The (PDF, 2.3M) recommendations of the Independent Review Panel for the Columbia River Crossing are out. I have not had time to review them yet, but both the Governor and Mayor Adams are already spinning it.
The (PDF, 2.3M) recommendations of the Independent Review Panel for the Columbia River Crossing are out. I have not had time to review them yet, but both the Governor and Mayor Adams are already spinning it.
63 responses to “CRC Independent Review Panel Releases Report”
Basically, and in 300 pages:
* We need the bridge
* We need LRT on the bridge
* There’s much work to do in planning
* The present leadership structure for the project is causing difficult decisions to get kicked down the road.
* It’s a 100 year facility, so longer-term needs must be considered.
Sam Adams disagrees with the last point; more specifically pointing out that if 100 years of demand are to be considered (something that no forecaster would try and predict), the same standard should apply to all modes, not just auto lanes.
I found the communications aspects to be a fascinating comedy of errors. I posted a few thoughts over here:
http://www.civics21.org/index.php/2010/07/30/columbia-river-crossing-public-communication-must-be-two-way/
Beyond that, there’s a lot in the report worth mining They talk a lot about possible options for phasing the project, as well as raise significant issues about the engineering of the bridge design. It might be worth assembling some alternate phasing proposals from the suggestions of the IRP. THey do lay one of their own out at one point, but there could be a number of different approaches. However, all of them, in my interpretation, seem to rest on a three-span approach rather than a two-span approach.
I know how the story ends: The 800 lb. gorilla in the room wins again. And gets another $42 million, thanks to Gov. Chris….
EngineerScotty Says:
* We need LRT on the bridge
JK: Please point me to the place where they made this recommendation.
Thanks
JK
Interesting major flaw in the current design (bold added):
(STHB=Stacked Transit/Highway Bridge)
Since the publication of the Draft EIS the LPA has been modified considerably. Most significant of the modifications is the change in structure type for the main bridges across the Columbia River. This change from a closed box segmental design to the open- web STHB approach is substantial. It reflects a departure from a standard structure type used across the nation to one that has never been built anywhere in the world and which will require extensive testing and engineering to determine its viability for this project. The STHB accommodates the light rail transit within one of the bridges and the open-web design eliminates the confined attributes of segmental box configuration.
The IRP determined several key things about the open-web STHB including:
The clearance issues associated with river traffic and aviation associated with Pearson
Field and Portland International Airport offer constraints that make reasonable bridge
solutions difficult.
* No CEVP has been done on the current design. Past CEVP efforts were conducted on a
version of the bridge that is no longer under consideration for the CRC.
* The earlier Constructability Workshop reviewed a previous version of the bridge as well.
* Current cost estimates are for a previous bridge type and thus do not reflect the actual
cost of the STHB.
* FHWA and others will require substantial testing and evaluation of the open-web STHB
prior to its final approval for this project.
———————-
Oh, and this:
The IRP is unable to assess the accuracy of the cost estimate for the project. The value of past efforts to determine an accurate cost has been largely negated due to the change in bridge type and the continuing controversy regarding Hayden Island. Until a resolution to these two issues is achieved and further completion of the NEPA process is achieved the total cost of the project is unknown with any certainty. Conducting a new CEVP and other cost estimation activities are necessary to rectify this situation.
IRC Final Report July 27, 2010 Page 194 up
Thanks
JK
JK: Page 13, in the Executive Summary, in the “Table of Findings”, midway down the page:
Now it might be argued that this is a political conclusion–that the politics of the project are such that the project is DOA without a light rail component–it gets built or not at all. (Likewise, they make the same point about the freeway component–a LRT/supplemental bridge, without functional improvements on I-5, simply won’t be built, no matter how much Sam Adams may like otherwise).
But it’s right there in the report. Much more detail is found in the body of the thing.
One thing about project phasing–an issue, I think, is a lack of trust among the players. Suppose it is decided that the transit and pedestrian components are to be on a separate structure from the highway (and there are legit technical reasons to do so). A possible phasing might be to build the highway part first, then tear down the existing bridges, then build the transit bridge in its place.
The question is–is there sufficient trust that the project will be completed? Often times, when a project is constructed in phases, only phase 1 ever gets built–with subsequent phases pushed out indefinitely. Sometimes this is a reasonable outcome, when there is broad agreement among all the stakeholders of a project as to what is the highest priority–in many cases, the lower priority parts turn out to not be necessary. For example, the rebuilding of the OR217/I-5 interchange has a planned Phase 2 and 3, which would eliminate the merge/weave problems on 217 S and add a direct ramp from 217S to I-5 N; but neither of these is funded nor likely to be built in the foreseeable future.
However, were a phased construction plan to be advanced for the CRC, with the new highway bridge being built first–I’m sure that the possibility of transit opponents trying to cancel the LRT bridge once the highway bridge is built (or vice versa), are possibilities which make phasing unattractive.
The short story here appears to be that after spending $100 million on planning, the CRC planners have produced a bridge design that has never been built anywhere in the world and we have no idea how much it will cost.
I suspect another $100 million will be spent planning and no CRC will get built in our lifetime.
Scotty,
I’d be among those who view the “finding that light rail transit (LRT) is an essential component” to be an observation of the political demands and conceptual thinking.
The presumption of LRT contributing to the long-term mobility needs of the region is an agenda driven presumption.
This presumption then equates the idea that a LRT bridge without freeway improvements would be no worse than a freeway bridge without LRT.
Of course that’s a stacked notion. The bulk of uses is vehicular and a tiny fraction would use LRT. But the politics of stuffing the LRT mode with added value with additional presumptions of better land use inflates the mode to equal road capacity demands and needs.
I’m more alarmed at the latest design and how it ultimately will kill the project.
It appears that the design change is from attempting to omit the separate span for light rail and cram it into a single structure. This effort to suppress the cost attributed to LRT by combining the two spans will likely result in big delays and a higher cost than separate spans, with the attempt to leave structural changes to the freeway bridge not attributed to LRT.
Because of LRT as this pans out the estimates for both for the overall project and the LRT will become more outrageous and entirely unfeasible.
The only hope is the phasing, without any assurances LRT will be added.
You have to know that Vancouver, at large, does not want Light Rail or any of the Portland “Legacy” baggage it brings.(MAX with Beaverton Round model)
Certainly not the TriMet model for C-Tran.
The killers of this project are those who demand LRT be included.
It is certain that in a phased approach “with the new highway bridge being built first” that RAIL transit opponents would try to cancel the LRT bridge.
But contrary to your portrayal of them as “transit opponents”, transit in the region will be healthier without more of the high cost LRT. I am pro-transit along with all of those commenting at recent TriMet Board meetings.
I view LRT proponents as anti-transit and there is much more evidence in the current state of affairs at TriMet that’s supports my viewpoint.
All of the circumstances regarding TriMet and MLR project carry over to the CRC with all of the same problems.
IMO refined and honest estimates for both MLR and the LRT portion of the CRC will exceed $2 billion each.
Both would be a tremendous detriment to TriMet, C-Tran and regional transit service.
The MLR bridge is the most unjustified municipal bling in the region’s history. It’s amazing that something so fantasy like would get to the point of being engineered, let alone possibly built without regard for cost.
Steve, who like me has obviously nothing better to do :), wrote:
The presumption of LRT contributing to the long-term mobility needs of the region is an agenda driven presumption.
This presumption then equates the idea that a LRT bridge without freeway improvements would be no worse than a freeway bridge without LRT.
Part of the political stalemate is that many people in the region want one of these two options.
Of course that’s a stacked notion. The bulk of uses is vehicular and a tiny fraction would use LRT. But the politics of stuffing the LRT mode with added value with additional presumptions of better land use inflates the mode to equal road capacity demands and needs.
Tiny fraction? LRT is capable of far more passengers per hour for a given cross-section than auto lanes–unless those auto lanes are predominantly carrying busses. Were 2-car MAX trains to run at five minute headways (the practical limit due to downstream capacity restrictions), that’s 5000 pphpd; which is about 3 freeway lanes of SOVs. If you build a combined bus/LRT lane, you can do even better than that.
I’m more alarmed at the latest design and how it ultimately will kill the project.
It appears that the design change is from attempting to omit the separate span for light rail and cram it into a single structure. This effort to suppress the cost attributed to LRT by combining the two spans will likely result in big delays and a higher cost than separate spans, with the attempt to leave structural changes to the freeway bridge not attributed to LRT.
Because of LRT as this pans out the estimates for both for the overall project and the LRT will become more outrageous and entirely unfeasible.
The original CRC proposal has LRT in the lower deck of one of the highway structures. I’m not qualified to comment on the detailed civil engineering issues, but the idea of a third span for LRT seems also driven by river clearance issues–to minimize the vertical height of the bridge over the channel. Combining the two modes into a single structure is an attempt to save money; not, as you seem to be suggesting, a nefarious attempt to “hide” the true cost of light rail. At any rate, the cost of the LRT component is a tiny fraction (20%-25%) of the cost of the whole project, and were LRT to be on a separate structure, I don’t expect that would change significantly. A 50′ cross section bridge simply costs less than a pair of70′ cross section bridges, and that excludes all the rebuilding of I-5 on either side of the river as well.
It is certain that in a phased approach “with the new highway bridge being built first” that RAIL transit opponents would try to cancel the LRT bridge.
Which is why it is unlikely to happen in this way, unless significant assurances are in place that this won’t happen.
But contrary to your portrayal of them as “transit opponents”, transit in the region will be healthier without more of the high cost LRT. I am pro-transit along with all of those commenting at recent TriMet Board meetings.
I view LRT proponents as anti-transit and there is much more evidence in the current state of affairs at TriMet that’s supports my viewpoint.
I respectfully disagree with your characterization of LRT proponents. Certainly, there are some who only care about getting the contracting work, not about the effectiveness of the end result, but that’s true for any capital project.
Let me ask you another different question: What do you think of adding a dedicated busway, rather than LRT, on the bridge?
IMO refined and honest estimates for both MLR and the LRT portion of the CRC will exceed $2 billion each.
Your opinion concerning MLR has already been shown to be suspect, given that it appears to count a few things twice, and use a different costing model than the standard; furthermore, it represents a tripling of current anticipated costs for the LRT part of the CRC. Were we to apply the same accounting rules you seem to propose to the roadway section, how much would that cost? $5-6 billion? $9-$10 billion?
Both would be a tremendous detriment to TriMet, C-Tran and regional transit service.
The MLR bridge is the most unjustified municipal bling in the region’s history. It’s amazing that something so fantasy like would get to the point of being engineered, let alone possibly built without regard for cost.
Nonsense. MLR is a rather unremarkable rail project, really–the only thing remarkable about it is the bridge; hardly the stuff of political vanity projects. We’ve got ten (OK, 9 1/2–the Steel being the half) bridges in Portland for autos; yet you object to one for transit?
Given the present economic situation making funding less available, and a ridiculous (and still not explained, to me) escalation in rail construction costs which has occurred in the past decade, it has become the tallest dandelion in the lawn, and may get mowed as a result. (I for one have no problems postponing the thing, or building busway, until the rail construction industry gets their costs in line with reality–the FTA appears to agree with me, as the agency has noticed the rampant escalation of rail costs and is starting to push back).
But it’s smaller in scope (from an engineering point of view) than Westside MAX, it serves an excellent and busy transit corridor. Do you consider the Blue Line to be “bad for transit?”
Got to run to somethign better to do :)
but every current bridge is used for tansit except the Sellwood.
BusWay too costly and uneeded.
No to adding a dedicated busway, rather than LRT, on the bridge. It would sit there unused most of the time. Much like light rail outside of rush hour. Only worse.
When it could be used for commerce and vehicular mobility.
EngineerScotty Says: LRT is capable of far more passengers per hour for a given cross-section than auto lanes–unless those auto lanes are predominantly carrying busses.
jk: Lets keep it apples to apples. A rail full of transit vehicles to a road full of transit vehicles. That gives over 30,000 people per hour on the road to your 5,000 per hour on the toy train. (Light rail costs too much and does too little.)
EngineerScotty Says: Were 2-car MAX trains to run at five minute headways (the practical limit due to downstream capacity restrictions),
jk: Five minute headways means that this line will take 50% of ALL capacity accross the steele bridge. That ain’t gonna happen.
Besides, it is not about capacity – it is about serving riders (well really the developers, but we’ll pretend it is about serving riders). Currently only 1650 people use transit while 81,000 people use the road. Why would any responsible person suggest spending A BILLION DOLLARS on those 1650 people while less than that will accommodate those 81,000 people.
(Funding for the LRT component of the CRC is anticipated to come from Federal and State sources. CRC originally requested $750 million through the New Starts submission; but has since raised that request to $850 million. The total year of expenditure amount is $945 million. IRC report, PDF page 148, bold added)
As I said light rail costs too much and does too little.
Thanks
JK
JK:“Lets keep it apples to apples. A rail full of transit vehicles to a road full of transit vehicles. That gives over 30,000 people per hour on the road to your 5,000 per hour on the toy train. (Light rail costs too much and does too little.)”
ws:Apples to Apples would mean one lane to one line. A “road” is very general in terms of how many lanes. Maximum capacity for a road (with 2 seconds behind another vehicle) is something like 2,000 (or so) vehicles per hour. It also depends on how passengers per vehicle.
Knowing the dynamics of travel, using a model of a car with maximum passengers (say 5 people) is not accurate, because those 5 people all would have to be going to the same location or be dropped off by someone. With transit, it is assumed that everyone aboard is going “their own way”.
So yeah, let’s see some numbers.
@Steve:
No need to add freeway lanes to I-5, either then–at 2AM, when the trains and busses aren’t running, there’s hardly any traffic, either. You could close all but one lane of the freeway in either direction, and the road would still be able to handle the load.
Now, if you want to embrace congestion pricing in lieu of infrastructure improvement–charging tolls or additional fares during peak periods in order to encourage the shifting of demand to off-peak times, I’d be happy to go along. But it needs to apply to all modes to work.
But you’ve identified a fundamental problem. Infrastructure needs to generally be scaled to peak loads, not average loads. And it’s far easier to scale up a transit line (especially rail) then it is to add more capacity to a freeway.
@JK: For the scenario you outline to work–convoys of busses carring tens of thousands of passengers per hour, such as found on the Lincoln Tunnel XBL between New York and New Joisey, you got to have the infrastructure on either side of the bridge or tunnel to handle that load. In the case of the XBL, inbound busses proceed to the Port Authority Bus Terminal, a huge bus station which rivals many airports in terms of passenger capacity; outbound busses swiftly fan out on one of any number of highways or surface streets upon entering New Jersey. For that volume of busses (or trains) across the CRC, you would need simliar absorption/disperal capability–in practical terms, you would need the lines to branch, and for each line to have limited stops distances and short dwell times so vehicles aren’t backing up at stops. Rail gives you another option not available with bus–longer trains. (The existing two-car limit on MAX nonwithstanding).
Many rail systems use block signaling, which further limits line capacity. For long-haul freight trains, where the stopping distance is frequently greater than line-of-sight, this (or similar schemes) is necessary. For one- or two-car light rail trains, line-of-sight navigation is perfectly safe. An excellent example is the MTR light rail in the New Territories of Hong Kong; where it is not uncommon to see two trains stopped, one behind the other, at the same platform, both loading passengers–with a third waiting to pull in behind.
Regarding your “1600” argument; that’s been debunked thoroughly before. If a restaurant serves excellent pizza and lousy hamburgers, and hardly anyone eats the burgers, it’s not evidence that the customers don’t like hamburger–it’s only evidence they don’t like lousy hamburger. Right now, the cross-river transit is lousy–focusing on peak-time express service geared towards white-collar workers employed in downtown or beyond. And all of it frequently gets stuck in traffic on the existing bridge–which is the problem that we would like to solve.
For the highway mob: 1. Please refrain from using the term “toy train” or “social engineering” for it makes one sound like an uneducated bigot who likes to quote radio announcers because they can’t come up with anything original or clever to say. 2. The “toy train” system carries 120,000+ daily passengers, that’s the same as the current Interstate Bridge (the entire “toy train” was cheaper to build than the proposed 5-miles of the CRC (you need to tack on billions more for the rest of each commuters route and parking to get a real estimate of how ungodly expensive auto infrastructure really is)), imagine if that system wasn’t in place to supplement auto and bus usage… 3. The MLR/busway/SC/ped/bike bridge will cost $130 mil/2014 total for full construction and design, the CRC is roughly at $150 mil/2010 and is not even at 30% design yet. 4. USC reported this year that anyone living within 350 feet of any freeway has twice the thickness of artery walls than those who don’t, therefore, if you argue for a new or expanded urban freeway you are voting to kill people in order to get somewhere faster (LRT does not have this effect, and has fewer pedestrian collisions than autos as well).
For the transit mob: Due to the mortgage finance and highway “social engineering” of the 1930’s onward, the American majority has a deep desire to keep using the private automobile. For all its parts it is a fabulous invention and useful tool, but it does come with a lot of negative aspects that were unforeseen to the public in 1933 (like environmental damage, human scaling, community and interaction separation, depression rates, etc…) That said, change takes time, so please do not let postings in blog open-threads get you down, the entire world is going pro-rail and is becoming more sustainably minded. There is no such thing as an easy answer to this.
About the report: This document, if you read it, is actually quite refreshing. If Portland wants Hayden to be a freeway destination: that massive spaghetti is what we get, if we want sustainability we need access via a separate local traffic bridge. If we want an iconic bridge, it will have to be the smaller Portland Harbor bridge due to the elevation/engineering constraints of the Columbia Crossing span. For a cheap $50 mil/2019 we can have a span with +12′ in each direction, who knows if we will need that extra footage for new auto lanes, bus lanes, freight lanes, pedestrian space, new technology, or maybe never need it… we don’t have to stripe it, but that’s far cheaper than remodels in 50-100 years. The existing bridges can not be retrofitted like previously imagined, end of story. There is inadequate ped/bike space, end of story. There is auto-dependence in trucking and Vancouver commuters, end of story. Etc… Etc… Put the tolls in place, make a bridge authority to oversee it, and build it in phases that pay for itself (the multi-model Columbia spans first). I have been anti-CRC in the past, but only because the US spends so very little on infrastructure, this new report gives me hope that this one project won’t totally drain our regional needs…
my two cents, take it for what it is (an open-thread post on an online blog).
I think it may be time for transit advocates to rethink how important getting light rail across the river really is.
The “future” in Vancouver does not look promising for any extension beyond downtown. There appears to a be a substantial number of people in Vancouver who don’t want their community to be an extension of Portland. Whether that is realistic or not, light rail has become a symbol of that and it appears that the area is committed to NOT extending light rail.
In light of that, it seems that it makes the most sense to simply do a better job of managing the traffic on the existing bridges and leave their replacement for the future. Hopefully it will become clear which makes the most sense, extending Vancouver’s BRT to Portland or Portland’s Light rail to Vancouver. I think extending light rail to Haydn Island at some point would be a good idea either way.
But given the region’s other transportation needs, getting light rail to Vancouver seems like a very low priority.
My latest rant on this and related subjects, with a particular focus on TIFS…
but every current bridge is used for tansit except the Sellwood.
Steve: Please name what routes TriMet uses the Fremont or the Marquam bridges for transit.
Southwest Washington Regional Transportation Council did their own “Visioning Study” in 1999.
http://www.rtc.wa.gov/studies/vision/
So I don’t know how accurate it is to categorically say that they oppose Portland’s plans, including light rail. (Although they do generally oppose that, I believe).
It’s just that they had formed views that should have been taken into account, earlier on. But Portland planners, ODOT and WSDOT have tended to push ahead with a rather narrow view and ignored plausible alternatives, some of which might be quite a bit more cost-effective.
The “future” in Vancouver does not look promising for any extension beyond downtown. There appears to a be a substantial number of people in Vancouver who don’t want their community to be an extension of Portland. Whether that is realistic or not, light rail has become a symbol of that and it appears that the area is committed to NOT extending light rail.
I guess that depends on what Vancouverites you’ve met. Some people I worked with who lived up there love the idea of it, if it went up I-5, served the areas around SR-500 over to the mall and I-205, then went back down to the airport. Several even joked about how they’d love to avoid paying for airport parking, like those of us on the south side of the river can do.
Not saying it would win a vote, but I’m curious how it would do. Vancouver has changed a lot since their last vote on the topic, and most of the people I personally know who live in Vancouver seem like they’d support it, but maybe I just know an odd group. Maybe being 30 biases the people I know, and what they support as well. I don’t know, I just wouldn’t consider it dead in the water with the growth Vancouver seems to be hoping for around downtown.
Of course, I’d also like to see a study of water taxis across the Columbia. It seems like if the Boise-Cascade site along the river does well there could be a market for higher speed boats across the river between the MAX (extended to Jantzen Beach) and the WA waterfront at minimal infrastructure cost.
I’d still prefer a replacement for the rail bridge (to help allow HSR through the Cascades corridor), with car/truck lanes, pedestrian lanes, and LRT/bus lanes. It could help I-5, Amtrak, freight shipping, transit, pedestrian access to Hayden Island, etc. But, that’s apparently off the table.
EngineerScotty Says: @JK: For the scenario you outline to work–convoys of busses carring tens of thousands of passengers per hour, such as found on the Lincoln Tunnel XBL between New York and New Joisey, you got to have the infrastructure on either side of the bridge or tunnel to handle that load.
JK: You wanted to compare the theoretical capacity of the toy train with a road, and I just made apples-apples. Why the problem?
The reality is that NO light rail line in the country carries more people per day than a freeway lane.
Even Trimet can only claim that their junk carries the equivalent of 1 1/3 lanes of freeway at the peak time. When you realize that 2/3 of those riders were previously in buses, the actual traffic equivalent is closer to 1/3 – ½ lane of one freeway lane. For a cost far in excess of adding a lane of freeway.
EngineerScotty Says: Rail gives you another option not available with bus–longer trains. (The existing two-car limit on MAX nonwithstanding).
JK: Now tell us how many toy train lines in the country have trains of more than two cars. And why!
EngineerScotty Says: Many rail systems use block signaling, which further limits line capacity.
JK: Yep, another reason that the toy train capacity is so low.
EngineerScotty Says: Regarding your “1600” argument; that’s been debunked thoroughly before.
JK: Please show us this debunking. (I find it hard to believe that people will hop on a train to go where they don’t want to go, just because the train is upscale from a bus. Especially when the train takes twice as long as the bus and goes through a high crime neighborhood.)
EngineerScotty Says: Right now, the cross-river transit is lousy–focusing on peak-time express service geared towards white-collar workers employed in downtown or beyond. And all of it frequently gets stuck in traffic on the existing bridge–which is the problem that we would like to solve.
JK: So you are going to solve the problem of a 15 min express bus trip to Portland with a 34 minute toy train! See http://www.nolightrail.com/
(I call light rail is a toy because it costs too much and does too little.)
Thanks
JK
Given the fact that there isn’t enough money to fund all the projects now planned it would be wise to consider opening the marketplace to private alternatives. Also given the fact that 50 years down the road no one will know what this area will be like allowing private operators provides the greatest flexibility. Unfortunately the minds that run this city are closed!
JD Says: For the highway mob: 1. Please refrain from using the term “toy train” or “social engineering” for it makes one sound like an uneducated bigot who likes to quote radio announcers because they can’t come up with anything original or clever to say.
JK: Sorry, I came up with the term “toy train”. It is descriptive because toys, like light rail, cost too much and do too little.
JD Says: 2. The “toy train” system carries 120,000+ daily passengers,
JK: Now tell us how many people the freeway system carries. (Hint: light rail is around 2-3% of commuters)
JD Says: that’s the same as the current Interstate Bridge (the entire “toy train” was cheaper to build than the proposed 5-miles of the CRC
JK: Not if you take out the padding added to get the cost high enough for the tolls to finance the toy train. The pair of bridges cost $900 million including the SR14 rebuild and old bridge removal. Compare that to $850 million toy train to carry just 1650 people.
JD Says: 4. USC reported this year that anyone living within 350 feet of any freeway has twice the thickness of artery walls
JK: Get real – double wall thickness! Do you really believe that? (Whatever the source!)
JD Says: … therefore, if you argue for a new or expanded urban freeway you are voting to kill people in order to get somewhere faster (LRT does not have this effect, and has fewer pedestrian collisions than autos as well).
JK: But LRT kills people at more than double the auto rate. See: http://www.portlandfacts.com/transit/maxsafetychart.html
JD Says: For the transit mob: Due to the mortgage finance and highway “social engineering” of the 1930’s onward, the American majority has a deep desire to keep using the private automobile.
JK: The interstate freeway system was not started until the mid 1950s. The first freeway was in the late 1930s.
And it wasn’t social engineering. Social engineering it forcing people into a lifestyle like smart growth, compact development. As opposed to the government accommodating peoples desire to get out of the expensive, polluted, crime riddled cities.
JD Says: For all its parts it is a fabulous invention and useful tool, but it does come with a lot of negative aspects that were unforeseen to the public in 1933 (like environmental damage,
JK: Sorry, automobile cleaned up the cities by stopping tons of horse shat per mile of street, with it’s TB an other diseases.
JD Says: human scaling,
JK: A bullshat planner’s term. Or are you trying to tell us that New York’s skyscrapers are “human scaled” while single story homes on 1 acre lots are not human scale?
JD Says: community and interaction separation,
JK: More planner bullshat. Debunked. It is high density that reduces social interaction See: http://www.portlandfacts.com/smart/socialinteractionandurbansprawl.htm
JD Says: … entire world is going pro-rail and is becoming more sustainably minded.
JK: How is rail more sustainable than small cars?
Small cars cost less, use less energy, are more convenient and are faster!
JD Says: The existing bridges can not be retrofitted like previously imagined, end of story. There is inadequate ped/bike space, end of story.
JK: They most certainly can be retrofitted. See the DEIS.
There is no requirement to increase space for the 150 bike & 30 pedestrian that use the existing bridges. How many millions do you propose spending to accommodate 180 people?
JD Says: There is auto-dependence in trucking and Vancouver commuters, end of story.
JK: What is wrong with “auto dependence”? How is it worse than transit dependence?
JD Says: Etc… Etc… Put the tolls in place, make a bridge authority to oversee it,
JK: And ignore all those families that will be financially ruined by multi thousand dollar annual toll bills. Could you get a $5-6000 raise to pay for tolls? See: http://www.nobridgetolls.com/tolls.html
Thanks
JK
Dave H asked “Steve: Please name what routes TriMet uses the Fremont or the Marquam bridges for transit”
I have no idea. Are there no buses using either? OK. So all of the other ones are used for transit? Swell.
As for Vancouverites, I know many. They do not want LRT or the Portland/Metro approach to anything.
I don’t care what kind of visioning thing was done in 1999. And like many Oregonians they’ve been exposed to the many fatal flaws in our “model for the nation” over the last 10 years.
I’d love to see an attempt to re-vision Portland over there now.
Heck the D candidates over there sure aren’t campaigning with their support for Light Rail. They’re pretty much hiding their positions while Rs are hammering against it.
My friend JS has it 75% right.
“rethink getting light rail across the river,
Vancouver does not look promising
people in Vancouver don’t want their community to be an extension of Portland.
the area is committed to NOT extending light rail.”
But then JS sways with his LRT proponents should take their ball and go home to leave replacement for the future.
That would certainly be better than extending by force LRT to Vancouver.
It already has become clear which makes the most sense. Vancouver has seen MAX to Gresham, Hillsboro, the BIG BOX Ikea Mall, EXPO and Clackamas Town Center. They know what they don’t want and don’t need more time to think about it.
Given that it wil never go to Vancouver extending light rail to Hayden Island will never pencil out.
JS gets back on track with “given the region’s other transportation needs, getting light rail to Vancouver seems like a very low priority”
NOW try this one out.
I think it may be time for transit advocates to rethink how important getting light rail across the river and to Milwaukie really is.
The “future” in Milwaukie and Gladstone does not look promising for any extension. There appears to a be a substantial number of people in Clackamas County who don’t want their community to be an extension of Portland.
Whether that is realistic or not, light rail has become a symbol of that and there is rising opposition to extending light rail.
In light of that, it seems that it makes the most sense to simply do a better job of managing the traffic on the existing bridges and the Corridor to be served by buses.
But given the region’s other transportation needs, getting light rail to Milwaukie seems like a very low priority.
Save TriMet and enhance transit. Kill LRT.
I have no idea. Are there no buses using either? OK. So all of the other ones are used for transit? Swell.
I was just responding to your assertion that the Sellwood was all. With the Sellwood, that would make three auto-only bridges in the central city area though.
As for Vancouverites, I know many. They do not want LRT or the Portland/Metro approach to anything.
Your anecdote cancels mine then.
Vancouver has seen MAX to Gresham, Hillsboro, the BIG BOX Ikea Mall, EXPO and Clackamas Town Center.
You left off Beaverton, Hollywood, PDX, Gateway, Mall 205, numerous Park-N-Rides, etc. The airport alone is an odd one to leave off that list.
There appears to a be a substantial number of people in Clackamas County who don’t want their community to be an extension of Portland.
That’s quite a statement to stand behind. Who are these people in Clackamas that are so opposed?
Save TriMet and enhance transit. Kill LRT.
Are you serious? Tear out everything we’ve already built? Kill LRT? Really?
For those who wish to know which bridges TriMet does or does not use as part of current regular service, TriMet offers a new, high-tech innovation. They call it a “system map”:
http://ride.trimet.org/?tool=routes
JK,
Calling light rail “toy trains” makes you look juvenile. This is a grown-up forum; please act like one.
At any rate, I wasn’t discussing the “theoretical capacity” of rail; I was discussing the practical capacity limits of the Yellow Line, in particular the Steel Bridge–which is at or near its limit. Rail has no problem doing better than 30,000 PPHPD, and many large-city metros can handle this volume; the Calgary C-Train, were it to use four-car trains, is a light rail system that can handle this level of traffic. (Currently the system uses three-car trains, but is designed for four). And that’s over a continuous corridor; not just one hop through a tunnel. (Actual usage is far less than that; but the capacity is there).
Whether or not MAX passengers were previously in busses is irrelevant to capacity considerations.
(And speaking of busses–the transit mall has capacity for over 20k pphpd on busses and rail combined).
The “nobody will take the train when there’s an express bus” argument is old and moldy. It was argued when Eastside MAX was built–note that those trains pass through neighborhoods far more blighted than NE Portland–and it was argued with westside. If you provide high-quality transit service, people will use it. If you provide crappy service, they won’t if they have other choices. Simple market analysis.
The problems with typical express services are that a) they only runs during peak times; and b) only serves a few destinations. I don’t expect the C-Tran express bus to go away, in fact I would like to see a combined bus/rail transitway, not just bus-only or rail-only, in order to make C-Tran service better. (I don’t, in general, see C-Tran’s routes as “competition” to be destroyed). But this argument is an old one, and one that is usually won by all-day rapid transit, not commuter-oriented services. (The bus-vs-rail question isn’t as important; what matters is the service pattern).
It’s interesting to note that it appears that TriMet runs no busses across the Broadway–that’s surprising, given its proximity to the transit mall. Of course, the Streetcar will use this bridge starting next year.
It also should be noted that while TriMet does not run busses across the Marquam and Fremont, C-Tran does. Their system map is here, for the curious.
Obviously, though, I was speaking of transit-exclusive facilities, which are common in many places; but currently only the two MAX lanes on the Steel Bridge are reserved for transit.
I’m reasonably sure that when the bridge is open, the #9 runs across the Broadway Bridge.
Yes, C-Tran shares with cars on the Marquam, Morrison, and Fremont:
http://www.c-tran.com/assets/Maps/Downtown-Portland-01-2010.png
(Two of three of which are closed to bikes and pedestrians, under penalty of law, except for specifically-scheduled, prepaid special events.)
EngineerScotty Says: Calling light rail “toy trains” makes you look juvenile. This is a grown-up forum; please act like one.
JK: Yes mommie.
Well, not really. What would you call something that costs too much and does too little? (Like one BILLION dollars to move 1650 people from Vancouver to Portland and back each day? Compared to less money spent on a bridge for 81,000 road commuters.))
EngineerScotty Says: At any rate, I wasn’t discussing the “theoretical capacity” of rail; I was discussing the practical capacity limits of the Yellow Line, in particular the Steel Bridge–which is at or near its limit.
JK: You said LRT is capable of far more passengers per hour for a given cross-section than auto lanes–unless those auto lanes are predominantly carrying busses. (Bold added) Note the modifier “capable of” – that sure sounds theoretical to me.
EngineerScotty Says: Rail has no problem doing better than 30,000 PPHPD, and many large-city metros can handle this volume;
JK: Name a few that ACTUALLY handle this volume. Note that we are discussing light rail, not heavy rail and real service, not some fantasy.
EngineerScotty Says: the Calgary C-Train, were it to use four-car trains,
JK: Err, “were it to” – that appears to be theoretical which we are not discussing per your statement above.
EngineerScotty Says: Whether or not MAX passengers were previously in busses is irrelevant to capacity considerations.
JK: The real question is cost effectiveness and Trimet has claimed a real world experience of 1 1/3 freeway lanes, neglecting the fact that most of those people used to be in buses. Correcting for that omission, we get a increase in transportation capacity of 1/3-1/2 ane of freeway for a cost of a multilane freeway. As I said earlier – light rail costs too much & does too little.
EngineerScotty Says: The “nobody will take the train when there’s an express bus” argument is old and moldy. It was argued when Eastside MAX was built
JK: And they discontinued the express buses. Reportedly because they were faster than MAX.
EngineerScotty Says: and it was argued with westside.
JK: And they discontinued the express buses
EngineerScotty Says: If you provide high-quality transit service, people will use it. If you provide crappy service, they won’t if they have other choices. Simple market analysis.
JK: Of course you are ignoring the fact that there are ways to improve transit service without spending billions of dollars on toy trains. For instance:
1. Lowering fares. (Worked wonders in LA after the consent decree) See: http://blip.tv/file/2743664
2. Providing more comfortable buses.
3. Providing more frequent service. (Buses do not need to have as many people as toy trains for a given operating cost.)
A billion dollar commitment to improved transit service will buy a lot of better bus service for many years. Far more cost effective than toy trains.
EngineerScotty Says: …. But this argument is an old one, and one that is usually won by all-day rapid transit, not commuter-oriented services. (The bus-vs-rail question isn’t as important; what matters is the service pattern).
JK: OK, so rail isn’t the answer after all. (Forget all that you said above) What might that “rapid transit” be? Is it faster than a car? Is it cheaper than a car?
Thanks
JK
“Tear out everything we’ve already built? Kill LRT? Really?”
No kill the plans for expansion. The list of reasons is long with a healthy transit system at the top.
Dave,
What makes YOU think the voters and taxpayers of Clackamas County want MLR.
Do you think Clackamas is celebrting the green line? Not hardly. And they aren’t celebrating the $25 million UR/TIF their commissioners added to CTC soon after fed funding was approved for the green line.
The county commissioners, planning regime and their small group of advocates are oblivious
to the past lines and the public as they make up justification for another line.
Just as followers of all things rail advocate expanding WES in the face of total failure.
Or packing LRT infrastructure onto Barbur.
But still the MLR bridge is the most unjustified bling to date.
I welcome Scotty’s call for publc votes on all of this so we can end the misappropriation once and for all. Before it’s too late.
Its odd how the voters keep reelecting people who support light rail.
We elect people to make decisions. Like any good boss, once we give someone responsibility for a decision we let them make it. We can offer our advice, but ultimately if we don’t like the job someone is doing, we have to replace them. every time someone disagrees with one of their decisions, we can’t go over their heads.
The time and energy it takes to fully inform ourselves about every public decision is way beyond most of us. We rely on the folks we elect to do that. That doesn’t mean we can’t become fully informed on one or two issues and provide our advice. But in the end, we have to persuade the folks the voters put in charge that we are right.
Of course you can whine all you want, but the fact is the voters have spoken. They elected these folks.
Of course some decisions have not been delegated to elected officials. If they want to spend more money, then they usually need to come to the voters. But the disagreements on MLT aren’t about spending MORE money, they are disagreements with how existing tax dollars are being allocated. And in every case, the folks making the decisions are acting within the authority they were delegated.
Oregon has an initiative process that lets disgruntled voters who think they are in the majority go over elected officials heads. That doesn’t help small, disgruntled minorities. All they can really do is whine to anyone willing to listen.
What I was suggesting was not just “a vote” on MLR; what I was suggesting was a vote on a comprehensive funding package–bonds backed by a property tax levy–to pay for a program of transit improvement. While I expect that Federal and state matches would remain a part of a funding package; the goal of such a proposal would be to a) eliminate the need to depend on sources of funding such as bonded operating dollars, TIFs, etc; and b) demonstrate political support for a program of such improvements.
And while I didn’t address it in the DHT post, I also think that ROAD projects not already funded ought to be held to the same standard. There are numerous structural differences between road funding/planning/construction and transit, a subject of a likely future DHT post; but in general, sauce for the goose is good for the gander.
And to be clear – I was not responding to Scotty’s suggestion of asking the voters for more funding authority. His argument is one of priorities and strategy. I think he is correct that some of the current funding strategies are not based on what is good public policy, but driven by the difficulty of getting the public to add to their tax burden. But the fact that the public might say “use the money we are already paying or don’t do it” does not mean it is opposed to doing any new projects whether for transit or roads.
I would also predict that if there was a vote on whether to raise taxes to pay for MLT that the arguments made here by opponents would quickly be turned on their head. After some polling and focus groups I could easily see the opposition campaign turning operating revenue into operating “subsidies”. They would portray the vote as an effort to indirectly bail out Trimet’s operating budget by raising taxes to pay for MLT instead of taking it out of their current revenue stream.
I don’t post here often and when I do it’s usually about the CRC stuff since it impacts me directly. I am a dope that lives in Vancouver and slogs back and fourth to Portland everyday for work. I hate the traffic. Everyone does. Rather than rant I’ll just post some of my views as a user:
1. I would LOVE LOVE LOVE to sit on a train and read while being transported to work. That would be worth 2x the cost of an additional lane to me.
2. Build it and they will come. I have a TriMet Passport (provided by employer) but it’s not longer accepted on the “C-Tran Premium Service” to Portland. I can’t afford the $1100/year Premium Pass. If C-Tran took my current pass I would ride but it but if Max came along I would use it over the buses since the buses still get caught up in traffic problems.
3. Trains don’t scare me. They are not a boogie man and don’t import crime. Boo!
4. I don’t listen to unqualified rants from people that site them self as a source without providing backing facts. Some people hate trains. Don’t ride them is my suggestion to you.
5. Nearly everyone I know if Vancouver goes to Portland for entertainment and fun. Dancing, drinks, dinner, etc etc. Me included. I think the notion of the big house, with the big yard and the big cars is surely (at least) beginning to fade. I don’t think there is going to be a mass exodus from Vancouver to Portland but I do think People want Vancouver to be more of a place. Doing that requires rethinking how we build and how we get around. Walkable/bikable/transit oriented communities are coming. Like it or not. That’s not Portlandizing. It just is.
6. Lastly I think building the transit/bike/ped stuff separately and first is a no brainer. Even if there is a slightly elevated cost. Even people that hate trains could used the facility during freeway/bridge construction. My forecast is that it will be a mess for several years during construction. I’d love to look over at it while zipping by on a train. Also future adjustments/repairs/improvements whatever to either structure wouldn’t affect the other.
My opinions and views. Enjoy!
Good grief Ken,
Are you kidding?
Do you honestly think that worn out hype from Eastside MAX and every line since still works?
And why the conceptual speak?
There’s plenty already done.
Point to what in the region we should be spending billions more repeating?
“Walkable/bikable/transit oriented communities are coming.”?
Why didn’t you, (and other rail transit advocates) simply point to an example in the region to want to duplicate?
Like the Round?
Like The BIG BOX strip mall at airport way?
SoWa towers for the rich?
Rat races like Orenco station, Gresham station? Gateway? Villebois?
Or how about Rockwood where after 25 years of Max millions more in new Urban Renewal tax subsidies are still trying to implement the “concepts”?
Are those success stories?
Not hardly.
What you think of as a no brainer is a blind and careless repeating of failure.
“Had they run a lot of buses at low fares, they could have doubled the number of riders.”
In thinking about the comments at recent TriMet board meetings, imagine how the many bus riders here would appreciate a return to the core mission and providing good and frequent bus service to many more people and neighborhoods.
http://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=3494
LA Rail Transit a Failure
posted in Transportation, Urban areas |
Los Angeles’ rail transit system is now 20 years old, but the Antiplanner’s faithful ally, Tom Rubin, questions whether it should have been built at all. “The push for rail has forced transit ridership down,” says Rubin, who was the chief financial officer of L.A.’s transit agency when the rail lines were planned in the 1980s. “Had they run a lot of buses at low fares, they could have doubled the number of riders.”
[Click URL above for more]
Steve…
Rather than spending $1.5 billion on LRT, would you instead propose placing it in an annuity of some sort to provide TriMet with a stable source of operating funds–in addition to the payroll taxes they now receive, in order to support expanded bus service or lower fares?
Ignore for the moment that FTA funds would not be provided for such a thing… just think, hypothetically. Would that be a good idea?
If it could return 5% per annum, that would be an additional $75 million to TriMet’s top line. Given that POBS (plain old bus service) costs about $100 per hour (labor plus fuel plus maintenance and the like), that would allow the provision of another 750k hours of bus service, or about 2000 additional service hours per day. Which would pay for a fare bit of additional Frequent Service.
But would you support such a proposal? Would you tell Neil McFarlane and David Bragdon and Randall O’Toole and Joseph Santos-Lyons and the folks down at LA BRU, that this is how transit ought to be improved? And what do you think each of ’em would say?
Ken: 4. I don’t listen to unqualified rants from people that site them self as a source without providing backing facts.
JK: Care to tell us who that is? If it should happen to refer to myself and PortlandFacts, you will find almost all assertions clickable back to a government document or credible source.
Ken: Some people hate trains. Don’t ride them is my suggestion to you.
JK: Yeah, we should just shut up and pay for YOUR train. Why don’t you offer to pay for the actual cost of your train ride, like car users do.
Ken: 5. … I think the notion of the big house, with the big yard and the big cars is surely (at least) beginning to fade.
JK: Thast sounds a little like planner talk.
Ken: … but I do think People want Vancouver to be more of a place.
JK: That is planner talk. I have never heard a person use that phrase, except planners and their fellow travelers. Besides Vancouver already has a sense of place, it is just not the place planners envision. Planners want to rip out all the existing charm of Vancouver and replace it with tax subsidized millionaire condos, like the pearl and SoWhat.
Ken: Doing that requires rethinking how we build and how we get around. Walkable/bikable/transit oriented communities are coming. Like it or not. That’s not Portlandizing. It just is.
JK: Actually it is Portlandizing. Portland is the world epicenter of that scheme. They actually send emmisaries around the world telling how great Portland is doing. They never seem to get to the part about Portland being broke and unable to fufill its promises the SoWhat (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96W5DLfXIiM) Or that it is taking money from the Schools, social services, fire department and police to feed to theses projects that people refuse to pay for themselves. (http://www.portlandfacts.com/ur/priceofur.htm)
Ken: 6. Lastly I think building the transit/bike/ped stuff separately and first is a no brainer.
JK: Yep, no brainier to spend a billion dollars for 1830 people while ignoring 81,000 people. But I will admit that it’s the Portland way.
Thanks
JK
EngineerScotty Says: Rather than spending $1.5 billion on LRT, would you instead propose placing it in an annuity of some sort to provide TriMet with a stable source of operating funds–in addition to the payroll taxes they now receive, in order to support expanded bus service or lower fares?
JK: The problem is that they already wasted the money on LRT. Now your plan is effectively asking for more taxpayer money for buses. That is like Sammy asking for money for the fire and police departments after he gave it away to developers through urban renewal to build one money losing project after another..
Thanks
JK
Here’s another set of questions for Steve, although everyone is invited to respond to this: In this post at DHT, a large list of different “transit values”, as experienced by transit customers, is given and defined. The values are:
* Geographic coverage (where does service run)
* Temporal coverage (hours of day, days of week)
* Capacity
* Special accomodations
* Cost per trip (financial)
* Access cost
* Public costs captured as taxes
* Externalized public costs (pollution, etc)
* Service reliability
* Service speed
* Service frequency
* Risk of accident
* Risk of crime
* Ease of access (use)
* Simplicity
* Ease of payment
* Community integration
* En-route hassles/convenience
* Personal comfort
* Enhancements
* Aesthetics/novelty
* Social status/acceptability
* Self-actualization
And a few values which aren’t of primary benefit to users, but which may be important to other constitutients
* Diversity of mode/transit choice
* Flexibility of operations
* Service to dependent populations
* Provisions of “family wage” jobs
* Economic development
* Scalability of operations
* Ability to stimulate land-use goals
The question is: Which of these values do you consider essential to optimize? Important but not essential? Useful but not important? Insignificant, or of lesser importance? Harmful? Try to think of systems as a whole, not just your particular trip (quite a few users, I’ve observed, only care about THEIR bus or train; and will happily sacrifice someone else’s service.)
Uh, JK–the $1.5 billion for MLR has not yet been spent (other than a small portion for the ongoing planning activities).
“That is planner talk.”
Oh noes. Somebody used a turn of phrase that JK ascribes to a group of people he doesn’t like. Therefore the turn of phrase is invalid.
Sammy
Yes, the surest way to win an argument is to use nicknames for everything you disapprove of, such as “toy trains” et al.
The problem is that they already wasted the money on LRT.
So that would be a “no” to Scotty’s simple yes-or-no question, correct?
EngineerScotty Says: Uh, JK–the $1.5 billion for MLR has not yet been spent (other than a small portion for the ongoing planning activities).
JK: Apparently you missed this part of my reply:
Now your plan is effectively asking for more taxpayer money for buses.
The context was after wasting billions on our current rail system.
Thanks
JK
JK,
Steve was suggesting that MLR is a poor investment–that it doesn’t improve transit outcomes despite costing a lot of money; and listed specific complaints about MAX expansion (complaints that could easily come from OPAL or silimar groups).
I asked him about a different way to spend such money which would, in theory at least, directly address his stated concerns.
I’m pretty sure I know where YOU stand on this issue–you would rather not give TriMet a dime. Though I suspect your motivation is ideological, not practical–to the extent you care about good transit, you believe (as an axiom) that government funded anything is bad.
But the question was directed at Steve S.
And furthermore, JK, I categorically reject your framing of the debate. So there. :)
It’s not a productive question to ask where esle should $1.5 billion be spent.
Especailly since it doesn’t really exist and may never.
So it’s not like we’ll have that as a pool of money to figure out where to spend it.
As for the intended sources of that funding package I say leave that revenue where it is already needed and used.
Defunding goverment services to pay the debt of a questionable project is irresponsible.
In the context of having devoured $100 million in planning the CRC and being left with a design that’s never been built and no idea how much it will cost the severity of misappropriation merits major sea changes.
Starting with the suspension of capital projects, stabiliinbg of exiting transit service and a full independent audit of TriMet to get a reliable determination of just how bad things are.
Starting with the zero funded OPEB $700 million liability.
That alone disqualifies TriMet from having the capacity to bond against future operations revenue. Together with other rising costs and declining revenue their future operations revenue is already in the red as far as one can look.
They have no authentic borrowing capacity. The only reason they can sell bonds is by giving up the first position of their revenue stream to the lender. That would make certain future service cuts and fare increases.
The last Board meeting presented rising costs, ans shrinking revenue with the OPBE off budget.
According to Hansen at the June meeting that is a $50 million per year liability.
That is not a pretty picture.
I’ll be back later.
EngineerScotty Says: I’m pretty sure I know where YOU stand on this issue–you would rather not give TriMet a dime.
JK: Basically I want to see trimet quit wasting money serving people who can afford their own transportation while shortchanging the genuine needy.
Do you disagree with that philosophy?
Thanks
JK
“If it could return 5% per annum, that would be an additional $75 million to TriMet’s top line. Given that POBS (plain old bus service) costs about $100 per hour (labor plus fuel plus maintenance and the like), that would allow the provision of another 750k hours of bus service, or about 2000 additional service hours per day. Which would pay for a fare bit of additional Frequent Service.”
I think it is important to note that inflation would continuously reduce the amount of service that investment would provide. In ten years, you would probably have lost close to a third or more of those hours with normal levels of inflation. On the other hand, the savings from light rail will have increased by that same amount.
Or to put it another way. If you can get 1% over and above inflation you would have 400 extra service hours which would be 25 buses per day at 16 hours per bus.
The question is hypothetical, Steve. (As Just Saying may well have guessed, I’m not actually proposing that this be done). If you prefer, we can speak of abstract transit agencies (and an abstract amount of money) rather than TriMet; so concerns about TriMet’s pension liabilities or past management decisions don’t enter into the picture.
Given a transit agency which provides levels of service similar to TriMet–covering a majority of the region most hours of the week, but with significant gaps here and there, and providing “quality” (i.e. frequent) service on some corridors, but a good deal of “lifeline” transit (low-frequency service for dependent riders); and some money available to improve service–how should the money, generally, go? To capital enhancements to the system? To provide for operations? Or is such a system “good enough”, and in no need of further additional funding?
JK’s pretty much stated that he thinks TriMet should provide lifeline service to the poor (and do so as inexpensively as possible), and make no attempt to draw motorists out of their cars by expanding service to levels which are competitive with the automobile. Many other libertarians and conservatives I can think of (who don’t necessarily post here) take an even more hostile posture to transit–they’d cancel the service outright, pave over the light rail tracks, and sell all the rolling stock on eBay.
I think we should try and provide comprehensive service in order to draw people out of automobiles, due to the potential for future oil shocks, environmental issues, etc. I’m far less concerned with the urbanist agenda, and I’m all for smart management of the transit system.
What is, I guess, your goal for TriMet? Or for other agencies?
I can’t think of a single way to get money from a lender where they don’t expect to get repaid. They all seem to think they have first call on my paycheck. None of them will forgo payment because I have other, more important, expenses.
Here is a non-ideological review of the Trimet budget by the citizen advisory committee on the budget:
http://trimet.org/pdfs/publications/cacreport10budgetrev.pdf
EngineerScotty Says: JK’s pretty much stated that he thinks TriMet should provide lifeline service to the poor (and do so as inexpensively as possible),
JK: We should be able to serve them better than now, if we don’t have to give a free ride to a bunch of well off riders.
EngineerScotty Says: and make no attempt to draw motorists out of their cars by expanding service to levels which are competitive with the automobile.
JK: Has anyone actually done that? How? At what cost? Tom Rubin says it makes a lot more sense to try to draw low income people out of clunkers with better bus service than to try to draw yuppies out of their BMWs with light rail. See the video I mentioned above.
EngineerScotty Says: -they’d cancel the service outright, pave over the light rail tracks, and sell all the rolling stock on eBay.
JK: You left out the punch lie: then run buses for faster, more frequent service, including the possibility of express service. Could also use them as HOT lanes.
EngineerScotty Says: I think we should try and provide comprehensive service in order to draw people out of automobiles, due to the potential for future oil shocks, environmental issues, etc.
JK: Basic problems with that proposal:
1. Transit uses more energy than small cars, so you will use more oil. If you really cared about oil consumption, you should recommend people get smaller cars. You can buy a whole lot of under $10k little cars for the cost of a LRT line.
2. Environmental issues are mostly around energy usage and transit uses more energy than small cars – see above.
3. Etc. Small cars cost less than transit & are faster and more convenient.
Again what are we trying to accomplish with transit?
Thanks
JK
Wow, this will be my last online post.
[Moderator: Personally-directed comment removed. Whether or not this is your last post, that line ran afoul of our comment policy. – Bob R.]
Everything I stated was true, learn some history. Educate yourself. The US government has been doing “social engineering” by forcing white people into cars and into suburbia for profiteering and war tactics for 80 years. In 1933 the US made mortgage finance regulation that made it impossible to get a loan for any property in the inner cities, for all minorities anywhere, and women altogether. Thus, a white male was the only person allowed to get a loan (not just home loans either) and that loan could only go toward new development outside of town. The US Highways were boosted by the New Deal predating the Interstate system by 30 years. The Standard Oil/GM/ Firestone partnership was found guilty of conspiracy of purposely dismantling urban rail systems country wide for profit in new non-electric bus contracts. No, the automobile did not remove horse “shat” from the streets, that was actually zoning laws, public sanitation committees and public service movements that started in the 1820s in New York. “Toy Train” has been on Fox News and conservative radio, you didn’t make it up. Do I need to go on any further to disprove everything you have quoted on this blog?
“How will poor families survive tolls!” Oh, woe as me! People bought cheap land in Clark County and are surprised it costs just as much to live far far away as it does anywhere else… give me a break.. all that land is heavily subsidized by State, local and Federal agencies like …. you guessed it! Mortgage tax credits for new homes only! It may shock you to learn that suburbia is far more subsidized than any LRT or streetcar or bus system…
Oh, here you go! Here’s your artery clogging proof:
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/freeways-234391-heart-people.html
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/feb/14/local/la-me-freeway-pollution14-2010feb14
http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2010/02/08_atherosclerosis_particulates.shtml
[Moderator: Further removal.]
Free rides on transit? Where I do I get those? Last I checked, a full-fare all-zone ticket was $2.30, less if ya gots a pass.
But yes, if you build high-quality rapid transit, it does attract riders out of cars. This despite the fact that the network, as it presently sits, is limited. I’m not interested in drawing “yuppees” vs drawing only the poor–while serving disadvantaged populations is important, transit should offer sufficient service quality (and I’m mainly speaking of coverage and performance) that it’s not only those without a choice who ride it.
And regarding Tom Rubin. If you read his stuff carefully, you’ll notice that the decline in bus usage which Rubin blames on rail construction correlates with something more fundamental–the withdrawal of operating subsidies and the subsequent spike in fares. When done right, new project construction ought not impact operations–and this is one reason that pro-transit folks like myself are nonetheless skeptical of MLR; due to the use of operational funds to finance the thing. I’m not entirely defending LACMTA and its program–that said, the transit politics in LA County are NASTY compared to what we have up here. But Rubin’s analysis on this subject is thoroughly flawed.
As far as the “transit is more energy expensive than small cars” canard–that’s only true when extensive “coverage” services (hourly bus lines to the suburbs and the like) result in a low average ridership. Busses which are even a quarter full get far better gas mileage per passenger than your overly-optimistic estimate for cars–an analysis which Bob has dealt with many times before.
Yonah at http://www.thetransportpolitic.com has of MLR and the recent FTA announcement.
Steve S:
Really, Antiplanner website to prove your point? That’s almost Demographia© in terms of objectiveness.
JD Says: Everything I stated was true, learn some history. Educate yourself. The US government has been doing “social engineering” by forcing white people into cars and into suburbia for profiteering and war tactics for 80 years.
JK: Are you seriously claiming that the government forced white people into cars? (But below you claim that it was General Motors that shut down the streetcars.)
JD Says: In 1933 the US made mortgage finance regulation that made it impossible to get a loan for any property in the inner cities, for all minorities anywhere, and women altogether. Thus, a white male was the only person allowed to get a loan (not just home loans either) and that loan could only go toward new development outside of town.
JK: Citation please for this extraordinary claim.
JD Says: The Standard Oil/GM/ Firestone partnership was found guilty of conspiracy of purposely dismantling urban rail systems country wide for profit in new non-electric bus contracts.
JK: No it wasn’t. It was found guilty of some minor vertical integration offense and fined a trivial amount.
That story does not ring true on its face. If they were so successful at shutting down streetcars, why did the many cities that GM never bought also shut down? A much more believable account is found in Transportation Quarterly, Vol. 51. No. 3 Summer 1997 (45-66). You can read it at: http://www.portlandfacts.com/transit/gm-streetcar.htm
JD Says: No, the automobile did not remove horse “shat” from the streets, that was actually zoning laws, public sanitation committees and public service movements that started in the 1820s in New York.
JK: Citation please. And reconcile that citation with this from Access N U M B E R 3 0 , S P R I N G 2 0 0 7:
For New York and Brooklyn, which had a combined horse population of between 150,000 and 175,000 in
1880 (long before the horse population reached its peak), this meant that between three and four million pounds of manure were deposited on city streets and in city stables every day. Each horse also produced about a quart of urine daily, which added up to around 40,000 gallons per day for New York and Brooklyn
JD Says: “Toy Train” has been on Fox News and conservative radio, you didn’t make it up.
JK: According to my archives I have been using the term since before October 2005 and in some national forums – when did they start using it? . It is entirely possible they picked it up from me. Or more likely, since it really is a toy, we came up with it independently. However, I do know the origin of “light rail – costs too much, does too little.”
JD Says: Do I need to go on any further to disprove everything you have quoted on this blog?
JK: No, you did a pretty good job of self destruction above.
JD Says: “How will poor families survive tolls!” Oh, woe as me! People bought cheap land in Clark County and are surprised it costs just as much to live far far away as it does anywhere else… give me a break..
JK: I note your complete lack of sympathy for other people.
JD Says: all that land is heavily subsidized by State, local and Federal agencies like …. you guessed it!
JK: citation please.
JD Says: Mortgage tax credits for new homes only! It may shock you to learn that suburbia is far more subsidized than any LRT or streetcar or bus system…
JK: citation please. (At least most of what I say is fully backed up on PortlandFacts.com – you should spend some time there.)
JD Says: Oh, here you go! Here’s your artery clogging proof:
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/freeways-234391-heart-people.html
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/feb/14/local/la-me-freeway-pollution14-2010feb14
http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2010/02/08_atherosclerosis_particulates.shtml
JK: You cite news reports of a study instead of the study itself. The media is mostly scientifically illiterate and constantly gets science wrong. The third cite is to a publicity release and these tend to be self serving and often do not accurately reflect the actual study. However this one has a link to the actual study:
First you said the arterial wall thickness was double. The actual study says the rate of growth was double – about an extra 1/20 of a human hair thickness per year, not the wall thickness was double.
But this is the most important part of the study (bold added):
However, the heterogeneity of the volunteering populations across the five trials, the limited sample size within trials and other relevant subgroups, and the fact that some key findings reached statistical significance in subgroups rather than the sample precludes generalizations to the general population.
Also it appears to be the first study and therefore needs replication before we can trust it.
I’ll save you the embarrassment of my answer to your personal insult which was removed by the moderator.
Thanks
JK
ws Says: Really, Antiplanner website to prove your point? That’s almost Demographia© in terms of objectiveness.
JK: Oh, really?
It just so happens that Tom Rubin was the CFO of the transit system at the time of the construction of the LRT line. He is an authoritative source.
You can even see him talk about it here: http://blip.tv/file/2743664
You can also see the man behind Demographia take credit for coming up with the financing for the first light rail line in LA – an action he regrets today.
Do yo have any specific criticisms of the objectiveness of either the Antipalnner or Demographia©? Or do you just disagree with their facts?
Thanks
JK
[Moderator: JK’s comment moved to the August Open Thread – Bob R.]
Basically I want to see trimet quit wasting money serving people who can afford their own transportation while shortchanging the genuine needy
1. Spending transit money to serve people who have their own transportation is how you reduce traffic congestion, pollution, etc.
2. I think most people would agree that there should be enough money to do both.
3. Right now is not a good time to measure funding given that TriMet’s fare and payroll tax revenue are both down because there are less jobs and less commuting (riding transit) to them.
4. A better solution would be to charge drivers for the real costs of pollution cleanup and effects, parking, petroleum defense and other costs of driving. In that case, light rail would either not be needed to attract riders or be more justifiable based just on ridership.