rail transit.
Well yes. All the planners have done so far is create a compact region surrounded by natural beauty that is driving regional growth. Portland could go back to the resource based economy of the early 1980’s when people were leaving.
But the reality is, for all the complaints here, Portland is a destination where people want to come to live. And that is why Intel, as an example, has located a lot of its most technically demanding business here. They can recruit the best and brightest from all over the country.
I used to jokingly say my fantasy was to live in the mountains next to the ocean where I could take a ferry across San Francisco bay to Manhattan. The suggestions here about South Waterfront sound a little like that. OSHU employees are supposed to live in affordable homes with large lots and a quick commute to their jobs. And if they can’t, the regional plan is a failure.
The fact is that housing is expensive near employment. That is why housing is relatively cheap in Burns, for instance, compared to anywhere in the Portland region. The same is true for Vancouver and Portland within the region. Housing is more expensive where a lot of people want to live. Which is another reason Portland housing is expensive compared to that same house in Vancouver or Beaverton or Hillsboro.
“this is not and probably never has been a free market.”
Exactly. There has always been planning and government has always played a role in how cities grow. The decision to have limits on urban growth were made years ago and are still supported by a majority of Oregonians. Are there challenges to making them work? Yes. But Portland, more than any other city in the country, has been up to the challenges that growth brings.
But housing is inexpensive in Houston and it is growing and has a much stronger economy than Portland. Why is housing near good jobs in Houston less than half the cost of housing near jobs in Portland? Could it have anything to do with Government policy and regulation?
Median Family Income: $40,172
Median Household Income: $36,894
Median Per-Capita Income: $22,534
Monthly Housing Costs (with Mortgage): $1,264
Percentage of owner-occupied housing: 47.8%
Percentage of vacant housing units: 12.5%
Average commute-to-work time: 26.4 minutes
Portland (city) census stats, 2005:
Median Family Income: $55,321
Median Household Income: $42,287
Median Per-Capita Income: $26,677
Monthly Housing Costs (with Mortgage): $1,447
Percentage of owner-occupied housing: 56.6%
Percentage of vacant housing units: 7.0%
Average commute-to-work time: 23.2 minutes
Caveat: The above stats are by city, not metro area. I couldn’t immediately see how to change the factfinder output to metro area.
But at first glance it appears that Portland has higher incomes, shorter commute times, less housing sitting vacant on the market, and higher rates of home ownership. Maybe that has something to do with the higher housing prices here.
Boy Bob if you think that cherry picked comparison represents a succes story for Portland you are hopeless.
Especailly with less than a 3 minute difference in average commute time which is clearly a BIG RED FLAG.
Imagine the difference in government planning costs and Portland’s perpetual bragging.
It only delivers a less than 3 minute savings on average commute compared to the anti-zoing and planning Houston? Which is forever held up as the worst and opposite of Portland?
There is little doubt our region fares even less than your cherry picked rose colored picture when compared to the Houston region.
Despite what Ross says about there always being planning and government playing a role in how cities grow, today’s Portland region is planning extremism producing a rat race of haphazard chaos in every arena with so little benefit we can barely nose out a statistic ahead of the anti-Portland Houston to brag about.
Why are you so impressed?
Ross says,
“And that is why Intel, as an example, has located a lot of its most technically demanding business here. They can recruit the best and brightest from all over the country.”
Is Intel in Portland? Or are they out in Hillsboro where our brilliant Metro and our UGB prohibits development?
The enviros are opposed to development anywhere, even on rock soil not suitable for growing anything. That’s what they testified at the legislature.
Developing the land just west of the Intel plant would allow people to walk to work.
And it wouldn’t take costly Urban Renewal Schemes.
21 Fortune 500 companies call Houston their home. Intel isn’t even based here. They located here because of tax breaks and cheap energy, not planning and light rail.
“Pat” accuses me of “cherry picking” and offers no data from any source which would contradict the findings. Pat further accuses me of stating that this data proves a “success story” for Portland, when what I actually said is that the data I presented may have something to do with housing prices. I don’t know how pat gets from “may have something to do with housing prices” to “success story”, but that’s Pat for you.
Despite what Pat says, the reason I posted those numbers is quite simple: “nwjg” brought up Houston and held it up as an example of a “much stronger economy than Portland” – so I posted US Census numbers relating to both cities. It doesn’t seem that Houston’s economy is so “much stronger”.
Some interesting facts for the “strong economy” debate (all of the following data represent metro areas):
Houston has a 44% higher poverty rate than Portland.
Houston has more than twice the rate of people living in cramped conditions (more than 1 person per room) as Portland.
Houston has 56% more people with no access to a telephone than Portland.
Portland has 6.4% higher monthly mortgage costs than Houston.
Portland housing rental costs are 5% higher than Houston.
Portland area commutes are 3.7 minutes shorter than Houston area commutes.
Houston has twice the rate of people who fail to obtain a high school diploma compared to Portland.
Portland has a 14% higher rate of people with Bachelors degrees or higher.
Those numbers aren’t necessarily something to crow about or a reason to declare Portland a “success”, but they do call into question the original claim made by “nwjg” that Houston has a “much better economy” than Portland.
Houston also owns the fourth largest population in the entire country; Portland is somewhere around 21st.
We’re nowhere near the size of Houston and shouldn’t be comparing ourselves to that city any more than we should compare ourselves to New York, Chicago, or Los Angeles.
Pat, I’m still waiting for a suggestion for what you would do to improve things around here. Complaining doesn’t accomplish anything; what actions would you take that would result in some improvements? Build some new freeways? Knock down some skyscrapers and replace them with single family houses on half-acre lots? Come on, we’ve been waiting for a week or so for you to contribute in some fashion that isn’t simply ridiculing those of us who don’t share your values.
By the way, have you ever been to Houston?
I defer back to the common theme: housing prices reflect how desirable a place is to live. It’s cheap to live in Houston because not too many people really want to live in Houston.
“Boy Bob if you think that cherry picked comparison represents a succes story for Portland you are hopeless.
Especailly with less than a 3 minute difference in average commute time which is clearly a BIG RED FLAG.”
>>>> This is what I was complaining about in our discussions on the MAX Yellow Line. Bob picked the maximum possible saving over the former #5 bus of 5 minutes (Pionner Square to Interstate and Lombard), neglecting the fact that not everybody rides that far (so the time savings were even less) and a lot of riders lost their local bus stops, now making their trips longer. Plus all the additional transferring that has be done now at the Lombard/Kenton stops.
That is why I cannot accept his “analysis” that only about 20% of former #5 bus riders now had equal or longer travel times with MAX.
Especailly with less than a 3 minute difference in average commute time which is clearly a BIG RED FLAG.
Imagine the difference in government planning costs and Portland’s perpetual bragging.
It only delivers a less than 3 minute savings on average commute compared to the anti-zoing and planning Houston? Which is forever held up as the worst and opposite of Portland?
There is little doubt our region fares even less than your rose colored picture when compared to the Houston region.
Jopseph,
I would agree Houston is much bigger, but it is forever held up for comparison by our planning adovcates just as they do LA.
Claiming it is something to avoid yet LA and Houston is eactly the kind of dense megaloppolis our planners have in store for our region.
I and others have made many suggestions.
Starting with calling out the fraud in diverting countless millions to reckless schemes.
Stop clogging up our thoroughfares roads with streetscape bubble curbs and bike lane madness.
Yes we need more freeways exactly the same way we needed 205 and the Glenn Jackson bridge.
“Knock down some skyscrapers”? Not hardly. You must have a problem paying attention. Stop subsidizing them with property taxes is a start. And stop claiming it’s “smart” to do so and BSing the public about the effects and cost.
I have a whole list of critical points above.
Of course you don’t find them a contribution.
You have higher values?
Pat, your comments are still factless and link to no source material.
“Especailly with less than a 3 minute difference in average commute time which is clearly a BIG RED FLAG.”
The original claim was that Houston was doing better than Portland. Others have frequently claimed here that Portland’s policies have made for bad commute times and we should emulate the hands-off approach of Houston.
The fact that Portland (both city and metro area) has lower commute times than Houston (both city and metro area) is a “BIG RED FLAG” that the anti-Portland rhetoric we hear so often doesn’t actually match with the facts.
Imagine the difference in government planning costs and Portland’s perpetual bragging.
What is that difference, Pat? How about, you know, an actual number from an actual source. What does the Houston Metro area spend on all transportation-planning/zoning/land-use/etc. and how does that compare per-capita to the Portland Metro area. Go on, I’m waiting.
It only delivers a less than 3 minute savings on average commute compared to the anti-zoing and planning Houston?
That’s fantastic – we have our planning and zoning and livability, AND we get shorter commute times than Houston. Sounds good to me.
(And to those just joining us – I don’t actually think directly comparing these two vastly different metro areas is particularly useful, but I’m not the one who brought up Houston as an example of a “much better” place.)
Which is forever held up as the worst and opposite of Portland?
If it is “forever” held up as the “worst and opposite”, why did “nwjg” bring it up as an example of a “much better” economy? This thread has been going on for 4 days and nobody mentioned Houston before “nwjg”.
If I’ve been “cherry picking” (which I haven’t) then you are “no picking” – no data from you at all, just ranting.
For a visual comparison to Portland, look at downtown Houston via Google Earth. It is a sea of parking lots (all packed full).
Now look at Houston’s close-in neighborhoods. They are full of housing projects and abandoned residential lots – very similar to what Detroit looks like from above.
Compare this to Portland, where the center city is the heart of the metro area. Now you see the outcomes of the two different approaches to land use and transportation.
“This is what I was complaining about in our discussions on the MAX Yellow Line. Bob picked the maximum possible saving over the former #5 bus of 5 minutes (Pionner Square to Interstate and Lombard), neglecting the fact that not everybody rides that far (so the time savings were even less) and a lot of riders lost their local bus stops, now making their trips longer. Plus all the additional transferring that has be done now at the Lombard/Kenton stops. “
Nick, that’s just offensively flat-out wrong, and as far as I’m concerned a lie on your part, because we’ve been discussing that article back and forth for months now and you’ve even claimed to have it printed out and in your cabinet. I suggest you go read it again. Here’s a link, yet again.
Note that the long section titled “Travel Times” has a table with ALL of the following trip pairs listed:
Downtown Portland / Lombard
Rose Quarter Area / Lombard
Downtown Portland / Jantzen Beach
Downtown Portland / Downtown Vancouver
Rose Quarter Area / Jantzen Beach
I listed a variety of trips, and I listed them all together. And you know it.
Please also note (I suggest a yellow highlighter pen) than in my conclusions for that section I state:
Clearly, the changes in travel time, positive and negative, have created winners and losers
And I also clearly stated, in the ridership analysis:
21.5% saw trip times lengthen (or saw increased uncertainty due to transfers).
Either you are willfully distorting what I actually wrote, or you are only reading what you want to see in my analysis while disregarding everything else, and then accusing ME of “cherry picking”.
For a visual comparison to Portland, look at downtown Houston via Google Earth. It is a sea of parking lots (all packed full).
Now look at Houston’s close-in neighborhoods. They are full of housing projects and abandoned residential lots – very similar to what Detroit looks like from above.
Compare this to Portland, where the center city is the heart of the metro area. Now you see the outcomes of the two different approaches to land use and transportation.
You have higher values?
No, I didn’t say that. I said that we don’t share the “same” values. In this sense it a matter of preference.
Stop clogging up our thoroughfares roads with streetscape bubble curbs and bike lane madness.
I’ve said more or less the same thing recently. The arterials should be built up to allow more cars to come off the highways. I like the concept of the bicycle boulevards and think this should be taken even further, even to the extent of removing bike lanes on arterials parallel to the bicycle boulevards.
Yes we need more freeways exactly the same way we needed 205 and the Glenn Jackson bridge.
Where do you propose we put the new highways? I’ve got a few ideas. But I also think they should be tolled.
“Knock down some skyscrapers”? Not hardly…Stop subsidizing them with property taxes is a start. And stop claiming it’s “smart” to do so and BSing the public about the effects and cost.
Again, this is preference. I’d rather live and work in a skyscraper than not. Ten years ago we didn’t have that many to live in, now I’d have the pick of the litter except that apparently there’s a bunch of other people that wanted to live in high rises all along, too. Maybe we don’t need to subsidize them anymore, but that’s what it took to get us here and to prove that there’s a market in Portland for the urban lifestyle.
You must have a problem paying attention…I have a whole list of critical points above.
Of course you don’t find them a contribution.
We’re getting off topic here, but this has been a theme with you since you’ve arrived here. Maybe if your delivery was a little more polished and civil we’d see more of the contribution between your criticisms and childish name-calling.
See, it’s possible to have a productive discussion and find points upon which we agree if you don’t act so hostile all the time. We’re in this together, in many cases we’re going to have to agree to disagree and beyond that it’s going to require compromise to accomplish anything, so rather than antagonize everybody you should try to be more constructive with your criticisms. I think we can all agree that if you’d have done that to begin with that we wouldn’t be so hostile towards you.
I’m pretty sure most folks in this town do not aspire to be Houston, TX, so let’s drop it.
Comparisons to the Twin Cities might be interesting (and on subject)…they have to rebuild an Interstate Bridge and are on the lightrail bandwagon, or so I hear. Bob, can you pull out some quick facts for us?
Just to start this off…the Twin Cities combine Portland/Salem & Eugene; a major metro area, a state capital AND a major research university.
Despite the credit or blame laid on our planners, much Portland’s development patterns have been driven by geography…hills, rivers, etc. Minneapolis/St Paul, while embracing the Big Muddy, have flat land as far as the eye can see and beyond (much like Houston).
Yet, their new lightrail line is off to a great start, and the number of bike commuters is second only to Portland’s.
And they do have MLB…another reason I wish Mayor Katz was still in charge.
2000 census shows 2 % for bus, 1 % for rail, .25% for bike. for work trips. But that’s meaningless because work trips are 34% of all trips during the peak hours and to little to measure in the other hours.
Moreover, City of P data doesn’t mean anything because on all of our heavily traveled roads, Portland represents only 30% of all of the trips.
So its 30% of 35% of what they show.
The survey for bike numbers were at the end of April, when the weather is great for biking. It is not weighted for the lack of use in winter or very hot days.
Last June, the director of the Census Bureau came to Portland to announce this. See http://tinyurl.com/2vbdrz
Portland had about 257,500 workers as of 2005 (when this survey was taken), so 3.5 percent is about 9,000 people cycling to work. That sounds reasonable, especially since the Portland Business Alliance census of downtown workers found that about 8,250 of them walked or bicycled to work in 2005.
There are several caveats.
1. The Census Bureau asks people how they “usually” get to work. Surveys show that people who say they usually get to work by car almost always go to work by car. But people who say they usually get to work by transit, walking, or cycling often go by car. So, on any given day (especially rainy days!), the percentage riding a bicycle will be lower than the number who say they usually bicycle.
2. The annual American Community Survey on which these numbers are based is taken, I believe, in the summer (the numbers are supposed to be as of July 1). The number who cycle in the winter is no doubt much smaller.
3. The survey is based on much smaller numbers than the decennial census. The decennial census is supposed to count everyone. The American Community Survey polls about 70,000 people. That’s a lot for questions like race or state-by-state populations. When you get down to small numbers like the number who bicycle to work in individual cities, the error rates can be high. It is so high, in fact, that in the numbers published on the web, bicycles are combined with taxis and motorcycles — I can’t find the number who bicycled to work in Portland or anywhere else.
4. Even if 3.5 percent of people in the city of Portland often cycle to work, a much smaller percentage of people in the Portland urban area cycle to work. For example, the survey found that about 13.3 percent of city of Portlanders took transit to work, but only 7.5 percent of urban area workers took transit.
If you are interested in the margin of error in the community survey, as well as numbers for the metro area as a whole (as opposed to just Portland) see this link.
For the metro-area (including Vancouver) bicycle commute share, the MOE is +/- 0.1 percentage points, putting the bicycle commute share at 1.0 to 1.2 percent.
The MOE for walking commutes is +/- 0.1 percentage points, putting the walking commute share at 2.6 to 3.2 percent.
Given a reality check, the people and groups that are truly and repeatedly singing the same song in the arena of anti-tax activism are the bicyclists who continually resist accepting any form of direct taxation on themselves to pay for bicycle infrastructure, the transit advocates that continually refuse to support farebox revenues that better reflect the total costs of providing the service, the big developers that continually want property tax abatements and other tax breaks, and the politicians who support the agendas of these anti-tax proponents. All these people and groups want their lifestyle choices subsidized by the rest of society. They are the ones that are continually crating a buzz to increase taxes on anybody except themselves, all with the expectation of receiving more subsidies for their self-seeking and non-user funded agendas.
Falsely accused of being anti-tax activists are the groups, families and individuals that already tapped out and/or pay their share or more in taxes, are tired of subsidizing those who have the means to but do not pay, and do not want their own taxes raised only to have more money siphoned off from government services for the purpose of subsidizing those who don’t pay their fair share.
f it is “forever” held up as the “worst and opposite”, why did “nwjg” bring it up as an example of a “much better” economy? This thread has been going on for 4 days and nobody mentioned Houston before “nwjg”.
Not true, the only reason I brought it up was to counter Ross’ “But the reality is, for all the complaints here, Portland is a destination where people want to come to live. And that is why Intel, as an example, has located a lot of its most technically demanding business here. They can recruit the best and brightest from all over the country.” comment.
I was just saying that we don’t need to spend almost double on homes here and that homes are expesive here because of regulation. I used Houston as an expample because it has little regulation and Ross said it was because our jobs are so much better. Try following along Bob.
Something interesting I found out about Houston about a year ago: I was at a party and we were talking about backlot and infill development. Someone who moved to Portland was a real estate broker while he was living in Houston. He told us that they are doing the same thing in Houston, i.e., putting new dwellings in the backlots of houses.
Ross said it was because our jobs are so much better.
I said that? I don’t think so. All I said was that Portland’s economy is growing largely because it is an attractive place for people to live. That it is attractive is hardly controversial. A lot of young people are moving here without jobs because Portland is the place to be. Local companies, like Intel, take advantage of that in their recruiting and retention of employees.
Housing in the central city of Portland is expensive because that is where people want to live.
I was reading about light rail in the Twin Cities when I came across this interesting tibit:
“In the year 2009, an extension of Hiawatha will be built between the Mall of America and Lakeville. The Cedar Avenue Transitway, a Bus Rapid Transit line, will also be built in the years to come. Demand for the new BRT line is said to have developed from commuters in nearby Eagan, Apple Valley, and Lakeville, who were using Cedar Avenue to access the Hiawatha Line and ultimately reach Downtown Minneapolis. This caused increased congestion on Cedar Avenue, leading to a demand for some sort of rapid transit alternative.”
Hmm, what do we have here? Apparently a number of commuters who were not enamored of driving to the LRT line, causing congestion on Cedar Avenue. So they demanded a BRT operation. Now who says that commuters won’t ride buses? From what I could divine, the BRT will eventually extend all the way downtown.
It appears that MVTA is more open-minded that Metro and Trimet. In fact, there are a number of bus projects on the boards for the Twin Cities. So, MVTA is supposed to be a progressive transit agency?
Only in Portland does there seem to be complete antipathy to BRT. (The BRT proposal for Route #43 was only put on the table for show. Everybody well knows the Hansen and the Lake Oswego mayor want that trolley.)
It will be a cold day in hell before Portland sees any sort of BRT project. Too many Euro wanna-bes and railfans in the soup.
As this document shows the BRT planned in Minneapolis is not dedicated ROW. It is a limited stop bus service running in the normal ROW, with signal prioritization, lane bypasses etc. It will connect a growing group of suburbs to the Mall of America and the airport where is connects to light rail
The BRT proposal for Route #43 was only put on the table for show. Everybody well knows the Hansen and the Lake Oswego mayor want that trolley.
Nick, is not the hwy 43 corridor is too constrained geographically for additional lanes for dedicated BRT ROW? At present we have existing ROW for rails, but how would we accommodate an extra lane dedicated to buses without removing a travel lane for autos?
As Joseph notes, congestion on 43 is a major obstacle to BRT. BRT has significant disadvantages on both travel time and operating costs because of this, even though the initial capital cost is lower than Streetcar.
“Nick, is not the hwy 43 corridor is too constrained geographically for additional lanes for dedicated BRT ROW? At present we have existing ROW for rails, but how would we accommodate an extra lane dedicated to buses without removing a travel lane for autos?”
>>>> That’s why I think BRT was put on the table.
They knew from the get-go it was going nowhere.
However, what they might be able to do is use eminent domain to condemn the RR ROW, use it for BRT in the peak direction, and use Hwy. 43 for running returning buses in the off-peak direction.
But it looks like we might be stuck with the trolley, running single track operation in places. How 19th century!
From a recent Portland State Univ. study report on Portland housing prices:
…major influence on inner city home prices is the disproportionate impact of land prices.
Land prices throughout the region rose rapidly, partly in response to the relatively tight urban growth
boundary. With land supplies restricted, developers bid up the price of developable land, which
impacts home prices. According to a recent study by the PSU Center for Urban Studies, land prices
rose by 500% in 15 years, or more than 11% per year.”
It may be nice here but the restrictions on building result in less affordable homes based on SUPPLY restrictions more than demand.
Only in Portland does there seem to be complete antipathy to BRT. (The BRT proposal for Route #43 was only put on the table for show. Everybody well knows the Hansen and the Lake Oswego mayor want that trolley.)
I think there is some truth in the idea that BRT is there as an alternative that no one thinks will fly. But they are required to consider all reasonable alternatives.
If you look at the Minneapolis proposal I am hard-pressed to figure out where it would work in the Portland area. It is planned to operate, in traffic, on a very long suburban arterial (which turns into a freeway) with limited stops, park and rides, pre-boarding fares, signal pre-emption etc. The best comparison would be from Hillsboro out to Forest Grove but the development in Minnesota is much less dense and spread out.
BTW – if you want to see an implementation of Robert Moses freeway grid for Portland, take a look at the map of the Twins Cities. They have a freeway grid. And terrible congestion.
“As this document shows the BRT planned in Minneapolis is not dedicated ROW. It is a limited stop bus service running in the normal ROW, with signal prioritization, lane bypasses etc. It will connect a growing group of suburbs to the Mall of America and the airport where is connects to light rail.”
>>>> At least MVTA is serious about BRT, no matter what form it takes. My points were that commuters will ride decently comfortable (read: NOT Trimet style) buses and that practically everyplace but Portland has some kind of BRT project on the fire.
I think that something similar to what is planned for Cedar Avenue should have been instituted on Interstate Avenue (however without taking existing lanes out of service). It would have been far better IMO than the Yellow Line.
However, what they might be able to do is use eminent domain to condemn the RR ROW, use it for BRT in the peak direction, and use Hwy. 43 for running returning buses in the off-peak direction.
I think an earlier discussion touched on the legality of preserving this ROW for anything other than rails. Perhaps eminent domain gets you around that, but I’m not sure that sets a good precedent.
But it looks like we might be stuck with the trolley, running single track operation in places. How 19th century!
Well, it may not be the most efficient (you may recall I’ve suggested a third rail to bypass inner-city MAX stops for “true” express runs to combat efficiency challenges), but I don’t believe we’ll ever see the density in Lake O and West Linn to require double tracks in the corridor. I’d like to see a reversible travel lane for cars on 43 for the peak direction and with that I believe we could settle for single tracked trolley operations through here, too.
Another topic (for another discussion, perhaps) is the possibility of commuter rail along the railroad tracks that cross between Lake O and Oak Grove and head into Milwaukie, through Brooklyn, the CEID, and into downtown. A combined approach for the long term could be advantageous, IMO, so Lake O/West Linn residents wouldn’t all have to commute through downtown Portland, Sellwood, or Oregon City to head north or east. Probably cheaper than that bridge Clackamas County needs but refuses to build.
practically everyplace but Portland has some kind of BRT project on the fire.
Portland does have BRT if you want to expand the definition far enough. For instance the frequent service routes have signal preemption, there are bulb outs so buses don’ have to merge into traffic, dedicated bus lanes … virtually everything being used on the Cedar Avenue BRT in Minneapolis and more. For instance it doesn’t appear there is any dedicated ROW for buses planned, unlike some of the frequent service routes in Portland.
My points were that commuters will ride decently comfortable (read: NOT Trimet style) buses
Lots of commuters ride buses. I don’t think anyone ever doubted that. More will ride rail. And Minnesota is also developing a commuter rail line and a new light rail line connecting the two city’s downtowns.
“I think an earlier discussion touched on the legality of preserving this ROW for anything other than rails. Perhaps eminent domain gets you around that, but I’m not sure that sets a good precedent.”
Not a good precedent? Well, when you now can condemn property to build a new shopping mall or condo development, that to me would be a bad precedent.
Condemning the RR ROW for a PUBLIC USE? Normal eminent domain to me. But since the powers that be seem to be fixated on a rail “solution,” eminent domain has not come into play in the planning.
Condemning the RR ROW for a PUBLIC USE? Normal eminent domain to me.
I think there is the little matter of cost. The current ROW is already publicly owned for rail. But if you condemn the land for some other use you are going to have to pay for it. Have any idea how much riverfront property would be worth? I don’t, but quite a lot I suspect.
Except that the citizens of Oregon in their wisdom passed a ballot measure preventing use of eminent domain for shopping malls and condo development.
Local government is VERY wary of using eminent domain. Our recent Urban Renewal districts have had a prohibition on using it baked into their charters. This would truly be a last resort.
I have ridden every single Trimet frequent service bus line during my 6 1/2 years in Portland, and to me they are just local bus lines, with a few limited/express trips during rush hours on Hawthorne, Division, and Powell.
Special bus lanes here are just a a few blocks at most, e.g. SE Madison near the bridge.
The Cedar Avenue BRT will have colored special bus-only lanes for extended distances on the highway shoulders, as well as “stations.”
Imagine if we had things like that here. That might make MAX look bad! That is why you will never see BRT here in Portland.
The cost of Cedar Avenue is a fraction (1/4 – 1/3) of the cost of an LRT line.
So, while Portland continues to piss away billions of dollars on all-stop, inflexible “snail rail”….
Your comments seem very outside of the rules of this blog…and invective only takes you so far. You need to provide data (in addition to a better tone) or give it a rest.
You’ve now posted six times over 9 hours in this thread since I called you out on your falsehoods about me and you haven’t addressed them. Should I take your silence to be a retraction of your falsehoods?
It’s also been 5 days since I bet you an annual pass about your pessimistic Vancouver travel time predictions – are you going to take that bet or not? You seem to post a lot of misinformation about me and my posts and then ignore or run from factual challenges.
Portland does have BRT if you want to expand the definition far enough. For instance the frequent service routes have signal preemption, there are bulb outs so buses don’ have to merge into traffic, dedicated bus lanes … virtually everything being used on the Cedar Avenue BRT in Minneapolis and more. For instance it doesn’t appear there is any dedicated ROW for buses planned, unlike some of the frequent service routes in Portland.
OK, folks.
PORTLAND DOES NOT HAVE BRT. Plain and simple.
Even if you count “poor-man’s” BRT (as is being done in Los Angeles – streets designed for fast bus movement but without dedicated through lanes), Portland still does not have BRT.
Portland’s frequent service bus lines in NO WAY, SHAPE OR FORM are considered BRT.
Portland’s express lines are in NO WAY, SHAPE OR FORM considered BRT.
They can’t even claim half of the criteria for being BRT.
Portland does not employ high capacity busses (i.e. articulated busses), does not employ bus “stations” (you’re lucky to use a bus stop with a bus shelter that is longer than two panels long), does not consistently use technology to speed busses through streets (at best a segment of SE 82nd Ave. in Clackamas has a continuous bus lane, but that’s it), does not employ fare collection methods on busses that expedite boarding, and I can go on and on.
Another false comparison is that BRT in Portland isn’t “high capacity transit”. Capacity and speed are two different things. High-Capacity Transit could be accomplished with articulated busses but it still wouldn’t be BRT. BRT doesn’t require capacity (although generally speaking, BRT systems employ articulated busses; only a handful of BRT systems in the U.S. use 40-45 foot vehicles).
But I wouldn’t expect the light rail rally to actually have facts about BRT. Nor do I think that Portland-Lake Oswego is a good candidate for BRT or light rail. Streetcar, yes, ONLY because the corridor exists and it’s not suited to high speeds; but I don’t think Streetcar would be a replacement for the 35-Macadam. So in the end the bus will still have to be there – wouldn’t it be more cost effective to introduce incremental improvements towards improving traffic flow on Macadam?
I agree that our frequent service lines are nothing like BRT. In fact our frequent service lines are not really that different than our other lines, other than being frequent. There are no additional amenities and in general there are no tools to reduce travel time on these lines.
That’s probably why TriMet doesn’t actually claim that any of its lines are “BRT”, just “Frequent Service”.
But true BRT isn’t an automatic recipe for high ridership. Eugene’s true BRT line (True BRT = High capacity articulated buses, dedicated ROW, frequent service, large shelters/stations, wide station spacing) is well promoted and completely free, but it gets about half the ridership of the Portland Streetcar. (Which is well promoted on a shoestring budget and free in the majority/central area of its route.) Eugene’s BRT system has also seen organized neighborhood opposition to proposed expansions.
I don’t think the term BRT applies to frequent service lines in Portland, but if you are going to call the Minneapolis proposal BRT then the Portland Frequent Service comes pretty close. The point was that the Minneapolis BRT line will not have its own ROW either (something the 15 line does have in morning on part of Morrison).
The other issue here is that it appears the Minneapolis BRT is planned to be developed incrementally by adding amenities to the route. The plans for frequent service routes in Portland include a number of BRT like amenities including signal preemption, improved bus shelters, etc.
I suspect if Trimet ran something similar to the Minneapolis operation on Baseline out to Forest Grove with transfers to MAX in Hillsboro and called it BRT it would accurately be criticized as not “real” BRT.
But true BRT isn’t an automatic recipe for high ridership.
Neither is rail.
But when TriMet has no problem opening up the pursestrings for rail based projects, and Metro refuses to even accept the fact that people ride busses – and the result is a complete disinvestment in bus service, it’s no wonder why people who have a choice would rather ride the train.
Nor is it any wonder that the Portland Streetcar has little to prevent fare evasion, and is essentially free (despite the immense capital cost to build), but to get on a bus one must face a fare inspector (the bus operator).
When transit agencies properly invest in bus service (i.e. King County and the surrounding Seattle area), bus ridership flourishes.
The plans for frequent service routes in Portland include a number of BRT like amenities including signal preemption, improved bus shelters, etc.
TriMet’s own bus stop planning guidelines (from 2002) call for over 100 bus shelters to be installed each and every year.
TriMet’s budget provides for about 30 – and many of these aren’t new shelters, they’re replacement shelters. Nor does TriMet buy/construct “high capacity” shelters, they’re all of the same variety. Has anyone ever tried to board a bus at Market & 2nd at 5:05 PM on a rainy day?
And Metro doesn’t spend a dime on improving bus service, other than “improving sidewalks”.
BRT should run on HOT lanes priced to keep traffic moving rapidly. This is the most cost effective and service effective way to get people around. Instead of empty lanes or rails, cars fill in the gaps and pay for the privelage. Nonpayer don’t clog the system up like the current “express” bus service.
“You’ve now posted six times over 9 hours in this thread since I called you out on your falsehoods about me and you haven’t addressed them. Should I take your silence to be a retraction of your falsehoods?”
>>>> Sorry, Bob, but I got caught up in other discussions here.
You seem to have gotton really flustered (again). Did I hit a nerve (again), or have you been under too much fire lately on this blog?
Look, I don’t have to buy your analyses. You seem to be the point man on this blog for Portland rail operations. So, let’s admit a pre-existing bias. I do; my bias is as a Trimet-dependent rider looking for the best possible service for myself. One is told, as the first thing, to look for pre-existing biases when it comes to evaluating studies.
Unless you can attach an electronic tag to each passenger who rode the #5 or MAX, you really have no sure way of knowing how many riders have benefitted or have been inconvenienced. All you had was raw data to work with. And you can play the raw boarding data any way you choose to. (And looking at your pre-existing bias toward rail….) My contention is that from having ridden the #5 and MAX, it seems that a far greater number of riders than 21.5% have had their service degraded, for various reasons.
For several days, I have been randomly putting in a trip on the Trip Planner from my house in NW Portland to Jantzen Beach, and it always shows, as best bet, taking the slower (than the old #5) #4 or #6 bus, sometimes with a double transfer for the quickest trip–even though MAX is less than 1/2 mile from my house! In fact, I just inquired again again RIGHT NOW in the middle of typing this message. So, anybody planning a trip is now given an itinerary that is now inferior to the old one of taking a local bus and transferring to the old #5.
“It’s also been 5 days since I bet you an annual pass about your pessimistic Vancouver travel time predictions – are you going to take that bet or not? You seem to post a lot of misinformation about me and my posts and then ignore or run from factual challenges.”
>>>> Sorry, Bob, I don’t make bets. (I”m more the investing type.) My contention is that a Vancouver MAX line, if it is ever built, will take at least 40 minutes.I am not going to run from your posts; for example, I know that the Yellow Line was a complete waste of money for what it does–a combination of limted and local buses could have done the job far better.
Look, I have seen much worse, and more personal attacks against you on this blog than anything I have ever posted. I really think that you need a vacation from this blog; it looks like the heat in the kitchen is getting too much for you. Spend some time in NYC or Chicago, which have REAL rail systems, if you like trains that much.
You seem to have gotton really flustered (again). Did I hit a nerve (again), or have you been under too much fire lately on this blog?
It does hit a nerve when seemingly reasonable people spread falsehoods about me. I don’t really care what the anti-transit trolls do, but I do respect some of the things you have to say (and in the past I’ve been careful to point out areas where we agree), but when you definitively state that I did “X” when in fact I did not, I take offense.
I was very careful in my Yellow Line post to present all the data, whether favorable or not, and not only that I re-ran all the data and updated the article when you legitimately pointed out the #5 schedule I originally had was from the time period of Interstate Ave. construction, which took me a couple of hours.
Look, I don’t have to buy your analyses.
No, you don’t. A simple “sorry, I don’t buy it” would suffice, alternate data or analysis would be great, but instead you falsely accuse me of omitting and cherry-picking data.
You seem to be the point man on this blog for Portland rail operations.
I enjoy discussing all modes, but it seems in the past year or so a couple of regular posters, including you, have been repeatedly and unnecessarily derisive and dismissive of rail supporters — not based on facts, but based on the unsupported accusation that there is some kind of cabal of deluded railfans running the show.
The discussion rarely moves in a proactive direction such as what BRT projects would be good for the area, how we can organize ourselves to demand better bus service from TriMet, what roadway and highway bottlenecks ought to be removed, how we can fund our infrastructure. Instead of working together, it always comes back to attacks on people who happen to support rail in Portland as an additional mode.
You’ve taken the position that light rail absolutely cannot work in Portland given the population, density and development patterns we already have. Rather than respectfully disagree, you instead demonize your opponents.
And looking at your pre-existing bias toward rail…
To quote a famous president, “There you go again”.
For several days, I have been randomly putting in a trip on the Trip Planner from my house in NW Portland to Jantzen Beach,
And how is that contrary to anything I’ve posted? Hmmm? It is the Jantzen Beach and Vancouver Trips which I specifically singled out as being more inconvenient with the Yellow Line. You are accusing me of biases and omissions and yet you then back this up with an anecdote which is completely consistent with the data that I posted.
This is why it “strikes a nerve” to argue with you: Your criticisms of me and my work are a complete fantasy concoction of yours, and even when the facts don’t support your imagined sins on my part, you claim that they do.
I really think that you need a vacation from this blog; it looks like the heat in the kitchen is getting too much for you.
And here you go again suggesting that I leave the debate… to turn that playground taunt around, do you want me to leave for awhile because you know you can’t dominate the debate if I’m around?
Spend some time in NYC or Chicago, which have REAL rail systems, if you like trains that much.
Again with the railfan BS. FYI, I’ve spent a good deal of time in both cities (as well as dozens of others) and have used the transit systems there. I recognize clear differences in scope and scale between those cities and Portland, which is why I haven’t advocated for a citywide “El” in Portland or a 4-track express/local subway like NYC. You seem to think people who advocate for light rail and/or streetcar in particular Portland corridors are somehow trying to emulate NYC/Chicago.
It seems quite strange to me your fixation on supporters of just one mode. Previously (and I’ve told you this before, not that it matters) I’ve stated on this blog that I enjoy driving and like reading about cars, but nobody accuses me of having car bias. I once had a bunch of “hot wheels” cars a kid, but this hasn’t been used to derisively dismiss what I have to say about highways. I briefly flirted with learning to fly when I was in my teens, and I enjoy air travel and like talking about airports, but nobody accuses me of having an aviation bias. But here you are, on an almost daily basis, dismissing anything I have to say as having a “rail bias”.
Could it be that you are compensating for your own past sins as a “railfan” by projecting your previous biases onto others?
Anyone who looks a data knows that Bob is right on the mark just about all the time.
If someone wants to take a thorough look at BRT vs LRT, they ought to dig up the Metro study for the Milwaukie line, which intially did not even include LRT. LRT was put back into the mix at the demand of the communities along the alignment, which is the key here…MAX is viewed by most as a desirable addition to our transit options, BRT is dismissed by the public as just a fancy, but very expensive, bus.
So BRT fans, dig up that study and report back. Meanwhile, let’s look at how to upgrade all the Frequent Service lines to make them as reliable and speedy as possible while we build out the LRT network.
I was involved in those hearings and when the METRO studies showed BRT to be almost as or more expensive than MAX people said, lets go with MAX. The problem is those studies were so flawed. BRT did not require huge fancy stations and dedicated lanes and not HOT lane proposals were looked at (or shown)
TriMet’s own bus stop planning guidelines (from 2002) call for over 100 bus shelters to be installed each and every year.
TriMet’s budget provides for about 30
There is no guarantee that the “plan” for BRT in Minnesota will fare any better. Its not like they have actually provided funding for it the way they have their light rail and commuter rail lines.
If the problem is “rail fans” it appears to be an almost universal problem, not one that is unique to Portland. But maybe, instead of irrational fans, rail based solutions actually provide a lot of benefits that buses can’t match.
“BRT did not require huge fancy stations and dedicated lanes and not HOT lane proposals were looked at (or shown)”
Uhmmm, if they didn’t put in huge fancy stations and dedicated lanes, then people would be standing around saying that it wasn’t truly BRT, in fact, it is be exactly what the people in the area have now: Just really good bus service…
“If the problem is “rail fans” it appears to be an almost universal problem, not one that is unique to Portland.”
>>>> But Portland’s activist culture encourages railfans to get in the process and push their agenda. I know, railfans are only one part of the “rail cabal.” There’s a lot more involved here.
“But maybe, instead of irrational fans, rail based solutions actually provide a lot of benefits that buses can’t match.”
>>>> They sure do, in many other places. Here in Portland, rail seems to degrade the integrity of the transit system. Our rail operations cannot match the flexibilty of buses in our low/medium density, spread out metropolis.
Our rail operations cannot match the flexibilty of buses in our low/medium density, spread out metropolis.
And why would you value flexibility? Are you planing to change the transit service to Lloyd Center, Gresham, Gateway or the Airport? Or to Beaverton, Intel and Hillsboro? Why would people invest large sums of money depending on transit for their employees and customers when it can be moved on a whim?
As for low/medium density. That isn’t what ligh trail serves. It serves relatively densely developed areas with existing demand for transit service. It serves them more efficiently than buses. And it attracts more riders than buses do.
Having lived in Portland without MAX, I can’t imagine the city thriving the way it is now without it.
Ross,
I can’t imagine Portland thriving the way it has without the MAX lines that have been built. Gresham MAX was a good deal at $18 million per mile and has spurred a great deal of larger scale infill development along its (lengthy) course. Ditto with Hillsboro MAX.
But now I wonder if low rise multifamily construction should be phased out. The Central City streetcar is more of a success, at least in land development terms, since virtually all of its route is going through genuine, high density urban landscape. And its length is a mere fraction of either West. or East. MAX.
How does the Milwaukie MAX fit in to any densification plan? Central Milwaukie is already being infilled–with townhouses, not highrises. Brooklyn is already built out— with historic single family homes. Next, would anyone really want to live near to the UP switching yard? And immediately south of that is about 1.5 miles of parkland. ‘Scuse me–where are the high rise condos in this picture? Can we justify the $500-800 million price tag when it is not exhibiting much potential for infilling?
Having lived in Portland without MAX, I can’t imagine the city thriving the way it is now without it.
Now it’s look at the stated examples of how Portland is thriving:
Lloyd Center, Gresham, Gateway or the Airport? Or to Beaverton, Intel and Hillsboro
Lloyd Center was built in 1960 – 26 years BEFORE MAX, and several after the demise of the last “original” trolley line. Lloyd Center can’t be attributed to MAX. Nor can the urban development to the west of the mall, which occurred throughout the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. Today, Lloyd Center’s importance as a regional shopping center has been long surpassed by Clackamas Town Center and Washington Square (for which both Macy’s and Nordstrom consider as their flagship locations in Oregon).
Gresham was incorporated in 1905 – 81 years prior to MAX. Much of Gresham’s growth has occurred not along the MAX line, but north towards Troutdale, Wood Village and Fairview. In fact, Gresham even had a moratorum on apartment complexes (read: high-density residential dwellings) for several years. And Gresham’s Rockwood District is cited as one of the Metro area’s worst neighborhoods in terms of crime; so bad that even Fred Meyer closed their store despite monthly lease payments of several thousand dollars a month on the land its store sat on. (The city eventually bought the land and razed the store.) It is probably the only time I can recall Fred Meyer closing a store in Oregon without replacing it with a newer/better/larger store (the only other store I know of in Freddy’s history was Yreka, California, and it was Freddy’s only store in California as a test market.)
Gateway was established by a shopping center and anchored by Fred Meyer in the 1950s. Today there are several vacant store fronts, and it took from 1986 until last year for any transit-oriented development (a medical clinic) to be constructed; prior to such the “transit oriented development” was one of those bad, dreaded parking lots. In other words, Gateway was nothing more than a place for downtown Portland residents to park their cars, and clog local residential streets who have forever had their local streets tarnished by transient vehicles.
The airport’s success has nothing to do with MAX; in fact the “dense/urban lifestylists” should be appalled that the airport was originally located on Swan Island but relocated in 1940. The current terminal building has its roots in the 1958 era “International Terminal”. (We’re still 28 years before MAX.) Much of the airport’s expansion took place in the 1980s and early 1990s, as PDX became a hub for Alaska/Horizon Air, later became a major airport for Southwest, and during that time was an international hub for Delta Airlines (since closed).
Beaverton is almost an example of the opposite of the MAX effect – of the stations actually located within Beaverton’s city limits – Beaverton TC lacks any transit-oriented development and is an unfriendly area. Beaverton Central is the site of a several-times-failed TOD. Millikan Way is located on the Tektronix campus, a company that has largely retreated itself and occupies only a fraction of the buildings it once owned. Many facilities are vacant. Considerable lots of land near the MAX station are yet undeveloped, and the area is surrounded by parking lots. Beaverton Creek’s “transit oriented development” has failed to attract long-term commercial businesses and Tek Woods is still undeveloped despite significant interest from developers. 158th/Merlo has no local development. Elmonica’s TOD forces riders to walk through a parking lot, and most of the development in the area has nothing to do with MAX but is auto-related tract housing.
Intel well pre-dated MAX and has not built any new facilities since MAX. In fact Intel has moved some production facilities out of the Hillsboro area.
Hillsboro’s downtown has not taken off as a “vibrant, happening” area; most of the growth has occurred thanks to the Washington County Service Center/Courthouse development. Somehow I don’t see a jail being something to be proud of as a development spurred by MAX. The Tuality Hospital existed long before MAX.
No one suggested the regional centers were attributable to MAX. But I think there are a fair number of people who have lived in Portland for a while who would suggest Lloyd Center was not always thriving. Likewise downtown Portland. Max was built to serve them, not to create them.
immediately south of that is about 1.5 miles of parkland.
Without a single stop. You will find a very long stretch of westside MAX has no development along it either. The question is what areas does it serve. And its not just a question of residential density, but job density. There are a lot of jobs located near the Milwaukie line.
That is a pretty damning write up there Mr. Erik Halstead.
I don’t think I could logically retort.
The MAX has it’s pluses, but being a growth mechanism or a cause for the fall or rise of any of those areas is bull.
Gresham could arguably have been said to have been created by the railroad those 81 years ago. But again, that was a private enterprise affair, not transit related.
The interesting thing is, the whole new urbanist, TOD, oriented crowd doesn’t seem to get it. Transit is relagated to primary use as a commuter mechanism. These TOD myths won’t truly recreate themselves until two things happen.
1. Private enterprise truly starts creating them alone. Without Government subsidies of the kind seen here or abatements. This creates a false market and what does exist isn’t sustainable with that type of influence.
2. Gas prices hit in today’s dollar approximately $6.00-8.00 within at least 3-8 years from now. If they do, development will orient itself more intelligently around transportation mechanisms that make sense. This could be Light Rail, Streetcar, PRT, BRT, or other mechanism.
As time has shown, and more empirical evidence than one person could accumulate alone, if we want real growth, it’s going to have to be motivated by the private industry and not public monies. Keynes theories only ever got us a bunch of crap such as wealth redistribution, higher taxes, social security, and many of these other jokes that we call Government Services.
The MAX could serve it’s place, but the new urbanist and TOD type mentalities and efforts have to change from one of “this way” to how will it pay off now.
You can’t blame that on the city of Boston, the state of Massachusetts, or the feds.
That’s BS. Of course it is their responsibility. It’s a food company’s responsibility to assure their food doesn’t kill someone, it’s the gun manufacturers responsibility to make sure the gun doesn’t misfire, it’s the aircraft manufacturers responsbility to have the plane fly and not crash, it’s the airlines responsibility to follow maintenance standards and assure the plane arrives on time, it’s the driver’s responsibility to make sure their vehicle is maintained properly, it’s the car manufacturers responsbility to make sure the vehicle meets warranty requirements, and the list goes on.
The Government took the responsibility to make sure the roads “It is THEIR product” work appropriately and do NOT fall apart. Of course, the Government generally has a worse track record than private business and such, and probably on par track record than the general individual attitude of responsibility of people in the US today.
…as this comment exemplifies.
…and really what matters now is will the Government do the honorable thing and make things right? Will they rebuild the bridge right? Will they make sure that their product is replaced in a timely manner? Will they make sure that the families receive a respectable funeral for their lost loved ones? Will they fix these things?
I doubt it.
I mean really, why would the Government be responsible or even held responsible among its own courts? Reason number 8,234,543,630,243 why the Government shouldn’t attempting to run a business.
Adron, in this one specific case (the Big Dig accident), the contractor responsible for attaching those ceiling panels used an adhesive which they knew was not rated to hold the weight of the ceiling panels. The government hired them to do a job using materials certified to meet the safety requirements for that application. The contractor mislead the governments of Massachusetts and Boston by deliberately using materials they knew to be unsuitable for the job – they committed a crime and have appropriately been charged with manslaughter for the death of a motorist as a direct result of one of those ceiling panels falling due to their decision.
How is that the fault of any of the involved government agencies?
116 responses to “Minneapolis Collapse the Result of Anti-tax Activism?”
I agree, although this fellow loses credibility for mentioning the Boston Big Dig Tunnel death, which was due to the contractor using glue which they knew wasn’t rated to hold the weight of those ceiling panels. You can’t blame that on the city of Boston, the state of Massachusetts, or the feds.
But it’s true that we aren’t willing to pay for what we really need. Most of us aren’t willing to pay for what we’ll need in the future, either.
one opinion…
Who Is to Blame?
Over the next few weeks, we are going to hear a growing debate over who is to blame for the bridge collapse. So far, I’ve heard:
Governor Pawlenty (for vetoing a spending bill)
The Taxpayers’ League of Minnesota (for encouraging smaller government)
The Hiawatha light-rail line (for spending money that could have been spent on the bridge)
Congress (for funding new projects but not maintenance)
Global warming
Who are your nominees?
The other thing that will happen is that everyone will jump on the infrastructure bandwagon. If there is money to be spent on infrastructure, then they will have an infrastructure project for you. The American Society of Civil Engineers thinks we need to spend $1.5 trillion on infrastructure in the next five years. This includes money for water, sewers, parks, transit, highways, airports — fifteen different categories in all. I haven’t looked at their numbers in detail, but I suspect they are heavily inflated and are merely the sum of the wish lists of fifteen different interest groups.
How should we decide where money should be spent? Charge user fees and spend money on things that produce enough revenues to cover their costs. Any other method will be susceptible to pork, which means for sure that the money will not be spent on the highest priority items.
http://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=212
clearly, it should be blamed on nafta: http://www.wweek.com/editorial/3339/9350/
I’m gonna choose the feds. The way the funding system works, a state would be insane to spend any money on maintenance instead of moving matching federal money into the state via new construction. I’m sure the guys from Freakonomics could probably draw a straight line from federal funding policy to lack of maintenance on infrastructure.
WW is really a terrible paper. Cute story, no substance.
I’m gonna choose the feds. The way the funding system works, a state would be insane to spend any money on maintenance instead of moving matching federal money into the state via new construction.
Except the state of Minnesota has turned down a bunch of money from the feds because it couldn’t/wouldn’t come up with local matching dollars. Wierd huh?
I think the blame lies with the usual suspects – politicians. And of course those of us who elect them. They think, rightly, that a large visible new project is going to be noticed by votes, but neglected basic maintenance won’t. And when it is noticed the blame will be passed around and diluted enough that it won’t change many votes.
So you sell bonds to be repaid with future revenue and spend the money on a new interchange at Jackson School Road and Highway 26. Bruce Starr gets heaped with praise for his leadership. And when the deferred maintenance becomes apparent everyone blames the feds, the highway engineers, the “legislature”, the governor … no one says “It was Bruce Starr’s fault”. And truthfully, they are right. Its not his fault. Its ours.
Engineers (design and maintenence both) are to blame. Period.
Engineers (design and maintenence both) are to blame. Period.
Oh that’s really fair. Engineers don’t have final authority over setting the budgets or picking the projects to which they are assigned. They can yell and scream all they want but its at the discretion of the politicians – that we happily elect to office so long as they promise not to raise our taxes.
Ross (as usual) gets it. WE elected these politicians who promised to keep our taxes low. Everything else flowed from there. We’ve gotten exactly what we asked for, folks. We didn’t want to pay to maintain our infrastructure, the inevitable happened.
And, we’ll continue to be at fault, as long as we put our own interests ahead of the nation’s. We’re a nation of consumers, not citizens.
I’m gonna choose the feds. The way the funding system works, a state would be insane to spend any money on maintenance instead of moving matching federal money into the state via new construction. I’m sure the guys from Freakonomics could probably draw a straight line from federal funding policy to lack of maintenance on infrastructure.
Agreed.
In Portland we have a transportation planning system that favors building MAX lines (and Streetcar and Tram systems) vs. maintaining existing transit fleets, favors new construction (MAX) over simple capacity improvements on existing roads, and trying to tie transit improvements to what should be a simple highway project (which while allows access to more federal funds, still costs more and takes longer to implement, and has questionable benefits over the highway-only solution).
While tax-cutting has been a part of the problem, so has tax spending (which resulted in the tax cutting, because legislating spending seems to create more problems than it solves and encourages certain government entities on finding loopholes rather than spending to the spirit of the law). Oregon has already addressed this by severely limiting how transit agencies can obtain funds (i.e. 100% of Oregon gas tax is restricted to highway projects) and Washington followed with a massive revamp on their vehicle registration fee schedule (note that after that was done, Washington voters did approve a five cent gas tax increase, but the list of projects was also within the law and there were no public transit projects in the list).
There is already sentiment within the Portland area that we can’t fund our necessities but we can easily find money for Streetcar and Tram projects that are of questionable need. We have no problem subsidizing rich out-of-state developers, but when it comes to helping out a single homeowner (who lived in the city for ten years and has no intention of moving) in East Portland, it seems there’s no money. Until we focus on what we have and what we need now there will always be a group that calls for leashing the government animal by cutting off funding, and an unfortunate consequence is that when the funds get taken away, even the necessities have to be cut back.
Joseph Says:
“Engineers (design and maintenence both) are to blame. Period.
Oh that’s really fair. Engineers don’t have final authority over setting the budgets or picking the projects to which they are assigned. They can yell and scream all they want but its at the discretion of the politicians – that we happily elect to office so long as they promise not to raise our taxes.”
Do some reading Joe, it appears the cause included some plates that were underdesigned (by engineers not politicians) and some overweight repair equipment and purhaps some unwarranted cutting going on (repairs overseen by engineers not politicians).
it appears the cause included some plates that were underdesigned (by engineers not politicians) and some overweight repair equipment and purhaps some unwarranted cutting going on (repairs overseen by engineers not politicians).
No one knows what caused the collapse. That is only the most recent speculation that has been in the media. It may turn out to be an engineering mistake. But there is little doubt that the decision to use inspections of the bridge, instead of reinforcing it, was an economic one made by political leaders or as a result of their decisions.
Eric,
The Tram supports the largest employer in the City and only research intitution in the region.
OHSU’s expansion to South Waterfront is a key piece of the region’s economic future.
The City’s share, $8.5M in TIF, was probably the best transportation investment ever made in this region. Family wage jobs are what make housing affordable.
“I think the blame lies with the usual suspects – politicians. And of course those of us who elect them. They think, rightly, that a large visible new project is going to be noticed by votes, but neglected basic maintenance won’t. And when it is noticed the blame will be passed around and diluted enough that it won’t change many votes.”
Right. If you look at Sam Adam’s street maintenance fee, it is kind of a political loser for him. Nobody ever gets credit for, “the bridge didn’t fall down,” and he has to spend a bunch of money (that the city doesn’t even have yet,) at the same time.
There are a lot of “quests for (temporal) glory” driving this infrastructure debate.
I’ve seen union groups crying for “rebuilding America’s infrastructure” for nigh on to two decades now. Of course construction unions would be huge beneficiaries of this. They can easily prove their point with photos of some bridge piling, with exposed rebar because the concrete has fallen away. Unions would gain members, get bettter contracts, get more dues to pay bigger salaries for the leaders, more clout in the political process. Politicians who fit in with that agenda would be hailed as the champions of progress, creators of jobs, providers of retirement security, far sighted leaders vaulting the country far into the future.
Those following a spendthrift course could depict themselves as having saved billions of unnecessary expenses, reduced an inefficient bureaucracy, stimulated private investment and private sector job creation. Richard Nixon would be a good example, at least in the economic aspect, if not the ethical part of it. With the onerous financial burden of the Vietnam War resolved he was able to become the far sighted internationalist who declared “I will go to China!” thus opening up a grand new era of international relations and diplomacy.
The truth is probabaly in the middle. We should replace obvious disasters waiting to happen. I personally don’t believe the US government should have a priority of creating employment. The way that is being done now is by having an open border policy and otherwise lax immigration policies (i.e overstayed visas, refugee programs, persecution categories) that allows an easily expanded labor force. Add federal spending and presto!—a claim to have provided millions of new jobs and a “growing economy.” A surefire remedy to an “It’s the economy, stupid” criterion of success. I believe institutions like this —examples The New Deal, The Great Society–take on a life of their own far beyond their original mandate. Pres. Clinton finally lived up to the task of undoing The Great Society legacy of LBJ and the corruption it had fostered. Many people remember enough of that lesson to not try it in some brand new fashion.
The I-35 collapse was an exceptional fluke. True a large number of people were killed or seriously maimed in that accident. Construction of a large project could also see deaths–from construction accidents. If anyone wants to keep score we have what–25 deaths–in the I-35? There are about 40 highway flaggers who die each year in the US, and these are the easily preventable accidents, Many more people are killed in material handling, safety violations, and equipment misuse accidents in construction—particularly heavy construction, projects. These don’t make it into the headlines.
Lenny,
Do you know anything at all about OHSU, their employees or affordable housing or transportation?
Take the blinders off.
The biggest use of the Tram is for a parking lot shuttle from the OHSU parking in SoWa to OHSU on the hill.
The vast majority of the 11,000 OHSU employees can’t afford to live anywhere near OHSU and certainly not in SoWa because there isn’t anywhere near enough affordable housing and it is getting worse.
Furthermore, surveys of those 11,000 OHSU employees shows the vast majority prefer/would like to live in a house with a yard.
So many live far enough away to afford it.
Eric,
OHSU’s expansion to South Waterfront so far consist of one totally business, property & TriMet tax exempt building.
The City’s share for the Tram is far more than the $8.5M in TIF.
And OHSU’s share comes from their struggling tax exempt quasi-governmental budget. Hardly free or private money.
Since you have such a low level of understanding of this matter I suggest you stop misleading the public.
This investment has not been shown to be worth it, let alone the best ever made in this region.
It’s stunning that you have such little awareness of the lack of affordable housing.
If you think the Tram is going to spill forth a bunch of family wages high enough to afford homes in the area you are not paying attention or are simply out to lunch my friend.
In the overall picture, SoWa will cost the taxpayers 100s of millions, if not a Billion or two, over 40 or 50 years.
This Urban Renewal scheme also will NOT provide adequate transportation as it will further congest the local area, will NOT provide enough affordable housing and will hobble basic services budgets for the 40 or 50 years it will take for property taxes to retire the debt.
ANY other misrepresentation to the public is reprehensible.
cannot help but think that 40 or more years of salt and corrosive chemicals used to de-ice may have weakened the structure.. worth a look… take a look at the terrible dAmage done to the undersides of caRS IN Minnesota..
Yeah, I blame everybody.
How about right after we blow that 1.5 Trillion in infrastructure, we pay back all the people that lost their ass when the feds got involved heavily in transportation? How about we dump a ton to rebuild the electrified lines of the Milwaukee Road? ???
How about right after that we spend 1.5 Trillion on paying off the debt we owe to China now? Anyone noticed they have us by the balls? One blink and we lose every cent of wealth we have and fall into immediate depression. ???
How about the Government actually turn around the stupid financial system so that the only wealth that can be built isn’t derived from owing debt to the Federal Reserve? ???
The bridge, the financial situation this country is in, all that crap is interlinked and a solution needs to be had.
Blaming anyone for this bridge collapse is an utter waste of time and rather stupid at that. It’s probably EVERY FREAKING BODIES fault.
…and what is with this BS raise the taxes crap? We don’t need to raise the taxes, we need to quit spending 550 Billion a year on the military and invest that in the country. We need to quit losing 25 cents to every dollar paid into the Government to bull crap bureaucracy. This crap about raising this and that tax isn’t going to help a single situation, especially bridges falling down.
Blagh… again, some of the attitudes and disrespectful nature and disregard for others in this country on this blog has again left me rather speachless.
Blaming that anti-tax crowd!?! WTF.
…maybe, just maybe it wouldn’t be so bad if it was some kind of joke.
We need to quit losing 25 cents to every dollar paid into the Government to bull crap bureaucracy
Right. Here is the two edged cry of the anti-government crowd. We should reduce waste by getting rid of the bureaucrats, then we can complain about fraud because their isn’t sufficient oversight. There is waste in government, just is there is in every large business. And like any large business, there is a balance struck between accepting waste and spending the money it takes to root it out.
You can argue the balance is wrong right now, but it is plain silly and naive to suggest that you can pay for anything by eliminating waste. The money is going to go right back into the taxpayer’s pockets if they aren’t convinced government will deliver services with it.
Welcome back, Pat.
Your complaint overlooks the fact that the city is on the hook for only a small percentage of the Tram — OHSU, under its contract with the city, pays for the vast majority of riders. The city doesn’t pay for anyone flashing an OHSU ID or visitor pass.
The biggest use of the Tram is for a parking lot shuttle from the OHSU parking in SoWa to OHSU on the hill.
If you mean bicycle parking, you’re on to something. I’ve witnessed this personally on several occasions – the parking lots are only partially full while the bicycle parking is overflowing. On multiple occasions I’ve also witnessed the streetcar filling up with arriving passengers from the Tram.
Maybe it is you who needs to take the blinders off. Just a thought.
– Bob R.
“We need to quit losing 25 cents to every dollar paid into the Government to bull crap bureaucracy.”
I love arguments like this, cause they tend to be completely wrong. If you look at something like health care in this country, (which is mostly private, but there are some public portions like Medicare,) the overhead in the private parts of the system eat up about 25% of revenue. Then, of course, your for-profit HMO actually needs to make a profit, so that takes another chunk of the money… Medicare, on the other hand, spends about 2% of it’s revenue on overhead, and there is no profit that has to be sent back to the shareholders.
Of course, private company middlemen aren’t technically “bureaucracy” so it is hard for Rush to get excited about them…
The Tram supports the largest employer in the City and only research intitution in the region.
OHSU’s expansion to South Waterfront is a key piece of the region’s economic future.
The City’s share, $8.5M in TIF, was probably the best transportation investment ever made in this region. Family wage jobs are what make housing affordable.
So we should provide an enhanced subsidy to ONE employer, at the expense of the hundreds of others in the city/region?
Never mind the fact that OHSU existed at its current site since the 1930s, sans Tram. There is no reason why OHSU would have left the hill (as poor of a location it is) without the Tram. And all of that biotech industry that was trumpted up that would sprout at SoWa like Ross’s assertion that cars will asexually produce at the sight of a brand new roadway? None. Just a barge builder (that was there for decades), the OHSU building (that housed services previously existant on the hill), and a few condos that sell for unaffordable ranges. But a number of small businesses that pay property and income taxes were wiped off the map to make room for these condos.
By the way, how much are OHSU’s tram operators paid? Somehow I don’t think they earn $50,000 a year (after-tax income). And if they do, then I’d like to know why they get paid more than a TriMet bus operator.
OHSU…largest employer in Portland and only research institution in the region. Nothing more need be said.
To not make every effort to accommodate its growth is, at best, foolish. The Tram is a rounding error of latest freeway fantasy…Columbia River Crossing.
“In Portland we have a transportation planning system that favors building MAX lines (and Streetcar and Tram systems) vs. maintaining existing transit fleets,…”
>>>> That is because there is a large “rail cabal” in Portland, comprised of crony contractors, crony subsidy seeking developers, their politician friends who have bought this nonsense about how good LRT is, Euro-wannabe planners and bureaucrats, and activist hobbyist railfans who have inserted themseves into govt. agencies and advocacy.
The bottom line is that people like me, a transit user, have to suffer the results of a degraded transit system.
The bottom line is that people like me, a transit user, have to suffer the results of a degraded transit system.
I’m sorry you feel that way, Nick, because so many people like me, a transit user, enjoy the benefits of light rail and streetcars (as well as an extensive bus network.)
It may surprise you to know that at the recent streetcar conference, Charlie Hales said (while speaking in a panel discussion and without any outside prompting) that planners must not overlook the importance of a well-established bus transit system, and that Portland’s bus system carries 2/3rds of all boarding rides. Is Charlie no longer a member of the Cabal? :-)
– Bob R.
Lenny and Bob,
There is no talking to you.
How do yo ignore just about everything I wrote above about OHSU and their employees, housing etc along with all of the other details about SoWa?
Lenny, do you honestly think yo need to repeat yet again that OHSU is..”largest employer in Portland and only research institution in the region”
I don’t think anyone needed you to mention it the first time. Let alone your countless one note drumbeat.
Why is it you apparently think that alone is a green light for every decision?
“Nothing more need be said”?
How foolish is that. Suppose reckless decisions are risking the largest employer?
You both fail miserably to demonstrate a clear understanding of how much the “city is on the hook for”.
In addition to the heavily propagandized figure of $8.5 million TIF, the city managed to transfer many other millions (under various labels)in TIF funds to OHSU during the run up in Tram costs and “negotiations”.
Your blinders are narrow and without even a clear frontal view.
The Tram was an instrument of deciet used along with the promise of 10,000 well paying biotech jobs to enable the spending of $100s of millions subsidizing the private developments in SoWa.
All in all the district is and will be a transportation nightmare without ANY real plan to accomodate the additional traffic generated by the 1000’s of added commuters, commerce and 8000 residents. That’s NO PLAN.
The small fraction of so called affordable housing included will now cost the taxpayers large sums to provide for and will only contribute to the increasing shortage of such housing which perpetually ignore.
Bikes and transit aint going to cut it.
The condo towers won’t be providing housing for average working families and their won’t be any big gains in family wage jobs triggered by this massive public investment.
Macadam, I-5, the Sellwood Bridge and Barbur will be further congested, workers will be moving further away to find the housing they want and can afford and basic services’ budgets will be hobbled for decades by the reckless spending.
But because of your wholesale misunderstanding, misguideness and near total disregard for the real world circumstances effected by these policies you tout this whole mess as working just fine.
You see a few bikes and people in streetcars through the tiny slits in your blinders and that’s enough for you.
Nothing more needs to be seen?
Lenny and Bob, There is no talking to you.
Pat, you began posting here just 4 days ago. The first thing you did was flame Ross and tell us all to ignore him because he doesn’t live here at this moment. The 7 posts that followed were riddled with insults and invective, and short on facts. It seems like there’s no talking to YOU. Good day.
– Bob R.
“I’m sorry you feel that way, Nick, because so many people like me, a transit user, enjoy the benefits of light rail and streetcars (as well as an extensive bus network.)”
>>>> Now if I remember correctly, Bob, you stated somewhere else on this blog that you used transit about once a week, and that you have motor vehicles.
I am tempted to conclude that transit is more of a pastime for you.
Now I don’t drive, and use Trimet 4-5 times a week. In my personal oberservations as a rider, I have seen how LRT “fractures” the integrity of the system, usually causing more transfers and longer travel times than previously.
That’s what I don’t like: people who have cars and drive more than taking transit telling people like me what kind of transit system we should have. I surmise that that is the majority of pro-rail posters on this blog.
BTW, isn’t Charlie now selling streetcar systems, and no longer directly involved in Portland?
Do some reading Joe
I’ve been doing more reading on this topic than I care to admit. Ross beat me to the reply, and I agree with him that we may find that in this particular case there was an engineering problem that contributed to the failure, but it’s far too soon to definitively announce a singular cause and say “Period.” There remains the problem that (we) voters elect the politicians (promising us lower taxes) that select the (sexy, high-profile) projects that get the money that pays the engineers. There’s responsibility at every level, and it begins with us and our unwillingness to pay adequate taxes.
Why, again, are we so against having a sales tax that will force out-of-state visitors to help us pay for our infrastructure?
usually causing more transfers and longer travel times than previously.
If by usually, you mean “not usually”, you would be correct. As I have already shown with real data, about 20% of original #5 bus riders experienced no change or longer travel times or increased transfers. 80% saw an improvement, and now ridership has more than doubled.
I am tempted to conclude that transit is more of a pastime for you.
Don’t give in to temptation. Your conclusion (like so many it seems) would be incorrect.
Apparently in Nick’s world, people who own and use cars are incapable of judging the effectiveness of transit, and when they use transit it is just a “pastime”.
So when I ride the bus instead of rail, is that still a pastime? Or are my bus trips valid in your world and my rail trips invalid? Please draw a flowchart for me so I know what you will and won’t approve of.
– Bob R.
“As I have already shown with real data, about 20% of original #5 bus riders experienced no change or longer travel times or increased transfers. 80% saw an improvement, and now ridership has more than doubled.”
>>>> I’m glad that you mentioned this again, as there are a few points I still have to address.
I apologize the my oversight about the 47 minute travel time on the old #5 bus outbound–I was looking at the morning rush. This was caused by northbound buses running around a loop in Jantzen Beach, and then waiting at the signaled on-ramp to I-5.
Because this occurred for about three hours in the PM, the way around this would have been to run some of the buses straight up I-5 instead, thus reducing the trip time. With this operation, trip time would have been hardly any longer than the projected MAX line. This would have been similar to the #19 Woodstock and #33 McLoughlin “split routes.”
Having ridden the Yellow Line several times, I would say that far more than 20% of riders are now worse off–more like at least half. (Another case of Trimet “analysis” of statistics?) And the people who are better off–what did they achieve? Up to 5 minutes faster, for 350 MILLION dollars? What about all the people who lost their local bus stops–now the stops are 10 blocks apart? What about all the people who now have to transfer to go further north? What about people who now take the longer #6 to avoid the transferring?
Now ridership has more than doubled? Every time you post, you seem to inflate the figure. First it was 80% more, then double, and now more than double. Yes, there does seem to be a lot more ridership now, but then again I-MAX has been open for three 3 years.
1) The demos of North Portland are changing a lot. Now you probably have a lot more hipsters who go downtown.
2) Higer gas prices–even the #4 Division bus I take on Sundays seems to have more riders.
3) Fare evasion–why take the bus when you can get away riding MAX for free? This seems to be an endemic problem with MAX.
Anything that MAX can do in this corridor, an operation of limited and local buses could have done just as well or better. All without degrading service for many riders.
I stand by by opinion: $350,000,000 down the drain. Too much experience with transit during my lifetime to buy all the puffery.
Joeseph says: “There’s responsibility at every level, and it begins with us and our unwillingness to pay adequate taxes.
Why, again, are we so against having a sales tax that will force out-of-state visitors to help us pay for our infrastructure?”
First, the cost to collect a sales tax FAR outweighs the taxes that visitors would pay. These visitors spend more here without a sales tax now that they would not spend with one. They also pay lots of taxes (gas, hotel, rental car, airport) without a sales tax.
Second, since you don’t think you pay enough taxes how much EXACTLY did you send in to the govt. in 2006 over what you owed. It is prefectly ok to pay more if you really think they it is needed. If the answer is zero you are saying that OTHER PEOPLE (like in the visitor comment) should pay more not you. That is BS.
“I am tempted to conclude that transit is more of a pastime for you….Now I don’t drive, and use Trimet 4-5 times a week.”
I don’t drive (regularly) either, and minimum I use it is 10 times a week, but some weeks it is up at 20-30 times. That is only 3-4 trips a day, since the average in Portland is 3.1, that isn’t even that much.
“In my personal oberservations as a rider I have seen how LRT “fractures” the integrity of the system, usually causing more transfers and longer travel times than previously.”
My personal observations based off of what you’ve posted here is that you don’t actually look at the route map or schedule, and have at least once, gotten on the wrong bus, and then complained that it didn’t take you where you wanted to go… But I digress.
“That’s what I don’t like: people who have cars and drive more than taking transit telling people like me what kind of transit system we should have.”
People that own cars, (or could, legally and financially,) that ride transit are what are called choice riders. (The majority of the riders on our system are choice riders.) Attracting more choice riders is one of the two ways the system can grow. (The other is to have all the living wage jobs leave town, so that people have no choice. Think Brazil. This is one of the reasons I support the tram.) If choice riders want more trains, and the system is hoping to increase it’s ridership, then TriMet is actually wise to listen to them.
Regardless, your argument that the Yellow line is worse then the #5 bus isn’t doing much for me. There are actual numbers that you can look at, (Bob has even posted them on this site,) and “more like at least half” of the ridership of the Yellow line isn’t worse off than they were for the #5 bus because they didn’t ever ride the #5 bus in the first place. You can say what you want about where they are actually trying to go, but the boarding count numbers are not lies.
Second, since you don’t think you pay enough taxes how much EXACTLY did you send in to the govt. in 2006 over what you owed. It is prefectly ok to pay more if you really think they it is needed. If the answer is zero you are saying that OTHER PEOPLE (like in the visitor comment) should pay more not you. That is BS.
The answer is zero, but you should know that’s not the whole of my opinion on the matter.
As I’ve mentioned elsewhere, in combination with a sales tax I believe that we could reduce the income tax for those earning below 115% of the median income (I am not included in that group). Thus, I would like to see those who can afford it, including myself, contribute more. In reality, it wouldn’t result in a significant increase in revenue if we just asked those who wanted to contribute more to do so; it would have to be a requirement. In addition to that, imposing a sales tax would result in additional revenue from sources that we do not see revenue from today. I believe this would result in an increase in tax revenue for the state (any economists care to prove me right/wrong?).
In a perfect world, I’d send the money I’m now paying the feds to Salem instead, or – better yet – to Portland, and the feds could make due with the measly cut that I’m currently sending to my local jurisdiction. I think our priorities are reversed; I’d like to see the majority of our tax dollars stay close to home.
And I’m not just giving lip service, I happily voted for the Multnomah County income tax a few years ago, and paid it, too. I’m not afraid to hand out more of my money for the greater good, I just want it to stay close to home.
Nick wrote: “Another case of Trimet “analysis” of statistics?”
I don’t work for TriMet, I did an independent analysis of their stop-by-stop boarding data. I posted all the tables here and my reasoning, and I linked to all the source documents. If that’s not good enough for you, oh well.
– Bob R.
“Second, since you don’t think you pay enough taxes how much EXACTLY did you send in to the govt. in 2006 over what you owed. It is prefectly ok to pay more if you really think they it is needed. If the answer is zero you are saying that OTHER PEOPLE (like in the visitor comment) should pay more not you.”
$500. I didn’t directly give the state more money, but I do give money to the public schools (I don’t have kids,) and to fund mental health for the homeless, (both of which used to be [properly] paid for by our taxes until the state ran out of money.) That means I can stand around and say that people should pay more taxes, right? I think the state income tax rate should be 11%.
I don’t really like sales taxes, mainly because I see the paperwork my company has to file every time we ship something to a different state/city/county/etc… The system is so paperwork intensive, and I’d much rather raise an existing tax, then come up with an new one. If you want to make the system more progressive, change to a graduated structure, and raise the standard deduction. If you want to get visitors, raise the hotel tax, the rental car tax, airport fees, gas tax, whatever, but don’t make a paperwork nightmare…
Bob,
I get the impression you are some kind of a fraud and political hack. I could be wrong but that’s what you appear to be. Especailly when you dismiss a whole littany of germane aspects as “flame”, “insults” and “invective”.
There is a whole list of facts above and many more which you obvisouly are too biased to grasp.
Instead you choose to mislead people into believing the City is “on the hook” for less than they are, that the City investments are sound, that the results are positive and that more money and the same is needed. All the while ignoring a vast amount of misspending of countless millions which should be going to responsible and well managed public interests.
No “that’s not good enough”.
Neither is your offense at being challenged.
Just like our newspapers, Ross and Lenny, along with you and a few others, have been distorting every conceavable major expenditure our region has seen.
Your pretense that your agenda is providing for or managing growth is extremely insulting.
As SoWa, TriMet, Metro, Convention Center Hotel, Beaverton Round, TODs and other official malfeacence piles up debt, sucks the life out of basic services budgets and creates chaos of gridlock and housing shortages you are all to blame.
So go ahead and ride your bike around with your nose stuck up in the air but honest public debate is NOT what you are about.
“There is a whole list of facts above and many more which you obvisouly are too biased to grasp.”
I’ve read every single comment that you have posted since you’ve been here, and I don’t think you have posted a single fact or statistic to support anything you are claiming. Where is this “list of facts?” Where is A fact? I have seen none. You may think your opinion is the word of God, but it means nothing to me without a reasoned, logical analysis backing it up.
“I get the impression you are some kind of a fraud and political hack.”
Comments like these are NOT appropriate. I believe that your tone, lack of civility, and personal accusations consistently violate the terms of this website.
Pat, I urge you to read the rules. Your remarks about other participants in the conversations are going to get you banned if you continue.
When representatives in Congress like Earl Blumenauer are siphoning off motorist paid gas tax dollars already paid into the Federal Highway Trust Fund for expensive frills like streetcars and to build bicycle infrastructure for freeloaders; by pursuing their own agenda with roadway dollars instead of using some of those dollars for maintenance on interstates and other federally funded roadways and bridges, they are the ones that should be held responsible for the disastrous bridge collapse in Minneapolis. Congress should not be allowing highway dollars to be diverted and divvied out for anything but roads. A national transit user paid farebox tax should be implemented to pay for transit projects, and a national bicycle user tax for specialized bicycle infrastructure. Motorists should not continue to be extorted, and in this case die, so Blumenauer, others in Congress and their groupies can pay for their whims and fantasies with highway dollars.
are siphoning off motorist paid gas tax dollars
I pay gas taxes and I want them spent on alternatives to driving that reduce traffic, not to add traffic to the system. That inevitably will add more congestion, not less. You can disagree, but transit, sidewalks and bike facilities aren’t “frills”. They are cost effective investments in better transportation.
Terry, don’t you know any other songs?
I pay gas taxes and I want them spent on alternatives to driving that reduce traffic, not to add traffic to the system.
Ross,
See the Oregon Constitution, Article IX, Section 3A:
Section 3a. Use of revenue from taxes on motor vehicle use and fuel; legislative review of allocation of taxes between vehicle classes.
(1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, revenue from the following shall be used exclusively for the construction, reconstruction, improvement, repair, maintenance, operation and use of public highways, roads, streets and roadside rest areas in this state:
(a) Any tax levied on, with respect to, or measured by the storage, withdrawal, use, sale, distribution, importation or receipt of motor vehicle fuel or any other product used for the propulsion of motor vehicles; and
(b) Any tax or excise levied on the ownership, operation or use of motor vehicles.
(2) Revenues described in subsection (1) of this section:
(a) May also be used for the cost of administration and any refunds or credits authorized by law.
(b) May also be used for the retirement of bonds for which such revenues have been pledged.
(c) If from levies under paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of this section on campers, motor homes, travel trailers, snowmobiles, or like vehicles, may also be used for the acquisition, development, maintenance or care of parks or recreation areas.
(d) If from levies under paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of this section on vehicles used or held out for use for commercial purposes, may also be used for enforcement of commercial vehicle weight, size, load, conformation and equipment regulation.
(3) Revenues described in subsection (1) of this section that are generated by taxes or excises imposed by the state shall be generated in a manner that ensures that the share of revenues paid for the use of light vehicles, including cars, and the share of revenues paid for the use of heavy vehicles, including trucks, is fair and proportionate to the costs incurred for the highway system because of each class of vehicle. The Legislative Assembly shall provide for a biennial review and, if necessary, adjustment, of revenue sources to ensure fairness and proportionality.
[Created through S.J.R. 7, 1979, and adopted by the people May 20, 1980 (this section and section 3 adopted in lieu of former section 3 of this Article); Amendment proposed by S.J.R. 44, 1999, and adopted by the people Nov. 2, 1999; Amendment proposed by S.J.R. 14, 2003, and adopted by the people Nov. 2, 2004]
Whether you want to have gas taxes going towards reducing traffic is besides the point, the voters of the State of Oregon in a democratic election voted to authorize this Constitutional Amendment. Thus you have two choices to deal with it:
1. Bring up an initative to repeal it (see Article XVII Section 2), or
2. Move out of Oregon and to a state that has no such law.
Earl isn’t siphoning off highway trust fund money for bicycling, that money came from the general fund. In any case, he only wants $1M a year, and it isn’t an earmark for Portland or anything, it is nationwide, so we are talking $20k per average state. To put that into perspective the CRC spends $20k every 3 hours just to push papers around and give away balloons. However, Terry, you would get a kick out of Rep McHenry of North Carolina’s response to Earl.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Ip8nozp7vs8
Thus you have two choices to deal with it:
1. Bring up an initative to repeal it (see Article XVII Section 2), or
2. Move out of Oregon and to a state that has no such law.
How about (3) – Allow the buying power of the gas tax to decline to the point where it’s irrelevant as a funding source.
That seems to be the course the voters and the legislature are embarked upon.
The issue being discussed was the federal gas tax, which has no such restrictions. Our elected representatives can spend it any way they choose.
And the limitation on the state gas tax allows almost any improvements to public highways, including those for pedestrians, bicyclists and transit.
“(3) – Allow the buying power of the gas tax to decline to the point where it’s irrelevant as a funding source.”
I don’t think the gas tax will be “irrelevant” in the near future. But it doesn’t cover the basic maintenance of roads any more, much less the cost of any new construction. It may be the solution is to further restrict its use to maintenance and reconstruction.
Facts you ignore from above:
Lenny is misrepresenting OHSU, their employees and their affordable housing & transportation needs.
The biggest use of the Tram is for a parking lot shuttle from the OHSU parking in SoWa to OHSU on the hill.
The vast majority of the 11,000 OHSU employees can’t afford to live anywhere near OHSU and certainly not in SoWa because there isn’t anywhere near enough affordable housing and it is getting worse.
Furthermore, surveys of those 11,000 OHSU employees shows the vast majority prefer/would like to live in a house with a yard.
The result is many live far enough away to afford it.
OHSU’s expansion to South Waterfront so far consists of one, totally (business/property/TriMet) tax exempt building.
The City’s share for the Tram is far more than the $8.5M in TIF.
And OHSU’s share comes from their struggling tax exempt quasi-governmental budget.
Hardly free or private money.
This investment has not yet been shown to be worth it, let alone the best ever made in this region.
Here there is little awareness of the lack of affordable housing.
Tram is not going to spill forth a bunch of family wages high enough to afford homes in the area.
SoWa will cost the taxpayers 100s of millions, if not a Billion or two, over 40 or 50 years.
This Urban Renewal scheme also will NOT provide adequate transportation as it will further congest the local area, will NOT provide enough affordable housing and will hobble basic services budgets for the 40 or 50 years it will take for property taxes to retire the debt.
ANY other misrepresentation to the public is reprehensible.
Lenny doesn’t need to repeat yet again that OHSU is..”largest employer in Portland and only research institution in the region”
In addition to the heavily propagandized figure of $8.5 million TIF, the city managed to transfer many other millions (under various labels)in TIF funds to OHSU during the run up in Tram costs and “negotiations”.
The Tram was an instrument of deciet used along with the promise of 10,000 well paying biotech jobs to enable the spending of $100s of millions subsidizing the private developments in SoWa.
All in all the district is and will be a transportation nightmare without ANY real plan to accomodate the additional traffic generated by the 1000’s of added commuters, commerce and 8000 residents. That’s NO PLAN.
The small fraction of so called affordable housing included will now cost the taxpayers large sums to provide for and will only contribute to the increasing shortage of such housing which you perpetually ignore.
Bikes and transit aint going to cut it.
The condo towers won’t be providing housing for average working families and their won’t be any big gains in family wage jobs triggered by this massive public investment.
Macadam, I-5, the Sellwood Bridge and Barbur will be further congested, workers will be moving further away to find the housing they want and can afford and basic services’ budgets will be hobbled for decades by the reckless spending.
Yet, you tout this whole mess as working just fine.
You see a few bikes and people in streetcars and that’s enough for you.
You DO dismiss a whole littany of germane aspects as “flame”, “insults” and “invective”.
You DO choose to mislead people into believing the City is “on the hook” for less than they are, that the City investments are sound, that the results are positive and that more money and the same is needed. All the while ignoring a vast amount of misspending of countless millions which should be going to responsible and well managed public interests.
Just like our newspapers, Ross and Lenny, along with you and a few others, have been distorting every conceavable major expenditure our region has seen.
SoWa, TriMet, Metro, Convention Center Hotel, Beaverton Round, TODs and other official malfeacence piles up debt, sucks the life out of basic services budgets and creates chaos of gridlock and housing shortages.
Pat says” All in all the district is and will be a transportation nightmare without ANY real plan to accomodate the additional traffic generated by the 1000’s of added commuters, commerce and 8000 residents. That’s NO PLAN.”
While I have favored the extension of the Central Streetcar into SoWa ( as well as its extension to Lake Oswego) I agree that some additional investment in conventional infrastructure is needed. I think a bridge to SE Holgate Blvd, is needed. It could connect to SW Bancroft on the westside–with connections to I-5–and to Hwy 99E and Holgate on the eastsside.
I think this would be better than the proposed Caruthers Crossing.
Incidentally—although w’re drifting a long ways from the I-35 question: Why not get some old streetcars and equip them with diesel power units running on biodiesel, and use the existing tracks to Lake Oswego?
The vast majority of the 11,000 OHSU employees can’t afford to live anywhere near OHSU
If that were true, I guess OHSU would have to raise their wages. Otherwise they will have a hard time finding and retaining employees. But I doubt it is true.
surveys of those 11,000 OHSU employees shows the vast majority prefer/would like to live in a house with a yard.
I once wanted a house without a yard. I never found one for sale.
The result is many live far enough away to afford it.
There is no doubt that people do choose to live in less attractive housing because of cost. Housing close to OHSU is some of the most attractive there is and the only way to make it cheaper in the free market is to make it less attractive.
I think there is a real need to invest in affordable housing in the central core near OHSU. And that ought to be a strong component of public investment in South Waterfront.And I think there is a problem that a lot of lip service is paid to affordable housing, but it takes real dollars to do anything about it. And, as Pat points out, failing to provide a mixture of housing puts a real strain on the transportation system by forcing employers to attract workers from a much larger area.
There is no doubt that people do choose to live in less attractive housing because of cost. Housing close to OHSU is some of the most attractive there is and the only way to make it cheaper in the free market is to make it less attractive.
While the housing near OHSU is very attractive (part due to the history of the neighborhood), the topography of the area severely limits how much housing can be placed there. In other words, no one’s building new homes there.
But to suggest that housing further from OHSU (or downtown) is inherently “less desirable” is a myth. Why have thousands of new homes been built in Cedar Mills and Bethany? Or Happy Valley/Damascus? Camas/Washougal? Sherwood/Tualatin/Wilsonville? And yet each development sells out, prompting developers to build more of the same. That’s hardly “less desirable”.
The problem arises when those developers are largely funding their own infrastructure, in competition with close-in development such as SoWa and the Pearl in which taxpayers – not the developers – are funding the infrastructure. I don’t see Metro/TriMet launching new bus lines to serve the outer areas with the same level of service as the Streetcar is. If you live in the area north of U.S. 26, your option is a weekday rush-hour only shuttle van, or private auto. Shouldn’t a major goal of TriMet (and Metro, through its ability to assign federal flex dollars as well as general funds to repay bonds) be to provide transit service THROUGHOUT its service region – and thus provide quality bus service seven days a week, rather than focusing hundreds of millions of dollars in only a few select transit projects (namely Interstate MAX, Airport MAX, I-205 MAX, and the Portland Streetcar and Aerial Tram)?
If I recall, the full name of TriMet was the “Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon”, not the “Downtown Portland Transportation District of Oregon”?
Ross said,
“I think there is a real need to invest in affordable housing”
“Invest”? That’s truly funny. If our government planner’s plans don’t work out and the answer is to pay for housing with tax dollars that’s not “investing”.
It’s bureacracy mission creep, creating another government program, subsidizing or adding more dependency on government.
What I don’t get is why you and yours keep pretending this grand planners scheme is working when it’s obviously lessening the supplies of affordable housing and adding to the gridlock problem by forcing working families to move further away. At the same time it is devouring the same countless millions we are supposedly saving by stopping sprawl. What a joke that it. All we’ve done in turn around the savings and spent far more attempting to cram more people together through subsidized development and costly rail transit. And of course the burgeoning planning bureacracies are devouring many millions as well.
I can only imagine the miniscule and worthless work product that is produced in cubicle after cubicle at Metro, PDC and CoP planning offices.
All under the fantasy that they are “managing” or “planning” for growth.
In reality growth has been happening all over the region and these agencies are doing sqwat. They’re too busy trying to create little utopias versus managing the growth. That’s why UGB expanison sit frozen in time, North Bethany and Damascus are stuck in planners quagmire and none of our 23 cities have any, and have not seen any, plan for traffic or affordable housing.
What they work on or get from Metro is more planner’s schemes for more rail, streetscapes, TODs and “Centers” requiring huge tax subsidies while providing absolutely no benefit to our growing traffic or worsening affordable housing shortage.
I’ve read quotes from city councils saying they don’t really know what to do about these problems.
The only thing they seem to know is they need more money.
How perfect is that? A real confidence builder for the public. Makes us real eager to hand over more since they haven’t the slightest idea what to do with it.
Spin it all you want but reality bites.
Ross writes: “There is no doubt that people do choose to live in less attractive housing because of cost. Housing close to OHSU is some of the most attractive there is and the only way to make it cheaper in the free market is to make it less attractive.”
MHW replies: Well Ross this is not and probably never has been a free market.
All we’ve done in turn around the savings and spent far more attempting to cram more people together through subsidized development and costly rail transit.
Well yes. All the planners have done so far is create a compact region surrounded by natural beauty that is driving regional growth. Portland could go back to the resource based economy of the early 1980’s when people were leaving.
But the reality is, for all the complaints here, Portland is a destination where people want to come to live. And that is why Intel, as an example, has located a lot of its most technically demanding business here. They can recruit the best and brightest from all over the country.
I used to jokingly say my fantasy was to live in the mountains next to the ocean where I could take a ferry across San Francisco bay to Manhattan. The suggestions here about South Waterfront sound a little like that. OSHU employees are supposed to live in affordable homes with large lots and a quick commute to their jobs. And if they can’t, the regional plan is a failure.
The fact is that housing is expensive near employment. That is why housing is relatively cheap in Burns, for instance, compared to anywhere in the Portland region. The same is true for Vancouver and Portland within the region. Housing is more expensive where a lot of people want to live. Which is another reason Portland housing is expensive compared to that same house in Vancouver or Beaverton or Hillsboro.
“this is not and probably never has been a free market.”
Exactly. There has always been planning and government has always played a role in how cities grow. The decision to have limits on urban growth were made years ago and are still supported by a majority of Oregonians. Are there challenges to making them work? Yes. But Portland, more than any other city in the country, has been up to the challenges that growth brings.
But housing is inexpensive in Houston and it is growing and has a much stronger economy than Portland. Why is housing near good jobs in Houston less than half the cost of housing near jobs in Portland? Could it have anything to do with Government policy and regulation?
But housing is inexpensive in Houston and it is growing and has a much stronger economy than Portland.
Houston (city) census stats, 2005:
Median Family Income: $40,172
Median Household Income: $36,894
Median Per-Capita Income: $22,534
Monthly Housing Costs (with Mortgage): $1,264
Percentage of owner-occupied housing: 47.8%
Percentage of vacant housing units: 12.5%
Average commute-to-work time: 26.4 minutes
Portland (city) census stats, 2005:
Median Family Income: $55,321
Median Household Income: $42,287
Median Per-Capita Income: $26,677
Monthly Housing Costs (with Mortgage): $1,447
Percentage of owner-occupied housing: 56.6%
Percentage of vacant housing units: 7.0%
Average commute-to-work time: 23.2 minutes
Caveat: The above stats are by city, not metro area. I couldn’t immediately see how to change the factfinder output to metro area.
But at first glance it appears that Portland has higher incomes, shorter commute times, less housing sitting vacant on the market, and higher rates of home ownership. Maybe that has something to do with the higher housing prices here.
– Bob R.
The Houston metro area has a median house asking price of $165K and Portland’s is $345K. That is a pretty big difference.
The median Portland house is 4.6 times the median income and in Houston it is 2.6
A houstonian pays about 15% of his income for housing and a Portlander pays about 27%
Boy Bob if you think that cherry picked comparison represents a succes story for Portland you are hopeless.
Especailly with less than a 3 minute difference in average commute time which is clearly a BIG RED FLAG.
Imagine the difference in government planning costs and Portland’s perpetual bragging.
It only delivers a less than 3 minute savings on average commute compared to the anti-zoing and planning Houston? Which is forever held up as the worst and opposite of Portland?
There is little doubt our region fares even less than your cherry picked rose colored picture when compared to the Houston region.
Despite what Ross says about there always being planning and government playing a role in how cities grow, today’s Portland region is planning extremism producing a rat race of haphazard chaos in every arena with so little benefit we can barely nose out a statistic ahead of the anti-Portland Houston to brag about.
Why are you so impressed?
Ross says,
“And that is why Intel, as an example, has located a lot of its most technically demanding business here. They can recruit the best and brightest from all over the country.”
Is Intel in Portland? Or are they out in Hillsboro where our brilliant Metro and our UGB prohibits development?
The enviros are opposed to development anywhere, even on rock soil not suitable for growing anything. That’s what they testified at the legislature.
Developing the land just west of the Intel plant would allow people to walk to work.
And it wouldn’t take costly Urban Renewal Schemes.
Oh but wait, that would be “sprawl”?
21 Fortune 500 companies call Houston their home. Intel isn’t even based here. They located here because of tax breaks and cheap energy, not planning and light rail.
“Pat” accuses me of “cherry picking” and offers no data from any source which would contradict the findings. Pat further accuses me of stating that this data proves a “success story” for Portland, when what I actually said is that the data I presented may have something to do with housing prices. I don’t know how pat gets from “may have something to do with housing prices” to “success story”, but that’s Pat for you.
Despite what Pat says, the reason I posted those numbers is quite simple: “nwjg” brought up Houston and held it up as an example of a “much stronger economy than Portland” – so I posted US Census numbers relating to both cities. It doesn’t seem that Houston’s economy is so “much stronger”.
But, lest I be falsely accused of cherry-picking again, I did find a way to get the Census web site factfinder system to display ALL of the 2005 community survey information for both full metro areas on one page: 2005 US Census American Community Survey Results for Houston MSA and Portland MSA
Some interesting facts for the “strong economy” debate (all of the following data represent metro areas):
Houston has a 44% higher poverty rate than Portland.
Houston has more than twice the rate of people living in cramped conditions (more than 1 person per room) as Portland.
Houston has 56% more people with no access to a telephone than Portland.
Portland has 6.4% higher monthly mortgage costs than Houston.
Portland housing rental costs are 5% higher than Houston.
Portland area commutes are 3.7 minutes shorter than Houston area commutes.
Houston has twice the rate of people who fail to obtain a high school diploma compared to Portland.
Portland has a 14% higher rate of people with Bachelors degrees or higher.
Those numbers aren’t necessarily something to crow about or a reason to declare Portland a “success”, but they do call into question the original claim made by “nwjg” that Houston has a “much better economy” than Portland.
– Bob R.
21 Fortune 500 companies call Houston their home.
Houston also owns the fourth largest population in the entire country; Portland is somewhere around 21st.
We’re nowhere near the size of Houston and shouldn’t be comparing ourselves to that city any more than we should compare ourselves to New York, Chicago, or Los Angeles.
Pat, I’m still waiting for a suggestion for what you would do to improve things around here. Complaining doesn’t accomplish anything; what actions would you take that would result in some improvements? Build some new freeways? Knock down some skyscrapers and replace them with single family houses on half-acre lots? Come on, we’ve been waiting for a week or so for you to contribute in some fashion that isn’t simply ridiculing those of us who don’t share your values.
By the way, have you ever been to Houston?
I defer back to the common theme: housing prices reflect how desirable a place is to live. It’s cheap to live in Houston because not too many people really want to live in Houston.
“Boy Bob if you think that cherry picked comparison represents a succes story for Portland you are hopeless.
Especailly with less than a 3 minute difference in average commute time which is clearly a BIG RED FLAG.”
>>>> This is what I was complaining about in our discussions on the MAX Yellow Line. Bob picked the maximum possible saving over the former #5 bus of 5 minutes (Pionner Square to Interstate and Lombard), neglecting the fact that not everybody rides that far (so the time savings were even less) and a lot of riders lost their local bus stops, now making their trips longer. Plus all the additional transferring that has be done now at the Lombard/Kenton stops.
That is why I cannot accept his “analysis” that only about 20% of former #5 bus riders now had equal or longer travel times with MAX.
This is what we pissed away $350 million for.
Bob as usual you float right by the most germane.
Especailly with less than a 3 minute difference in average commute time which is clearly a BIG RED FLAG.
Imagine the difference in government planning costs and Portland’s perpetual bragging.
It only delivers a less than 3 minute savings on average commute compared to the anti-zoing and planning Houston? Which is forever held up as the worst and opposite of Portland?
There is little doubt our region fares even less than your rose colored picture when compared to the Houston region.
Jopseph,
I would agree Houston is much bigger, but it is forever held up for comparison by our planning adovcates just as they do LA.
Claiming it is something to avoid yet LA and Houston is eactly the kind of dense megaloppolis our planners have in store for our region.
I and others have made many suggestions.
Starting with calling out the fraud in diverting countless millions to reckless schemes.
Stop clogging up our thoroughfares roads with streetscape bubble curbs and bike lane madness.
Yes we need more freeways exactly the same way we needed 205 and the Glenn Jackson bridge.
“Knock down some skyscrapers”? Not hardly. You must have a problem paying attention. Stop subsidizing them with property taxes is a start. And stop claiming it’s “smart” to do so and BSing the public about the effects and cost.
I have a whole list of critical points above.
Of course you don’t find them a contribution.
You have higher values?
Pat, your comments are still factless and link to no source material.
“Especailly with less than a 3 minute difference in average commute time which is clearly a BIG RED FLAG.”
The original claim was that Houston was doing better than Portland. Others have frequently claimed here that Portland’s policies have made for bad commute times and we should emulate the hands-off approach of Houston.
The fact that Portland (both city and metro area) has lower commute times than Houston (both city and metro area) is a “BIG RED FLAG” that the anti-Portland rhetoric we hear so often doesn’t actually match with the facts.
Imagine the difference in government planning costs and Portland’s perpetual bragging.
What is that difference, Pat? How about, you know, an actual number from an actual source. What does the Houston Metro area spend on all transportation-planning/zoning/land-use/etc. and how does that compare per-capita to the Portland Metro area. Go on, I’m waiting.
It only delivers a less than 3 minute savings on average commute compared to the anti-zoing and planning Houston?
That’s fantastic – we have our planning and zoning and livability, AND we get shorter commute times than Houston. Sounds good to me.
(And to those just joining us – I don’t actually think directly comparing these two vastly different metro areas is particularly useful, but I’m not the one who brought up Houston as an example of a “much better” place.)
Which is forever held up as the worst and opposite of Portland?
If it is “forever” held up as the “worst and opposite”, why did “nwjg” bring it up as an example of a “much better” economy? This thread has been going on for 4 days and nobody mentioned Houston before “nwjg”.
If I’ve been “cherry picking” (which I haven’t) then you are “no picking” – no data from you at all, just ranting.
– Bob R.
For a visual comparison to Portland, look at downtown Houston via Google Earth. It is a sea of parking lots (all packed full).
Now look at Houston’s close-in neighborhoods. They are full of housing projects and abandoned residential lots – very similar to what Detroit looks like from above.
Compare this to Portland, where the center city is the heart of the metro area. Now you see the outcomes of the two different approaches to land use and transportation.
Nick just accused me of the following:
“This is what I was complaining about in our discussions on the MAX Yellow Line. Bob picked the maximum possible saving over the former #5 bus of 5 minutes (Pionner Square to Interstate and Lombard), neglecting the fact that not everybody rides that far (so the time savings were even less) and a lot of riders lost their local bus stops, now making their trips longer. Plus all the additional transferring that has be done now at the Lombard/Kenton stops. “
Nick, that’s just offensively flat-out wrong, and as far as I’m concerned a lie on your part, because we’ve been discussing that article back and forth for months now and you’ve even claimed to have it printed out and in your cabinet. I suggest you go read it again. Here’s a link, yet again.
Note that the long section titled “Travel Times” has a table with ALL of the following trip pairs listed:
I listed a variety of trips, and I listed them all together. And you know it.
Please also note (I suggest a yellow highlighter pen) than in my conclusions for that section I state:
And I also clearly stated, in the ridership analysis:
Either you are willfully distorting what I actually wrote, or you are only reading what you want to see in my analysis while disregarding everything else, and then accusing ME of “cherry picking”.
– Bob R.
For a visual comparison to Portland, look at downtown Houston via Google Earth. It is a sea of parking lots (all packed full).
Now look at Houston’s close-in neighborhoods. They are full of housing projects and abandoned residential lots – very similar to what Detroit looks like from above.
Compare this to Portland, where the center city is the heart of the metro area. Now you see the outcomes of the two different approaches to land use and transportation.
You have higher values?
No, I didn’t say that. I said that we don’t share the “same” values. In this sense it a matter of preference.
Stop clogging up our thoroughfares roads with streetscape bubble curbs and bike lane madness.
I’ve said more or less the same thing recently. The arterials should be built up to allow more cars to come off the highways. I like the concept of the bicycle boulevards and think this should be taken even further, even to the extent of removing bike lanes on arterials parallel to the bicycle boulevards.
Yes we need more freeways exactly the same way we needed 205 and the Glenn Jackson bridge.
Where do you propose we put the new highways? I’ve got a few ideas. But I also think they should be tolled.
“Knock down some skyscrapers”? Not hardly…Stop subsidizing them with property taxes is a start. And stop claiming it’s “smart” to do so and BSing the public about the effects and cost.
Again, this is preference. I’d rather live and work in a skyscraper than not. Ten years ago we didn’t have that many to live in, now I’d have the pick of the litter except that apparently there’s a bunch of other people that wanted to live in high rises all along, too. Maybe we don’t need to subsidize them anymore, but that’s what it took to get us here and to prove that there’s a market in Portland for the urban lifestyle.
You must have a problem paying attention…I have a whole list of critical points above.
Of course you don’t find them a contribution.
We’re getting off topic here, but this has been a theme with you since you’ve arrived here. Maybe if your delivery was a little more polished and civil we’d see more of the contribution between your criticisms and childish name-calling.
See, it’s possible to have a productive discussion and find points upon which we agree if you don’t act so hostile all the time. We’re in this together, in many cases we’re going to have to agree to disagree and beyond that it’s going to require compromise to accomplish anything, so rather than antagonize everybody you should try to be more constructive with your criticisms. I think we can all agree that if you’d have done that to begin with that we wouldn’t be so hostile towards you.
I’m pretty sure most folks in this town do not aspire to be Houston, TX, so let’s drop it.
Comparisons to the Twin Cities might be interesting (and on subject)…they have to rebuild an Interstate Bridge and are on the lightrail bandwagon, or so I hear. Bob, can you pull out some quick facts for us?
Just to start this off…the Twin Cities combine Portland/Salem & Eugene; a major metro area, a state capital AND a major research university.
Despite the credit or blame laid on our planners, much Portland’s development patterns have been driven by geography…hills, rivers, etc. Minneapolis/St Paul, while embracing the Big Muddy, have flat land as far as the eye can see and beyond (much like Houston).
Yet, their new lightrail line is off to a great start, and the number of bike commuters is second only to Portland’s.
And they do have MLB…another reason I wish Mayor Katz was still in charge.
The bike thing is minute. So let’s drop it.
2000 census shows 2 % for bus, 1 % for rail, .25% for bike. for work trips. But that’s meaningless because work trips are 34% of all trips during the peak hours and to little to measure in the other hours.
Moreover, City of P data doesn’t mean anything because on all of our heavily traveled roads, Portland represents only 30% of all of the trips.
So its 30% of 35% of what they show.
The survey for bike numbers were at the end of April, when the weather is great for biking. It is not weighted for the lack of use in winter or very hot days.
Last June, the director of the Census Bureau came to Portland to announce this. See http://tinyurl.com/2vbdrz
Portland had about 257,500 workers as of 2005 (when this survey was taken), so 3.5 percent is about 9,000 people cycling to work. That sounds reasonable, especially since the Portland Business Alliance census of downtown workers found that about 8,250 of them walked or bicycled to work in 2005.
There are several caveats.
1. The Census Bureau asks people how they “usually” get to work. Surveys show that people who say they usually get to work by car almost always go to work by car. But people who say they usually get to work by transit, walking, or cycling often go by car. So, on any given day (especially rainy days!), the percentage riding a bicycle will be lower than the number who say they usually bicycle.
2. The annual American Community Survey on which these numbers are based is taken, I believe, in the summer (the numbers are supposed to be as of July 1). The number who cycle in the winter is no doubt much smaller.
3. The survey is based on much smaller numbers than the decennial census. The decennial census is supposed to count everyone. The American Community Survey polls about 70,000 people. That’s a lot for questions like race or state-by-state populations. When you get down to small numbers like the number who bicycle to work in individual cities, the error rates can be high. It is so high, in fact, that in the numbers published on the web, bicycles are combined with taxis and motorcycles — I can’t find the number who bicycled to work in Portland or anywhere else.
4. Even if 3.5 percent of people in the city of Portland often cycle to work, a much smaller percentage of people in the Portland urban area cycle to work. For example, the survey found that about 13.3 percent of city of Portlanders took transit to work, but only 7.5 percent of urban area workers took transit.
Pat –
If you are interested in the margin of error in the community survey, as well as numbers for the metro area as a whole (as opposed to just Portland) see this link.
For the metro-area (including Vancouver) bicycle commute share, the MOE is +/- 0.1 percentage points, putting the bicycle commute share at 1.0 to 1.2 percent.
The MOE for walking commutes is +/- 0.1 percentage points, putting the walking commute share at 2.6 to 3.2 percent.
– Bob R.
Lenny –
Here is a link to a page comparing the Minneapolis-St. Paul MSA to the Portland MSA.
– Bob R.
Top ten cities that use transit:
http://money.cnn.com/2007/06/13/real_estate/public_transit_commutes/index.htm
For Portland, its just the city, not the surrounding area.
Given a reality check, the people and groups that are truly and repeatedly singing the same song in the arena of anti-tax activism are the bicyclists who continually resist accepting any form of direct taxation on themselves to pay for bicycle infrastructure, the transit advocates that continually refuse to support farebox revenues that better reflect the total costs of providing the service, the big developers that continually want property tax abatements and other tax breaks, and the politicians who support the agendas of these anti-tax proponents. All these people and groups want their lifestyle choices subsidized by the rest of society. They are the ones that are continually crating a buzz to increase taxes on anybody except themselves, all with the expectation of receiving more subsidies for their self-seeking and non-user funded agendas.
Falsely accused of being anti-tax activists are the groups, families and individuals that already tapped out and/or pay their share or more in taxes, are tired of subsidizing those who have the means to but do not pay, and do not want their own taxes raised only to have more money siphoned off from government services for the purpose of subsidizing those who don’t pay their fair share.
f it is “forever” held up as the “worst and opposite”, why did “nwjg” bring it up as an example of a “much better” economy? This thread has been going on for 4 days and nobody mentioned Houston before “nwjg”.
Not true, the only reason I brought it up was to counter Ross’ “But the reality is, for all the complaints here, Portland is a destination where people want to come to live. And that is why Intel, as an example, has located a lot of its most technically demanding business here. They can recruit the best and brightest from all over the country.” comment.
I was just saying that we don’t need to spend almost double on homes here and that homes are expesive here because of regulation. I used Houston as an expample because it has little regulation and Ross said it was because our jobs are so much better. Try following along Bob.
Something interesting I found out about Houston about a year ago: I was at a party and we were talking about backlot and infill development. Someone who moved to Portland was a real estate broker while he was living in Houston. He told us that they are doing the same thing in Houston, i.e., putting new dwellings in the backlots of houses.
Ross said it was because our jobs are so much better.
I said that? I don’t think so. All I said was that Portland’s economy is growing largely because it is an attractive place for people to live. That it is attractive is hardly controversial. A lot of young people are moving here without jobs because Portland is the place to be. Local companies, like Intel, take advantage of that in their recruiting and retention of employees.
Housing in the central city of Portland is expensive because that is where people want to live.
I was reading about light rail in the Twin Cities when I came across this interesting tibit:
“In the year 2009, an extension of Hiawatha will be built between the Mall of America and Lakeville. The Cedar Avenue Transitway, a Bus Rapid Transit line, will also be built in the years to come. Demand for the new BRT line is said to have developed from commuters in nearby Eagan, Apple Valley, and Lakeville, who were using Cedar Avenue to access the Hiawatha Line and ultimately reach Downtown Minneapolis. This caused increased congestion on Cedar Avenue, leading to a demand for some sort of rapid transit alternative.”
Hmm, what do we have here? Apparently a number of commuters who were not enamored of driving to the LRT line, causing congestion on Cedar Avenue. So they demanded a BRT operation. Now who says that commuters won’t ride buses? From what I could divine, the BRT will eventually extend all the way downtown.
It appears that MVTA is more open-minded that Metro and Trimet. In fact, there are a number of bus projects on the boards for the Twin Cities. So, MVTA is supposed to be a progressive transit agency?
Only in Portland does there seem to be complete antipathy to BRT. (The BRT proposal for Route #43 was only put on the table for show. Everybody well knows the Hansen and the Lake Oswego mayor want that trolley.)
It will be a cold day in hell before Portland sees any sort of BRT project. Too many Euro wanna-bes and railfans in the soup.
Cedar Avenue Busway Description(pdf)
As this document shows the BRT planned in Minneapolis is not dedicated ROW. It is a limited stop bus service running in the normal ROW, with signal prioritization, lane bypasses etc. It will connect a growing group of suburbs to the Mall of America and the airport where is connects to light rail
The BRT proposal for Route #43 was only put on the table for show. Everybody well knows the Hansen and the Lake Oswego mayor want that trolley.
Nick, is not the hwy 43 corridor is too constrained geographically for additional lanes for dedicated BRT ROW? At present we have existing ROW for rails, but how would we accommodate an extra lane dedicated to buses without removing a travel lane for autos?
As Joseph notes, congestion on 43 is a major obstacle to BRT. BRT has significant disadvantages on both travel time and operating costs because of this, even though the initial capital cost is lower than Streetcar.
“Nick, is not the hwy 43 corridor is too constrained geographically for additional lanes for dedicated BRT ROW? At present we have existing ROW for rails, but how would we accommodate an extra lane dedicated to buses without removing a travel lane for autos?”
>>>> That’s why I think BRT was put on the table.
They knew from the get-go it was going nowhere.
However, what they might be able to do is use eminent domain to condemn the RR ROW, use it for BRT in the peak direction, and use Hwy. 43 for running returning buses in the off-peak direction.
But it looks like we might be stuck with the trolley, running single track operation in places. How 19th century!
From a recent Portland State Univ. study report on Portland housing prices:
…major influence on inner city home prices is the disproportionate impact of land prices.
Land prices throughout the region rose rapidly, partly in response to the relatively tight urban growth
boundary. With land supplies restricted, developers bid up the price of developable land, which
impacts home prices. According to a recent study by the PSU Center for Urban Studies, land prices
rose by 500% in 15 years, or more than 11% per year.”
It may be nice here but the restrictions on building result in less affordable homes based on SUPPLY restrictions more than demand.
Only in Portland does there seem to be complete antipathy to BRT. (The BRT proposal for Route #43 was only put on the table for show. Everybody well knows the Hansen and the Lake Oswego mayor want that trolley.)
I think there is some truth in the idea that BRT is there as an alternative that no one thinks will fly. But they are required to consider all reasonable alternatives.
If you look at the Minneapolis proposal I am hard-pressed to figure out where it would work in the Portland area. It is planned to operate, in traffic, on a very long suburban arterial (which turns into a freeway) with limited stops, park and rides, pre-boarding fares, signal pre-emption etc. The best comparison would be from Hillsboro out to Forest Grove but the development in Minnesota is much less dense and spread out.
BTW – if you want to see an implementation of Robert Moses freeway grid for Portland, take a look at the map of the Twins Cities. They have a freeway grid. And terrible congestion.
“As this document shows the BRT planned in Minneapolis is not dedicated ROW. It is a limited stop bus service running in the normal ROW, with signal prioritization, lane bypasses etc. It will connect a growing group of suburbs to the Mall of America and the airport where is connects to light rail.”
>>>> At least MVTA is serious about BRT, no matter what form it takes. My points were that commuters will ride decently comfortable (read: NOT Trimet style) buses and that practically everyplace but Portland has some kind of BRT project on the fire.
I think that something similar to what is planned for Cedar Avenue should have been instituted on Interstate Avenue (however without taking existing lanes out of service). It would have been far better IMO than the Yellow Line.
However, what they might be able to do is use eminent domain to condemn the RR ROW, use it for BRT in the peak direction, and use Hwy. 43 for running returning buses in the off-peak direction.
I think an earlier discussion touched on the legality of preserving this ROW for anything other than rails. Perhaps eminent domain gets you around that, but I’m not sure that sets a good precedent.
But it looks like we might be stuck with the trolley, running single track operation in places. How 19th century!
Well, it may not be the most efficient (you may recall I’ve suggested a third rail to bypass inner-city MAX stops for “true” express runs to combat efficiency challenges), but I don’t believe we’ll ever see the density in Lake O and West Linn to require double tracks in the corridor. I’d like to see a reversible travel lane for cars on 43 for the peak direction and with that I believe we could settle for single tracked trolley operations through here, too.
Another topic (for another discussion, perhaps) is the possibility of commuter rail along the railroad tracks that cross between Lake O and Oak Grove and head into Milwaukie, through Brooklyn, the CEID, and into downtown. A combined approach for the long term could be advantageous, IMO, so Lake O/West Linn residents wouldn’t all have to commute through downtown Portland, Sellwood, or Oregon City to head north or east. Probably cheaper than that bridge Clackamas County needs but refuses to build.
practically everyplace but Portland has some kind of BRT project on the fire.
Portland does have BRT if you want to expand the definition far enough. For instance the frequent service routes have signal preemption, there are bulb outs so buses don’ have to merge into traffic, dedicated bus lanes … virtually everything being used on the Cedar Avenue BRT in Minneapolis and more. For instance it doesn’t appear there is any dedicated ROW for buses planned, unlike some of the frequent service routes in Portland.
My points were that commuters will ride decently comfortable (read: NOT Trimet style) buses
Lots of commuters ride buses. I don’t think anyone ever doubted that. More will ride rail. And Minnesota is also developing a commuter rail line and a new light rail line connecting the two city’s downtowns.
“I think an earlier discussion touched on the legality of preserving this ROW for anything other than rails. Perhaps eminent domain gets you around that, but I’m not sure that sets a good precedent.”
Not a good precedent? Well, when you now can condemn property to build a new shopping mall or condo development, that to me would be a bad precedent.
Condemning the RR ROW for a PUBLIC USE? Normal eminent domain to me. But since the powers that be seem to be fixated on a rail “solution,” eminent domain has not come into play in the planning.
Condemning the RR ROW for a PUBLIC USE? Normal eminent domain to me.
I think there is the little matter of cost. The current ROW is already publicly owned for rail. But if you condemn the land for some other use you are going to have to pay for it. Have any idea how much riverfront property would be worth? I don’t, but quite a lot I suspect.
Except that the citizens of Oregon in their wisdom passed a ballot measure preventing use of eminent domain for shopping malls and condo development.
Local government is VERY wary of using eminent domain. Our recent Urban Renewal districts have had a prohibition on using it baked into their charters. This would truly be a last resort.
Ross:
I have ridden every single Trimet frequent service bus line during my 6 1/2 years in Portland, and to me they are just local bus lines, with a few limited/express trips during rush hours on Hawthorne, Division, and Powell.
Special bus lanes here are just a a few blocks at most, e.g. SE Madison near the bridge.
The Cedar Avenue BRT will have colored special bus-only lanes for extended distances on the highway shoulders, as well as “stations.”
Imagine if we had things like that here. That might make MAX look bad! That is why you will never see BRT here in Portland.
The cost of Cedar Avenue is a fraction (1/4 – 1/3) of the cost of an LRT line.
So, while Portland continues to piss away billions of dollars on all-stop, inflexible “snail rail”….
Pat,
Your comments seem very outside of the rules of this blog…and invective only takes you so far. You need to provide data (in addition to a better tone) or give it a rest.
Nick –
You’ve now posted six times over 9 hours in this thread since I called you out on your falsehoods about me and you haven’t addressed them. Should I take your silence to be a retraction of your falsehoods?
It’s also been 5 days since I bet you an annual pass about your pessimistic Vancouver travel time predictions – are you going to take that bet or not? You seem to post a lot of misinformation about me and my posts and then ignore or run from factual challenges.
– Bob R.
Portland does have BRT if you want to expand the definition far enough. For instance the frequent service routes have signal preemption, there are bulb outs so buses don’ have to merge into traffic, dedicated bus lanes … virtually everything being used on the Cedar Avenue BRT in Minneapolis and more. For instance it doesn’t appear there is any dedicated ROW for buses planned, unlike some of the frequent service routes in Portland.
OK, folks.
PORTLAND DOES NOT HAVE BRT. Plain and simple.
Even if you count “poor-man’s” BRT (as is being done in Los Angeles – streets designed for fast bus movement but without dedicated through lanes), Portland still does not have BRT.
Portland’s frequent service bus lines in NO WAY, SHAPE OR FORM are considered BRT.
Portland’s express lines are in NO WAY, SHAPE OR FORM considered BRT.
They can’t even claim half of the criteria for being BRT.
Portland does not employ high capacity busses (i.e. articulated busses), does not employ bus “stations” (you’re lucky to use a bus stop with a bus shelter that is longer than two panels long), does not consistently use technology to speed busses through streets (at best a segment of SE 82nd Ave. in Clackamas has a continuous bus lane, but that’s it), does not employ fare collection methods on busses that expedite boarding, and I can go on and on.
Another false comparison is that BRT in Portland isn’t “high capacity transit”. Capacity and speed are two different things. High-Capacity Transit could be accomplished with articulated busses but it still wouldn’t be BRT. BRT doesn’t require capacity (although generally speaking, BRT systems employ articulated busses; only a handful of BRT systems in the U.S. use 40-45 foot vehicles).
But I wouldn’t expect the light rail rally to actually have facts about BRT. Nor do I think that Portland-Lake Oswego is a good candidate for BRT or light rail. Streetcar, yes, ONLY because the corridor exists and it’s not suited to high speeds; but I don’t think Streetcar would be a replacement for the 35-Macadam. So in the end the bus will still have to be there – wouldn’t it be more cost effective to introduce incremental improvements towards improving traffic flow on Macadam?
I agree that our frequent service lines are nothing like BRT. In fact our frequent service lines are not really that different than our other lines, other than being frequent. There are no additional amenities and in general there are no tools to reduce travel time on these lines.
That’s probably why TriMet doesn’t actually claim that any of its lines are “BRT”, just “Frequent Service”.
But true BRT isn’t an automatic recipe for high ridership. Eugene’s true BRT line (True BRT = High capacity articulated buses, dedicated ROW, frequent service, large shelters/stations, wide station spacing) is well promoted and completely free, but it gets about half the ridership of the Portland Streetcar. (Which is well promoted on a shoestring budget and free in the majority/central area of its route.) Eugene’s BRT system has also seen organized neighborhood opposition to proposed expansions.
– Bob R.
I don’t think the term BRT applies to frequent service lines in Portland, but if you are going to call the Minneapolis proposal BRT then the Portland Frequent Service comes pretty close. The point was that the Minneapolis BRT line will not have its own ROW either (something the 15 line does have in morning on part of Morrison).
The other issue here is that it appears the Minneapolis BRT is planned to be developed incrementally by adding amenities to the route. The plans for frequent service routes in Portland include a number of BRT like amenities including signal preemption, improved bus shelters, etc.
I suspect if Trimet ran something similar to the Minneapolis operation on Baseline out to Forest Grove with transfers to MAX in Hillsboro and called it BRT it would accurately be criticized as not “real” BRT.
But true BRT isn’t an automatic recipe for high ridership.
Neither is rail.
But when TriMet has no problem opening up the pursestrings for rail based projects, and Metro refuses to even accept the fact that people ride busses – and the result is a complete disinvestment in bus service, it’s no wonder why people who have a choice would rather ride the train.
Nor is it any wonder that the Portland Streetcar has little to prevent fare evasion, and is essentially free (despite the immense capital cost to build), but to get on a bus one must face a fare inspector (the bus operator).
When transit agencies properly invest in bus service (i.e. King County and the surrounding Seattle area), bus ridership flourishes.
The plans for frequent service routes in Portland include a number of BRT like amenities including signal preemption, improved bus shelters, etc.
TriMet’s own bus stop planning guidelines (from 2002) call for over 100 bus shelters to be installed each and every year.
TriMet’s budget provides for about 30 – and many of these aren’t new shelters, they’re replacement shelters. Nor does TriMet buy/construct “high capacity” shelters, they’re all of the same variety. Has anyone ever tried to board a bus at Market & 2nd at 5:05 PM on a rainy day?
And Metro doesn’t spend a dime on improving bus service, other than “improving sidewalks”.
BRT should run on HOT lanes priced to keep traffic moving rapidly. This is the most cost effective and service effective way to get people around. Instead of empty lanes or rails, cars fill in the gaps and pay for the privelage. Nonpayer don’t clog the system up like the current “express” bus service.
“You’ve now posted six times over 9 hours in this thread since I called you out on your falsehoods about me and you haven’t addressed them. Should I take your silence to be a retraction of your falsehoods?”
>>>> Sorry, Bob, but I got caught up in other discussions here.
You seem to have gotton really flustered (again). Did I hit a nerve (again), or have you been under too much fire lately on this blog?
Look, I don’t have to buy your analyses. You seem to be the point man on this blog for Portland rail operations. So, let’s admit a pre-existing bias. I do; my bias is as a Trimet-dependent rider looking for the best possible service for myself. One is told, as the first thing, to look for pre-existing biases when it comes to evaluating studies.
Unless you can attach an electronic tag to each passenger who rode the #5 or MAX, you really have no sure way of knowing how many riders have benefitted or have been inconvenienced. All you had was raw data to work with. And you can play the raw boarding data any way you choose to. (And looking at your pre-existing bias toward rail….) My contention is that from having ridden the #5 and MAX, it seems that a far greater number of riders than 21.5% have had their service degraded, for various reasons.
For several days, I have been randomly putting in a trip on the Trip Planner from my house in NW Portland to Jantzen Beach, and it always shows, as best bet, taking the slower (than the old #5) #4 or #6 bus, sometimes with a double transfer for the quickest trip–even though MAX is less than 1/2 mile from my house! In fact, I just inquired again again RIGHT NOW in the middle of typing this message. So, anybody planning a trip is now given an itinerary that is now inferior to the old one of taking a local bus and transferring to the old #5.
“It’s also been 5 days since I bet you an annual pass about your pessimistic Vancouver travel time predictions – are you going to take that bet or not? You seem to post a lot of misinformation about me and my posts and then ignore or run from factual challenges.”
>>>> Sorry, Bob, I don’t make bets. (I”m more the investing type.) My contention is that a Vancouver MAX line, if it is ever built, will take at least 40 minutes.I am not going to run from your posts; for example, I know that the Yellow Line was a complete waste of money for what it does–a combination of limted and local buses could have done the job far better.
Look, I have seen much worse, and more personal attacks against you on this blog than anything I have ever posted. I really think that you need a vacation from this blog; it looks like the heat in the kitchen is getting too much for you. Spend some time in NYC or Chicago, which have REAL rail systems, if you like trains that much.
You seem to have gotton really flustered (again). Did I hit a nerve (again), or have you been under too much fire lately on this blog?
It does hit a nerve when seemingly reasonable people spread falsehoods about me. I don’t really care what the anti-transit trolls do, but I do respect some of the things you have to say (and in the past I’ve been careful to point out areas where we agree), but when you definitively state that I did “X” when in fact I did not, I take offense.
I was very careful in my Yellow Line post to present all the data, whether favorable or not, and not only that I re-ran all the data and updated the article when you legitimately pointed out the #5 schedule I originally had was from the time period of Interstate Ave. construction, which took me a couple of hours.
Look, I don’t have to buy your analyses.
No, you don’t. A simple “sorry, I don’t buy it” would suffice, alternate data or analysis would be great, but instead you falsely accuse me of omitting and cherry-picking data.
You seem to be the point man on this blog for Portland rail operations.
I enjoy discussing all modes, but it seems in the past year or so a couple of regular posters, including you, have been repeatedly and unnecessarily derisive and dismissive of rail supporters — not based on facts, but based on the unsupported accusation that there is some kind of cabal of deluded railfans running the show.
The discussion rarely moves in a proactive direction such as what BRT projects would be good for the area, how we can organize ourselves to demand better bus service from TriMet, what roadway and highway bottlenecks ought to be removed, how we can fund our infrastructure. Instead of working together, it always comes back to attacks on people who happen to support rail in Portland as an additional mode.
You’ve taken the position that light rail absolutely cannot work in Portland given the population, density and development patterns we already have. Rather than respectfully disagree, you instead demonize your opponents.
And looking at your pre-existing bias toward rail…
To quote a famous president, “There you go again”.
For several days, I have been randomly putting in a trip on the Trip Planner from my house in NW Portland to Jantzen Beach,
And how is that contrary to anything I’ve posted? Hmmm? It is the Jantzen Beach and Vancouver Trips which I specifically singled out as being more inconvenient with the Yellow Line. You are accusing me of biases and omissions and yet you then back this up with an anecdote which is completely consistent with the data that I posted.
This is why it “strikes a nerve” to argue with you: Your criticisms of me and my work are a complete fantasy concoction of yours, and even when the facts don’t support your imagined sins on my part, you claim that they do.
I really think that you need a vacation from this blog; it looks like the heat in the kitchen is getting too much for you.
And here you go again suggesting that I leave the debate… to turn that playground taunt around, do you want me to leave for awhile because you know you can’t dominate the debate if I’m around?
Spend some time in NYC or Chicago, which have REAL rail systems, if you like trains that much.
Again with the railfan BS. FYI, I’ve spent a good deal of time in both cities (as well as dozens of others) and have used the transit systems there. I recognize clear differences in scope and scale between those cities and Portland, which is why I haven’t advocated for a citywide “El” in Portland or a 4-track express/local subway like NYC. You seem to think people who advocate for light rail and/or streetcar in particular Portland corridors are somehow trying to emulate NYC/Chicago.
It seems quite strange to me your fixation on supporters of just one mode. Previously (and I’ve told you this before, not that it matters) I’ve stated on this blog that I enjoy driving and like reading about cars, but nobody accuses me of having car bias. I once had a bunch of “hot wheels” cars a kid, but this hasn’t been used to derisively dismiss what I have to say about highways. I briefly flirted with learning to fly when I was in my teens, and I enjoy air travel and like talking about airports, but nobody accuses me of having an aviation bias. But here you are, on an almost daily basis, dismissing anything I have to say as having a “rail bias”.
Could it be that you are compensating for your own past sins as a “railfan” by projecting your previous biases onto others?
– Bob R.
Anyone who looks a data knows that Bob is right on the mark just about all the time.
If someone wants to take a thorough look at BRT vs LRT, they ought to dig up the Metro study for the Milwaukie line, which intially did not even include LRT. LRT was put back into the mix at the demand of the communities along the alignment, which is the key here…MAX is viewed by most as a desirable addition to our transit options, BRT is dismissed by the public as just a fancy, but very expensive, bus.
So BRT fans, dig up that study and report back. Meanwhile, let’s look at how to upgrade all the Frequent Service lines to make them as reliable and speedy as possible while we build out the LRT network.
I was involved in those hearings and when the METRO studies showed BRT to be almost as or more expensive than MAX people said, lets go with MAX. The problem is those studies were so flawed. BRT did not require huge fancy stations and dedicated lanes and not HOT lane proposals were looked at (or shown)
TriMet’s own bus stop planning guidelines (from 2002) call for over 100 bus shelters to be installed each and every year.
TriMet’s budget provides for about 30
There is no guarantee that the “plan” for BRT in Minnesota will fare any better. Its not like they have actually provided funding for it the way they have their light rail and commuter rail lines.
If the problem is “rail fans” it appears to be an almost universal problem, not one that is unique to Portland. But maybe, instead of irrational fans, rail based solutions actually provide a lot of benefits that buses can’t match.
“BRT did not require huge fancy stations and dedicated lanes and not HOT lane proposals were looked at (or shown)”
Uhmmm, if they didn’t put in huge fancy stations and dedicated lanes, then people would be standing around saying that it wasn’t truly BRT, in fact, it is be exactly what the people in the area have now: Just really good bus service…
“Just really good bus service…”
We can’t have that.
“If the problem is “rail fans” it appears to be an almost universal problem, not one that is unique to Portland.”
>>>> But Portland’s activist culture encourages railfans to get in the process and push their agenda. I know, railfans are only one part of the “rail cabal.” There’s a lot more involved here.
“But maybe, instead of irrational fans, rail based solutions actually provide a lot of benefits that buses can’t match.”
>>>> They sure do, in many other places. Here in Portland, rail seems to degrade the integrity of the transit system. Our rail operations cannot match the flexibilty of buses in our low/medium density, spread out metropolis.
Our rail operations cannot match the flexibilty of buses in our low/medium density, spread out metropolis.
And why would you value flexibility? Are you planing to change the transit service to Lloyd Center, Gresham, Gateway or the Airport? Or to Beaverton, Intel and Hillsboro? Why would people invest large sums of money depending on transit for their employees and customers when it can be moved on a whim?
As for low/medium density. That isn’t what ligh trail serves. It serves relatively densely developed areas with existing demand for transit service. It serves them more efficiently than buses. And it attracts more riders than buses do.
Having lived in Portland without MAX, I can’t imagine the city thriving the way it is now without it.
Ross,
I can’t imagine Portland thriving the way it has without the MAX lines that have been built. Gresham MAX was a good deal at $18 million per mile and has spurred a great deal of larger scale infill development along its (lengthy) course. Ditto with Hillsboro MAX.
But now I wonder if low rise multifamily construction should be phased out. The Central City streetcar is more of a success, at least in land development terms, since virtually all of its route is going through genuine, high density urban landscape. And its length is a mere fraction of either West. or East. MAX.
How does the Milwaukie MAX fit in to any densification plan? Central Milwaukie is already being infilled–with townhouses, not highrises. Brooklyn is already built out— with historic single family homes. Next, would anyone really want to live near to the UP switching yard? And immediately south of that is about 1.5 miles of parkland. ‘Scuse me–where are the high rise condos in this picture? Can we justify the $500-800 million price tag when it is not exhibiting much potential for infilling?
Having lived in Portland without MAX, I can’t imagine the city thriving the way it is now without it.
Now it’s look at the stated examples of how Portland is thriving:
Lloyd Center, Gresham, Gateway or the Airport? Or to Beaverton, Intel and Hillsboro
Lloyd Center was built in 1960 – 26 years BEFORE MAX, and several after the demise of the last “original” trolley line. Lloyd Center can’t be attributed to MAX. Nor can the urban development to the west of the mall, which occurred throughout the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. Today, Lloyd Center’s importance as a regional shopping center has been long surpassed by Clackamas Town Center and Washington Square (for which both Macy’s and Nordstrom consider as their flagship locations in Oregon).
Gresham was incorporated in 1905 – 81 years prior to MAX. Much of Gresham’s growth has occurred not along the MAX line, but north towards Troutdale, Wood Village and Fairview. In fact, Gresham even had a moratorum on apartment complexes (read: high-density residential dwellings) for several years. And Gresham’s Rockwood District is cited as one of the Metro area’s worst neighborhoods in terms of crime; so bad that even Fred Meyer closed their store despite monthly lease payments of several thousand dollars a month on the land its store sat on. (The city eventually bought the land and razed the store.) It is probably the only time I can recall Fred Meyer closing a store in Oregon without replacing it with a newer/better/larger store (the only other store I know of in Freddy’s history was Yreka, California, and it was Freddy’s only store in California as a test market.)
Gateway was established by a shopping center and anchored by Fred Meyer in the 1950s. Today there are several vacant store fronts, and it took from 1986 until last year for any transit-oriented development (a medical clinic) to be constructed; prior to such the “transit oriented development” was one of those bad, dreaded parking lots. In other words, Gateway was nothing more than a place for downtown Portland residents to park their cars, and clog local residential streets who have forever had their local streets tarnished by transient vehicles.
The airport’s success has nothing to do with MAX; in fact the “dense/urban lifestylists” should be appalled that the airport was originally located on Swan Island but relocated in 1940. The current terminal building has its roots in the 1958 era “International Terminal”. (We’re still 28 years before MAX.) Much of the airport’s expansion took place in the 1980s and early 1990s, as PDX became a hub for Alaska/Horizon Air, later became a major airport for Southwest, and during that time was an international hub for Delta Airlines (since closed).
Beaverton is almost an example of the opposite of the MAX effect – of the stations actually located within Beaverton’s city limits – Beaverton TC lacks any transit-oriented development and is an unfriendly area. Beaverton Central is the site of a several-times-failed TOD. Millikan Way is located on the Tektronix campus, a company that has largely retreated itself and occupies only a fraction of the buildings it once owned. Many facilities are vacant. Considerable lots of land near the MAX station are yet undeveloped, and the area is surrounded by parking lots. Beaverton Creek’s “transit oriented development” has failed to attract long-term commercial businesses and Tek Woods is still undeveloped despite significant interest from developers. 158th/Merlo has no local development. Elmonica’s TOD forces riders to walk through a parking lot, and most of the development in the area has nothing to do with MAX but is auto-related tract housing.
Intel well pre-dated MAX and has not built any new facilities since MAX. In fact Intel has moved some production facilities out of the Hillsboro area.
Hillsboro’s downtown has not taken off as a “vibrant, happening” area; most of the growth has occurred thanks to the Washington County Service Center/Courthouse development. Somehow I don’t see a jail being something to be proud of as a development spurred by MAX. The Tuality Hospital existed long before MAX.
No one suggested the regional centers were attributable to MAX. But I think there are a fair number of people who have lived in Portland for a while who would suggest Lloyd Center was not always thriving. Likewise downtown Portland. Max was built to serve them, not to create them.
immediately south of that is about 1.5 miles of parkland.
Without a single stop. You will find a very long stretch of westside MAX has no development along it either. The question is what areas does it serve. And its not just a question of residential density, but job density. There are a lot of jobs located near the Milwaukie line.
That is a pretty damning write up there Mr. Erik Halstead.
I don’t think I could logically retort.
The MAX has it’s pluses, but being a growth mechanism or a cause for the fall or rise of any of those areas is bull.
Gresham could arguably have been said to have been created by the railroad those 81 years ago. But again, that was a private enterprise affair, not transit related.
The interesting thing is, the whole new urbanist, TOD, oriented crowd doesn’t seem to get it. Transit is relagated to primary use as a commuter mechanism. These TOD myths won’t truly recreate themselves until two things happen.
1. Private enterprise truly starts creating them alone. Without Government subsidies of the kind seen here or abatements. This creates a false market and what does exist isn’t sustainable with that type of influence.
2. Gas prices hit in today’s dollar approximately $6.00-8.00 within at least 3-8 years from now. If they do, development will orient itself more intelligently around transportation mechanisms that make sense. This could be Light Rail, Streetcar, PRT, BRT, or other mechanism.
As time has shown, and more empirical evidence than one person could accumulate alone, if we want real growth, it’s going to have to be motivated by the private industry and not public monies. Keynes theories only ever got us a bunch of crap such as wealth redistribution, higher taxes, social security, and many of these other jokes that we call Government Services.
The MAX could serve it’s place, but the new urbanist and TOD type mentalities and efforts have to change from one of “this way” to how will it pay off now.
Wait a second…
You can’t blame that on the city of Boston, the state of Massachusetts, or the feds.
That’s BS. Of course it is their responsibility. It’s a food company’s responsibility to assure their food doesn’t kill someone, it’s the gun manufacturers responsibility to make sure the gun doesn’t misfire, it’s the aircraft manufacturers responsbility to have the plane fly and not crash, it’s the airlines responsibility to follow maintenance standards and assure the plane arrives on time, it’s the driver’s responsibility to make sure their vehicle is maintained properly, it’s the car manufacturers responsbility to make sure the vehicle meets warranty requirements, and the list goes on.
The Government took the responsibility to make sure the roads “It is THEIR product” work appropriately and do NOT fall apart. Of course, the Government generally has a worse track record than private business and such, and probably on par track record than the general individual attitude of responsibility of people in the US today.
…as this comment exemplifies.
…and really what matters now is will the Government do the honorable thing and make things right? Will they rebuild the bridge right? Will they make sure that their product is replaced in a timely manner? Will they make sure that the families receive a respectable funeral for their lost loved ones? Will they fix these things?
I doubt it.
I mean really, why would the Government be responsible or even held responsible among its own courts? Reason number 8,234,543,630,243 why the Government shouldn’t attempting to run a business.
Wait a second…
Adron, in this one specific case (the Big Dig accident), the contractor responsible for attaching those ceiling panels used an adhesive which they knew was not rated to hold the weight of the ceiling panels. The government hired them to do a job using materials certified to meet the safety requirements for that application. The contractor mislead the governments of Massachusetts and Boston by deliberately using materials they knew to be unsuitable for the job – they committed a crime and have appropriately been charged with manslaughter for the death of a motorist as a direct result of one of those ceiling panels falling due to their decision.
How is that the fault of any of the involved government agencies?