After a mere 14 years of planning, Portland’s “westside express” commuter-rail line is about to start operating. As the Antiplanner previously noted, however, this 14.7-mile line really doesn’t go anywhere that anyone wants to go, so TriMet predicts a whopping 2,600 riders a day (i.e., 1,300 round trips). It may end up being more, but the numbers will be insignificant either way.
Flickr photo by Hardlinejoe.
TriMet plans to run 32 round trips a day, which means each trip will carry an average of 40 passengers. For that, they have railcars with 80 seats, and they are ready to run them in pairs. Too bad TriMet couldn’t have found a bus or two capable of carrying 40 passengers.
There are several reasons why TriMet wanted a commuter train to nowhere. Most important, the two freeways in the Wilsonville-to-Beaverton corridor, SR 217 and I-5, are probably the most congested roads in the Portland suburbs. The local congressman, David Wu, actually earmarked some federal money to add new capacity, but Metro, Portland’s planning czar, turned it down. Running commuter rail makes it look like they are doing something to relieve congestion and provides an excuse to zone some more neighborhoods for high-density transit-oriented developments.
You can check your eligibility for generic viagra wholesale by going through the websites you can also read the clients feedbacks. There are standard treatments for male impotence (inability of getting or keeping erection) with implants, vacuum pumps, surgery, and medicines like Kamagra Soft Tablets that can be gulped with water an hour or 40 minutes prior to intercourse, which allows a student to choose their preferred specializations at cheapest viagra uk diploma, bachelors, postgraduate and masters levels. Because of natural ingredients, VigRx Plus supplements do cialis shipping not contain any unpleasant side effects. Avoid buying slovak-republic.org online cialis, it may have different specialities such as sports injuries, back pain relief, paediatrics or visceral osteopathy (treating the internal organs of the body and also prevents the clot formation in blood vessels and cholesterol imbalances occur due to high blood glucose levels. Actually, the Antiplanner made a little error in that posting. Relying on the Oregonian, I said it was $33 million over its planned budget of $133 million. In fact, back in 2000, planners predicted that it would cost $82.8 million, so it really went more than 100 percent overbudget, not the mere 25 percent I previously indicated.
As a local county commissioner put it, the final cost was “comparable to building a new highway.” At a cost of $5 million per lane mile, which is reasonable for suburban freeways, Oregon could have built two lane miles of highway for every mile of commuter-rail line that it got.
According to the Federal Highway Administration, the typical Portland-area freeway lane carries 9,641 vehicles per day — and these roads above typical. So even if those vehicles only hold one person each, two new highway lanes could have moved about eight times as many people as the rail line will, which would do far more to relieve congestion.
But hey, the commuter train is going to have free Wi-Fi, not to mention the “interactive public art” at each of the stops. I guess that makes it all worth it.
One of the stops on the new line is Washington Square (actually the stop is about a quarter-mile away), one of Portland’s largest shopping malls. A decade ago, Metro wrote one of its wonderful plans to turn Washington Square into a “compact residential community.” Needless to say, absolutely nothing has happened, mainly for the lack of about $200 million for “infrastructure,” meaning utopian projects like a people mover.
Maybe now that the commuter-rail train is going, the 1,300 people who ride roundtrip on it every day will stimulate new development. Yeah, right.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portland_Rosebuds
Here is another claim for fame for Portland.
highwayman said: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portland_Rosebuds
Here is another claim for fame for Portland.
JK: Good to see you agree that, with respect to trains, Portland should just shove it. Unfortunately, that is what Portland is doing to us.
Thanks
Jk
Though for that matter Randal you don’t live in Portland, so let the people of Portland live they’re lives the way they want to!
Should people in Portland tell people in Bandon how to live their lives?
highwayman said: . . . so let the people of Portland live they’re lives the way they want to!
<b.JK: Portlanders just want to be left alone. It is the Metro smart growth, car hating, zealots that keep shoving light rail up our a**.
Thanks
JK
JK: Good to see you agree that, with respect to trains, Portland should just shove it. Unfortunately, that is what Portland is doing to us.
THWM: Thanks, but no thanks.
In addition to that rail being much more costly than building more freeway lane miles and carrying far fewer people, I would suspect that its energy consumption is not much less than cars, on a per passenger basis. So what’s the supposed advantage?
People, you know that Portland wants to let their roads get crappier, so that people are forced to take transit? Also, Metro does not value the will of the people, who like yards & nature; no, you should live in crowded conditions.
The local congressman, David Wu, actually earmarked some federal money to add new capacity, but Metro, Portland’s planning czar, turned it down
I can only assume that the Antiplanner supported the planning czar’s decision, given how much the Antiplanner hates earmarks and federal subsidies.
I would suspect that its energy consumption is not much less than cars, on a per passenger basis. So what’s the supposed advantage?
We’ve discussed the fallaciousness of this assertion here many times. This blanket assertion cannot be made.
DS
the highwayman wrote:
so let the people of Portland live they’re lives the way they want to!
Did you mean “they are” lives? Or did you mean “their” lives?
Your ad hominem arguments might pack more of a punch were they not littered with misspellings, comma splices, and other vagaries of writing.
the antiplanner wrote:
the typical Portland-area freeway lane carries 9,641 vehicles per day
Given that Portlanders can’t merge, and given the ruts in the middle lanes, I’d say the typical middle lane must carry twice that number.
The I-5/OR 217 junction was completely redone in 2001, with some new auxiliary lanes going in both directions at the cost of 38 million dollars: http://www.kiewit.com/projects/transportation/i5-and-highway-217-reconstruction.aspx
– I believe the non-libertarian, anti-free market earmarks you speak of would be $735,000 – hardly enough to cover much of the costs:
http://earmarks.omb.gov/2008-earmarks/earmark_351746.html
-The northern part of 217 near US26 is also getting a $30 million dollar facelift in early 2009:
http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/REGION1/hwy217/
-The a traffic study of 217 concluded that 6 lane options would cost around 450-580 million dollars (2005 dollars):
http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/tolling_pricing/value_pricing/pubs_reports/projectreports/217corridor.htm#LinkTarget_1
These are just issues facing 217 only – not many of the arterial roads which lead up to it. Massive expansion of this highway would not be an easy one from a financial perspective (though, it probably should be done sometime). However, I am not the biggest fan of WES or of a commuter train that is not going anywhere in particular (Beaverton to Willsonville?) nor one that is not going to move many people. I will be the first to say this, but I’ll wait and give it a year before I make a solid opinion.
Your wording of this article makes it seem that highway 217 isn’t getting much attention from expansion, when in fact a decent amount of money and studies have been conducted.
To offer evidence of energy consumption for different modes of travel:
http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/#chapter_4
http://www.trb.org/
http://www.templetons.com/brad/transit-myth.html
Dan, you can refer to past discussions on rail using much less energy per passenger mile, that still doesn’t make actual facts a fallacy.
What are your sources and what stats?
Transit does not save much energy like is implied.
Saving figures aren’t mentioned in comparisons because they are negligible.
Single occupancy vehicles do not have the ability to save energy like mass transit can. This is pure hog-wash that a single occupancy vehicle would emit less pollution and use less energy. (There are some issues with buses, especially older polluting ones).
If you want to apply the total energy used to make the vehicle (metal frame, rubber tires, etc.), the road it drives on (asphalt and concrete), and the fuel it consumes; cars are consuming a lot of energy per whatever unit of measure you want to use.
(I’ve seen plenty of reports from Antiplanner about energy costs for construction (not service) of light rail).
Frank Says:
so let the people of Portland live they’re lives the way they want to!
Did you mean “they are†lives? Or did you mean “their†lives?
Your ad hominem arguments might pack more of a punch were they not littered with misspellings, comma splices, and other vagaries of writing.
THWM: Sorry for the typo that should have been “their lives”, but thanks Frank for seeing that mistake.
Some times that’s the trouble with homophone words.
ws Says:
Single occupancy vehicles do not have the ability to save energy like mass transit can. This is pure hog-wash that a single occupancy vehicle would emit less pollution and use less energy. (There are some issues with buses, especially older polluting ones).
If you want to apply the total energy used to make the vehicle (metal frame, rubber tires, etc.), the road it drives on (asphalt and concrete), and the fuel it consumes; cars are consuming a lot of energy per whatever unit of measure you want to use.
(I’ve seen plenty of reports from Antiplanner about energy costs for construction (not service) of light rail).
THWM: Roads & rail lines compliment each other.
ws: Just stating things as fact does not make items true. Do you care to research facts from the links that I provided, or other?
I did not say that cars use less energy. What is important is that the difference is rather minor. The “ability”, based upon capacity is far different than actuality.
I did not say that cars use less energy. What is important is that the difference is rather minor. The “abilityâ€Â, based upon capacity is far different than actuality.
Fair enough, but the same things can be said about cars. They have the ability to be congestion free…if every single road is 20 lanes wide. They have the ability to be parked in front of every building…if there are 1,000 parking spaces in front of it. They have the ability to pollute less…if an endless supply of clean energy is invented.
While mass transit has not met “actuality” in all that it can do, car dependent-lifestyles are living in age of decreasing reality in the wake of pressing issues, issues that can be met by mass transit’s ability.
The extremes of 20 lanes & 100s of extra parking spots are not necessary.
It is true that overall, there is slightly more energy used for cars, but it is worth it.
People need to realize & admit to transit’s limitations: longer travel times, accessibility, availability, convenience and many other drawbacks.
Also usually ignored for shopping: carrying & holding the items purchased on transit versus a car trunk (or truck bed); and a store has a much larger customer base with the use of cars.
About a month ago AP provided a link to a doctoral thesis comparing the life cycle energy and emissions of motorised transport per passenger mile. I have read the thesis several times and transcribed most of the key data into a spreadsheet for convenient re-analysis. I have identified only one questionable data source, using vehicle occupancy rates for all travel rather than only for urban travel. That means that buses are actually 30% more sustainable than sedans rather than the 20% identified in the thesis. It also means that travelling on an off-peak bus becomes slightly more sustainable than travelling in a pickup truck.
During peak periods buses are almost match BART’s all-day sustainability. So the first and most important conclusion that can be reached from this study is that confining motorizrd travel to arterial routes dramaticly improves it’s energy use per passenger mile. No surprises there.
The second important conclusion is that the sole difference in sustainability between sedans and buses is the energy embodied in the lane and parking capacity required by to service sedans or buses. Thus replacing kerbside parking with dedicated bus lanes will make buses just as unsustainable as sedans.
The reason I have been referring to sedans rather than to autos, is that the thesis distinguishes between cars and light trucks and it disaggregats light trucks into SUVs and pickups. Unfortunately the thesis doesn’t mention MPVs, but from the the fact that SUVs are credited with a significantly higher occupancy rate than sedans I think it is safe to say that MPVs have been counted as SUVs and that this is the main reason that SUV travel appears to be much more sustainable than pickups. In short, the third important conclusion from the study’s data is that taxing and regulating SUVs as sedans instead of pickups is as important as equality between transit and auto travel.
The thesis only provides data for four rail transit systems, which may or may not be average or typical systems, so comparisons with the bus and sedan data may not be meaningful. Especially as the four rail systems are surface systems whereas as most modern proposals are for extensively tunnelled or elevated routes which is where concrete’s inherent unsustainability begins to overwhelm the inherent sustainability of electric propulsion systems.
The ultimate conclusion is that dedicated infrastructure is the deathknell of transit sustainability UNLESS we revert all the way back to the walk-rail urban forms of a century ago.
Scott wrote:
“I did not say that cars use less energy. What is important is that the difference is rather minor. The “abilityâ€Â, based upon capacity is far different than actuality.”
Indeed. Here are the statistics for the UK. Light rail uses 1/3 the energy of cars.
http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/business/envrp/pdf/conversion-factors.pdf
The difference has got to be down to local factors.
Francis,
Thanks for that link but note that it is CO2 emissions rather than energy consumption. That’s an important difference when comparing electric and direct fossil fuels motors. Also DEFRA only give vkt for cars. You should probably reduce that by 1/3rd to get pkt for comparison with the transit modes.
The thesis I mentioned in my last comment provides pmt GGE for both propulsion and infrastructure. Since they tend to support your last comment here are the numbers from that study, propulsion and [LCA] in grams:
Sedan 230 [381]
Bus 230 [327]
Peak bus 61 [85]
BART 65 [132]
Caltrain 74 [143]
SF Muni LRT 69 [160]
Boston LRT 123 [187]
The thesis notes that the difference between the two LRTs is the source of electricity, mainly gas and hydro in SF and mainly coal in Boston.
The fact that peak bus propulsion efficiency matches the four rail systems whereas as off-peak only matches sedans does suggest that the difference in efficiency for rail transit could be coming solely from cherry picking the most “profitable” routes and leaving the least profitable routes for cars and buses. In this context profitable meaning high density arterial routes.I suspect that a comparison of freeways with local roads will show a similar difference in LCA GGE per km vehicle.
So what, if commuter rail or light rail is less energy efficient or not.
If it does not go to where your going. It will not make any difference.
Transit may be fine for the very small minority that use, it and it works for them.
But the rest of us don’t have the time to, Not go to where we need to go, when we need to be there.
So what, if commuter rail or light rail is less energy efficient or not.
If it does not go to where your going. It will not make any difference.
Transit may be fine for the very small minority that use it and it works for them.
But the rest of us don’t have the time to, Not go to where we need to go, when we need to be there.
not sure why it posted twice
craig:“So what, if commuter rail or light rail is less energy efficient or not. If it does not go to where your going. It will not make any difference. Transit may be fine for the very small minority that use it and it works for them.”
ws: It does matter that mass-transit is energy efficient. We are reliant on an energy supply that funds our enemy, a source of energy that is polluting our air and water, and a supply that fluctuates heavily in price. Questions are arising on how world’s economies can grow in a time of limited energy and resources.
I always get a chuckle about car companies (and people) getting excited over these “technologies” that are somehow going to make us not have to use fossil fuels in our cars. Ethanol is a scam, fuel cell is just an energy storage system, and electric plug-ins come from polluting sources of energy (even solar and wind need to consume massive amounts of land). Fossil fuels have an enormous amount of energy, it’s no wonder we got addicted.
There’s no car in the world that is going to save us from the impending doom that energy is not always going to be there to prop up systems that we have made reliant upon consuming massive amounts of energy.
While there’s nothing wrong with consuming, I feel that the American lifestyle is headed towards one that cannot sustain itself in the future. We have people trying to play the same game we’ve been playing over the years that has a limited future in an energy insecure world.
Fact of the matter is Americans consume 21 million barrels of oil a day. The world totally consumes about 85 million barrels. We constitute 3% of the world’s total population, but consume 1/4 of the world’s fossil fuels in a day. We have India and China trying to be the next America by consuming as much as we do – and they have billions of more people. This doesn’t concern you?
You’re right craig, who cares about energy efficiency?
If you’ve got any brighter idea on how to sustain quality of life in an energy insecure time – then we’re all ears (hint: it’s probably not going to be the Chevy Volt that “saves” us).
My point was if the transit systeem does not take you to where you need to be. You won’t use it.
Unlike you I don’t think we are in as dire a situation as you want to believe.
We have enough oil sand in the province of Alberta Canada to last the world 100 years.
I think we will come up with something better long before we run out of oil.
100 years ago we were just coming out of the horse and buggy age.
Scott Says: People need to realize & admit to transit’s limitations: longer travel times, accessibility, availability, convenience and many other drawbacks.
THWM: That also depends on the situation and the location. One can also bring up other means such as walking or riding bike.
Scott: Also usually ignored for shopping: carrying & holding the items purchased on transit versus a car trunk (or truck bed); and a store has a much larger customer base with the use of cars.
THWM: http://www.carsharing.net/
craig Says:
So what, if commuter rail or light rail is less energy efficient or not.
If it does not go to where your going. It will not make any difference.
Transit may be fine for the very small minority that use, it and it works for them.
But the rest of us don’t have the time to, Not go to where we need to go, when we need to be there.
THWM: The same could be applied to the street in front of your home.
craig Says:
My point was if the transit systeem does not take you to where you need to be. You won’t use it.
Unlike you I don’t think we are in as dire a situation as you want to believe.
We have enough oil sand in the province of Alberta Canada to last the world 100 years.
I think we will come up with something better long before we run out of oil.
100 years ago we were just coming out of the horse and buggy age.
THWM: There’s more to oil than just buring it.
craig:“My point was if the transit systeem does not take you to where you need to be. You won’t use it. Unlike you I don’t think we are in as dire a situation as you want to believe.”
ws: Yes, humans are a species of convenience. For the last 50 years we have been building developments that make automobile the most convenient; while at the same time producing side effects that make walking, biking, and mass transit inconvenient – if not unsafe.
I feel that all modes can coexists (and I do like all modes of transportation), however, cars need to take a lesser role in some instances in order for the convenience of other modes to take root.
You can’t have a walkable TOD shopping district with 5 parking spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. like in many malls, as this spreads everything out and distances it from other uses. Opposite of this, you can’t have every one drive to a mall (think Bridgeport village which is parking hell) and have a walkable, urban, and comfortable environment(which is kind of funny because almost everyone who goes there drives there, and the same experience can be found in any downtown). The whole auto-dependent equation is unworkable if there’s no parking spaces – it is the Achilles heal of the car.
Operating under the word choice(options, freedom, whatever), it is needed to curtail some of the ugly side effects of cars in certain areas; the massive parking lots, incredibly wide roads, etc. in order for convenience and options to occur in the realm of alternative transporation.
If you’ve ever wondered why things are inconvenient, it is best why that is so. Why do more people walk and bike much more in cities and dense neighborhoods? To which one can look at the land-use patterns and find the simple answer.
craig:“We have enough oil sand in the province of Alberta Canada to last the world 100 years. I think we will come up with something better long before we run out of oil. 100 years ago we were just coming out of the horse and buggy age”
ws: Last I checked the peak production for this area was 3 million barrels of oil a day under its current infrastructure (I am certainly not an oil expert). Tar sands is economically viable under specific conditions, and it also takes massive energy investment in order to produce energy (net energy – takes energy to make energy. Something like burning 1 barrel of oil for every 8 produced) Also, places like ANWR would produce 1 million barrels of oil a day at peak production (for thirty years I believe) – 1/20th of what we consume in a single day.
People will be pumping oil years and years from now, just not in the same manner. It’s just naive to think that we can keep consuming like we do (not only our current patterns, but increased consumption patterns which is inevitable) in the wake of India, China, as (well as other countries developing). The whole problem we had this summer was a supply and demand issue. I will refrain from talking about global warming, as this usually leads to Al Gore being mentioned; but at least keep GW at the back of your mind when discussing energy consumption.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/06/03/EDGFGD1VQ61.DTL
Parking has costs too.
Re:highwayman @27 & my comments @18
~”Transit depends on situation & location & there are other modes.”
Look at opportunity & the area that one can get to, within a reasonable time:
walking: 1/3 sq.mi. covering whole Ο (circular area)
biking: 30 sq.mi. covering whole Ο
transit: (1 route) 20 sq.mi. <4% of Ο, double or triple for 2 routes
car: 1000 sq.mi.
Nation-wide, <4% of passenger miles are by transit. Cars offer an incredible amount more options.
Scott:
Planes cover a wide area in limited time, but this does nothing to help us understand the effectiveness of a mode of transportation in a given situation. I would not say a car is not better to use on a congested road for an service that is under 1 mile away (which walking/biking could be the best option). On a non-congested time of day for longer trips, a car is great.
You can’t just post numbers and make it seem that one is the “superior” option.
Scott wrote:
“Nation-wide, <4% of passenger miles are by transit. Cars offer an incredible amount more options.”
This calculation depends on everyone staying put. If they do, then cars offer a massive improvement in mobility. Unfortunately, these gains are lost by people moving out into the suburbs, and their destinations of work, leisure or commerce moving further away too. The journey times for cars are not any better than they were for bicycles and trams, and now people must buy a car.
The only winners from this calculation are the car manufacturers. And those who want to go shopping in hypermarkets, which offer twelve brands of fish paste.
The losers are those people who now need a car, which takes a massive chunk out of their income – the small traders who could use that spending money coming through their own front door – and the members of society who have no access to cars for one reason or another.
In the UK, as well as in the USA, a choice in transport mode has been given away in exchange for a choice of fish paste.
WS
Having lived within walking distance of 2 grocery stores, a theater, many restaurants, a library and many other local shops. I was a bike only commuter for a few years and was within three blocks of 3 transit lines and near downtown. I walked from downtown many times when the buses stopped running late at night. Transit still did not go to where, I was going most of the time.
I prefer the convenience of living in the suburb, driving my car to go shopping and run errands. With the capasity to carry people and the things I buy or need. Walking and riding my bike for exercise, not transportation. I’m older now and it works great for me.
I don’t find driving a inconvenience at all, in fact I find it very liberating.
You may not like it, but I do. If I could I would live on 20 acres, right in the middle, so I would have my own urban growth boundary.
We may not be driving cars as we know them today, but I’m not going to assume to forecast the future. Not to many people have got right in the past. Especially Government planners and politicians, gambling with the taxpayers money. So if they get it wrong, they will not pay a price for it, other than, opps! We got that one wrong! Oh well, at least it’s only the taxpayers money.
Even Walt Disney had to keep changing future world, as time went by.
So I’m not worried
Craig:
Who said I don’t like driving? That’s not true, I just find it silly that I can’t get a gallon of milk without hopping in a car all the time. I merely would like to see the option of alternative transportation methods take root rather than be impossible in many suburban neighborhoods, like it is.
You can’t have a walkable TOD shopping district with 5 parking spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. like in many malls, as this spreads everything out and distances it from other uses. Opposite of this, you can’t have every one drive to a mall (think Bridgeport village which is parking hell) and have a walkable, urban, and comfortable environment(which is kind of funny because almost everyone who goes there drives there, and the same experience can be found in any downtown). The whole auto-dependent equation is unworkable if there’s no parking spaces – it is the Achilles heal of the car.
ws
It is hard to get tenets if you don’t have parking, because most businesses understand
Parking lots = customers and Profits.
Why is walking across a parking lot bad and walking a a so called walkable community good. Walking is walking isn’t it. Bridgeport village in Tualatin (Portland burb) is much closer to the people around Tualatin then downtown Portland. And the customers choose it of their own free will.
That’s the great part about shopping centers like Bridgeport village, you don’t have to shop there, if you prefer shopping downtown.
Downtown Porkland could not survive without tax breaks, abatement and transit subsidies.
see
http://saveportland.com/
for may lists, of subsidies for downtown Portland.
Ws
Who is stopping you from living next to a store? So you can walk.
I merely would like to see the option of alternative transportation methods take root rather than be impossible in many suburban neighborhoods, like it is.
ws
As I said in (#35) I lived next to 3 bus lines near down town and the transit systeem still didn’t serve me well.
craig:“It is hard to get tenets if you don’t have parking, because most businesses understandParking lots = customers and Profits.”
I had no idea that Manhattan wasn’t profitable, as they don’t have much parking compared to the amount of people.
There’s no problem with parking, however, there’s something to question when new developments utilize 2-3 of the building footprint’s total lot sq. footage for parking. This spreads things out too much and does not allow for other interactions, besides automobiles to occur.
Parking is fine in small numbers. Once it gets too high, it is a serious detractor to an inviting environment.
craig:“Why is walking across a parking lot bad and walking a a so called walkable community good. Walking is walking isn’t it. Bridgeport village in Tualatin (Portland burb) is much closer to the people around Tualatin then downtown Portland. And the customers choose it of their own free will.”
I don’t have a problem with Bridgeport Village (I was merely commenting on the inability to find parking), in fact it shows that people want a walkable and pedestrian-oriented environment. I just find it funny that you can find this same environment, say, in NW 23rd, where people not only drive there, they walk there, they bike there, take transit, etc. Bridgeport village is really just a facade for real urbanism, and it has heavy demand for it.
I think Bridgeport’s success is saying that a lot of people are itching for this type of environment. Why not allow for such communities (more pedestrian oriented) to be built for housing units in Tualatin? You can’t because the city of Tualatin would not allow it due to codes and zoning.
Walking isn’t walking. Walking across a parking lot can be dangerous. Nobody is going to do it because it is not inviting. There are no street trees (for shade when it’s hot out) or interesting stimuli. Parking lots are ugly, and that is why you don’t see people walking across them. If “walking” was “walking” then you would see more people walking in these areas – but you don’t.
craig:“Downtown Porkland could not survive without tax breaks, abatement and transit subsidies.”
Please, list all of the subsidies for downtown (businesses, how much they receive, etc.).
Suburbs are traditionally heavily subsidized. It used to be open checkbooks from the feds and state for getting free money for free infrastructure such sewers, electrical grid expansion, roads, schools, that were not paid for by the inhabitants.
These practices have slowed down considerably in recent years. However, the entire suburban landscape was developed from huge subsidies and earmarks. There’s a reason why cities and neighborhoods (pre WWII) looked a lot different than the ones of today – and that was because of better fiscal management that was directly related to the actual and true market cost of that particular development and its adjacent infrastructural costs (skinny streets, denser housing, smaller lots, etc).
Shall I continue to rant?
Please, list all of the subsidies for downtown (businesses, how much they receive, etc.)
ws
ws they were in the link
go ahead and look at them for your self
http://saveportland.com/
it links to city, county and pdc records
I had no idea that Manhattan wasn’t profitable, as they don’t have much parking compared to the amount of people
ws
If my memory serve me
Manhattan has a density of about 65,000 a sq mi
Not a good comparison
Parking is fine in small numbers. Once it gets too high, it is a serious detractor to an inviting environment.
ws
Except maybe the malls and shopper like and use them. The must, they are often full.
craig:ws they were in the link go ahead and look at them for your self
ws:I see a few places that get tax exemption, but nothing that would deem statements that downtown Portland is “subsidized”. Would it do any good of me to point to the massive subsidization of suburbia? It wouldn’t matter, it wouldn’t get noticed by you anyways.
craig:Except maybe the malls and shopper like and use them. The must, they are often full.
ws:Actually, no, a lot of them are not at capacity year around. At least with Wash. Square they realized they had limited room and went with parking garages (but that is an expensive endeavor).
craig:As I said in (#35) I lived next to 3 bus lines near down town and the transit systeem still didn’t serve me well.
ws:I’ve had no major issues getting around.
ws wrote:
> Who said I don’t like driving? That’s not true, I just find it silly that I can’t get
> a gallon of milk without hopping in a car all the time.
So live in a place where you can walk or bike or take mass transit to purchase that gallon
of milk. But please don’t try to force everyone else to do so.
> I merely would like to see the option of alternative transportation methods take root
> rather than be impossible in many suburban neighborhoods, like it is.
Many people make residential choices that include not being near mass transit and
not being near high-density residential developments.
Is it even possible for you to respect that?
ws
Most of Downtown is Urban Renewal
http://tinyurl.com/5ul6ua
right there on the above page
ws wrote:
> I had no idea that Manhattan wasn’t profitable, as they don’t have much parking
> compared to the amount of people.
>
> There’s no problem with parking, however, there’s something to question when new
> developments utilize 2-3 of the building footprint’s total lot sq. footage for
> parking. This spreads things out too much and does not allow for other
> interactions, besides automobiles to occur.
>
> Parking is fine in small numbers. Once it gets too high, it is a serious
> detractor to an inviting environment.
ws, you are welcome to move to Manhattan, or any other
place with residential densities or employment densities (or both)
to your liking.
I don’t think there’s a reader of this blog that would disagree with me
about respecting your choice(s).
The problems start when you (or the Sierra Club or an undemocratic
planning process) or all combined start to make choices for other people,
often using large amounts of tax dollars in the process.
Would it do any good of me to point to the massive subsidization of suburbia? It wouldn’t matter, it wouldn’t get noticed by you anyways.
ws
Downtown Portland is rebuilding it’s sewers and it is included in everyone sewer bill.
East Portland and the burbs had to pay for their sewer improvements house by house. Costing thousands of dollars per home owner in the 80’s.
another subsidy for downtown Porkland.
“People will be pumping oil years and years from now, just not in the same manner. It’s just naive to think that we can keep consuming like we do (not only our current patterns, but increased consumption patterns which is inevitable) in the wake of India, China, as (well as other countries developing).”
Correct, things will change. But with that change with increased consumption can come change with increased production and increased efficiencies. Maybe I’m misunderstanding but you seem to be implying that the current supply of oil is severely limited. I would call that naive, also. Yes, at a very high level there is always a finite supply of anything. In the case of oil it is likely that the supply is limited not by a lack of abundance but by what the market is willing to pay versus the cost of extraction. Yes, the worlds overall levels of consumption are going up. The same holds true for production though. Most production supply issues can be attributed not to what it’s in the ground but actual investment in techniques and technologies to better extract more of it. While we may never again see $20 (in terms of constant dollars) / barrel oil that we’ve seen in the past. It doesn’t mean that we are doomed and will see $300 / oil.
As for the Alberta tar sands, keep in mind how production there affects other forms of energy. In this case it’s sucking up an increasingly large portion of Canada’s declining natural gas production.
craig Says:
January 25th, 2009 at 7:25 am
WS
Having lived within walking distance of 2 grocery stores, a theater, many restaurants, a library and many other local shops. I was a bike only commuter for a few years and was within three blocks of 3 transit lines and near downtown. I walked from downtown many times when the buses stopped running late at night. Transit still did not go to where, I was going most of the time.
I prefer the convenience of living in the suburb, driving my car to go shopping and run errands. With the capasity to carry people and the things I buy or need. Walking and riding my bike for exercise, not transportation. I’m older now and it works great for me.
I don’t find driving a inconvenience at all, in fact I find it very liberating.
You may not like it, but I do. If I could I would live on 20 acres, right in the middle, so I would have my own urban growth boundary.
We may not be driving cars as we know them today, but I’m not going to assume to forecast the future. Not to many people have got right in the past. Especially Government planners and politicians, gambling with the taxpayers money. So if they get it wrong, they will not pay a price for it, other than, opps! We got that one wrong! Oh well, at least it’s only the taxpayers money.
Even Walt Disney had to keep changing future world, as time went by.
So I’m not worried
THWM: Well to each their own.
So don’t worked up about reinstating rail lines.