Apparently there was a fair amount of disagreement over home many lanes the Columbia River Crossing should have at Friday’s Project Sponsors’ Council meeting.
According to the Oregonian, Portland was trying to eliminate the 12-lane option, while Vancouver was trying to eliminate the 8-lane option (while holding out for 12). Ah, harmony…
My favorite quote is from Mayor Sam Adams regarding one of the 4-mile long “auxillary” lanes:
“It begins to walk like a duck and quack like a duck as another through lane on the freeway,” Adams said. “I have concerns about how that will work out in the real world.”
Quack!
74 responses to “8, 10, 12?”
So if one city doesn’t want eight, and the other doesn’t want twelve, why not split the difference and go with ten? Or just build twelve with the condition that they will be tolled to limit traffic down to what it would be with only eight?
why would they build 8-12 lanes here when all the freeway lanes in the region are no more than 6 lanes wide?
keep the freeway the same width as everywhere else and build an arterial bridge carrying MLK over the river connecting into vancouver and jantzen beach’s local street network. its ridiculous to have to use an interstate freeway for local traffic. motorists coming from MLK now have to get on the freeway for 1/4 mile to access jantzen beach.
Will a 12 lane bridge saturate the off-ramps and surrounding arterials too quickly? Has anyone come across any of the studies they have done that address this?
Build a 12-lane bridge, and use only 8 to keep par with the existing infrastructure. If the nearby infrastructure spontaneously become 8 or 10 lane freeways, then the bridge would be prepared for it by providing 12. ;)
Otherwise we’ll have to replace it again for the sake of additional lanes.
The real problem is the BILLION for a tiny number of people that will use the toy train, but would refuse to ride the bus.
As to 8 vs 10 vs 12 lanes, the cost of bridges if pretty much per sq foot, so 12 lanes cost somewhere in the ball park of 50% more than 8 lanes. But the extra money may be worth it, unlike rail where money spent is NEVER worth it (to anyone except the fat cats who sell & build the system.)
Roads contribute to our region’s prosperity by reducing travel times and increasing travel efficiency, LRT hurts prosperity by costing too much and doing too little.
Thanks
JK
JK-
This road would saturate all the other roads in the region, increasing travel times and reducing travel efficiency. LRT is your only option to REDUCE congestion. just because you don’t want to take the ‘toy train’ as you call it, doesn’t mean it won’t improve your commute efficiency.
The real problem is the BILLION for a tiny number of people that will use the toy train,
JK, FYI, light rail is of course a proposed component of the CRC project, but nobody mentioned light rail in this thread before you.
For those who may have difficulty telling the difference:
In an Artwork on exhibit at the NW LuckyLab
Brewpub I propose a bridge with a dedicated
bus lane , a dedicated HOV lane , and a
dedicated emergency lane. This will give us
service options now , and flexibility for
growth.
I’d like to see a dedicated freight lane. Just no extra lanes than they have for single occupancy vehicles.
jim, you may not use the transit system but other people use it including people who you rely on for goods and services, so yes transit and light rail is also contributing to our region’s prosperity.
if you want to talk about waste, why are we building a brand new freeway bridge when we already have two existing and functioning freeway bridges here? is it because every once in a while a few “toy cars” have to wait a couple minutes for the bridge to open?
Quack indeed.
Even AASHTO, which defines national highway design practices, recognizes that auxiliary lanes this long may be perceived by motorists as through lanes. The DOTs may call them auxiliary lanes, but this stops being a realistic classification at some point. I’d set this point at 2 miles, tops.
The primary purpose of a 12-lane bridge is to allow for the future expansion of I-5 through North Portland to 8 or even 10 lanes. At least one Clark County commissioner has already publicly stated that he expects I-5 from the CRC to the Rose Quarter to be widened next. His poker face may not be good, but the game should have already been obvious.
8 lanes maintains capacity as is, but improves safety. 10 and 12 add capacity. 12 sets the stage for future (and much more rancorous) disagreements about what to do in North Portland.
“Roads contribute to our region’s prosperity by reducing travel times and increasing travel efficiency…” -JK
These aforementioned roads you mention seem to need exponential expansion every few years to meet the criteria that you set as “reducing travel times”.
Every time I think about expanding the capacity of the CRC, I imagine all that extra capacity getting poured into I-5 in the Rose Quarter, a section of freeway that’s already a parking lot half the time.
One of the reps at a CRC open house responded to this concern by saying that 70% of the CRC traffic is made of trips that start and end within a few miles of the crossing, implying that it wouldn’t add much to the congestion in the Rose Quarter. However, that also implies this massively expensive project is mostly going to subsidize short trips back and forth across the border. (I’m guessing many of these trips are made by folks who want to live where there’s no state income tax, and shop where there’s no state sales tax.)
Still seems like a bad idea.
Let’s lay this out in phases – I’ll call it the I-5 project from Clark County’s perspective:
Phase 1: Build wider CRC
Oops, bottleneck near Delta Park!
Phase 2: Widen I-5, CRC to Fremont Bridge
Oops, bottleneck at the 4-lane Eastbank Freeway!
Phase 3: Widen Eastbank Freeway
Oops, bottleneck on I-5 at South Waterfront!
Phase 4: Widen I-5 all through Southwest
Oops, bottleneck at 217!
Phase 5: Widen I-5 (again) 217 to 205
Oops, bottleneck at 205!
Phase 6: Widen south of 205 through Wilsonville
Oops, bottleneck at the CRC!
Phase 7: Go back to Phase 1
Of course, we’ll also need to widen all the feeder roads and interchanges to serve this massive amount of induced traffic. Take a gander at I-85 thru Atlanta as an example of what could be done here.
While I am a pretty huge advocate for expanding freeways, I don’t think we need this CRC project to replace the Interstate Bridge. The Interstate Bridge is fine the way it is. If anything, put reversible lanes in and call it good.
What we need is an I-205 beltway, that connects Washington County to Vancouver–a journey that right now is rather arduous, and would probably unclog I-5 through Portland, in addition to furthering inter-state commerce. It’d be a lot better use of money than just replacing the existing bridge.
I’m very glad you mentioned I-85 in Atlanta, the behemoth of a highway at 15 lanes (didn’t some want a 16 lane bridge)?
Yep, no congestion here!:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Atlanta_75.85.jpg
Routinely light rail gets accused of not “relieving congestion”. Too bad highway expansion doesn’t get the same criticism.
Take as much money from the feds as they are willing to give.
Make a 12 lane freeway and take two of those lanes for BUS RAPID TRANSIT.
We can have light rail and bus rapid transit eh?
Why can’t a bike lane be as wide as a traffic lane anyway?
Put in as many lanes as possible, to do otherwise is purely irresponsible!
IF THE FEDS PAY WE TAKE.
PERIOD!
a tiny number of people that will use the toy train
I expect the number of people who will use the “toy train” is zero, since no toy train is proposed for this project.
Both Portland Mayor Sam Adams and Metro Counselor David Bragdon obviously want to influence the use of scarce transportation dollars to manipulate the way people travel in the region rather than spending those dollars on reliable infrastructure that accommodates majority choice and 80 percent of the trips in the region. Bragdon’s view to charge high tolls for the wider bridge options personifies that misguided agenda even though surveys have made it clear that a vast majority of southbound motor vehicle traffic on the CRC is not going to downtown Portland – the place where Max goes. If tolling does occur, it should 1) removed when the bridge is paid for 2) be minimal, and 3) to be equitable, charged to the users of all modes of vehicle transport including requiring bicyclists and transit passengers to pay their own way. Any tolls charged to motorists must only apply to pay for the highway part of the crossing, not subsidize bicycle and/or transit infrastructure.
The most ridiculous, illogical and even humorous comment Adams made was that he wants to save as much money as he can for taxpayers. That can easily be done by eliminating all the pork barrel spending for bicycle recreational tails that are attached to the project, and even by narrowing the 20 foot wide double lane width bicycle path on the crossing; but Adams is not recommending that. Additionally, having the taxpayers subsidize the construction and continual ongoing operations of light rail is not saving them (the taxpayers) any money. Adams is not suggesting Max service be financially self-sustainable either.
When talking about transportation issues, Adams also talks about safety. However with the CRC, he chooses to ignore the bridge modeling that demonstrates a 12-lane bridge will have the lowest motor vehicle crash rate.
Therefore, when all is considered. if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, the Adams and Bragdon duck is one that attempts to control the lifestyle, housing and transport choices of the people through calculated manipulation, including raising taxes and fees on the majority of the people instead of saving the taxpayers any money.
Sam Adams wrote: “There are no gay potholes, and no straight potholes…”
Frankly I’m tired of Adams’ little pet sayings and he’s getting to be as bad as President Bush and his “Bushisms”…
Can these folks SHUT UP AND FIX THE DAMN PROBLEM ALREADY?????????
I don’t give a damn if the potholes and this bridge is gay, straight, queer, bi, transgendered, yellow, black, white, red, orange, magenta, hard, soft, round, square, a duck, a goose, a seagull, a flamingo, a bear, a cat, a dog, a giraffe, a kid, a woman, a man… The office of the Mayor isn’t to make quirky sound bites that sound good on TV. It’s to get something done.
Frankly, Chris Fussell’s statement made the most sense. And seeing what Chris can do in the local railroad historical preservation chapters, he’s got more ability to get something done than 99% of government employees in the eight-county area between Cowlitz County and Marion County and everything inbetween.
Frankly I’m tired of Adams’ little pet sayings and he’s getting to be as bad as President Bush and his “Bushisms”…
So do you disagree with the saying? _Are_ there straight potholes? I looked in the Oregonian article and couldn’t find that quote… I’d love to see the full context, can you provide a link to what you’re referring to, and what it has to do with the CRC?
Of course, we’ll also need to widen all the feeder roads and interchanges to serve this massive amount of induced traffic.
We really don’t need to. SR-14 has 1 lane, downtown Vancouver has 1, Mill Plain has 1, Fourth Plain has 1, and SR-500 has 1. That’s 5 lanes of traffic added already, in the project area. Not to mention through lanes.
It works out about the same on the OR side.
Here is the article Erik is referring to:
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2008/12/sam_adams_goal_is_to_be_mayor.html
The article is how Adams is the first gay mayor of a major city. Adams is downplaying that, he wants to focus on being the mayor. You should read the entire article, but the rest of that quote summarizes it pretty well:
“I don’t want to be a gay mayor,” he said. “I do want to be a great mayor. There is no gay pothole and no straight pothole. They’re just potholes.”
I’m not sure what the quote has to do with this thread, but in any case, it sure sounds like Adams would like to fix potholes, not debate whether or not they are flamingos. In that regard, if you know of a pothole that you’d like fixed, you can always call 823-BUMP. I called in a few in my neighborhood last night.
“you can always call 823-BUMP. I called in a few in my neighborhood last night.”
If I were to call in every pothole on Holgate between 39th and 52nd, the number would be busy for the next 5 hours.
It’s ridiculous to think that they don’t know where the pavement problems are. Do none of the city employees ever go east of 39th Ave? Ever drive on 82nd? Wait, they’re all about liveable, walkable neighborhoods; Woodstock is one of those, but if you go one block north or south of Woodstock, you’re on gravel and dirt with wheel-eating holes you could hide bodies in.
I guess since you can dodge them on a bike, it doesn’t matter to the current administration.
Both Portland Mayor Sam Adams and Metro Counselor David Bragdon obviously want to influence the use of scarce transportation dollars to manipulate the way people travel in the region
actually they want to provide choices for how people live and travel about the region as opposed to your solution to force everyone to travel by car. these people have been elected in a democratic way and by people who support their policies. no one is talking about getting rid of the car.
rather than spending those dollars on reliable infrastructure that accommodates majority choice and 80 percent of the trips in the region.
well considering how much of the region has no real choice but the car it shouldnt be any surprise that 80% of the region gets around by car. 20% is still a decent dent and this would just further illustrate the need for more quality mass transit service so that people have the choice. and when good transit service is provided a large number will choose transit.
is the objective of the money from tolls and gas taxes to build as much highway infrastructure as possible (which is great at just attracting more traffic)? or would it be more effective to use the money to reduce congestion (like using congestion pricing) or at least provide ways for people to avoid the congestion (such as adding alternative transportation)?
If I were to call in every pothole on Holgate between 39th and 52nd, the number would be busy for the next 5 hours. It’s ridiculous to think that they don’t know where the pavement problems are. Do none of the city employees ever go east of 39th Ave?
Well, the potholes I reported opened up/got much worse in the last month, and the city is still pretty busy sweeping up the gravel, (have you seen the bike lane on SW Jefferson west of 405 lately? Neither have I, but I suspect that it is only down below the gravel an inch or two,) so no, I think that they might not know about where all the recent pavement problems are. In any case, there are only so many employees in PBOT, and if you want your potholes fixed sooner rather than later, calling them in might get them on the city’s radar faster than waiting for the city to find them…
As for Holgate between 39th and 52nd in particular, you might want to read the bottom of this page.
Holgate between 39th and 52nd
I think there’s at least one bus operator who’s said he no longer commutes on that stretch because of the street condition.
Jon – Congestion pricing is the rationing of a public roadway that gives affluent people a special privilege and benefit. That is often rationalized by the mindset to use the dollars collected to subsidize public transit and bicycle infrastructure thereby offering a lesser or inferior benefit to the people who are priced off the public roadway thereby creating both a double standard and a form of discrimination. Specialized bicycle infrastructure needs to be paid for by the user bicyclists, and transit fares need to better reflect the actual fiscal costs of both constructing transit infrastructure and then operating the service.
“Specialized bicycle infrastructure needs to be paid for by the user bicyclists, and transit fares need to better reflect the actual fiscal costs of both constructing transit infrastructure and then operating the service.” -Terry Parker
I am glad you’re concerned about people not paying their fair share for a service. I am too, but we cannot address money being used for other transportation modes until we make automobiles pay for their fair share.
They do not pay for emergency vehicle responses, police, environmental (cleanup, mitigation, and “paying” for polluting) and certainly do not pay for defense services and cost of doing business in terrorist harboring countries that have oil.
Let us first realize the massive subsidies that are affecting the automobile – we cannot address public transportation subsidies without realizing that the true cost of operating an automobile on per gallon basis is almost near $10.00/a gallon.
True market forces are not working properly in regards to transportation in America. The highly subsidized automobile distorts the market and makes public transportation not compete to the levels that it could compete at – making it clamor for any available funds it can get.
Reduce taxes for people and subsidies for the automobile and let’s return to true, free-market economics in our transportation system.
People who promote public transportation have heard it all too long, money going to roads not secured by user-fees is called an “investment” (the whole 40,000 mile interstate system was not a user fee), money going to Amtrak is called a “subsidy”.
I heard some discussions regarding the amount of people who drive (80% or something). In addition to my above post, we have this absurd amount of drivers in America due to the subsidized cost of operating an automobile.
Due to these subsidized costs, coupled with the urban form that followed the automobile age; we have an environment which makes it
a) exceedingly difficult for public transportation to stay above water in these areas
b) the “choice” in auto-dependent communities is either drive or don’t drive
Market distortion has made it seem that Americans are choosing to drive and choosing to live far away from services.
I question people’s logic when they say that the majority of people drive therefor we should only invest in this type of infrastructure.
I think the best question is why are people driving so much and what are the factors that have lead to this type of behavior? (Municipal codes is a big one too).
ws wrote: money going to Amtrak is called a “subsidy”.
It’s a “subsidy” when we pay Amtrak passengers for the cost of hotel rooms (sleeping cars) and meals (in the dining car and wine-tasting in the lounge cars) at government expense while there are millions of Americans who can’t afford housing or food for three meals a day.
Kill the “hotel trains” and that is fully one-half of Amtrak’s subsidy. Either that, or give me the same amenities on my D40LF every day to work. I’d love to be “wined and dined” coming home every day by a TriMet service attendant with meal service at my seat. (And don’t forget Amtrak’s average 50% load factor, so we’d need to make sure that I have a D60LF running every five minutes to places like Estacada!)
ws wrote: Market distortion has made it seem that Americans are choosing to drive and choosing to live far away from services.
I question people’s logic when they say that the majority of people drive therefor we should only invest in this type of infrastructure.
When I lived in Beaverton (that bad, bad suburb west of Portland), I was actually MUCH closer to “services” than I do now within Portland city limits. In fact I’m actually considering moving back to Beaverton as it’s closer to almost everything, except my work in downtown Portland (I’d get to ride the 54 bus, but I believe the 54 is much more reliable than the step-child of TriMet’s “quality” transit system, the 12 bus.)
I’m actually fairly close to a large store near my home but I wouldn’t dare dream about taking TriMet to the store. (It should be noted that the store that is very close to my home actually requires me to cross a city/county line, but that the services in that other city/county are much closer than anything in my own city/county.) Unreliable transit service (all week my 12 bus coming home never showed up, with 15-30 minute waits for my “frequent service” bus), unsafe crosswalks to and from my bus stops (my wife won’t even let me take my son on the bus from my home account a five-lane street crossing with no crosswalk within a quarter mile).
Do we only invest in light rail because 1/3rd of Portland’s transit ridership is on the train – that is the logic being presented, we shouldn’t invest in the modes that people actually use, so let’s let the bus system go to crap.
Or do we provide choices (including road transport, but also bus service, and rail service)?
The idea of being presented “choices” is so distorted in that it means “road” or “rail” (or “bike”) and ignores any other choices. Thanks to that perception, Portland has a bus system that’d be the envy of Mogadishu. Meanwhile, we’re still talking about a bridge that was needed 15 years ago.
Erik Halstead Says:
It’s a “subsidy” when we pay Amtrak passengers for the cost of hotel rooms (sleeping cars) and meals (in the dining car and wine-tasting in the lounge cars) at government expense while there are millions of Americans who can’t afford housing or food for three meals a day.
And we should stop subsidizing buses because there are millions of Americans without cars or even wheels. Or housing. Or food.
1) It’s funny how you mention Beaverton and the 54 bus. I live in B-town and have taken the buses here and they are not great. However, unlike most citizens, I realize it’s terrible due to the inconsistent, sprawled land-use patterns that were dictated to appease the car. It is not very cost effective or economically doable to put quality public transportation in ultra low density areas (ultra low density due to municipal codes and market manipulation of the automobile making it appear cheaper than it is).
2) You are not closer to services in the suburbs. End of discussion (not to be rude or anything, just it goes against the grain of logic and reason). There are no mixed uses, there are no easy interactions between uses (schools here, business parks here, grocery stores here, single family homes here, apartments here, etc. etc.).
Walking to the store for a loaf of bread in Beaverton is as arduous as climbing the Tetons. People drive because everything is so darn inconvenient without a car.
Which is funny because people routinely criticize city-folk for instilling “social engineering” tactics by ALLOWING for walking, biking, and mass transit – as well as automobile transportation. I can go to nice neighborhoods like NW 23rd (streetcar, walking, biking, car travel) and enjoy many different transportation options, but I am not afforded these same options in Beaverton.
The market is skewed not because of preference but because of municipal codes and automobile subsidies.
From the CRC lanes to how hard it is to walk to the store in Beaverton and “hotel subsidies” for Amtrak “room” cars.
I think I would personally like to discuss teletubbies. Can we fit that in somewhere here?
Wider freeways do not end congestion. If anyone can provide proof one single instance of a freeway which was widened and did not return to preexisting congestion levels afterward – I will eat my hat.
OK, I won’t eat my hat. I don’t think that sells cars, and it won’t make my point here any better anyway. And it wouldn’t taste good.
Here, I’ll invoke Godwin’s law.
The Nazi’s built nice highways.
[Moderator: Thread officially closed in observation of Godwin’s law.]
ws said: “I am glad you’re concerned about people not paying their fair share for a service. I am too, but we cannot address money being used for other transportation modes until we make automobiles pay for their fair share.”
ws – You are completely overlooking a number of things. First, if motor vehicles were not paying their own way, the tax dollars assessed motorists for roadways could not be siphoned off to pay for specialized bicycle and transit infrastructure. beyond that, it is the motor vehicle owners who are subsidizing the economy. One in every ten jobs is tied to the auto industry. Shortly after nine-eleven when the economy plummeted, rather than closing assembly lines, the auto industry rescued the economy with zero percent interest loans. More recently, it was National Guard hummers that rescued the emergency services in Gresham when the majority of the city was snow bound. Even bicycle and transit infrastructure is no longer constructed with pick axes, hand shovels, mules, pedal power or even user paid dollars. It now takes backhoes, dump trucks, and other motorized equipment along with siphoned off motorist paid tax dollars to complete the job. Furthermore, it is those same motorized backhoes and dump trucks that build houses, apartment buildings, and commercial buildings. Motor vehicles also bring the majority of consumer goods and food products to market.
Alternative transport advocates continually attempt to bring in the military defense of freedom as a cost of the automobile. If that were true; WW1, WW2, the Korean War and the Vet Nam War would all have been for that purpose. The wars were fought and soldiers died to protect ALL the freedoms and freedom of choice this country has to offer, not to take them away or ration their use.
If the true market value pricing was applied to public transit, the average cost for a one-way ride would cost approximately $10.00 each just for the operational costs – more if the capitol costs and the costs for the transit portions of the CRC were added in. The current revenue received through the farebox covers only 21 percent of the operational costs and pays nothing towards the damage done to the roads by TriMet’s two-axle transit busses.
Public transit service and the construction of specialized bicycle is enormously discounted with motorist paid and taxpayer provided subsidies. Sustainability starts with financial self-sustainability. It is simply greed to expect mommy and daddy, and grandma and grandpa on their fixed incomes to be the welfare providers that pay for bicycle infrastructure and to subsidize transit service. This is asking/forcing the people – the majority who have already heavily contributed in one way or another to both to present day transport infrastructure, and to the service of our country – to now bail out the bicyclists and transit passengers who want everything just handed to them on a silver platter. Younger adult generations need to be weaned off of mommy and daddy’s and their grand parent’s purse strings by paying their own way with user paid bicycle taxes, and transit fares that better reflect the actual fiscal costs of providing the service.
First, if motor vehicles were not paying their own way, the tax dollars assessed motorists for roadways could not be siphoned off to pay for specialized bicycle and transit infrastructure.
That doesn’t follow at all. It does mean that _less_ fees from motorists go to roads, but it doesn’t mean that if you removed all “siphoning” that the fees would cover the full cost of roads. In fact, they don’t.
Put another way:
If the government sells you a college education for $20,000 in tuition and fees (hypothetical numbers) but it cost the government $40,000 to provide that education, and 20% of your fees went to build a new sports stadium you never used, it is not correct to say that were it not for that sports stadium, your payments would have covered the full cost of your tuition.
in oregon gas taxes are required to be spent solely on road construction and maintenance. where is this coming from that this money is spent on bikes and transit?
Terry is possibly referring to the federal portion of the gas tax.
“You are completely overlooking a number of things. First, if motor vehicles were not paying their own way, the tax dollars assessed motorists for roadways could not be siphoned off to pay for specialized bicycle and transit infrastructure. beyond that, it is the motor vehicle owners who are subsidizing the economy. One in every ten jobs is tied to the auto industry.”
I don’t exactly understand your statement, but I will do my best to address your points.
1) Just because mass transit receives money from “general funds” has nothing to do with the actual costs of operating an automobile (even if cars/roads didn’t have to subsidize any mass transit).
2) Automobiles pay for a decent portion (some estimates are 60% through automobile user fees) and give enough to get highway projects constructed. The fund itself (the gas tax) is not sustainable to maintain all of our nation’s highways and bridges.
3) The American Society of Civil Engineers estimates that we need to invest 1.6 trillion dollars into infrastructure in the next 5 years to be at maintenance levels – and this is not accounting future growth of roads and bridges.
4) Automobiles have externalities associated with them:
-They require police, fire, and ambulance response
-They pollute water and air
-They promote unhealthy behaviors and sedentary lifestyles
-Municipalities mandate large parking numbers in their comprehensive plans – distancing goods and services in the built environment from pedestrians (some parking lots are many times the square foot of the actual building)
-Require government involvement to keep oil flowing in our direction (99.9% would agree that the first Gulf War was about Oil and keeping it out of Saddam’s hands)
All of these factors all the way down the list from pollution to health have costs (actual dollar numbers) associated with them – costs that EVERYONE pays, not the individual person. Simple things such as air quality cost Southern California 28 billion dollars a year.
I have not touched on the other things about automobiles regarding social costs. This is not some anti-car rant. I like cars, I think they offer freedom and flexibility. How would I go hiking in the summer or drive to the beach? I couldn’t do that with mass transit. On the flip side, how do you get metro regions that have 3 million people in and out of the city hiccup free with a mode of transport that is very anti-urban?
Yes, the auto industry has a lot of jobs tied to automobiles. 1) There would still be auto jobs if more people took mass transit. 2) I hardly doubt General Motors shed a tear when it tore up miles of track in our cities near and displaced a once proud rail industry.
Sorry for the off-topic discussion.
To sum up my post:
Externalities + 1.6 trillion backlog in infrastructure + local streets paid for by general tax funds = autmobiles clearly not paying their true operational costs
Assuming they did pay their true costs (somewhere between 6-10+ dollars a gallon), we could stop subsidizing mass transit, as the demand for it would be enormous.
End result = less congestion on roads for cars and way better mass transit systems. People’s choice would not be dictated by a distorted market.
PS: I will not stop supporting mass transit until we return to a more free-market approach to transportation in America.
Assuming they did pay their true costs (somewhere between 6-10+ dollars a gallon), we could stop subsidizing mass transit, as the demand for it would be enormous.
Exactly. Besides subsidies (reduced fares) given to the youth/elderly/disabled who don’t cost less to transport, much of transit subsidies go to pay for service that does not get highly used and generate lots of revenue, but does provide a social service for people who might otherwise be stuck at home. But if policies/development were instead not transit-hostile, that might not be a problem.
How would I go hiking in the summer or drive to the beach?
You’ve touched on another important point here. How many state and federal parks are virtually inaccessible by any mode other than the private automobile? My tax dollars built those facilities, but if I exercise my choice to not own an automobile, my ability to enjoy those parks is severely limited. So, (rhetorically) why should I pay for them?
Check out the article by Vivek Shandas and Linda George in the current issue of PSU’s Metroscape, “Spatial Patterns of Air Toxins in the Region” http://www.pdx.edu/ims/
Figure 7 demonstrates the correlation between the regional freeway network and poor air quality. The best way to eliminate the hazard is to remove the cause, starting with the Eastbank Freeway.
Put MAX in a tunnel to Vancouver, strip HOV lanes on the existing I-5 bridges and charge tolls…then we are done.
The best way to eliminate the hazard is to remove the cause,
Well Lenny, why don’t we just take it one step further.
GET RID OF THE PEOPLE!
THEN we are done sir!
“You’ve touched on another important point here. How many state and federal parks are virtually inaccessible by any mode other than the private automobile? My tax dollars built those facilities, but if I exercise my choice to not own an automobile, my ability to enjoy those parks is severely limited. So, (rhetorically) why should I pay for them?”
I don’t think there are many viable options other than the automobile. I know of a lot of state parks that are making their attendees take buses due to the demand being placed on the roads. State parks also invest in walking and bike trails.
How many state and federal parks are virtually inaccessible by any mode other than the private automobile? My tax dollars built those facilities, but if I exercise my choice to not own an automobile, my ability to enjoy those parks is severely limited.
Back before the constitutional dedication to roads, Oregon used gas tax money to build state parks. You needed a car to get to one, so taxes on car travel paid for them.
And the railroads were the first group that developed places like Multnomah Falls, because the only way to get there (originally) was the train. (Even today, notice that the parking lot is further from the lodge than the train tracks.) In California they went even further, and they founded a magazine called Sunset to market the destinations that they’d developed. (Of course, Sunset is still around today, but is no longer owned by Southern Pacific.)
“Back before the constitutional dedication to roads, Oregon used gas tax money to build state parks. You needed a car to get to one, so taxes on car travel paid for them.”
I’m not saying you’re wrong, but I would like a bit more information on this (seems interersting). What I know about the gas tax is that it used to go into the “general tax fund”, and not be directed 100% to highways like it did after 1958 interstate highway bill (about 80% of the gas-tax fund is now directed towards highways).
Certainly some gas-tax funds went into road construction, but I would bet it would be hard to track down how much of it went into state parks.
I don’t have a problem with cars in state parks, it’s a good mode to go see these places. Though, many vehicles are overloading these sites, and they have some very negative impacts on landscapes that should be preserved to the fullest.
I can’t find the numbers, but Oregon State Parks were part of the state highway department until 1989. The history is here. Gas taxes weren’t constitutionally limited to being spent on roads until 1980. So for over fifty years, gas taxes were being steered in part to the state park system, and the parks system was largely reliant on gas taxes for support.
ws said: “The fund itself (the gas tax) is not sustainable to maintain all of our nation’s highways and bridges.”
Using his own argument: The bicycle tax fund – whoops there isn’t one yet millions of public tax dollars each year are spent to pay for the construction and maintenance bicycle infrastructure thereby subsidizing the user bicyclists – so no way can bicycling be at all be considered sustainable – in fact, just the opposite! .
Furthermore, Oregon allows one percent of gas tax revenues to be used for bicycle infrastructure. However, in actuality the percentage exceeds that by a percentage or two because bicycle infrastructure is often buried and not broken out as a separate expenditure in many road projects. The best way to rectify this taking of funds is to implement a bicycle tax that only bicyclists pay
Moreover, JK posted on one of the threads demonstrating that motor vehicle travel is the least Federally subsidized per mile of all the modes of travel. It should also be noted that 20 percent of Federal Gas tax revenues in the Highway Trust Fund are siphoned off to subsidize other modes of transport such as transit and bicycling. Since transit passengers pay only 21 percent of TriMet’s operating costs, passengers should be charged approximately $10.00 per ride just to cover the actual operational costs, plus an additional amount for both road use and capitol infrastructure costs.
Additionally when talking about lanes and tolling: it is 1) not within the jurisdiction of Metro, the City of Portland or even the State of Oregon to use the number of lanes on the bridge to set land use policy in Clark County which is in the State of Washington, and 2) it is not within the jurisdiction of either Metro or the City of Portland to set or establish tolls on an Interstate Highway. Maybe we should invite Washingtonians to also set income tax policy in Oregon. Those who work on this side of the river would opt out immediately from paying what they are now assessed!
Since transit passengers pay only 21 percent of TriMet’s operating costs,
You keep using that figure even though it hasn’t been the case in years, as has been pointed out to you numerous times.
it is 1) not within the jurisdiction of Metro, the City of Portland or even the State of Oregon to use the number of lanes on the bridge to set land use policy in Clark County which is in the State of Washington
The converse is also true: It is not within the jurisdiction of Clark County, the City of Vancouver, or even the state of Washington to use the number of lanes on the bridge to set land use policy in Multnomah County which is in the State of Oregon.
I’m glad you agree that the choice of the number of lanes does have an influence on land use — that’s the very basis of the theory of induced demand.
Referring to my statement about TriMet fares covering only 21 percent of operating costs Bob said: “You keep using that figure even though it hasn’t been the case in years”, I am glad you agree the actual percentage for operational costs paid by passengers could very well be lower than that. At an infrastructure forum in the Multnomah County Board room a few weeks back, Susan Kiel, Director of Transportation at PDOT mentioned a figure of around 25 percent. The way it was stated, more than once, came across as if being overstated on the high side of the percentage. A person on another blog targeted the actual figure at 19 percent. The last hard numbers derived from TriMet (done within the last couple of years) has been 21 percent. Therefore, if you have an authoritative percentage figure that is from TriMet and is other than 21 percent, please post it.
As for the number of lanes on the CRC, you are attempting to put words in my mouth if you think that I agree the number of lanes on the bridge has any influence on land use planning other than having more people moving to the Washington side of the river because the politics are less dictatorial and the taxes/costs of living for families and individuals as a whole are less excessive than in Portland. Furthermore, I do not believe the people on the Washington side of the river are attempting to set land use policy in Oregon. Unlike the Oregon politicians that represent special interests and want to manipulate how people travel, Washington politicians are actually representing the freedom of choice of their constituency, something Oregon politicians can learn from.
One more point from the same infrastructure forum mentioned above. Susan Keil made it a point to say that a lot of people think that property taxes pay for roads, and that property taxes do not pay for roads. She went on to say the gas tax was the primary source of revenue for streets and roads. Chris was also in attendance at the forum. Yet many times over the kind misinformation Keil was referring to has been posted with no response from a moderator. It would be constructive if a moderator would be the person to post a rebuttal of the actual facts.
Unlike the Oregon politicians that represent special interests and want to manipulate how people travel, Washington politicians are actually representing the freedom of choice of their constituency, something Oregon politicians can learn from.
I’m glad to hear you’re coming around.
One example:
In 2005 the Washington State Legislature included $74 million in a 16 year budget to support pedestrian and bicycle safety projects such as pedestrian and bicycle paths, sidewalks, safe routes to school and transit. The Safe Routes to School Grants were established to address pedestrian and bicycle mobility and safety near schools.
And another:
Takes more cars off the road. Fights traffic congestion by reducing the number of cars on the roads. Expands vanpools, park and ride lots, HOV lanes, buses and commuter rail, sidewalks and bike lanes. Funds the Regional Mobility Grant Program to support projects that will annually reduce more than 1 million vehicle trips and 21 million vehicle miles traveled, reducing congestion on regional corridors. $368 million Multiple Fund Sources
Which state of Washington were you thinking of?
One more point from the same infrastructure forum mentioned above. Susan Keil made it a point to say that a lot of people think that property taxes pay for roads, and that property taxes do not pay for roads. She went on to say the gas tax was the primary source of revenue for streets and roads. Chris was also in attendance at the forum.
It is correct that PBOT’s (what was formerly the Portland Office of Transportion, often abbreviated PDOT, is now known at the Portland Bureau of Transportation) budgeted revenue stream is from a combination of gas taxes and parking meter revenues. This is what Sue Keil was referring to.
But… When urban renewal funds are used to construct roads, that is a use of general fund resources. And Sue is quick to point out that much of PBOT’s actual work is done under contract to other agencies, including PDC.
And in recent years, City Council has often allocated a significant portion of so-called “one-time” funds (funds that are not expected on a recurring basis) to transportation. This is also effectively a general fund allocation.
Most recently, Council has adopted the policy that growth in the City’s franchise fee revenue above a certain point will also be dedicated to transportation, but given the economy, it’s not clear when this might produce any actual dollars for PBOT.
Chris Smith wrote: When urban renewal funds are used to construct roads, that is a use of general fund resources. And Sue is quick to point out that much of PBOT’s actual work is done under contract to other agencies, including PDC.
And a big thanks for pointing out that while the suburbs do not receive any assistance from the PDC, that urban renewal areas like the Pearl District and the South Waterfront have been subsidized, including streets paid for by the city (unlike suburban developments, in which the developers pay for the streets) are subsidized by property tax.
So, not only am I (as a Far Southwest neighborhood resident within the city limits of Portland) subsidizing SoWa/Pearl’s Streetcar (not once but twice, through both City and TriMet taxation), but also their new streets, while my streets are paid for exclusively by the gas tax. And, my taxes are being used to make up the shortfall caused by the tax abatements given to the urban renewal district residents despite their thirst for greater government services not afforded (or given at reduced levels) to residents outside of the core.
ws wrote: You are not closer to services in the suburbs. End of discussion (not to be rude or anything, just it goes against the grain of logic and reason). There are no mixed uses, there are no easy interactions between uses (schools here, business parks here, grocery stores here, single family homes here, apartments here, etc. etc.).
Actually I find it quite rude that one suggests “end of discussion…it goes against the grain of logic and reason…”.
In fact, I’ll use just one good example – Fred Hansen, General Manager of TriMet. Pearl District resident. Works in SE. Calculated commute distance of about 4.7 miles. Where’s the benefit of living in the Pearl District – by the logic provided, he should be living in an apartment in Brooklyn.
I happened to drive through one of Portland’s celebrated “transit-oriented developments”, Orenco Station. Problem is, housing and commercial uses are not integrated, save for one building – located off of Cornell Road, about five blocks NORTH of the MAX station.
Another of Portland’s celebrated “transit-oriented developments”, The Round at Beaverton Central, might have mixed-uses, but you can’t easily get to grocery shopping or medical clinics – they aren’t near by. But a car dealership is within walking distance.
The fact is that I did live in Beaverton (and not downtown) and I was able to live close to where I lived and worked. I had a Fred Meyer (with my bank inside of it) within walking distance; restaurants close by, recreation close by. My work was a five minute bus ride and a less-than-two-minute-MAX ride away. Today in Portland, I have a commute that requires no bus transfer (although I can often save time by riding an express bus part of the way) and travel exclusively on one corridor.
It is possible to live in Gresham, Oregon City, Milwaukie, Hillsboro, and even Tualatin – and live close to everything you need. How long did it take for the Pearl District to get a grocery store? Where do the residents of SoWa do their shopping? What if a SoWa resident doesn’t work at OHSU – by the assumed logic, do they have a right to live there, since they are not close to their work?
Developments like the Pearl, SoWa, Orenco Station, etc., have not proven total successes. Orenco Station required extensive upgrading of the roadway network to support the increased vehicle traffic, and zoning uses are disparate from each other. There are no schools in the Pearl District – does that mean that children are not permitted to live in that neighborhood, a la King City? Open space/park land is limited to just a couple city blocks; what if one wants to play frisbee, go for a run, play a game of football or basketball or baseball — those amenities do not exist, so are Pearl residents not permitted to engage in those activities? And certainly it would be unreasonable to expect that Pearl residents can only travel by Amtrak or Greyhound, since the airport is not part of their neighborhood.
There is no “end of discussion”. No matter how well we plan a community there are going to be incompatible uses for land use, that require a separation. Portland is going to have industry; who wants to live next to a factory that operates 24/7? Who wants to live in the shadow of a tall skyscraper that blocks natural light and the ability to use a patio as a garden? Who wants to live next to an electrical substation? Or a busy restaurant that makes noise? Maybe some people do, that’s fine, but not everyone wants that. And living away from those incompatible uses is not a bad thing. No one lives within a 200 foot radius of their total life – PDX workers don’t live at the airport, Rivergate employees don’t live in Rivergate nor are there schools and other amenities up there. But we value that industry and the people who do work at those places.
Some people can live close to their work. Nobody is putting them down. But stop putting down people who actually do commute. My wife and I don’t share the same job, employer, or workplace. Moving downtown will make my life a lot easier…but will have a drastic impact on my wife (her commute would go from 10 minutes to 30) and my son. It’s pointless to blame people; it’s helpful to start making regional transportation options available that help, not hurt.
To the actual intent of the thread: It does nobody any good to blame someone for living in Vancouver. People live in Vancouver for a reason. Nevermind the fact that Vancouver is actually older than Portland — Fort Vancouver was established in 1824, while Portland wasn’t founded until 1843 and incorporated as a city in 1851. Maybe one spouse lives in Vancouver but the other in Portland. Maybe it was affordable, quality housing. Or that services such as medical care and shopping are indeed available in Vancouver. Maybe it’s lower taxes (the lack of an income tax). Maybe it’s historical connections – having been raised in Vancouver, but simply finding better or more suitable work in Portland — yet wanting to retain a connection to their hometown. There is NOTHING wrong with that and playing the blame game only creates anger, and doesn’t serve anyone, or solve anything.
If the real goal is climate change, is inducing congestion really the solution? Certainly Vancouver has an edge on Portland – Vancouver is part of Clark Public Utilities, where 67% of the power generation is hydro (from the BPA) and 8% nuclear, and only 1.8% coal – both PGE and Pacific Power generate far more coal, and far less hydro/clean power than our neighbors to the north.
(Source: http://www.clarkpublicutilities.com/aboutus/ourPowerSupply/fuelMix )
C-Tran is also taking the lead with 12 hybrid buses operating on commuter routes between Portland and Vancouver, this is 600% that of TriMet’s commitment to clean-air buses (two vehicles). Of course this is eclipsed by the Seattle region, and its 95%+ hydro power supply in Seattle, and over 250 hybrid buses in service, in addition to trolleybuses (including 100 brand new buses in recent years, with parts recycled from the old buses), light rail, streetcar (since 1982), monorail and commuter rail.
And Portland is stuck bickering over where people live and pointing fingers over who is “smarter” for living where.
I say: Who cares. So what if people live in downtown Portland, or Vancouver, or Gresham, or McMinnville, or Salem, or Saint Helens, or Forest Grove. It doesn’t matter. It won’t matter. If it really, really, really did matter, then why do we live in Oregon? Shouldn’t we be living in Europe, like the vast majority of our ancestors did prior to the 1800s?
Therefore, if you have an authoritative percentage figure that is from TriMet and is other than 21 percent, please post it.–Terry Parker
The National Transit Database ( http://www.ntdprogram.gov/ntdprogram ) lists Trimet’s fare recovery for 2007 at 23% up 2% from 2006. This is one of the best in the region. Seattle is 17%, Sound Transit is 15%, Eugene is 17%, and Vancouver is 17%.
Therefore, if you have an authoritative percentage figure that is from TriMet and is other than 21 percent, please post it.
I’ve posted it multiple times for you Terry, and it’s on TriMet’s web site.
Once again, for FY2008, TriMet lists a Fare Recovery Ratio to System Costs (operating costs plus administrative costs) of 26.5%. It hasn’t been as low as 21% in any of the last 11 fiscal years currently listed.
“I happened to drive through one of Portland’s celebrated “transit-oriented developments”, Orenco Station. Problem is, housing and commercial uses are not integrated, save for one building – located off of Cornell Road, about five blocks NORTH of the MAX station.”
Mixed use does not always and literally mean uses “attache”d to another use. It is apart of the equation – some people like living in those buildings, others don’t. Orenco provides more housing diversity and transit options than almost any subdivision in the suburbs. You can easily walk from the edge of Orenco to the Grocery store.
“There is no “end of discussion”. No matter how well we plan a community there are going to be incompatible uses for land use, that require a separation.”
You are taking the concept of “mixed uses” to teh absolute extreme. I never stated that every use needs to mix together. Suburbs municipalities take it to the extreme, however. There is no reason why a multi-housing unit cannot be next to a single-family house. Those are not incompatible uses. Likewise, there’s no reason for a grocery store, coffee shop, bakery, etc. to be miles away from any home.
“There are no schools in the Pearl District – does that mean that children are not permitted to live in that neighborhood, a la King City? Open space/park land is limited to just a couple city blocks; what if one wants to play frisbee, go for a run, play a game of football or basketball or baseball — those amenities do not exist, so are Pearl residents not permitted to engage in those activities?”
You can play frisbee on the waterfront. It’s an easy walk. You can also go running there or go to Forest Park. Pearl District has schools close by – there’s an elementary school just north and Lincoln high school.
“It is possible to live in Gresham, Oregon City, Milwaukie, Hillsboro, and even Tualatin – and live close to everything you need. How long did it take for the Pearl District to get a grocery store? Where do the residents of SoWa do their shopping? What if a SoWa resident doesn’t work at OHSU – by the assumed logic, do they have a right to live there, since they are not close to their work?”
These are absolutely brand new areas. The possibility of a grocery store is highly viable. The possibility of living near a grocery store in Beaverton is not *reasonably* in walking distance. That is the point.
“What if a SoWa resident doesn’t work at OHSU – by the assumed logic, do they have a right to live there, since they are not close to their work?”
This isn’t the assumed logic. You’re mistaken completely. It’s about allowing for the POSSIBILITY of this occurring should someone CHOOSE to. These options are not available as widely as they are in city and traditional neighborhood environments. I have never heard of someone walking to a business park in Beaverton or Hillsboro.
“Some people can live close to their work. Nobody is putting them down. But stop putting down people who actually do commute.”
I never put down anyone who commutes. Walking is a “commute”. My complaints are in regards of the exclusionary zoning found in the suburbs – the ability to walk (or drive) should you CHOOSE. The only viable option available is predominately driving. Driving is great, I don’t have a problem with it. Just we take it to the extreme in typical suburban developments.
Speaking of Orenco, you can drive to the store, you can walk to the store, you can rollerblade to the store – you could even do jumping jacks to the store. Though, a walk only takes you 5 minutes from the edge, so walking is simply the easiest option. (You can also drive to downtown or take the MAX. Whatever you want).
“People live in Vancouver for a reason.” …”Maybe it’s lower taxes (the lack of an income tax).”
Everyone lives somewhere for a reason. 1/3 of Vancouver works in Oregon (meaning they are not exempt from the income tax). I could care less about someone wanting to live in Vancouver and commuting to Portland. Honestly. I do have a problem with people complaining about the traffic when they help create the problem. This does not make sense. The traffic comes with the territory. Likewise, don’t live downtown in a tall building and complain about the noise on the street.
Here’s a good site for assessing the walkability of your area:
http://www.walkscore.com/
[Moderator: Italics added for clarity.]
It hasn’t been as low as 21% in any of the last 11 fiscal years currently listed.
Bob, it’s just odd your post comes below the Smooth Operator’s, where they cite: Trimet’s fare recovery for 2007 at 23% up 2% from 2006.
I know it sounds snarky, but I’m not trying to be a jerk. I just am wondering which is right? A 3-5% difference in this size area is quite a gap.
“Bob, it’s just odd your post comes below the Smooth Operator’s, where they cite: Trimet’s fare recovery for 2007 at 23% up 2% from 2006.
I know it sounds snarky, but I’m not trying to be a jerk. I just am wondering which is right? A 3-5% difference in this size area is quite a gap.”
The numbers you are stating are from 2007. 2008 was a phenomenal year for mass transit (considering the cost of gas). Knowing that 2007 was @ 23%, I don’t think it is unreasonable to that the numbers would be higher in 2008.
Dave asks: ” I just am wondering which is right? A 3-5% difference in this size area is quite a gap.”
Dave –
It appears to me that the numbers Smooth Operator quoted are for buses alone. Indeed, looking at TriMet’s published numbers just for buses, FY2007 was 22.3% while FY2006 was 20.9%.
What I’m quoting is TriMet’s combined numbers for bus and rail together.
Terry’s original quote, to which I was responding, said: “Since transit passengers pay only 21 percent of TriMet’s operating costs…”
Terry did not distinguish bus from rail riders… he said “transit passengers”. Thus, I think it is entirely appropriate and fair to quote TriMet’s combined number, not the lower bus-only number.
Indeed, TriMet reports rail’s fare recovery ratio at over 38%, which doesn’t paint the same magnitude of rhetorical picture when one is trying to criticise transit as being over-subsidized.
See:
http://www.trimet.org/pdfs/publications/bus_max_stat08.pdf
I just want to point out that the fare recovery ratio includes routes and trips that aren’t economically viable but are run instead as a public service, for people who might otherwise be stuck at home. It would be best to only consider e.g. Frequent Service routes and leave out discounts given to the elderly/disabled/etc. Overall, an adult who pays a single fare for a ride on a busy bus or train pays for a much bigger portion of their cost.
Overall, an adult who pays a single fare for a ride on a busy bus or train pays for a much bigger portion of their cost.
This is correct. TriMet reports an operating cost per boarding ride (bus and rail combined) of $2.33. A person who pays a single fare of $2.00 (1 or 2 zones) or $2.30 (all zones) is paying the majority of the operating cost (not capital cost) of their ride.
Thanks Chris for your clarification on the revenue stream for (now) PBOT coming from motorist paid taxes and fees. I too in previous posts have noted an exception for urban renewal funded transportation projects (all modes) that can only take place within urban renewal districts. I also was aware that one time funds were allocated from the City’s General Fund for transportation, but not sure where that money was actually spent. I doubt that much of the money was spent on motorist infrastructure. The same would probably be true if City franchise fee revenue were to be used for transportation projects. I doubt the dollars would be divided up for projects based on actual mode split.
One more note: Maybe the Portland City Council can simply draw a circle around the CRC and help fund the project as an Urban Renewal Satellite District. – and then just like traveling through the Pearl district on a urban renewal funded streetcar (operationally subsidized by parking meter revenues rather than paid for by transit passengers) – there would be NO tolls for motorists traveling across the river on an urban renewal funded bridge. There is no parking on the bridge.
ws wrote: You are taking the concept of “mixed uses” to teh (sp) absolute extreme.
No, I’m not.
The original statement was, You are not closer to services in the suburbs. End of discussion
And the fact is that you CAN live in the suburbs and be just as close to anywhere as you can in the Pearl District, or in SoWa. You cannot backtrack and state essentiall ‘well, you can walk a 1/2 mile in this direction to do one thing, and then walk 3/4s of a mile in the opposite direction to do something else…’
You can do that in Beaverton, too. And my former home in Beaverton (2000-2002) in the Waterhouse neighborhood, I could do all of that.
I don’t know about some people, but I know quite a few that would find it a chore to walk even a quarter mile from the grocery store with a week’s worth of groceries and their children in tow. Or an elderly person who can’t walk very far…or someone with a physical disability. Mixed use means multiple uses in very close proximity. Having a shopping center in one place and residential buildings somewhere else does not qualify as “mixed use”…even if they are within a one mile radius.
Erik H:“And the fact is that you CAN live in the suburbs and be just as close to anywhere as you can in the Pearl District, or in SoWa. You cannot backtrack and state essentiall ‘well, you can walk a 1/2 mile in this direction to do one thing, and then walk 3/4s of a mile in the opposite direction to do something else…’”
ws:First we need to differentiate the difference between walking in a small scaled neighborhood/downtown vs walking in low-density sprawl suburbs of Portland.
1) Define “close”. By a car or walking? 1/2 mile walk in Beaverton is different than 1/2 walk in Portland. Beaverton does not have connected street networks or uses that are within walking distance. In regards to the Pearl District (you keep mentioning it, and I do not know why) you have the ability to walk to those places (groceries, recreation, etc.), as well as hop on a timely mass transit system.
2) I could walk 5 minutes in my neighborhood (SW B-town) and only hit homes. I could walk 5 minutes in mixed-use communities, see homes, businesses, mass-transit stop, etc.
3) This site gives a general idea of the walkability of a neighborhood:
http://www.walkscore.com/
Erik H:“I don’t know about some people, but I know quite a few that would find it a chore to walk even a quarter mile from the grocery store with a week’s worth of groceries and their children in tow. Or an elderly person who can’t walk very far…or someone with a physical disability. Mixed use means multiple uses in very close proximity. Having a shopping center in one place and residential buildings somewhere else does not qualify as “mixed use”…even if they are within a one mile radius.”
ws:1)When you live near a grocery store, people tend to not do an hour-long escapade for a “week’s worth” of groceries. Generally it’s something you do a few times a week with fewer groceries in hand. This generally leads to fresher foods being purchased. Sometimes you need a car for your groceries, to which you could definitely use one if you chose to. Or if there are mixed uses (business offices that are near a grocery store) you pick up groceries when you get off work.
Erik H:“Or an elderly person who can’t walk very far…or someone with a physical disability.”
ws:Elderly people have better walking ability than driving ability (a generality, but nonetheless true for many). A 5 minute walk for elderly is generally doable. It is a hazard to make elderly rely on driving only – which is very dangerous for them and other people. There are also other mobility devices for elderly other than the automobile. George driving a Rascal in Seinfeld comes to mind for some reason.
Speaking of the elderly, it is unfathomable that we lock them up in auto-dependent homes to have them rely on a device that a) they are not confident behind and b)that they are a danger to be behind when the conditions are not right. I think many elderly would appreciate the added stimulus of a nice park for people watching or something interesting happening outside their door other than emptiness. That’s not to say they would like super-dense cities, but there are plenty of active (but quiet) traditional neighborhoods to which the needs of these are met.
It’s unreasonable to think that we should make the elderly rely solely upon a two-ton vehicle (with poor eyesight) or a family member for mobility. A 5 minute walk to a bakery, coffee shop, or grocery store is something that would benefit many elderly (exercise, mental stimulation, autonomy, etc.).
As for people with disabilities, I see wheelchairs on the streets all the time. Sometimes a vehicle is good for mobility for disabled people – sometimes it’s not. I think it’s good to offer both options, and I think that a disabled person who’s reliant upon a chaperon would enjoy the autonomy and freedom of getting groceries or sitting in the park without the aid of someone else driving them around.
I think you’re trying to make an argument by pointing to people (the disabled and elderly) who are actually victims of our culture’s auto-dependent living arrangements, rather than absolute benefactors, which is very confusing to me. There are some very good applications of cars for elderly and disabled, no doubt. But to make them only reliant on a car is irresponsible of us a culture.
Erik H:“Having a shopping center in one place and residential buildings somewhere else does not qualify as “mixed use”…even if they are within a one mile radius.”
ws:A one mile radius is too far. Generally speaking, the furthest you want a dwelling unit from a service is ten minutes (about 1/4 mile, I believe). But most plans (mixed-use communities) are for a 5 minute walk. Or a short one minute drive – but too many people would feel stupid for driving for something that is so close.
I apply mixed uses generally to encompass plans/developments that reject euclidean zoning techniques. Yes, it may literally refer to attached uses, but the concept has evolved a bit over the years. Some people might like living above a grocery store or right next to a grocery store. Some people do not. Why not offer both options.
ws wrote: Beaverton does not have connected street networks or uses that are within walking distance.
At the risk of violating that rule about personally-directed comments, but since it’s already been violated:
HAVE YOU BEEN TO BEAVERTON????????????????
Your comments border on the ridiculous and I think I’m not even going to try anymore.
Well, wait, I will. I just stuck in an address IN BEAVERTON:
http://www.walkscore.com/get-score.php?street=12375+SW+Broadway+St%2C+Beaverton%2C+OR&go=Go
And got a score of 97.
On the other hand, I compared my CURRENT address (within Portland city limits) with my former Beaverton address, and my Beaverton address has a higher walkability score than Portland…?
WS: it is unfathomable that we lock them up in auto-dependent homes
I don’t know of anyone who is “lock”ed up in an “auto-dependent home”…please remove the hyperbole.
WS: I think you’re trying to make an argument by pointing to people (the disabled and elderly) who are actually victims of our culture’s auto-dependent living arrangements
So instead you are going to deny them an option of getting around? Just as you see older folks in wheelchairs downtown, I see them all the time in the ‘burbs’…
WS: but the concept has evolved a bit over the years.
So, “mixed-use” no longer means mixed-use, but whatever the promoters want it to mean?
Erik
1) Take a chill pill
2) You stuck in an address of Beaverton Bakery (an overrated Bakery, I might add). This is not a residence (although there are a few residences to south and the “Round”, which is funny because the anti-transit crowd hates the Round.
Yes, every city has “connected” street networks, but only the older parts of cities (downtowns, neighborhoods built before 1947-ish). I can say that much of Beaverton encompasses disconnected cul-de-sac street forms reliant upon arterial roads. Zoom out a bit and examine the newer parts of Beaverton, Hillsboro (except Orenco), Lake O., Tigard and you will see they are predominately disconnected street networks, cul-de-sacs, etc.
3)This is a reasonable example of good urbanism at work (downtown Beaverton). Small-scale blocks, building frontages to the street, etc. Every older part of North America has these gems. It’s only until recently that we rejected these types of urban morphology.
o instead you are going to deny them an option of getting around? Just as you see older folks in wheelchairs downtown, I see them all the time in the ‘burbs’…
No, in fact I mentioned giving the option for mobility that does not involve a car. Easy (and safe) access to a public park, coffee shop, etc. In fact I can go back specifically and show where I highlighted “option”.
Lastly, please read up on some architecture, urban planning and its current trends. I do not need to explain simple things such as the difference between street forms (and its functions) in the city vs. typical suburban sprawl. This is a fairly rudimentary concept.