Yesterday’s New York Times features an article on Portland’s aerial tram. Portland is the “city that loves transit”? More like, the city whose officials love to spend money on transit.
Meanwhile, the Federal Highway Administration publicly expressed criticism of Portland’s transportation planning. “It is difficult to find a transportation focus” in the plan, says the agency. I guess they didn’t get the memo: in Portland, transportation spending is about real estate, not about moving people and goods.
“The plan should acknowledge that automobiles are the preferred mode of transport by the citizens of Portland,” continued the highway agency. “They vote with their cars every day.”
Selective estrogen receptor generic brand viagra modulators (SERMs) restrain estrogen-evoked sex organ development, however replicate estrogen effects on bone tissue and cholesterol levels and consequently are effective a number of women. This herb helps in curbing the desire for masturbation and promotes healthy sexual behavior; sildenafil for women buy it also helps immensely in treating the problems such as low sex drive, and premature ejaculation. The second is to reduce the risk of damage to the delicate membranes of the you could check here generic cialis online anus and rectum. These pills help in arousing the desire of sex and even sexual dysfunction when it lasts for a cialis lowest price donssite.com long time.
And what is the result of that vote in the “city that loves transit”? Cars 98, transit 2 (see my post on rail transit for documentation). Or maybe, when we count cycling and walking, cars 95, walking and cycling 3, transit 2.
The Times mentions Portland’s (accurate) brag that transit ridership has grown faster than driving in the past decade. But it failed to note that transit still hasn’t caught up to the share it had in 1980, before Portland started sinking money into rail transit. Transit’s market share then was 2.6 percent; now it is 2.2 percent. Think what it could be today if the region had spent half the money it spent on a few rail corridors on improving bus transit throughout the region instead.
Once again, a reporter judges planners by their intentions, not their results.
I would strongly suggest getting a copy of the DRAFT policy chapter. I believe
available on Metro’s website. It is a huge change from the previous plan. If
you look closely, I’m actually inclined to believe that it offers more flexibility
to local jurisdictions to develop the networks to meet the completed system goal.
Also, the deemphasizing of LOS standards are a growing trend across the country.
Look at states that have been battling concurrency requirements like Florida and
Washington. You will see that multi-modal standards are gaining in popularity as
they offer a way to better balance issues of capacity, but allowing for economic
development. I always love reading what you have to say. It keeps the discourse
going and esnures lively public debate. I look forward to continued dialog.