About twenty-five urban areas had rail transit in 2005. Transit systems in five of these lost market share to the automobile, they gained in eight, and in eleven they held their own (when measured to the nearest tenth of a percent). Data for the twenty-fifth, New Orleans, are not available.
“Holding their own” may sound good for transit systems in our auto-oriented society. But it is a disappointment when so much more has been promised for the expensive rail lines being built in so many cities. This is especially true when all but seven of these transit systems — rail and bus — carry under 2 percent of total passenger travel in the regions they serve.
Rail Disasters 2005 reviewed detailed transit statistics from 1982 through 2004 for most of these rail regions. Here is a update for 2005. As previously noted, you can download spreadsheets with key 2005 transit data and 1982 through 2005 transit data in rail regions.
Change 2004-2005 Transit Share
Trips Pass. Mi. 2004 2005
Atlanta 1.8% 0.5% 1.1% 1.1%
Baltimore -9.1% -1.4% 1.5% 1.4%
Boston 1.4% -6.5% 3.4% 3.1% Q
Buffalo 1.6% 5.0% 0.6% 0.6%
Chicago 3.6% 3.2% 3.6% 3.7%
Cleveland 13.2% 16.4% 1.1% 1.3%
Dallas-Ft. Worth -4.6% 12.7% 0.6% 0.6%
Denver 4.6% 9.1% 1.3% 1.4%
Houston -1.6% -3.6% 0.9% 0.9%
Los Angeles 9.9% 6.8% 1.6% 1.8%
Miami-Ft. Lauderdale 4.8% 6.5% 0.9% 1.0%
Minneapolis-St. Paul 20.9% 23.4% 0.8% 1.0%
New Orleans RIP
New York 2.7% -1.4% 9.7% 9.6%
Philadelphia 0.7% 2.6% 2.5% 2.5%
Pittsburgh 1.9% 2.2% 1.3% 1.3%
Portland 4.7% -1.7% 2.3% 2.2%
Sacramento 3.3% 4.0% 0.7% 0.7%
Salt Lake City 45.1% 20.6% 1.0% 1.2% Q
San Diego 1.5% 2.2% 1.1% 1.1%
San Francisco-Oakland 2.4% 0.7% 3.9% 4.0% Q
San Jose -3.2% 0.6% 0.9% 0.9%
Seattle 2.0% 5.9% 1.8% 1.8%
St. Louis 2.1% 0.4% 0.7% 0.7%
Washington, DC 4.2% -2.3% 4.2% 4.0%
Q – Questionable (see text)
Atlanta: Atlanta transit ridership grew slightly in 2005, but not as fast as driving. After first opening its rail lines in the late 1970s, transit ridership had grown rapidly, reaching 2.0 percent of regional travel by 1983. But then, despite continued expansions of the rail system, ridership began a long slow decline. The 1996 Olympics gave it a boost, but it has mostly declined since and now the transit system carries only 1.05 percent of passenger travel.
Baltimore: Despite a much ballyhooed light- and heavy-rail system, Baltimore’s transit ridership declined by 9 percent in 2005. The biggest decline was in light rail, which lost nearly 15 percent of its riders, while buses lost more than 10 percent. Heavy rail increased slightly; driving increased by 1 percent. Transit’s market share, which had reached 2.4 percent in 1984, fell to 1.4 percent.
Boston: The Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority is notorious for earning the “Q” — meaning “questionable” — rating from the FTA for its transit statistics. In 2005, it reported a 16-percent increase in bus trips but a 6-percent decrease in bus passenger miles. Overall transit trips supposedly increased by 1.4 percent but transit passenger miles supposedly declined by 7 percent. Because I calculate market share based on passenger miles, transit’s share of Boston passenger travel declined from 3.4 to 3.1 percent. Even if the trip numbers are more reliable, they did not grow as fast as the 3.6-percent growth in driving. Boston’s experiment with density and transit is failing.
Buffalo: Buffalo started building a light-rail system expecting rapid population growth which never materialized. In 2005, bus ridership grew — by 2.7 percent — for the first time in years, but rail ridership declined by 2.0 percent. Transit’s market share is down to 0.6 percent.
levitra in india The balanced sexual life, not only makes you independent but it also boosts your confidence to perform lovemaking for longer duration and satisfy her in bed. More often than not, canadian tadalafil it is used as part of a healthy lifestyle. If a toasty sleeping environment may be the culprit, it is possible to conveniently prevent night time sweats by removing raindogscine.com order generic cialis a blanket or employing a fan. * Tuberculosis reasons inflammation which could trigger nights sweats. Where to viagra shops in india Buy Best ED Medicines? There are so many products for erectile dysfunction available in the measure of 1mg/ml. Chicago: Chicago, which saw a 27-percent decline in transit ridership between 1985 and 1995, was one of the few bright stars in the rail universe in 2005. Transit ridership grew by 3.6 percent, including a 4.5-percent increase on the elevated but only a 1.6-percent increase on commuter trains. Transit even increased market share from 3.6 to 3.7 percent. Of course, ridership is still 20 percent below 1985 levels, but at least the trend is in the right direction.
Cleveland: While most American rail transit systems either date from before the Depression or were started after 1975, Cleveland is unique in having rail lines that were built in the 1950s. Despite upgrades to these lines, transit has been doing poorly. But in 2005, ridership jumped an astounding 13 percent, including a 21-percent increase in light-rail riders. These increases pushed transit’s share of travel from an amemic 1.1 percent to 1.3 percent.
Dallas-Ft. Worth: As it expands its rail system, Dallas is in the uncomfortable position of losing more bus riders than it gains rail riders. Light-rail ridership grew by nearly 7 percent in 2005, but bus ridership fell by 8 percent. Since there are a lot more bus than rail riders, overall ridership fell by 4.6 percent. The Dallas-to-Ft. Worth commuter rail also lost riders, but its numbers are so low that it is irrelevant (except to the taxpayers who have to subsidize it). Despite the overall loss in ridership, the transit agency claims a 12.7 percent gain in passenger miles, but that was not enough to significantly improve transit’s 0.6 percent share of travel.
Denver: Denver’s transit system is doing well, though bus ridership is actually growing faster than rail. Transit trips posted a 4.6-percent gain in 2005, with a 9.0 percent growth in transit passenger miles. So transit’s share grew from 1.3 to 1.4 percent. A new light-rail line opened two months ago and the transit agency is busy planning several more lines approved by voters in 2004. However, cost overruns are forcing the agency to plan several cuts from the service that was originally promised.
Houston: Houston’s bus ridership and its share of passenger travel was growing steadily before the region decided to build light rai. But the 2004 opening of a downtown light-rail line, known locally as the “wham-bam tram” because of the weekly accidents it is involved in, was accompanied by a decline in overall transit ridership. Although light-rail ridership doubled in 2005, the system lost more bus riders than the gain in rail riders and posted a 1.6-percent overall decline in ridership and a 3.6-percent decline in transit passenger miles.
Los Angeles: L.A. posted a 10-percent gain in transit riders, led by a 15.6-percent gain in light-rail riders. The Los Angeles transit system took a major beating between 1985 and 1995 when rail cost overruns forced the transit agency to raise bus fares and cut back bus service, thereby losing 17-percent of its riders. A NAACP lawsuit charging racial discrimination forced the agency to restore bus service and led it to focus more on transit riders than on rail utopias. Bus ridership in 2005 almost returned to the 1985 level, and total ridership greatly exceeded that in 1985. Transit’s market share grew from 1.6 to 1.8 percent.
Miami-Ft. Lauderdale: This region’s transit system suffers from an expensive mixture of modes: bus, heavy rail, commuter rail, and people mover. When the heavy-rail and people-mover systems installed in the early 1980s failed to excite much transit growth, Miami focused on bus service instead and saw steady ridership growth. Ft. Lauderdale has run an expensive commuter-rail line that carries hardly any riders. In 2005, transit ridership grew a respectable 4.8 percent, most of which was in the bus system. Transit’s share grew modestly from an unremarkable 0.93 percent to 0.98 percent.
Minneapolis-St. Paul: The Twin Cities suffered a transit strike shortly before opening its first light-rail line in 2004, so it would be a surprise if it did not post gains in 2005. In fact, total ridership grew by nearly 21 percent. Transit’s share grew from 0.8 to 1.0 percent. We will soon see if it can sustain this growth.
New Orleans: 2005 transit data for New Orleans (not to mention most of the transit system itself) was a casualty of Hurricane Katrina.
New York: The big apple’s transit ridership grew by a modest 2.7 percent in 2005, but passenger miles actually declined — for some reason, reported commuter-rail trips lengths have declined. So transit’s share fell from 9.7 to 9.6 percent.
Philadelphia: Philadelphia’s transit ridership grew by just two-thirds of one percent in 2005 and transit’s share of passenger travel remained at 2.5 percent. The region’s transit ridership has been trending upwards since 1998, but it is still 11 percent below 1984 levels, when transit carried nearly 4 percent of the region’s travel.
Pittsburgh: In a reversal of previous trends, Pittsburgh transit posted a 1.9-percent gain in 2005. It will be interesting to see if this is a new trend or just a blip in the region’s downward spiral which has cost it nearly 30 percent of its transit riders since 1982. Transit’s market share is a barely perceptible 1.3 percent.
Portland: Partly due to recent expansions of its light-rail system, Portland posted a 10-percent gain in light-rail riders and a 2.3 percent gain in bus riders. Passenger miles, however, actually declined for both modes. As a result, transit’s share of regional passenger travel fell from 2.3 to 2.2 percent.
Sacramento: California’s capitol city has also been expanding its light-rail system, and light-rail trips grew by 9 percent in 2005, while total transit trips grew by 3.3 percent. Transit passenger miles grew by 4.0 percent, but driving grew by 6.6 percent, so transit’s market share declined slightly from 0.72 to an even more insignificant 0.70 percent.
Salt Lake-Ogden: Did Salt Lake City have a world’s fair in 2005? The Utah Transit Authority reported an unbelievable 45-percent increase in transit ridership in 2005, which earned a “Q” from the FTA. Bus trips supposedly grew by even more than light-rail trips, but passenger miles only grew by 20 percent. If the numbers are correct, they pushed transit’s share of travel from 1.0 to 1.2 percent. But to show just how difficult it is for transit to make a difference, even if Salt Lake transit could maintain this incredible growth, it would take more than four decades for transit to reach 10 percent of regional travel. (At more reasonable rates of growth, it would at best take well over a century.)
San Diego: Light-rail trips grew by 10 percent, but bus trips declined and commuter-rail trips grew by an imperceptible 0.2 percent. So total transit trips grew by only 1.5 percent and overall transit passenger miles by 2.2 percent. That was enough to push transit’s share of travel up slightly from 1.08 to 1.10 percent.
San Francisco-Oakland: Transit trips grew by 2.4 percent and transit passenger miles by merely 0.7 percent. Calculation of transit’s share of travel is obscured by a splitting of the San Francsico urbanized area into several smaller areas. Highway Statistics reports a decline in driving in the San Francisco-Oakland area, but that is because no data are provided for the parts of the region that were in the 2004 data.
San Jose: The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) continues its slide into oblivion with another 3-percent loss in passengers in 2005. This respresents a total loss of 34.4 percent since 2001. VTA opened a new light-rail line which gained 21-percent more riders for the light-rail system, but it lost more bus riders than it gained rail riders. The number of riders on the Altamont Commuter Express line grew slightly, but they are an insignificant number anyway. Transit’s overall market share stayed constant at about 0.9 percent.
Seattle: Seattle voters had the good sense to cancel a monorail project but were not given a chance to kill a light-rail project that has gone way over budget. This cost might be having an impact on bus ridership, which had grown rapidly until recently, but by only by about 2 percent in 2005. Transit’s share remains at 1.8 percent. Puget Sound Transit doubled its commuter-rail lines in 2004 leading to a 33-percent increase in commuter-rail trips. But since commuter rail accounts for only 1 percent of the region’s transit riders, this is more for show than for any real effect.
St. Louis: The bi-state light-rail line posted an 8-percent increase in riders, but they lost bus riders, so the overall growth in transit trips was only 1.2 percent. Transit passenger miles grew by even less — 0.4 percent — so transit’s share remained constant at about 0.7 percent.
Washington, DC: Transit trips grew by a respectable 4.2 percent, with the largest gains posted by the buses — 5.1 percent — while the subway system grew by only 3.5 percent and Maryland and Virginia commuter-rail trips grew by 3.9 percent. Passenger miles, however, actually declined, due solely to a decline in subway passenger miles. As a result, transit’s share of regional passenger travel fell from 4.2 to 4.0 percent.
Conclusions: High fuel prices in the early 1980s gave many transit systems a boost. But most systems in regions with rail transit have lost a significant share of travel since then. Even if high gas prices in 2006 led to an increase in transit ridership, few will approach the 1982-1984 shares.
I suspect that if, instead of investing billions to build rail lines in a few corridors, transit agencies had concentrated on improving bus service throughout their regions, transit riders today would be better served by those systems. In a future post, I’ll look at 2005 transit ridership in regions with all-bus systems to see how they compare with rail regions.
You Sir are a national treasure. Keep it up. We’re going to need help here in Honolulu as you already know.
Pls advise to a noob like me: How do you compute “Transit Share”? I must have irrefutable numbers and computations so that when we go up against our Rail proponents we can stand tall and firm.
“How do you compute “Transit Shareâ€Â?”
The best measure of share is passenger miles. (Some people use trips, but auto trips tend to be longer than transit trips, an indication of the greater mobility that autos provide. So trips overreport the effects transit has on congestion.)
The National Transit Database reveals transit passenger miles by urbanized area (and are included in my spreadsheet for 99 major urban areas). Table HM72 of Highway Statistics reveals vehicle miles by urbanized area. I multiply vehicle miles by 1.6 to get passenger miles. (Since vehicle miles in Highway Statistics are daily while transit passenger miles in the NTDB are annual, I also multiply vehicle miles by 365.)
Transit’s share is transit PM divided by the sum of transit and auto PM.
Someone suggested that 1.6 is too high for vehicle occupancy. However, the National Household Travel Survey makes it pretty clear that the average vehicle in urban travel (though not necessarily the average during morning rush hour) has 1.6 people per car.
Someone else suggested that I factor out freight traffic (which is included in vehicle miles traveled). This could be done because table VM1 of Highway Statistics distinguishes between cars, light trucks (pickups and SUVs), and heavy trucks.
I haven’t done this for several reasons.
1. Heavy trucks carry people too, people who are often needed (e.g., for loading and unloading) at the trucks’ destinations.
2. Because of their larger size, trucks make a larger contribution to congestion than their numbers alone would indicate.
3. VM1 says that trucks make up only 5 percent of urban traffic, so subtracting them would only increase transit’s share by 5 percent.
4. Most important, transit’s share of freight is virtually zero, and its failure to contribute to freight movement should count against it when comparing transit vs. highway investments.
Do you happen have data prior to 1982? I’d be mostly interested in Portland, but if you had a couple it would be great.
-PDXF
Nevermind…looked a little deeper and found it goes back to 71. Feel free to delete my post
Peterkay said:
“I must have irrefutable numbers and computations so that when we go up against our Rail proponents we can stand tall and firm.”
Good luck! Rail has big money behind it from engineers, construction companies, planning companies, etc. and an almost religious like following that comes to meetings and makes demands. The politicians are in the bag and they bring the people. The “regular guy” is paying the bill but he is busy working or raising a family while the planning goes on.
“almost religious like following”
You’ve compared those with the opposite view as yours to being religious or like religious people a couple times now.
Can you justify your comparison of the planning type to the religious type without proving yourself a hypocrite?
PDXF,
As you have discovered, I have pre-1982 data for Portland in the rail file. You will also find pre-1982 data for San Jose. Sorry I don’t have any other cities. Some of the 1982-1985 data are of questionable accuracy, particularly for Boston. Also note that there are NO commuter-rail data for 1982 — for some reason, the FTA did not include it in the data base that year.
PDXF,
“Can you justify your comparison of the planning type to the religious type without proving yourself a hypocrite?”
I think I can take that one on myself. Here’s a few reasons why the pro-railers might be seen as taking a “religious-like following”
1. Their support for Rail is based on the Faith that it will reduce congestion.
2. They don’t let facts get in the way of their support for Rail.
3. They propose the delivery of a “promised land” once rail is up and running.
4. Their opponents (the anti-rail, pro-car crowd) comes up with a never-ending stream of statistics, yet is dismissed as nuts.
Did I get it right, Antiplanner?
peterkay,
Are you claiming the pro-planning people are comparable to religious types?
I’d still like to hear johngalt’s response (without hypocrisy of course).
On January 19th, 2007, pdxf said:
“almost religious like followingâ€Â
You’ve compared those with the opposite view as yours to being religious or like religious people a couple times now.
Can you justify your comparison of the planning type to the religious type without proving yourself a hypocrite?
Well, you know I can’t prove anything, I can just provide evidence and logic to support my position.
From Websters:
Main Entry: 1re·li·gious
Pronunciation: ri-‘li-j&s
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French religius, from Latin religiosus, from religio
1 : relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity
2 : of, relating to, or devoted to religious beliefs or observances
3 a : scrupulously and conscientiously faithful b : FERVENT, ZEALOUS
I think the third definition is appropriate. Rail advocates have faith that their position is correct. I have been to many public meetings where rail lines are being proposed. A large group of paritioners show up and most have never even looked at any data either way, they just have blind faith that rail is the way. Now lets look at faith.
Main Entry: 1faith
Pronunciation: ‘fAth
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural faiths /’fAths, sometimes ‘fA[th]z/
Etymology: Middle English feith, from Anglo-French feid, fei, from Latin fides; akin to Latin fidere to trust — more at BIDE
1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY b (1) : fidelity to one’s promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs
synonym see BELIEF
– on faith : without question
Definition 2b and to an extent, definition 3 is appropriate for rail advocates.
For the anti-rail people, at least this one, the opposite is true. If the data was overwhelmingly in favor of rail, I would be all for it. I like to ride the train but it is not convenient, quick, or cost effective.
Although a somewhat different subject. Many of the same things argued above can be said of the socialist, progressive, pro-planning folks as well.
“Well, you know I can’t prove anything, I can just provide evidence and logic to support my position.”…very good, I was waiting for a comment on that. I should have stated it clearer, that you would be proving to me. To me, you provided enough evidence for me to assume your hypocrisy.
You should of course take a step back and see if anything you wrote could be applied to yourself and those on your side.
I don’t agree that you can call those of differing views “religious” any more than you can call those on your own side “religious”, for many of the reasons that you have stated. If you really look into it, you’ll find that you have zealots (a few on here could be labeled as that); you all have faith that your position is correct. You rely on data, which you present here, but in order to form an opinion on the data, you must interpret it. I would argue that you, me, and everyone on this board requires a certain level of faith in our own abilities to make a judgment. Many on this site have such a faith in their own ability, that they cannot even accept the idea that they could be wrong.
There is evidence supporting the rail position or land use planning, whether you would agree with it or not. Even data that the antiplanner has presented could form a case for using transit if interpreted differently.
The antiplanner acknowledged that without land use planning, sprawl will consume 2.5 times more land over the next 50 years than with land use planning (see one of the first posts). The data is there, yet you would make judgments on that data different than I.
What you are suggesting is that the data planning advocates have isn’t enough, or that it is not interpreted correctly, which could be fair. I can acknowledge that my side could be incorrect. Of course the obvious question is, are you sure you have all of the information and have made correct interpretations? That would of course require faith.
pdxf:The antiplanner acknowledged that without land use planning, sprawl will consume 2.5 times more land over the next 50 years than with land use planning (see one of the first posts). The data is there, yet you would make judgments on that data different than I.
JK: Unfortuantley the planning relegion translate that into a belief that people should be forced to live in densities approaching NYC all over the country and at great expense. Here in Portland we are spending almost 1/2 billion in city money to encourage dvelompnet of a condo farm of 5000 homes – that is $100,000 per home PUBLIC SUBSIDY. OF courst they are only affordable for the rich. (Or a few luckey welfare receivers)
Thanks
JK
“Unfortuantley the planning relegion translate that into a belief that people should be forced to live…”
So are you arguing that your belief system has no affect on me?
PDXF said:
“The antiplanner acknowledged that without land use planning, sprawl will consume 2.5 times more land over the next 50 years than with land use planning ”
That is your spin. What I said was that, according to a study funded by planning advocates, without land-use regulation, urbanization would cover 7.6 percent of the Willamette Valley in 50 years. With current regulation, it would cover 6.6 percent. It now covers 5.9 percent. 1.7 percent is not quite two-and-one-half times 0.7 percent, but close enough. I just don’t see why you find 7.6 percent to be so scary that you have to spin it as some kind of disaster.
On January 20th, 2007, pdxf said:
“Unfortuantley the planning relegion translate that into a belief that people should be forced to live…â€Â
So are you arguing that your belief system has no affect on me?
Which “belief system” are you talking about. You can chose to have whatever opinions or beliefs you want but facts are facts.
“Which “belief system†are you talking about. You can chose to have whatever opinions or beliefs you want but facts are facts.”
As I mentioned in my post (I’m not so sure you read it), we all must interpret those facts to form our opinions (even you). Do you disagree? Given the same set of facts, will 100 different people form the same view?
Antiplanner: I said that you “acknowledged” it (not whether or not you agreed with it). However, you used those numbers as a basis of discussion, therefore it is fair game for me to use those numbers as well.
If we accept the data that it’s 2.428% more land over the next 50 years,) most people will have varying interpretations of that number. This is all I’m trying to show. You don’t think it’s a big deal, I don’t think it’s the end of the world, but I do think we can do better. Given the same data, we will form differing opinions. Sure, more data may sway you my way, or yours, but to say that the other side is basing their views only on faith is severely hypocritical in my opinion. It also makes me question your position if it requires you to belittle those who don’t share your view.
The Antiplanner said:
PDXF said:
“The antiplanner acknowledged that without land use planning, sprawl will consume 2.5 times more land over the next 50 years than with land use planning â€Â
That is your spin. What I said was that, according to a study funded by planning advocates, without land-use regulation, urbanization would cover 7.6 percent of the Willamette Valley in 50 years. With current regulation, it would cover 6.6 percent. It now covers 5.9 percent. 1.7 percent [7.6-5.9] is not quite two-and-one-half times 0.7 percent [6.6-5.9], but close enough. I just don’t see why you find 7.6 percent to be so scary that you have to spin it as some kind of disaster.
JK: Because planners are snake oil salesmen and, like many of the ultra green kooks, they have to wildly exaggerate the dangers that they propose to save us from. Only then do people become gullible enough to buy their crap. Of course most are too mathematically illiterate to realize that 2.5 times zero is still zero (or in this case almost zero.)
For instance they keep claiming that mass transit saves money. It does NOT. Portland’s mass transit comes in at about three times the cost of owning and driving a car see http://www.DebunkingPortland.com/Transit/Cost-Cars-Transit.htm
Heck, if you travel less than 13 miles per day, driving your own car is even cheaper that buying a monthly Trimet pass, which only pays about 20% of the real cost. And if you travel further, you probably won’t want to waste that much time on transit.
Thanks
JK
pdxf said: If we accept the data that it’s 2.428% more land over the next 50 years,) most people will have varying interpretations of that number. This is all I’m trying to show. You don’t think it’s a big deal, I don’t think it’s the end of the world, but I do think we can do better. (emphasis added)
JK: How dare you say “I don’t think it’s the end of the world, but I do think we can do better†as an excuse to tell other people how to live? And to make people spend more money on housing, live less comfortable lives, wasting their time in congestion and by letting crime increase as we pump BILLIONS into un-economic schemes that sound good? You are totally screwing many people for “ I do think we can do better.â€Â. Who the hell are you to waste other peoples money and time because “ I do think we can do better.â€Â
I think we can do better without the planning “profession.â€Â
pdxf said: but to say that the other side is basing their views only on faith is severely hypocritical in my opinion.
JK: Then show us some facts to back your beliefs. Without facts, beliefs are just a religion. Why not start by showing that:
Increasing density saves money.
People prefer to live in high density
TODs reduce congestion.
Mass transit saves money.
Light rail causes development
Light rail is safer than cars.
All of the above is pretty much proven to be utter BS at http://www.DebunkingPortland.com/Smart/SmartGrowthLies.html
pdxf said: It also makes me question your position if it requires you to belittle those who don’t share your view.
JK: We just have little respect for people that try to shove their religion on others.
Thanks
JK
johngalt, peterkay, antiplanner
Do you guys agree with Jim? Should I take Jim as a representative of your positions?
pdxf said: Do you guys agree with Jim? Should I take Jim as a representative of your positions?
JK: I vote yes.
PS: probably 75% of the Portland region voted to stop increased density. (coming soon to debunkingportland.com)
Thanks
JK
On January 20th, 2007, pdxf said:
johngalt, peterkay, antiplanner
Do you guys agree with Jim? Should I take Jim as a representative of your positions?
I am not sure if I agree with all of Jim’s positions. I don’t really think I want him to act as my voice here either. I would guess that he and I would see eye-to-eye on a lot of issues though.
Jim seems to attack you pdxf but I appreciate your opinions and skepticisms (also Dan’s as he seems very well informed). They make the discussion more interesting and ferret out the details. The guy from Hawaii also needs to know that people of your leaning will be the majority at any meeting he attends so he should know more about how you think. I also understand Jim’s desire to attack. Planners and rail advocates have been running the show and forcing what is, to Jim, obviously a social engineering agenda down the citizen’s throats. Jim seems understandably angry and has few outlets for the steam as anti-rail or anti-smartgrowth opinions usually meet censorship, eye-rolling or worse in Portland.
I wish a few more people like pdxf and Dan would join the discussion here. Both sides might benefit.
I much prefer johng’s methods than Jim’s and agree with johng that both sides benefit from civil discussion. My 2¢.
My approach in my practice is to help all sides come to a decision, and my job is much easier when their approach is like johng’s rather than JimK’s.
DS