John Charles article on paving east side MAX
Bob Tiernan
From Craig Flynn:
In case anyone missed Cascade Policy Institute's John Charles in The
Oregonian ( 9/17/98), his light rail op-ed column is on the institute's web
site at
http://www.CascadePolicy.org/transit/paveover.htm The premise: Now
that Westside MAX is open, we can pave over the Eastside tracks and
create a truly high capacity transit system -- a dedicated busway.
John will be interviewed on KUIK radio (1360 on the dial) beginning around
5:05 p.m. Friday (9-18). Tune in to hear about his creative alternative to
light rail.
nic...@eudoramail.com
>
> From Craig Flynn:
>
> In case anyone missed Cascade Policy Institute's John Charles in The
> Oregonian ( 9/17/98), his light rail op-ed column is on the institute's web
Mr. Charles makes some interesting and provocative points. He neglects,
though, some other interesting points: --increased operating costs of buses
vs trains --increased pollution from buses
Regards,
Nic H.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Scott Johnson
>
> From Craig Flynn:
>
> In case anyone missed Cascade Policy Institute's John Charles in The
> Oregonian ( 9/17/98), his light rail op-ed column is on the institute's web
> http://www.CascadePolicy.org/transit/paveover.htm The premise: Now
> that Westside MAX is open, we can pave over the Eastside tracks and
> create a truly high capacity transit system -- a dedicated busway.
And why, on God's green earth, would we want to do THAT?
Why would you (or ANYBODY) want to a) throw away a significant capital
investment (the Max right-of-way and trackage), and b) spend a whole
bunch MORE money (to build the busway) c) on a replacement system which
is less efficient than the one it would replace.
There are SEVERAL fatal flaws in the article:
1) 35,000 passengers per hour? Tri-met has neither the equipment nor
the population base to justify that sort of capacity. In order to move
35,000 folks per hour, you would need 700 busses per hour--more than
Tri-Met's entire fleet. And where would you find 35,000 commuters per
hour?
2) The NY busway is a collector/distributor for a series of express
busses going to a whole bunch of different points; a completely
different topology than the Portland line. The busses on that busway
don't stop very often; certainly they don't stop to pick up passengers
on Interstate 495.
This allows busses to be spaced similar to cars in the busway. If MAX
didn't have to stop and pick up passengers along the way, you could
space MAX trains much more closely.
The NY busway and MAX are trying to solve two different transportation
problems.
3) Likewise, comparing MAX to the transit mall is ridiculous.
Anti-rail folks like to complain about the 19MPH figure. Busses in the
transit mall probably move at an average of about 5-10 MPH; they spend
most of their time loading and unloading, or stopped at lights. If you
wanted MAX to move at the same average speed, you could cram LOTS more
trains onto the line.
(The transit mall DOES suggest one improvement for MAX; putting stops on
sidings. Busses, when picking up passengers, do not block other busses;
without sidings, stopped trains block traffic behind them. WITH
sidings, this ain't a problem, of course. For an example of how this
can work; go to Amsterdam; they have a network of tracks on which run
the ricketies of trolleys; but this move people VERY efficiently.)
4) Why are the rail tracks "under utilized", as the author claims?
Earlier, he suggests that Tri-Met can't run more than 10 trains per
hour. Which is it? (And where does he come up with the 99.3%
figure???)
5) He seems to think that all commuters are inbound in the morning,
outbound in the afternoon. Silly him. :)
6) Comparing construction costs in Brazil (where labor is much cheaper,
and not only because of gubmint action here) with construction costs
here comparing apples and oragnes.
7) Libertarians probably don't care, but there are the environmental
issues between electric trains and diesel-powered busses to consider.
In short, it's a dumb idea. It might be reasonable for a NEW line;
but tearing out a perfectly good rail line to replace it with something
else that serves roughly the same purpose, except it costs more to run,
seems kinda silly.
Scott
Bob Tiernan
> Bob Tiernan <zu...@teleport.com> wrote:
> >
> > From Craig Flynn:
> >
> > In case anyone missed Cascade Policy Institute's John Charles in The
> > Oregonian ( 9/17/98), his light rail op-ed column is on the institute's
> > web
> Mr. Charles makes some interesting and provocative points. He neglects,
> though, some other interesting points: --increased operating costs of
> buses vs trains --increased pollution from buses
Much electric power used by light rail is generated by burning coal
in northeastern Oregon. But that pollution is out of sight, out
of mind, I guess.
As for the buses, they do not necessarily have to be gasoline
powered, but can be natural gas. Another poster mentioned
the inadequacies of these in places where uphill routes are.
But at least on the east side (which is the focus of John Charles'
article) it's quite level, so natural gas powered buses using
bus lanes is quite workable.
There's also the fact that those many people who utilize park & ride
lots for MAX use their cars for about five minutes or so at each
end of their MAX round trip. Almost all auto pollution comes from
the first minutes after the engine is started, so these short rides
to the park & ride lots do not equate to a fraction of what would
spew out if the auto was to be used for the entire round trip
instead of MAX, but is about the same. So there's no real decrease
in pollution with this one. And many of these auto drivers who
go to park & ride lots were bus users who, pre-MAX, found a bus stop
at the nearest corner or so from home, and never used their cars for
a part of their trip to work, and now have little choice because
their previously-used bus lines were discontinued. Or they perhaps
believe that they are adding little to no pollution during a few
minute's ride to the park & ride lot. So this pollution is *added*,
then, because of MAX's existence.
Bob T.
I'd rather vote for what I want and not get it,
than vote for what I don't want and get that.
-- E. V. Debs
Andrew
: There's also the fact that those many people who utilize park & ride
: lots for MAX use their cars for about five minutes or so at each
: end of their MAX round trip. Almost all auto pollution comes from
: the first minutes after the engine is started, so these short rides
: to the park & ride lots do not equate to a fraction of what would
: spew out if the auto was to be used for the entire round trip
: instead of MAX, but is about the same. So there's no real decrease
: in pollution with this one.
Good one, Dr. Tiernan! You want to back up your assertions with some
*numbers* and *facts*? What does "almost all" mean? 95%? 75%? How
many miles driven? What kind of driving condistions? Driving in
stop-and-go traffic or taking a five mile no-congestion ride on a
freeway? All of these make a huge difference in how much a car
pollutes.
Just because a car pollutes more when it first starts up than after it
is warmed up does not mean it pollutes just as much to drive one mile
as it does to drive ten miles. As I understand it (and I don't have
facts at my fingertips for this, but I'm sure I could find them), cars
pollute a lot more when they are *idling* than when driving down
the highway. I would guess a car inching forward in stop-and-go
traffic for twenty minutes generates one hell of a lot more pollution
than a car that has been started and driven one mile to a MAX station.
Would you dispute this?
: And many of these auto drivers who
: go to park & ride lots were bus users who, pre-MAX, found a bus stop
: at the nearest corner or so from home, and never used their cars for
: a part of their trip to work, and now have little choice because
: their previously-used bus lines were discontinued.
But of course, none of the people who were formally driving to
park-and-ride to catch the express buses would be able to walk to MAX
now, right? None of the people who used to drive to bus
park-and-rides will be living in the tons of new housing being built
along the MAX lines, from which they will be able walk to MAX stations?
: Or they perhaps
: believe that they are adding little to no pollution during a few
: minute's ride to the park & ride lot. So this pollution is *added*,
: then, because of MAX's existence.
That's like complaining about the $2 it cost you in gas to drive to
Wilsonville to save $100 on a computer at Fry's. Most of us look at
the net savings, Bob.
Andrew
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew andr...@bizave.com
Visit Andrew's Portland, Oregon Web Site: http://www.bizave.com
Joyce Reynolds-Ward
wrote:
snip
>Much electric power used by light rail is generated by burning coal
>in northeastern Oregon. But that pollution is out of sight, out
>of mind, I guess.
Uh, Bob?
There ain't any coal plants in Northeastern Oregon.
The only coal plant in the state is in Boardman--which isn't
Northeastern Oregon by a long shot (the technical definition would
have the western limit at Pendleton, and that's a maybe--generally the
Blues are considered the boundary).
Furthermore, it's my understanding that Boardman isn't running on a
regular basis.
jrw
Bob Tiernan
> Bob Tiernan wrote:
> snip
>
> > Much electric power used by light rail is generated by burning coal
> > in northeastern Oregon. But that pollution is out of sight, out
> > of mind, I guess.
> Uh, Bob?
>
> There ain't any coal plants in Northeastern Oregon.
>
> The only coal plant in the state is in Boardman--which isn't
> Northeastern Oregon by a long shot
But that's the one I mean.
> Furthermore, it's my understanding that Boardman isn't running
> on a regular basis.
It does run, though, and my point is that the claim that
Light Rail is pollution-free is a lie that the government
should retract.
Bob T.
Eric A. Mathiasen
:> Furthermore, it's my understanding that Boardman isn't running
:> on a regular basis.
:
: It does run, though, and my point is that the claim that
: Light Rail is pollution-free is a lie that the government
: should retract.
I seriously doubt you could show that the only reason Boardman
runs is to supply MAX with electricity, especially since the NW
exports a lot of electricity already. If you persist, maybe the
only reason Boardman really runs is to provide electricty to power
the pumps and lights at gas stations. :-)
-Eric
--
Eric A. Mathiasen | er...@mathiasen.com | www.mathiasen.com
nic...@eudoramail.com
> [The Boardman coal-fired plant] does run, though, and my point is that the
claim that
> Light Rail is pollution-free is a lie that the government
> should retract.
It would be interesting to see the source of this "lie." All the information
I've heard and read says "less pollution." Do you contest that statement as
well?
Chuck Bolz
>> Furthermore, it's my understanding that Boardman isn't running
>> on a regular basis.
>It does run, though, and my point is that the claim that
>Light Rail is pollution-free is a lie that the government
>should retract.
>Bob T.
Although this gets very technical, coal-fired plants can be run
virtually pollution-free. Automobiles, even with catalytic
converters, generate substantial quantities of nitrogen and
sulfur compounds that interact with UV to cause smog. Modern
coal-fired plants burn much more efficiently and have equipment
to "scrub" their exhaust gases. So they exhaust primarily
CO2 and H20 to the atmosphere.
These are not considered pollutants, though CO2 is a greenhouse
gas.
And light rail can move people with much less energy expenditure
that automobiles, just based on the mass that has be moved. This
further reduces pollution budget.
Chuck Bolz
Bob Beauchaine
> It does run, though, and my point is that the claim that
> Light Rail is pollution-free is a lie that the government
> should retract.
>
Not that I've ever heard anyone make that claim.
It's OK to have an agenda, Bob. But if you really think you can win a
pollution argument on Light Rail, you're way out of touch. Even if
Boardman had to produce the equivalent energy to power every car that is
replaced by a light rail passenger, it could still do so more cleanly and
efficiently than could the same number of automobiles. And, as we all
should know, a light rail train uses far less energy than its equivalent
automobile count ever could.
In fact, pollution is one of those shining examples of what's good about
light rail. Shame on someone as anti Tri-Met as yourself for even bringing
it up.
Bob Beauchaine
Joyce Reynolds-Ward
wrote:
snip
>> The only coal plant in the state is in Boardman--which isn't
>> Northeastern Oregon by a long shot
>But that's the one I mean.
Then say Boardman--thre's only one. And it isn't running.
>> Furthermore, it's my understanding that Boardman isn't running
>> on a regular basis.
>It does run, though, and my point is that the claim that
>Light Rail is pollution-free is a lie that the government
>should retract.
It's a stretch, though, Bob. The actual culprit, as I recall is the
east wind(and I may be wrong on this). Supposedly Boardman only gets
fired up in the winter during the nastiest of cold weather.
Assertions with this long a stretch really do irritate me, no matter
where the source (and I've had allies make similar stretchy arguments
in the past--which may play in the confined circles of politics
junkies but get scoffed at in real life and lose credibility with
voters and potential supporters).
jrw
Bob Tiernan
> Light rail's capacity could be greatly expanded with the right
> signal technology.
Believe I may have mentioned this already, but Tri-Met
already *has* the necessary signal technology for this.
May not be needed, anyway, for this to be tried. All
a train "driver" has to do when a train is sighted up
ahead is to slow down and stay behind it at a relatively
safe distance as autos mostly do on the roads.
There's more to it than that, though. During last
year's trial period of adding just two trains per hour
(one every 5 minutes instead of every 6 minutes), they
couldn't keep the schedule.
Bob Tiernan
> Bob Tiernan wrote:
> > [The Boardman coal-fired plant] does run, though, and my point
> > is that the claim that Light Rail is pollution-free is a lie that
> > the government should retract.
I've heard numerous supporters say this. This is no surprose since
so many people have never thought beyond their electric can-openers
and toothbrushes to think about where electicity comes from. These
advocates/supporters can be heard on radio, talking to audiences
etc, so they are not just talking to themselves.
> It would be interesting to see the source of this "lie." All the
> information I've heard and read says "less pollution." Do you contest
> that statement as well?
No. I hear both.
Bob T.
Bob Tiernan
> Bob Tiernan wrote:
> > Someone wrote:
> :> Furthermore, it's my understanding that Boardman isn't running
> :> on a regular basis.
> : It does run, though, and my point is that the claim that
> : Light Rail is pollution-free is a lie that the government
> : should retract.
> I seriously doubt you could show that the only reason Boardman
> runs is to supply MAX with electricity, especially since the NW
> exports a lot of electricity already.
Of course, it can't be directed to a specific use like this,
and if it can, I doubt that it would be. Point is that I
heard Boardman plant is a supplemental source, not on at all
times. And since PGE etc can make money selling power to
California, why *wouldn't* they generate more? This has
nothing to do with excess.
> If you persist, maybe the only reason Boardman really runs is to
> provide electricty to power the pumps and lights at gas stations.
Yet none of the advocates for those places would claim they're
using pollution-free power to run the place. Unless, of course,
they belong to that great mass that thinks electricity just
magically appears in their walls. But even so, gas station
owners are not in a contest to claim less pollution regarding
anything.
rsjo...@my-dejanews.com
> > It would be interesting to see the source of this "lie." All the
> > information I've heard and read says "less pollution." Do you contest
> > that statement as well?
>
> No. I hear both.
>
What about when they say "emission-free" - technically, the vehicle emits no
"emissions" itself, compared to cars or normal buses - would that still be a
lie? I think the point is about comparison, not about a 100% technically
accurate description. No vehicle is pollution or emission free, if you
include 1) how it's manufactured and 2) the ultimate source of its power.
Bob Tiernan
Top of the hours news on radio at 6 am this morning
was about the high ridership numbers exceeding
expectations.
Only thing mentioned regarding rising business activity
in Hillsboro was that "sales of lattes are up".
Wow. All that money for that.
The other day it was mentioned that so-and-so's pharmacy
had more customers coming in on MAX. I don't think I
can hear another ecstatic report like this. Did anyone
ask where these customers would be if they weren't on West
MAX? Buying lattes and ointments closer to Portland or
in East County?
Bob T.
nic...@eudoramail.com
Hold on. I'm missing something. Clue me in here, Bob. Are you slamming MAX?
Or are you commenting on the fluff that sometimes gets passed off as news? If
the former, your indictment seems a bit...umm...shallow. If the latter, it
seems a tad...ahhh...indirect (and probably inappropriate for m.t.u-t).
Regards,
Nic H.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
AliceGj
>Top of the hours news on radio at 6 am this morning
>was about the high ridership numbers exceeding
>expectations.
Yes, during rush hours, in my estimation,
as a rush hour MAX rider, the trains are
at or above capacity.
>Only thing mentioned regarding rising business activity
>in Hillsboro was that "sales of lattes are up".
>
>Wow. All that money for that.
Bob, don't be (dare I call it?) STUPID.
Who said that "all the money" was spent
to increase latte business? You, perhaps.
Your silly logic mostly makes your arguments
a joke. I presume that you desire to be a
comic instead of convincing anyone of your
political agenda. You succeed.
Alice
Bob Tiernan
Ontario, Oregon's Stormy Ray, multiple sclerosis sufferer
who benefits from medicial mj:
"I don't think patients should have to be exposed
to the underworld to get their medicine".
darkstar
reduce pollution and congestion, because very few people are using it. And
a lot of them use to be bus riders.
Chuck Bolz <chu...@boxer.vnd.tek.com> wrote in article
<6uguke$o...@boxer.vnd.tek.com>...
In article <Pine.GSO.4.02A.98092...@user2.teleport.com>,
darkstar
have more to do with the improved air than the underused light rail
DS
Bob Beauchaine <bea...@teleport.com> wrote in article
<360C0FD3...@teleport.com>...
> Bob T. wrote
> It does run, though, and my point is that the claim that
> Light Rail is pollution-free is a lie that the government
> should retract.
>
Not that I've ever heard anyone make that claim.
Michael Orlosky
wrote:
The real benefits from light rail come in the next 20-30 even 40
years, not in the few weeks after it's up and running. Any criticism
based on such short term figures is extremely short-sighted. The same
goes for ridership patterns. Things don't change overnight and they
don't change in 6 months. This is not about this year or the next or
the year after that either. Remember that.
-Michael Orlosky
>
>Top of the hours news on radio at 6 am this morning
>was about the high ridership numbers exceeding
>expectations.
>
>Only thing mentioned regarding rising business activity
>in Hillsboro was that "sales of lattes are up".
>
>Wow. All that money for that.
>
>The other day it was mentioned that so-and-so's pharmacy
>had more customers coming in on MAX. I don't think I
>can hear another ecstatic report like this. Did anyone
>ask where these customers would be if they weren't on West
>MAX? Buying lattes and ointments closer to Portland or
>in East County?
>
>Bob T.
m i c h a e l o r l o s k y
. o O ( emayoh [at] pacifier [dot] com
. o O ( SkerZone EZine- http://members.xoom.com/skerzone/
. o O ( MusicMatch- http://www.musicmatch.com
lang...@teleport.com
wrote:
>light rail only moves 1/2 of 1 % of the trips in Portland so it does not
>reduce pollution and congestion, because very few people are using it. And
>a lot of them use to be bus riders.
Which is OK, since buses are more fuel intensive per passenger mile
than cars, according to our federal government.
Bennet K. Langlotz
lang...@teleport.com
darkstar
faster than Max . Now we have to drive to a park and ride to use transit .
Auto do most of there polluting in the first few minutes as the car warms
up. befor the buses would run a block from my house.
D.S.
lang...@teleport.com wrote in article
<3617fa8a...@news.teleport.com>...
Patrick O'Connolly
"I don't think patients should have to be exposed
to the underworld to get their medicine".
***
Were simply going back the old day when grandma had her hemp, popies, and
other goodies in the garden, corporate pharmaceuticals have not only placed
themselves economically out of market, but they have been unable to
duplicate the sucess of old fashion remedies that existed long before the
police state,
sincerely,
Mike Thompson
>
> From the Oregonian.
>
> Ontario, Oregon's Stormy Ray, multiple sclerosis sufferer
> who benefits from medicial mj:
>
> to the underworld to get their medicine".
I agree. Hence my support for all "medicines"---- PCP, LSD and crack
included. After all, my "medicine" is my business, right?
A simple yes or no will suffice, too, Mr. Miller.
Mike
--
______________________________________________
When good men are silent, evil will reign
"In certain trying circumstances, urgent circumstances,
desperate circumstances, profanity furnishes a relief
denied even to prayer."
---------Mark Twain
The Thompson of web pages:
http://www.teleport.com/~mthomps/Thompson.htm
The Barefoot Lizard Page:
http://www.barefootlizard.com
Terry Miller
> Bob Tiernan wrote:
> >
> > From the Oregonian.
> >
> > Ontario, Oregon's Stormy Ray, multiple sclerosis sufferer
> > who benefits from medicial mj:
> >
> > "I don't think patients should have to be exposed
> > to the underworld to get their medicine".
>
>
> I agree. Hence my support for all "medicines"---- PCP, LSD and crack
> included. After all, my "medicine" is my business, right?
>
> A simple yes or no will suffice, too, Mr. Miller.
Geez, didn't realize you used that much medicine, especially the kind that
has no anecdotal evidence of medical use, is supported by no health
groups, has no history of medical use and has no organizational advocation
for a change in policy. Maybe you ought to start an initiative for
med-crack or med-pcp.
TD
pdxn...@teleport.COM Public Access User -- Not affiliated with Teleport
Public Access UNIX and Internet at (503) 220-1016 (2400-28800, N81)
Mike Thompson
>
> On Fri, 2 Oct 1998, Mike Thompson wrote:
>
> > Bob Tiernan wrote:
> > >
> > > From the Oregonian.
> > >
> > > Ontario, Oregon's Stormy Ray, multiple sclerosis sufferer
> > > who benefits from medicial mj:
> > >
> > > "I don't think patients should have to be exposed
> > > to the underworld to get their medicine".
> >
> >
> > I agree. Hence my support for all "medicines"---- PCP, LSD and crack
> > included. After all, my "medicine" is my business, right?
> >
> > A simple yes or no will suffice, too, Mr. Miller.
>
> Geez, didn't realize you used that much medicine,
I don't, not personally. I just care about all the suffering in the
world, all the sick and dying and people with wasting illnesses and
glaucoma. Just like you.
Terry, we're alike. We both care about humanity and suffering and the
relief of said suffering with "medicine." Do you want to advocate taking
my "medicine" away?
>especially the kind that
> has no anecdotal evidence of medical use, is supported by no health
> groups, has no history of medical use and has no organizational advocation
> for a change in policy. Maybe you ought to start an initiative for
> med-crack or med-pcp.
I'd like to--- so those who are suffering will suffer no more.
Mike
Terry Miller
> Terry Miller wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 2 Oct 1998, Mike Thompson wrote:
> >
> > > Bob Tiernan wrote:
> > > >
> > > > From the Oregonian.
> > > >
> > > > Ontario, Oregon's Stormy Ray, multiple sclerosis sufferer
> > > > who benefits from medicial mj:
> > > >
> > > > "I don't think patients should have to be exposed
> > > > to the underworld to get their medicine".
> > >
> > >
> > > I agree. Hence my support for all "medicines"---- PCP, LSD and crack
> > > included. After all, my "medicine" is my business, right?
> > >
> > > A simple yes or no will suffice, too, Mr. Miller.
> >
> > Geez, didn't realize you used that much medicine,
>
> I don't, not personally. I just care about all the suffering in the
> world, all the sick and dying and people with wasting illnesses and
> glaucoma. Just like you.
>
> Terry, we're alike. We both care about humanity and suffering and the
> relief of said suffering with "medicine." Do you want to advocate taking
> my "medicine" away?
What makes you think I advocate taking away your crack or PCP?
>
> >especially the kind that
> > has no anecdotal evidence of medical use, is supported by no health
> > groups, has no history of medical use and has no organizational advocation
> > for a change in policy. Maybe you ought to start an initiative for
> > med-crack or med-pcp.
>
> I'd like to--- so those who are suffering will suffer no more.
Come to a NORML meeting, announce your intentions and we'll see how the
membership feels.
Terry Miller
>
> "I don't think patients should have to be exposed
> to the underworld to get their medicine".
>
> ***
>
> Were simply going back the old day when grandma had her hemp, popies, and
> other goodies in the garden, corporate pharmaceuticals have not only placed
> themselves economically out of market, but they have been unable to
> duplicate the sucess of old fashion remedies that existed long before the
> police state,
In the Phillipines, there is a doctor shortage. What the government did to
promote good health was to go into the local villages, find the "doctor",
find out what he used, test it and act accordingly. What they found out
was that, in fact, those remedies worked. What they did was pass that
knowledge to others in other villages.
Mike Thompson
>
> On Fri, 2 Oct 1998, Mike Thompson wrote:
> > Terry, we're alike. We both care about humanity and suffering and the
> > relief of said suffering with "medicine." Do you want to advocate taking
> > my "medicine" away?
>
> What makes you think I advocate taking away your crack or PCP?
I don't necessarily think you advocate that. Hence the reason for asking
my question--- to ascertain the answer.
> > >especially the kind that
> > > has no anecdotal evidence of medical use, is supported by no health
> > > groups, has no history of medical use and has no organizational advocation
> > > for a change in policy. Maybe you ought to start an initiative for
> > > med-crack or med-pcp.
> >
> > I'd like to--- so those who are suffering will suffer no more.
>
> Come to a NORML meeting, announce your intentions and we'll see how the
> membership feels.
But how do YOU feel? I'm curious, Terry.
Eric A. Mathiasen
used to sell opiates like they do aspirin now.
Cocaine also has medical uses, not so much in crack form, but
definitely in powder form. It has been used for large scrapes
in the past, and may still be in some places.
As was pointed out, PCP is an animal tranquilzer. LSD doesn't
have any medical use I'm aware of. Speed on the other hand is
making a great comback as a childhood behavior modifier known
commonly as dexedrine (ritalin gets some credit, too). (which
is amazingly easy to come by "legitimately")
rsjo...@my-dejanews.com
In article <01bdedaa$6a7c5bc0$16c92399@gateway>,
"darkstar" <dark_...@msn.com> wrote:
> We had express buses in east county befor Max and they were 40 minutes
> faster than Max . Now we have to drive to a park and ride to use transit .
> Auto do most of there polluting in the first few minutes as the car warms
> up. befor the buses would run a block from my house.
>
This is the most compelling argument against light rail I've ever read. If
transit ridership doesn't justify heavy-rail (i.e., high-volume), then maybe
cities should not bother with rail and just stick with a good bus system.
Portland had (has?) a great bus system before light rail - was there a really
good reason to build it other than lining the pockets of construction
contractors?
D.S.
>
> >light rail only moves 1/2 of 1 % of the trips in Portland so it does
> not
> >reduce pollution and congestion, because very few people are using it. And
> >a lot of them use to be bus riders.
>
> Which is OK, since buses are more fuel intensive per passenger mile
> than cars, according to our federal government.
> Bennet K. Langlotz
> lang...@teleport.com
>
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Terry Miller
> Terry Miller wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 2 Oct 1998, Mike Thompson wrote:
>
> > > Terry, we're alike. We both care about humanity and suffering and the
> > > relief of said suffering with "medicine." Do you want to advocate taking
> > > my "medicine" away?
> >
> > What makes you think I advocate taking away your crack or PCP?
>
> I don't necessarily think you advocate that. Hence the reason for asking
> my question--- to ascertain the answer.
Who are you kidding? You have posted no real reasons for wishing "your"
medicine become available. You have no anecdotal evidence, you've posted
no history of use, no backing from any organization and no instances of
success. In a post some time ago, I related that Oral Roberts is my great
uncle. Since he fell on the floor of a basketball court in Latta,
Oklahoma, he BELIEVES that faith alone can dispense of health problems.
Even in that regard, there is some science, some medical acceptance, and
some amount of anecdotal evidence. NO MEDICINE-JUST FAITH.
You post your examples of use and success. I'll take a look.
> > > >especially the kind that
> > > > has no anecdotal evidence of medical use, is supported by no health
> > > > groups, has no history of medical use and has no organizational advocation
> > > > for a change in policy. Maybe you ought to start an initiative for
> > > > med-crack or med-pcp.
> > >
> > > I'd like to--- so those who are suffering will suffer no more.
> >
> > Come to a NORML meeting, announce your intentions and we'll see how the
> > membership feels.
>
> But how do YOU feel? I'm curious, Terry.
I believe you are baiting.
Andrew
: Regarding Portland, Oregon's MAX light rail line to East Multnomah County:
: In article <01bdedaa$6a7c5bc0$16c92399@gateway>,
: "darkstar" <dark_...@msn.com> wrote:
: > We had express buses in east county befor Max and they were 40 minutes
: > faster than Max . Now we have to drive to a park and ride to use transit .
: > Auto do most of there polluting in the first few minutes as the car warms
: > up. befor the buses would run a block from my house.
: >
: This is the most compelling argument against light rail I've ever read. If
: transit ridership doesn't justify heavy-rail (i.e., high-volume), then maybe
: cities should not bother with rail and just stick with a good bus system.
: Portland had (has?) a great bus system before light rail - was there a really
: good reason to build it other than lining the pockets of construction
: contractors?
For some reason, people in Portland who argue against light rail
forget the key reason it was built: it was *not* built to be a more
efficient bus system. It was built as a way to concentrate growth
around an efficient transist system. Light rail is a key ingredient
of Metro's land use plan for the Portland area.
Once again: if you want to argue against light rail, you *must* argue
the land use issue. If you think Metro should be disbanded and we
should have no land use plan (and no MAX train)- argue that way, but
if you do not address land use, you are missing the key point.
Andrew
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew andr...@bizave.com
Visit Andrew's Portland, Oregon Web Site: http://www.bizave.com
Aaron M. Renn
>For some reason, people in Portland who argue against light rail
>forget the key reason it was built: it was *not* built to be a more
>efficient bus system. It was built as a way to concentrate growth
>around an efficient transist system. Light rail is a key ingredient
>of Metro's land use plan for the Portland area.
Why can't bus service serve the same purpose? Why can't people concentrate
their desired land use (presumably some sort of higher density, transit
oriented development) along a bus corridor with a high level of service? I
don't think anyone has proven that you need light rail to stimulate a
particular type of land use pattern.
>Once again: if you want to argue against light rail, you *must* argue
>the land use issue. If you think Metro should be disbanded and we
>should have no land use plan (and no MAX train)- argue that way, but
>if you do not address land use, you are missing the key point.
Again, why can't you have a land use plan with a bus system?
--
Aaron M. Renn (ar...@urbanophile.com) http://www.urbanophile.com/arenn/
Andrew
: Andrew wrote in message ...
: >For some reason, people in Portland who argue against light rail
: >forget the key reason it was built: it was *not* built to be a more
: >efficient bus system. It was built as a way to concentrate growth
: >around an efficient transist system. Light rail is a key ingredient
: >of Metro's land use plan for the Portland area.
: Why can't bus service serve the same purpose? Why can't people concentrate
: their desired land use (presumably some sort of higher density, transit
: oriented development) along a bus corridor with a high level of service? I
: don't think anyone has proven that you need light rail to stimulate a
: particular type of land use pattern.
You have a good point, one I have thought about too. Why not just
build a two-lane restricted access road for buses rather than build
light rail? Assuming you accept the land use plan, this is the only
argument that you can make (extra lanes on the freeways wouldn't
work if you are trying to concentrate new growth around it).
So what it comes down to is: given the same exact restricted-access
route is a bus system better than a train system?
The MAX trains we have now are far superior existing tri-met buses -
much more comfortable and smooth, more so in bad weather when buses
put chains on. People will be more inclined to ride a MAX train than
one of the buses we have now because they are so much more
comfortable. And the existing buses spew out nasty fumes - the
screech of the current MAX trains is one thing, but bus fumes all the
time would be worse.
It would be possible to get natural gas buses, as some people have
pointed out. And I'm sure you could get buses with decent shocks.
Still, I think people just don't *like* to ride buses. Many people I
know have never riden a "regular" tri-met bus and have no desire to,
but talk about a train and they are suddenly interested. I think it's
partly a public relations problem; people associate buses with being
dirty and for poor people, perhaps. I doubt it's a problem that would
ever be solved.
I think a light rail train system would be cheaper to maintain in the
long run than a bus system (although undoubtedly the initial cost of
the train system was much much higher). I don't have data on this,
but this is what I have heard, and it makes sense (no roads to keep
paved, etc.).
One of the key selling points of west side MAX, as I have said, is the
land use plan - the ability to walk to the train stations from new
housing. How excited do you think people would be about moving near
the new "fast bus" system? Not very.
Aaron M. Renn
Andrew, you make a number of arguments about light rail that have a "common
sense" appeal. However, don't sell busses short. Even in (for example)
Chicago, which has an extensive heavy rail system, diesel powered busses
still carry far more annual passengers than the L does. If you have not
done so already, I highly suggest reading an excellent paper entitled "The
Mythical Conception of Rail Transit in Los Angeles" by Jonathan E. D.
Richmond, which addresses the issue of bus versus rail transit. Here is a
link. Warning: the file is 206K and requires an Adobe Acrobat plugin to
read.
http://the-tech.mit.edu/~richmond/professional/myth.pdf
Laurel Halbany
>This is the most compelling argument against light rail I've ever read. If
>transit ridership doesn't justify heavy-rail (i.e., high-volume), then maybe
>cities should not bother with rail and just stick with a good bus system.
>Portland had (has?) a great bus system before light rail - was there a really
>good reason to build it other than lining the pockets of construction
>contractors?
Yes. Busses put out more pollution and are restricted by traffic as
cars are; light rail isn't.
Aaron M. Renn
>Yes. Busses put out more pollution and are restricted by traffic as
>cars are; light rail isn't.
You are comparing the worst aspects of the bus system with the best aspects
of a light rail system. Alternative fuel busses don't pump out as many
fumes as diesel busses. Busses can have all weather shelters or stations
similar to light rail. Busses can run on exclusively busways, exclusive bus
lanes, or shared HOV lanes to prevent them from being held up by traffic
congestion. Busses can similarly be equipped with traffic signal
pre-emption equipment to reduce stops at red lights. Unlike light rail,
busses are flexible. You can change or extend a route almost at will with a
bus, while there are long lags and capital expenses associated with light
rail. When a light rail car breaks down, this causes major operational
problems. A stalled bus can easily be driven around by other busses. With
bus service, it is very easy to run multiple routes and multiple grades of
service (eg, local vs express) in the same corridor, something that is more
difficult to do with rail systems (extra tracks cost big money.
Interlockings and "wrong main" passing can cause bottleneckes). There is a
lot of points that need to be taken into account to assess bus vs. light
rail. It is not a matter of "bus == slow and dirty" and "rail == fast and
clean".
lang...@teleport.com
(Laurel Halbany) wrote:
>Yes. Busses put out more pollution and are restricted by traffic as
>cars are; light rail isn't.
The pollution is debatable, especially for alternative fueled buses.
As far as traffic delay, one can build bus lanes that have the added
advantage of being usable by emergency vehicles, car pools, and fee
paying other cars. By spending less money, you can actually raise
more money for the transit pork barrel, and if no one wants to ride
buses after all, you have a decent lane for traffic to use, instead of
tracks to pave over.
Bennet K. Langlotz
lang...@teleport.com
Mike Ward
>In pdx.general rsjo...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>: Regarding Portland, Oregon's MAX light rail line to East Multnomah County:
>
>: In article <01bdedaa$6a7c5bc0$16c92399@gateway>,
>: "darkstar" <dark_...@msn.com> wrote:
>: > We had express buses in east county befor Max and they were 40 minutes
>: > faster than Max . Now we have to drive to a park and ride to use transit .
>: > Auto do most of there polluting in the first few minutes as the car warms
>: > up. befor the buses would run a block from my house.
>: >
>: This is the most compelling argument against light rail I've ever read. If
>: transit ridership doesn't justify heavy-rail (i.e., high-volume), then maybe
>: cities should not bother with rail and just stick with a good bus system.
>: Portland had (has?) a great bus system before light rail - was there a really
>: good reason to build it other than lining the pockets of construction
>: contractors?
>
>For some reason, people in Portland who argue against light rail
>forget the key reason it was built: it was *not* built to be a more
>efficient bus system. It was built as a way to concentrate growth
>around an efficient transist system. Light rail is a key ingredient
>of Metro's land use plan for the Portland area.
I'm a bit confused here - didn't TriMet reconfigure bus service around
MAX? Here in Sacramento, when the first ever extension to light rail
opened a few weeks ago, Sacramento RT made a big deal about changing
service around the Butterfield station (old end of the line) and the
Mather Field/Mills station (new end of the line). They even changed
the 28 line to pick up that section of Folsom Boulevard no longer
served by the 1-Beltline, which was reconfigured to go into the Mather
Field/Mills station.
Mike
lang...@teleport.com
>
>
>> > It would be interesting to see the source of this "lie." All the
>> > information I've heard and read says "less pollution." Do you contest
>> > that statement as well?
>>
>> No. I hear both.
>>
>
>What about when they say "emission-free" - technically, the vehicle emits no
>"emissions" itself, compared to cars or normal buses - would that still be a
>lie? I think the point is about comparison, not about a 100% technically
>accurate description. No vehicle is pollution or emission free, if you
>include 1) how it's manufactured and 2) the ultimate source of its power.
99% of my car is emission free. It's only that remote tailpipe that
emits anything. If rail advocates can ignore remote emissions, so can
i!
Bennet K. Langlotz
lang...@teleport.com
Andrew
: I'm a bit confused here - didn't TriMet reconfigure bus service around
: MAX?
Yes, of course. They have added a lot of feeder bus lines from new
MAX stations on the west side.
The idea of MAX is not to get *rid* of buses but to concentrate the
bulk of the travel on the train. Some people will (when the housing
is done) be able to walk to MAX stations, some will have to take short
bus trips to the stations. Buses are still an important part of the
system.
I don't mind riding a bus for ten minutes. I don't have the "dirty,
smelly" bias that some people have - I ride buses all time. But I
would hate to ride the bus from downtown all the way to Hillsboro.
Personally I get motion sickness when I'm riding (not driving) in a
vehicle, and a bumpy bus ride for that long would be killer. The
train is much smoother.
: Here in Sacramento, when the first ever extension to light rail
: opened a few weeks ago, Sacramento RT made a big deal about changing
: service around the Butterfield station (old end of the line) and the
: Mather Field/Mills station (new end of the line). They even changed
: the 28 line to pick up that section of Folsom Boulevard no longer
: served by the 1-Beltline, which was reconfigured to go into the Mather
: Field/Mills station.
I'll be curious to check it out next time I'm in Sacramento. Is
the plan to take the line eest along Folsom Blvd all the way to Folsom
itself?
Bob Beauchaine
lang...@teleport.com wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Oct 1998 15:28:02 GMT, myt...@twisty-little-maze.com
> (Laurel Halbany) wrote:
>
> >Yes. Busses put out more pollution and are restricted by traffic as
> >cars are; light rail isn't.
>
> The pollution is debatable, especially for alternative fueled buses.
How is the pollution issue debateable? I can't conceive of an internal
combustion engine, placed in as many busses as needed to serve the
same ridership, as efficient as the worst possible case for powering
trains - a coal fired power plant. Even then, most of the time MAX is
powered by hydroelectrically generated power.
--
-------------------------------
Bob Beauchaine
"Five days? I don't want to wait five days. I'm angry now!"
- Homer at the local gun shop
Tech 7 Systems
> Bob Tiernan wrote:
> >
> > From the Oregonian.
> >
> > Ontario, Oregon's Stormy Ray, multiple sclerosis sufferer
> > who benefits from medicial mj:
> >
> > to the underworld to get their medicine".
> I agree. Hence my support for all "medicines"---- PCP, LSD and crack
> included. After all, my "medicine" is my business, right?
Damn! And you've been doing so well lately, Mike. Haven't we beaten this
particular horse to death?
Jeff
--
Jeff Holloway | He had that rare weird electricity about him --
System Administrator | that extremely wild and heavy presence that you
Tech 7 Systems, Inc. | only see in a person who has abandoned all hope
je...@tech7.com | of ever behaving "normally" - Hunter S. Thompson,
| "Fear and Loathing '72"
Not a member of the Lumber Cartel (tinlc) and not Unit #1572
John Rowland
>
>Why can't bus service serve the same purpose? Why can't people concentrate
>their desired land use (presumably some sort of higher density, transit
>oriented development) along a bus corridor with a high level of service? I
>don't think anyone has proven that you need light rail to stimulate a
>particular type of land use pattern.
1) Rail has prestige, bus doesn't. You can go to a job interview and tell
them that you're going to commute by rail. You can't go to a job interview
and tell them you are coming to work by bus, unless you are a cleaning lady.
2) People instinctively trust that rail services persist, and you can plan
your place of work and place to live on the assumption that the rail service
between them will persist. Nobody would make that assumption about a bus
service.
--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped
Maps of tube stations at http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/7069
This message has been awarded a Certificate of Excellence from the
Concrete Society for the quality of its 35,000 cubic metres of concrete
Razzbar
> I agree. Hence my support for all "medicines"---- PCP, LSD and crack
> included. After all, my "medicine" is my business, right?
>
> A simple yes or no will suffice, too, Mr. Miller.
Wrong. Your question doesn't even warrant an answer, since it is
loaded with the quotation marks around the word "medicine".
Furthermore, Mr. Miller is involved with a -marijuana law- advocacy
organization, which has no interest in other substances and their
uses or abuses. You are using the old bait-and-switch trick, trying
to associate other drugs with marijuana.
Tricky, but not very honest.
Laurel Halbany
>The pollution is debatable, especially for alternative fueled buses.
>As far as traffic delay, one can build bus lanes that have the added
>advantage of being usable by emergency vehicles, car pools, and fee
>paying other cars. By spending less money, you can actually raise
>more money for the transit pork barrel, and if no one wants to ride
>buses after all, you have a decent lane for traffic to use, instead of
>tracks to pave over.
Is it actually cheaper to build bus lanes, and would it really make
sense to open them (but not other lanes) to fee-paying other cars?
Having seen how frequently people park in "bus only" areas, drive on
the shoulder, etc., I'm not confident that these would be empty
otherwise.
Joe Versaggi
>
> Regarding Portland, Oregon's MAX light rail line to East Multnomah County:
>
> In article <01bdedaa$6a7c5bc0$16c92399@gateway>,
> "darkstar" <dark_...@msn.com> wrote:
> > We had express buses in east county befor Max and they were 40 minutes
> > faster than Max . Now we have to drive to a park and ride to use transit .
> > Auto do most of there polluting in the first few minutes as the car warms
> > up. befor the buses would run a block from my house.
> >
> This is the most compelling argument against light rail I've ever read. If
> transit ridership doesn't justify heavy-rail (i.e., high-volume), then maybe
> cities should not bother with rail and just stick with a good bus system.
> Portland had (has?) a great bus system before light rail - was there a really
> good reason to build it other than lining the pockets of construction
> contractors?
If you knew Portland before MAX, and now see the comparison after, you
would understand why MAX was needed. Portland was a ghost town outside
of 7a-6p, weekdays.
> >
> > >light rail only moves 1/2 of 1 % of the trips in Portland so it does
> > not
> > >reduce pollution and congestion, because very few people are using it. And
> > >a lot of them use to be bus riders.
> >
So how did they accomplish adding 50% to its downtown workforce without
adding a parking deck ?
Joe Versaggi
>
> Andrew wrote in message ...
> >forget the key reason it was built: it was *not* built to be a more
> >efficient bus system. It was built as a way to concentrate growth
> >around an efficient transist system. Light rail is a key ingredient
> >of Metro's land use plan for the Portland area.
>
> their desired land use (presumably some sort of higher density, transit
> oriented development) along a bus corridor with a high level of service? I
> don't think anyone has proven that you need light rail to stimulate a
> particular type of land use pattern.
>
Because people don't like buses and will not alter their life around
one. Look at Ottawa's busway - little of the hoped for development and
ridership, and parking at outlying lots has taken place.
> >Once again: if you want to argue against light rail, you *must* argue
> >the land use issue. If you think Metro should be disbanded and we
> >should have no land use plan (and no MAX train)- argue that way, but
> >if you do not address land use, you are missing the key point.
>
> Again, why can't you have a land use plan with a bus system?
>
You should be asking Pittsburgh and Ottawa that question.
Richard A. Schumacher
private developers won't build anything more expensive than
a vending machine kiosk next to a bus stop or a bus-only
transfer center, because they can't assume that the bus stop
will be there for any length of time. In contrast, light rail
stations attract development because of the expectation of
their permanence.
Richard A. Schumacher
>Again, why can't you have a land use plan with a bus system?
Because tomorrow some planner might decide to move the bus route
two blocks east. Few private devleopers will build anything tied
to a transit system which has that much uncertainty. Rail lines
and stations don't slide around so fast.
Richard A. Schumacher
>> faster than Max . Now we have to drive to a park and ride to use transit .
>> Auto do most of there polluting in the first few minutes as the car warms
>> up. befor the buses would run a block from my house.
>>
>This is the most compelling argument against light rail I've ever read. If
Think it through: a car is going to pollute a lot in the first
few minutes regardless of whether it's going to enter a freeway
or enter a park-and-ride lot. If it enters the freeway, it will
continue to pollute for another half-hour (or whatever). If it
enters a park-and-ride, it stops polluting altogether.
>Portland had (has?) a great bus system before light rail - was there a really
>good reason to build it other than lining the pockets of construction
>contractors?
The permanance of a rail station attracts development. No one expects
bus stops to be permanent, so no one ever builds anything close to one
(except maybe a vending machine kiosk).
BRIAN H
If I had a business I wanted to place next to an efficient transit system,
I would like the transit system along with my business to be there awhile.
A rail system seems to me to be a relatively permanent system.
Though a bus system could be permanent it could be changed, rerouted,
or reduced easily. I would be more confident investing in rail.
Brian
>>For some reason, people in Portland who argue against light rail
>forget the key reason it was built: it was *not* built to be a more
>efficient bus system. It was built as a way to concentrate growth
>around an efficient transist system. Light rail is a key ingredient
>of Metro's land use plan for the Portland area.
>
>Once again: if you want to argue against light rail, you *must* argue
>the land use issue. If you think Metro should be disbanded and we
>should have no land use plan (and no MAX train)- argue that way, but
>if you do not address land use, you are missing the key point.
>
>Andrew
Greg Rose
: Mike Thompson wrote:
: Tricky, but not very honest.
That perfectly describes Mike.
--
greg rose
My web page is at http://black.kilchis.com:8080/
Silas Warner
>
> >> faster than Max . Now we have to drive to a park and ride to use transit .
> >> Auto do most of there polluting in the first few minutes as the car warms
> >> up. befor the buses would run a block from my house.
> >>
> >This is the most compelling argument against light rail I've ever read. If
>
> Think it through: a car is going to pollute a lot in the first
> few minutes regardless of whether it's going to enter a freeway
> or enter a park-and-ride lot. If it enters the freeway, it will
> continue to pollute for another half-hour (or whatever). If it
> enters a park-and-ride, it stops polluting altogether.
>
Go back and read the posting again. Darkstar complained that a bus
that went directly from his house to work was replaced by a rail line
that stopped a few blocks away, making it necessary for him to use
his car to get there.
It's a good and cogent argument. Here in the East Bay we have a
heavy rail network called BART to carry people into San Francisco,
which carries about 215,000 riders a day. We ALSO have express bus
service that does the same job, and carries about 135,000 riders
a day. You could argue, and BART has argued, that the transbay bus
service is unnecessary duplication of effort. But the fact is that
the buses get riders that wouldn't be bothered taking a car to
the nearest rail station, but do get served by a bus that comes
right to their door. The second most popular route, the F line to
Berkeley, goes directly to a BART station and takes 20 minutes more
to get there. It's dead empty when it reaches the BART station,
but it's dropped off a whole load of passengers on the way.
Silas Warner
Scott Johnson
> >cars are; light rail isn't.
>
> aspects of a light rail system. Alternative fuel busses don't pump
> out as many fumes as diesel busses. Busses can have all weather
> shelters or stations similar to light rail. Busses can run on
> exclusively busways, exclusive bus lanes, or shared HOV lanes to
> prevent them from being held up by traffic congestion.
Of course, if ya do THAT, then you have to have the same (or similar)
capital investment that ya would to build a dedicated rail line.
> Busses can similarly be equipped with traffic signal pre-emption > equipment to reduce stops at red lights. Unlike light rail,
> busses are flexible. You can change or extend a route almost at will > with a bus, while there are long lags and capital expenses associated > with light rail.
For busses that run on regular roads, yes. For busses that run on
busways, no.
> When a light rail car breaks down, this causes major operational
> problems. A stalled bus can easily be driven around by other busses.
And stalled trains are easily steered around, too. Almost all of MAX is
double-tracked, you know, and there are MANY places along the line where
trains may switch from one track to the other.
The second day of MAX's operation, you will recall, an old geezer
managed to drive his car off of a freeway ramp and land ON the MAX
tracks. (No train at the time, fortunately; also fortunately, he was
not seriously hurt.) The car was stuck on the tracks for hours. Effect
on MAX's schedule? Five minutes.
> With bus service, it is very easy to run multiple routes and multiple > grades of service (eg, local vs express) in the same corridor,
> something that is more difficult to do with rail systems (extra tracks > cost big money.
Nobody is suggesting replacing busses completely with light-rail.
Certianly, busses are highly appropriate for neighborhood local routes.
> Interlockings and "wrong main" passing can cause bottleneckes). There > is a lot of points that need to be taken into account to assess bus
> vs. light rail. It is not a matter of "bus == slow and dirty" and
> "rail == fast and clean".
For a lot of folks, though, it is. Even though the fare is exactly the
same (at least in Portland.)
Scott
Darrell Fuhriman
> You're giving MAX credit for Portland's vibrancy? Why is it that the
> roads are crowded after one of those vibrant events, and not MAX? Why
> are the parking lots crowded on weekends downtown?
This makes me think you've never looked at a MAX train as it's
leaving in rush hour, or after a big event. They're inevitably
packed. But then, as you've shown numerous times, you aren't
interested in paying attention to facts that don't jive with your
view of the way things are.
Darrell
Darrell Fuhriman
> And if it had been an 18-wheeler across both tracks? Don't
> assume all misplaced vehicles will only cover one set of tracks.
of course, said 18-wheeler could also shut down all four lanes
of a freeway.
Darrell
Jeff B. Kurland
Aaron M. Renn wrote in message <6v34kg$il2$1...@news.megsinet.net>...
>Unlike light rail, busses are flexible. You can change or extend a
route
>almost at will with a bus, while there are long lags and capital
expenses
>associated with light rail.
If I'm to use public transit, I want some kind of assurance that the
route I use won't be changed, to my detriment, at somebody's will.
Score one for light rail, zero for buses.
Mike Thompson
>
> Razzbar (R...@ZZ.BAR) wrote:
> : Mike Thompson wrote:
>
> : Tricky, but not very honest.
>
> That perfectly describes Mike.
I was wondering when Greg was gonna join this, as spineless a person he
is. Contemptable behavior it is when someone killfiles me, but continues
to respond to my posts. That's so unbelieveably immature, it defies
explanation.
Greg, get over your brother-in-law's death and stop demonizing me for
it.
Mike
______________________________________________
When good men are silent, evil will reign
"In certain trying circumstances, urgent circumstances,
desperate circumstances, profanity furnishes a relief
denied even to prayer."
---------Mark Twain
The Thompson of web pages:
http://www.teleport.com/~mthomps/Thompson.htm
The Barefoot Lizard Page:
http://www.barefootlizard.com
Mike Thompson
> Who are you kidding? You have posted no real reasons for wishing "your"
> medicine become available. You have no anecdotal evidence, you've posted
> no history of use, no backing from any organization and no instances of
> success. In a post some time ago, I related that Oral Roberts is my great
> uncle. Since he fell on the floor of a basketball court in Latta,
> Oklahoma, he BELIEVES that faith alone can dispense of health problems.
> Even in that regard, there is some science, some medical acceptance, and
> some amount of anecdotal evidence. NO MEDICINE-JUST FAITH.
> You post your examples of use and success. I'll take a look.
I'm sure, Terry, that I can find a client I have worked with who said
that X drug worked for X ailment. Hell, I new a guy whose treatment of
choice for migraines was cocaine.
My statement in response to Bob's original post was designed to address
the idiosyncracies of "medicine" and the restrictions placed on it. If
coke works for Joe's migraines, why can't that be his medicine? After
all, MJ can be used for Jane's wasting illness, while synthetic
medications exist. If we're not going to restrict MJ, because it works
for people, why must we restrict heroin, which works for some people, or
meth, which combats the debilitating effects of working a 24 hour day?
> I believe you are baiting.
I believe you are running--- away from my question. I've grown to expect
more from you, Terry, for I sincerely respect the veracity and
conviction you display toward your stance.
Usenet ain't nothing but a bunch of people baiting each other. What do
expect?
Terry Miller
> Terry Miller wrote:
>
> > Who are you kidding? You have posted no real reasons for wishing "your"
> > medicine become available. You have no anecdotal evidence, you've posted
> > no history of use, no backing from any organization and no instances of
> > success. In a post some time ago, I related that Oral Roberts is my great
> > uncle. Since he fell on the floor of a basketball court in Latta,
> > Oklahoma, he BELIEVES that faith alone can dispense of health problems.
> > Even in that regard, there is some science, some medical acceptance, and
> > some amount of anecdotal evidence. NO MEDICINE-JUST FAITH.
> > You post your examples of use and success. I'll take a look.
>
> I'm sure, Terry, that I can find a client I have worked with who said
> that X drug worked for X ailment. Hell, I new a guy whose treatment of
> choice for migraines was cocaine.
I may be corrected, but wasn't cocaine what Freud took for his migraines?
>
> My statement in response to Bob's original post was designed to address
> the idiosyncracies of "medicine" and the restrictions placed on it. If
> coke works for Joe's migraines, why can't that be his medicine? After
> all, MJ can be used for Jane's wasting illness, while synthetic
> medications exist. If we're not going to restrict MJ, because it works
> for people, why must we restrict heroin, which works for some people, or
> meth, which combats the debilitating effects of working a 24 hour day?
>
> > I believe you are baiting.
>
> I believe you are running--- away from my question. I've grown to expect
> more from you, Terry, for I sincerely respect the veracity and
> conviction you display toward your stance.
I have, all my life, been wary of hypothetical cases. With reality, if
something has no evidence of success, it should not be regarded as
successful. If it does, then one would act accordingly. What more of an
answer do you wish?
> Usenet ain't nothing but a bunch of people baiting each other. What do
> expect?
Socrates said that the highest form of learning is argument. I happen to
agree with that chunky wrestler that spent his life as a stone mason.
I could care less about baiting, but there is bonafide learning to be done
with a number of the posts here and elsewhere. I'm just not sure what we
are learning in this one.
TD
pdxn...@teleport.COM Public Access User -- Not affiliated with Teleport
Public Access UNIX and Internet at (503) 220-1016 (2400-28800, N81)
lang...@teleport.com
wrote:
>lang...@teleport.com wrote:
>> The pollution is debatable, especially for alternative fueled buses.
>
>How is the pollution issue debateable? I can't conceive of...
Like I said, it is debatable. My post related to congestion issues.
Bennet K. Langlotz
lang...@teleport.com
lang...@teleport.com
(Laurel Halbany) wrote:
>On Fri, 02 Oct 1998 19:02:01 GMT, lang...@teleport.com wrote:
>
>>The pollution is debatable, especially for alternative fueled buses.
>>As far as traffic delay, one can build bus lanes that have the added
>>advantage of being usable by emergency vehicles, car pools, and fee
>>paying other cars. By spending less money, you can actually raise
>>more money for the transit pork barrel, and if no one wants to ride
>>buses after all, you have a decent lane for traffic to use, instead of
>>tracks to pave over.
>
>Is it actually cheaper to build bus lanes, and would it really make
>sense to open them (but not other lanes) to fee-paying other cars?
>Having seen how frequently people park in "bus only" areas, drive on
>the shoulder, etc., I'm not confident that these would be empty
>otherwise.
The nearly empty car pool lanes in most cities sporting them should be
evidence that people will obey. A few anecdotes to the contrary does
not render the proposal useless.
"Drive on the shoulders"? I don't see how this relates to the
dedicated lane issue, unless it is to point out the popular view that
people who drive cars are inherently bad.
Bennet K. Langlotz
lang...@teleport.com
lang...@teleport.com
wrote:
>If you knew Portland before MAX, and now see the comparison after, you
>would understand why MAX was needed. Portland was a ghost town outside
>of 7a-6p, weekdays.
You're giving MAX credit for Portland's vibrancy? Why is it that the
roads are crowded after one of those vibrant events, and not MAX? Why
are the parking lots crowded on weekends downtown?
The rooster seems to be taking credit for the sunrise.
>So how did they accomplish adding 50% to its downtown workforce without
>adding a parking deck ?
Your'e not suggesting that there aren't any more parking spaces
downtown than there used to be, are you? All those new buildings with
parking in the basement?
Bennet K. Langlotz
lang...@teleport.com
lang...@teleport.com
Schumacher) wrote:
>
>>Again, why can't you have a land use plan with a bus system?
>
>Because tomorrow some planner might decide to move the bus route
>two blocks east.
But inly in response to a demonstrated need. The flexibility is an
advantage, not otherwise.
Bennet K. Langlotz
lang...@teleport.com
Bill Shatzer
In a previous article, lang...@teleport.com () says:
>On 2 Oct 1998 22:11:41 GMT, Joe Versaggi <JOEM...@worldnet.att.net>
>wrote:
-snips-
>>So how did they accomplish adding 50% to its downtown workforce without
>>adding a parking deck ?
>Your'e not suggesting that there aren't any more parking spaces
>downtown than there used to be, are you? All those new buildings with
>parking in the basement?
No - just suggesting that the number of downtown parking spaces has
increased considerably less than the increase in the number of downtown
jobs.
And, of course, most of the increase in downtown parking has been in
_short-term_ parking - fine for shoppers and folks wanting to visit
their lawyers, bankers, or insurance agents but not really useful
for folks who actually work downtown.
Public transit, of which MAX is an important ingredient, is part
of the reason the downtown area continues to be able to support an
economy which led to the construction of "all those new buildings
with parking in the basement". They ain't building many of those
new buildings in downtown St. Louis.
Peace and justice,
--
Bill Shatzer - bsha...@orednet.org
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows."
-Bob Dylan-
Bob Tiernan
> The second day of MAX's operation, you will recall, an old geezer
> managed to drive his car off of a freeway ramp and land ON the MAX
> tracks. (No train at the time, fortunately; also fortunately, he
> was not seriously hurt.) The car was stuck on the tracks for hours.
> Effect on MAX's schedule? Five minutes.
And if it had been an 18-wheeler across both tracks? Don't
assume all misplaced vehicles will only cover one set of tracks.
Bob T.
I'd rather vote for what I want and not get it,
than vote for what I don't want and get that.
-- E. V. Debs
Bob Tiernan
> Modern coal-fired plants burn much more efficiently and have
> equipment to "scrub" their exhaust gases. So they exhaust primarily
> CO2 and H20 to the atmosphere.
Would you be against having more of them?
> And light rail can move people with much less energy expenditure
> that automobiles, just based on the mass that has be moved. This
> further reduces pollution budget.
"Can" move people, but doesn't. Besides, light rail
lines trigger more auto use and thus does not lower
pollution at all. You cannot blame the car entirely
for this, for many of these trips would not occur if
bus service was not cut and/or re-routed to service the
rail line.
Bob Tiernan
> ......And, as we all should know, a light rail train uses far
> less energy than its equivalent automobile count ever could.
By itself, sure, but that ignores the fact that light-rail's
inflexibility, coupled with reduced and/or changed bus service
triggers more auto usage which in turn causes more gasoline to
be burned. It may be the cars, but you need to ask yourself what
is triggering this. It's light rail, the whole system (which
includes feeder lines and reduced bus service.
> In fact, pollution is one of those shining examples of what's good
> about light rail. Shame on someone as anti Tri-Met as yourself for
> even bringing it up.
It's not a shining example if the whole system (which includes
re-routing buses to serve the light rail line, and cutting
other lines) triggers increases auto use, and thus more burning
gasoline. This occurs because rail is not that good an option,
or convenient, for about 99 percent of us.
Bob Tiernan
> Bob Tiernan wrote:
> > It does run, though, and my point is that the claim that
> > Light Rail is pollution-free is a lie that the government
> > should retract.
> It's a stretch, though, Bob. The actual culprit, as I recall is the
> east wind
You mean the winds we are supposed to call the "Coho Winds"?
> Supposedly Boardman only gets fired up in the winter during the
> nastiest of cold weather.
Light rail is an electricity user, is it not?
rffe...@socs.uts.edu.au
"Aaron M. Renn" <ar...@urbanophile.com> wrote:
>
> You are comparing the worst aspects of the bus system with the best aspects
> of a light rail system. Alternative fuel busses don't pump out as many
> fumes as diesel busses.
For high performance commuter buses there isn't anything that matches the
zero local emissions capability and low noise output of electric light rail,
unless you string up complex overhead wire systems for a trolleybus, which
would lose most of the flexibility that buses have. Even CNG motors which
pollute less than diesel are noisy and cause the same internal vibrations.
> Unlike light rail,
> busses are flexible. You can change or extend a route almost at will with a
> bus, while there are long lags and capital expenses associated with light
> rail.
Whilst other posters have (rightfully) defended the 'lack of flexibility'
that light rail has, experience in Sydney has shown that despite flexibility
being one of the main arguments for having replaced our extensive tram system
30 years ago, to this day most of the major bus routes vary very little from
the tram routes which they replaced.
Although I haven't visited Adelaide's guided busway (O-bahn) system, other
posters to aus.rail have noted that outside peak hours, the busway operates
much like a rail system with little of the 'one seat' feeder services that
busway proponents argue is a strong advantage for buses. It seems that an
acceptably frequent bus service is not viable off peak, so passengers still
have to change onto the local buses at stations en route.
> There is a
> lot of points that need to be taken into account to assess bus vs. light
> rail. It is not a matter of "bus == slow and dirty" and "rail == fast and
> clean".
Absolutely, and as far as I'm concerned, the bus should be a key role in any
integrated transit system. Anything that can speed up the journey of the bus
network, from priority measures through to well enforced *exclusive* (bar
emergency service vehicles) bus lanes, and even through to short stretches of
exclusive busways to bypass major bottlenecks should (AFAIC) be implemented
where possible.
However, when it comes to building large (and expensive) transitways that
attempt to bring the advantages of rail to a bus system, that is a red flag
that perhaps the route should be rail based instead.
>
> --
> Aaron M. Renn (ar...@urbanophile.com) http://www.urbanophile.com/arenn/
>
>
Rob
Sydney (Australia)
John Wilson
...
>
> It is not a matter of "bus == slow and dirty" and "rail == fast and
> clean".
>
> --
> Aaron M. Renn (ar...@urbanophile.com) http://www.urbanophile.com/arenn/
Ever see a 9th Street trolley in South Philly inching its way through
the Italian Market? (This line is now bustituted.) A delivery truck
protruding a few inches into the trolley right of way stops the trolley
dead; a bus just goes around. The key isn't the rail infrastructure,
it's the dedicated right-of-way.
On another route, I once saw at least 10 trolleys backed up behind a
double-parked truck. Nobody could find the driver. This kind of thing
makes people drive their own cars, especially if they can be docked for
showing up late for work.
73,
JohnW
Tim Kynerd
The point remains valid that bus lines don't have the same land-use impact
as light rail lines. Sure, there might be perfectly good reasons to move
the bus lines. That doesn't obviate the point that people tend to trust bus
lines less than rail lines *because* they know that bus lines can readily be
moved.
Tim Kynerd
Sundbyberg (småstan i storstan), Sweden
Laurel Halbany
>The nearly empty car pool lanes in most cities sporting them should be
>evidence that people will obey. A few anecdotes to the contrary does
>not render the proposal useless.
I hate to point it out, but your comment about 'nearly empty carpool
lanes' is also anecdotal...
>"Drive on the shoulders"? I don't see how this relates to the
>dedicated lane issue, unless it is to point out the popular view that
>people who drive cars are inherently bad.
I may be inherently bad, but I don't think it's because I drive.
Bob Tiernan
> If you knew Portland before MAX, and now see the comparison after, you
> would understand why MAX was needed. Portland was a ghost town outside
> of 7a-6p, weekdays.
How 'bout that? Downtown Portland was very uncongested
between 6 pm and 7 am, and (I recall this) not very
congested at all during the weekdays. That was the
desired gaol right there. Now it's been ruined.
> So how did they accomplish adding 50% to its downtown workforce
> without adding a parking deck ?
A lot of new buildings in downtown and in inner southeast
i.e. Lloyd, Convention Center area, came with parking
levels or lots. Those wanting the buildings insisted on
this for they knew they needed parking spaces to attract
the bulk of their employees.
lang...@teleport.com
(Laurel Halbany) wrote:
>On Sat, 03 Oct 1998 04:08:55 GMT, lang...@teleport.com wrote:
>
>>The nearly empty car pool lanes in most cities sporting them should be
>>evidence that people will obey. A few anecdotes to the contrary does
>>not render the proposal useless.
>
>I hate to point it out, but your comment about 'nearly empty carpool
>lanes' is also anecdotal...
No, it is based on collections of articles and reports from throughout
the country, many of which include official statistical data.
Bennet K. Langlotz
lang...@teleport.com
lang...@teleport.com
<dar...@grumblesmurf.net> wrote:
>lang...@teleport.com writes:
>
>> You're giving MAX credit for Portland's vibrancy? Why is it that the
>> roads are crowded after one of those vibrant events, and not MAX? Why
>> are the parking lots crowded on weekends downtown?
>
>This makes me think you've never looked at a MAX train as it's
>leaving in rush hour, or after a big event. They're inevitably
>packed. But then, as you've shown numerous times, you aren't
>interested in paying attention to facts that don't jive with your
>view of the way things are.
Sure, a couple hundred people pack the cars up on occasion, but at the
same time, an order of magnitude more people are hopping in their
cars. MAX can't take credit for causing a good, healthy, growing
economy.
Bennet K. Langlotz
lang...@teleport.com
lang...@teleport.com
>And, of course, most of the increase in downtown parking has been in
>_short-term_ parking - fine for shoppers and folks wanting to visit
>their lawyers, bankers, or insurance agents but not really useful
>for folks who actually work downtown.
You are attempting to measure transit usage by looking at the number
of jobs and the number of parking spaces (apparently using your
personal anecdotal observations. Don't the widely available and
published usage statistics support your case? Why are you resorting
to secondary and tertiary data sources?
>Public transit, of which MAX is an important ingredient, is part
>of the reason the downtown area continues to be able to support an
>economy which led to the construction of "all those new buildings
>with parking in the basement". They ain't building many of those
>new buildings in downtown St. Louis.
Your hypothesis seems to be that all St. Louis needs is light rail to
be like Portland.
Bennet K. Langlotz
lang...@teleport.com
Andrew
: On 02 Oct 1998 21:48:00 -0700, Darrell Fuhriman
: <dar...@grumblesmurf.net> wrote:
: >lang...@teleport.com writes:
: >
: >> You're giving MAX credit for Portland's vibrancy? Why is it that the
: >> roads are crowded after one of those vibrant events, and not MAX? Why
: >> are the parking lots crowded on weekends downtown?
: >
: >This makes me think you've never looked at a MAX train as it's
: >leaving in rush hour, or after a big event. They're inevitably
: >packed. But then, as you've shown numerous times, you aren't
: >interested in paying attention to facts that don't jive with your
: >view of the way things are.
: Sure, a couple hundred people pack the cars up on occasion, but at the
: same time, an order of magnitude more people are hopping in their
: cars.
So you admit that when you said "Why is it that the roads are crowded
after one of these vibrant events, and not MAX?" you were dead wrong?
Darrell's right - the trains are packed after events, as well as at
rush hour. No one is saying the roads aren't packed too, but they
would be a lot worse without MAX.
Andrew
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew andr...@bizave.com
Visit Andrew's Portland, Oregon Web Site: http://www.bizave.com
Andrew
: On 3 Oct 1998 05:03:33 GMT, bsha...@orednet.org (Bill Shatzer) wrote:
: >And, of course, most of the increase in downtown parking has been in
: >_short-term_ parking - fine for shoppers and folks wanting to visit
: >their lawyers, bankers, or insurance agents but not really useful
: >for folks who actually work downtown.
: You are attempting to measure transit usage by looking at the number
: of jobs and the number of parking spaces (apparently using your
: personal anecdotal observations. Don't the widely available and
: published usage statistics support your case? Why are you resorting
: to secondary and tertiary data sources?
"Within fifteen years after opening, the new bus and rail lines
carried almost a third of commuters into downtown Portland, where
employment rose from under sixty thousand in 1970 to over one hundred
thousand in 1995, while the cap on new parking spaces remained in
effect." -Richard Moe, "Changing Places", 1997. P. 223
[The cap has since been lifted.]
Aaron M. Renn
Rail Transit in Los Angeles"? (It's at
http://the-tech.mit.edu/~richmond/professional/myth.pdf ). The people who
responded to my defense of busses versus light rail sound exactly like the
people in Richmond's focus groups. "Rail is sexy" "Busses are slow and
dirty" "People like trains, they hate busses" "You need both busses and
trains" "Trains are fast because they don't get stuck in traffic" etc.
Again, I highly suggest reading this paper because it explores how these
beliefs are not always based on rational thought, but rather unconscious
thought processes.
Russell Senior
>>>>> "BKL" == <lang...@teleport.com> wrote:
BKL> But inly in response to a demonstrated need. The flexibility is
BKL> an advantage, not otherwise.
Tim> The point remains valid that bus lines don't have the same
Tim> land-use impact as light rail lines. Sure, there might be
Tim> perfectly good reasons to move the bus lines. That doesn't
Tim> obviate the point that people tend to trust bus lines less than
Tim> rail lines *because* they know that bus lines can readily be
Tim> moved.
That's right. The flip-side of flexibility is _stability_. Stability
is also an advantage, no more unmitigated than flexibility.
--
Russell Senior
sen...@teleport.com
Andrew
: Did anyone read the paper I suggested entitled "The Mythical Conception of
: Rail Transit in Los Angeles"? (It's at
: http://the-tech.mit.edu/~richmond/professional/myth.pdf ). The people who
: responded to my defense of busses versus light rail sound exactly like the
: people in Richmond's focus groups. "Rail is sexy" "Busses are slow and
: dirty" "People like trains, they hate busses" "You need both busses and
: trains" "Trains are fast because they don't get stuck in traffic" etc.
: Again, I highly suggest reading this paper because it explores how these
: beliefs are not always based on rational thought, but rather unconscious
: thought processes.
Why does it make any difference whether beliefs about trains or buses
are based on "rational thought" or not?
We are not rational beings. Most of the choices we make in life are
not based entirely on logic. What kind of ice cream do you like? I
can give you ten reasons why vanilla is better than chocolate - so
therefore they should stop making chocolate, because I have proven
that there is no rational basis for choosing chocolate? Would you buy
stock in a company that had such in its business plan?
It's silly to discount people's preferences just because they are not
based on absolute logic, Mr. Spock.
Russell Senior
Bob> A lot of new buildings in downtown and in inner southeast
Bob> i.e. Lloyd, Convention Center area, [...]
Better get out a map there Bob. The Lloyd Center and Convention
Center are in Northeast Portland.
--
Russell Senior
sen...@teleport.com
Aaron M. Renn
> It's silly to discount people's preferences just because they are not
> based on absolute logic, Mr. Spock.
People fail to use logic to justify light rail projects. On other hand,
studies show that people do use logic when selecting a mode of transit.
They use the mode that gets them their fastest and cheapest, which often
means a car or a bus versus rail.
Aaron M. Renn
> If I'm to use public transit, I want some kind of assurance that the
> route I use won't be changed, to my detriment, at somebody's will.
> Score one for light rail, zero for buses.
Please provide some evidence that people use the probability of tranit line
abandonment as a criteria for where to live, how to commute, where to
develop a commerical area, or anything. And how light rail scores better
than bus service. I've never seen a study that indicated this.
Jeff B. Kurland
Darrell Fuhriman wrote in message ...
>Bob Tiernan <zu...@teleport.com> writes:
>
>> And if it had been an 18-wheeler across both tracks? Don't
>> assume all misplaced vehicles will only cover one set of tracks.
>
>of a freeway.
>
>Darrell
About 30 years ago, a diesel locomotive across the road shut down
Boston's Southeast Expressway. Oh, by the way, there's no RR crossing
on that highway (which is now part of I-93).
John Rowland
>People fail to use logic to justify light rail projects. On other hand,
>studies show that people do use logic when selecting a mode of transit.
>They use the mode that gets them their fastest and cheapest, which often
>means a car or a bus versus rail.
Nobody is denying that when you're actually stood at suburb A and you want
to get to office B, that is the kind of calculation that you make. But when
you're deciding whether to live in suburb C or D or whether to work in
office E or F, or whether to set up your company in city G or H or whether
to hold your conference at conference centre I or J - rail's prestige,
comfort and route stability factors play a big role.
--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped
Maps of tube stations at http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/7069
This message has been awarded a Certificate of Excellence from the
Concrete Society for the quality of its 35,000 cubic metres of concrete
Richard A. Schumacher
>that went directly from his house to work was replaced by a rail line
>that stopped a few blocks away, making it necessary for him to use
>his car to get there.
Meanwhile, a dozen people who weren't on the bus line
to begin with and so took their cars to work now drive
a few blocks to the rail line instead. Generalizing from
personal experience can be misleading.
>It's a good and cogent argument. Here in the East Bay we have a
>heavy rail network called BART to carry people into San Francisco,
>which carries about 215,000 riders a day. We ALSO have express bus
>service that does the same job, and carries about 135,000 riders
>a day. You could argue, and BART has argued, that the transbay bus
>service is unnecessary duplication of effort. But the fact is that
>the buses get riders that wouldn't be bothered taking a car to
>the nearest rail station, but do get served by a bus that comes
>right to their door. The second most popular route, the F line to
>Berkeley, goes directly to a BART station and takes 20 minutes more
>to get there. It's dead empty when it reaches the BART station,
>but it's dropped off a whole load of passengers on the way.
(And how many does it pick up at the BART station?)
You've made a good and cogent argument for both rail and bus,
not one or the other exclusively. One couldn't build rail lines
to the front doors of all of today's 135,000 trasnbay bus riders.
Neither could one want to add enough buslines to carry all 215,000
BART riders.
lang...@teleport.com
>So you admit that when you said "Why is it that the roads are crowded
>after one of these vibrant events, and not MAX?" you were dead wrong?
>Darrell's right - the trains are packed after events, as well as at
>rush hour. No one is saying the roads aren't packed too, but they
>would be a lot worse without MAX.
Fine, I over reached in my successful effort to show that MAX can not
claim credit for downtown's "vibrancy" when the vast, vast majority of
those visiting are using cars, not max.
Bennet K. Langlotz
lang...@teleport.com
lang...@teleport.com
>"Within fifteen years after opening, the new bus and rail lines
>carried almost a third of commuters into downtown Portland, where
>employment rose from under sixty thousand in 1970 to over one hundred
>thousand in 1995, while the cap on new parking spaces remained in
>effect." -Richard Moe, "Changing Places", 1997. P. 223
No causation claimed, although an advocate surely reads it that way.
Bennet K. Langlotz
lang...@teleport.com
lang...@teleport.com
>Why does it make any difference whether beliefs about trains or buses
>are based on "rational thought" or not?
It makes no difference when you are deciding to spend your own money
how irrational you want to be. however, when you seek to spend MY
money, i expect some rationality. State the goals in advance, and the
value of achieving the goals, then determine the solution (if any that
meets those goals at the valued price) for the lowest price in my tax
dollars.
Bennet K. Langlotz
lang...@teleport.com
Joe Versaggi
>
> On 2 Oct 1998, Joe Versaggi wrote:
>
> > If you knew Portland before MAX, and now see the comparison after, you
> > would understand why MAX was needed. Portland was a ghost town outside
> > of 7a-6p, weekdays.
>
> How 'bout that? Downtown Portland was very uncongested
> between 6 pm and 7 am, and (I recall this) not very
> congested at all during the weekdays. That was the
> desired gaol right there. Now it's been ruined.
I had the unfortunate experience of being a tourist downtown in 1981 on
Sunday and Monday of Labor Day weekend. I died of boredom. That is
hardly a way to attract tourist money. Now that it has been "ruined",
downtown looks better than ever and has a non-employement economy.
>
> > So how did they accomplish adding 50% to its downtown workforce
> > without adding a parking deck ?
>
> A lot of new buildings in downtown and in inner southeast
> i.e. Lloyd, Convention Center area, came with parking
> levels or lots. Those wanting the buildings insisted on
> this for they knew they needed parking spaces to attract
> the bulk of their employees.
>
What is the ratio of new parking deck slots verses new employees ?
Bill Shatzer
(lang...@teleport.com) writes:
> On 3 Oct 1998 05:03:33 GMT, bsha...@orednet.org (Bill Shatzer) wrote:
>>And, of course, most of the increase in downtown parking has been in
>>_short-term_ parking - fine for shoppers and folks wanting to visit
>>their lawyers, bankers, or insurance agents but not really useful
>>for folks who actually work downtown.
> You are attempting to measure transit usage by looking at the number
> of jobs and the number of parking spaces (apparently using your
> personal anecdotal observations. Don't the widely available and
> published usage statistics support your case? Why are you resorting
> to secondary and tertiary data sources?
Huh? What the heck are you talking about? 'Course, since the lifting
of the parking lid about two and half years back, the City no
longer is in the business of counting long and short term parking
spaces on (most) new downtown parking facilities but I can tell ya',
from primary sources, no less, that for the ten years _preceeding
the lifting of the parking lid, the number of spaces in new parking
lots and facilities dedicated to short term parking significantly
outnumbered the spaces allocated to long term parking.
Other than that observation, I've no idea at all what you are
talking about.
>>Public transit, of which MAX is an important ingredient, is part
>>of the reason the downtown area continues to be able to support an
>>economy which led to the construction of "all those new buildings
>>with parking in the basement". They ain't building many of those
>>new buildings in downtown St. Louis.
> Your hypothesis seems to be that all St. Louis needs is light rail to
> be like Portland.
My goodness - you don't understand the qualifications present in
the phrases "important ingredient" and "part of the reason"? Of
course that isn't ALL St. Louis needs. But it probably is an
important ingredient in part of what St. Louis needs.
It's certainly an important ingredient in what Portland needed.
Peace and justice,
--
Bill Shatzer- bsha...@orednet.org -or- aw...@freenet.carleton.ca
"Oh, what sad times are these when passing ruffians can say 'ni'
at will to old ladies."
Tom Marney
Aaron M. Renn wrote:
> Andrew wrote:
> > It's silly to discount people's preferences just because they are not
> > based on absolute logic, Mr. Spock.
>
> People fail to use logic to justify light rail projects. On other hand,
> studies show that people do use logic when selecting a mode of transit.
> They use the mode that gets them their fastest and cheapest, which often
> means a car or a bus versus rail.
A better way to say this is that laypeople often expect rail to do things
that it demonstrably won't. Too often, and perhaps most catastrophically in
Los Angeles, it has been assumed that development of a rail system will
automatically induce individuals and businesses to change their habits and
even their locations to take advantage of the mobility provided by rail,
when in fact the mobility advantage gained is marginal or nonexistent. In
LA, that misperception was compounded by the enormous costs of building and
operating their new rail systems. There simply isn't enough money to build a
rail system capable of serving the dispersed travel pattterns established in
the world's archtypical autocentric city.
I don't mean to suggest that rail transit isn't often a good idea. I will
say, however, that just building a rail system from point A to point B isn't
enough. It's critically important that the likelihood that the rail system
will be useful to a sufficient proportion of travellers to make it viable
must be commensurate with the costs of building and operating the system.
There are two ways to accomplish this. One is to use planning and
development regulations to encourage or mandate transit oriented
development, as Portland has done. The other is to build only cost-effective
rail projects suited to the assets and needs of the area, complementary to
the rest of the transportation system, and well integrated with bus
transit.
Tom Marney
Aaron M. Renn wrote:
> Did anyone read the paper I suggested entitled "The Mythical Conception of
> Rail Transit in Los Angeles"?
I did. A while back, actually.
> (It's at
> http://the-tech.mit.edu/~richmond/professional/myth.pdf ). The people who
> responded to my defense of busses versus light rail sound exactly like the
> people in Richmond's focus groups. "Rail is sexy" "Busses are slow and
> dirty" "People like trains, they hate busses" "You need both busses and
> trains" "Trains are fast because they don't get stuck in traffic" etc.
> Again, I highly suggest reading this paper because it explores how these
> beliefs are not always based on rational thought, but rather unconscious
> thought processes.
Civilians are entitled to their misconceptions. It's up to the professionals
to develop accurate information on which the public can base their opinions,
and that political leaders direct their staffs and consultants to do so, and
then act responsibly (technically and politically) on what's presented. That
isn't, to put it mildly, what happened in Los Angeles. But the situation in
Portland is very different, and much better. Other places are somewhere in the
middle.
A caveat: Most of the conclusions the paper made about transit are equally
valid for highways. If anything, the mythology of the car is many times more
pervasive that that of transit (duh!). People, it seems, will consistently
make bad decisions if they believe things that aren't true.