Contractors Not Satisfied with Every Penny of Gas Tax, Want More


The Daily Journal of Commerce is reporting that contractors are griping that the Oregon Transportation Commission spent some stimulus dollars buying passenger rail cars rather than pouring it back into roads.


69 responses to “Contractors Not Satisfied with Every Penny of Gas Tax, Want More”

  1. Hoorah for the Transportation Commission. Railroads create new jobs and carry a lot of un-stressed folks. Kids love trains. Thanks

  2. This piece kinda shoots a big hole in the theory that it’s RAIL that’s built as a form of pork. The pigs at the trough are being loud and clear about what flavor of slop they want.

  3. Anyone want to tell us the cost per passenger-mile of passenger rail?

    I’ll bet it’s at least ten times the cost of a bus.

    PS: Roads go where we need to go, rails don’t and never will.

    Thanks
    JK

  4. That’s because we’ve spent billions of taxpayer dollars (robbed from the public by federal agents with guns, no less) building up a socialist road network.

    Rail, it was left to the private sector–and even with extravagant subsidy (free land), big business managed to screw it up.

    Or something like that. :)

  5. JK: PS: Roads go where we need to go, rails don’t and never will.

    You’ve never actually been on a train, have you? You’ve certainly never been on a rush hour MAX train, or the extra service trains after a Blazer game. Because, oddly enough, those trains that go nowhere useful are packed.

    http://tinyurl.com/myommu

    All those people with nowhere to go, apparently. And all the trains around the world, in developed countries and third world countries — all empty because they’re so useless.

  6. Dave H Says:
    (JK: I’ll bet it’s at least ten times the cost of a bus.)
    And I’ll bet you’re still leaving out tons of exterior costs.
    JK: Maybe, I just threw that out – why don’t you tell us how the energy per passenger-mile compares with buses? Then tell us how the cost compares.

    And since both use diesel (until you spend more billions to electrify them so that they can run on dirty coal) explain the difference one might expect in those left out “tons of exterior costs” between diesel buses and diesel trains.

    Looking forward to real data.
    JK
    PortlandFacts.com

  7. JK, now you like buses (as compared to trains)? But you were against my proposals to build ‘busways’ in Portland.

  8. Nick theoldurbanist Says:
    JK, now you like buses (as compared to trains)? But you were against my proposals to build ‘busways’ in Portland.
    JK: Please quit mis-representing what I said.
    Bus ways are almost as wasteful as toy trains in a city our size, just build sufficient road capacity and let the few buses share the road.

    AND help the needy by getting them into cars to improve their standard of living, reduce their commute times by almost 50% (nationally) and save money overall.

    BTW, do you happen to have the cost and energy comparison of diesel trains vs. diesel buses?

    Thanks
    JK

  9. Hey JK,

    If you’re the one claiming that a bus uses less energy per passenger mile than a train, you’re the one that needs to post the data for it. You shouldn’t expect other people to do your heavy lifting for you.

  10. Vancouver Resident Says:

    Hey JK,

    If you’re the one claiming that a bus uses less energy per passenger mile than a train, you’re the one that needs to post the data for it. You shouldn’t expect other people to do your heavy lifting for you.
    JK: I phrased it that way because I do not have time to do “the heavy lifting” right now. And we are talking about inter city buses, not transit.

    Thanks
    JK

  11. JK OK, here is some information:
    From Table 2.12, Passenger Travel and Energy Use, 2004, TRANSPORTATION ENERGY DATA BOOK: EDITION 26:

    Bus, Intercity, Data are not available.
    Rail, Intercity (Amtrak), 2,760 Btu per passenger-mile

    Well, that 2760 BTU/PM is pretty lousy. It is equal to a 19 mpg car with 2.4 passengers.
    ( 2.4 occupants/vehicle from: California High-Speed Train Program EIR/EIS Table 2-F-1)

    My recollection is that intercity bus is less than 1000 BTU/pm. But I’m sure Bob will chime in if it turns out that intercity buses use more energy than a 19 mpg car. Of course to do that a 6 mpg bus would have to have only around 7 passengers, which seems a bit low for intercity. Low even for transit which averages 13 in the big, dense, cities.

    Until proven otherwise, I think it is safe to say Amtrak uses a lot more energy per passenger-mile than buses. And both use diesel, so there is no differences there.

    Thanks
    JK

  12. JK: This source (1) lists Intercity buse energy at 953 BTU/pm. A number so far below Amtrak that better data probably will not change the conclusion that Amtrak is does not save energy.

    Anyone want to claim that Amtrak saves money compared to buses?

    In fact, this source places Amtrak just about equal to cars.

    After looking at these energy numbers, it is fun to look at an Amtrak supporter’s claim of energy saving with Amtrak:
    Increased Amtrak Energy Efficiency Strengthens Case for More Trains

    The National Association of Railroad Passengers recently lauded the latest federal figures on transportation energy consumption which showed a 2.2 percent increase in Amtrak’s energy efficiency, making Amtrak 17.9 percent more efficient than airlines. Edition 27 of the annual Transportation Energy Data Book — compiled by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory for the U.S. Department of Energy — says Amtrak consumed 2,650 British Thermal Units (BTUs) per passenger-mile in 2006, versus 2,709 in 2005 — a 2.2 percent improvement.

    “Passenger trains have always been a highly energy efficient mode of travel,” said NARP Executive Director Ross B. Capon. “These figures and the public’s increased desire to park their cars and ride trains underscore the importance of immediately increasing investments in our national passenger train system as a key component of any rational energy policy.
    from:
    democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=398×435

    JK: Hey guys, why didn’t you mention buses?

    1: cnie.org/nle/crsreports/energy/eng-11.cfm

    Thanks
    JK

  13. TRANSPORTATION ENERGY DATA BOOK: EDITION 26

    First of all, that is available here, though they only have the one that’s actually current. But above the cited table, it says that “it is not possible to obtain truly comparable national energy intensities among modes” and that “there is a great deal of variability even within a mode”.

    And moreover, many people drive alone, meaning that a vehicle with 2.4 people is not the best comparison (not to mention that if people are traveling together, its free to add them to the car, unlike on Amtrak). Also, I’ve heard that Amtrak has many empty seats, meaning that people could usually be added to a train to make it more efficient. And if all the seats are full, its usually possible to add an extra car, and without needing another engine.

    cnie.org/nle/crsreports/energy/eng-11.cfm

    Updated 13 years and 3 days ago.

  14. The observation that a Honda Prius in the carpool lane is going to be more fuel-efficient (per passenger-mile) that a 40 foot bus with nobody in it but the driver and a drunk or three, is hardly novel or surprising. But that’s what JK’s statistics, cherry-picked as they are, supports: Single-passenger vehicles are more energy-efficient than a transit system which isn’t used.

    Compare that same Prius to a fully-loaded bus, though, and it’s no contest that the bus is more efficient.

    JK’s entire line of argument buttresses the need to increase funding for transit, so that there is sufficient quality of service that the vehicles aren’t empty much the time. When transit agencies (or lines) are being run mainly as social services–providing inconvenient rides to the small segment of the population that have no other choice–then yeah, its going to be inefficient.

    But the great paradox of transit–illustrated well by this mornings Oregonian article–adding service will frequently increase usage, including passenger density (passengers per revenue mile)–the common assumption is that the number of riders is fixed, and that adding service that doesn’t expand the network’s reach will necessary make the service more efficient.

    The same is true for highways. Adding lanes to a freeway will often increase traffic; as more people are attracted to the route. Unlike with freeways, though, where congestion is highly correlated with demand (each car on the road increases the chance of a breakdown or collision), adding more passengers to a train doesn’t make it run significantly slower or more likely to suffer a service disruption.

  15. [Moderator: First part of this comment, responding-to and augmenting Al’s comment, removed.]

    As for me, I am pro-transit, but very anti-rail transit when it comes to Portland (but certainly not everywhere), for various reasons I have described over the years.

  16. Jason McHuff Says: . . . above the cited table, it says that “it is not possible to obtain truly comparable national energy intensities among modes” and that “there is a great deal of variability even within a mode”.
    JK: When bus beats rail by about a 3:1 margin, minor incompatabilities probably don’t matter.

    Do you have better data?

    Jason McHuff Says: And moreover, many people drive alone, meaning that a vehicle with 2.4 people is not the best comparison
    JK: That number is for long distance trips and came from a high speed rail study. Do you have something better?

    Jason McHuff Says: Also, I’ve heard that Amtrak has many empty seats, meaning that people could usually be added to a train to make it more efficient.
    JK: Of course. Adding more people to automobiles make them more energy efficient too. What is your point? USA trains are NOT FULL in the real world. If you want full trains, see India (youtube.com/watch?v=0ArN_KqFQa4) or Japan (youtube.com/watch?v=M4LG5k9xkRo).

    EngineerScotty Says: The observation that a Honda Prius in the carpool lane is going to be more fuel-efficient (per passenger-mile) that a 40 foot bus with nobody in it but the driver and a drunk or three, is hardly novel or surprising. But that’s what JK’s statistics, cherry-picked as they are, supports: Single-passenger vehicles are more energy-efficient than a transit system which isn’t used.
    JK: They are not cherry picked. The Amtrak number is from a well respected, Federal Government publication. The bus number is similar to others that I have seen.

    They do have one problem though: They are real world data on real world transport, not some theoretical “if we could just fill the trains” day dreaming.

    EngineerScotty Says: Compare that same Prius to a fully-loaded bus, though, and it’s no contest that the bus is more efficient.
    JK: Until you fully load that prius. Then is it is 5 passengers x 50 mpg = 250, in the ball park of a full bus.

    EngineerScotty Says: JK’s entire line of argument buttresses the need to increase funding for transit, so that there is sufficient quality of service that the vehicles aren’t empty much the time.
    JK: My guess is that better service will not improve energy efficiency. We cetainly DO know that higher dedsnity will do little as can be seen by looking at the top ten bus lines (based on annual passenger-miles) – they are araully worse than Trimet at being equal to a 20-24 MPG car.

    EngineerScotty Says: When transit agencies (or lines) are being run mainly as social services–providing inconvenient rides to the small segment of the population that have no other choice–then yeah, its going to be inefficient.
    JK: Why else run them? They cost more than cars. They use more energy than cars. They are slower than cars (average commute time to work on transit is about double that of driving, nationally)

    EngineerScotty Says: But the great paradox of transit–illustrated well by this mornings Oregonian article–adding service will frequently increase usage, including passenger density (passengers per revenue mile)
    JK: But will it ever be better than a car? NO, not if you look at the top ten bus agencies ib the USA. The overall average is actually worse than Triment for energy consumption and about the same for cost.

    EngineerScotty Says: –the common assumption is that the number of riders is fixed, and that adding service that doesn’t expand the network’s reach will necessary make the service more efficient.
    JK: Only to someone who had missed Tom Rubin’s lectures. When he headed the LA MTA finance division, they cut dumped LRT construction, cut fares and dramatically increased rideship.

    [Moderator: Reaction to Al’s personally-directed remark toward JK removed.]

    JK: Please remove al m’s personal attack.

    [Moderator: Personally-directed comment and subsequent debate of same have been removed. It’s a holiday weekend people, behave yourselves.]

    Thanks
    JK

  17. He removed it, which of course was expected.

    Don’t get all worked up Jim, we’re all pals aint we?

    When do I get my interview and you can defend yourself right to my face on camera!

    I CHALLENGE JIM KARLOCK TO AN ON CAMERA DEBATE!

  18. Certain people who shall remain unnamed seem to fall into the following definition when discussion the topic:

    Contractors Not Satisfied with Every Penny of Gas Tax, Want More

    gilmoreism

    1. Republican political philosophy characterized by extreme short-term thinking and manipulation of a single issue for temporary gain. 2. Fiscal misgovernment resulting from extreme short-term thinking and a shallow approach to social responsibility. 3. The combination of extreme short-term thinking with zealotry and manipulation of social and cultural issues like right-to-die cases. 4. The dominant philosophy of the Republican Party (USA) since the late 1990s.

  19. al m Says:
    Certain people who shall remain unnamed seem to fall into the following definition
    jk: “Certain people” – could that be you?

    It certainly isn’t me because I am not a republican.

    Maybe you are talking about Bob, but I kinda presume he is not a Republican either.

    BTW, did you notice that your point 3:
    Fiscal misgovernment resulting from extreme short-term thinking and a shallow approach to social responsibility.
    applies to people who promote expensive, energy wasting mass transit as an alternative to our current auto fleet instead of promoting low cost, small, energy efficient autos?

    Long term thinkers look at real data and realize that the, almost century long, trend of transit usage is down. Mostly because cars have gotten cheaper compared to transit and will likely continue to do so. Especially with the probable introduction of under $10k Chinese models. This will allow more low income people to own cars and improve their standard of living. One can even postulate cars so cheap that they are less expensive than subsidized transit fares, instead of merely cheaper than the actual transit costs as is the situation today for small economy cars.

    Long term thinkers observe that people value their time, and transit commute times are generally a lot longer than car commutes based on data from all USA cities over 500,000 population.

    Long term thinkers realize that over the last 40 years autos have gotten more efficient and buses less.

    Long term thinkers look at several hundred years of real world data and realize that a majority of people move to the suburbs as soon as they can afford it. The invention of the auto merely allowed cheap commutes for the average person. Previously, only the rich could live outside of the crowded, crime riddled, disease riddled, bad schooled cities. (Yes the disease part has been less of a problem lately, especially after the replacement of horses by cars.)

    Long term thinkers know that the word “suburbs” means beyond the wall as in beyond the ancient city’s wall. (Per Brugerman.)

    So tell me, al m, what do you think is the long term future of mass transit in view of the facts that transit costs much more than cars, is slower than cars (even in dense urbanized areas) and doesn’t reduce energy consumption?

    Exactly what is the social good of mass transit, other than exporting parking from the central city (which ought to be paid by the central city residents/businesses) and welfare (when low income people might be better and more cheaply served by subsidized cars and “transportation stamps” for those unable to drive)? And please don’t accuse me of proposing ending transit – this is a speculative statement of the possibility of serving people better with other options.

    Thanks
    JK

  20. Adding more people to automobiles make them more energy efficient too

    The problem is that for someone to do that, they have to go and find other people who are traveling the same direction at the same time and are also willing to share the ride. And if the train is already running and there’s room on it, than adding people to the train consumes virtually no additional energy. If there’s not room, another car can usually be added to the train. Lastly, I don’t think anyone is proposing that trains be filled as far as they physically can as in other countries.

    Oh, and regarding long-term thinking, what about the prospect of loosing a cheap supply of oil? And what about the pollution (both air and water) that burning oil causes?

  21. Mr Karlock,

    As you know, people such as you and I have been going around and around in circles right here in this forum,for years!

    Let’s do this in person face to face, in a simulated debate.

    I’m not gonna argue with you using the written word anymore, cause we will just go round and round forever.

    We’ve gotta get beyond this circular debate somehow, this could be one way to get through the communication barrier.

  22. Furthermore I think Bob R deserves an award for putting up with all of us for so many years!

    I don’t know how he does it to be honest.

    We should all get together and buy him some sort of a appreciation dinner, maybe make an official presentation to him:

    Award

  23. JK: Long term thinkers look at several hundred years of real world data and realize that a majority of people move to the suburbs as soon as they can afford it. The invention of the auto merely allowed cheap commutes for the average person. Previously, only the rich could live outside of the crowded, crime riddled, disease riddled, bad schooled cities. (Yes the disease part has been less of a problem lately, especially after the replacement of horses by cars.)

    First of all, the “majority of people” do not move to the suburbs and never did. Your description of the urban/suburban world is right out of the 60s (or maybe the 19th Century, given the business about horses). At any rate, here has been a notable shift in the other direction, JK.

    http://tinyurl.com/pc8ben

    Demographer William H. Frey calls to our attention a striking turnaround in population growth in the central cities of metropolitan areas. Since the 2005-06 peak of the housing construction boom in the United States, the growth rates of central cities have begun to gain ground on surrounding suburban areas. Beginning with 2005 and ending with population estimates reported by the Census Bureau for mid-year 2008, Frey illustrates a convergent city-suburb trend for U.S. metropolitan areas having a population over one million. These trends hold for all four major U.S. regions—North, Midwest, South, and West. (The 12-state Midwest population performance is shown below).

    http://tinyurl.com/nxlrfg

    Shifting conditions in the U.S. housing market — punctuated recently by wholesale suburban foreclosures, empty city coffers, escalating crime, traffic woes and other weaknesses in “edge city” — are making urban life desirable and fashionable again.

    Hence, a host of urban villages and transit towns are rising from Seattle to Miami, offering a mix of residential and commercial uses to accommodate America’s retreat to Main Street. Driving the “New Urbanist” push is the shrinking American per-household population, which fell from an average of 3.3 people per home in 1960 to a 2009 average of just 2.6, says Scott Bernstein, president of the Chicago-based Center for Neighborhood Technology, which promotes sustainable urban living. “Demographers don’t expect that number to go up for a very long time, probably 50 to 100 years,” he says.

    More people are delaying marriage and childbearing, “plus, there are also a lot of single parents and baby boom empty nesters out there looking for the right-size residence,” Bernstein says. “And these folks want to feel more connected than they were in those isolating suburbs.” At the same time, retirees are living longer “and deciding to have a life” instead of moving into a retirement home, he says.

    Dan Burden, senior urban designer for Orlando, Fla.-based Glatting Jackson Kercher Anglin and executive director of Walkable Communities Inc., says the judicious choice of a mixed-use urban development can help households save 50 percent or more on transportation expenses, especially those with adjacent rail-transit service. Burden says the number of miles driven in 2008 in the United States fell 3.6 percent nationally and hasn’t risen this year despite cheaper gas. “Gas price levels are destined to rise above $4 again. It’s inevitability,” he says.

    Pedestrian-oriented living quarters can also make their tenants happier and even healthier. “These are also communities where people can be more physically active and become more socially engaged. They are getting out, seeing people, and bicycling or walking to the park,” Burden says. Homes in such live-work-shop-play environments “tend to cost more, but they give you more value per square foot,” he says. They are also environmentally friendly because of their sustainable designs and diminished reliance on the automobile.

    As for your characterization of urban life, take a look in this very region at where the sharp increases in crime have occurred: Rockwood, Gresham and even Beaverton. In other words, the suburbs.

    JK: Long term thinkers observe that people value their time, and transit commute times are generally a lot longer than car commutes based on data from all USA cities over 500,000 population.

    It all depends, of course, on the length of the commute. People living in the city, whose jobs are in the city, certainly don’t fit this generalization. And if all the people currently commuting from the suburbs on transit shifted to automobiles, the commute time for autos would obviously increase exponentially. If you honestly think that auto commutes are a good thing, I’d suggest you stand on the Alberta overpass some day around 5 pm. Or stand on one of the Banfield MAX platforms at 7:30 am before boarding a train that will get you into downtown a lot faster than the cars on I-84 (nor require you to find or pay for parking).

  24. Jason McHuff Says: (JK: Adding more people to automobiles make them more energy efficient too)

    The problem is that for someone to do that, they have to go and find other people who are traveling the same direction at the same time and are also willing to share the ride.
    JK: Trains have the same problem! They are having trouble finding riders. Perhaps it is because they are slower than planes and cost more than the bus.

    Jason McHuff Says: And if the train is already running and there’s room on it, than adding people to the train consumes virtually no additional energy.
    JK: Same situation as cars.

    Jason McHuff Says: Oh, and regarding long-term thinking, what about the prospect of loosing a cheap supply of oil? And what about the pollution (both air and water) that burning oil causes?
    JK: I hope you noticed that trains, like cars, use oil too. But don’t worry, peak oil is also wrong. People who believe in peak oil know neither economics (supply goes up with price) or chemistry (you can make the stuff) or history(Hitler ran a war on manmade oil)..

    al m Says:
    Mr Karlock,
    As you know, people such as you and I have been going around and around in circles right here in this forum,for years!
    JK: Not really, you lose one argument then go on to another. This request of yours is just another attempt to change the subject after losing the argument for trains based on energy and/or cost.

    al m Says: We’ve gotta get beyond this circular debate somehow, this could be one way to get through the communication barrier.
    JK: Stick to facts from credible sources and quit reading lies from the transit-developer corporate complex. They are trying to get rich by peddling high density and toy trains. Like most salesmen they grab on to anything that comes along to justify buying their line – hence density solves every ill of man. Just like the snake oil salesmen – it cure all ills.

    JeffF Says:
    JK: Long term thinkers look at several hundred years of real world data and realize that a majority of people move to the suburbs as soon as they can afford it.

    First of all, the “majority of people” do not move to the suburbs and never did.
    JK: How come the majority of the people no longer live in the old central cities like Portland, instead live in the suburbs like Gresham, Beaverton, Vancouver etc?

    JeffF Says: Your description of the urban/suburban world is right out of the 60s (or maybe the 19th Century, given the business about horses). At any rate, here has been a notable shift in the other direction, JK.
    JK: I’ll spare everyone quoting your two links and just point out that a two year, tiny blip, does not reverse a multi-hundred year trend.

    JeffF Says: It all depends, of course, on the length of the commute. People living in the city, whose jobs are in the city, certainly don’t fit this generalization.
    JK: It is not a generalization. It is real data from the real world. An average of ALL USA urban areas over 500,000 population. That is the real world.

    JeffF Says: And if all the people currently commuting from the suburbs on transit shifted to automobiles, the commute time for autos would obviously increase exponentially. If you honestly think that auto commutes are a good thing, I’d suggest you stand on the Alberta overpass some day around 5 pm. Or stand on one of the Banfield MAX platforms at 7:30 am before boarding a train that will get you into downtown a lot faster than the cars on I-84 (nor require you to find or pay for parking).
    JK: Once again. I gave real world data. Not some planners if…then dream of the way they think the world should be. Experience has shown modern city planners to be wrong about almost all of their beliefs.

    Since you mentioned the Banfield, I should remind you that the MAX carries about 1/3 of one lane of traffic worth of people, but costs more than adding a lane of traffic. Another example of light rail costing too much and doing too little.

    Thanks
    JK

  25. JK: How come the majority of the people no longer live in the old central cities like Portland, instead live in the suburbs like Gresham, Beaverton, Vancouver etc?

    US Census Bureau 2006 estimates:

    Beaverton, 89,643
    Gresham, 97,105
    Portland, 537,081

    Majority? There’s something wrong with your math, JK.

    I gave you real world data about population shifts, which you ignore.

    JK: Once again. I gave real world data. Not some planners if…then dream of the way they think the world should be. Experience has shown modern city planners to be wrong about almost all of their beliefs.

    It’s not “if…then”, JK. People commute in what is available. Take them out of the train and bus and they’ll have to get to work somehow. Did you think they’d teleport?

    Your last sentence is an unsupported generalization.

    JK: I’ll spare everyone quoting your two links and just point out that a two year, tiny blip, does not reverse a multi-hundred year trend.

    The last few hundred years have been a history of people moving to the city from the country, JK. You don’t get to make up a story about the reverse. Again, the US Census Bureau:

    1900, Urban 39.6%, Rural 60.4%
    1930, Urban 56.1%, Rural 43.9%
    1950, Urban 64%, Rural 36%
    1990, Urban 75.2%, Rural 25.8%

    Your choice to “skip” the links doesn’t make them go away. And this is clearly not a blip because it’s driven by demographics:

    Driving the “New Urbanist” push is the shrinking American per-household population, which fell from an average of 3.3 people per home in 1960 to a 2009 average of just 2.6, says Scott Bernstein, president of the Chicago-based Center for Neighborhood Technology, which promotes sustainable urban living. “Demographers don’t expect that number to go up for a very long time, probably 50 to 100 years,” he says.

    JK: Since you mentioned the Banfield, I should remind you that the MAX carries about 1/3 of one lane of traffic worth of people, but costs more than adding a lane of traffic. Another example of light rail costing too much and doing too little.

    Except that light rail carries that volume of people in a much shorter time when it counts: rush hour.

  26. “”””al m Says:
    Mr Karlock,
    As you know, people such as you and I have been going around and around in circles right here in this forum,for years!
    JK: Not really, you lose one argument then go on to another. This request of yours is just another attempt to change the subject after losing the argument for trains based on energy and/or cost.””””

    ???????????

  27. Russian to English translation

    ??????????? = Madman

    ?????????????? = lunatic

    You are in violation of the comment posting policies.

    I’m telling Bob R. on you.

  28. “Except that light rail carries that volume of people in a much shorter time when it counts: rush hour.”

    >>>>
    Except that articulated hybrid buses on a busway could carry more than MAX, and be much more flexible, branching out to serve various destinations in the process.

  29. JeffF Says: JK: How come the majority of the people no longer live in the old central cities like Portland, instead live in the suburbs like Gresham, Beaverton, Vancouver etc?

    US Census Bureau 2006 estimates:

    Beaverton, 89,643
    Gresham, 97,105
    Portland, 537,081

    Majority? There’s something wrong with your math, JK.
    JK: Not really. There is something wrong with your claim.
    The Portland MSA is around 1.5 million people. Your Portland number is 1/3 of that.

    Case made.

    BTW, is said the “old central city” That would be Portland before they annexed a lot of what is now Portland. Bottom line: most of the growth is in the “suburbs” not central city and not rural.

    JeffF Says: The last few hundred years have been a history of people moving to the city from the country, JK. You don’t get to make up a story about the reverse. Again, the US Census Bureau:

    1900, Urban 39.6%, Rural 60.4%
    1930, Urban 56.1%, Rural 43.9%
    1950, Urban 64%, Rural 36%
    1990, Urban 75.2%, Rural 25.8%

    JK: You introduce a red herring. I said nothing about rural. I said central city & suburb. That was and still is a correct statement.

    JeffF Says: Your choice to “skip” the links doesn’t make them go away. And this is clearly not a blip because it’s driven by demographics:
    JK: Two years does not revers a multi century trend. Quit pretending otherwise.
    As to “driven by demographics”, that is a conclusion, not proof of anything.

    JeffF Says: (JK: Since you mentioned the Banfield, I should remind you that the MAX carries about 1/3 of one lane of traffic worth of people, but costs more than adding a lane of traffic. Another example of light rail costing too much and doing too little.)

    Except that light rail carries that volume of people in a much shorter time when it counts: rush hour.
    JK: Then how come the express bus was faster that the toy train on the Banfield?
    And I might add, if that money had been spent on road capacity, there probably still would be no congestion problem.

    And I might add this tidbit from the journey to work census data for principal cities in the Portland urbanized area:

    Car, truck or van…….21.6 home-to-work commute time (minutes)
    Transit…………………..38.2 home-to-work commute time (minutes)

    Thanks to Tom Rubin. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survery, 2005-2007, Tables B01003 (Total Population),B08136 (Aggregate Travel Time to Work of Workers [16 or older] by Means of Transportation to Work), and and B08536 (Means of Transportation to Work [16 and older]), accessed September 2, 2009: http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DatasetMainPageServlet?_program=ACS&_submenuId=&_lang=en&_ts=

    Thanks
    JK

  30. Nick theoldurbanist Says:

    “Except that light rail carries that volume of people in a much shorter time when it counts: rush hour.”
    >>>>
    Except that articulated hybrid buses on a busway could carry more than MAX, and be much more flexible, branching out to serve various destinations in the process.
    JK: Or you could save money and serve more people by putting them in new general purpose lanes that have adequate capacity to be free flowing.

    It is the separate right of way that makes both LRT & BRT non-economic.

    Thanks
    JK

  31. al m Says:
    The following post meets the PORTLAND TRANSPORT RULES AND REGULATIONS!

    JK:
    1. The title of that page is a personal attack on my state of mind.
    2. That al m is using personal attacks, shows that he has run out of rational arguments.
    3. It also shows al m’s sense of fair play and give and take in a rational debate.

    For more information about the topics I pursue, please see:

    SavePortland.com
    PortlandFacts.com
    SustainableOregon.com

    Thanks
    JK

  32. al,

    I know Jim, he is no lunatic.
    The lunatics around here run the PDC, TriMet. Metro and the Port of Portland.
    Among other government institutions.

    Jim records and reports on their lousy policies and parade of lies.

    Many of which you have agreed with the critisism.

    Now behave.

  33. John E-

    I’m just trying to taunt him into a live debate!

    Come on Jim K, you know I love you, its “just business”.

    I bet you can whip my arse in a debate anyway, so lets do it!

    And the title of the page is no concern of Portland Transport.

    My post meets the regulations, that is the post itself is not offensive, just a link.

    They have no control over the link as long as it is relevant to the discussion, which it is!

  34. Sorry, al m.
    Why would you think that I would be interested in debating someone who likes to name call, insult people and who does not respect the facts?

    Not interested.

    Thanks
    JK

    Thanks
    JK

  35. slower than planes and cost more than the bus

    Even when you include time getting to the airport and getting onto the plane, and then getting from the other airport to your destination? Let’s ignore long-distance trips, which by the way, is not what the trains that are the subject would serve. In fact, you can’t get a commercial flight between Salem and Portland. And if railroads were treated like the Interstate Highway System, getting tons of financing and not required to pay property taxes, trains would be faster. Lastly, trains are far more comfortable than both planes and buses, and can allow people to get real work done.

    Also, its a lot easier for someone to take a train (or a bus) than to find someone who is driving to or past the same destination at the same time.

    Then how come the express bus was faster that the toy train on the Banfield?

    First of all, I might be able to get a copy of the old schedules; I do have a map here. But if the bus was faster, it was probably because it was an express bus and did not serve all the intermediate places that MAX does. Furthermore, the bus probably ran only during rush hours and was useless to people traveling at other times. Moreover, the bus wouldn’t have resulted in things like the Rose Garden. Oh, and I’d bet that people in the surrounding neighborhoods wouldn’t like the increased pollution that a widened freeway would bring, or the extra traffic on surface streets getting to and from it.

    And I don’t see how something that people board 107,400 times a day (I can calculate the portion just along the Banfield if you want) can be called a “toy”.

    It is the separate right of way that makes both LRT & BRT non-economic.

    It is the separate right-of-way that make them reliable and attractive to riders. In addition, that results in increased overall capacity vs. buses providing the same amount of capacity in regular traffic. Moreover, if drivers had to pay for things like pollution clean-up, “free” parking, the cost of crashes and all the other things that they consume and cause, separate right-of-ways might not be needed to avoid congestion.

  36. It is the separate right-of-way that make them reliable and attractive to riders.

    And, people balk at the cost of this separate right-of-way all the time.

    However, tell some of them how much a new road (or maintaining an old one) costs, even if it costs more than a proposed piece of transit infrastructure, and they’ll say “it’s worth every penny.”

    The only exception to this locally that I know of was the proposed Portland Street Maintenance Fee (Tax), where everyone heard how much it would cost and said no!

  37. JK: You introduce a red herring. I said nothing about rural. I said central city & suburb. That was and still is a correct statement.

    There is no centuries-long trend to move from urban to suburban, JK. Suburbs are a very modern innovation, regardless of your attempt to drag Latin in to legitimize a ridiculous claim.

    JK: Two years does not revers a multi century trend. Quit pretending otherwise.

    See above. There is no multi-century trend other than rural to urban. Quit pretending otherwise.

    BTW, is said the “old central city” That would be Portland before they annexed a lot of what is now Portland. Bottom line: most of the growth is in the “suburbs” not central city and not rural.

    The old central city is full, JK. It’s full because people wanted to move there; the suburbs have been increasing in size because people wanted to live in proximity to the city. Some portion of those people would have preferred a home in the city and neither you or I can claim to know which or how many. In other words, your claim that “most people” move to the suburbs as soon as they can is still unsubstantiated.

  38. Jeff: Suburbs are a very modern innovation, regardless of your attempt to drag Latin in to legitimize a ridiculous claim.
    JK: Oh, you mean like Ladd’s Addition, built on farmland.
    Sunnyside, built on farmland.
    Brooklyn, built on farmland.
    Buckman, built on farmland.
    Hosford-Abernethy, built on farmland.
    Kerns, built on farmland.
    Laurelhurst, built on farmland.
    Richmond, built on farmland.
    Sunnyside, built on farmland.

    Those were mostly or all built outside the city on farmland and were sprawl before the auto allegedly corrupted people and allegedly distorted our policies toward sprawl.

    What the streetcar, then the auto did was allow people to live where the wanted instead of in the central city. The auto merely did what the streetcar did, cheaper and faster. That’s why streetcars disappeared even in cities that GM didn’t influence.

    Thanks
    JK

  39. Jeff: Suburbs are a very modern innovation, regardless of your attempt to drag Latin in to legitimize a ridiculous claim.
    JK: Oh, you mean like Ladd’s Addition, built on farmland.

    Do I really need to go through each of those, one by one? Or just start with Ladd’s, which wasn’t subdivided into housing until the area had been incorporated into Portland. So it had already become “urban” before anyone moved in. So much for the escape to the “suburbs.”

    The area known as Laurelhurst had already been annexed by the city before the land was platted, most of it more than a decade earlier.

    These neighborhoods were never “suburbs”. The city was surrounded by farmland (shocker!) and as it expanded the farmland was turned into residential neighborhoods.

    And, remember, you claimed this was a “centuries long” trend and you’ve got a long way to go to substantiate that.

  40. On reflection, the choice of Ladd’s Addition and Laurelhurst as examples of early “sprawl” were particularly ill-chosen. One has only to ride through Ladd’s to see the elaborate effort that went into planning the layout of streets–which were intended to emulate the layout of Washington, DC.

    Laurelhurst is an even poorer example because it was a highly-planned neighborhood of high-end homes. No apartments, no commercial development, no alcohol and no people of color. The project was designed by one of Portland’s most famous architects. So much for planners always getting it wrong.

  41. It would be interesting to know what JK means by “suburb”:

    Does he mean an unincorporated area or separate municipality which is not within the city limits of the “primary” city–i.e. Wilsonville or Aloha?

    Or does he refer to any lower-density residential area, where one is more likely to find single-family homes and small apartment complexes as opposed to high-rise buildings?

  42. It would be interesting to know what JK means by “suburb”:

    From what I’ve read it would include some of the densest neighborhoods in Portland, including those just west of NW 23rd.

  43. Scotty, just to clarify, Wilsonville is an incorporated city while Aloha is an unincorporated portion of urban Washington County (although parts have been incorporated by Beaverton and Hillsboro). Frankly, I think the discussion of “urban” v. “suburban” is largely semantics.

    Urban-style and suburban-style might be a better way of describing these things. As has been noted, much of present-day Portland was developed outside as either separate cities (The City of East Portland anyone) or as unincorporated Multnomah County (a la east of 92nd).

    The development patterns often had more to do with the time they were developed (1920s v. 1950s v. 1980s) rather than whether they were in Portland or Beaverton. Portland, being the main urban area from which most of the population expanded, has a distinct form because of when it was built. I’ve joked that I live in the Portland neighborhood of Tigard (my zip code is actually a Portland zip code). If Portland hadn’t opted not to annex large sections outside of Multnomah County my residence may well have ended up being annexed much like the house my Mom grew up in on 104th and Division.

  44. Jason Barbour Says:
    And, people balk at the cost of this separate right-of-way all the time.

    However, tell some of them how much a new road (or maintaining an old one) costs, even if it costs more than a proposed piece of transit infrastructure, and they’ll say “it’s worth every penny.”
    JK:
    That’s because the cost is not the total cost of the right-of-way. It is the cost per user.

    Hear is one example from the DEIS of the proposed mega project I-5 CRC:

    Capital cost of building road capacity for each of the 81,000 current automobile riders for the life of the bridge: $26,222 per current daily road user.

    Capital cost of building LRT capacity for each of the 1650 current transit riders for the life of the bridge: $461,818 per current daily transit user.

    That 18:1 difference is cost is why light rail a toy – it costs too much and does too little

    Thanks
    JK

  45. for each of the 1650 current transit riders

    First of all, use is measured in one-way trips and not round trips. There are many reasons why someone who travels in a certain way going one direction would not return the same way the same day. But moreover, that number fails to take into account any people who might switch to MAX from driving.

  46. But moreover, that number fails to take into account any people who might switch to MAX from driving.
    JK: That is correct. It is a real world number, not a speculation. Not a planner’s dream. Not a hope of a social engineer. It is reality instead.

    As to mode switching – why would people switch to a toy train that will be slower than driving and, more importantly, not going where they need to go?

    Thanks
    jk

  47. Energy Losses

    The link above breaks down the energy losses in a typical automobile.

    Of note is that the rubber tires of an automobile are about 4.2% of total energy losses. So, comparing steel wheel to rubber wheel for diesel trans and diesel multi-car articulated buses gets you the 4.2% difference, everything else being equal.

    But, if you lay steel track, then you can get the electrical rails as part of the bargain. Then you are comparing electric drive with 40% energy loss to diesel with about 60% energy loss. I do not know of anything other than overhead wires to get electricity to buses. And remember, you might just have a stationary diesel generator making electricity to send down the overhead wires.

    However, technology is cheap and I can use digital wheel guidance and pull up to my house in a 10 car articulated bus, with no tracks. So, other than energy, the steel vs rubber debate becomes silicon based intelligent wheel guidance vs steel rail guidance.

    All other comparisons depend on how you manage the system.

  48. As to mode switching – why would people switch to a toy train that will be slower than driving and, more importantly, not going where they need to go?

    It’ll open up the route to people who would never go there. I have friends that live in the Couv, but I won’t bother going any way that isn’t driving. The current system requires taking MAX to Jantzen Beach, switching to a bus to get to Downtown Vancouver, then switching to the bus that actually gets you where you’re going. Removing that extra transfer would make me a lot more willing to take transit up there.

    I’m sure there are people in Vancouver who feel the same way.

  49. JK:“Those were mostly or all built outside the city on farmland and were sprawl before the auto allegedly corrupted people and allegedly distorted our policies toward sprawl.”

    ws:Nice try, Jim. But one of the biggest components of sprawl is “leap frog development” For all intensive purposes, those developments worked their way outward from the city center within the context of the city’s urban morphology, especially the main arterial roads.

    Now, counter that with suburbia suburbs, and one realizes that a lot of the developments fit the criteria of “leapfrog development” built far out from the city center, sometimes at the very, very edge of the UGB, and has street patterns that have dead ends and do not fully connect with the rest of the urban pattern. They can’t connect with the existing street patterns because there are none in the first place!

    Then, new development occurs years later and it tries to fit in between the cracks of even newer randomly placed developments. The suburbs of Portland mostly moved outward concentrically, not so in suburbia, unless you’re counting the original street grid systems developed in the 1800s-1990s (Beaverton, Hillsboro, Tigard all have these areas).

    Let’s not conflate suburbia with suburb..

    Oh, and who cares if something was built on farmland? The way I see it, if whatever is built is better than what was lost, i.e. farmland or natural areas, then there’s not an issue at all. You’re left with a nice environment even in the wake of losing natural spaces or farmland.

    Portland Neighborhoods > Farm and Natural Areas

    Now compare that with la-la land of Washington County, and it’s quickly realized that there is no development done in the 1950s onward that resembles Fremont, Laurelhurst, or Ladd’s.

    What has occurred in Portland’s surrounding cities is absolute environmental and farmland degredation. And for what? Strip malls and McMansions? Developments that won’t be preserved 50 years down the line once they come into disrepair? What a waste of resources and land.

    To test my theory, suppose Laurelhurst magically disappeared one day. I’d think people would notice that and build it exactly the same. Suppose some random development in Beaverton disappeared..would anyone even notice or build it exactly the same way? Not a chance in hell!

    That’s my test for assessing what’s of value in the built environment.

    PS: What is your criteria for assessing what is sprawl and what is not? Is it density alone? If so, I’d suggest you have a lot in common with planners.

  50. Given that I live in Beaverton, I think I’d notice. :)

    Actually, most of Beaverton’s development has occurred after the development of Oregon’s land use laws–back in the early 1970s (well before I lived here), Beaverton was a separate freestanding community from Portland. While the place has seen much conversion of farmland to residential in the interim, it’s been done under the auspicies of Metro. The problem with much of Beaverton (or other local suburbs on the Oregon side of the river), compared to parts of Portland such as Laurelhurt, isn’t a lack of density; it’s more a lack of mixed-use development, with highly-auto-centric concentrations of commercial development as a result. Quite a few parts of B-Town are a mile or more from any reasonable services (beyond a strategically-placed 7-11), and the grocery story has to have acres of parking.

    But the part of B-town where I live doesn’t have “acres of McMansions”–they’re there, certainly, but you can find similar tracts of residential-only upscale please-keep-commerce-and-traffic-away-from-my-door neighborhoods in Portland proper. (What is the difference, anyway, between a McMansion and a just plain mansion, other than issues of class aesthetics that aren’t really germaine to land use or transit discussions?)

  51. it’s more a lack of mixed-use development, with highly-auto-centric concentrations of commercial development as a result.
    JK: Do yo advocate doing all of your shopping at the little stores in mixed use developments instead of at Fred Meyer and WalMart? Do you advocate that people pay higher prices for their necessities of life?

  52. No, I didn’t say anything about patronizing mom-and-pop stores only, and avoiding the chains–that’s your projection.

    There are many successful Fred Meyer’s in urban environments.

    Wal-Mart is a bit more difficult, because the size of the stores they prefer to operate is hard to fit on a city block. Wal-Marts are successfully located in high-density areas in other cities. Portland poses unique challenges because many of our urban areas are populated with folks who would prefer not shop there for reasons unrelated to transit and mobility. :) (In other words, I’m going to avoid any Wal-Mart bashing in this thread…)

  53. JK, here’s what Scotty originally said:

    “it’s more a lack of mixed-use development”

    Please note that “lack of mixed-use” does not mean “everything MUST be mixed-use”.

    Back to your question, I’m not aware of any full-size Fred Meyer stores which are mixed-use, however there are at least two full-size Safeway stores which are indeed quite urban and very mixed-use, and well-patronized too.

  54. There are many successful Fred Meyer’s in urban environments.
    JK: Do any of them qualify as “mixed-use development”?

    There’s a Ralph’s (same ownership, Kroger) that’s the first floor of a high-rise in downtown San Diego near Horton Plaza.

    As for Portland, until they’re ready to replace their existing store on Burnside I don’t expect to see a real mixed-use Fred Meyer store in Portland. It’s too expensive to relocate a store for the sake of relocating. Maybe during the next real-estate boom they will, but at least the current location is well served by transit and is close to a lot of residences.

    Oh, and before they opened the new location in Vancouver next to Pearson Field they were looking at doing something as a mixed-use site in downtown, until Vancouver re-zoned the site they opened on to allow commercial development. Because of the proximity to the airports they were limited by height restrictions and noise restrictions from making it a mixed-use development, and it wasn’t worth spending more money on a downtown property. At least, that’s how it was explained to me why they opened where they did.

  55. JK:“Do yo advocate doing all of your shopping at the little stores in mixed use developments instead of at Fred Meyer and WalMart? Do you advocate that people pay higher prices for their necessities of life?”

    ws:“Necessities” of life? I’d put money on the fact that most people are not buying the necessities. Unless you consider a bag of Cheetos with 20% more than the original package to be “necessary”.

    I shop at Freddies, just sayin’ your comment is a major exaggeration.

  56. [Moderator: Personally-directed remark removed.]

    […] Electric trains on comparable routes use much less energy per passenger and per passenger-mile than diesel buses and cost much less to operate over their lifetimes, including annualized capital costs — for high capacity routes. He can look the numbers up in the DOE reports (avoid the recent one where they later apologized for screwing their computations up though!), or compute them well-to-wheel from first principles, or look at specific corridors (Hiawatha Line in Minneapolis), or whatever. It’s all very simple, but there are none so blind as those who Will Not See.

    Long term thinkers realize, having looked at actual surveys, that automobiles are fine and popular for trips with no congestion, but very unattractive for trips through congestion.

    Long term thinkers realize, having looked at actual data, that the trend is towards more and more congestion.

    Long term thinkers realize, having looked at actual data, that it is quite impossible to build enough roads to outpace rush-hour congestion without demolishing entire cities, but that it is quite possible to build enough rail lines.

    Long term thinkers realize that, for high-volume applications — which are the ones where automobiles become unattractive due to congestion — a train is cheaper to operate than a bus, and will always be cheaper to operate than a bus (for physics reasons) — and is more popular to boot (based on surveys).

    Jim should get out of his toy car and try riding a real train.

  57. Nathanael Says: […] Electric trains on comparable routes use much less energy per passenger and per passenger-mile than diesel buses and cost much less to operate over their lifetimes, including annualized capital costs — for high capacity routes.
    JK: Care to tell us the source for this claim & the particulars, IE: light or heavy rail. Short or long distance between stations? One line or an average of all USA lines? I have looked at the average of all USA light rail lines ane found that they didn’t save energy compared to readily available cars. (They do save energy compared to the current average USA cars.)

    Nathanael Says: It’s all very simple, but there are none so blind as those who Will Not See.
    JK: Is this a “Personally-directed remark”?

    Thanks
    JK

Leave a Reply to ws Cancel reply

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