Los Angeles transit officials are eagerly contemplating the opportunity to spend money converting the Orange bus-rapid transit line into a light-rail line. To promote this idea, they are letting people know that light rail will be faster, more comfortable, and operate more frequently (so riders will be less likely to have to stand) than buses.
These lanes are exclusively dedicated to buses, but transit agency officials say they need to replace them with light rail because there is no room to run more than one bus every eight minutes.
Of course, all of these things are wrong. The current bus line averages 26 mph, about 4 mph faster than the average light-rail line. Buses can be just as comfortable as light rail, and when vehicles are full, a higher percentage of bus riders get to sit down (about two-thirds as opposed to less than half). As for frequencies, the current schedule of the Orange line calls for one bus every eight minutes at rush hour. Since the road is closed to all other traffic, somehow I think they could squeeze a few more in if they wanted to.
That the line is a bus line at all is due to a curious law passed in 1991 forbidding the use of rail in the corridor, which had been used by Pacific Electric streetcars until 1952. So Metro built an exclusive bus corridor at a cost of $18 million a mile–$22 million in today’s money. That law was repealed a few weeks ago, allowing L.A. Metro officials to think about spending more money in the corridor.
Years ago, a researcher named Jonathan Richmond interviewed Los Angeles public officials and discovered a disconnect between their views of light rail and reality. The interviews would go something like this:
“Why do you support light rail?”
“Because it is so fast, people are sure to want to ride it.”
“You know it will only go 22 miles per hour.”
A viagra pill team of qualified and experienced sports therapists in Dublin. Apart from that salmons and nuts are also great sources of Arginine. levitra no prescription Headache, facial flushing etc. are some of the most viagra free pill common propels which lead to sexual dysfunction or performance. Webcopy Services the levels of sugar in the blood, urine and usually go back to normal and continue to remain order cialis online look here stable with the help of chiropractic adjustments. “Really? I thought it would be faster than that.”
“Yes, and many light-rail lines are even slower than that. So, now why do you support light rail?”
“Because it is so fast.”
The same disconnect continues today. After a collision between a bus and a car at an intersection, officials slowed down the buses, and one state senator warned that the bus line was “unsafe at any speed.” But trains will be able to go faster because being hit by a 300,000-pound train is so much safer than being hit by a 50,000-pound bus.
“With as many as 40,000 new jobs expected” in the area, officials say, “a light-rail system that could handle up to 60,000 riders a day is needed.” Because a bus line couldn’t possibly move that many people per day, could it?
Buses, in fact, have a clear capacity advantage over light rail. For example, Metro could rebuild platforms at each station to handle four buses at a time. Each bus could stop at each station for up to a minute unloading and loading passengers. Then the line could move four buses per minute, each capable of hold 100 people, for a total of 24,000 people per hour. By comparison, three-car light-rail trains, each car hold 150 passengers, can safely operate no more frequently than every three minutes, thus moving about 9,000 people per hour.
Moreover, buses have at least two other huge advantages over rail. First, without reducing the number of other buses, express buses could be added that skip some of the stops along the route. Because light-rail lines have no passing tracks, they have no options for express rail.
Second, when reaching the end of the exclusive bus lanes, the buses can continue on city streets, reaching more neighborhoods and job centers. Trains have to stop when the reach the end of rails, forcing people to transfer.
Los Angeles’ fixation with rail reminds me of Cordelia Chase, the Valley girl who was Buffy’s in-school nemesis in Buffy the Vampire Slayer. In an early episode, we overhear Cordelia tell her friends, “When I go shopping, I have to have the most expensive thing. Not because it’s expensive, but because it costs more.”
This attitude has many causes, but it is reinforced by the fact that spending more money creates more opportunities for contractors to earn profits and generates more political favors. But spending more on rail also means spending less on something else. Since rail has no inherent advantage over bus, and many disadvantages, a decision to convert the Orange line to light rail would reveal a callous disregard for both the facts and for taxpayers’ interests.
yikes this is kind of a garbage post unfortunately
comparing “the average light rail line” to specific headways on a specific transit line? ok let’s let that one slide for now…
ending a paragraph with “I THINK they could squeeze a few more in”… seems a bit sophomoric but let’s see where this is going…
including a section of paraphrased hearsay “interviews” with public officials… well that makes me feel weird but surely there’s a purpose to all this, right?
But, the point where I actually start having trouble with this post, is when the RIDICULOUS claim is made, that collisions involving buses and autos, are somehow as equally dangerous as collisions between trains and autos… for the auto passengers, obviously. But being a passenger on a fixed guideway train is going to be significantly safer than a free-wheeling bus, in almost any type of incident. That is one of the fundamental reasons why BRT has trouble catching on and generally gets converted to rail as soon and funding and/or legal hurdles are surmounted. Everyone knows that an independently steered and operated vehicle (by a human) on a ROW wider than the vehicle, put passengers at a greater risk than one on a fixed guideway with proven signaling systems. Regardless of if you’re standing or sitting…
After that this post just descends into pure speculation… rebuild the platforms to allow more buses to stop, and then run them together with sub- 1 minute headways? Sure, that sounds real safe (ummm?)… Build passing lanes or something so that express buses can run on the line? Great but that can be (and is) done with rail transit too (ie the famous example of NYC that some folks are so confused about)… Buses switching to surface streets to continue routes? Ok, makes SOME sense, but that will reduce occupancy on certain departures and is probably better served by a robust transfer network at the orange line terminals (which is how they already do it)
Want to get serious about BRT, take a look at Ottawa where they managed to combine buses with a fixed guideway… However i get the “weird feeling” that AP doesn’t want to hold Red Canada up as an example (even when it is)… much easier and safer to go after marginal transit systems in moderate voting areas (like the LA suburbs)
so gattboy,
did you stay up jerking off to light rail photos until the antiplanner posted this so you could write that tedious pretending-to-be-innocently-curious-yet-subtly-questioning-and-implying-the-AP-is-a-liar post of yours?
L0L i’d hope you would understand by now, that urbanists jerk off to HEAVY RAIL photos (the Chicago El comes to mind)… San Fernando Valley LRT is waaaaay too softcore for my tastes
from Runner’s World. In my youth I had opportunities race that trolley, during rush hour it wasn’t that hard to out run (especiallly since I could run red lights and it couldn’t!)..
http://www.runnersworld.com/general-interest/runners-narrowly-win-race-against-boston-trolley
comparing “the average light rail line” to specific headways on a specific transit line? ok let’s let that one slide for now…
Yep, I thought that was amusing too. Also this: “Buses can be just as comfortable as light rail”. Again the AP is comparing (apparently) the average light rail with a specific Best-Case bus – though who knows what kind of bus he is talking about that are as comfortable as light rail – maybe Luxury Coaches riding on the open highway with no jerky stops and starts? Certainly not the existing bus line, which is the only comparison that is relevant here.
Buses, in fact, have a clear capacity advantage over light rail. For example, Metro could rebuild platforms at each station to handle four buses at a time. Each bus could stop at each station for up to a minute unloading and loading passengers. Then the line could move four buses per minute, each capable of hold 100 people, for a total of 24,000 people per hour. By comparison, three-car light-rail trains, each car hold 150 passengers, can safely operate no more frequently than every three minutes, thus moving about 9,000 people per hour.
Also I’d be interested to know where the AP gets his numbers about loading/unloading given all the parameters he mentions (dwell time, capacity per vehicle, etc?) And what about modifying signal priorities, how are those modeled?
Again, the AP is comparing the best bus case against light rail, not the actually existing bus. This seems in bad faith to me, because the AP does not actually support improving bus service in the way that he describes! He would actually be against it, in fact, and complain that it was unfairly favoring bus passengers over cars.
Meanwhile, ridership on LA’s rail system increases 20% from 2010 to 2013.
Run the numbers yourself:
http://isotp.metro.net/MetroRidership/IndexRail.aspx
287,921: ridership in 2010
363,092: ridership in 2013
(1-(287921/363092))*100 = 20.70301741707335881900
Metro,
Another troll joins the ranks. She is completely unable to write or to post supporting evidence, and is quite possibly the Highwayman’s meatpuppet. As for the sophomoric comment, that seems apropos; the teenage girl should take a look at her own writing, which is actually not even up to 10th grade standards.
Last gravitar on the page. Writing style matches. Is Canadian –> http://valuecanuck.wordpress.com/2010/11/15/purchase-decision-winter-tires-part-1/
Click on that gravitar. –> http://en.gravatar.com/hornyforhorner
Horny for Horner? WTF?
Google that –> Teenage girl. http://hornyforhorner.tumblr.com/FAQ
Or perhaps our ‘boy just masquerades as a teenage girl for fun.
“Meanwhile, ridership on LA’s rail system increases 20% from 2010 to 2013.”
If you build it, they will come, particularly those who live 1/2 a mile or less from it, according to a study. Would they take were if they had to pay the actual cost of a ticket rather than the subsidized rate?
Additionally, only about 2-3% of all trips (nationwide) are on transit. So 20% of not very much is still not very much.
Would be interesting to know what percent of all trips in LA are taken on transit.
Frank,
I’d say he’s a “guy”, because the average woman isn’t going to spend time posting, as you said, its sophomoric nonsense, defending government bs. Now that I can see a bigger picture, looks like a creep, which again, describes the average person who would waste their time “defending” government despotism on a random blog.
Back on topic:
There are two big problems with The Antiplanner’s musings about the allegedly higher capacity of BRT versus LRT.
First, with surface busways like the Orange Line that have level crossings with streets, bus service reliability falls apart if buses run more frequently than every 3-4 minutes. This corresponds to roughly twice the traffic signal cycle times; more frequently that this, buses start to clump and bunch at signalized intersections. Trying to run buses more frequently than every 3-4 minutes (2 signal cycles) on a surface level busway without grade separations does not work because it will create an almost solid wall of bus traffic, bringing cross traffic almost to a halt, or at least big delays.
If there is any place that has successfully operated buses consistently in platoons on a busway with level crossings during an extended rush hour, and consistently every day, The Antiplanner needs to provide an example. And 60-80 buses per hour assuming 4 bus platoons every 3-4 minutes at current per vehicle loadings (actually <80 per vehicle) is a capacity of 5,000-6,000 per hour. The Antiplanner’s figure of 24,000 passengers per hour is achievable but only on grade separated busways, such as the Lincoln Tunnel lanes serving the 220+ berth Port Authority Bus Terminal in New York City.
Compared to the existing Orange Line terminals, buses arriving far more frequently than the current service will require expanded terminal facilities at each end. Whether there is sufficient space for expanded bus loops and unloading/loading areas remains is a site-specific issue I’m not sure about. Buses certainly can run off the end of the busway, but then adding a myriad of routes on the busway would complicate operations further—surface buses arriving at the beginning of the busway would have variable schedule adherence, most likely arrive at the end of the busway with random, variable wait times while the platoons were assembled.
These busway operating limitations could be solved by grade-separating the busway. But constructing grade separations at all the major streets would cost upwards of $500 million, a figure similar to what it would cost to convert the line to LRT while retaining grade crossings. So why does it surprise anyone, including The Antiplanner, that decision makers prefer what Los Angeles County voters have approved more than once, and most transit users prefer (as opposed to what non-transit users and rail haters such as The Antiplanner, some posters here, and many academics demand that they prefer?)
Back off topic:
Michael Setty posts a 414-word comment that few will read. He ignores the egregious grammatical gaffes of anyone who shares the same ideology and will undoubtedly be unable to resist the urge to respond to this trolling comment.
There’s many examples of Bus Rapid Transit that the AP could compare favorably to the existing LA Orange line “if he really cared about” (to adapt a phrase he’s so fond of) the Orange line rider’s trips.
He could look at the success other countries have had with BRT such as:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TransMilenio
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexico_City_Metrob%C3%BAs
But you have to understand, the AP’s goal is not to improve public transit, but prevent it from improving. Why would he want to improve it? That would make it that much harder to dismantle when the opportunity is ripe.
“the Orange line rider’s trips.”
Yes, the one rider’s trip. Hyperbole? Freudian?
However, when transit trips in LA account for 1-2% of ALL trips, the gaffe becomes more accurate. The percent of all trips in LA taken on the Orange Line must be far, far, far, far below 1%.
If those who use the Orange Line care so much about their trips, let them pay the unsubsidized rate.
Frank said:
If those who use the Orange Line care so much about their trips, let them pay the unsubsidized rate.
As if the act of driving is unsubsidized, which it is and by virtually every other part of the economy except the act of driving itself (which only covers the direct operating costs of motor vehicles). Even road construction and maintenance don’t cover their direct costs anymore, subsidized by roughly one dollar in general fund revenues at all levels of ‘gummit’ for every dollar collected in “user fees.”
Oh, yes, don’t forget that there is no such animal as “free parking”, because every type of land use pays for parking as part of the overall cost of doing business…well, except for the 1%-2% of auto trips in our cities that do have “paid” parking.
msetty, also don’t forget the 100 TRILLION stolen directly from transit users fees and used to subsidize auto drivers and paid to contractors (as tax abatements) to convince them to build only single family homes in the suburbs.
This blog has explored this over the last 8+ years.
One cent of subsidies per passenger mile for driving versus many multiples for public transit.
Let drivers pay the actual cost of driving, too!
And the cow grazers pay the actual cost of grazing cows!
And the beef buyers pay the actual cost of buying beef!
And the campers pay the actual cost of camping!
And on and on and on and on. But nice try.
But keep on trollin’!
Don’t forget! The book shippers should pay the actual cost of shipping their books too!
L0L
If those who use the Orange Line care so much about their trips, let them pay the unsubsidized rate.
Well, that would be one way to handle the supposed ‘capacity’ issue mentioned here. Assuming the demand curve is downward-sloping, this would ease the peak load placed on the system. Another possibility would be to offer significant off-peak discounts to riders in order to encourage them to shift their trips to non-peak periods and thus spread loads more evenly throughout the day.
But the long run, planners should be re-evaluating the Orange Line and the corridor it serves. Is there any reason for this service to be confined to the present busway, other than the fact that the right-of-way to initially build it was there? I don’t think so. There really aren’t any major destinations between North Hollywood and the Warner Center/Chatsworth area. The stations merely coincide with north-south arterials, some of which may have bus service. If this is so, why not consider providing additional services within this corridor which don’t operate on the busway? Routes could follow parallel streets like Victory Boulevard, Sherman Way, Vanowen Street, or even the Ventura Freeway, making stops at intermediate destinations or transfer points to other routes.
This kind of design would significantly increase the capacity of the corridor without the need for much, if any, new infrastructure. It is the antithesis of the thinking of rail planners, who presume that all traffic in a corridor must be funneled into a single trunk line in order to justify investment in a fixed guideway.
Consider though, the rationale given by the ‘officials’ for this conversion, namely that it would be faster, more frequent and more comfortable. It is unlikely that it will be faster, since it follows the same route as the current busway, would stop at the same stations, and would have no other apparent operational advantages. It is also unlikely that it would operate any more frequently than current service, since replacing buses with trains is likely to result in longer, not shorter, headways. Thirdly, it is questionable whether the service will be any more comfortable. The primary issue cited in the article was frequent instances of people standing. Of course, this is a common element of just about any fixed guideway transit operation. The supposed capacity advantage often cited by LRT advocates relies on assumptions about large shares of riders standing during operation. This is almost certainly what would happen if the Orange Line is converted, and it is hard to imagine the experience being any more comfortable as a result.
Interesting points, MJ. Certainly if transit were operated as a business, or roads for that matter, and as I’ve said before, there would be peak and off-peak pricing that would match actual costs. The peak and off peak pricing currently peddled by transit operators is window dressing and comes no where near actual costs.
The idea of getting away from corridors/arterials is interesting. Would NIMBYism be more likely to occur? I wouldn’t be happy as a homeowner in eastern Portland if the MAX stop, and the thugs who frequent it, moved from 162nd and Burnside to the quiet neighborhood street in front of my theoretical house.
Certainly the situation you describe is unique (and I’m not that familiar with LA’s arterial roads).
Your analysis is spot on, though, and as I’ve mentioned, standing is particularly difficult for senior citizens and parents with young children.
couple quick notes- thanks for digging up all that stuff based on my avvy pic, really interesting… I chose hornyforhorner as my handle for bike racing sites because I AM horny for Chris Horner (possibly the top pro cyclist in the whole US) and he trains in my town! And yes we get our fair share of snow here so I have strong opinions on winter tires (if anyone’s in the market for a set I’m happy to give a few pointers)
I love that pic, its me with my blue-ribbon winning fingerling potatoes at the county fair a few years back!
Anyways my other reason for choosing hornyforhorner was the hope that no one else would dare select such a ridiculous login (being a free-thinker ‘n all)… however as per usual in the world of cycling, I find out today that the Belgians will have the last laugh. I guess hornyforhorner must mean something really different in Flemish (or maybe not, perhaps there’s something universally appealing about 42 year old bald guys who are great climbers)
but as the wise among us say, back on topic…
The system you describe, where people pay the “actual cost” for their cars and trains and beef and camping, sounds really great of course- however even in such a setup, infrastructure will exist to prevent you from stealing my beef, although that would certainly lower your “actual cost,” (because it will raise my “actual cost”)… Even libertarianism acknowledges the need for base level property and contract protections (ie police and defense forces) for those reasons.
which leads us to a snippet of extrapolation… much of the subsidies for automotive travel are invisible because they are funded through the defense/security aspect of the budget, ensuring access and transport of necessary raw materials from unfriendly nations. Because most libertarian leaning voters don’t object to the security functions of the state, it therefore makes the fallacy of road subsidies being smaller than transit subsidies, surprisingly easy to fall into, because the DIRECT subsidies in the transport budget are inarguably much smaller
of course none of this even gets close to the real debate as far as whether invisible subsidies for expensive foreign resources and systems, are really more fair or free, than upfront subsidies for more efficient and local systems… i guess thats kind of what all the brouhaha on this blog is about
“Even libertarianism acknowledges the need for base level property and contract protections (ie police and defense forces) for those reasons.”
Policing and defense do not have to be forced upon people by a monopolistic state. This is where you have only the most rudimentary understanding of libertarianism.
“Because most libertarian leaning voters don’t object to the security functions of the state”
Here again you engage in the bare assertion fallacy. Please provide evidence. Are you capable? Step up your game, ‘boy.
regarding the orange line conversion topic…
While moving services off the busway will obviously help other neighborhoods, it will also increase journey times absent some kind of peak/off peak pricing model. The whole point of grade separation is that it provides faster travel speed, and while the orange line may not be as fast as you like now, moving the service back on surface streets will only make that aspect worse. This is what LA did for decades for before they started moving towards a grade-separated transit corridor model. Even if we’re talking about adding parallel bus services along nearby streets and freeways, those generally already exist and are slower, which means they are used less than the corridor by through travelers. Which brings us back to why urban areas choose corridors in the first place.
And the rationales for conversion to LRT were indeed “namely that it would be faster, more frequent and more comfortable” but also safer, which is something that i think is almost more important than the other three, even though I don’t find it impossible to imagine improvements in those metrics as well. Certainly if the trouble is taken to convert from a busway to a rail line its conceivable that better cross street separation or signal timing might be part of the package (although that is hypothetical), serving to increase speed.
Gattboy:
Don’t let the crotchety old farts on this blog get you down…just ignore the rude ones. You seem to be a nice, easy-going person who surely will upset some of the old farts.
You may be still learning to write, but your logic is impeccable. And I can assure you that motor vehicle subsidies go way beyond just what the Pentagon spends on keeping the oil flowing from the Middle East. Way, way beyond.
Here are some links to fill you in on many of the details of this issue, if you continue your interest:
http://daily.sightline.org/2013/08/28/parking-karma/ A good starting point about the topic of parking (seems boring, I’m sure, but Donald Shoup has actually made it interesting).
Also try the work of the “Strong Towns” organization, (the best starting point is this blog post: http://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2014/7/24/some-perspective-on-the-gas-tax.html“ which gives a lot of insight into the basic economic problems facing the road system: the road system and its supporting infrastructure is, ignoring such things as the Pentagon, the last entrenched bastion of what in my opinion constitutes “Stalinist economics” impacting the lives of people directly every day (If you care about such things, see http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?a=580. Otherwise, the Wikipedia article on Stalinism may suffice).
If you want to learn more about transit, the best crash-course is to look at all the archived stuff produced by Jarrett Walker over several years at Human Transit (http://www.humantransit.org, and/or buy Jarrett’s book, http://www.amazon.com/Human-Transit-Clearer-Thinking-Communities/dp/1597269727/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1406593005&sr=8-1&keywords=human+transit.
So, again, welcome aboard and don’t let the excessive negativity here get you down.
Excuse me, Gattboy, you don’t need to learn too much about transit if you grew up in Europe, as the Gravatar info shows…but Jarrett’s stuff is still an excellent introduction to the “nuts and bolts” of transit.
yeah, yeah, we’ve all heard of anarcho-capitalism or whatever you want to call it, doesn’t mean anyone (really) supports it, except you I guess…
i mean lets talk about “loss-leaders” for a second… even the private sector subsidizes desired behaviors. Even in the concept of “paying the actual cost for your beef,” with theft-protection and transport privatized, has the chance if not the obligation for subsidies to enter the equation, simply from capitialist behaviors
somewhat similarly with fire codes, from the other thread, while I might see them as an infringement on my unfettered rights of shoddy construction, you see them as protection of your property value and ability to use… haven’t yet figured out how absent a state necessities like fire codes would be handled… I’m honestly curious about what the anarcho-libertarian plan for stuff like that is
Small minded people cannot imagine a society in which the government is not omnipresent. To them, private, profit-seeking behavior is a foreign concept. That is why they don’t understand that oil is sold on a global market, and we curiously do not need a military presence to persuade Venezuela to sell us lots of crude, despite their supposed detesting the USA. To government planners, countries with petroleum would rather keep it in the ground and never sell a drop, for some vague reason they cannot articulate. They believe the world will grind to a halt and fall into a sinkhole without the presence of armed government emissaries telling us what we can and can’t do, and skimming off 20% of our income for the privilege.
msetty- before all this gets overly confusing
I’m american, no idea where that belgian girls blog comes from or why it has an english name the same as my bike-racing accounts, which use my avatar same as here, which is how this all got so silly
thanks for the welcome anyways… keep in mind i write like this on purpose (lol). “Libertarian Punctuation” is one of the great things about blog comments not generally receiving letter grades! And have you seen how quick it gets under some peoples skin??? I love that aspect too, I hope (and expect) that the more reasonable are able to adapt however.
Thanks for all the links and stuff, I’ll take a look… was it you who posted that Human-Scale-City link yesterday? I found that fascinating but not entirely agreeable, surely we will dig deeper into that as time goes on… I have an educational background in these issues but not a professional one. I mostly got into this site having lived in MSP and now living in OR, which seem to be the two areas reserved for special hatred by AP for whatever reason (although i think you and i both secretly understand the reason)
I’m honestly not a dyed-in-the-wool new urbanist however… I keep hoping that cars and transit and density and backyards can all find a way to coexist peacefully at some point. Being the loyal opposition on a blog like this might offer a path towards that goal. We’ll see… I keep looking at chicago as a better model than new york for what its worth
But hey, lets talk about 20% ridership growth on LA rail transit over the last three years! Awesome… I vacation down there relatively frequently and the more I visit (and the more they build) the more comfortable I’m getting with using their transit… glad to hear i’m not alone/crazy
Metrosucks said:
They believe the world will grind to a halt and fall into a sinkhole without the presence of armed government emissaries [the Pentagon??] telling us what we can and can’t do, and skimming off 20% of our income for the privilege.
You know, Metrosucks, I sorta agree with this, except you throw way, way too wide a net in your condemnation of people who don’t agree with you about the role of government (and par for the course for too many libertarian types, IMHO).
I agree with you at your apparent belief that you think the Pentagon is WAY overextended. But try explaining it to corporatists like this guy, America’s answer to Darth Vader.
“Don’t let the crotchety old fart”
Yes, avoid Michael Setty.
“doesn’t mean anyone (really) supports it, except you I guess”
Bravo! Appeal to the majority! You’re really showing yourself to be a shining star around here.
Hey, Frank, you goofed this time. Thought you were picking on a girl, when you weren’t. Misfire.
Gattboy, you might want to also look at the “Transect” concept which was developed in the 1990’s by one of the leading gurus of New Urbanism, Andrés Duany. The Wikipedia article on the concept is reasonably complete: ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transect_(urban).
Regardless of what people like Metrosucks and Frank incorrectly claim, the Transect concept is actually what most of us actually advocate, not sticking little bits of Manhattan in every city, town and suburb. As a practical matter, this means reviving walkable downtowns and neighborhoods in smaller towns and cities at appropriate densities, with provision for local transit services such as community shuttles and dial-a-rides, with “line haul” bus transit connecting towns and cities, (rail in larger region where there is sufficient traffic potential).
you’d be surprised how much of that i agree with metrosucks… however it doesn’t really explain all the oil related upheaval of the 70s and 80s. IE- things are certainly peaceful now with venezuela and canada and you feel we can get the supplies we need from them, without the hand of the government… will that always be the case? It was the case in persia for many years, until all of a sudden, it wasn’t.
Moreover, are you certain that a private company or companies providing numerous life necessities like energy supplies, will not begin to resemble the government we all hate (a la Alien and Resident Evil)?
Here’s a private company that is attempting to restrict bodily functions… thats just not the kind of unfettered free market I think people want… no matter how strong the desire for freedom is
here’s the link, can’t figure out how to mark it up correctly yet
http://www.wtsp.com/story/news/weird/2014/07/15/bathroom-breaks/12713019/
Frank quoted
“doesn’t mean anyone (really) supports it, except you I guess”
And replied
Bravo! Appeal to the majority! You’re really showing yourself to be a shining star around here.
Frank, ideologically-driven types such as libertarians and “anarcho-capitalists” have proven to be at least as prone to factionalism as the old highly ideological commie parties were. What faction do you belong to?
yeah that transect stuff is pretty cool… always been a fan of mixed-use zoning in general, I have no idea why people could ever be against it. We see it a lot in my part of OR however, where people want every thing to be separated and quiet and low-impact. I have a neighbor who has successfully pressured me not to get a rooster, even though it would make my chickens happier and save me money in flock replacement costs, and even though we don’t live in incorporated land where there are any rooster laws… guess I should tell him about mixed-use fractal rural zoning… i’m sure it would change his mind L0L
Gattboy, well, some people are always making slanderous charges that “Smart Growth” and “New Urbanism” advocates want to force everyone into living in “stack and pack” apartments in central downtowns, e.g., like Manhattan. Of course this is part of the age-old “big lie” technique of those whose ideologies have outrun their common sense. It is also a recycled technique originally developed by the John Birch Society, who graduated from scaring us about commies to now scaring us about the eeevil UN “Agenda 21″…see http://www.treehugger.com/environmental-policy/new-study-looks-people-behind-agenda-21-conspiracy-theories.html for one of many examples documenting this relatively new Bircher project.
Transect is just fancy talk for UGB + the same old tired New Urbanism edicts that don’t work. Nothing new to see here.
Gattboy said:
I have a neighbor who has successfully pressured me not to get a rooster, even though it would make my chickens happier and save me money in flock replacement costs, and even though we don’t live in incorporated land where there are any rooster laws… guess I should tell him about mixed-use fractal rural zoning… i’m sure it would change his mind L0L
Reminds me of former central Bay Area residents who move to the Napa Valley because of the “romantic” (sic) setting of the vineyards, move to the fringe areas to be near the open space, then complain about the fact that working vineyards typically start early in the morning to beat the heat, e.g., like 3:00 a.m. No comparison to roosters. I presume you live somewhere too cold for vineyards? Near Bend?
Keep distorting. It’s all you have.
“Regardless of what people like Metrosucks and Frank incorrectly claim, the Transect concept is actually what most of us actually advocate”
I have never made any claims about the “Transect concept.” That’s a beautiful strawman, though. I’m sure you won’t mind if I use it as an example in class.
Then we see a textbook red herring:
Frank, ideologically-driven types such as libertarians and “anarcho-capitalists” have proven to be at least as prone to factionalism as the old highly ideological commie parties were. What faction do you belong to?
This clearly has nothing to do with the absurd assertion that *I* am the only (begin scare quote) anarcho-capitalist (end scare quote) ever to have existed and to have supported this ideology.
/end responses to mentally deficient and-or mendacious commenters
hahaha exactly, right in “The Edge”… although theres no townhouses within walking distance, or crowing distance for that matter
anyways nope, Transect planning has little or nothing to do with UGBs, from what limited i’ve read… it seems to specifically reject that concept of concentric zoning and bounding, favoring intermixing of zones or the rejection of firm zone-based land use altogether
growing your veggies and milk right in the urban area? sure there are some hiccups but you’d think thats the kind of thing both sides could get behind
Frank, so what term describes your political beliefs now?
From the way you conduct yourself, I speculate that before your conversion from being a Democrat, you were probably a flaming left winger, the same sort of transition from extreme leftism to extreme right wingism undertaken by David Horowitz, for example. It’s really not that big a transition, particularly in temperment.
Frank:
I have never made any claims about the “Transect concept.” That’s a beautiful strawman, though. I’m sure you won’t mind if I use it as an example in class.
Yes, but you and people like Metrosucky routinely claim that “my side” wants to stuff everyone into high density districts like Manhattan. The Transect is useful shorthand for graphically illustrating the gradual transition from “deep rural” if you will, to rural fringe residential including “ranchettes,” to standard U.S. town and small city development (the traditional grid pattern preferred, of course), up to and including the downtown cores of towns, pre-World War II suburbs, and small to big cities–the urban extreme being Manhattan, of course.
<i?anyways nope, Transect planning has little or nothing to do with UGBs, from what limited i’ve read
By “limited”, you mean “not at all, right? From msetty’s wikipedia link:
The Transect has six zones, moving from rural to urban. It begins with two that are entirely rural in character: Rural preserve (protected areas in perpetuity); and Rural reserve (areas of high environmental or scenic quality that are not currently preserved, but perhaps should be).
Now if that doesn’t sound like Oregon’s UGB, I don’t know what does.
And we also find this nugget….Frank, I guess most planners are basing their entire ideology off this wiki line:
A typical neighborhood would consist of a light commercial area with a bank, general store, pub, coffee shop, and apartments.
Amazing when an entire civilization can be condensed to a single sentence from a wikipedia article!
Note also how the real msetty pops out even when no one is insulting him or calling him names, he launches attacks all by himself. I believe you were saying this very thing, Frank, when msetty interrupted that line of thought with some name calling?
Metrosucks, if an accurate characterization of your M.O. is an “attack” so be it. Just like evolution is an “attack” on “Creationism.”
Are you confused, we are talking about you, maybe you should go read what you wrote msetty. You don’t call people names because you’re giving back what you got, you do it cause that’s what you think you should do. Then you have the nerve to act like the victim.
i guess you don’t know OR’s ugb system that well then… and yes I only heard about transect planning about 10 mins ago so I’m going off that one link, but what it says seems pretty clear to me
The difference between a UGB and this is the idea of lateral networking between zones. a Ugb establishes concentric and generally impermeable zones around a core.
And let’s be clear, even absent any zoning regs or political actions, a city will have boundaries… they might be natural like water or hills, they might simply be travel distance or cost, but yes Virgina, a city stops sooner or later. The idea that attempting to codify and troubleshoot such a boundary is somehow dictatorial, is a silly/stupid idea
Furthermore rural reserves exist across a wide spectrum of urban development across the centuries, in both high-impact statist forms and lower impact voluntary ones… in a city without growth laws the rural reserve is just called “the sticks” or whatever, but it looks and acts exactly the same as a mandated reserve like in OR.
Frankly I’m more curious about the sprawl impact of transect planning. It sounds like it could encourage leapfrogging urban centers because of the lateral zoning model… thats probably why some folks mistake it for a UGB, because in high demand metro areas it probably would get implemented alongside concentric growth restrictions, but there’s no direct connection in the theories from what I can tell. In a smaller town or city with lower demand pressure, it would be much easier to see the transect work without any need for UGB type regs
Interesting – I thought I posted a link to a discussion on Donald Shoup and it seems to have been lost. Here it is again:
http://marketurbanism.com/2011/04/07/a-far-too-long-rebuttal-of-randal-otoole-on-parking/
Planners think they are so smart, definitely smarter than the average citizen (who, at least, is productively contributing to society, unlike a planner). They think if they reverse the word duck to kcud, it’s a different animal all of a sudden. Kind of like pretending transect has nothing, nothing! to do with urban growth boundaries, despite the clear description of a de facto UGB in the transect catechism.
That is how Uncle Stalin turned killing millions into a “purge” (making it sound like garbage or infection was swept out), and the killing of millions in China was a “great step forward” instead of mass murder. You see, when millions are “purged”, they aren’t killed, they are just swept away in the dustbin of history , to satisfy arbitrary government standards that require constant replenishment with blood and treasure. Planners love playing with words because that lets them do the previously impermissible as long as they find a suitable term to gloss over the reality of their actions.
if i remember correctly, it was also uphill both ways in the snow…
Institutional government planners also love cracking inane jokes to deflect attention from the horrible results of the policies they draft. To a planner, a human life is nothing more than a Ritz cracker, a tiny little morsel to satisfy the State’s (choir of angels) desire for blood for a millisecond.