As you know, from time to time I mention online polls that the Business Journal is conducting. My experience is that their audience leans a bit to the right of the general population here in the Portland metro area.
Which is why it was gratifying to see that their poll supported Light Rail on Barbur and Powell with 56% support.
33 responses to “Business Journal Readers Support Light Rail Expansion”
I suppose I should take this opportunity to point out, for the sake of consistency, as I do for other web polls which are unfavorable to transit, that web polls are only representing the self-selected opinions of whomever might be interested in voting, and carry no scientific validity.
But this is Portland! We like the craziest things!
People wish for less congestion and buy the planner’s lies that LRT will reduce congestion, while the reality is that LRT increases congestion by :
1. providing an excuse to subsidize rich developers to increase density which is A MAJOR CAUSE of congestion.
2. Taking money away from real congestion reduction measures like increasing road capacity.
3. Reducing road capacity like on Interstate ave. (includes controlling signals)
See http://www.portlandfacts.com/Smart/DensityCongestion.htm
Thanks
JK
“Reducing road capacity like on Interstate Ave. (includes controlling signals).”
>>>> I don’t even drive a car, and I agree with this. I do not like seeing traffic backed up on Interstate because of only one lane in each direction, ESPECIALLY with the upcoming change in MAX service, which will only have service every 15 minutes (as opposed to the 7 minute rush-hour headway on the #5 bus).
Wow, I miss the old N Interstate. 4-lanes of smooth-sailing without having to use I-5 or the little neighborhood backroads. Same with Burnside, which was a great main route.
Tyler Says: Wow, I miss the old N Interstate. 4-lanes of smooth-sailing without having to use I-5 or the little neighborhood backroads. Same with Burnside, which was a great main route.
Uh, isn’t Burnside still four lanes? It has been whenever I traveled on it — keeping in mind time-based parking restrictions.
Same with Burnside, which was a great main route.
Uh, isn’t Burnside still four lanes?
I think the author is referring to the section of Burnside between E 99th Ave. and SE 197th Ave.
This isn’t exclusive to rail-based transit. At C-TRAN’s board meeting earlier this month, a bus rapid transit simulation was presented, which showed Fourth Plain Blvd. with two general traffic lanes and two lanes dedicated for BRT only.
The point I am really trying to make about Interstate is that we could have had limited and local bus service with signal preemption that could have given better service than MAX.
Also, there would still be 4 lanes, generally without traffic backups.
So, we had more than a third of a billion dollars wasted on a rail project that now provides markedly inferior headways during rush hours in 2009 (as of Sept.) than the bus service did in 2001 (when I used to ride it often).
Well, that’s what happens when transit in Portland is designed for the benefit of railfans and Euro-fans instead of the general transit ridership.
Also, there would still be 4 lanes, generally without traffic backups.
Four lanes with turn signals? I drove that route a lot to avoid I-5 (reverse commute) and never had a problem on N Interstate. If there were two lanes each way with turn lanes, that would have been great, but I don’t see a way the road could be built to accommodate such an alignment.
Maybe I’m mistaken, but there were no left turn lanes on the old four lane N Interstate, correct?
Doesn’t the overall cost of a publicly financed project have a direct correlation to the number of jobs its creates? (Example: Gov. Ted said the CRC project will make 20,000 jobs and we don’t want that one do we?) So my beef with light rail in its present expensive format is that, as it “creates” jobs ( if by creating you mean shuffling employment out of the private sector into the government), it also “creates” a new group of job seekers wanting to permanently settle here. Thus the need for more expenditure on subsequent planning. Visual analogy: dog chasing tail.
How can we ever win? I don’t want to live in a crowded Oregon. I like it the way it is.
How can we ever win? I don’t want to live in a crowded Oregon. I like it the way it is.
Wishful thinking. Nothing ever stays static. Portland (and Oregon for that matter) is either going to grow or recede.
We have the choice of either creating a place where we enjoy living, and thus need to accommodate the fact that others will likely want to live here as well. Or, we can wish it all away, fail to plan, and watch as people leave.
It’s pretty obvious that people want to move here, so it’d be foolish not to plan for sustainable growth.
Got news for you. Portland has BOTH grown and receded in the past, so if it recedes again I am not too worried. BTW, I am trying to plan for sustainable growth. If somebody has convinced you that the boondoggle spending coming our way—call it the Adam’s’s Plan if you would—is going to bring about sustainability, then I have bridge in Brooklyn NY you might like….Once we get past the point of no return it will be endless planning, expansion and more transit projects, ad naueseum.
There are few things like huge federally backed projects to bring in the job seekers. Unfortunately after a point it doesn’t help the locals that much…it mainly results in more crowding and more dues revenue going to the labor union bosses. That is the why the latter made sure they got a Big Voice in the Obama Admin.
Now my friend…wool removed.
Ron Swaren Says: How can we ever win? I don’t want to live in a crowded Oregon. I like it the way it is.
I’ve been saying that since I moved back 25 years ago, but people still keep shoving in. You should have seen Portland in the early 70s.
Uh, labor unions only receive dues from members who have jobs and are drawing salary–it does the local “bosses” no good to have lots of construction workers on the union rolls who are unemployed. Indeed, having lots of jobless journeymen in town is BAD for the local unions; as it makes it easier for non-union operators to encourage defection from the union in exchange for a higher likelihood of finding work.
At any rate, your imagined Vast Union Conspiracy is, to put it plainly, BS. The reason labor supports Obama and the Democracts is because the other party has been trying to put the screws to organized labor (and succeeding, too) for several generations.
Oh, oh…looks like it’s tag team time once again. So Eng. Scotty says I am full of BS. Are you saying there really isn’t a method behind the madness of politics—-Chicaaaggo style! Why do you think Gov Rod was involved in some intrigue seeking a big salary position with SEIU–who also happen to be nearly permanent Kato Kaelin style guests at the O. W.H.? Oh, I know it’s just coincidence that top labor heavywieghts are now calling the budgetary shots. They should have just contributed their $60 million in campaign funds and then gone golfing.
I don’t know what kind of union you are referring to in your “BS” estimation. You don’t think it is a conspiracy?—I don’t think it needs to be. But, now, our once bi-national AFL-CIO has apparently become organizational headquarters for the world’s union movements. That seems to be the way they talk, anyway. What happens to trade unionists in Colombia just makes my head hurt to think about it. My union requires dues every month…and they also have a dues checkoff going that brings in even more money to cover a lot of political purposes—including putting a pre-programmed robot in the Oval Office.
I like it the way it is.
So did Tom McCall. So did people in the 30s. So did people in the 1890s. So did the Multnomah, I imagine, but we killed all of them so it’s hard to know. What’s your point?
Politics is politics, and all sorts of actors are seeking advantage through the political process–including labor union organizers, and big business. Were you complaining as loudly when “top Wall Street heavyweights” (not to mention scores of religious whackjobs) were calling the shots in the prior administration? The notion that labor politics, and labor-supported politicians, are somehow more corrupt than those bankrolled by big business is just laughable nonsense.
This getting a bit off-topic for this blog. The “BS” I was referring to is the oft-repeated position that public infrastructure projects are only being done to feather the nest of local construction unions.
Do you really want the answer, ES? Or are you just trying to win an argument? The answer to your question is “Yes” I was glad to see Elliot Spitzer kick some ass in Manhattan (well, then, he started grabbin’ some, too, but that’s another story)
I thought the issue of induced population growth due to unnecesary public works was on-topic. Please refute that viewpoint if you can. I threw in the “labor bosses” comment so people would see the connection–and that I wasn’t just blowing smoke. Some how, you confused what I was trying to say with some other urban wisdom which you (perhaps rightly) contest.
I seriously doubt a massive influx of permanent construction workers results from public works projects. Such projects generally attract a) local workers, who are already here, and b) if and when there aren’t enough locals to do the job, travelling journeymen, who come into town for a specific job, and only stay as long as there is work; moving on to the next town when the job ends.
I’ve seen no evidence whatsoever, other than your supposition, that long-term population growth results from transit (or roadworks) projects as a result of attracting construction labor.
What DOES happen is that new infrastructure projects frequently attract migration after the work is done–not of workers looking to build the project, but of residents who want to be able to use it. A freeway is built to relieve congestion; lots of folks move closer to the freeway, and it fills up to. TOD depends on this phenomenon–if you build it, they will come. However, most of THIS migration is local–nobody who lives in San Francisco is going to decide to move to SE Portland because of the Green Line. (Someone who lives out on 122nd might move closer in, OTOH, to be within walking distance of the line).
“I seriously doubt a massive influx of permanent construction workers results from public works projects.”
Does it really matter where the causal connection begins?
[Moderator: Personally-directed remark removed.]
Grant Says: I like it the way it is.
So did Tom McCall. So did people in the 30s. So did people in the 1890s. So did the Multnomah, I imagine, but we killed all of them so it’s hard to know. What’s your point?
JK: How about the government quit spending money to promote Portland as a great place to move to? Or at least design their outreach to attract competent, employable people instead of the un-employable “creative class”/
Thanks
JK
How about the government quit spending money to promote Portland as a great place to move to?
How much is “the government” (city, county, regional, state?) spending specifically to attract individual people to move here, separate from money to promote tourism, business relocation, etc.?
JK: How about the government quit spending money to promote Portland as a great place to move to? Or at least design their outreach to attract competent, employable people instead of the un-employable “creative class”
So there are a whole lot of jobs going unfilled?
“How much is “the government” (city, county, regional, state?) spending specifically to attract individual people to move here, separate from money to promote tourism, business relocation, etc.?”
I have no idea either. But it does seem plausible. The city of Portland has spent 200,000/yr for last two years for an illegal alien hangout—where they pretend that someone will actually hire them. And now Portland will budget 1.9 million for the Family Justice Center—allowing illegal immigrant women and children battered by their “machismo significant others” to get permanent legal status in the US. It also serves a large population of people who live in Multnomah Co. So that might encourage some of the “clients” to move into Portland.
Hey! Just a thought! Maybe we will need those people to build the CRC bridge, more light rail lines and the upcoming Freeway Loop full tunnel. Now if we could just find some willing taxpayers to foot the bill………..How about Washington citizens who work in Oregon…they’re bringing in $200 million per year. Except TOD planning would rather have them work in Washington, I guess. So, forget that. So, then we need more Oregon citizens to cover that shortfall…Can we get some tax revenue for the state off the day labor center, to replace the lost Washington revenue? Oh wait, no that relies upon the “employer” to pay it. Maybe the tolls on CRC will have to go up to 10 dollars then? Y’know, to cover the shortfall when Clark Co. residents drop their Silicon Forest jobs for Vancover Burgerville.
Boy, this sure is getting complicated……
Boy, this sure is getting complicated……
When you spout nonsense like that, it doesn’t help make it less complicated.
JK:How about the government quit spending money to promote Portland as a great place to move to? Or at least design their outreach to attract competent, employable people instead of the un-employable “creative class”/
ws:I thought libertarians were impartial to classes and promoted “individual liberty”?
Platform:
“We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose.”
Here’s a link to the LP platform, just in case you want to brush up for election time:
http://www.lp.org/platform
Portland city government is not appeasing the so called “creative class”. There is no official campaign do draw these types of personalities to Portland. It is a bottom-up movement pure and simple.
I will be quite frank that I do not understand the whole tattooed, piercings, “artistic” persona; it’s not my cup of tea. Do I wish more so called “professional” people were drawn to Portland? Sure, but I’m not going to go out and criticize a government entity for drawing in a certain type of person.
Different cities draw different people. Hopefully Portland becomes more diverse in what we draw in, and does not become a monoculture (ehem, like so many suburbs are).
Bob R.
That is not nonsense at all! Those are true examples from the convoluted scenario that our liberally directed planning establishment is working towards. I can back up all of those statements. I am afraid it would be wasted on you, though.
It’s no more nonsense than whoever it was that said I was opposed to the Green Line. I have never said such a thing. Just because I made a slight joke about it doesn’t mean I opposed it. I am however, for the record, opposed to the Milwaukie line.
That is not nonsense at all!
I’m not going to take on most of the jingoistic immigrant-bashing … this is most definitely not the web site for that sort of thing … but by nonsense I mean for example:
If nobody’s hiring them, then A) there’s no incentive to come here, which is contrary to your argument that the city is enticing them, and B) if they’re not working, they’re not a threat to the labor market, as you imply later.
Your comment is nonsense because there is no logical progression through your argument. All you’re left with is self-contradictory ranting.
The anti-immigrant stuff ends here… take it to another forum.
Bob,
I don’t envy you for the moderator job on this blog.
Ron Swaren Says: Bob, I don’t envy you for the moderator job on this blog.
Except it pays so well!
Bob loves being the lord high emperor of this blog!
Oh yea, Bob is actually the second in command to the lord high emperor, but the real lord high emperor lets Bob rule the empire!
“Anti-immigrant bashing”
Well, Bob…I guess we know where you stand on an important legal issue, now.
I was referring to illegal aliens. Do you know the difference? And if an influx of such affects our transportation policies I think it is appropriate to raise it on this blog. I could easily pull up an article about how I-5 is becoming a major transit corridor for drug traffickers. Also relevant would be the costs to apprehend and punish these people, and the subsequent lack of funding for critical transportation needs.
“Your comment is nonsense because there is no logical progression through your argument. All you’re left with is self-contradictory ranting.”
Are you sure you might not have meant “contradictory ranting.” Putting the self in front of it would infer that I usually don’t rant (which is true, also)
Not logical to you perhaps…but then what do you know about socio-economics, mass movements, popular beliefs and mass hsyterias? (Oops I forgot, you live in Portland!)
Seriously, my underlying point is that, besides the needed calculation assuming that Portland attracts more people—there is also a current of vested interests that want Portland to attract even MORE people, so they can get more for themselves. Such people, I believe, have turned up lately in the Obama Admin, and elsewhere, as “economic advisors.” A case in point, was last fall’s METRO seminar on “Business as Usual” where the expert d’jour told the attendees to get ready for a MAJOR population increase in the US –to one billion people by 2100. Why?…. hasn’t the US birthrate leveled off?
Well, Bob…I guess we know where you stand on an important legal issue, now.
Nope, I specifically set aside my views on that issue when I responded to you, and said so.
No, in my opinion your remarks were not confined to only people who are in this country unlawfully.
That topic is closed. Period.
.And what value is your opinion, Bob? We’ve never even heard of you before.