I would love to see something like Melbourne’s Colonial Tramcar Restaurant opened in Portland, running on the Streetcar tracks. I can see some ADA problems with access and seating, but it would be a great way to see the central city over dinner — and maybe generate a little revenue for the Portland Streetcar in the process. Imagine a “dinner tour” that took you from South Waterfront to Nob Hill to OMSI and back again.
Wonder if the Oregon Electric Railway Museum has anything that could be converted to a dining car?
The recent American Dream Conference featured a tour of the Tampa elevated expressway.
It cost $35 million/mile for three lanes + breakdown lanes. That would be 70 million for a complete new six lane freeway. It was built on 6 ft. wide piers, so ti takes up little land area and was built in the center meridian of an existing freeway.
The local match alone for the Milwauke light rail could build TEN miles of this six lane design.
Enough to go from Powell Blvd. to Milwauke TWO & 1/2 times!
Or, enough to go from Powell Blvd. to Milwauke AND
From Powell Blvd. to Lake Oswego!
All for the cost of the local match of one short light rail line.
The one where a section collapsed during construction. The one that ultimately cost $420 million for 6 miles (that’s $70 million/mile). The one that appeared to open to only 2,000 cars per day rather than a projected 6,000. The one that had a $3 toll which sorely irritated the locals, even though that doesn’t cover half of the construction costs over 30 years even at projected volumes.
I’d be delighted to see some additional news about that expressway, if we’re talking about the same one. (Or even a single link to the one you’ve promoted on this site multiple times. Is 3.5 years too long to wait?)
Bob R. Says: JK, about three and a half years ago you mentioned a Tampa expressway which allegedly cost $35 million/mile. JK: It did. It was a reversible expressway, three lanes (+shoulders).
Bob R. Says: I asked you for a cite and you didn’t provide one. JK: Actually I did. Here is what I said: http://portlandtransport.com/archives/2007/03/hybrid_heaven.html#comments Here it is:
It is in the presentation by Bob Poole which starts 21 min into this weeks program, titled “reducing Congestion”. He talks costs at 30 min into the program. The specific reference to 30 mil per lane mile is the actual cost of an elevated freeway in Tampa built from precast sections hauled into place. BTW I misheard the number: he actually said $13 million per lane mile. Also note a proposal to double deck an existing freeway with auto only lanes that are not tall enough for trucks or buses to almost double the throughput by not catering to buses and trucks. He also mentioned a French tunnel, under construction, that uses the this type of double deck for cars only.
Preserving the American Dream plays on Comcast cable at: Sun….10:00pm…ch 11 Mon… 7:00 pm…ch 22 Fri…… 5:00 pm…ch 23
I will soon have the video of Martin Stone’s (the project manager) presentation available. And that $13 million per lane-mile is including the loss of the design error as if it was a valid part of the expense. Building it properly should have cost about $7 million per lane-mile.
Bob R. Says: I did some research (posted at the time, without further comment from you) and found references to the Lee Roy Selmon Crosstown Expressway. JK: That is the name.
Bob R. Says: The one where a section collapsed during construction. JK: Yep. The toll authority got a $ 79 million settlement from the engineering company for its mistake. They expect $10 million more from the insurance companies.
Bob R. Says: The one that ultimately cost $420 million for 6 miles (that’s $70 million/mile) JK: Nope. This one cost $420 million before subtracting the settlement & insurance receipts from the design error. However, I was only referring to the segmental elevated portion (“Segmental Bridge”) which cost $120 million for 5.5 miles. (You probably get to the $35 million when you add in some incidentals.)
Here is the breakdown from slide 61:
Project Costs & Benefits
Total Project Cost = $300 Million
Planning ? Env Studies = $2M
Design = $4M
Segmental Bridge (5.5 miles) = $120M
Gateway Entrances = $30M
At-Grade Sections (4.5miles)=$64M
All ITS Controls & TMC = $17M
ROW (ponds) $5M
ROW(w/downtown gateway) =$28M
CM/CEI=$20M
Contingency & Overage = $10M
Bob R. Says: The one that appeared to open to only 2,000 cars per day rather than a projected 6,000. JK: A year after opening, ch 9 reported the projection was for 12,000 vehicles/day at a $1.00 toll and the actual was 16-17,000 vehicles per day with a $1.50 toll. (9 min into the video)
Bob R. Says: The one that had a $3 toll which sorely irritated the locals, even though that doesn’t cover half of the construction costs over 30 years even at projected volumes. JK: Not this one. This one has a toll of $1.50. We were told that the revenues are paying 100% of the costs. (Better than light rail revenues which covers 0% of the construction costs and a tiny % of operating costs.)
Here is the text from slide 101:
Project Costs & Benefits
Express Lanes Cost to Local Taxpayers
$0
100% Funding based on
Revenue Bonds and Loans
Repaid from $1.00 Toll
(Toll increase to $1.50 in 2007)
Bob R. Says: I’d be delighted to see some additional news about that expressway, if we’re talking about the same one. (Or even a single link to the one you’ve promoted on this site multiple times. Is 3.5 years too long to wait?) JK: Wait for the video. Or try Google. (I found an interesting letter by the project manager correcting a number of mis-representations about the project by light rail advocates in Hawaii.)
BTW, while the CRC is talking of giving an outside company 20% to collect the tolls, this project does it in house for around 5%.
Well it sounds like that project had the luxury of an existing right-of-way. And I doubt that this region would want the additional pollution that such a highway would result in, or the visual effects that an elevated roadway would bring. Lastly, is that bridge comparable to the one planned over the Willamette?
Well it sounds like that project had the luxury of an existing right-of-way. JK: OOPS, I left out some background:
1. It was built on the median of an existing divided highway on 6′ wide piers.
2. This construction technique was previously used for bridges.
Notice the individual segments visible in the underside view. Each of those lines across the bottom is a dividing line between the individual segments that make up the roadway. The segments were cast in a “casting yard” that had 11 molds, then trucked to the site, lifted into place and secured with tensioned cables.
The editorial you link to repeats the $420 million “elevated highway” figure, and then misstates the length as 10 miles instead of 6.
I’m really looking for something other than advocacy slide shows, public access TV, and editorials. (Which may be just fine but don’t quite agree with one another. You of all people should understand the need to see original sources, since you’re often demanding them from others.)
A year after opening, ch 9 reported the projection was for 12,000 vehicles/day at a $1.00 toll and the actual was 16-17,000 vehicles per day with a $1.50 toll.
Then Ch 9 is not giving the whole story.
Here is the official Toll Calculator for that highway:
If you select the entire tollway, you pay $3.00 each way with the “we bill you” method.
If you select just the elevated section, 22nd Ave. to I-75, it is $1.75 each way.
That $1.75 toll, by the way, adds 30 cents per passenger-mile for solo commuters to the cost of driving. So apparently commuters in Tampa (who you claim are actually covering the full infrastructure costs) are paying way, way higher than what you have been claiming all these years for the cost of driving.
Let’s see what the folks in SE Portland…Brooklyn, West and East Moreland, and Sellwood…think of this idea. Adding an elevated freeway to McLaughlin instead of light rail; likewise the good folks of Dunthorpe for a fix for State 43 instead of Streetcar.
While we are at it lets build an extension of 217 from Kruse Woods to the Milwaukee Expressway over the RR tracks thru LO, across the Willamette and Oak Grove with a nice big cloverleaf where it crosses the State 43 in downtown LO. These kind of projects were always built in poor neighborhoods that were unable to defend themselves. Now we can try them out in an upscale community and get those commuters from Clackamas county to jobs in Washington county by the most direct route possible. Good luck!
Bob R. Says: JK –
The editorial you link to repeats the $420 million “elevated highway” figure, and then misstates the length as 10 miles instead of 6. JK: I linked to that article for the pictures. Any other message is not what I am talking of. But since you raised these side issues:
The $420 million is the highball figure counting the engineering mistake. When looking at the cost to duplicate ths project, it is proper to NOT count ths mistake. But you know that. The length of what is referred to as the elevated expressway IS ten miles from end to end with about 5.5 miles actually elevated as you can see from the slide I posted above. The cost of that section alone is what I posted.
Bob R. Says: I’m really looking for something other than advocacy slide shows, public access TV,… JK: Sorry, the TV references are primary sources, especially the testimony by the project manager, Martin Stone, on the “public access” TV. But if you find something better, I’m sure you’ll let us know.
Bob R. Says: Then Ch 9 is not giving the whole story….If you select the entire tollway, you pay $3.00 each way with the “we bill you” method….If you select just the elevated section, 22nd Ave. to I-75, it is $1.75 each way. JK: I presented only of the 10 mile elevated section (actually not all is elevated). The toll on the elevated is $1.50. The “we bill you” method is for infrequent users and adds an extra $0.25 is for the billing. Commuters use electronic tolling and pay $1.50. So channel 9 DID tell the whole story. (Unless you wanted to turn a short news story into a one hour documentary)
Bob R. Says: That $1.75 toll, by the way, adds 30 cents per passenger-mile for solo commuters to the cost of driving. JK: The toll is $1.50 for the 10 mile reversible section built for commuters from a large bedroom community to downtown. My math gives $0.15/mile for a solo driver.
Bob R. Says: (who you claim are actually covering the full infrastructure costs) JK: Lets be accurate Bob, I didn’t make the claim. It is in the slide that I posted above, created under the supervision of project manager, Marty Stone.
Bob R. Says: are paying way, way higher than what you have been claiming all these years for the cost of driving. JK: That is why I oppose tolls. If they are going to pay a toll, they should, at least, get a 100% refund on gas tax.
Keep in mind that the toll are ONLY to pay for the right of way. Compare this to mass transit which mostly DOES NOT PAY for its right of way. We both know that when you count capitol expenses, both bus and rail cost far more than driving.
Even though only one section completely collapsed, it looks like there were flaws throughout the design:
The collapse delayed the highway’s opening by a year. Ultimately, crews had to strengthen 155 of 224 piers.
Sue Chrzan, a spokeswoman for the Expressway Authority, said the agency hasn’t decided how to spend the settlement money. Some of it might be used to pay for debt that accumulated after the collapse.
The authority had borrowed money from the state to pay for the repairs, then floated bonds to repay the state.
That is why I oppose tolls. If they are going to pay a toll, they should, at least, get a 100% refund on gas tax.
Why on earth would you propose that? It’s not as though people who cross a tolled bridge or expressway never, ever drive on other gas-tax-supported roads.
How would you implement that? Would motorists have to save every receipt and tally their deductions on their state tax forms? Would these deductions get audited for validity?
Sounds to me just like the idea of bicycle tolls — a dramatic increase in state bureaucracy which is way disproportionate to the problem its trying to solve.
When looking at the cost to duplicate ths project, it is proper to NOT count ths mistake. But you know that.
That’s very convenient. I guess we don’t get to count the cost overruns for the Aerial Tram either, since we now know how they could have been avoided. Glad to hear.
The toll is $1.50 for the 10 mile reversible section built for commuters from a large bedroom community to downtown.
Please use the toll calculator on the official web site to show a 10-mile segment which is only $1.50. It may indeed be possible, but when I go any wider than the endpoints I mentioned, I get higher tolls, up to $2.50 (or $3.00 for “Bill me later”).
For example, Willow Ave. to I-75 is $2.50/$3.00 each way. According to Google Maps, that’s exactly 10.0 miles.
For those just tuning in, the 10-mile reversible section isn’t all elevated, which further confuses the cost figures.
We are getting way off my original claim here. I only claimed that an elevated freeway, using the Tampa model, can be built for around 70 million per mile.
*I did not mention tolls – they are a distraction.
*Engineering mistakes are mistakes, not a problem inherent in the design. The payment of a settlement by the engineering company supports that position.
Can we stick to the original claim, that we can save money with an elevated freeway compared to light rail, instead of side issues like tolls, mistakes and areal trams.
The original source, as shown in the slide I posted, shows:
Segmental Bridge (5.5 miles) = $120M.
That is a 3 lane elevated road for $21.8 million/mile. The commonly stated figure is $35 million/mile. Thus, a six lane elevated built like the Tampa example (but with 2 x 3 lane elements) should cost around 70 million/mile. That is cheap enough to build one from the Ross Island Bridge to Milwaulkie and another to Lake Oswego, both for the cost of the local match for the Milwaukie light rail line alone.
Your original claim is not adequately supported. And in your original claim there is a sub-claim that hasn’t been addressed (except in part by Lenny’s excellent points) is that you claim we can get from Powell to Lake Oswego for these claimed low costs.
Setting aside the fact that a Lake Oswego freeway would have little to no local support, do you really think the Tampa method can get the freeway across the Willamette at at that price, or did you forget to include a river bridge in your proposal?
We already know what it costs to build an elevated freeway in our region — the recent I-5 capacity expansion in Delta Park (by 50%) cost way, way more than your figure.
Personally, I think it would be just terrific if we can build elevated structures and river bridges for less — much of the cost of the proposed Milwaukie light rail line is indeed from the elevated portions. So the supposed cost savings you point out can apply to rail as well as roads.
This is pointless as a “roads vs. rails” argument because the fundamental engineering challenges are the same.
Bob R. Says: Your original claim is not adequately supported. JK: In what way? I used statements by the project’s manager?
Bob R. Says: And in your original claim there is a sub-claim that hasn’t been addressed (except in part by Lenny’s excellent points) is that you claim we can get from Powell to Lake Oswego for these claimed low costs. JK: The term I used in the latest post was Ross Island Bridge, assuming the West end for the Lake Oswego road and the East end for the Milwaulkie road.
Bob R. Says: Setting aside the fact that a Lake Oswego freeway would have little to no local support, JK: Pure conjecture. BTW, how much local support is there for rail (except the real estate developers that are expecting tax money to flow into their pockets)?
Bob R. Says: do you really think the Tampa method can get the freeway across the Willamette at at that price, or did you forget to include a river bridge in your proposal? JK: What river bridge – that’s why I said Ross Island Bridge. I am assuming staring points on each end of the bridge for the road on each side. But you might like to know that the design is based on a European bridge design, so it would be reasonable to guess savings spanning a river too. Wikipedia says: hese bridges are very economical for long spans (over 100 meters), especially when access to the construction site is restricted. They are also chosen for their aesthetic appeal.
The first segmental concrete bridge, built in 1950, was cast-in-place across the Lahn River in Balduinstein, Germany.[citation needed]
Bob R. Says: We already know what it costs to build an elevated freeway in our region — the recent I-5 capacity expansion in Delta Park (by 50%) cost way, way more than your figure. JK: That was not a cast segmental design like the Tampa elevated. The low cost is the big deal about that design.
Bob R. Says: This is pointless as a “roads vs. rails” argument because the fundamental engineering challenges are the same. JK: Huh? Are you suggesting that the rails can be cast? Or the ties? Or the overhead wires?
First you wanted to direct the conversation back to your original claim. Fine, I responded to it. Now you criticize my response for not taking into account the modification of your claim in your _later_ post. Please choose.
And yes, I know that concrete segmental bridges can cross rivers. But if you’re going to cross the Willamette to get to Lake Oswego (presumably from Milwaukie but you haven’t exactly specified), you’re going to need sufficient elevation, and that’s going to cost more than what Tampa’s 30ft tall elevated segment built upon land (and which collapsed) cost.
And was Tampa’s freeway built with the Pacific NW’s seismic situation in mind?
Plenty of local support, actually, for all transit including MAX projects.
I recently requested and received a copy of the “attitudes and awareness” survey done for TriMet complete with methodology, and hope to work up a full post about it soon.
But for now you’ll have to take my word about it.
Just as, for now, we’ll have to take your word for it about what a project manager said in an unposted video and in an advocacy group’s slide show. :-)
I’ll repeat: If this construction method is indeed so inexpensive, that’s great, as it will be a boon for BRT and light rail projects as well. Hooray. (As long as there aren’t any other “engineering mistakes”, of course.)
Bob R. Says: First you wanted to direct the conversation back to your original claim. Fine, I responded to it. Now you criticize my response for not taking into account the modification of your claim in your _later_ post. Please choose. JK: What are you talking about? I always was talking of roads on each side of the river, without any new crossings. It was you that introduced the concept of a river crossing. A river crossing is not needed at this time for road users. The only reason for a river crossing is to have light rail in the SoWhat. A better LRT route would be that proposed by Howell – stay on the East side. (and the best is none at all.)
Bob R. Says: And yes, I now that concrete segmental bridges can cross rivers. But if you’re going to cross the Willamette to get to Lake Oswego (presumably from Milwaukie but you haven’t exactly specified), JK: You are the one who introduced the river crossing. My comparison was the cost of two 6 lane elevated roads, one on each side of the river, to the cost of the local match of just one light rail line which can be described as: Using the Tampa model, it appears that you can build a 6 lane elevated freeway from the East end of Ross Island bridge to Milwaulkie AND a 6 lane elevated freeway from the West end of Ross Island bridge to Lake Oswego for about the cost of the local match for just the proposed Milwaulkie light rail line.
Bob R. Says: (and which collapsed) JK: Didn’t you threaten to toss me off the forum for continually putting in little digs?
Bob R. Says: And was Tampa’s freeway built with the Pacific NW’s seismic situation in mind? JK: Ask a structural engineer – its been years since I studied structures.
JK, I hate to beat this dead horse any further, but in your very first comment, you clearly said:
Or, enough to go from Powell Blvd. to Milwauke AND From Powell Blvd. to Lake Oswego!
(Emphasis added)
Scroll up and read it for yourself.
Last time I checked, Powell Blvd. was on the east side of the river, and Lake Oswego was on the west side.
If that was a mistake on your part, fine, but you did write it and you did ask me to respond to your original claim. That’s what you wrote.
(Or do you think a 6-lane elevated expressway will safely fit atop the Ross Island bridge?)
Doesn’t really matter as the whole exercise on your part doesn’t take into account the terrain.
There is absolutely no way a Tampa-style expressway can be built over Hwy 43. as cheaply as you assert. Reality, via geology, intrudes.
But by all means, as Lenny alluded, please continue to advocate for an elevated expressway through Dunthorpe.
The single-lane at-grade expressway that Cascade Policy proposed to Metro drew such widespread popular support (ahem) I’d love to see the groundswell of activism for a 6-lane version in that area.
Bob R. Says: JK, I hate to beat this dead horse any further, but in your very first comment, you clearly said:
Or, enough to go from Powell Blvd. to Milwauke AND From Powell Blvd. to Lake Oswego!
Last time I checked, Powell Blvd. was on the east side of the river, and Lake Oswego was on the west side.
JK: Perhaps you didn’t notice, but I used Powell as a Northern reference line, not literally a point. (BTW, are you sure Powell starts exactly at the bridge? Which end of the bridge. Is there a marker?)
But if you insist, one could add a Willamette river crossing and probably still cost far, far less than light rail, but a bit more than the local match alone. Unless, you added in the local match for the proposed streetcar.
Perhaps you didn’t notice, but I used Powell as a Northern reference line, not literally a point.
That’s not clear at all. There have been many proposals (rail and otherwise) to connect 99E to Lake Oswego by branching off after Milwaukie. Your vaguely-worded proposal sounded like one of those.
You chose imprecise (at best) words at the beginning, and subsequently directed me to pay attention only to your original words, and then got upset by the fact that I didn’t interpret them the way you wanted them to be interpreted.
Rather than merely admit a simple mistake and correct the record, you’re now doubling (tripling?) down on this idea that saying Powell Blvd. should mean a northern boundary on the _west_ side of the river.
BTW, are you sure Powell starts exactly at the bridge? Which end of the bridge. Is there a marker?
I’ve looked at maps and I’ve even looked at Google Street View. (Here is a photo of the closest-in street sign which says “Powell” which I could find. It’s about 1/2 block east of the Ross Island Bridge.)
Unless you’ve got some super double secret document showing the existence of Powell Blvd. on the west side of the river, for any Portlander living and traveling around the city on a regular basis, Powell, for all practical (and actual) purposes, is on the east side.
I can’t believe this point has to be debated with you. It’s like the time you tried to tell me (incorrectly) what kind of motor was in my own car.
At some point you have to concede an error so the conversation can move forward in an intellectually honest way.
But if you insist, one could add a Willamette river crossing and probably still cost far, far less than light rail, but a bit more than the local match alone.
As you said earlier to dismiss one of my comments, “Pure conjecture.”
Everything else aside, I don’t see how two 3 lane structures could be build on the 99E/224 route, because there’s little to no median and limited shoulders along it. The same problem happens along the 43 corridor.
The cost savings that Tampa achieved by avoiding ROW costs wouldn’t be seen here. It could be done along parts of existing freeways, but most of them don’t have enough excess ROW for long enough stretches for it to be worth it.
It would make more sense to just add more overpasses, flyovers, interchanges, pedestrian overcrossings, etc if there are specific intersections that are bottlenecks than to build out a freeway that seems fairly unneeded. Is the extra 3-5 minutes from hitting a few traffic lights the end of the world for people?
You can cut through all the BS and see the original source, the project manager, telling us about the Tampa elevated expressway starting Sunday at 10pm on Comcast ch 11.
Things to know:
* The main subject of the talk is the 10 mile section, for commuters, that is 3 reversible lanes, but sometimes it is not clear what is being talked of. This section apparently has NO exits or ons.
* The 10 mile elevated is actually only 60% elevated, so some cost statements are for the ten miles. At least one slide gives the cost for the 5.5 mile elevated section.
* The ‘famous” engineering error only came up in the questions at the end. (Some slides show this cost and some don’t, but if you don’t know about the error, the dual costs make no sense.)
The video of the Tampa elevated will be on Comcast cable for three showings starting Sunday night:
Sunday……Ch 11….10 pm
Monday…..Ch 22…..7 pm
Friday……..Ch 23…..8 pm
Technical note:
The introductory video was shot off of a screen with a Sony DCR-HC65, the slides are all from jpgs supplied by Mary Stone, laid in using camera video as a guide. The shots of Mary were made with a bottom line Canon DV (Z500) camera on a table tripod (6″?? High). Marty’s audio was a wireless lavalier mic..
Bob R. Says: Further sadistic equine necrophilia: JK: Do we really need to get sadistic on a family safe blog?
Bob R. Says: I can’t believe this point has to be debated with you. It’s like the time you tried to tell me (incorrectly) what kind of motor was in my own car. JK: Or when you appeared to NOT know that Metro dictated density.
Bob R. Says: At some point you have to concede an error so the conversation can move forward in an intellectually honest way. JK: I think I missed your error admission on the above matter. (and a few others too.)
Bob R. Says (October 5, 2010 11:51 PM): (quoting JK) Are you suggesting that the rails can be cast? Or the ties? Or the overhead wires?
Rails can be cast in concrete, yes. Look around, it happens, even here. JK: I usually ignore unclear wording, but since I was criticized on the basis of my poor wording up thread, I will return the favor:
Bob, please tell us just where, in response to my statement “Are you suggesting that the rails can be cast “ we find these rails cast of concrete.
Do we really need to get sadistic on a family safe blog?
“sadistic equine necrophilia” = “beating a dead horse”
That’s a joke I learned from an English teacher in Jr. High School, almost 30 years ago… So, yes, I think it’s OK for a family-safe blog.
You can cut through all the BS
Pot, kettle, black in the family-safe blog dept.
Or when you appeared to NOT know that Metro dictated density.
Your perceptions of how I “appeared” are your own. So are your perceptions about Metro.
we find these rails cast of concrete.
That’s an alternate way to interpret your original statement, but I’ll partially give that to you. However, there’s no technical reason that steel rails cannot be embedded in pre-cast sections of concrete roadway at the place of manufacture as the roadway is cast.
If you don’t mind splitting some really, really fine hairs (from a dead horse?), the “rail” in contemporary “monorail” systems can be precast concrete sections:
see the original source, the project manager, telling us about the Tampa elevated expressway
This will be interesting to see. I hope someone puts it online for those who don’t have Cable TV.
Of course, if “project manager” is meant to be an “original source” (which I think it can be, in the right context), then I suppose statements over the years from project managers such as Neil McFarlane are inherently valid, too.
10 mile section … This section apparently has NO exits or ons.
Well that certainly helps keep the cost down, doesn’t it? Doesn’t seem too applicable to our local situation. Interchanges cost money.
Anyway, money from the Sellwood project is now going towards the MAX.
Let’s be very clear:
1) Portland is contributing funding to both projects from its own coffers.
2) The deal that was struck is that to the extent that the Sellwood costs less than currently estimated, Portland will get a share back.
3) The Mayor has indicated that if some of the funds Portland has committed to the Sellwood are not needed, they will be provided to the Milwaukie problem.
That’s NOT the same as saying Sellwood dollars are going to the MAX project. If they’re needed for the Sellwood, the Sellwood gets them.
Cameron, that’s sort of like the (false and misleading) claim that the city is raiding sewer funds to make bike lanes.
Of course, the city could allocate the Sellwood cost savings anywhere, and the choice to allocate those savings to Milwaukie light rail is worth discussing as a separate concept, but it’s not at all the case that money which is needed for the Sellwood project is being diverted to Milwaukie.
Look at it this way:
If I’m planning a major addition to my house and the estimates come in at over $100,000, I might consult with a different architect and perhaps a structural engineer to find out if there’s a safe, effective way to reduce the costs. If those consultants identify $20,000 of genuine cost savings, and I later decide to spend that $20,000 on a new car, that does not mean that I’ve taken $20,000 away from the home addition project in order to buy the new car. It’s a win-win. (Assuming, hypothetically, I could afford such a thing in the first place, another topic worth debating in this metaphor. Nor should anyone long-term finance a car in the same manner as a home improvement!)
Bob: (quoting JK) we find these rails cast of concrete.
… However, there’s no technical reason that steel rails cannot be embedded in pre-cast sections of concrete roadway at the place of manufacture as the roadway is cast. JK: Again you are ignoring an important word: OF as in rails cast of concrete. Meaning the rails are made out of concrete.
And NO, you cannot embed rails in the cast sections which are only about 10′ long. Unless you want to have rail sections 10′ long or get into lots of welding (which would probably not be practical.).
And you also ignore the context, light rail, when you introduced monorail.
I said: “That’s an alternate way to interpret your original statement, but I’ll partially give that to you.”
Not much of a concession I admit, and you original statement didn’t say “Of”, but I do concede that you meant “of” and I agree that light rail tracks themselves are not cast “of” concrete, although other components are.
That I must repeat this concession in order for it to sink in for you, is yet another waste of people’s time.
Bob: (quoting JK) Or when you appeared to NOT know that Metro dictated density.
Your perceptions of how I “appeared” are your own. So are your perceptions about Metro. JK: As to my perception of Metro, I guess you need a reminder of their code (bold added to what I posted in August):
Planner mandated Density (metro mandate):
3.07.140 Measures to Increase Development Capacity
A. Each city and county shall adopt a minimum dwelling unit density, as prescribed in this subsection, for each zoning district in which dwelling units are authorized inside the UGB:
2. A city or county shall not approve a subdivision or development application that will result in a density below the minimum density for the zoning district.
B. A city or county shall not prohibit the partition or subdivision of a lot or parcel that is at least twice the size of the minimum size for new lots or parcels in any zoning district in which dwelling units are authorized.
Sure sounds like density mandates to me. Do you now agree?
The hangup was on the word “dictate”, JK.
Metro does not “dictate” anything. They are an elected, representative body.
If the county governments felt very strongly that Metro was dictating to them (and counties do criticize metro from time-to-time), they could be sending a strong message to the public that they’d prefer new candidates for Metro to repeal those targets.
Bob, the news ACTUALLY SAID that the City was taking the funds from the Sellwood Bridge and reallocated it to the Milwaukie MAX line. And I happen to trust the news. O_o
I don’t relish the practice of touting one’s degree, _but_, my degree is actually in Communications (major: Broadcast Media Communication) and I have many friends currently in the news biz. Politely put, “the news” doesn’t always get these things right.
Don’t take my word for it, or the word of “the news” alone… (I hope the formal terms of the written agreement will be posted to the bridge project web site for all to see soon.)
In the meantime, here’s a Q&A posted on the mayoral web site:
If you want to refer to any kind of regulation on the books as a “dictate” that’s fine, but that’s your own stylistic choice.
By that very wide definition. It’s a “dictate” that drivers stop for red lights, and a “dictate” that people can’t pour raw sewage into storm drains, and a “dictate” that bicycles can’t ride on the Marquam or Fremont bridges alongside automobiles.
I refer to those sorts of things as laws and regulations depending on the appropriate context. Metro has a hand in regulating development patterns and density, yes. So do the counties and municipalities.
“Dictate” is your own characterization. You’re welcome to it, but you can’t fault me for not going along for the ride with it.
The word “shall” is a dictate.
No if ands or buts.
Question: By your definition, is the 1st Amendment of the United States Constitution a “dictate”? Personally I’ve never heard items from the Bill of Rights referred to as “dictates” before, but now you’ve given no wiggle room by saying “no ifs ands or buts”. (Sounds like you’re doing the dictating, there…)
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. (Emphasis added)
Amendment III is structured exactly like the Metro Charter 3.07.140-B which prevents counties from prohibiting subdivision of large lots, for example:
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law. (Emphasis added)
Just trying to get a handle on the whole “No ifs ands or buts” thing.
Bob R. Says: Question: By your definition, is the 1st Amendment of the United States Constitution a “dictate”? Personally I’ve never heard items from the Bill of Rights referred to as “dictates” before, but now you’ve given no wiggle room by saying “no ifs ands or buts”. (Sounds like you’re doing the dictating, there…)
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. (Emphasis added) JK: Yes, Bob, that means congress is mandated, dictated, forbidden, ordered, decreed, etc, to keep its mitts off of our basic freedoms. More of the same in the 2nd amendment, which a lot of liberals seem to ignore. And a number of other amendments. Too bad congress, all too often, tries to ignore them.
Bob R. Says: Just trying to get a handle on the whole “No ifs ands or buts” thing. JK: why do so many liberals have problems understanding that the bill of rights is a restriction of government powers. Hence the shall nots.
Come to think of it, many conservatives are not too good in that department either.
why do so many liberals have problems understanding that the bill of rights is a restriction of government powers.
Why get partisan?
But thanks nonetheless.
I now know that you’ve watered “dictate” down to where it can be a positive or a negative thing.
I see now that when you refer to Metro Charter 3.07.140-B you do so out of praise. It’s just like the Constitution in that it forbids counties from denying property owners the right to subdivide if the resulting subdivision would otherwise be legal under existing zoning.
I still don’t see how that “dictates”, “mandates”, or otherwise forces high-density, though. It merely allows for higher density, at the discretion of the property owner.
PS… I’ve never met a liberal who didn’t understand that the Bill of Rights is primarily a restriction of government powers and a recognition of rights. That’s basic civics class stuff. Something that used to be taught in those darned liberal public schools when I was a kid, along with that sadistic equine necrophilia stuff.
Bob R. Says: Why get partisan? JK: Apparently you missed this: Come to think of it, many conservatives are not too good in that department either.
Bob R. Says: I now know that you’ve watered “dictate” down to where it can be a positive or a negative thing. JK: Of course its positive when it is dictated that the government respect your freedoms.
Bob R. Says: I still don’t see how that “dictates”, “mandates”, or otherwise forces high-density, though. It merely allows for higher density, at the discretion of the property owner. JK: You just have to read this (for the third time!): 3.07.140 Measures to Increase Development Capacity A. Each city and county shall adopt a minimum dwelling unit density, as prescribed in this subsection, for each zoning district in which dwelling units are authorized inside the UGB:
2. A city or county shall not approve a subdivision or development application that will result in a density below the minimum density for the zoning district.
Bob R. Says: PS… I’ve never met a liberal who didn’t understand that the Bill of Rights is primarily a restriction of government powers and a recognition of rights. JK: I have.
Bob R. Says: sadistic JK: There you go again with the S&M.
There is no indication whatsoever in the statement that the horse is a masochist. In fact, the horse is dead. It doesn’t matter how the horse might have felt about it. It merely receives the beating.
To be clear, JK (if that’s at all possible anymore), I already acknowledged way, way, way up there somewhere that Metro participates in the regulation of density along with other local governments.
More than once.
I just disagree completely with your throwing around the word “dictate” when it comes to Metro as though they’re some nefarious actor, and now you’re trying to water “dictate” down to the point where it doesn’t mean hardly anything. (And while, paradoxically, employing a zero-tolerance policy toward flexibility in the use of the word “shall”. Or “and”, “if” and “but” for that matter. Lest we forget omitted “ofs” and non-existent west-side arterial streets.)
And it was your choice to include 3.07.140-B in your list of items from that part of the charter. You brought it up. And 3.07.140-B does not dictate density, even by your own definition. There’s no reason for you to have included it — it’s the opposite of what you’re trying to claim about the other charter items.
Getting back to what “the news” has said about the Sellwood bridge project, here’s an example of where imprecise language gets The News (and policymakers) into trouble…
Take this quote from a KGW.com story… it actually gets the situation mostly correct, albeit oversimplified:
Portland Mayor Sam Adams and county chair Jeff Cogen got together Wednesday night and hammered out a plan to find construction savings in the bridge project and steer that savings toward the gap in light rail funding.
I don’t really have a problem with that summary.
However, the very same article bears this headline:
It’s a gross oversimplification because there are multiple ways to interpret that and it isn’t clear for the reader which way to go… One of the possible interpretations is correct but not the most likely conclusion.
The most likely conclusion someone just reading the headline would get is that $20M of existing money already pledged to the Sellwood project is being taken away… the concept of cost savings is entirely missing from the headline, and cost savings is critical for context.
Bob R. Says: I just disagree completely with your throwing around the word “dictate” when it comes to Metro as though they’re some nefarious actor, JK: Nothing has changed “shall” means “you shall”. It is a dictate. It is a command. It is a mandate. It is an order. It is a decree. They all mean you will obey and if you don’t comply you will be punished.
Bob R. Says: And it was your choice to include 3.07.140-B in your list of items from that part of the charter. JK: Jeesh! Now you complain that I kept the original context.
Of course that is also a mandate to local governments – it is mandated that they shall not prevent a person form adding higher density in a particular manner.
Bob R. Says: But you can’t turn that around to say that the Constitution “dictates religion”.
That’s what you’re doing with Metro Charter 3.07.140-B. JK: No. It clearly says that local governments shall not ……
Its just in this case an individual’s freedom is increased – probably unique in all of Metro’s code. (have fun reading every word to find if my guess is wrong.)
It clearly says that local governments shall not …
Yes, exactly what I said. Just like the Constitution. “Congress shall make no law” and all that.
Its just in this case an individual’s freedom is increased
Yes, exactly what I said.
Clearly not a “Metro dictates density” regulation.
That you do not get this is astounding.
If a Metro regulation were to say “The county shall not prevent people from owning domestic animals”, that does not mean that Metro is “dictating pets”.
Bob R. Says: Yes, exactly what I said. Just like the Constitution. “Congress shall make no law” and all that.
Its just in this case an individual’s freedom is increased
Yes, exactly what I said.
JK: None of which changes my original assertion that it is a Metro density mandate.
Bob R. Says: Clearly not a “Metro dictates density” regulation. JK: It IS a Metro density mandate.
That you do not get this is astounding.
Bob R. Says: If a Metro regulation were to say “The county shall not prevent people from owning domestic animals”, that does not mean that Metro is “dictating pets”. JK: Not relevant.
None of which changes my original assertion that it is a Metro density mandate.
Your original assertion, which you seem to have completely forgotten, even though it is printed way up there on October 9th at 1:58am, was:
“Or when you appeared to NOT know that Metro dictated density.”
That was your original assertion. And its a mix of false premises. First of all, as I’ve mentioned like six times now, I do understand that Metro is involved with the regulation of density. You’ve never shown otherwise regarding my “appearances”. So the “appeared to NOT know” part is just plain wrong.
The 2nd false premise is the use the word “dictated”, which is a horse beaten to such a pulp that we now need to find a new one.
The third is that, right after that text, you quoted a few Metro regs (surely you remember), one of which did not belong with the others. I took issue with that one, and referenced it by number, and rather than acknowledge that it doesn’t fit with your assertion, you kept acting like I was talking about the others. Which I wasn’t. Which is why I used the number.
Wow, when I saw the paraphrased way of stating the dead horse thing I thought it was a polite reference to what happened in 2005 in Enumclaw. This thread is almost as much of a wreck.
Given the blog I operate, I find all this talk of beating dead horses, somewhat interesting. I’m with JK; the term “necrophilia” (containing the Greek stem “philos”, or love) implies doing things to dead horses beyond beating them. (That said, “sadistic” and its cognates have a non-sexual meaning, despite the root of THAT word coming from the title of the Marquis de Sade).
As an alternate, I offer DHT’s tagline: “Si equum mortuum flagell?s, non celerium currat”–which, I am told, is Latin for “If you beat a dead horse, it won’t run any faster”. Beating dead horses is an act of futility, after all, not an act of cruelty. :)
Anyhoo, I think we’ve beaten… I think we’ve run this topic into the ground. :)
Bob R. Says: Your original assertion, which you seem to have completely forgotten, even though it is printed way up there on October 9th at 1:58am, was:
“Or when you appeared to NOT know that Metro dictated density.”
That was your original assertion. And its a mix of false premises. First of all, as I’ve mentioned like six times now, I do understand that Metro is involved with the regulation of density. You’ve never shown otherwise regarding my “appearances”. So the “appeared to NOT know” part is just plain wrong. JK: Yes, Bob, “Metro is involved with the regulation of density”. By mandating it in some cases (as I have shown many times.) Lets refresh our memories. Here is what you said, that I was referring to (bold added):
Agreed that targets do not equal mandates, but the use of the word “shall” in the upthread mentioned Metro codes are mandates, they do not simply allow higher density, they mandate it. One of the mandates is in the form of forbidding certain restrictions on partitioning land. But that forbidding is a mandate on the city. But lets not get hung up on that one when there are two others that are clear mandates:
3.07.140 Measures to Increase Development Capacity A. Each city and county shall adopt a minimum dwelling unit density, as prescribed in this subsection, for each zoning district in which dwelling units are authorized inside the UGB:
2. A city or county shall not approve a subdivision or development application that will result in a density below the minimum density for the zoning district.
Bob R. Says: The 2nd false premise is the use the word “dictated”, which is a horse beaten to such a pulp that we now need to find a new one. JK: Mandate, dictate, thou shall – all mean the force of law – a dictate, mandate etc. (You are the one who keeps bringing up horses, mostly deceased as a result of abuise.)
Bob R. Says: The third is that, right after that text, you quoted a few Metro regs (surely you remember), one of which did not belong with the others. JK: All three are parts of 3.07.140, so if they don’t belong together, I suggest you take it up with Metro.
JK, I sand by my original statement from August, 2010. I see I can’t convince you that not going along 100% with your assertions isn’t the same as denying them. Case in point: We were arguing about “dictate” and now you’ve substituted “mandate” and “force”.
Please send me a highlighted thesaurus and your standard loyalty oath and I’ll see what my lawyers can accommodate.
It’s a very strange situation… you appear to rail against so-called “force” from elected representatives, but you demand 100% adherence to your particular definitions of words, and personal interpretations or regulations and statutes. Bizarre, really.
You are the one who keeps bringing up horses, mostly deceased as a result of abuise.
Actually, I already dropped that and deferred to Scotty. Please bother to read all the comments sometime.
All three are parts of 3.07.140, so if they don’t belong together, I suggest you take it up with Metro.
You’ve never heard of different parts of a regulation which do different things being bundled together in one section? Really?
To be clear, I don’t have any problem with them being together as far as procedure goes. You’re the one who brought them all up, and that one just plain doesn’t support your “dictate”, I mean “mandate”, I mean “force”, I mean “shall” (ad infinitum?) assertion.
Bob R. Says: Case in point: We were arguing about “dictate” and now you’ve substituted “mandate” and “force”.
Please send me a highlighted thesaurus and your standard loyalty oath and I’ll see what my lawyers can accommodate.
JK: As I said on October 10, 2010 1:12 PM: Nothing has changed “shall” means “you shall”. It is a dictate . It is a command . It is a mandate . It is an order . It is a decree . They all mean you will obey and if you don’t comply you will be punished. (bold added)
If you check http://thesaurus.com/browse/mandate ,you will find that all my above synonyms, except order are actually listed as synonyms of mandate (bold added):
Bob R. Says: It’s a very strange situation… you appear to rail against so-called “force” from elected representatives, but you demand 100% adherence to your particular definitions of words, and personal interpretations or regulations and statutes. Bizarre, really. JK: Yeh, bizarre that I just happen to use commonly accepted definitions of words.
Bottom line: Metro does indeed mandate density.
I win.
You loose. Please quit wasting our time.
End of this topic.
BTW a reminder of where we started:
Using the Tampa Elevated Expressway as an example, you can build a pair of 3 lane elevated roads (one for each direction) between Portland and Milwaukie and between Portland and lake Oswego (using Ross Island Bridge as the Northern terminus) for about the cost of the local match for the probably doomed Milwaulkie light rail. Comcast cable subscribers can see the details on Monday(today) on Ch 22 at 7 pm and Friday on Ch 23 at 8 pm.
Funny that many of the synonyms you list for “mandate” are contradictory (authorize vs. injunction, for example). Exactly my point. Thanks for digging those up.
For some strange reason, you then go on to write:
I win. You loose.
How juvenile. (Perhaps the practice if leaving little missives at 3:20 AM is interfering with your spelling, too.)
72 responses to “October 2010 Open Thread”
I would love to see something like Melbourne’s Colonial Tramcar Restaurant opened in Portland, running on the Streetcar tracks. I can see some ADA problems with access and seating, but it would be a great way to see the central city over dinner — and maybe generate a little revenue for the Portland Streetcar in the process. Imagine a “dinner tour” that took you from South Waterfront to Nob Hill to OMSI and back again.
Wonder if the Oregon Electric Railway Museum has anything that could be converted to a dining car?
I believe that Amtrak has some sort of system where they rent their vintage rail cars out to the general public. Perhaps we could follow this model?
Amtrak doesn’t rent the vintage rail cars. Private people own them and pay Amtrak to carry them.
The recent American Dream Conference featured a tour of the Tampa elevated expressway.
It cost $35 million/mile for three lanes + breakdown lanes. That would be 70 million for a complete new six lane freeway. It was built on 6 ft. wide piers, so ti takes up little land area and was built in the center meridian of an existing freeway.
The local match alone for the Milwauke light rail could build TEN miles of this six lane design.
Enough to go from Powell Blvd. to Milwauke TWO & 1/2 times!
Or, enough to go from Powell Blvd. to Milwauke AND
From Powell Blvd. to Lake Oswego!
All for the cost of the local match of one short light rail line.
Thanks
JK
JK, about three and a half years ago you mentioned a Tampa expressway which allegedly cost $35 million/mile.
I asked you for a cite and you didn’t provide one.
I did some research (posted at the time, without further comment from you) and found references to the Lee Roy Selmon Crosstown Expressway.
The one where a section collapsed during construction. The one that ultimately cost $420 million for 6 miles (that’s $70 million/mile). The one that appeared to open to only 2,000 cars per day rather than a projected 6,000. The one that had a $3 toll which sorely irritated the locals, even though that doesn’t cover half of the construction costs over 30 years even at projected volumes.
I’d be delighted to see some additional news about that expressway, if we’re talking about the same one. (Or even a single link to the one you’ve promoted on this site multiple times. Is 3.5 years too long to wait?)
Bob R. Says: JK, about three and a half years ago you mentioned a Tampa expressway which allegedly cost $35 million/mile.
JK: It did. It was a reversible expressway, three lanes (+shoulders).
Bob R. Says: I asked you for a cite and you didn’t provide one.
JK: Actually I did. Here is what I said:
http://portlandtransport.com/archives/2007/03/hybrid_heaven.html#comments
Here it is:
It is in the presentation by Bob Poole which starts 21 min into this weeks program, titled “reducing Congestion”. He talks costs at 30 min into the program. The specific reference to 30 mil per lane mile is the actual cost of an elevated freeway in Tampa built from precast sections hauled into place. BTW I misheard the number: he actually said $13 million per lane mile. Also note a proposal to double deck an existing freeway with auto only lanes that are not tall enough for trucks or buses to almost double the throughput by not catering to buses and trucks. He also mentioned a French tunnel, under construction, that uses the this type of double deck for cars only.
Preserving the American Dream plays on Comcast cable at:
Sun….10:00pm…ch 11
Mon… 7:00 pm…ch 22
Fri…… 5:00 pm…ch 23
I will soon have the video of Martin Stone’s (the project manager) presentation available. And that $13 million per lane-mile is including the loss of the design error as if it was a valid part of the expense. Building it properly should have cost about $7 million per lane-mile.
Bob R. Says: I did some research (posted at the time, without further comment from you) and found references to the Lee Roy Selmon Crosstown Expressway.
JK: That is the name.
Bob R. Says: The one where a section collapsed during construction.
JK: Yep. The toll authority got a $ 79 million settlement from the engineering company for its mistake. They expect $10 million more from the insurance companies.
Bob R. Says: The one that ultimately cost $420 million for 6 miles (that’s $70 million/mile)
JK: Nope. This one cost $420 million before subtracting the settlement & insurance receipts from the design error. However, I was only referring to the segmental elevated portion (“Segmental Bridge”) which cost $120 million for 5.5 miles. (You probably get to the $35 million when you add in some incidentals.)
Here is the breakdown from slide 61:
Project Costs & Benefits
Total Project Cost = $300 Million
Planning ? Env Studies = $2M
Design = $4M
Segmental Bridge (5.5 miles) = $120M
Gateway Entrances = $30M
At-Grade Sections (4.5miles)=$64M
All ITS Controls & TMC = $17M
ROW (ponds) $5M
ROW(w/downtown gateway) =$28M
CM/CEI=$20M
Contingency & Overage = $10M
Bob R. Says: The one that appeared to open to only 2,000 cars per day rather than a projected 6,000.
JK: A year after opening, ch 9 reported the projection was for 12,000 vehicles/day at a $1.00 toll and the actual was 16-17,000 vehicles per day with a $1.50 toll. (9 min into the video)
Bob R. Says: The one that had a $3 toll which sorely irritated the locals, even though that doesn’t cover half of the construction costs over 30 years even at projected volumes.
JK: Not this one. This one has a toll of $1.50. We were told that the revenues are paying 100% of the costs. (Better than light rail revenues which covers 0% of the construction costs and a tiny % of operating costs.)
Here is the text from slide 101:
Project Costs & Benefits
Express Lanes Cost to Local Taxpayers
$0
100% Funding based on
Revenue Bonds and Loans
Repaid from $1.00 Toll
(Toll increase to $1.50 in 2007)
Bob R. Says: I’d be delighted to see some additional news about that expressway, if we’re talking about the same one. (Or even a single link to the one you’ve promoted on this site multiple times. Is 3.5 years too long to wait?)
JK: Wait for the video. Or try Google. (I found an interesting letter by the project manager correcting a number of mis-representations about the project by light rail advocates in Hawaii.)
BTW, while the CRC is talking of giving an outside company 20% to collect the tolls, this project does it in house for around 5%.
Thanks
JK
Well it sounds like that project had the luxury of an existing right-of-way. And I doubt that this region would want the additional pollution that such a highway would result in, or the visual effects that an elevated roadway would bring. Lastly, is that bridge comparable to the one planned over the Willamette?
Well it sounds like that project had the luxury of an existing right-of-way.
JK: OOPS, I left out some background:
1. It was built on the median of an existing divided highway on 6′ wide piers.
2. This construction technique was previously used for bridges.
thanks
JK
Here are some pictures of the elevated road:
http://archives.starbulletin.com/2006/10/01/editorial/special.html
Notice the individual segments visible in the underside view. Each of those lines across the bottom is a dividing line between the individual segments that make up the roadway. The segments were cast in a “casting yard” that had 11 molds, then trucked to the site, lifted into place and secured with tensioned cables.
Thanks
JK
I laugh when I read the headline, “AN ALTERNATIVE TO RAIL TRANSIT”
Isnt rail the alternative in ALL cases for the last oh… 50 years+?
JK –
The editorial you link to repeats the $420 million “elevated highway” figure, and then misstates the length as 10 miles instead of 6.
I’m really looking for something other than advocacy slide shows, public access TV, and editorials. (Which may be just fine but don’t quite agree with one another. You of all people should understand the need to see original sources, since you’re often demanding them from others.)
A year after opening, ch 9 reported the projection was for 12,000 vehicles/day at a $1.00 toll and the actual was 16-17,000 vehicles per day with a $1.50 toll.
Then Ch 9 is not giving the whole story.
Here is the official Toll Calculator for that highway:
http://www.tampa-xway.com/tollsCalc.aspx
If you select the entire tollway, you pay $3.00 each way with the “we bill you” method.
If you select just the elevated section, 22nd Ave. to I-75, it is $1.75 each way.
That $1.75 toll, by the way, adds 30 cents per passenger-mile for solo commuters to the cost of driving. So apparently commuters in Tampa (who you claim are actually covering the full infrastructure costs) are paying way, way higher than what you have been claiming all these years for the cost of driving.
Let’s see what the folks in SE Portland…Brooklyn, West and East Moreland, and Sellwood…think of this idea. Adding an elevated freeway to McLaughlin instead of light rail; likewise the good folks of Dunthorpe for a fix for State 43 instead of Streetcar.
While we are at it lets build an extension of 217 from Kruse Woods to the Milwaukee Expressway over the RR tracks thru LO, across the Willamette and Oak Grove with a nice big cloverleaf where it crosses the State 43 in downtown LO. These kind of projects were always built in poor neighborhoods that were unable to defend themselves. Now we can try them out in an upscale community and get those commuters from Clackamas county to jobs in Washington county by the most direct route possible. Good luck!
what would be the noise impact of an elevated highway like that?
Bob R. Says: JK –
The editorial you link to repeats the $420 million “elevated highway” figure, and then misstates the length as 10 miles instead of 6.
JK: I linked to that article for the pictures. Any other message is not what I am talking of. But since you raised these side issues:
The $420 million is the highball figure counting the engineering mistake. When looking at the cost to duplicate ths project, it is proper to NOT count ths mistake. But you know that. The length of what is referred to as the elevated expressway IS ten miles from end to end with about 5.5 miles actually elevated as you can see from the slide I posted above. The cost of that section alone is what I posted.
Bob R. Says: I’m really looking for something other than advocacy slide shows, public access TV,…
JK: Sorry, the TV references are primary sources, especially the testimony by the project manager, Martin Stone, on the “public access” TV. But if you find something better, I’m sure you’ll let us know.
Bob R. Says: Then Ch 9 is not giving the whole story….If you select the entire tollway, you pay $3.00 each way with the “we bill you” method….If you select just the elevated section, 22nd Ave. to I-75, it is $1.75 each way.
JK: I presented only of the 10 mile elevated section (actually not all is elevated). The toll on the elevated is $1.50. The “we bill you” method is for infrequent users and adds an extra $0.25 is for the billing. Commuters use electronic tolling and pay $1.50. So channel 9 DID tell the whole story. (Unless you wanted to turn a short news story into a one hour documentary)
Bob R. Says: That $1.75 toll, by the way, adds 30 cents per passenger-mile for solo commuters to the cost of driving.
JK: The toll is $1.50 for the 10 mile reversible section built for commuters from a large bedroom community to downtown. My math gives $0.15/mile for a solo driver.
Bob R. Says: (who you claim are actually covering the full infrastructure costs)
JK: Lets be accurate Bob, I didn’t make the claim. It is in the slide that I posted above, created under the supervision of project manager, Marty Stone.
Bob R. Says: are paying way, way higher than what you have been claiming all these years for the cost of driving.
JK: That is why I oppose tolls. If they are going to pay a toll, they should, at least, get a 100% refund on gas tax.
Keep in mind that the toll are ONLY to pay for the right of way. Compare this to mass transit which mostly DOES NOT PAY for its right of way. We both know that when you count capitol expenses, both bus and rail cost far more than driving.
Thanks
JK
Interesting quote from this article: Expressway Authority approves $75 million settlement with insurers in Lee Roy Selmon Crosstown collapse
Even though only one section completely collapsed, it looks like there were flaws throughout the design:
That is why I oppose tolls. If they are going to pay a toll, they should, at least, get a 100% refund on gas tax.
Why on earth would you propose that? It’s not as though people who cross a tolled bridge or expressway never, ever drive on other gas-tax-supported roads.
How would you implement that? Would motorists have to save every receipt and tally their deductions on their state tax forms? Would these deductions get audited for validity?
Sounds to me just like the idea of bicycle tolls — a dramatic increase in state bureaucracy which is way disproportionate to the problem its trying to solve.
When looking at the cost to duplicate ths project, it is proper to NOT count ths mistake. But you know that.
That’s very convenient. I guess we don’t get to count the cost overruns for the Aerial Tram either, since we now know how they could have been avoided. Glad to hear.
The toll is $1.50 for the 10 mile reversible section built for commuters from a large bedroom community to downtown.
Please use the toll calculator on the official web site to show a 10-mile segment which is only $1.50. It may indeed be possible, but when I go any wider than the endpoints I mentioned, I get higher tolls, up to $2.50 (or $3.00 for “Bill me later”).
For example, Willow Ave. to I-75 is $2.50/$3.00 each way. According to Google Maps, that’s exactly 10.0 miles.
For those just tuning in, the 10-mile reversible section isn’t all elevated, which further confuses the cost figures.
We are getting way off my original claim here. I only claimed that an elevated freeway, using the Tampa model, can be built for around 70 million per mile.
*I did not mention tolls – they are a distraction.
*Engineering mistakes are mistakes, not a problem inherent in the design. The payment of a settlement by the engineering company supports that position.
Can we stick to the original claim, that we can save money with an elevated freeway compared to light rail, instead of side issues like tolls, mistakes and areal trams.
The original source, as shown in the slide I posted, shows:
Segmental Bridge (5.5 miles) = $120M.
That is a 3 lane elevated road for $21.8 million/mile. The commonly stated figure is $35 million/mile. Thus, a six lane elevated built like the Tampa example (but with 2 x 3 lane elements) should cost around 70 million/mile. That is cheap enough to build one from the Ross Island Bridge to Milwaulkie and another to Lake Oswego, both for the cost of the local match for the Milwaukie light rail line alone.
thanks
jk
We are getting way off my original claim here.
Your original claim is not adequately supported. And in your original claim there is a sub-claim that hasn’t been addressed (except in part by Lenny’s excellent points) is that you claim we can get from Powell to Lake Oswego for these claimed low costs.
Setting aside the fact that a Lake Oswego freeway would have little to no local support, do you really think the Tampa method can get the freeway across the Willamette at at that price, or did you forget to include a river bridge in your proposal?
We already know what it costs to build an elevated freeway in our region — the recent I-5 capacity expansion in Delta Park (by 50%) cost way, way more than your figure.
Personally, I think it would be just terrific if we can build elevated structures and river bridges for less — much of the cost of the proposed Milwaukie light rail line is indeed from the elevated portions. So the supposed cost savings you point out can apply to rail as well as roads.
This is pointless as a “roads vs. rails” argument because the fundamental engineering challenges are the same.
We are getting way off my original claim here.
Bob R. Says: Your original claim is not adequately supported.
JK: In what way? I used statements by the project’s manager?
Bob R. Says: And in your original claim there is a sub-claim that hasn’t been addressed (except in part by Lenny’s excellent points) is that you claim we can get from Powell to Lake Oswego for these claimed low costs.
JK: The term I used in the latest post was Ross Island Bridge, assuming the West end for the Lake Oswego road and the East end for the Milwaulkie road.
Bob R. Says: Setting aside the fact that a Lake Oswego freeway would have little to no local support,
JK: Pure conjecture. BTW, how much local support is there for rail (except the real estate developers that are expecting tax money to flow into their pockets)?
Bob R. Says: do you really think the Tampa method can get the freeway across the Willamette at at that price, or did you forget to include a river bridge in your proposal?
JK: What river bridge – that’s why I said Ross Island Bridge. I am assuming staring points on each end of the bridge for the road on each side. But you might like to know that the design is based on a European bridge design, so it would be reasonable to guess savings spanning a river too. Wikipedia says:
hese bridges are very economical for long spans (over 100 meters), especially when access to the construction site is restricted. They are also chosen for their aesthetic appeal.
The first segmental concrete bridge, built in 1950, was cast-in-place across the Lahn River in Balduinstein, Germany.[citation needed]
The first precast segmental concrete bridge, built in 1962, crossed the Seine River in France.[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Segmental_bridge
Bob R. Says: We already know what it costs to build an elevated freeway in our region — the recent I-5 capacity expansion in Delta Park (by 50%) cost way, way more than your figure.
JK: That was not a cast segmental design like the Tampa elevated. The low cost is the big deal about that design.
Bob R. Says: This is pointless as a “roads vs. rails” argument because the fundamental engineering challenges are the same.
JK: Huh? Are you suggesting that the rails can be cast? Or the ties? Or the overhead wires?
Thanks
jk
The term I used in the latest post
First you wanted to direct the conversation back to your original claim. Fine, I responded to it. Now you criticize my response for not taking into account the modification of your claim in your _later_ post. Please choose.
And yes, I know that concrete segmental bridges can cross rivers. But if you’re going to cross the Willamette to get to Lake Oswego (presumably from Milwaukie but you haven’t exactly specified), you’re going to need sufficient elevation, and that’s going to cost more than what Tampa’s 30ft tall elevated segment built upon land (and which collapsed) cost.
And was Tampa’s freeway built with the Pacific NW’s seismic situation in mind?
Are you suggesting that the rails can be cast? Or the ties? Or the overhead wires?
Rails can be cast in concrete, yes. Look around, it happens, even here.
Overhead wires and ties aren’t the principal cost in in rail projects anyways.
I would hope that serious rail critics would know what the primary costs in our local projects are.
how much local support is there for rail
Plenty of local support, actually, for all transit including MAX projects.
I recently requested and received a copy of the “attitudes and awareness” survey done for TriMet complete with methodology, and hope to work up a full post about it soon.
But for now you’ll have to take my word about it.
Just as, for now, we’ll have to take your word for it about what a project manager said in an unposted video and in an advocacy group’s slide show. :-)
I’ll repeat: If this construction method is indeed so inexpensive, that’s great, as it will be a boon for BRT and light rail projects as well. Hooray. (As long as there aren’t any other “engineering mistakes”, of course.)
Bob R. Says: First you wanted to direct the conversation back to your original claim. Fine, I responded to it. Now you criticize my response for not taking into account the modification of your claim in your _later_ post. Please choose.
JK: What are you talking about? I always was talking of roads on each side of the river, without any new crossings. It was you that introduced the concept of a river crossing. A river crossing is not needed at this time for road users. The only reason for a river crossing is to have light rail in the SoWhat. A better LRT route would be that proposed by Howell – stay on the East side. (and the best is none at all.)
Bob R. Says: And yes, I now that concrete segmental bridges can cross rivers. But if you’re going to cross the Willamette to get to Lake Oswego (presumably from Milwaukie but you haven’t exactly specified),
JK: You are the one who introduced the river crossing. My comparison was the cost of two 6 lane elevated roads, one on each side of the river, to the cost of the local match of just one light rail line which can be described as:
Using the Tampa model, it appears that you can build a 6 lane elevated freeway from the East end of Ross Island bridge to Milwaulkie AND a 6 lane elevated freeway from the West end of Ross Island bridge to Lake Oswego for about the cost of the local match for just the proposed Milwaulkie light rail line.
Bob R. Says: (and which collapsed)
JK: Didn’t you threaten to toss me off the forum for continually putting in little digs?
Bob R. Says: And was Tampa’s freeway built with the Pacific NW’s seismic situation in mind?
JK: Ask a structural engineer – its been years since I studied structures.
Thanks
JK
JK, I hate to beat this dead horse any further, but in your very first comment, you clearly said:
(Emphasis added)
Scroll up and read it for yourself.
Last time I checked, Powell Blvd. was on the east side of the river, and Lake Oswego was on the west side.
If that was a mistake on your part, fine, but you did write it and you did ask me to respond to your original claim. That’s what you wrote.
(Or do you think a 6-lane elevated expressway will safely fit atop the Ross Island bridge?)
Doesn’t really matter as the whole exercise on your part doesn’t take into account the terrain.
There is absolutely no way a Tampa-style expressway can be built over Hwy 43. as cheaply as you assert. Reality, via geology, intrudes.
But by all means, as Lenny alluded, please continue to advocate for an elevated expressway through Dunthorpe.
The single-lane at-grade expressway that Cascade Policy proposed to Metro drew such widespread popular support (ahem) I’d love to see the groundswell of activism for a 6-lane version in that area.
Bob R. Says: JK, I hate to beat this dead horse any further, but in your very first comment, you clearly said:
Or, enough to go from Powell Blvd. to Milwauke AND From Powell Blvd. to Lake Oswego!
Last time I checked, Powell Blvd. was on the east side of the river, and Lake Oswego was on the west side.
JK: Perhaps you didn’t notice, but I used Powell as a Northern reference line, not literally a point. (BTW, are you sure Powell starts exactly at the bridge? Which end of the bridge. Is there a marker?)
But if you insist, one could add a Willamette river crossing and probably still cost far, far less than light rail, but a bit more than the local match alone. Unless, you added in the local match for the proposed streetcar.
Thanks
JK
Further sadistic equine necrophilia:
Perhaps you didn’t notice, but I used Powell as a Northern reference line, not literally a point.
That’s not clear at all. There have been many proposals (rail and otherwise) to connect 99E to Lake Oswego by branching off after Milwaukie. Your vaguely-worded proposal sounded like one of those.
You chose imprecise (at best) words at the beginning, and subsequently directed me to pay attention only to your original words, and then got upset by the fact that I didn’t interpret them the way you wanted them to be interpreted.
Rather than merely admit a simple mistake and correct the record, you’re now doubling (tripling?) down on this idea that saying Powell Blvd. should mean a northern boundary on the _west_ side of the river.
BTW, are you sure Powell starts exactly at the bridge? Which end of the bridge. Is there a marker?
I’ve looked at maps and I’ve even looked at Google Street View. (Here is a photo of the closest-in street sign which says “Powell” which I could find. It’s about 1/2 block east of the Ross Island Bridge.)
Unless you’ve got some super double secret document showing the existence of Powell Blvd. on the west side of the river, for any Portlander living and traveling around the city on a regular basis, Powell, for all practical (and actual) purposes, is on the east side.
I can’t believe this point has to be debated with you. It’s like the time you tried to tell me (incorrectly) what kind of motor was in my own car.
At some point you have to concede an error so the conversation can move forward in an intellectually honest way.
But if you insist, one could add a Willamette river crossing and probably still cost far, far less than light rail, but a bit more than the local match alone.
As you said earlier to dismiss one of my comments, “Pure conjecture.”
Everything else aside, I don’t see how two 3 lane structures could be build on the 99E/224 route, because there’s little to no median and limited shoulders along it. The same problem happens along the 43 corridor.
The cost savings that Tampa achieved by avoiding ROW costs wouldn’t be seen here. It could be done along parts of existing freeways, but most of them don’t have enough excess ROW for long enough stretches for it to be worth it.
It would make more sense to just add more overpasses, flyovers, interchanges, pedestrian overcrossings, etc if there are specific intersections that are bottlenecks than to build out a freeway that seems fairly unneeded. Is the extra 3-5 minutes from hitting a few traffic lights the end of the world for people?
Good News!
You can cut through all the BS and see the original source, the project manager, telling us about the Tampa elevated expressway starting Sunday at 10pm on Comcast ch 11.
Things to know:
* The main subject of the talk is the 10 mile section, for commuters, that is 3 reversible lanes, but sometimes it is not clear what is being talked of. This section apparently has NO exits or ons.
* The 10 mile elevated is actually only 60% elevated, so some cost statements are for the ten miles. At least one slide gives the cost for the 5.5 mile elevated section.
* The ‘famous” engineering error only came up in the questions at the end. (Some slides show this cost and some don’t, but if you don’t know about the error, the dual costs make no sense.)
The video of the Tampa elevated will be on Comcast cable for three showings starting Sunday night:
Sunday……Ch 11….10 pm
Monday…..Ch 22…..7 pm
Friday……..Ch 23…..8 pm
Technical note:
The introductory video was shot off of a screen with a Sony DCR-HC65, the slides are all from jpgs supplied by Mary Stone, laid in using camera video as a guide. The shots of Mary were made with a bottom line Canon DV (Z500) camera on a table tripod (6″?? High). Marty’s audio was a wireless lavalier mic..
thanks
JK
Bob R. Says: Further sadistic equine necrophilia:
JK: Do we really need to get sadistic on a family safe blog?
Bob R. Says: I can’t believe this point has to be debated with you. It’s like the time you tried to tell me (incorrectly) what kind of motor was in my own car.
JK: Or when you appeared to NOT know that Metro dictated density.
Bob R. Says: At some point you have to concede an error so the conversation can move forward in an intellectually honest way.
JK: I think I missed your error admission on the above matter. (and a few others too.)
Thanks
JK
Bob R. Says (October 5, 2010 11:51 PM): (quoting JK) Are you suggesting that the rails can be cast? Or the ties? Or the overhead wires?
Rails can be cast in concrete, yes. Look around, it happens, even here.
JK: I usually ignore unclear wording, but since I was criticized on the basis of my poor wording up thread, I will return the favor:
Bob, please tell us just where, in response to my statement “Are you suggesting that the rails can be cast “ we find these rails cast of concrete.
Thanks
Jk
Do we really need to get sadistic on a family safe blog?
“sadistic equine necrophilia” = “beating a dead horse”
That’s a joke I learned from an English teacher in Jr. High School, almost 30 years ago… So, yes, I think it’s OK for a family-safe blog.
You can cut through all the BS
Pot, kettle, black in the family-safe blog dept.
Or when you appeared to NOT know that Metro dictated density.
Your perceptions of how I “appeared” are your own. So are your perceptions about Metro.
we find these rails cast of concrete.
That’s an alternate way to interpret your original statement, but I’ll partially give that to you. However, there’s no technical reason that steel rails cannot be embedded in pre-cast sections of concrete roadway at the place of manufacture as the roadway is cast.
If you don’t mind splitting some really, really fine hairs (from a dead horse?), the “rail” in contemporary “monorail” systems can be precast concrete sections:
Kuala Lumpur Monorail, Malaysia
As for the railroad ties, which was part of your original question, you can most definitely buy precast ties:
US Concrete Precast Group
see the original source, the project manager, telling us about the Tampa elevated expressway
This will be interesting to see. I hope someone puts it online for those who don’t have Cable TV.
Of course, if “project manager” is meant to be an “original source” (which I think it can be, in the right context), then I suppose statements over the years from project managers such as Neil McFarlane are inherently valid, too.
10 mile section … This section apparently has NO exits or ons.
Well that certainly helps keep the cost down, doesn’t it? Doesn’t seem too applicable to our local situation. Interchanges cost money.
…and the Bob R. and JK war continues. O_o
Anyway, money from the Sellwood project is now going towards the MAX.
Gag me with a spoon. >_>
They really are coming, and sooner than you think:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/10/science/10google.html?hp
Anyway, money from the Sellwood project is now going towards the MAX.
Let’s be very clear:
1) Portland is contributing funding to both projects from its own coffers.
2) The deal that was struck is that to the extent that the Sellwood costs less than currently estimated, Portland will get a share back.
3) The Mayor has indicated that if some of the funds Portland has committed to the Sellwood are not needed, they will be provided to the Milwaukie problem.
That’s NOT the same as saying Sellwood dollars are going to the MAX project. If they’re needed for the Sellwood, the Sellwood gets them.
Cameron, that’s sort of like the (false and misleading) claim that the city is raiding sewer funds to make bike lanes.
Of course, the city could allocate the Sellwood cost savings anywhere, and the choice to allocate those savings to Milwaukie light rail is worth discussing as a separate concept, but it’s not at all the case that money which is needed for the Sellwood project is being diverted to Milwaukie.
Look at it this way:
If I’m planning a major addition to my house and the estimates come in at over $100,000, I might consult with a different architect and perhaps a structural engineer to find out if there’s a safe, effective way to reduce the costs. If those consultants identify $20,000 of genuine cost savings, and I later decide to spend that $20,000 on a new car, that does not mean that I’ve taken $20,000 away from the home addition project in order to buy the new car. It’s a win-win. (Assuming, hypothetically, I could afford such a thing in the first place, another topic worth debating in this metaphor. Nor should anyone long-term finance a car in the same manner as a home improvement!)
Bob: (quoting JK) we find these rails cast of concrete.
… However, there’s no technical reason that steel rails cannot be embedded in pre-cast sections of concrete roadway at the place of manufacture as the roadway is cast.
JK: Again you are ignoring an important word: OF as in rails cast of concrete. Meaning the rails are made out of concrete.
And NO, you cannot embed rails in the cast sections which are only about 10′ long. Unless you want to have rail sections 10′ long or get into lots of welding (which would probably not be practical.).
And you also ignore the context, light rail, when you introduced monorail.
Thanks
JK
Again you are ignoring an important word
Again you failed to read what I wrote.
I said: “That’s an alternate way to interpret your original statement, but I’ll partially give that to you.”
Not much of a concession I admit, and you original statement didn’t say “Of”, but I do concede that you meant “of” and I agree that light rail tracks themselves are not cast “of” concrete, although other components are.
That I must repeat this concession in order for it to sink in for you, is yet another waste of people’s time.
Happy now?
Bob: (quoting JK) Or when you appeared to NOT know that Metro dictated density.
Your perceptions of how I “appeared” are your own. So are your perceptions about Metro.
JK: As to my perception of Metro, I guess you need a reminder of their code (bold added to what I posted in August):
Planner mandated Density (metro mandate):
3.07.140 Measures to Increase Development Capacity
A. Each city and county shall adopt a minimum dwelling unit density, as prescribed in this subsection, for each zoning district in which dwelling units are authorized inside the UGB:
2. A city or county shall not approve a subdivision or development application that will result in a density below the minimum density for the zoning district.
B. A city or county shall not prohibit the partition or subdivision of a lot or parcel that is at least twice the size of the minimum size for new lots or parcels in any zoning district in which dwelling units are authorized.
from: http://library.oregonmetro.gov/files/chap307.pdf
Sure sounds like density mandates to me. Do you now agree?
Thanks
JK
Sure sounds like density mandates to me. Do you now agree?
The hangup was on the word “dictate”, JK.
Metro does not “dictate” anything. They are an elected, representative body.
If the county governments felt very strongly that Metro was dictating to them (and counties do criticize metro from time-to-time), they could be sending a strong message to the public that they’d prefer new candidates for Metro to repeal those targets.
So far, they haven’t.
Ergo, no “dictate”.
A city or county shall not prohibit the partition or subdivision …
And that’s the exact opposite of a “mandate”. It’s rather libertarian of them.
Bob, the news ACTUALLY SAID that the City was taking the funds from the Sellwood Bridge and reallocated it to the Milwaukie MAX line. And I happen to trust the news. O_o
Chris Smith: Have at it!
You weren’t kidding. O_o
Bob, the news ACTUALLY SAID
I don’t relish the practice of touting one’s degree, _but_, my degree is actually in Communications (major: Broadcast Media Communication) and I have many friends currently in the news biz. Politely put, “the news” doesn’t always get these things right.
Don’t take my word for it, or the word of “the news” alone… (I hope the formal terms of the written agreement will be posted to the bridge project web site for all to see soon.)
In the meantime, here’s a Q&A posted on the mayoral web site:
Q&A with Mayor Adams: Sellwood Bridge reconstruction
Bob R:Metro does not “dictate” anything. They are an elected, representative body.
JK: The word “shall” is a dictate.
No if ands or buts.
The fact that they were elected dose not change the fact that it is a dictate.
Thanks
JK
If you want to refer to any kind of regulation on the books as a “dictate” that’s fine, but that’s your own stylistic choice.
By that very wide definition. It’s a “dictate” that drivers stop for red lights, and a “dictate” that people can’t pour raw sewage into storm drains, and a “dictate” that bicycles can’t ride on the Marquam or Fremont bridges alongside automobiles.
I refer to those sorts of things as laws and regulations depending on the appropriate context. Metro has a hand in regulating development patterns and density, yes. So do the counties and municipalities.
“Dictate” is your own characterization. You’re welcome to it, but you can’t fault me for not going along for the ride with it.
The word “shall” is a dictate.
No if ands or buts.
Question: By your definition, is the 1st Amendment of the United States Constitution a “dictate”? Personally I’ve never heard items from the Bill of Rights referred to as “dictates” before, but now you’ve given no wiggle room by saying “no ifs ands or buts”. (Sounds like you’re doing the dictating, there…)
Amendment III is structured exactly like the Metro Charter 3.07.140-B which prevents counties from prohibiting subdivision of large lots, for example:
Just trying to get a handle on the whole “No ifs ands or buts” thing.
Bob R. Says: Question: By your definition, is the 1st Amendment of the United States Constitution a “dictate”? Personally I’ve never heard items from the Bill of Rights referred to as “dictates” before, but now you’ve given no wiggle room by saying “no ifs ands or buts”. (Sounds like you’re doing the dictating, there…)
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. (Emphasis added)
JK: Yes, Bob, that means congress is mandated, dictated, forbidden, ordered, decreed, etc, to keep its mitts off of our basic freedoms. More of the same in the 2nd amendment, which a lot of liberals seem to ignore. And a number of other amendments. Too bad congress, all too often, tries to ignore them.
Bob R. Says: Just trying to get a handle on the whole “No ifs ands or buts” thing.
JK: why do so many liberals have problems understanding that the bill of rights is a restriction of government powers. Hence the shall nots.
Come to think of it, many conservatives are not too good in that department either.
Thanks
JK
Some interesting numbers using estimate data for, among other things, transit use and bicycling:
http://daily.sightline.org/daily_score/archive/2010/10/07/how-your-city-gets-to-work
why do so many liberals have problems understanding that the bill of rights is a restriction of government powers.
Why get partisan?
But thanks nonetheless.
I now know that you’ve watered “dictate” down to where it can be a positive or a negative thing.
I see now that when you refer to Metro Charter 3.07.140-B you do so out of praise. It’s just like the Constitution in that it forbids counties from denying property owners the right to subdivide if the resulting subdivision would otherwise be legal under existing zoning.
I still don’t see how that “dictates”, “mandates”, or otherwise forces high-density, though. It merely allows for higher density, at the discretion of the property owner.
PS… I’ve never met a liberal who didn’t understand that the Bill of Rights is primarily a restriction of government powers and a recognition of rights. That’s basic civics class stuff. Something that used to be taught in those darned liberal public schools when I was a kid, along with that sadistic equine necrophilia stuff.
Bob R. Says: Why get partisan?
JK: Apparently you missed this:
Come to think of it, many conservatives are not too good in that department either.
Bob R. Says: I now know that you’ve watered “dictate” down to where it can be a positive or a negative thing.
JK: Of course its positive when it is dictated that the government respect your freedoms.
Bob R. Says: I still don’t see how that “dictates”, “mandates”, or otherwise forces high-density, though. It merely allows for higher density, at the discretion of the property owner.
JK: You just have to read this (for the third time!):
3.07.140 Measures to Increase Development Capacity
A. Each city and county shall adopt a minimum dwelling unit density, as prescribed in this subsection, for each zoning district in which dwelling units are authorized inside the UGB:
2. A city or county shall not approve a subdivision or development application that will result in a density below the minimum density for the zoning district.
Bob R. Says: PS… I’ve never met a liberal who didn’t understand that the Bill of Rights is primarily a restriction of government powers and a recognition of rights.
JK: I have.
Bob R. Says: sadistic
JK: There you go again with the S&M.
Thanks
JK
There you go again with the S&M.
There is no indication whatsoever in the statement that the horse is a masochist. In fact, the horse is dead. It doesn’t matter how the horse might have felt about it. It merely receives the beating.
Shall we dance?
You just have to read this (for the third time!)
I did read those, JK.
To be clear, JK (if that’s at all possible anymore), I already acknowledged way, way, way up there somewhere that Metro participates in the regulation of density along with other local governments.
More than once.
I just disagree completely with your throwing around the word “dictate” when it comes to Metro as though they’re some nefarious actor, and now you’re trying to water “dictate” down to the point where it doesn’t mean hardly anything. (And while, paradoxically, employing a zero-tolerance policy toward flexibility in the use of the word “shall”. Or “and”, “if” and “but” for that matter. Lest we forget omitted “ofs” and non-existent west-side arterial streets.)
And it was your choice to include 3.07.140-B in your list of items from that part of the charter. You brought it up. And 3.07.140-B does not dictate density, even by your own definition. There’s no reason for you to have included it — it’s the opposite of what you’re trying to claim about the other charter items.
Getting back to what “the news” has said about the Sellwood bridge project, here’s an example of where imprecise language gets The News (and policymakers) into trouble…
Take this quote from a KGW.com story… it actually gets the situation mostly correct, albeit oversimplified:
I don’t really have a problem with that summary.
However, the very same article bears this headline:
It’s a gross oversimplification because there are multiple ways to interpret that and it isn’t clear for the reader which way to go… One of the possible interpretations is correct but not the most likely conclusion.
The most likely conclusion someone just reading the headline would get is that $20M of existing money already pledged to the Sellwood project is being taken away… the concept of cost savings is entirely missing from the headline, and cost savings is critical for context.
Interesting Link, Jason. I find it funny that we place behind Missoula in a lot of things. Odd city to lose to. O_o
Bob R. Says: I just disagree completely with your throwing around the word “dictate” when it comes to Metro as though they’re some nefarious actor,
JK: Nothing has changed “shall” means “you shall”. It is a dictate. It is a command. It is a mandate. It is an order. It is a decree. They all mean you will obey and if you don’t comply you will be punished.
Bob R. Says: And it was your choice to include 3.07.140-B in your list of items from that part of the charter.
JK: Jeesh! Now you complain that I kept the original context.
Of course that is also a mandate to local governments – it is mandated that they shall not prevent a person form adding higher density in a particular manner.
Thanks
JK
Sheesh indeed. Words mean things, JK.
it is mandated that they shall not prevent a person form adding higher density in a particular manner.
Yes indeed.
In the same way that the Constitutions mandate that the government shall not prevent “the free exercise thereof” regarding religion.
But you can’t turn that around to say that the Constitution “dictates religion”.
That’s what you’re doing with Metro Charter 3.07.140-B.
They all mean you will obey and if you don’t comply you will be punished.
Remedy: Vote the incumbents out, if the “punishment” is so severe. Sheesh.
Bob R. Says: But you can’t turn that around to say that the Constitution “dictates religion”.
That’s what you’re doing with Metro Charter 3.07.140-B.
JK: No. It clearly says that local governments shall not ……
Its just in this case an individual’s freedom is increased – probably unique in all of Metro’s code. (have fun reading every word to find if my guess is wrong.)
Thanks
JK
It clearly says that local governments shall not …
Yes, exactly what I said. Just like the Constitution. “Congress shall make no law” and all that.
Its just in this case an individual’s freedom is increased
Yes, exactly what I said.
Clearly not a “Metro dictates density” regulation.
That you do not get this is astounding.
If a Metro regulation were to say “The county shall not prevent people from owning domestic animals”, that does not mean that Metro is “dictating pets”.
Bob R. Says: Yes, exactly what I said. Just like the Constitution. “Congress shall make no law” and all that.
Its just in this case an individual’s freedom is increased
Yes, exactly what I said.
JK: None of which changes my original assertion that it is a Metro density mandate.
Bob R. Says: Clearly not a “Metro dictates density” regulation.
JK: It IS a Metro density mandate.
That you do not get this is astounding.
Bob R. Says: If a Metro regulation were to say “The county shall not prevent people from owning domestic animals”, that does not mean that Metro is “dictating pets”.
JK: Not relevant.
Thanks
JK
None of which changes my original assertion that it is a Metro density mandate.
Your original assertion, which you seem to have completely forgotten, even though it is printed way up there on October 9th at 1:58am, was:
That was your original assertion. And its a mix of false premises. First of all, as I’ve mentioned like six times now, I do understand that Metro is involved with the regulation of density. You’ve never shown otherwise regarding my “appearances”. So the “appeared to NOT know” part is just plain wrong.
The 2nd false premise is the use the word “dictated”, which is a horse beaten to such a pulp that we now need to find a new one.
The third is that, right after that text, you quoted a few Metro regs (surely you remember), one of which did not belong with the others. I took issue with that one, and referenced it by number, and rather than acknowledge that it doesn’t fit with your assertion, you kept acting like I was talking about the others. Which I wasn’t. Which is why I used the number.
Not relevant.
To quote the esteemed commenter JK, “BS”.
Wow, when I saw the paraphrased way of stating the dead horse thing I thought it was a polite reference to what happened in 2005 in Enumclaw. This thread is almost as much of a wreck.
Given the blog I operate, I find all this talk of beating dead horses, somewhat interesting. I’m with JK; the term “necrophilia” (containing the Greek stem “philos”, or love) implies doing things to dead horses beyond beating them. (That said, “sadistic” and its cognates have a non-sexual meaning, despite the root of THAT word coming from the title of the Marquis de Sade).
As an alternate, I offer DHT’s tagline: “Si equum mortuum flagell?s, non celerium currat”–which, I am told, is Latin for “If you beat a dead horse, it won’t run any faster”. Beating dead horses is an act of futility, after all, not an act of cruelty. :)
Anyhoo, I think we’ve beaten… I think we’ve run this topic into the ground. :)
I defer to Scotty’s academic analysis.
Bob R. Says: Your original assertion, which you seem to have completely forgotten, even though it is printed way up there on October 9th at 1:58am, was:
“Or when you appeared to NOT know that Metro dictated density.”
That was your original assertion. And its a mix of false premises. First of all, as I’ve mentioned like six times now, I do understand that Metro is involved with the regulation of density. You’ve never shown otherwise regarding my “appearances”. So the “appeared to NOT know” part is just plain wrong.
JK: Yes, Bob, “Metro is involved with the regulation of density”. By mandating it in some cases (as I have shown many times.) Lets refresh our memories. Here is what you said, that I was referring to (bold added):
August 14, 2010 5:19 PM
Bob R. Says:
And no, I don’t buy into the whole “mandate” and “force” argument you’re perusing. Allowing greater density in certain areas doesn’t mean forcing it. Targets do not equal mandates. (http://portlandtransport.com/archives/2010/08/hoops_for_the_c.html)
Agreed that targets do not equal mandates, but the use of the word “shall” in the upthread mentioned Metro codes are mandates, they do not simply allow higher density, they mandate it. One of the mandates is in the form of forbidding certain restrictions on partitioning land. But that forbidding is a mandate on the city. But lets not get hung up on that one when there are two others that are clear mandates:
3.07.140 Measures to Increase Development Capacity
A. Each city and county shall adopt a minimum dwelling unit density, as prescribed in this subsection, for each zoning district in which dwelling units are authorized inside the UGB:
2. A city or county shall not approve a subdivision or development application that will result in a density below the minimum density for the zoning district.
Bob R. Says: The 2nd false premise is the use the word “dictated”, which is a horse beaten to such a pulp that we now need to find a new one.
JK: Mandate, dictate, thou shall – all mean the force of law – a dictate, mandate etc. (You are the one who keeps bringing up horses, mostly deceased as a result of abuise.)
Bob R. Says: The third is that, right after that text, you quoted a few Metro regs (surely you remember), one of which did not belong with the others.
JK: All three are parts of 3.07.140, so if they don’t belong together, I suggest you take it up with Metro.
Thanks
JK
JK, I sand by my original statement from August, 2010. I see I can’t convince you that not going along 100% with your assertions isn’t the same as denying them. Case in point: We were arguing about “dictate” and now you’ve substituted “mandate” and “force”.
Please send me a highlighted thesaurus and your standard loyalty oath and I’ll see what my lawyers can accommodate.
It’s a very strange situation… you appear to rail against so-called “force” from elected representatives, but you demand 100% adherence to your particular definitions of words, and personal interpretations or regulations and statutes. Bizarre, really.
You are the one who keeps bringing up horses, mostly deceased as a result of abuise.
Actually, I already dropped that and deferred to Scotty. Please bother to read all the comments sometime.
Many thanks.
All three are parts of 3.07.140, so if they don’t belong together, I suggest you take it up with Metro.
You’ve never heard of different parts of a regulation which do different things being bundled together in one section? Really?
To be clear, I don’t have any problem with them being together as far as procedure goes. You’re the one who brought them all up, and that one just plain doesn’t support your “dictate”, I mean “mandate”, I mean “force”, I mean “shall” (ad infinitum?) assertion.
Bob R. Says: Case in point: We were arguing about “dictate” and now you’ve substituted “mandate” and “force”.
Please send me a highlighted thesaurus and your standard loyalty oath and I’ll see what my lawyers can accommodate.
JK: As I said on October 10, 2010 1:12 PM:
Nothing has changed “shall” means “you shall”. It is a dictate . It is a command . It is a mandate . It is an order . It is a decree . They all mean you will obey and if you don’t comply you will be punished. (bold added)
If you check http://thesaurus.com/browse/mandate ,you will find that all my above synonyms, except order are actually listed as synonyms of mandate (bold added):
authorization, behest, bidding, blank check, carte blanche, charge, command , commission, decree, dictate, directive, edict, fiat, go-ahead, green light, imperative, injunction, instruction, okay*, precept, sanction, warrant, word*
If you check dictate, you will find order as a synonym (bold added):
behest, bidding, code, decree, dictum, direction, edict, fiat, injunction, law, mandate, order, ordinance, precept, principle, requirement, statute, ultimatum, word
Bob R. Says: It’s a very strange situation… you appear to rail against so-called “force” from elected representatives, but you demand 100% adherence to your particular definitions of words, and personal interpretations or regulations and statutes. Bizarre, really.
JK: Yeh, bizarre that I just happen to use commonly accepted definitions of words.
Bottom line: Metro does indeed mandate density.
I win.
You loose. Please quit wasting our time.
End of this topic.
BTW a reminder of where we started:
Using the Tampa Elevated Expressway as an example, you can build a pair of 3 lane elevated roads (one for each direction) between Portland and Milwaukie and between Portland and lake Oswego (using Ross Island Bridge as the Northern terminus) for about the cost of the local match for the probably doomed Milwaulkie light rail. Comcast cable subscribers can see the details on Monday(today) on Ch 22 at 7 pm and Friday on Ch 23 at 8 pm.
Thanks
JK
Hi, Bob:
As moderator, are you going to approve the post I made about 3 days ago to post?
It got trapped in one of the filters and was being held for moderator approval.
It is the one in response to your statement:
Please send me a highlighted thesaurus a
Thanks
JK
I see no pending posts from you in the queue from 3 days ago.
I do see your post from two days ago, Oct 11th, which was not flagged as spam and was posted the moment you submitted it.
And here I though you had finally decided to give this poor horse a rest. (Eternal rest?)
Don’t you think it deserves some quiet by now? I think we’ve both said more than needs to be said on this topic already.
OK, found it, Oct. 11th at 3:20am.
Funny that many of the synonyms you list for “mandate” are contradictory (authorize vs. injunction, for example). Exactly my point. Thanks for digging those up.
For some strange reason, you then go on to write:
I win. You loose.
How juvenile. (Perhaps the practice if leaving little missives at 3:20 AM is interfering with your spelling, too.)
Please quit wasting our time.
Noted without comment.
End of this topic.
So mandated. Topic closed.