Westside MAX=S L O W!
Brian Varine
taking the car to downtown, you will save over 30 minutes over MAX even
with all of the congestion on 26.
Time to Portland (KGW Studios) 28 Minutes, time on MAX 1hr 2 min. In
another surprise, most of the riders of MAX previously took the bus. One
bright spot is that the former bus riders said it was much faster than
the bus and much more comfortable.
DeLores
start their trip this morning. I also drove my car to Portland this morning
(NW PTLD) leaving here 15 minutes before they did and it took me one hour
and ten minutes to get there! That is the 'fun' part of taking Sunset to
Portland; ten minutes one way or the other on your departure time can make a
HUGE difference in arrival time depending on which slowdown happens when on
Sunset.
I have to use my car for work but if I had the choice, believe me, I would
be riding MAX!!
Brian Varine wrote in message <35FDCA...@usa.nobulkemail.net>...
Andrew
: Anyone catch the KGW newscast today at 5pm? No big surprise but by
: taking the car to downtown, you will save over 30 minutes over MAX even
: with all of the congestion on 26.
Have you ever driven on the Sunset highway? I do it several times a
week, *against* rush hour traffic, from downtown to Hillsboro. For
me, outbound is usually much faster than inbound. When the weather
turns rainy, the inbound (oppposite rush hour) traffic crawls between
Cornell and Cedar Hills and again between 217 and the cemetary. It
can easily take me 45-50 minutes to get from Shute Road (wait in the
long line of cars on the ramp just to get ON the Sunset) - unless
there's an accident, then I start looking at Walker Road or
Cornell...
On a *really* good day I can make it home in about 30 minutes, yes -
assuming good weather, no accidents, and NO congestion, just normal
cars doing almost the speed limit. Only an idiot would assume a MAX
train that stops eight times would be faster. Of course a car doing
60 miles an hour in good conditions will beat it.
Outbound rush hour that I see lined up the other way is usually much
worse. There's no way in hell anyone could make it home in the
evening from KGW to Hillsboro in 28 minutes in those backups.
Still, I'd rather spend an extra half hour on MAX in rainy weather
reading on the way home than getting stuck in traffic in bad weather.
: Time to Portland (KGW Studios) 28 Minutes, time on MAX 1hr 2 min. In
: another surprise, most of the riders of MAX previously took the bus.
Why would this be a surprise? The thing has been open for exactly one
day to commuters. The weather right now is ideal driving weather.
Does KGW think commuters change their commuting habits over night?
: One
: bright spot is that the former bus riders said it was much faster than
: the bus and much more comfortable.
Would anyone really expect a bus to be faster and more comfortable?
Well, I'm glad KGW has determine that westside MAX is a failure after
exactly one day of commuter use. But somehow I have a feeling you had
made up your mind long ago.
Andrew
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew andr...@bizave.com
Visit Andrew's Portland, Oregon Web Site: http://www.bizave.com
Brian Varine
> On a *really* good day I can make it home in about 30 minutes, yes -
> assuming good weather, no accidents, and NO congestion, just normal
> cars doing almost the speed limit. Only an idiot would assume a MAX
> train that stops eight times would be faster. Of course a car doing
> 60 miles an hour in good conditions will beat it.
I would like to see a comparison of times for a week of commuting. Total
up the times from riding MAX for a week, and the car for a week. I would
bet the car wins.
Another thing is WHY does MAX have *17* stops? It's rediculous to have
this many stops. That is why MAX is so slow. There is no reason to have
that many stops. Have few stops with all busses going to those points.
> Outbound rush hour that I see lined up the other way is usually much
> worse. There's no way in hell anyone could make it home in the
> evening from KGW to Hillsboro in 28 minutes in those backups.
>
> Still, I'd rather spend an extra half hour on MAX in rainy weather
> reading on the way home than getting stuck in traffic in bad weather.
So have you switched to MAX yet? Why not?
> Well, I'm glad KGW has determine that westside MAX is a failure after
> exactly one day of commuter use. But somehow I have a feeling you had
> made up your mind long ago.
Well, it's not a failure if you previously rode the bus. For $1 Billion,
you think we'd have a much faster line
Eric A. Mathiasen
Lets bring a little common sense to the discussion please. Of course
taking the train is slower than driving most of the time. But what
can you do while you're driving? Not much. Maybe you feel you can
risk your life and the lives of those around you by making a cell phone
call, but that's really the limit of your productivity. If you
take the train, you can read the newspaper, work on a speech, organize
notes, use a laptop if you have one, review resumes from job candidates,
any number of productive things you can't do while driving. I wouldn't
recommend using a laptop in public outside of rush hour (safety in numbers)
but the rest is doable any hour of the day. What is the rail distance of
Portland to Hillsboro? About 15 miles? It doesn't surprise me that that would
take an hour. In Chicago, when I lived exactly 10 miles north of the
Loop (the city center, and where all rail lines converge), it usually took
45 minutes to get to downtown on the "El". And I'd guess there are about
17 stops or so between Howard and Madison.
YOu can't take out too many stops or convenience suffers, and too many
and speed suffers. About one every half mile to mile and a half, depending
on population density and surrounding land use is pretty normal. In
Chicago off-hours, I could usually travel from Howard to Madison in
about half an hour by car, but during rush hour the trains were almost
always quicker, and definetely les stressful.
-Eric Mathiasen
--
Eric A. Mathiasen | er...@mathiasen.com | www.mathiasen.com
lang...@teleport.com
>Have you ever driven on the Sunset highway?
I wonder how your commute on the Sunset will be when the abysmal
2-lane bottlenecks are eliminated.
Because the highway has been allowed for years to sit at inadequate
capacity while massive funds went to the rail line hardly makes it a
fair comparison, although it exactly how the rail advocates want it to
work out.
Andrew
: On Tue, 15 Sep 1998 03:59:02 GMT, andr...@bizave.com (Andrew) wrote:
: >Have you ever driven on the Sunset highway?
: I wonder how your commute on the Sunset will be when the abysmal
: 2-lane bottlenecks are eliminated.
Never heard of induced traffic, eh?
How will the commutes on the Sunset be in ten years? Or should we
just add another lane again? In twenty years? Just add another lane
then again?
: Because the highway has been allowed for years to sit at inadequate
: capacity while massive funds went to the rail line hardly makes it a
: fair comparison, although it exactly how the rail advocates want it to
: work out.
Light rail is a much better investment for the future than is adding
more lanes to the freeways. A third lane is of course needed on the
Sunset, but there are limits to how many lanes you can add over time.
And for every lane you add, you have to add lanes whereever the cars
will go. New buildings are growing in downtown like weeds - which means
new jobs and new residents - and more cars on downtown streets. At
what point will it reach gridlock?
Ask Seattle if they wish they'd started to build their light rail
system fifteen years ago like Portland did...
Andrew
: Andrew wrote:
: > On a *really* good day I can make it home in about 30 minutes, yes -
: > assuming good weather, no accidents, and NO congestion, just normal
: > cars doing almost the speed limit. Only an idiot would assume a MAX
: > train that stops eight times would be faster. Of course a car doing
: > 60 miles an hour in good conditions will beat it.
: I would like to see a comparison of times for a week of commuting. Total
: up the times from riding MAX for a week, and the car for a week. I would
: bet the car wins.
So would I. No one is saying MAX will ever be faster on average than
driving. But in heavy traffic it could well be almost as fast as
driving - and a hell of a lot less stressful, especially in bad
weather.
: Another thing is WHY does MAX have *17* stops? It's rediculous to have
: this many stops. That is why MAX is so slow. There is no reason to have
: that many stops. Have few stops with all busses going to those points.
MAX has too many stops in downtown and the east side between Lloyd
Center and the Steel bridge. MAX is much better designed on the
west side; there are only two stops between Beaverton Transit Center
and Goose Hollow! Because MAX is not going along streets between BTC
and downtown Hillsboro, it can start and stop quickly, unlike in
downtown and inner east side where it moves slowly and has to wait for
traffic.
There are already many feeder busses to support areas close to the new
MAX stations. No, having riden it a few times already, I think they
did a great job picking the stops and the route. There are not too
many stops on the west side.
: > Outbound rush hour that I see lined up the other way is usually much
: > worse. There's no way in hell anyone could make it home in the
: > evening from KGW to Hillsboro in 28 minutes in those backups.
: >
: > Still, I'd rather spend an extra half hour on MAX in rainy weather
: > reading on the way home than getting stuck in traffic in bad weather.
: So have you switched to MAX yet? Why not?
"Switching" to MAX does not register with me, because I am not an
anti-car nut. I would never ever give up my car, but I will take
Tri-met when it is relatively convenient. If everyone who could
easily take mass transit would take it just once a week, the streets
would be a lot less crowded.
Now, if I lived in Hillsboro and worked downtown instead of the other
way around, it would make more sense to take MAX almost every day. I
would not have to fight the horrible traffic and then pay for
parking. At lunch time I could walk all over or use the downtown
buses and MAX to go out for lunch or run errands.
But I commute to Hillsboro with traffic not as bad as rush hour
to-from downtown and with free parking; plus it is hard to walk or
take busses to get errands done or go out for lunch. As it is, I am
planning to take MAX as often as I can, at least once a week (I do not
have to drive to Hillsboro every day anyway). I'll see how it works
out. I'm sure I will be taking it even more often in bad weather.
: > Well, I'm glad KGW has determine that westside MAX is a failure after
: > exactly one day of commuter use. But somehow I have a feeling you had
: > made up your mind long ago.
: Well, it's not a failure if you previously rode the bus. For $1 Billion,
: you think we'd have a much faster line
It's just too early to tell how well Westside MAX will be accepted by
people who did not previously ride the bus. Old commuting habits die
hard. There has been tons of hype about MAX itself, but how many
people on the west side really understand how convenient the new
feeder bus service to MAX is? Give it more than two days, OK?
rsjo...@my-dejanews.com
I agree with a lot of the above, but, as someone said, for $1 Billion, you'd
think they'd have an amazing, very swift system there. The bulk of the cost,
of course, was the West Hills tunnels. Having built them, perhaps someday
they'll improve the rest of the line to include expresses, possibly reducing
travel time.
In addition, however, it's a mistake to compare travel times on a transit
line in Chicago to Portland. The densities in suburban Portland are such
that you'd think, even _with_ 10 stops between Beaverton and Hillsboro, the
trip would only take about 20 minutes or so - 30 second dwell times and 1.5
minutes between each stop - because the trains could go at maximum possible
speed between stations. Evidently, MAX was not designed with an eye toward
speed. Although I'm sure travel times are not hugely different during
rush-hour, speed is definitely an advantage to transit if it is designed
properly. All those curly-cues MAX does around the Stadium and at the Sunset
TC I'm sure slow everything down a lot.
Same as what I've been saying about Holladay St. and the Steel Bridge - bad
route design, adding a lot of unnecessary travel time for the sake of a tiny
number of passengers (does anybody take MAX to Lloyd Center?). And there are
too many stations downtown. If you eliminated one-third of them, I'd bet
ridership would actually go _up_ because you saved 10 minutes of travel time,
attracting more riders (eventually).
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
lang...@teleport.com
<emat...@tekka.wwa.com> wrote:
>Alright,
>
>Lets bring a little common sense to the discussion please. Of course
>taking the train is slower than driving most of the time. But what
>can you do while you're driving?
You can stop for groceries, you can pick up the kids, you can drive
right into your garage and lock it behind you if a creep is following
you, you can live anywhere and work anywhere without severely
increasing your commute by needing multiple transfers, you can carry
on a private conversation with a passanger, you can sellect the
temperature, you can avoid poeple with unpleasant odors, you can avoid
transmission of contagious deseases, you cna always be guaranteed a
seat, and a clean one at that, you can lock out dangers...
>YOu can't take out too many stops or convenience suffers, and too many
>and speed suffers.
Which is why people are so willing to spend thousands of hours per
year on their cars, and all that time unable to read the "novel" that
transit advocates seem so absorbed by.
lang...@teleport.com
>Never heard of induced traffic, eh?
I've heard of it plenty, but have never seen any evidence that
starvation is the best way to treat a famine. Let's at least make an
effort to have road capacity keep up with growth. If population
doubles, as a rule the road capacity should double.
>Light rail is a much better investment for the future than is adding
>more lanes to the freeways.
This is the first time I have ever heard of light rail and investment
being used in the same sentence! A billion dollars for *how* many
people to switch from nasty buses to shiny trains?!
>Ask Seattle if they wish they'd started to build their light rail
>system fifteen years ago like Portland did...
Ask them if they *really* wish that they hadn't abandoned their
freeway construction plans when they were only halfway through.
Andrew
: In article <6tm2cj$dl9$1...@hirame.wwa.com>,
: "Eric A. Mathiasen" <emat...@tekka.wwa.com> wrote:
: > Alright,
: >
: > Lets bring a little common sense to the discussion please. Of course
: > taking the train is slower than driving most of the time. But what
: > risk your life and the lives of those around you by making a cell phone
: > call, but that's really the limit of your productivity. If you
: > take the train, you can read the newspaper, work on a speech, organize
: > notes, use a laptop if you have one, review resumes from job candidates,
: > any number of productive things you can't do while driving. I wouldn't
: > recommend using a laptop in public outside of rush hour (safety in numbers)
: > but the rest is doable any hour of the day. What is the rail distance of
: > Portland to Hillsboro? About 15 miles? It doesn't surprise me that that would
: > take an hour. In Chicago, when I lived exactly 10 miles north of the
: > Loop (the city center, and where all rail lines converge), it usually took
: > 45 minutes to get to downtown on the "El". And I'd guess there are about
: > 17 stops or so between Howard and Madison.
: > YOu can't take out too many stops or convenience suffers, and too many
: > and speed suffers. About one every half mile to mile and a half, depending
: > on population density and surrounding land use is pretty normal. In
: > Chicago off-hours, I could usually travel from Howard to Madison in
: > about half an hour by car, but during rush hour the trains were almost
: > always quicker, and definetely les stressful.
: >
: I agree with a lot of the above, but, as someone said, for $1 Billion, you'd
: think they'd have an amazing, very swift system there. The bulk of the cost,
: of course, was the West Hills tunnels. Having built them, perhaps someday
: they'll improve the rest of the line to include expresses, possibly reducing
: travel time.
They would have to build bridges or tunnels to eliminate the
steet-level crossings. That would be expensive, and I'm not sure how
muchtime it would really save.
: In addition, however, it's a mistake to compare travel times on a transit
: line in Chicago to Portland. The densities in suburban Portland are such
: that you'd think, even _with_ 10 stops between Beaverton and Hillsboro, the
: trip would only take about 20 minutes or so - 30 second dwell times and 1.5
: minutes between each stop - because the trains could go at maximum possible
: speed between stations. Evidently, MAX was not designed with an eye toward
: speed.
There are fifteen stops between Beaverton Transit Center and the last stop, Hatfield
Gov. Center in Hillsboro. Travel time is about 27 minutes.
Although I'm sure travel times are not hugely different during
: rush-hour, speed is definitely an advantage to transit if it is designed
: properly. All those curly-cues MAX does around the Stadium and at the Sunset
: TC I'm sure slow everything down a lot.
With a reasonable number of stops to serve homes and businesses,
there's just no way a train will be faster than no-traffic driving.
Even if MAX went 2X the speed between stations, you wouldn't save that
much time, because you still have to start and stop without yanking
the passengers out of their seats. :-)
A high-speed train is worth it only if you are going a long distance.
A high-speed train is being designed for eventual travel between
Eugene and Vancouver, BC, I think.
: Same as what I've been saying about Holladay St. and the Steel Bridge - bad
: route design, adding a lot of unnecessary travel time for the sake of a tiny
: number of passengers (does anybody take MAX to Lloyd Center?). And there are
: too many stations downtown. If you eliminated one-third of them, I'd bet
: ridership would actually go _up_ because you saved 10 minutes of travel time,
: attracting more riders (eventually).
Now this I mostly agree with. You could get rid of two stops between
Lloyd Center and the bridge; one stop would easily serve the
Convention Center, the Rose Quarter, and 7th Ave.
But yes, people do take it to Lloyd Center. I have a couple of times.
Andrew
: On 15 Sep 1998 15:50:43 GMT, "Eric A. Mathiasen"
: <emat...@tekka.wwa.com> wrote:
: >Alright,
: >
: >Lets bring a little common sense to the discussion please. Of course
: >taking the train is slower than driving most of the time. But what
: >can you do while you're driving?
: You can stop for groceries, you can pick up the kids, you can drive
: right into your garage and lock it behind you if a creep is following
: you,
Oh, I'm sure a lock will keep all the creeps out of your house. Great
idea to let them follow you home so they know where you and your kids
live.
: you can live anywhere and work anywhere without severely
: increasing your commute by needing multiple transfers,
Or you could live in an area where you can *walk* to things instead of
having to get in your car to do *anything*.
: you can carry on a private conversation with a passanger,
Or you can chat with a stranger and maybe make new friends - without
having to keep your eyes on the road - or have someone to talk to if
you are driving to work alone every day, instead of being so
anti-social.
: you can sellect the temperature
You can open a window on buses. MAX trains and some buses have A/C.
: you can avoid poeple with unpleasant odors, you can avoid
: transmission of contagious deseases, you cna always be guaranteed a
: seat, and a clean one at that, you can lock out dangers...
Unless that person you want to hold that private conversation with is
giving off the odors or the diseases.
On MAX or a bus you can often get up and move if someone is bothering
you.
If you drive, you can also get in a car accident (better chance of
this than being a crime victim), get stuck in traffic or road
construction, drive around for ten minutes to find a parking spot (or
pay a few bucks to park), put on your chains in case there is ice on
the Sylvan Hill, have idiots on the road cut you off or endanger your
life, and have your car stolen or vandalized while you are parked.
: >YOu can't take out too many stops or convenience suffers, and too many
: >and speed suffers.
: Which is why people are so willing to spend thousands of hours per
: year on their cars, and all that time unable to read the "novel" that
: transit advocates seem so absorbed by.
People moving out of the cities and into the suburbs has been a mixed
blessing for them. Without mass transit, people in the suburbs *have*
to get in the car to go anywhere. What if your car breaks down? If
mine breaks down, I can walk to a bunch of places or take a bus or MAX
just about anywhere I want to go.
I'll never give up my car, but I love mass transit.
Andrew
: On Tue, 15 Sep 1998 18:06:38 GMT, andr...@bizave.com (Andrew) wrote:
: >Never heard of induced traffic, eh?
: I've heard of it plenty, but have never seen any evidence that
: starvation is the best way to treat a famine.
So are you saying an extra lane on the Sunset won't get immediately
filled up with cars or not?
Which cities in America have managed to widen their freeways enough to
eliminate traffic?
: Let's at least make an
: effort to have road capacity keep up with growth. If population
: doubles, as a rule the road capacity should double.
It's not that simple. Once you have a developed area, it is extremely
expensive to add new roads or widen them. Then you have to go back
and do the same thing again in a few years.
: >Light rail is a much better investment for the future than is adding
: >more lanes to the freeways.
: This is the first time I have ever heard of light rail and investment
: being used in the same sentence! A billion dollars for *how* many
: people to switch from nasty buses to shiny trains?!
No, it's an investment because if we waited til the year 2010 to say,
"Duh, gee, our five-lane freeways are still full of cars and air
pollution is horrible, I guess we need mass transit", it would
probably have cost us 5X to build the same MAX line.
: >Ask Seattle if they wish they'd started to build their light rail
: >system fifteen years ago like Portland did...
: Ask them if they *really* wish that they hadn't abandoned their
: freeway construction plans when they were only halfway through.
Again, which cities have managed to build enough roads to handle all
the cars? Los Angeles?
lang...@teleport.com
>So are you saying an extra lane on the Sunset won't get immediately
>filled up with cars or not?
It is a Good Thing when a public works project is fully utilized by
the public. The goal is not to create empty lanes, but to reduce
wasted commute time and improve safety.
>
>Which cities in America have managed to widen their freeways enough to
>eliminate traffic?
Probably none, since most of the funds are tied up with strings that
require politically ncorrect transit options that most people don't
want to use themselves, but wish their neighbors would.
>It's not that simple. Once you have a developed area, it is extremely
>expensive to add new roads or widen them. Then you have to go back
>and do the same thing again in a few years.
Only if there is an increasing demand. And it is not such a big
problem if you keep up with growth. However, if you fall behind by a
few decades, you will have quite a battle to get on top of it. So
much that a few anti-car folks will claim that it is impossible, when
it merely takes a rational, concerted effort.
>No, it's an investment because if we waited til the year 2010 to say,
>"Duh, gee, our five-lane freeways are still full of cars and air
>pollution is horrible, I guess we need mass transit", it would
>probably have cost us 5X to build the same MAX line.
Why? Tunnels more expensive to bore? Why not just add busses and bus
lines? A pretty cheap option.
And the bit about the air pollution is an unsubstantiated claim when
current cars are almost pollution free, and the fleet will be much
cleaner in the years ahead.
>Again, which cities have managed to build enough roads to handle all
>the cars? Los Angeles?
If you think that having adequate roads will cause our population to
increase by a factor of 5 or 10, you can think again.
John R Mudd
Andrew <andr...@bizave.com> wrote:
>So are you saying an extra lane on the Sunset won't get immediately
>filled up with cars or not?
>
>eliminate traffic?
Exactly none. But I don't think that's not what Langlotz was talking about.
I posted an article last month that talks about why a third lane is
needed on Sunset Highway:
http://x10.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=380889030&CONTEXT=905903064.1809121408&hitnum=0
BTW, someone asked why I'm not riding Max yet. That's easy: it doesn't
go where I need to go. That's exactly why I'll be voting against the
upcoming ballot issue. Great, light rail to a shopping mall, that makes
a lot of sense.
Eric A. Mathiasen
: In addition, however, it's a mistake to compare travel times on a transit
: line in Chicago to Portland. The densities in suburban Portland are such
: that you'd think, even _with_ 10 stops between Beaverton and Hillsboro, the
: trip would only take about 20 minutes or so - 30 second dwell times and 1.5
: minutes between each stop - because the trains could go at maximum possible
This is just a minor point, but Chicago's "El" is in fact either elevated
above the traffic, or down below the traffic, or running down the middle of
an interstate, so it can go as fast as it wants without worry. I think the
express trains between Howard and Fullerton get up to 45 or 50 mph in
Chicago, but I could be mistaken.
-Eric
Eric A. Mathiasen
: Which cities in America have managed to widen their freeways enough to
: eliminate traffic?
This may be a first for me (and probably a last, too) but
I have to say Minneapolis has excellent traffic MOST places,
MOST of the time, especially compared to Portland and Seattle.
But, I have a feeling our blessings are about to end.
Minneapolis has almost no plans to add significany highway
in the next 20 years, and I'd be shocked if they had even
one spur of their proposed light-rail up and running in 10
years.
But it is pretty much just a matter of time for Minneapolis.
They've allowed their metro area to spread out like a melting
ice cube, and they have the added bonus of extremely expensive
maintanence (road salt, plows, lots of pothole repairs, shorter
road lifetimes because of the weather). Somethings bound to
slip, and I would bet anything that it will be commute times.
I live in Minneapolis now, but I firmly believe that the next
20 years will greatly magnify the wisdom of Portlands planning and
spotlight the insufficencies of cities like Minneapolis. In
other words, in 20 years Portland will still be a great city to
live in, but I doubt the same wil apply to Minneapolis without
a lot of money.
Andrew
: In article <QlCL1.2281$K02.1...@news.teleport.com>,
: Andrew <andr...@bizave.com> wrote:
: >So are you saying an extra lane on the Sunset won't get immediately
: >filled up with cars or not?
: >Which cities in America have managed to widen their freeways enough to
: >eliminate traffic?
: Exactly none. But I don't think that's not what Langlotz was talking about.
: I posted an article last month that talks about why a third lane is
: needed on Sunset Highway:
I don't need to see an article explaining why the third lane is needed
(at least between Sylvan and 217). It's obvious to anyone who has
driven on the Sunset in the last six months. But once the new lane is
added, expect more cars on the Sunset to fill it up. Traffic will
improve from horrible to bad - until the existing lanes become
inadequate in a few years. Then what do we do? Keep adding lanes?
: BTW, someone asked why I'm not riding Max yet. That's easy: it doesn't
: go where I need to go. That's exactly why I'll be voting against the
: upcoming ballot issue. Great, light rail to a shopping mall, that makes
: a lot of sense.
"It doesn't go where I need to go " is a pretty lousy reason to vote
against something. Not everything the government spends money on
directly benefits me. Does that mean I should vote only for things
that benefits me personally? I think not. If I can see how a
proposal like light rail benefits the region in the long term and
sounds like a good idea, of course I will vote for it, even if I
receive no direct benefit.
There is a better reason to vote against North-South light rail as
currently proposed: the route they're proposing is flawed. You're
right, Clackamas Town Center is not exactly the most desirable place
to put at the end of a light rail train.
I know several people who are light rail advocates, and surprisingly
*everyone* I've talked to so far is voting against it. I'm fairly
sure I will vote no. I think it is doomed if even light rail
proponents will vote against it.
As pointed out to me by a few friends, the proposed N-S line will tear
up the bus mall and require a new bridge - and have to cross the river
*twice*! That's silly. Best to come up the east side to Rose Quarter
and cross there - maybe plan for a new bridge there someday to handle
extra MAX trains or allow them to cross more quickly. The future of
the Steel bridge may be in doubt, anyway.
I have not studied the rest of the plan in detail, beyond seeing where
the routes go. Going through Milwaukie makes sense, but beyond that
I'm not sure. Certainly not to CTC. Perhaps it should meet up with
the proposed commuter rail line from Beaverton to Wilsonville - not
sure how easy that would be to do. It should of course go through
some undeveloped land where new growth could be concentrated. Or
maybe we don't need a N-S line at all.
nic...@eudoramail.com
> On Tue, 15 Sep 1998 18:06:38 GMT, andr...@bizave.com (Andrew) wrote:
>
> >Never heard of induced traffic, eh?
>
> I've heard of it plenty, but have never seen any evidence that
> starvation is the best way to treat a famine.
Perhaps you're familiar with the concept of a diet as a good way to treat
obesity.
Let's at least make an
> effort to have road capacity keep up with growth. If population
> doubles, as a rule the road capacity should double.
Interesting concept. Let's see how this works. Right now, half of the land
in Portland is dedicated to automobiles (roads, parking, driveways). If we
double the population and double the amount of land dedicated to the
automobile that leaves us with...um...uh...all of the land dedicated to
automobiles. (Of course this is a ridiculous example. But, to a limited
extent, the concept is valid.)
(As a complete aside, were you aware that the carrying capacity of a roadway
is maximized at 30 mph?)
> >Light rail is a much better investment for the future than is adding
> >more lanes to the freeways.
>
> This is the first time I have ever heard of light rail and investment
> being used in the same sentence! A billion dollars for *how* many
> people to switch from nasty buses to shiny trains?!
A very good investment. You seem to be looking at only one dimension of the
situation. Another benefit of light rail is the type of land development
that it encourages (buses do this too, but to a much more limited extent).
It makes more possible development patterns in which the car becomes less
necessary (e.g., you don't have to get into your car to get a loaf of bread
because you can get to a store faster on foot than others can get to a store
by car. This type of development also encourages more of a sense of
community than the situation in which you take an elevator to a parking
garage and then drive into your home garage, with no personal interaction
along the way. (I understand that you are not a fan of this much closeness
to the community in general. Some people, however, are.) This has the added
benefit of discouraging the crime that you so strongly fear.
Regards,
Nic H.
nic...@eudoramail.com
> BTW, someone asked why I'm not riding Max yet. That's easy: it doesn't
> go where I need to go. That's exactly why I'll be voting against the
> upcoming ballot issue. Great, light rail to a shopping mall, that makes
> a lot of sense.
We seem to be spending lots of money on roads to get people to shopping malls.
I'm not sure that light rail is any less justified on that basis.
But seriously, you might want to look a little more carefully at the
future. Clackamas county is anticipated to have extremely high population
growth in the next several years. It seems like a good idea to give all those
people an efficient means to get to places where they can work. The S/N line
seems to do that. Sure, it terminates at a mall. But right across the street
is the highest concentration of residential units in Clackamas County.
nic...@eudoramail.com
> : Which cities in America have managed to widen their freeways enough to
> : eliminate traffic?
> I live in Minneapolis now, but I firmly believe that the next
> 20 years will greatly magnify the wisdom of Portlands planning and
> spotlight the insufficencies of cities like Minneapolis. In
> other words, in 20 years Portland will still be a great city to
> live in, but I doubt the same wil apply to Minneapolis without
> a lot of money.
Thanks for the sense of perspective. When I first started comparing Portland
to Minneapolis I was appalled by Portland's road system. Over time I grew to
see the wisdom of Portland's plans for the future (although I still think the
entire west side should be wiped clean and roaded anew). As an added data
point, do you recall how much the new I-3x5 (can't remember the exact number)
road cost and how long it is?
Eric A. Mathiasen
: (As a complete aside, were you aware that the carrying capacity of a roadway
: is maximized at 30 mph?)
This applies only to streets, not to limited access expressways.
: (I understand that you are not a fan of this much closeness
: to the community in general. Some people, however, are.) This
: has the added benefit of discouraging the crime that you so
: strongly fear.
Yep, contrary to the imagination of many suburbanites, the biggest
deterrent to crime isn't a locked door and barred windows, but
enough people out and about being potential witnesses. The only
places this breaks down is where organized crime has a stronghold,
such as some parts of New York City.
Eric A. Mathiasen
: Thanks for the sense of perspective. When I first started comparing Portland
: to Minneapolis I was appalled by Portland's road system.
One thing to consider here is that Portland's surrounding geography
is nothing like Minneapolis' surrounding geography, except that the
Mississippi here could be compared to the Willamette there. Both are
excellent for rowing. :-)
: As an added data point, do you recall how much the new I-3x5 (can't
: remember the exact number) road cost and how long it is?
I3x5 in Minneapolis? Well, I think the newest addition is I-394 from
downtown Minneapolis due west. It's about 12 miles of roadway, but I
don't know what the final cost figures were. It's definitely used a
lot, though, and is a busy corridor now.
The current light-rail proposal for Minneapolis calls for a line from
downtown Minneapolis, near the Convention Center, down what's called
the Hiawatha corridor, past the airport, and terminating near the Mall
of America. Some proponents would like to see that line extended down
south of the river, though, because river-crossing traffic is currently
one of the worst traffic jams in the area. Future spurs would include
a connecting line from downtown St. Paul, and probably one west along
the current I-394 route or north along I-94. There's a lot of discussion
right now in the press because this year was the first time Governor
Arne Carlson gave his support for lightrail (ironically he is not seeking
re-election).
lang...@teleport.com
>Perhaps you're familiar with the concept of a diet as a good way to treat
>obesity.
If you think there is a glut of capacity on the roads, you haven't
been driving in the last 20 years.
>Interesting concept. Let's see how this works. Right now, half of the land
>in Portland is dedicated to automobiles (roads, parking, driveways).
This is total nonsense. Where do you come up with this? And what
does private property usage have do do with road congestion?
>If we
>double the population and double the amount of land dedicated to the
>automobile that leaves us with...um...uh...all of the land dedicated to
>automobiles. (Of course this is a ridiculous example. But, to a limited
>extent, the concept is valid.)
Nic, your usually sensible (but misguided ;-) nature is missing here.
>(As a complete aside, were you aware that the carrying capacity of a roadway
>is maximized at 30 mph?)
This is a preposterous simplification. The maximum carrying capacity
speed depends on the road. For one, it might be 15 mph; for another
75 mph. Since we are talking about limited access multilane divided
highways, it is closr to the latter.
In fact we really have it wrong. The speed is dependent on the usage.
traffic will naturally flow at a maximum speed without congestion.
Increase the number of users, and the traffic volume will
increase...to a point. When the road is over used beyond capacity,
the volume flow will decrease. This is the theory for limiting access
with ramp signals.
The goal isn't to maximize speed, but volume, which is a function of
speed.
>A very good investment. You seem to be looking at only one dimension of the
>situation. Another benefit of light rail is the type of land development
>that it encourages (buses do this too, but to a much more limited extent).
So do freeways. Ever notice where the new retail and office complexes
crop up, with new housing not far? Not near bus lines, but near
freeway interchanges. If you want to make some landowners rich, build
a new freeway. But that's not a justification for taking tax dollars:
to make some landowners rich.
>This type of development also encourages more of a sense of
>community than the situation in which you take an elevator to a parking
>garage and then drive into your home garage, with no personal interaction
>along the way. (I understand that you are not a fan of this much closeness
>to the community in general. Some people, however, are.)
If your social vision is so great, why don't the people who prefer it
invest in it without the massive subsidy from my and others' tax
dollars?
Eric A. Mathiasen
: If your social vision is so great, why don't the people who prefer it
: invest in it without the massive subsidy from my and others' tax
: dollars?
Public transit is about as feasible to be built 100% with private
dollars as dams are. How many 100% private dams that serve the public
can you name? And would you be willing to sacrifice the cheap
electricity and shipping that dams provide the Northwest?
Jeff Holloway
> On 15 Sep 1998 15:50:43 GMT, "Eric A. Mathiasen"
> <emat...@tekka.wwa.com> wrote:
>>Alright,
>>
>>Lets bring a little common sense to the discussion please. Of course
>>taking the train is slower than driving most of the time. But what
>>can you do while you're driving?
> You can stop for groceries, you can pick up the kids, you can drive
> right into your garage and lock it behind you if a creep is following
> you, you can live anywhere and work anywhere without severely
> increasing your commute by needing multiple transfers, you can carry
> on a private conversation with a passanger, you can sellect the
> temperature, you can avoid poeple with unpleasant odors, you can avoid
> transmission of contagious deseases, you cna always be guaranteed a
> seat, and a clean one at that, you can lock out dangers...
>>YOu can't take out too many stops or convenience suffers, and too many
>>and speed suffers.
> Which is why people are so willing to spend thousands of hours per
> year on their cars, and all that time unable to read the "novel" that
> transit advocates seem so absorbed by.
What he said.
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
James_...@88.teleport.com
> : If your social vision is so great, why don't the people who prefer it
> : invest in it without the massive subsidy from my and others' tax
> : dollars?
> Public transit is about as feasible to be built 100% with private
> dollars as dams are. How many 100% private dams that serve the public
> can you name? And would you be willing to sacrifice the cheap
> electricity and shipping that dams provide the Northwest?
>>>>
Ahem. Just about >everyone< uses electricity. What percentage of the
general population actually uses MAX?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dave 2
>
ne on the Sunset won't get immediately
> filled up with cars or not?
>
> eliminate traffic?
>
Elliminate traffic? As in no vehicles on the road at all? ;)
Assuming you mean traffic *congestion*, well, you can never elliminate it, but
you can improve it, or prevent it from getting worse.
Most of those that either improved or stayed the same did so for one of two
reasons - either the city built more freeway lanes and streets to handle the
demand, or demand was reduced as a result of an economic downturn.
lang...@teleport.com
<emat...@tako.wwa.com> wrote:
>lang...@teleport.com wrote:
>: If your social vision is so great, why don't the people who prefer it
>: invest in it without the massive subsidy from my and others' tax
>: dollars?
>
>Public transit is about as feasible to be built 100% with private
>dollars as dams are.
I was talkijng about investing in residential developments with
idyllic shopping within walking distance, etc., not public transit.
I would never suggest that the people who use public transit actually
pay for it. Everyone knows that they lack the money, and that their
fares pay for only a tiny fraction of expenses. Only by taking tax
dollars from non users is the system feasible.
nic...@eudoramail.com
> On Wed, 16 Sep 1998 05:45:47 GMT, nic...@eudoramail.com wrote:
>
> >Perhaps you're familiar with the concept of a diet as a good way to treat
> >obesity.
>
> If you think there is a glut of capacity on the roads, you haven't
> been driving in the last 20 years.
By now you should know that I'm not talking about capacity (and you should
know that I have indeed been driving for the last 20 years). Road building
is an activity that builds its own appetite. The more roads you build, the
more capacity you need. Talk to people who have seen how the elimination of
the Embarcadero Freeway in SF has actually improved traffic in that city
(despite the fact that at least 4(?) lanes of capacity simply disappeared).
> >Interesting concept. Let's see how this works. Right now, half of the land
> >in Portland is dedicated to automobiles (roads, parking, driveways).
>
> This is total nonsense. Where do you come up with this? And what
> does private property usage have do do with road congestion?
Talk to the fine folks at the Surface Transportation Policy Project. Of
course, we already know that those Greenpeace folks are wackos but they say
"nearly 50 percent" in U.S. cities and 65% in LA, 15% in London.
Unfortunately, I can't immediately lay my hands on the reference that I had
for Portland. But, though it may be hard to believe (it certainly was for
me) it's definitely not nonsense.
The point about driveways is that you can't consider just roads when
measuring "capacity." The more people are dependent on cars, the more places
they have to drive to and the more cars per capita, the more parking spaces
and driveways we will need. I would not be surprised to find a direct
correlation between the number of lane-miles built and the number of parking
spaces built.
> >If we
> >double the population and double the amount of land dedicated to the
> >automobile that leaves us with...um...uh...all of the land dedicated to
> >automobiles. (Of course this is a ridiculous example. But, to a limited
> >extent, the concept is valid.)
>
> Nic, your usually sensible (but misguided ;-) nature is missing here.
Yes, well, I exaggerate to make a point. And that is that for every acre of
road capacity added, there's one less acre available for houses, shops,
parks, farms and lots of other uses. And, in cities, there's surprisingly
little land left that isn't under asphalt or concrete.
>
> >(As a complete aside, were you aware that the carrying capacity of a roadway
> >is maximized at 30 mph?)
>
> This is a preposterous simplification. The maximum carrying capacity
> speed depends on the road. For one, it might be 15 mph; for another
> 75 mph. Since we are talking about limited access multilane divided
> highways, it is closr to the latter.
Preposterous? Nonsense? Gosh, I'm really doing poorly today aren't I? Yes,
the speed of the road is one factor. Car spacing is another factor. The
higher the speed, the greater the spacing (to maintain safety). At around
30mph the equation is optimized. For just about any road.
> >A very good investment. You seem to be looking at only one dimension of the
> >situation. Another benefit of light rail is the type of land development
> >that it encourages (buses do this too, but to a much more limited extent).
>
> So do freeways. Ever notice where the new retail and office complexes
> crop up, with new housing not far? Not near bus lines, but near
> freeway interchanges.
...
> If your social vision is so great, why don't the people who prefer it
> invest in it without the massive subsidy from my and others' tax
> dollars?
Ben, Ben, Ben. Compare and contrast the two statements above. Freeways are
paid for by taxpayers. Light rail lines are paid for by taxpayers. Both
types of development are subsidized. After 50-years of investment in auto
infrastructure, the powers-that-be are starting to see that light rail
infrastructure is a valuable investment as well. But don't worry, I'm sure
highway spending will outstrip all other transportation funding by a wide
margin for the foreseeable future.
Andrew
: Andrew wrote:
: >
: ne on the Sunset won't get immediately
: > filled up with cars or not?
: >
: > Which cities in America have managed to widen their freeways enough to
: > eliminate traffic?
: >
: Boston, Houston, Philadelphia, New Orleans and Norfolk
Not Philadelphia. Sorry, I grew up near there and still visit. Their
traffic congestion is at least as bad as Portland's. I had to drive
in traffic downtown there for a week just in April. My parents hate
to go down to the city mostly because of the traffic.
And Philadelphia has a decent transit system. Like most eastern
cities they have many trains and subways as well as busses. When I
was there within the last year, there was panic about a possible Septa
strike and the gridlock that would cause on the highways.
: Elliminate traffic? As in no vehicles on the road at all? ;)
: Assuming you mean traffic *congestion*, well, you can never
: elliminate it, but you can improve it, or prevent it from getting
: worse.
Sorry, yes - congestion. The idea is to keep cars moving at some
minimum speed.
: Most of those that either improved or stayed the same did so for one of two
: reasons - either the city built more freeway lanes and streets to handle the
: demand, or demand was reduced as a result of an economic downturn.
I was asking about the former: how well have cities that *have* been
growing managed to build enough new roads and freeway lanes to get rid
of their traffic congestion problems?
The only reasonable answer I've heard is Minneapolis - which is going to
build a light rail system. If cars move so well there and the
freeways are so great, why in the world would they do that? Like
Portland, they are thinking about the future.
James_...@88.teleport.com
> I was talkijng about investing in residential developments with
> idyllic shopping within walking distance, etc., not public transit.
Well, I grew up in Burlington, VT...pretty much everything was
within a forty minute walking distance...the draw-back: five month
long winters with eight feet of snow and -25 F. temps., but that does
not apply here. There seems to be zero intelligent planning of
development in the Portland area - instead of a lot of small towns
with their own shopping districts joined together (as naturally occur
in say most European countries) we have idiot malls scattered
almost at random...which depend upon an individual owning a car.
> I would never suggest that the people who use public transit actually
> pay for it. Everyone knows that they lack the money, and that their
> fares pay for only a tiny fraction of expenses. Only by taking tax
> dollars from non users is the system feasible.
Did the old trolley companies depend upon public funds to keep
operating? At one time, prior to 1920, one could travel to just about
any town in Vermont from any other town using the privately owned
trolley system. Then came Big Oil and Detroit...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dave 2
>
> Dave 2 <da...@infowave.cutoffs.net> wrote:
> : Andrew wrote:
> : >
> : ne on the Sunset won't get immediately
> : > filled up with cars or not?
> : >
> : > Which cities in America have managed to widen their freeways enough to
> : > eliminate traffic?
> : >
> : Boston, Houston, Philadelphia, New Orleans and Norfolk
>
> Not Philadelphia. Sorry, I grew up near there and still visit.
I was wondering about Boston. At any rate, this list comes from the TTI. http://tti.tamu.edu/mobility/congrel97.stm
> The only reasonable answer I've heard is Minneapolis - which is going to
> build a light rail system. If cars move so well there and the
> freeways are so great, why in the world would they do that?
Well, both cities already have built an extensive freeway system. If
freeways aren't so great, why did they do that? Trust me, lving in a city
without them is no picnic either.
> Like
> Portland, they are thinking about the future.
>
I do recall a related TTI site that stated that the cities that are suceeding
have BOTH freeways and rail.
Dave 2 (From Vancouver, (the other one), but who has found the Eastside MAX to
be very useful on vists to your fair city)
Dave 2
> Talk to people who have seen how the elimination of
> the Embarcadero Freeway in SF has actually improved traffic in that city
> (despite the fact that at least 4(?) lanes of capacity simply disappeared).
The _Emarcardero_? I-480? (and later CA 480) It was little more than a
glorified off-ramp from the Golden Gate Bridge. No wonder it's not missed.
Dave 2
>
> A high-speed train is worth it only if you are going a long distance.
> A high-speed train is being designed for eventual travel between
> Eugene and Vancouver, BC, I think.
>
Don't hold your breath. The NIMBYs in White Rock are already protesting the
29 mph Amtrak train that's there now.
Mike McDonald
Last fall there was a big clamour to put it back. Seems all of those cars
were now going thru someone else's neighborhood. Or was that the Central
Freeway? Keeping track of all of the dead end "freeways" in SanFran is too
much work.
Mike McDonald
mik...@mikemac.com
Russell Senior
Mike> Last fall there was a big clamour to put it back. Seems all of
Mike> those cars were now going thru someone else's neighborhood. Or
Mike> was that the Central Freeway? Keeping track of all of the dead
Mike> end "freeways" in SanFran is too much work.
I wonder why the expression about the 10 lbs of material in a 5 lb bag
keeps occurring to me.
If you don't want congestion, turn off the spigot that is pumping it
in there.
--
Russell Senior
rus...@sns-access.com
Dave 2
>
> >>>>> "Mike" == Mike McDonald <mik...@teleport.com> writes:
>
> Mike> Last fall there was a big clamour to put it back. Seems all of
> Mike> those cars were now going thru someone else's neighborhood. Or
> Mike> was that the Central Freeway? Keeping track of all of the dead
> Mike> end "freeways" in SanFran is too much work.
That must have been the Central Freeway, the top half of which was demolished.
(IIRC, inbound was demolished, outbound remains. Kind of like turning off the
spigot, but keeping the drain. ;) The Embarcadero was a stub downtown.
OTOH, the South Embarcadero (I-280) and the Nimitz/Cypress freeway (I-880)
were replaced.
> I wonder why the expression about the 10 lbs of material in a 5 lb bag
> keeps occurring to me.
>
> If you don't want congestion, turn off the spigot that is pumping it
> in there.
What you often end up with is replacing the solid, steady stream with a finer
spray as the traffic finds new ways around on surface streets (Talk about
torturing an analogy)
Portland, to its credit, did demolish an old freeway, didn't it? After
building I-5, 205, and 405?
David W. Crawford
[...]
> > >(As a complete aside, were you aware that the carrying capacity of a roadway
> > >is maximized at 30 mph?)
> >
> > This is a preposterous simplification. The maximum carrying capacity
> > speed depends on the road. For one, it might be 15 mph; for another
> > 75 mph. Since we are talking about limited access multilane divided
> > highways, it is closr to the latter.
>
> Preposterous? Nonsense? Gosh, I'm really doing poorly today aren't I? Yes,
> the speed of the road is one factor. Car spacing is another factor. The
> higher the speed, the greater the spacing (to maintain safety). At around
> 30mph the equation is optimized. For just about any road.
How does your optimality differ from one based on the common assumption of
two seconds per car, per lane (ie, 30 cars per minute, independent of speed) ?
David W. Crawford <d...@panix.com>
Ken Rentz
says...
> On Thu, 17 Sep 1998 00:21:05 GMT, nic...@eudoramail.com wrote:
>
> >Here's an interesting thought. I was on the bus the other day. With about
> >30 of my closest friends.
>
> Considering the typical transit bus nationwide contains barely a
> handful of passangers, on average, your 30 passenger scenario is
> hardly applicable.
>
Well, considering that I hardly ever rode on a buss that didn't have at
least 30 people on it, it sounds a lot more applicable than your
uninformed opinion.
> The subsidy you receive is far in excess of the slight traffic
> reduction caused by transit.
>
I guess you just want us to ignore your subsidies then right. After all
you and you're lifestyle seem to be the only ones worth considering.
> With the cost of West side light rail, we could buy a new Lexus every
> few years for each of the new riders drawn to public transit.
And no roads to drive them on either. And of course when those few years
were up, you'd have nothing but a big pile of scrap left to feed your
ego. Most of us learned to think a little more long term when we grew
up.
nic...@eudoramail.com
> I was talkijng about investing in residential developments with
> idyllic shopping within walking distance, etc., not public transit.
You are certain that "conventional" residential developments pay _all_ the
costs that their creation and operation generate?
> I would never suggest that the people who use public transit actually
> pay for it. Everyone knows that they lack the money, and that their
> fares pay for only a tiny fraction of expenses. Only by taking tax
> dollars from non users is the system feasible.
You've finally done it. As we speak, a tear is forming at the corner of my
eye as I think of all the greedy, selfish transit riders who pay less than
their fair share of taxes, taking advantage of their hard-working tax-paying
car-driving brethren. Oops. Wait a second. Guess it was just dust.
Here's an interesting thought. I was on the bus the other day. With about
30 of my closest friends. We were using I'm guessing 150 feet of freeway
(following distance plus bus length--this is probably high). If, the next
day, we all drove, each of us would be using about 60 feet of road way (this
is probably low). If we all traveled together, we'd be using 1800 feet of
roadway or 12x what we'd been using the day before. We're obviously using
scarce community resources (roadway during rush hour) much more wisely on the
first day than on the second and providing much more room for our other
friends and neighbors. But the market has no mechanism for compensating us
for this thrift. Except to pick up a (less than pro-rata) part of our costs,
in the form of reduced fares.
Regards,
Nic H.
...thinking outside of the box...errr...bus...uhh..car...
Russell Senior
Russell> I wonder why the expression about the 10 lbs of material in a
Russell> 5 lb bag keeps occurring to me.
Russell> If you don't want congestion, turn off the spigot that is
Russell> pumping it in there.
Dave> What you often end up with is replacing the solid, steady stream
Dave> with a finer spray as the traffic finds new ways around on
Dave> surface streets (Talk about torturing an analogy)
Depends on the conductivity of the surrounding material.
Dave> Portland, to its credit, did demolish an old freeway, didn't it?
Dave> After building I-5, 205, and 405?
Hmm. I assume you are referring to where Waterfront Park is now? If
so, that was before I-205 anyway. I am not quite old enough to
remember Portland before the Marquam Bridge, so I don't know how much
of a `freeway' it was. I do remember the street there in the early
70's, but it wasn't connected directly to any freeways at the time
that I recall. Other than that, the only other freeways we've
demolished were still on the drawing board (much cheaper that way).
Did everyone get a chance to see the late-1950's _plan_ for the
freeway network around Portland that ran in the Oregonian a week or
two ago? What a nightmare.
I also remember (barely) Canyon Road before the freeway and Vista
Ridge Tunnel were completed. That must have been in the mid-to-late
1960's.
--
Russell Senior
rus...@sns-access.com
lang...@teleport.com
>Here's an interesting thought. I was on the bus the other day. With about
>30 of my closest friends.
Considering the typical transit bus nationwide contains barely a
handful of passangers, on average, your 30 passenger scenario is
hardly applicable.
The subsidy you receive is far in excess of the slight traffic
reduction caused by transit.
With the cost of West side light rail, we could buy a new Lexus every
lang...@teleport.com
<rus...@sns-access.com> wrote:
>If you don't want congestion, turn off the spigot that is pumping it
>in there.
A healthy economy?
Eric A. Mathiasen
: Considering the typical transit bus nationwide contains barely a
: handful of passangers, on average, your 30 passenger scenario is
: hardly applicable.
At rush hour most busses are pretty well utilized.
: With the cost of West side light rail, we could buy a new Lexus every
: few years for each of the new riders drawn to public transit.
Yeah, but then you'd still have even more roads to build!
-Eric
--
Eric A. Mathiasen | er...@mathiasen.com | www.mathiasen.com
Q: How does a quantum logic chicken cross the road?
A. The chicken is distributed probabilistically on all sides
of the road until you observe it on the side of your choice.
Russell Senior
Nic> Here's an interesting thought. I was on the bus the other day.
Nic> With about 30 of my closest friends.
langlotz> Considering the typical transit bus nationwide contains
langlotz> barely a handful of passangers, on average, your 30
langlotz> passenger scenario is hardly applicable.
Truth police here. Obviously (to any sentient being), the high
ridership coincides with incidence of congestion. So, in fact, Nic's
30 passengers are doubly applicable. They not only take cars off the
road, but they do so principally at the *peak* times when doing so is
most noticable.
Try again Benito.
--
Russell Senior
sen...@teleport.com
James_...@88.teleport.com
> > Andrew wrote:
> > Not Philadelphia. Sorry, I grew up near there and still visit.
> I was wondering about Boston.
>>>>
Boston began its subway system in the mid 1890s...it's not really
comparable to west coast efforts at "mass transit".
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
James_...@88.teleport.com
> lang...@teleport.com wrote:
> : Considering the typical transit bus nationwide contains barely a
> : handful of passangers, on average, your 30 passenger scenario is
> : hardly applicable.
> At rush hour most busses are pretty well utilized.
> : With the cost of West side light rail, we could buy a new Lexus every
> : few years for each of the new riders drawn to public transit.
> Yeah, but then you'd still have even more roads to build!
>>>>
Why?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric A. Mathiasen
:> : With the cost of West side light rail, we could buy a new Lexus every
:> : few years for each of the new riders drawn to public transit.
:
:> Yeah, but then you'd still have even more roads to build!
: Why?
With tens of thousands of extra luxury cars on the road, either rush
hour would be longer, or you'd need more road space.
lang...@teleport.com
<emat...@tekka.wwa.com> wrote:
>lang...@teleport.com wrote:
>: Considering the typical transit bus nationwide contains barely a
>: handful of passangers, on average, your 30 passenger scenario is
>: hardly applicable.
>
>At rush hour most busses are pretty well utilized.
But the overall average is much, much smaller, so that buses are
actually less fuel efficient per passanger than cars, nationwide.
Your point is good support for rush hour express busses, but those are
the ones that get cnaceled to ensure than Max numbers look good.
lang...@teleport.com
<emat...@tekka.wwa.com> wrote:
>With tens of thousands of extra luxury cars on the road, either rush
>hour would be longer, or you'd need more road space.
The number of Max riders who formerly drove is so small with respect
to the traffic volume that it would be an unnoticeable drop in the
bucket.
lang...@teleport.com
Rentz) wrote:
>Well, considering that I hardly ever rode on a buss that didn't have at
>least 30 people on it, it sounds a lot more applicable than your
>uninformed opinion.
Classic observational bias. If the buses are packed at rush hour, and
empty all other times (a simplification), every bus rider interviewed
will tell how the buses are "always packed". There are none or so few
during the off hours, that we're unlikely to meet riders who tell us
that the buses are usually (or ever) empty. The only witnesses to
those empty late night buses are the drivers, and observant motorists.
>And no roads to drive them on either. And of course when those few years
>were up, you'd have nothing but a big pile of scrap left to feed your
>ego. Most of us learned to think a little more long term when we grew
>up.
No need to get huffy about an intellectual excercise. And with the
Max operating costs saved, we could buy them a new car every 5 years!
Andrew
: On Wed, 16 Sep 1998 22:01:19 -0700, rentz....@europa.com (Ken
: Rentz) wrote:
: >Well, considering that I hardly ever rode on a buss that didn't have at
: >least 30 people on it, it sounds a lot more applicable than your
: >uninformed opinion.
: Classic observational bias.
Yeah, you would know, as one who consistently posts assertions without
facts - even in the same post.
: If the buses are packed at rush hour, and
: empty all other times (a simplification), every bus rider interviewed
: will tell how the buses are "always packed". There are none or so few
: during the off hours, that we're unlikely to meet riders who tell us
: that the buses are usually (or ever) empty. The only witnesses to
: those empty late night buses are the drivers, and observant motorists.
That wouldn't be an observational bias, would it? Nah...
Yes, Tri-met runs most of their buses empty. They are running
them empty so they can connect with those black helicopters when they
land at their secret landing pads in the west hills. The buses must
be empty or the CIA would not be able to run its operation in secret.
Are you happy now that I have explained it in terms you can
understand?
Maybe I am suffering from observational bias, but in the last few
months, when riding buses at non-rush hour, I cannot *ever* recall
riding an empty bus. I ride the 17, the 12, the 15, the 14, the 5,
the 9, plus others just in fareless square, and these buses *always*
have at least three or four people on them, often ten or more. Often
the number fluctuates as people get on and off around popular stops.
The 12 up Sandy Blvd. to/from the airport often has every seat
occupied even at night.
The only exceptions are the new west side bus lines, which are so new
that people haven't started to use them yet. It will take time.
: >And no roads to drive them on either. And of course when those few years
: >were up, you'd have nothing but a big pile of scrap left to feed your
: >ego. Most of us learned to think a little more long term when we grew
: >up.
: No need to get huffy about an intellectual excercise. And with the
: Max operating costs saved, we could buy them a new car every 5 years!
Yeah, one of those luxury cars, a new Lexus, right? With the trunk
stuffed with hundred dollar bills?
nic...@eudoramail.com
lang...@teleport.com wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Sep 1998 22:01:19 -0700, rentz....@europa.com (Ken
> Rentz) wrote:
>
> >Well, considering that I hardly ever rode on a buss that didn't have at
> >least 30 people on it, it sounds a lot more applicable than your
> >uninformed opinion.
>
> empty all other times (a simplification), every bus rider interviewed
> will tell how the buses are "always packed". There are none or so few
> during the off hours, that we're unlikely to meet riders who tell us
> that the buses are usually (or ever) empty.
A few points here.
The original 30 was a conservative estimate. May have been as many as 40
(there were very few empty seats).
I also got on a bus the other night at 8p.m. with about 20 of my closest
friends. Heading out for the 'burbs.
The last bus on almost any run will almost always be empty. But, the mere
presence of that bus will substantially increase ridership on the buses
before it. It (and probably a few of its earlier siblings) help ensure that
who have to travel late will take a bus instead of a car. Even if they don't
get on that particular bus.
How certain are you that your own conclusions are based on data gathered
without observational bias?
> And with the
> Max operating costs saved, we could buy them a new car every 5 years!
I think your calculations are off. By a factor of at least 3, probably more
like 6, maybe as much as 10 if you're talking about a Lexus. And that doesn't
even include the number of new roads you'd have to build and maintain. With
their own substantial subsidy by the taxpayers (d*mn! I told myself not to get
into that ancient pissing contest again).
Regards,
Nic H.
lang...@teleport.com
>: Classic observational bias.
>
>Yeah, you would know, as one who consistently posts assertions without
>facts - even in the same post.
Sorry, I should have mentioned that I draw my numbers from federal and
local transit data, not from personal anecdotes.
>Yes, Tri-met runs most of their buses empty.
Yes, they average several passangers each, overall.
>They are running
>them empty so they can connect with those black helicopters when they
>land at their secret landing pads in the west hills.
You're hyperventilating. Calm down.
>I cannot *ever* recall
>riding an empty bus....
Perhaps you and the others tend to ride the popular ones, and are not
examining the portions of system or the times that are least popular.
Thomas Cronin
> Maybe I am suffering from observational bias, but in the last few
> riding an empty bus.
Well, duh! If you were riding on it, then it wasn't empty... :-)
(sorry)
Actually, I used the bus service earlier this year when
designing/running lights for a show downtown that ended at about
12:30-1:00am each night. I generally caught the last or second to
last bus 57 - it was pretty full each time ..
- tom
Russell Senior
langlotz> Classic observational bias.
Andrew> Yeah, you would know, as one who consistently posts assertions
Andrew> without facts - even in the same post.
langlotz> Sorry, I should have mentioned that I draw my numbers from
langlotz> federal and local transit data, not from personal anecdotes.
Andrew> Yes, Tri-met runs most of their buses empty.
langlotz> Yes, they average several passangers each, overall.
According to `local transit data', in 1997 there were 193,900 bus
boardings per day on a fleet of 661 buses. That works out to about
300 boarding per bus, *on average*. Considering that not all the
buses are in service at any one time and many buses are not in service
during non-peak periods, that's pretty good. For a bus to carry 300
passengers when it is sitting idle in a parking lot is quite
phenomenal!
As long as we are talking about *averages*, how about this (from
Tri-Met): ``The average car emits three times more carbon monoxide per
passenger mile than a Tri-Met bus.''
Andrew> They are running them empty so they can connect with those
Andrew> black helicopters when they land at their secret landing pads
Andrew> in the west hills.
langlotz> You're hyperventilating. Calm down.
The only panting I detect is in your effort to change the subject.
Andrew> I cannot *ever* recall riding an empty bus....
langlotz> Perhaps you and the others tend to ride the popular ones,
langlotz> and are not examining the portions of system or the times
langlotz> that are least popular.
Your evasions are quite pointless, since Nic was talking about
congestion relief. Buses and other public transit options *are*
indisputably well-used during rush hours when congestion is an issue.
Pointing out that buses are relatively empty at 11 pm does not begin
to address his point any more than discussing the color of your boxer
shorts or the quantity of lint in your belly-button.
--
Russell Senior
rus...@sns-access.com
nic...@eudoramail.com
What the..? How do you know this? Especially since Westside MAX is only 4
days old.
And even if you do know this, have you considered that operating costs on a
bus are about 40% higher than for MAX?
Sara Running
>
> On 17 Sep 1998 15:13:15 GMT, "Eric A. Mathiasen"
> <emat...@tekka.wwa.com> wrote:
>
> >With tens of thousands of extra luxury cars on the road, either rush
> >hour would be longer, or you'd need more road space.
>
> The number of Max riders who formerly drove is so small with respect
> to the traffic volume that it would be an unnoticeable drop in the
> bucket.
Ben,
I have to disagree, and unfortunately it's based on that 'observational
bias.'
When I've driven in the past week, my commutes *have* been shorter both
coming and going (by ~10 min.) Shorter than they were during the
summer, because when school starts there is more traffic on the road.
I have a wait-n-see attitude. It's possible that once the newness wears
off or when the weather gets cold and rainy it will go back. However, I
will be riding public transit 1-2x/week. (I'm looking at it as a $
savings and less wear/tear on the car.) I will also be looking at using
public transit on those air action days, too.
sara
--
Sara K. Running < Not speaking for Intel
>
PTD Automation < History doesn't repeat, but it can rhyme
>
Intel Corporation
Jeff Holloway
> On 16 Sep 1998 17:44:03 GMT, "Eric A. Mathiasen"
> <emat...@tako.wwa.com> wrote:
>>lang...@teleport.com wrote:
>>: If your social vision is so great, why don't the people who prefer it
>>: invest in it without the massive subsidy from my and others' tax
>>: dollars?
>>
>>Public transit is about as feasible to be built 100% with private
>>dollars as dams are.
> I was talkijng about investing in residential developments with
> idyllic shopping within walking distance, etc., not public transit.
> I would never suggest that the people who use public transit actually
> pay for it. Everyone knows that they lack the money, and that their
> fares pay for only a tiny fraction of expenses. Only by taking tax
> dollars from non users is the system feasible.
And let's remind everyone once again that even if they don't own a car, they
DO use the roads.
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
Jeff Holloway
> Dave 2 <da...@infowave.cutoffs.net> wrote:
> : >
> : > Which cities in America have managed to widen their freeways enough to
> : > eliminate traffic?
> : >
> : Boston, Houston, Philadelphia, New Orleans and Norfolk
> Not Philadelphia. Sorry, I grew up near there and still visit. Their
> traffic congestion is at least as bad as Portland's. I had to drive
> in traffic downtown there for a week just in April. My parents hate
> to go down to the city mostly because of the traffic.
> And Philadelphia has a decent transit system. Like most eastern
> cities they have many trains and subways as well as busses. When I
> was there within the last year, there was panic about a possible Septa
> strike and the gridlock that would cause on the highways.
[snip]
> : Most of those that either improved or stayed the same did so for one of two
> : reasons - either the city built more freeway lanes and streets to handle the
> : demand, or demand was reduced as a result of an economic downturn.
> I was asking about the former: how well have cities that *have* been
> growing managed to build enough new roads and freeway lanes to get rid
> of their traffic congestion problems?
> The only reasonable answer I've heard is Minneapolis - which is going to
> build a light rail system. If cars move so well there and the
> freeways are so great, why in the world would they do that? Like
> Portland, they are thinking about the future.
Andrew, it sounds like you're contradicting yourself. On one hand, you say
that Minneapolis and Portland are preparing for the future by building light
rail (I'm assuming to ease congestion on the roads), yet you also say that
Philadelphia, with a decent transit system, has terrible congestion. So what
the hell is the benefit to light rail?
Jeff Holloway
>>>>>> "Mike" == Mike McDonald <mik...@teleport.com> writes:
> Mike> Last fall there was a big clamour to put it back. Seems all of
> Mike> those cars were now going thru someone else's neighborhood. Or
> Mike> was that the Central Freeway? Keeping track of all of the dead
> Mike> end "freeways" in SanFran is too much work.
> I wonder why the expression about the 10 lbs of material in a 5 lb bag
> keeps occurring to me.
> If you don't want congestion, turn off the spigot that is pumping it
> in there.
What, Russell...close our borders? Any other bright ideas?
Jeff Holloway
> In article <36006f85...@news.teleport.com>, lang...@teleport.com
> says...
>> >30 of my closest friends.
>>
>> handful of passangers, on average, your 30 passenger scenario is
>> hardly applicable.
>>
> Well, considering that I hardly ever rode on a buss that didn't have at
> least 30 people on it, it sounds a lot more applicable than your
> uninformed opinion.
Well, if your personal experience is such, then let's all stop arguing about
this. You must be right..unless, of course, you try riding the bus at some
time other than RUSH HOUR.
>> The subsidy you receive is far in excess of the slight traffic
>> reduction caused by transit.
> I guess you just want us to ignore your subsidies then right. After all
> you and you're lifestyle seem to be the only ones worth considering.
>
OUR subsidies? Let's see how long YOU survive without roads, Mr. Rentz.
>> With the cost of West side light rail, we could buy a new Lexus every
>> few years for each of the new riders drawn to public transit.
> And no roads to drive them on either. And of course when those few years
> were up, you'd have nothing but a big pile of scrap left to feed your
> ego. Most of us learned to think a little more long term when we grew
> up.
Your type of long-term thinking will just end up costing EVERYONE a HELL of
a lot of money for something that most will never use. Brilliant.
nic...@eudoramail.com
> On Wed, 16 Sep 1998 23:56:45 GMT, Russell Senior
> <rus...@sns-access.com> wrote:
>
> >in there.
>
Here's a fact, rather than a speculation. In Hannover Germany, 65% of the
trips made are by means other than one person driving alone in a car.
And here's a query. Is the economy in Hannover in better or worse shape than
Portland?
nic...@eudoramail.com
> Sorry, I should have mentioned that I draw my numbers from federal and
> local transit data, not from personal anecdotes.
And local transit data tells you that what percentage of bus-miles are run
with no passengers?
But, even if every non-peak bus run by Tri-Met is run completely empty
(except for the left, front seat, of course) that doesn't change the
essential point. During peak hours, bus riders are improving the efficiency
of our roads by taking up less than 1/12 the space that they would if they
were driving cars. (At precisely the time that this resource is at its
scarcest.) And the market has only one way to reward that efficient use of
resources--reduced fares. Which explains that your "subsidy" is actually an
"incentive." If the incentive goes away you may end up spending a lot more
time getting to work. And at $200 bucks an hour that would be a major drain
on the economy.
Andrew
Well, Jeff, what do you suppose would happen to traffic on the roads
of Philadelphia if they stopped the trains and busses? It would:
a) get better - fewer buses on the roads
b) stay the same - people would not go to work or carpool
c) get much worse - everyone who used to take Septa is now DRIVING to work.
Which answer would you pick?
(note: you don't have to speculate - you can find out what happens
whenever Septa goes on strike. Recall what happened in San Francisco
when transit workers went on strike a few months back? Gridlock, I
seem to recall hearing...)
A mass transit system is not going to get rid of traffic problems, but
will make them better. And as an area grows, mass transit can absorb
more of the new commuters much more cost effectively than can the
roads sytem. It may seem easy just to add another lane to the freeways,
but where do all the extra cars *go* after they get off the freeway?
They go on city streets across bridges and have to park somewhere.
People may balk at a one Billion cost for westside MAX, but think of
the cost over the next 30 years of expanding all the neighborhood and
downtown streets to handle all the extra car traffic. Think of the
new bridges we'll have to build. Think of the extra pollution from
all those extra cars on the road. No, I think MAX is a great
long-term investment, no matter what nonsense Langlotz spews.
Minneapolis is looking toward the future in building their light rail
system, because they have seen what has happened elsehwhere. Seattle
waited too long and now they have horrible traffic problems - it will
be years before their light rail system makes much difference.
Philadelphia and San Francisco build their train systems long ago and
are now heavily dependent on them just to prevent traffic from slowing
to a stand-still.
Portland will still have congestion on the roads in the year 2028. It
would just be a whole lot worse without a decent transit system. It
might influence businesses and residents not to locate here.
lang...@teleport.com
>A mass transit system is not going to get rid of traffic problems, but
>will make them better.
But at what cost (compared to building adequate roads)?
>Minneapolis is looking toward the future in building their light rail
>system.
Yee-hah! People can ride the train to the mall! It will hurt
downtown, which isn't doing very well as it is. And the money could
have done far more good for real transportation needs.
I will grant that the tourists staying downtown might appreciate the
mall train, though.
lang...@teleport.com
>What the..? How do you know this? Especially since Westside MAX is only 4
>days old.
Using east side max as an example,
>And even if you do know this, have you considered that operating costs on a
>bus are about 40% higher than for MAX?
I find that very hard to believe. Undoubtedly it does not include an
amortization of initial capital expense, or future maintainence costs.
lang...@teleport.com
<rus...@sns-access.com> wrote:
>That works out to about
>300 boarding per bus, *on average*.
And if most buses run for 18 hours, and the average ride is 30
minutes, then we are talking about 8 on the bus at a time, with Tri
Met's characteristic optimism, moderated by the possibility of idle
buses being significant.
And remember that a rider who transfers counts as two "boardings".
>As long as we are talking about *averages*, how about this (from
>Tri-Met): ``The average car emits three times more carbon monoxide per
>passenger mile than a Tri-Met bus.''
There are very different types of pollutants from gasoline diesel, and
other-fuel engines. Tri met can pick and choose the pollutant that
makes them look good, but they would never use Carol Browner's
favorite particulate bogeyman, would they.
I prefer to use NHTSA's numbers, which show that nationally, buses
consume more fuel per *passenger* mile than do cars. And which do you
think is subject to more stringent exhaust emissions.
In conclusion, there is lscant evidence to suggest that public transit
help congestion significantly, or reduces pollution significantly.
Sure, there is a marginal effect, at least as far as congestion is
concerned, and we should support well designed bus lines. However,
none of the benefit is enough to suggest that there is anything wrong
with prefering private automobiles, as most people do.
lang...@teleport.com
>I think your calculations are off. By a factor of at least 3, probably more
>like 6, maybe as much as 10 if you're talking about a Lexus.
I figured $1b for capital costs. 20k riders, 3/4 of who already rode
the bus, or 5000 cars off the road..
That's $200,000 per new rider! A billion sure is a lot of money,
isn't it!?
Include the annual operating costs, and all those Lamborghinis could
have had plenty of free oil changes!
Perhaps we could just buy the 5000 new rail users new $200k houses
near their workplaces downtown!
nic...@eudoramail.com
> Pointing out that buses are relatively empty at 11 pm does not begin
> to address his point any more than discussing the color of your boxer
> shorts or the quantity of lint in your belly-button.
Now hold on just one single minute. This discussion has certain rules (most
of which are unwritten). And I think you just violated one. (And to show you
how serious it is, I'm going to violate my own personal rule by pointing out
this violation to you directly in a public forum.)
Unless I've missed one of the posts that have been flying back and forth
here, there has never been any quantitative, objective, verifiable evidence
introduced by anyone that implies, suggests or even hints that Ben is wearing
boxer shorts.
Porphyrous
>Jeff Holloway <je...@tech7.com> wrote:
>: Andrew <andr...@bizave.com> wrote:
>: > Not Philadelphia. Sorry, I grew up near there and still visit. Their
>: > traffic congestion is at least as bad as Portland's. I had to drive
>: > in traffic downtown there for a week just in April. My parents hate
>: > to go down to the city mostly because of the traffic.
I'm going to interject here. I've been downtown lots of times. The
traffic down there just isn't that bad, except around rush hour.
There are very few places with real congestion around here. A lot of them
are caused by idiotic highway design. For instance, south end of 217.
Completely stupid. There should be two lanes going onto I-5 and one into
Lake O, but what we have is the other way around. And the onramp from 72nd
Ave. should be eliminated. Move it to Bonita Rd.
Another congested area is I-205 around Oregon City, where it goes down to
two lanes. They would truly benefit from a third lane down to I-5.
The Sunset Highway should be three lanes from the Zoo all the way to
Hillsboro. And a west-side bypass would take a lot of traffic off of both
217 and the Sunset.
True, there are some highways that probably can't be expanded, such as the
Banfield. But for every one highway with nowhere to go, there are probably
three or four instances of stupid highway planning causing its own
problems, especially on the west side.
And you can't ignore that even the most congested areas still stand open
and unimpeded 18 hours out of the day.
And if development was allowed *out* and not just *up* that would help
matters immensely too.
>: > The only reasonable answer I've heard is Minneapolis - which is going to
>: > build a light rail system. If cars move so well there and the
>: > freeways are so great, why in the world would they do that? Like
>: > Portland, they are thinking about the future.
No, they're thinking about what's trendy. You gotta find out, who is
pushing for light rail? Follow the money, and where does it lead?
>: Andrew, it sounds like you're contradicting yourself. On one hand, you say
>: that Minneapolis and Portland are preparing for the future by building light
>: rail (I'm assuming to ease congestion on the roads), yet you also say that
>: Philadelphia, with a decent transit system, has terrible congestion. So what
>: the hell is the benefit to light rail?
>Well, Jeff, what do you suppose would happen to traffic on the roads
>of Philadelphia if they stopped the trains and busses? It would:
>a) get better - fewer buses on the roads
>b) stay the same - people would not go to work or carpool
>c) get much worse - everyone who used to take Septa is now DRIVING to work.
>Which answer would you pick?
Don't be disingenuous. Nobody is proposing to shut down existing lines.
The question is whether or not new lines should be built.
>all those extra cars on the road. No, I think MAX is a great
>long-term investment, no matter what nonsense Langlotz spews.
Only if we keep that silly UGB. Those sorts of transit needs are being
forced on the area artificially because of prohibitions on development.
--
porphyrous (por' fi Rus) adj. 1. Of or pertaining to the color purple.
David L. Vessell | Tualatin, Oregon | porph...@pobox.com
http://www.pobox.com/~porphyrous | http://www.teleport.com/~lpo
Fundraising Director | Libertarian Party of Oregon | Blessed Be
Dave 2
>
> >>>>> "Dave" == Dave 2 <da...@infowave.cutoffs.net> writes:
>
> Russell> I wonder why the expression about the 10 lbs of material in a
> Russell> 5 lb bag keeps occurring to me.
>
> Russell> If you don't want congestion, turn off the spigot that is
> Russell> pumping it in there.
>
> Dave> What you often end up with is replacing the solid, steady stream
> Dave> with a finer spray as the traffic finds new ways around on
> Dave> surface streets (Talk about torturing an analogy)
>
> Depends on the conductivity of the surrounding material.
Hmm, are we talking about plumbing or electronics?
Speaking of the conductivity of the surrounding material, I recall a news
story while I was in your fair city regarding the year long closure of the
<mumble> bridge. Apparently, while one area had a decrease in traffic,another
saw a corresponding increase in traffic, and the residents of the second area
were none too happy about the situation. It does seem to be a zero sum game.
> Dave> Portland, to its credit, did demolish an old freeway, didn't it?
> Dave> After building I-5, 205, and 405?
> Hmm. I assume you are referring to where Waterfront Park is now?
Along the eastern edge of downtown. That sounds like it
>If
> so, that was before I-205 anyway.
205 was built when, late 70s/early 80s?
> I am not quite old enough to
> remember Portland before the Marquam Bridge,
Sorry, I can't say that I can keep track off all of your many bridges. The
Steel Bridge sticks in my mind, due to its distinctive appearance and I
crossed it several times on MAX, and a double suicide off it while I was there.
> so I don't know how much
> of a `freeway' it was.
It was old US 99, and was shown as limited access on Portland maps in the 60s.
> I do remember the street there in the early
> 70's, but it wasn't connected directly to any freeways at the time
> that I recall.
That could be, although Portland's US 99 is often used as an example of a city
demolishing a freeway, along with Boston's central artery. I'd been lead to
believe that it was elevated, like US 99 in Seattle (a/k/a Alaskan Way).
There may have been a road underneath the freeway, a la Alaskan way. Surly
there's some old timer on this ng that remembers what was there in the 60s and 70s.
(I probably did travel on it, but I'd have been 6 at the time, back in '68)
> Other than that, the only other freeways we've
> demolished were still on the drawing board (much cheaper that way).
Indeed.
> Did everyone get a chance to see the late-1950's _plan_ for the
> freeway network around Portland that ran in the Oregonian a week or
> two ago? What a nightmare.
>
What were the main differences between the plan and what you have now?
Portland strikes me as having a *lot* of freeways, but then, where I'm located
there aren't any in the city.
.
>
> --
> Russell Seniorr
Dave 2
>
> > Dave 2 <da...@infowave.cutoffs.net> writes:
> > > Andrew wrote:
>
> > > Not Philadelphia. Sorry, I grew up near there and still visit.
>
>
> >>>>
>
> Boston began its subway system in the mid 1890s...it's not really
> comparable to west coast efforts at "mass transit".
>
True enough, but the TTI report was looking at what cities had done
*recently*, it doesn't matter when the system in question had its origins.
I was "wondering about Boston" in the sense of what they had done recently to
warrant inclusion in the TTI's list of cities that are avoiding congestion by
new construction. The Big Dig? That's not finished yet.
rsjo...@my-dejanews.com
> > >If you don't want congestion, turn off the spigot that is pumping it
> > >in there.
> >
> > A healthy economy?
>
> Here's a fact, rather than a speculation. In Hannover Germany, 65% of the
> trips made are by means other than one person driving alone in a car.
>
> And here's a query. Is the economy in Hannover in better or worse shape than
> Portland?
>
An apples-to-oranges comparison. European cities are many times denser than
a city like Portland. More people live/work in less space and take less
space on the roads when they commute. It's obviously more _efficient_ (in
terms of land- use), but because the typical European lives in a smaller
dwelling and drives a smaller car, they're considered to have a "lower
standard of living" - and, therefore, the "economy" of Portland might be
conisdered "better" (whatever that means - Germany has free, high-quality
medical care for everyone, 6 weeks mandatory vacation time for everyone, a
vastly superior secondary school system compared to ours - but also has
higher taxes, less individual economic opportunity, more unemployment - at
the moment, it is much much more difficult to afford/maintain a car, etc.,
etc.).
European cities chose not to tear themselves down to build freeways for
commuters - a lot of American cities tore down marginal neighborhoods that
were considered disposable for the cause of suburban commuting. To "double
capacity every time the population doubles" you'd have to continually clear
more land for road space - it's simple arithmetic. Europe did, however,
build a vast network of freeways outside cities and now they're building
(frantically) a vast network of high-speed railways between cities. They're
concerned with *overall* mobility so they know the best approach is to build
rail _and_ road capacity.
For all those who keep bleating about the alternative to
continuously-expanding road networks being "no roads" and how life would be
impossible without roads - that's such sophistry. No one is suggesting no
roads. But consider life in the U.S. without freight railroads. Total
economic shutdown. All heavy industry would stop dead in its tracks (no pun
intended).
And the railroads were (originally) built with massive government subsidy -
although they pretty much operate without any operating subsidy. Passenger
RR, of course, is another story. Anyway - the government subsidizes all
forms of transportation in some way or other, on a massive scale. It's in
society's and the economy's interest to do so - better mobility equates with
a better economy. The people of Hanover, Germany, are quite mobile. So are
the people of Portland. But the people of Hanover accomplish a lot more per
square mile than the people of Portland, because they're more densly packed.
I think it just comes down to aesthetics - do you want to live like a
European or a West Coast American? There's not much immigration from Germany
to the U.S. these days, so it's safe to say people aren't voting with their
feet for the U.S.
nic...@eudoramail.com
> On Thu, 17 Sep 1998 20:45:02 GMT, nic...@eudoramail.com wrote:
>
> >What the..? How do you know this? Especially since Westside MAX is only 4
> >days old.
>
> Using east side max as an example,
Extrapolating from one case to a very different case? Dangerous,
statistically speaking. It may surprise you to know that the east side and
west side of Portland are very different places. There are big
socioeconomic, land use and employment differences. Maybe the biggest
difference of all is historical. Before MAX, the eastside had a very
well-developed bus system. Before it got MAX, the westside had an abysmal
bus system (still do, for the most part). I'm afraid your statistics
professor is rolling in his/her grave (figuratively, if not literally
speaking). Please don't do this anymore.
BTW, I've always been curious about the currency of that "eastside max riders
mostly came from buses" line that you so happily bandy about. When was that
study conducted (approximately, if you don't have it handy)? And what was the
actual percent?
I suspect it came from the early days of MAX. In which case I wouldn't be
surprised. But MAX ridership has increased something like 50% since then.
So, even if 100% of all MAX riders came from buses originally, now they'd
only make up 67% of all MAX riders. So, that statistic loses currency (and
relevance) rather quickly.
>
> >And even if you do know this, have you considered that operating costs on a
> >bus are about 40% higher than for MAX?
>
> I find that very hard to believe. Undoubtedly it does not include an
> amortization of initial capital expense, or future maintainence costs.
You seem to be aggregating and disaggregating capital and operating expenses
at will.
You already talked about capital expenses. The other part of the equation is
to talk about operating expenses. When you analyze them separately, it would
be misleading to include amortized capital costs. (Of course, a full ROI
analysis would typically include both, but I needn't tell you that.)
Operating expenses include current maintenance costs. As maintenance charges
change over time, so will operating expenses (up or down). Of course, if you
anticipate significantly higher future maintenance costs, it's prudent to
establish a reserve. (Uh oh, I'm not sure I'm qualified to teach Finance 101.
Don't tell the dean.) You're certainly welcome to talk to the folks at
Tri-met to find out how closely they conform to FASB and GAAP.
Now it's confession time. The figures I used were undoubtedly based on E-MAX
(W-MAX not yet having time to generate historical figures). But, given that
the tracks and the trains are very similar, I felt comfortable in making the
extrapolative leap (actually, more of a hop). Let's look at this again in
6-12 months and I'll be happy to eat my bus transfer if I'm more than a few
percentile off (if you'll eat your bar card if I'm not).
Regards,
Nic H.
nic...@eudoramail.com
Great hyperbole! You get an A for creative writing! Unfortunately, you flunk
reading comprehension. The statement I was responding to was:
BKL> And with the
BKL> Max operating costs saved, we could buy them a new car every 5 years
Which are nowhere near a billion dollars a year. (You already got rid of the
capital costs, remember?)
Back to the calculator.
Of course, I realize now that my calculations were off, too. Way off. Since
train operating costs are lower than bus costs on a per-rider basis, you'd
actually be losing money. Better buy back some of those Lexuses (Lexi?). To
the tune of $7M a year. Not a very good use of the taxpayer's money, my
friend.
Regards,
Nic H.
...mathematically humble...
Eric A. Mathiasen
: Here's a fact, rather than a speculation. In Hannover Germany, 65% of the
: trips made are by means other than one person driving alone in a car.
:
: And here's a query. Is the economy in Hannover in better or worse shape than
: Portland?
I give, what's the answer?
Hey, here's some more facts:
pop/sq. mile
Density Population Land Area
New York 5407 16,044,000 2,967
Chicago 4285 6,792,000 1,585
Twin Cities 1957 2,080,000 1,063
Seattle 2966 1,744,000 588
Kansas City 1673 1,275,000 762
Portland 3021 1,172,000 388
Comparison of Cities' Sizes to Cities' Densities
Numbers Reflect Land Area if Densities Were Switched
As a point of reference, Yellowstone National Park is 3438 sq. miles
NYC Chi TC Sea KC PDX
New York 2967 3744 8199 5409 9589 5311
Chicago 1256 1585 3471 2290 4059 2249
Twin Cities 385 485 1063 701 1243 689
Seattle 323 407 891 588 1042 577
Kansas City 236 298 652 430 762 422
Portland 217 274 599 395 700 388
This chart may be a little confusing, but basically it shows how
big each city listed on the left would be in square miles if its
population density were that of each city across the top.
As you can see, if New York had the population density of Kansas
City, it would require the eqivalent of two Yellowstone National
Parks in additional land to house the people. Chicago is
currently the size of about half of Yellowstone. If it had the
population density of the Twin Cities, it would require an area
the size of the whole Park.
Portland is still pretty small, but still you can see that if it
were the population density of Kansas City, it would be almost
twice as big geographically.
Logistically it is interesting, too. The Twin Cities for example,
would make a perfect circle of about 37 miles across at their
current density. If they were as dense as Portland, they would
cut that diameter to only 29 miles, and need almost 400 fewer
square miles to house the people. That a lot of land saved from
asphalt.
-Eric
--
Eric A. Mathiasen | er...@mathiasen.com | www.mathiasen.com
nic...@eudoramail.com
> Another congested area is I-205 around Oregon City, where it goes down to
> two lanes. They would truly benefit from a third lane down to I-5.
I learned an interesting datum the other day. Seems that housing is growing
more quickly than jobs in Clackamas county. Jobs are growing more quickly
than housing in Washington county. Since they're on opposite sides of the
river more and more people will be traveling back and forth. On I-205. I
would seem to make sense to encourage more new jobs on the east side and more
new housing on the west side.
That takes some of the burden of stupid design off the shoulderso of the
highway folks. Certainly not all of it. If we steered the jobs and the
people closer together, a lot of pressure would be taken off the highways
(or, to look at it differently: a good libertarian might ask whether highway
building is skewing the market).
Regards,
Nic H.
lang...@teleport.com
>lang...@teleport.com wrote:
>> On Thu, 17 Sep 1998 20:45:02 GMT, nic...@eudoramail.com wrote:
>>
>> >What the..? How do you know this? Especially since Westside MAX is only 4
>> >days old.
>>
>> Using east side max as an example,
>
>Extrapolating from one case to a very different case? Dangerous,
>statistically speaking.
So because the closest analogy has some differences, we should assume
an opposite result?
>So, even if 100% of all MAX riders came from buses originally, now they'd
>only make up 67% of all MAX riders. So, that statistic loses currency (and
>relevance) rather quickly.
You assume that the new max riders who never rode the buses wouldn't
shift to buses if Max didn't exist. I think this is a poor
assumption.
lang...@teleport.com
>Great hyperbole! You get an A for creative writing! Unfortunately, you flunk
>reading comprehension. The statement I was responding to was:
> BKL> And with the
> BKL> Max operating costs saved, we could buy them a new car every 5 years
>
>Which are nowhere near a billion dollars a year. (You already got rid of the
>capital costs, remember?)
>
>Back to the calculator.
>
>Of course, I realize now that my calculations were off, too. Way off. Since
>train operating costs are lower than bus costs on a per-rider basis, you'd
>actually be losing money. Better buy back some of those Lexuses (Lexi?). To
>the tune of $7M a year. Not a very good use of the taxpayer's money, my
>friend.
I'll bite. Call me Clintonian, but the "new car every 5 years was a
$50k Lexus. I was saving the left over $150k per new transit rider,
adding in operating costs, and investing the money to ensure a
lifetime supply of Lexi for each.
I'm sorry if I suggested that operating costs alone would buy new Lexi
or Lamborghinii.
nic...@eudoramail.com
> >Extrapolating from one case to a very different case? Dangerous,
> >statistically speaking.
>
> So because the closest analogy has some differences, we should assume
> an opposite result?
When the two analogies have substantial differences, you should not assume
that the results will be identical or even similar, as you did.
> >So, even if 100% of all MAX riders came from buses originally, now they'd
> >only make up 67% of all MAX riders. So, that statistic loses currency (and
> >relevance) rather quickly.
>
> You assume that the new max riders who never rode the buses wouldn't
> shift to buses if Max didn't exist. I think this is a poor
> assumption.
I assume nothing except that, over time, situations will change. And I try
not to rely on outdated data, as you apparently do (I say apparently only
because you didn't bother to answer my question regarding the percentage and
date of the survey your rely on to make your assertion).
Glenn Laubaugh
> properly. All those curly-cues MAX does around the Stadium and at the Sunset
> TC I'm sure slow everything down a lot.
Ha! You should see how the idiots at Metro are handling the planning for
the north-south line through Milwaukie!
They have planned the line to do a 1/4 mile long 360 degree loop so that
it comes into downtown Milwaukie, then heads *back* north, then comes back
south again along highway 224!
And I can't even describe the various tangled "options" they have planned
for Clackamas!
As for express service, should one point out that just about every
"traditional" interurban system in the "old days" had express service of
some sort, they say that express service isn't good becuase of the
"negative image" it gives for those who are passed by trains. When one
points out that Philadelphia has operated "bullet" cars through stations
at 80 mph with little negative image, they talk about various safety
problems with operating those types of trains inches away from passengers
standing on platforms. When one mentions that there are various safety
problems with those standing at a bus stop with moving traffic inches
away, they say "That's Tri-Met's problem, because they are the ones who
are operating the bus system, and are going to actually operate the
trains."
Rail transit can be an effective transportation option. What we need to
do is get the dolts at Metro out of the loop and get the people who are
actually going to operate the trains to plan what they want.
--
-glennl
Sara Running
>
> nic...@eudoramail.com wrote:
> : Here's a fact, rather than a speculation. In Hannover Germany, 65% of the
> : trips made are by means other than one person driving alone in a car.
> :
> : And here's a query. Is the economy in Hannover in better or worse shape than
> : Portland?
>
> I give, what's the answer?
>
> Hey, here's some more facts:
> pop/sq. mile
> Density Population Land Area
> New York 5407 16,044,000 2,967
> Chicago 4285 6,792,000 1,585
> Twin Cities 1957 2,080,000 1,063
> Seattle 2966 1,744,000 588
> Kansas City 1673 1,275,000 762
> Portland 3021 1,172,000 388
Is this a value for the population of the *city* of Portland? Or is it
including unincorporated areas. If it's the former, I'm shocked at the
growth--I thought Portland was ~600K, with the Tri-County area being
~2M.
Sara
--
Eric A. Mathiasen
: Is this a value for the population of the *city* of Portland? Or is it
: including unincorporated areas. If it's the former, I'm shocked at the
: growth--I thought Portland was ~600K, with the Tri-County area being
: ~2M.
Sara,
It's for what is called Portland's "Urban Area", which, from what
I can gather, is similar too but not exactly the same as
"metro area". As for including "unincorporated areas", I think it
probably includes other incorporated towns, but how much actual
unincorporated area actually borders Portland.
Sara Running
>
> Sara Running <Sara.R...@intel.com> wrote:
> : Is this a value for the population of the *city* of Portland? Or is it
> : including unincorporated areas. If it's the former, I'm shocked at the
> : growth--I thought Portland was ~600K, with the Tri-County area being
> : ~2M.
>
> Sara,
>
> It's for what is called Portland's "Urban Area", which, from what
> I can gather, is similar too but not exactly the same as
> "metro area". As for including "unincorporated areas", I think it
> probably includes other incorporated towns, but how much actual
> unincorporated area actually borders Portland.
Then I'd be curious what boundaries are used. I certainly wouldn't
consider Hillsboro/Forest Grove as part of the "Urban area", nor would I
consider Tigard or Lake Oswego. In fact, I think "urban" is much
smaller than what is indicated by the population numbers. to me, urban
is what is east of the crest of the West Hills, North of the Ross Island
Bridge, west of ~39th on the eastside and south of Killingsworth.
Outside of that, you are getting into neighborhoods. (I almost said
west of MLKJr but that seemed a little too narrow.)
In considering transportation needs, I would be better to look at an
"economic region" which IMHO includes a much larger area to look at.
(this more closely aligns with the Tri-County area, but should/could
include Vancouver and surrounding areas.) I'm debating whether or not
to attend the neighborhood meeting on transportation priorities. I
think it might be interesting...
Sara
rsjo...@my-dejanews.com
> consider Hillsboro/Forest Grove as part of the "Urban area", nor would I
> consider Tigard or Lake Oswego. In fact, I think "urban" is much
> smaller than what is indicated by the population numbers. to me, urban
> is what is east of the crest of the West Hills, North of the Ross Island
> Bridge, west of ~39th on the eastside and south of Killingsworth.
> Outside of that, you are getting into neighborhoods. (I almost said
> west of MLKJr but that seemed a little too narrow.)
>
> In considering transportation needs, I would be better to look at an
> "economic region" which IMHO includes a much larger area to look at.
> (this more closely aligns with the Tri-County area, but should/could
> include Vancouver and surrounding areas.) I'm debating whether or not
> to attend the neighborhood meeting on transportation priorities. I
> think it might be interesting...
"Urban" might be a relative term, to some, but for the purposes of
statistics, it's very cut-and-dried. "Neighborhood", as you put it, is not
inconsistent with "urban". Cities are urban. Suburbs are _part_of_ urban
areas, by definition. Neighborhoods are part of cities, unless they're in a
small town that is not part of a metropolitan area. I think it all boils
down to population density - over a certain density is urban, under isn't.
Lake Oswego is very urban, in parts, and very suburban in other parts.
Either way, it's part of a larger geographical area that is decidedly urban
and extends to Tualitin, going South. Wilsonville is borderline, because
there's plenty of rural land between Tualitin and Wilsonville. Again, it
hinges on density.