Portland’s Metro has published an environmental impact statement (EIS) for a proposed streetcar line to Lake Oswego, the city’s wealthiest suburb. Why anyone thinks people in Lake Oswego would want to ride a streetcar to Portland is beyond the Antiplanner, but Metro’s goal is to spend money, not to transport people.
The Antiplanner turned almost at random to page 6-10 (physical page 398) and found an interesting table: “Cost-Effectiveness by Alternative.” This EIS actually considers a bus alternative, but the table says it is not cost-effective. The cost of carrying one new rider on the bus is $3.82, says the table, while the cost of carrying a new streetcar rider is only $0.98.
But wait just a moment: the table says these numbers represent the “operating cost per new transit person trip.” The traditional measure of cost per new trip, as defined by the Federal Transit Administration, included capital costs amortized at 7 percent over 30 years. When amortized capital costs are added in, the cost per new trip of the bus is $7.93, while the cost of the streetcar is $19.01.
And research indicates that when a man is going through this particular issue he tends to face a very lesser time duration was tadalafil canadian 100mg. Some doctors don’t believe fibro is buy canada cialis a real condition. To viagra sildenafil canada cope with event of mortality, I try to live as happily as possible. A physician can rule out medical concerns that can also guide you to keep a safe distance generic levitra cialis from the adverse effects like headache, dizziness, upset stomach, diarrhea, shortness of breath, muscle pain, back pain or seizure. Apparently, Metro believes that old canard of rail nuts: capital costs don’t count. Metro also apparently believes that no one will bother to read this deep into the EIS. I wonder how many other deceptive measures are used in this documents. Comments on the draft EIS are due on January 31.
Speaking of Portland lies, Portland and Multnomah County just issued their latest “progress report” on the region’s efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Portland claims that the report shows that its land-use and transportation policies led to a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.
But page 5 of the report shows that the only real reduction took place in the industrial sector. (There was also a reduction in the waste disposal sector, but that produces so few emissions that it is relatively unimportant.) Residential, commercial, and transportation emissions are all flat or increasing (and the extent to which they are flat is as much due to the recession as anything else).
Interestingly, the climate action plan includes objectives for urban form, mobility, solid waste, urban forestry, and other trendy things–but nothing for industry. To what policy can the county’s reduction in industrial emissions be ascribed? No doubt the region’s anti-business policies leading companies to move elsewhere. Way to go Portland!
This transit line will do nothing but give criminals better access to Lake Oswego.
Does a “streetcar” run on tires or on a rail track?
The Antiplanner wrote:
Apparently, Metro believes that old canard of rail nuts: capital costs don’t count.
Advocates of passenger rail projects in the United States seem to consistently believe that the money to pay for building the line can (and must) come from other people (and in particular people that don’t use rail transit, usually users of the highway system).
At least since the Urban Mass Transit Administration (today’s Federal Transit Administration) was formed in 1964, I am not aware of the users of any new rail transit system being asked to pay for any of the capital costs. The same can be said of Amtrak’s customers – since Amtrak was formed in 1971, I don’t believe intercity passenger rail patrons have been asked to fund the capital cost of Amtrak locomotives and cars (and in a few places, such as the N.E. Corridor) tracks and right-of-way.
Getting back to Portland, maybe Metro wants to make sure that as little money as possible is spent on transportation projects that involve improvements to (or even maintenance of) the Portland-area highway network?
Metro also apparently believes that no one will bother to read this deep into the EIS.
Highway environmental documents issued in recent years have gotten extremely thorough review and inspection, usually from persons and groups opposed to any and all highway network improvements and additions.
Plz reprint your letter to the Editor, Randal (you are serious, right? Want to make changes, right? Spread the truth, right?) and the exchange on this site.
DS
“I am not aware of the users of any new rail transit system being asked to pay for any of the capital costs.”
This is mostly true for all transit, not just rail. Most buses are paid for by FTA grants. Public funds also go to technology like Mobile Data Computers, Automatic Vehicle Locators and so forth. Tax dollars also go to operating costs too. For the most part, all transit is heavily subsidized, regardless of typology.
Also, despite what the FTA states, separating capital costs from operating costs is common practice in Transit, bus or rail.
Where is Megabus?
Borealis asked “Does a “streetcar†run on tires or on a rail track?”
It’s a small rail coach that runs on a track built into or at grade with the street. It’s essentially a small train car that shares the road with automobiles (something lamented by many here).
I’ve mentioned this before, and I’d still like to know if there are any studies that evaluate streetcars’ impacts on CO2 emissions.
Certainly, the new construction takes years of ridership to equalize.
Additionally, I have noticed disruptions to the flow of traffic of the streetcar line in Seattle that results in many cars idling at lights as the streetcar, with its few passengers, is given the right away.
Others have noted that Portland’s streetcar is almost as slow as walking (and when I skateboarded, I beat the slow beast from NW 23rd to downtown).
Again, are there any studies that show that streetcars are financially sustainable and reduce CO2?
Bennett wrote:
This is mostly true for all transit, not just rail. Most buses are paid for by FTA grants. Public funds also go to technology like Mobile Data Computers, Automatic Vehicle Locators and so forth. Tax dollars also go to operating costs too. For the most part, all transit is heavily subsidized, regardless of typology.
Correct. But with the exception of some (fairly unusual) exclusive busways, like the ones found in Pittsburgh, Penna., the cost for a bus right-of-way is shared with the users of the streets and highways over which the bus runs.
There usually are no complex signal systems, no interlockings, no tracks, no catenary, no high-voltage power supply systems and usually relatively inexpensive bus stops.
Antiplanner,
Based on my experience with reading through, and submitting public comments to EIS’s made public by my local government transit agency, you can count on your comments, protests, and analysis being completely blown away by simple one line replies.
1) When the agency made the usual claims (albeit weak ones because we don’t have zoning) that rail promotes economic development, I walked up and down our rail line and took several dozen photographs of boarded up buildings, buildings defaced with graffiti, and with “for lease” signs in front of them that were (and are) directly located right on the rail line. I submitted all the photos in my reply, detailing where the photos were taken and what were in the photos. I also noted newspaper articles stating that most of the new development in our metropolitan area were out in the suburbs, far away from the rail line.
What was the agency’s response? “Rail has been shown elsewhere to promote economic development.”
2) I took bus trips on one bus route and calculated that if my transit agency were to do nothing, but were to convert the bus lines along one rail route to rapid bus routes, there would be practically no travel time savings along the route. I also argued that there was not much traffic congestion along streets where rail lines were to run, and I submitted photos to argue my case. That issue was not addressed in one EIS response.
3) I also questioned whether the agency could afford to build the rail lines. That also was blown away, by the agency stating that they did regular updates on costs, blah blah blah. However, they’ve run into real trouble on making that claim, both with the State and with the FTA. They’ve run into so much trouble with the State that the agency has hired lawyers at $790 per hour to argue that the agency does have the finances to float bonds and build these trains.
I could go on, but readers should be able to catch the drift. After going what I went through, I’ve come to the conclusion that just because Congress passed the NEPA Act, it doesn’t confer any legitimacy to anything that these agencies do. The EIS process is just another bull**** government make work program that agencies have to waste your taxpayer dollars on, as their political constituencies laugh their way to the bank and waste your tax dollars.
“The Antiplanner turned almost at random to page 6-10 (physical page 398)”
Yep. Isn’t serendipity wonderful?
“Borealis asked “Does a “streetcar†run on tires or on a rail track?—
You can get some tourist ones that run on rubber tyres. But what does it all matter, if it is only named desire?
Each time I’ve ask for empirical evidence that streetcars reduce CO2 and/or are financially sustainable, all I get are crickets chirping.
Each time I’ve ask for empirical evidence that streetcars reduce CO2 and/or are financially sustainable, all I get are crickets chirping.
That is because you are not approaching this from the appropriate angle.
Projects such as this one or the Milwaukie light rail are part of the planners’ toolkit in socially engineering the area and waging silent war against the automobile and, by extension, mobility.
When one of these projects is announced, other planners will look on with admiration. Wish their agency had Metro’s or Trimet’s audacity in foisting this insanity upon the unsuspecting public.
They may squabble about some of the finer points of the project, such as the color and/or design of the stops, or maybe the project’s alignment, if they really have balls. But ultimately they will never ask the hard questions, such as:
Should this project be built?
Do we have the money to build this?
Does this project even make sense?
Planners will never ask, or answer, these questions because they are not interested in the questions or the answers. In fact, that might even make the projects less desirable to the public. That is why intellectual midgets such as Dan have resorted to sarcastically attacking Randal’s spelling, grammar, or logic.
But never, ever fundamentally questioning their fellow planners’ plans. That would not be kosher.
I hope this answers your question/questions.
“That is why intellectual midgets such as Dan have resorted to sarcastically attacking Randal’s spelling, grammar, or logic.”
While I don’t always agree with Dan, I think this statement from the previous comment weakens any contribution to the discussion. Dan is very educated and bright; just because someone doesn’t share the same worldview/ideology does not make that person an “intellectual midget”. Don’t see Dan attacking spelling or grammar of late, certainly not the AP’s. Logic? That’s always up for questioning. It’s the price of publishing a blog on the www.
What I have observed lately is a lot of mudslinging like that in the above post.
Let’s elevate the discussion and eschew personal attacks.
And no, it doesn’t answer my question about empirical evidence regarding street cars and CO2 reduction and financial sustainability. I have searched and requested but assume no such evidence exists.
There is no empirical evidence that they reduce CO2, because they don’t. And there is no evidence there are financially sustainable, because they aren’t. The onus is on the streetcar promoters to provide such evidence. Extraordinary claims (such as the one that streetcars drive billions in development) require extraordinary proof.
As for the personal attacks/mudslinging, Dan engages in it constantly. His so-called education is irrelevant. Planners with the same education foist all sorts of nightmares upon us on a daily basis. Their education doesn’t make them intelligent. Rather, it promotes a feeling of superiority and smugness that Dan has often employed here. I have no respect for him whatsoever, because his presence here is intended to attack Randal and protect planners in general. You will never see Dan come out against any of the planning nightmares revealed here constantly. He defends every one, or at worst, remains silent.
“Let’s elevate the discussion and eschew personal attacks.”
Hear hear!
“Let’s elevate the discussion and eschew personal attacks.â€
Count me in.