Discussion:
Sam Adams' Streetcar Plan
(too old to reply)
Paul J. Berg
2007-07-22 01:02:49 UTC
Permalink
~

From The (Portland) Oregonian - July 21, 2007

Could you imagine a streetcar line up Northeast Sandy Boulevard?

And how about Hawthorne, Killingsworth and Woodstock, just to name a few
more?
The Portland Streetcar, long considered a downtown transit and
redevelopment tool, could reach disparate parts of the city under a
vision described on Friday by City Commissioner Sam Adams in a speech to
the Portland City Club. The commissioner oversees the Portland Office of
Transportation, which is developing a 30-year rail transit plan for the
city, with implications for the metro area.

"What would Portland look like if we implemented solutions to global
warming and peak oil?" Adams said. "It would look a lot like Portland
circa 1920, a time when the main means of motion were your feet,
streetcars and bikes."

The rail transit vision for the region was just one factor in a
wide-ranging speech on transportation that Adams portrayed as an
overwhelmed, underfunded system with a dire backlog of delayed
maintenance.

"Portland's streets are killing and injuring people despite the fact
that we know how to make them safer," Adams said. "We have lacked
adequate funds to implement safety solutions, to enforce traffic laws
and educate road users."

The speech, titled "From here to there in tomorrow's Portland," provided
Adams' vision for the city's transportation needs decades into the
future. The ballroom of civic activists at The Governor Hotel could have
been forgiven for confusing it with a campaign address. Adams is known
to be considering higher office, and big visions decades in the making
are some of the ingredients that can inspire others to think of a city
official as mayoral or congressional in stature.

The Portland area faces several major transportation challenges, Adams
said, aside from the rush-hour gridlock most people are familiar with.

City streets aren't safe enough. Specifically, nearly 60 miles of the
city's busiest streets don't have sidewalks.

"With such a gap in our transportation system, I don't blame parents for
not wanting their kids to walk or bike to school, which contributes to
the rise in childhood obesity," Adams said. The city's basic road and
bridge system is "crumbling," he said, with at least $422 million in
repairs needed. Another $325 million would be required to fix Multnomah
County's Willamette River bridges, he said.

The potential unraveling of the region's land-use laws -- most
pointedly, the urban growth boundary -- at the hands of voter-approved
Measure 37 could further deepen the problems, he said.

"If the UGB goes, likely so, too, will the remaining capacity of our
road and freeway systems," Adams said. "This is a disaster in the
making."

Along with the challenges, Adams asserted that he's made progress in his
two years supervising the transportation bureau in several ways:

The city, along with other regional governments, persuaded the state
Legislature to approve $250 million for a light-rail extension from
Milwaukie to downtown Portland. Another $20 million was approved for
streetcar projects.

The city's first transportation safety summit led to $11 million in city
money for improvements to Portland's most dangerous intersections. That
has already resulted in new crosswalks on Northwest 23rd Avenue and
Northeast Alberta Street, and 100 new school crossing beacons, among
other recent projects.

Portland's first freight mobility master plan has identified important
corridors for freight movement that could minimize impacts on
residential neighborhoods.

The department also plans an expansion of the network of bicycle
boulevards, streets where residents have ready automobile access but are
dominated by bicycle use.

The more lofty future goals are intended to have a direct impact on
land-use decisions in the city limits. Adams wants to see more dense
residential and mixed-use development along existing transit lines, such
as the yellow Interstate MAX line, and future lines.

"The slow pace of redevelopment along the yellow line in North Portland
concerns me," Adams said.

"Every transit station in the city should be a vibrant micro-community
with its own unique sense of place and identity," he said. "We need to
maximize the return on our multi-billion dollar transit investments with
station area development that makes walking, bicycling and transit the
easiest and best set of travel choices."

~

Poster's Note: Running streetcar lines down Sandy, Killingsworth,
Hawthorne or Woodstock would not reduce traffic congestion. In fact, it
is more than likely will increase the traffic congestion on these
streets. Not to mention costing millions of dollars.

~
Lobby Dosser
2007-07-22 02:17:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul J. Berg
The more lofty future goals are intended to have a direct impact on
land-use decisions in the city limits. Adams wants to see more dense
residential and mixed-use development along existing transit lines,
such as the yellow Interstate MAX line, and future lines.
"The slow pace of redevelopment along the yellow line in North
Portland concerns me," Adams said.
"Every transit station in the city should be a vibrant micro-community
with its own unique sense of place and identity," he said. "We need to
maximize the return on our multi-billion dollar transit investments
with station area development that makes walking, bicycling and
transit the easiest and best set of travel choices."
But wait! Wasn't all this done on the "If we build it they will come."
basis?
george conklin
2007-07-22 11:50:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lobby Dosser
Post by Paul J. Berg
The more lofty future goals are intended to have a direct impact on
land-use decisions in the city limits. Adams wants to see more dense
residential and mixed-use development along existing transit lines,
such as the yellow Interstate MAX line, and future lines.
"The slow pace of redevelopment along the yellow line in North
Portland concerns me," Adams said.
"Every transit station in the city should be a vibrant micro-community
with its own unique sense of place and identity," he said. "We need to
maximize the return on our multi-billion dollar transit investments
with station area development that makes walking, bicycling and
transit the easiest and best set of travel choices."
But wait! Wasn't all this done on the "If we build it they will come."
basis?
Historically of course street cars are what made cities sprawl in the first
place, not cars, which were not an issue in the 1890s-1910s. However, today
that is NOT the case and seems to reflect the idea that we can send the
clock back to 1920 simply by wishing it so. Further, if a street car
expands the radius of a city, then the car will fill in the areas between
the trolley lines and thus really expand the urbanized areas. It could
happen.
Steven
2007-07-22 16:50:49 UTC
Permalink
Who's drinking fancy beer while planning PT?
Rev. Bob 'Bob' Crispen
2007-07-22 20:32:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by george conklin
Historically of course street cars are what made cities sprawl in
the first place, not cars, which were not an issue in the
1890s-1910s.
I recall that rail and light rail led to town-like clustering around
the stations and stops, not sprawl.
--
Rev. Bob "Bob" Crispen
revbob at crispen dot org
Ex Cathedra weblog: http://blog.crispen.org/

Justice works when the arbiter isn't driven by the impulses that
drive the crime. Society is able to stand in judgement of a criminal
when society doesn’t do what the criminal does. - after Jesse Taylor
Baxter
2007-07-22 20:58:27 UTC
Permalink
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by Rev. Bob 'Bob' Crispen
Post by george conklin
Historically of course street cars are what made cities sprawl in
the first place, not cars, which were not an issue in the
1890s-1910s.
I recall that rail and light rail led to town-like clustering around
the stations and stops, not sprawl.
Conklin has a very strange definition of "sprawl"
Steven
2007-07-22 23:15:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rev. Bob 'Bob' Crispen
Post by george conklin
Historically of course street cars are what made cities sprawl in
the first place, not cars, which were not an issue in the
1890s-1910s.
I recall that rail and light rail led to town-like clustering around
the stations and stops, not sprawl.
--
Rev. Bob "Bob" Crispen
revbob at crispen dot org
Ex Cathedra weblog:http://blog.crispen.org/
Justice works when the arbiter isn't driven by the impulses that
drive the crime. Society is able to stand in judgement of a criminal
when society doesn't do what the criminal does. - after Jesse Taylor
WHO?
lein
2007-07-30 03:20:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lobby Dosser
Post by Paul J. Berg
The more lofty future goals are intended to have a direct impact on
land-use decisions in the city limits. Adams wants to see more dense
residential and mixed-use development along existing transit lines,
such as the yellow Interstate MAX line, and future lines.
"The slow pace of redevelopment along the yellow line in North
Portland concerns me," Adams said.
"Every transit station in the city should be a vibrant micro-community
with its own unique sense of place and identity," he said. "We need to
maximize the return on our multi-billion dollar transit investments
with station area development that makes walking, bicycling and
transit the easiest and best set of travel choices."
But wait! Wasn't all this done on the "If we build it they will come."
basis?
The Beaverton Round comes to mind.
Paul Johnson
2007-07-30 03:30:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by lein
Post by Lobby Dosser
Post by Paul J. Berg
The more lofty future goals are intended to have a direct impact on
land-use decisions in the city limits. Adams wants to see more dense
residential and mixed-use development along existing transit lines,
such as the yellow Interstate MAX line, and future lines.
"The slow pace of redevelopment along the yellow line in North
Portland concerns me," Adams said.
"Every transit station in the city should be a vibrant micro-community
with its own unique sense of place and identity," he said. "We need to
maximize the return on our multi-billion dollar transit investments
with station area development that makes walking, bicycling and
transit the easiest and best set of travel choices."
But wait! Wasn't all this done on the "If we build it they will come."
basis?
The Beaverton Round comes to mind.
What an eyesore! When is that meeting the wrecking ball and getting
replaced with a park and a station open enough that you would actually
want to wait for a train there at night, anyway?
Paul Johnson
2007-07-30 03:27:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lobby Dosser
Post by Paul J. Berg
The more lofty future goals are intended to have a direct impact on
land-use decisions in the city limits. Adams wants to see more dense
residential and mixed-use development along existing transit lines,
such as the yellow Interstate MAX line, and future lines.
"The slow pace of redevelopment along the yellow line in North
Portland concerns me," Adams said.
"Every transit station in the city should be a vibrant micro-community
with its own unique sense of place and identity," he said. "We need to
maximize the return on our multi-billion dollar transit investments
with station area development that makes walking, bicycling and
transit the easiest and best set of travel choices."
But wait! Wasn't all this done on the "If we build it they will come."
basis?
Hillsboro's Orenco was, and that didn't pan out so well. Cities in
general are built with short travel distances in mind, so it's
generally best to implement options that facilitate short-distance
transportation such as walking and cycling. The streetcar really
helps on that walking part and Sandy doesn't exactly have a whole lot
of room for cars that aren't just buzzing through following US-30
anyway.

Would be nice if PPB was better about enforcing the laws about
blocking streetcar stands (since you're not supposed to be ahead of a
streetcar stopped at the station and supposed to plan where you need
to be for a red light next to one in advance), but that's more of a
minor issue than anything.
g***@yahoo.com
2007-07-22 05:03:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul J. Berg
Poster's Note: Running streetcar lines down Sandy, Killingsworth,
Hawthorne or Woodstock would not reduce traffic congestion. In fact, it
is more than likely will increase the traffic congestion on these
streets. Not to mention costing millions of dollars.
The Tuscan Trolley uses sections of track that were de-pavemented and
reconditioned for use, at a very low cost per mile.

Sandy and Killingsworth are a lost cause due to the 42 inch gauge of the
original streetcar lines in that area. However, the SE area (everything
crossing the Hawthorne Bridge) used standard gauge lines, so Hawthorne and
Woodstock might not be too bad to recondition rather than build new,
depending on the quality of what is under the streets.

Some elements of this plan might be good, but it needs to be implemented
properly. To be worthwhile, rail transit needs to be either extremely
frequent (taking advantage of the wear on steel rails over pavement) or
larger capacity (taking advantage of long trains over buses) or otherwise
have some advantage over a bus.

I say this as a railfan: there is no reason to put streetcar lines in
various places in Portland if all they will do is be a replacement for
existing bus service that operates at the same capacity and same speed.
What's the point? Unless you are located in, say, India and need to
employ several hundred of otherwise unoccupied laborers, there isn't any
point to tear up all these streets to wind up with the same thing we
already have.

Yes, I realize that this is a 40 year plan or so. This is all the more
reason to take a look at using the actual advantages of rail transit so
that these can be incorporated into this plan. Otherwise, there is no
point.

TriMet is already a slave to the price of diesel fuel because several
previous investments in rail transit (which are planned by Metro, a
separate agency that doesn't have to deal with operational problems)
didn't accomplish as much as they should have in terms of taking buses off
the roads. We don't need any more such lines.
--
-Glennl
The despammed service works OK, but unfortunately
now the spammers grab addresses for use as "from" address too!
e-mail hint: add 1 to quantity after gl to get 4317.
Lobby Dosser
2007-07-22 05:22:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@yahoo.com
Yes, I realize that this is a 40 year plan or so. This is all the
more reason to take a look at using the actual advantages of rail
transit so that these can be incorporated into this plan. Otherwise,
there is no point.
How many non-labor (hands on medical, etc) employees will travel to work
in 40 years? How many people will actually visit a retail outlet, even a
grocery store? If you get everyone on public transit, anything large
will need delivery. If it needs delivery, why bother going to a retail
outlet at all? What are the transportation needs of a society that
doesn't really need much transport?
Amy Blankenship
2007-07-23 03:12:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lobby Dosser
Post by g***@yahoo.com
Yes, I realize that this is a 40 year plan or so. This is all the
more reason to take a look at using the actual advantages of rail
transit so that these can be incorporated into this plan. Otherwise,
there is no point.
How many non-labor (hands on medical, etc) employees will travel to work
in 40 years? How many people will actually visit a retail outlet, even a
grocery store? If you get everyone on public transit, anything large
will need delivery. If it needs delivery, why bother going to a retail
outlet at all? What are the transportation needs of a society that
doesn't really need much transport?
I just got back from a museum that had a broad cross-section of vehicles
from the past. It was amazing to me how many vehicles have been developed
specifically to facilitate low cost delivery.
Lobby Dosser
2007-07-23 04:05:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by Lobby Dosser
Post by g***@yahoo.com
Yes, I realize that this is a 40 year plan or so. This is all the
more reason to take a look at using the actual advantages of rail
transit so that these can be incorporated into this plan.
Otherwise, there is no point.
How many non-labor (hands on medical, etc) employees will travel to
work in 40 years? How many people will actually visit a retail
outlet, even a grocery store? If you get everyone on public transit,
anything large will need delivery. If it needs delivery, why bother
going to a retail outlet at all? What are the transportation needs of
a society that doesn't really need much transport?
I just got back from a museum that had a broad cross-section of
vehicles from the past. It was amazing to me how many vehicles have
been developed specifically to facilitate low cost delivery.
I rode one full time 1958-1959 delivering groceries for a small town on
the west coast of Scotland. Bicycle with a normal sized rear wheel and a
10 inch or so front wheel with a welded frame above it that held a large,
removable, wicker basket. Single speed, bloody horrible brakes and
probably weighed close to 50 pounds sopping wet - which was most of the
time. I delivered groceries in rain, snow, sleet, and gloom of night. At
55 degrees 52 minutes north there is a lot of gloom of night from October
to May.

For a while I also worked two part time delivery jobs. One on a bike from
6-8am for a butcher and the other on my days off for a "Carter" on a
lorry between the coast and Glasgow.

Coal and Milk delivery was often done by horse drawn wagons and sometimes
you'd see someone selling veggies from a horse drawn cart. I never saw
Tinkers or the Rag and Bone man with anything other than a horse drawn
vehicle.

Not surprisingly, I don't really care much for dragging my butt out to a
store and hauling everything home myself.

Human powered delivery is a great job for kids (I was 15). It is healthy,
builds strength and the tips are usually pretty good.
Steven
2007-07-23 05:01:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lobby Dosser
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by Lobby Dosser
Post by g***@yahoo.com
Yes, I realize that this is a 40 year plan or so. This is all the
more reason to take a look at using the actual advantages of rail
transit so that these can be incorporated into this plan.
Otherwise, there is no point.
How many non-labor (hands on medical, etc) employees will travel to
work in 40 years? How many people will actually visit a retail
outlet, even a grocery store? If you get everyone on public transit,
anything large will need delivery. If it needs delivery, why bother
going to a retail outlet at all? What are the transportation needs of
a society that doesn't really need much transport?
I just got back from a museum that had a broad cross-section of
vehicles from the past. It was amazing to me how many vehicles have
been developed specifically to facilitate low cost delivery.
I rode one full time 1958-1959 delivering groceries for a small town on
the west coast of Scotland. Bicycle with a normal sized rear wheel and a
10 inch or so front wheel with a welded frame above it that held a large,
removable, wicker basket. Single speed, bloody horrible brakes and
probably weighed close to 50 pounds sopping wet - which was most of the
time. I delivered groceries in rain, snow, sleet, and gloom of night. At
55 degrees 52 minutes north there is a lot of gloom of night from October
to May.
For a while I also worked two part time delivery jobs. One on a bike from
6-8am for a butcher and the other on my days off for a "Carter" on a
lorry between the coast and Glasgow.
Coal and Milk delivery was often done by horse drawn wagons and sometimes
you'd see someone selling veggies from a horse drawn cart. I never saw
Tinkers or the Rag and Bone man with anything other than a horse drawn
vehicle.
Not surprisingly, I don't really care much for dragging my butt out to a
store and hauling everything home myself.
Human powered delivery is a great job for kids (I was 15). It is healthy,
builds strength and the tips are usually pretty good.
It's still pretty damned fun even if you're sorta tweaked like me. You
need a good lugged frame.
Lobby Dosser
2007-07-23 05:11:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven
Post by Lobby Dosser
Human powered delivery is a great job for kids (I was 15). It is
healthy, builds strength and the tips are usually pretty good.
It's still pretty damned fun even if you're sorta tweaked like me. You
need a good lugged frame.
Yeah, it was a lot of fun. Even in the cold, dark, and wet!
lein
2007-07-30 03:39:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lobby Dosser
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by Lobby Dosser
Post by g***@yahoo.com
Yes, I realize that this is a 40 year plan or so. This is all the
more reason to take a look at using the actual advantages of rail
transit so that these can be incorporated into this plan.
Otherwise, there is no point.
How many non-labor (hands on medical, etc) employees will travel to
work in 40 years? How many people will actually visit a retail
outlet, even a grocery store? If you get everyone on public transit,
anything large will need delivery. If it needs delivery, why bother
going to a retail outlet at all? What are the transportation needs of
a society that doesn't really need much transport?
I just got back from a museum that had a broad cross-section of
vehicles from the past. It was amazing to me how many vehicles have
been developed specifically to facilitate low cost delivery.
I rode one full time 1958-1959 delivering groceries for a small town on
the west coast of Scotland. Bicycle with a normal sized rear wheel and a
10 inch or so front wheel with a welded frame above it that held a large,
removable, wicker basket. Single speed, bloody horrible brakes and
probably weighed close to 50 pounds sopping wet - which was most of the
time. I delivered groceries in rain, snow, sleet, and gloom of night. At
55 degrees 52 minutes north there is a lot of gloom of night from October
to May.
For a while I also worked two part time delivery jobs. One on a bike from
6-8am for a butcher and the other on my days off for a "Carter" on a
lorry between the coast and Glasgow.
Coal and Milk delivery was often done by horse drawn wagons and sometimes
you'd see someone selling veggies from a horse drawn cart. I never saw
Tinkers or the Rag and Bone man with anything other than a horse drawn
vehicle.
Not surprisingly, I don't really care much for dragging my butt out to a
store and hauling everything home myself.
Human powered delivery is a great job for kids (I was 15). It is healthy,
builds strength and the tips are usually pretty good.
But did it pay a living wage? That's important now you know.
It use to be that newpapers were delivered by teenagers on bikes as
well,
Lobby Dosser
2007-07-30 05:30:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by lein
But did it pay a living wage? That's important now you know.
It use to be that newpapers were delivered by teenagers on bikes as
well,
I could have got by with a cheap room somewhere. 'Course I ate some of the
stock. But man does not live by ham and cheese sandwiches alone. :)

Newspapers used to be delivered by pre-teens with Radio Flyer Wagons.
Paul Johnson
2007-07-30 05:55:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lobby Dosser
Post by lein
But did it pay a living wage? That's important now you know.
It use to be that newpapers were delivered by teenagers on bikes as
well,
I could have got by with a cheap room somewhere. 'Course I ate some of the
stock. But man does not live by ham and cheese sandwiches alone. :)
Newspapers used to be delivered by pre-teens with Radio Flyer Wagons.
Heh, I was up late enough the other night to find out how the paper
gets to my neighborhood. Turns out it's a hotboxed stationwagon full
of potheads and newspapers.
Steven
2007-07-30 13:00:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Johnson
Post by Lobby Dosser
Post by lein
But did it pay a living wage? That's important now you know.
It use to be that newpapers were delivered by teenagers on bikes as
well,
I could have got by with a cheap room somewhere. 'Course I ate some of the
stock. But man does not live by ham and cheese sandwiches alone. :)
Newspapers used to be delivered by pre-teens with Radio Flyer Wagons.
Heh, I was up late enough the other night to find out how the paper
gets to my neighborhood. Turns out it's a hotboxed stationwagon full
of potheads and newspapers.
Yep. That how it goes now. Gotta feed the C-stores with lots of
newspapers.
Paul Johnson
2007-07-30 23:25:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven
Post by Paul Johnson
Post by Lobby Dosser
Post by lein
But did it pay a living wage? That's important now you know.
It use to be that newpapers were delivered by teenagers on bikes as
well,
I could have got by with a cheap room somewhere. 'Course I ate some of the
stock. But man does not live by ham and cheese sandwiches alone. :)
Newspapers used to be delivered by pre-teens with Radio Flyer Wagons.
Heh, I was up late enough the other night to find out how the paper
gets to my neighborhood. Turns out it's a hotboxed stationwagon full
of potheads and newspapers.
Yep. That how it goes now. Gotta feed the C-stores with lots of
newspapers.
Heh, it wasn't even to a convenience store. Just an apartment
complex. Potsmoke filled stationwagon pulls in, five guys bail out
and grab bundles from the back, make a mad dash through the complex
chucking papers, followed by a Chinese fire drill back into the car.
Steven
2007-07-31 05:16:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Johnson
Post by Steven
Post by Paul Johnson
Post by Lobby Dosser
Post by lein
But did it pay a living wage? That's important now you know.
It use to be that newpapers were delivered by teenagers on bikes as
well,
I could have got by with a cheap room somewhere. 'Course I ate some of the
stock. But man does not live by ham and cheese sandwiches alone. :)
Newspapers used to be delivered by pre-teens with Radio Flyer Wagons.
Heh, I was up late enough the other night to find out how the paper
gets to my neighborhood. Turns out it's a hotboxed stationwagon full
of potheads and newspapers.
Yep. That how it goes now. Gotta feed the C-stores with lots of
newspapers.
Heh, it wasn't even to a convenience store. Just an apartment
complex. Potsmoke filled stationwagon pulls in, five guys bail out
and grab bundles from the back, make a mad dash through the complex
chucking papers, followed by a Chinese fire drill back into the car.
Weekly advertiser maybe?

We have a clueless -alleged- dealer...

Say, if you happen to regularly see a Ford Aerostar van roll down the
alley with no lights, across a street and a block down to the
apartments thereabouts, are they trying not to disturb the neighbors
with their lights, or that there is more 'grass' grown for importation
coming in than being mowed?
Steven
2007-07-30 12:59:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lobby Dosser
Post by lein
But did it pay a living wage? That's important now you know.
It use to be that newpapers were delivered by teenagers on bikes as
well,
I could have got by with a cheap room somewhere. 'Course I ate some of the
stock. But man does not live by ham and cheese sandwiches alone. :)
Newspapers used to be delivered by pre-teens with Radio Flyer Wagons.
These kids learned they could buy a really nice Schwinn or Western
Flyer or Columbia (never seen a Rollfast delivering papers, they
didn't know what they missed) and baskets and get it done it a
fraction of the time or cover larger areas. Collecting the
subscriptions was their bottom line.

Call it progress. It's why I love bikes.
Paul Johnson
2007-07-30 23:23:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven
These kids learned they could buy a really nice Schwinn or Western
Flyer or Columbia (never seen a Rollfast delivering papers, they
didn't know what they missed) and baskets and get it done it a
fraction of the time or cover larger areas. Collecting the
subscriptions was their bottom line.
Call it progress. It's why I love bikes.
It's kind of sad that Schwinn, and before that, Huffy, decided to
leave the bicycle market entirely, replacing it with single-use toys,
legally unworthy of the road in Oregon, hocked out of department
stores. On the other hand, I wonder what the assholes at Bike and
Hike are going to be snobby about now that Schwinn decided to go from
quality to crap.
Steven
2007-07-30 12:52:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by lein
Post by Lobby Dosser
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by Lobby Dosser
Post by g***@yahoo.com
Yes, I realize that this is a 40 year plan or so. This is all the
more reason to take a look at using the actual advantages of rail
transit so that these can be incorporated into this plan.
Otherwise, there is no point.
How many non-labor (hands on medical, etc) employees will travel to
work in 40 years? How many people will actually visit a retail
outlet, even a grocery store? If you get everyone on public transit,
anything large will need delivery. If it needs delivery, why bother
going to a retail outlet at all? What are the transportation needs of
a society that doesn't really need much transport?
I just got back from a museum that had a broad cross-section of
vehicles from the past. It was amazing to me how many vehicles have
been developed specifically to facilitate low cost delivery.
I rode one full time 1958-1959 delivering groceries for a small town on
the west coast of Scotland. Bicycle with a normal sized rear wheel and a
10 inch or so front wheel with a welded frame above it that held a large,
removable, wicker basket. Single speed, bloody horrible brakes and
probably weighed close to 50 pounds sopping wet - which was most of the
time. I delivered groceries in rain, snow, sleet, and gloom of night. At
55 degrees 52 minutes north there is a lot of gloom of night from October
to May.
For a while I also worked two part time delivery jobs. One on a bike from
6-8am for a butcher and the other on my days off for a "Carter" on a
lorry between the coast and Glasgow.
Coal and Milk delivery was often done by horse drawn wagons and sometimes
you'd see someone selling veggies from a horse drawn cart. I never saw
Tinkers or the Rag and Bone man with anything other than a horse drawn
vehicle.
Not surprisingly, I don't really care much for dragging my butt out to a
store and hauling everything home myself.
Human powered delivery is a great job for kids (I was 15). It is healthy,
builds strength and the tips are usually pretty good.
But did it pay a living wage? That's important now you know.
It use to be that newpapers were delivered by teenagers on bikes as
well,
Which means there are a bunch of neat bikes to repair!
Stephen Sprunk
2007-08-02 21:14:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by lein
Post by Lobby Dosser
Human powered delivery is a great job for kids (I was 15). It is
healthy, builds strength and the tips are usually pretty good.
But did it pay a living wage? That's important now you know.
It use to be that newpapers were delivered by teenagers on bikes
as well,
If it's kids doing the work, who cares if it's a living wage? Kids are
living with their parents and the only thing they need money for is toys or
(if they're older) dates.

Perhaps I'm showing my (lack of advanced) age here, but kids never delivered
newspapers when I was growing up. That was done by "professionals",
illegals driving unsafe, unregistered broken-down pickups for less than
minimum wage. They got no tips either, because of the poor service level
(you were lucky if your paper arrived six days a week). The newspaper
didn't want to pay the higher rates that ten-year-old kids demanded.

S
--
Stephen Sprunk "Those people who think they know everything
CCIE #3723 are a great annoyance to those of us who do."
K5SSS --Isaac Asimov
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Lobby Dosser
2007-08-02 21:41:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stephen Sprunk
Perhaps I'm showing my (lack of advanced) age here, but kids never
delivered newspapers when I was growing up. That was done by
"professionals", illegals driving unsafe, unregistered broken-down
pickups for less than minimum wage. They got no tips either, because
of the poor service level (you were lucky if your paper arrived six
days a week). The newspaper didn't want to pay the higher rates that
ten-year-old kids demanded.
Used to be good money for kids. It was also good for subscribers, because
the kid lived in the neighborhood and you knew his parents. Tips generally
got the paper somewhere near the front porch.
Steven
2007-08-03 05:04:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stephen Sprunk
Post by lein
Post by Lobby Dosser
Human powered delivery is a great job for kids (I was 15). It is
healthy, builds strength and the tips are usually pretty good.
But did it pay a living wage? That's important now you know.
It use to be that newpapers were delivered by teenagers on bikes
as well,
If it's kids doing the work, who cares if it's a living wage? Kids are
living with their parents and the only thing they need money for is toys or
(if they're older) dates.
Perhaps I'm showing my (lack of advanced) age here, but kids never delivered
newspapers when I was growing up. That was done by "professionals",
illegals driving unsafe, unregistered broken-down pickups for less than
minimum wage. They got no tips either, because of the poor service level
(you were lucky if your paper arrived six days a week). The newspaper
didn't want to pay the higher rates that ten-year-old kids demanded.
S
--
Stephen Sprunk "Those people who think they know everything
CCIE #3723 are a great annoyance to those of us who do."
K5SSS --Isaac Asimov
--
Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com
Do you still have a newspaper?
Stephen Sprunk
2007-08-03 13:31:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven
Post by Stephen Sprunk
Perhaps I'm showing my (lack of advanced) age here, but kids
never delivered newspapers when I was growing up. That was
done by "professionals", illegals driving unsafe, unregistered
broken-down pickups for less than minimum wage. They got
no tips either, because of the poor service level (you were lucky
if your paper arrived six days a week). The newspaper didn't
want to pay the higher rates that ten-year-old kids demanded.
Do you still have a newspaper?
I'm sure I've got one lying around somewhere. I don't get them delivered,
if that's what you're asking, because I read a physical newspaper so
infrequently that it's cheaper to buy them from the machine downstairs when
I want one.

I don't see what that has to do with the discussion, though.

S
--
Stephen Sprunk "Those people who think they know everything
CCIE #3723 are a great annoyance to those of us who do."
K5SSS --Isaac Asimov
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Lobby Dosser
2007-07-23 04:05:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Amy Blankenship
I just got back from a museum that had a broad cross-section of
vehicles from the past. It was amazing to me how many vehicles have
been developed specifically to facilitate low cost delivery.
They have a web site?
Amy Blankenship
2007-07-23 13:54:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lobby Dosser
Post by Amy Blankenship
I just got back from a museum that had a broad cross-section of
vehicles from the past. It was amazing to me how many vehicles have
been developed specifically to facilitate low cost delivery.
They have a web site?
http://www.barbermuseum.org/
Lobby Dosser
2007-07-24 07:14:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by Lobby Dosser
Post by Amy Blankenship
I just got back from a museum that had a broad cross-section of
vehicles from the past. It was amazing to me how many vehicles have
been developed specifically to facilitate low cost delivery.
They have a web site?
http://www.barbermuseum.org/
Thanks.
Gordon
2007-07-22 22:29:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@yahoo.com
I say this as a railfan: there is no reason to put streetcar lines in
various places in Portland if all they will do is be a replacement for
existing bus service that operates at the same capacity and same speed.
What's the point?
I read the article in the Oregonan I believe the plan was framed as a
way
to reduce greenhouse gas emisions, reduce polution, and deal with peak
oil. Of course these are poilicicly charged topics as well, so how you
feel about each of these subjects is going to affect how you think of
the
streetcar plan.

But let's start by assuming that each of these issues has some validity
(we can knock down the straw house later). Busses run on fossil fuels.
They emit greenhouse gasses, They pollute. THe fuel they burn is going
to
get more and more expensive as oil runs out. Those are the basic
asumptions.

Street cars are electric. They are powerd from a central source.
the polution and green house gas emmisions are easier to control
at a central source. The emmisions are located away from the
central city core and don't directly pollute the city.
There is more variety in fuel choice. Fuel can be choosen that best
ballances cost, pollution, greenhouse, and environmental concerns.

Those are the arguments at least. I'm not saying I back
them 100%.

OK, who want's to take the first swing at a straw house??
g***@yahoo.com
2007-07-23 00:37:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gordon
But let's start by assuming that each of these issues has some validity
(we can knock down the straw house later). Busses run on fossil fuels.
They emit greenhouse gasses, They pollute. THe fuel they burn is going
to
get more and more expensive as oil runs out. Those are the basic
asumptions.
OK, who want's to take the first swing at a straw house??
My primary argument was for correct application of rail transit, not
necessarily against rail transit period. If we are going to expand the
network, lets do it correctly, not build what is essentially a bus on rail
wheels and think that much will change.

1. If you want to, you can run a bus on electricity. See Seattle or
Vancouver BC or San Francisco for the 1920s method of doing this. Several
other cities are using battery power to do this.

2. One of the largest costs of operating the vehicle is the labor cost of
the driver. MAX moves several times the people per driver as do the
buses, but the Portland Streetcar uses much smaller cars that move about
the same number of people per driver as do a bus. This means that the
cost of operation is much higher than it should be for a rail transit
operation, and regular service can not be expanded. The ultimate result
is that mis-application of rail transit means that the entire system can't
expand as well as it should, meaning that a larger number of people find
the system as a whole inconvenient, and will continue to drive, consuming
more fossil fuels and producing more greenhouse gasses than had the system
been designed to take advantage of what rail transit lines can do best.
--
-Glennl
The despammed service works OK, but unfortunately
now the spammers grab addresses for use as "from" address too!
e-mail hint: add 1 to quantity after gl to get 4317.
Baxter
2007-07-23 02:44:56 UTC
Permalink
-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by g***@yahoo.com
2. One of the largest costs of operating the vehicle is the labor cost of
the driver. MAX moves several times the people per driver as do the
buses, but the Portland Streetcar uses much smaller cars that move about
the same number of people per driver as do a bus. This means that the
cost of operation is much higher than it should be for a rail transit
operation, and regular service can not be expanded. The ultimate result
is that mis-application of rail transit means that the entire system can't
expand as well as it should, meaning that a larger number of people find
the system as a whole inconvenient, and will continue to drive, consuming
more fossil fuels and producing more greenhouse gasses than had the system
been designed to take advantage of what rail transit lines can do best.
OTOH, the "trains" used on the Streetcar line last longer than buses,
require less maintenance, and are not that much more expensive than buses
(certainly not as expensive as MAX vehicles.)
g***@yahoo.com
2007-07-23 06:38:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Baxter
-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by Baxter
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by Baxter
Post by g***@yahoo.com
2. One of the largest costs of operating the vehicle is the labor cost of
the driver. MAX moves several times the people per driver as do the
buses, but the Portland Streetcar uses much smaller cars that move about
the same number of people per driver as do a bus. This means that the
cost of operation is much higher than it should be for a rail transit
operation, and regular service can not be expanded. The ultimate result
is that mis-application of rail transit means that the entire system can't
expand as well as it should, meaning that a larger number of people find
the system as a whole inconvenient, and will continue to drive, consuming
more fossil fuels and producing more greenhouse gasses than had the system
been designed to take advantage of what rail transit lines can do best.
OTOH, the "trains" used on the Streetcar line last longer than buses,
require less maintenance, and are not that much more expensive than buses
(certainly not as expensive as MAX vehicles.)
It's still a misapplication of rail transit because it doesn't use any
economy of scale. If you want long lasting electric vehicles, you can use
an electric bus. If it weren't for the Americans with Disability Act and
the move to low floor buses, some cities would still be using 40 year old
trolley buses.

Unlike the streetcar, and very helpful for the city street environment
around which the streetcar operates, a trolley bus can operate in any of
three lanes if the wires are over the middle lane. Furthermore, Vancouver
BC's trolley buses can (supposedly) operate up to 3/4 of a mile on their
internal batteries, so they can avoid obstructions that block the whole
street. For MAX, which uses a dedicated right of way for the majority of
its operation, this is a little less of an issue, but the streetcar does
not have this benefit.

We don't know what the real price is for the streetcars. The existing
Portland Streetcar cars were made in eastern Europe where labor cost if
far lower than it is here. Considering the size of the federal grant
required to built the prototype car, these could wind up costing more than
Siemen's mass-produced S70 light rail cars.
--
-Glennl
The despammed service works OK, but unfortunately
now the spammers grab addresses for use as "from" address too!
e-mail hint: add 1 to quantity after gl to get 4317.
Steven
2007-07-23 09:21:03 UTC
Permalink
Operating a streetcar on Sam Adams may violate some laws~

Even Pale Ale.
Paul Johnson
2007-07-30 03:51:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@yahoo.com
Post by Paul J. Berg
Poster's Note: Running streetcar lines down Sandy, Killingsworth,
Hawthorne or Woodstock would not reduce traffic congestion. In fact, it
is more than likely will increase the traffic congestion on these
streets. Not to mention costing millions of dollars.
I'm kind of curious what kind of study Mr. Berg has made to come to
the opposite conclusion educated people have come to, given he can't
be bothered to use a proper computer to post.
Post by g***@yahoo.com
Sandy and Killingsworth are a lost cause due to the 42 inch gauge of the
original streetcar lines in that area. However, the SE area (everything
crossing the Hawthorne Bridge) used standard gauge lines, so Hawthorne and
Woodstock might not be too bad to recondition rather than build new,
depending on the quality of what is under the streets.
Completely hosed. The streetcar tracks on the Hawthorne Bridge were
removed in 1997. Not that it matters: Based on what they were seeing
on the downtown streetcar projects, we're talking warped, twisted, cut
and abused by decades of overpaves and utility work. If there's any
rails left under Southeast, they'll need to be completely removed and
replaced to be suitable for passenger transport again anyway,
regardless of gauge.
Post by g***@yahoo.com
Some elements of this plan might be good, but it needs to be implemented
properly. To be worthwhile, rail transit needs to be either extremely
frequent (taking advantage of the wear on steel rails over pavement) or
larger capacity (taking advantage of long trains over buses) or otherwise
have some advantage over a bus.
The streetcar runs pretty damn frequently for where it does. If you
tried the same with a bus, you'd sag the streets at every stop like we
see on busy bus stops and the bus mall.
Post by g***@yahoo.com
I say this as a railfan: there is no reason to put streetcar lines in
various places in Portland if all they will do is be a replacement for
existing bus service that operates at the same capacity and same speed.
What's the point? Unless you are located in, say, India and need to
employ several hundred of otherwise unoccupied laborers, there isn't any
point to tear up all these streets to wind up with the same thing we
already have.
Reduce wear and tear on the streets. The 12 is a frequent service
route suffering overcrowding esp. at rushour and inside 82nd.
Post by g***@yahoo.com
TriMet is already a slave to the price of diesel fuel because several
previous investments in rail transit (which are planned by Metro, a
separate agency that doesn't have to deal with operational problems)
didn't accomplish as much as they should have in terms of taking buses off
the roads. We don't need any more such lines.
Another consideration TriMet seems to be afraid of are trolleys like
they have in Seattle and Vancouver. DC powered electric busses run
from the overhead lines. They're lighter than conventional busses and
cheaper to install than streetcars. I wish TriMet would give that and
adding on to the rudimentary subway system more consideration.
Scott en Aztlán
2007-07-30 02:38:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul J. Berg
~
From The (Portland) Oregonian - July 21, 2007
Could you imagine a streetcar line up Northeast Sandy Boulevard?
I can't imagine a streetcar working well in ANY modern American city
as long as it has to share a right-of-way with automobiles. Congestion
is already nightmarish; throwing a bunch of lumbering streetcars into
the mix will only make things worse. And who is going to give up their
car to ride a streetcar through the same crap they have to drive
through? One of the main reasons I ride the train is because it has an
exclusive right-of-way, takes precedence at grade crossings, and can
go up to 90 MPH.
--
I hated Bush before it was cool.
Steven
2007-07-30 03:17:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott en Aztlán
I hated Bush before it was cool.
Bush was never cool.
lein
2007-07-30 03:42:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott en Aztlán
Post by Paul J. Berg
~
From The (Portland) Oregonian - July 21, 2007
Could you imagine a streetcar line up Northeast Sandy Boulevard?
I can't imagine a streetcar working well in ANY modern American city
as long as it has to share a right-of-way with automobiles. Congestion
is already nightmarish; throwing a bunch of lumbering streetcars into
the mix will only make things worse. And who is going to give up their
car to ride a streetcar through the same crap they have to drive
through? One of the main reasons I ride the train is because it has an
exclusive right-of-way, takes precedence at grade crossings, and can
go up to 90 MPH.
Well, it can go 90mph but here in Portland, they average about
18mph.
Paul Johnson
2007-07-30 03:56:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by lein
Post by Scott en Aztlán
Post by Paul J. Berg
~
From The (Portland) Oregonian - July 21, 2007
Could you imagine a streetcar line up Northeast Sandy Boulevard?
I can't imagine a streetcar working well in ANY modern American city
as long as it has to share a right-of-way with automobiles. Congestion
is already nightmarish; throwing a bunch of lumbering streetcars into
the mix will only make things worse. And who is going to give up their
car to ride a streetcar through the same crap they have to drive
through? One of the main reasons I ride the train is because it has an
exclusive right-of-way, takes precedence at grade crossings, and can
go up to 90 MPH.
Well, it can go 90mph but here in Portland, they average about
18mph.
MAX can't go 90, it can go 55. Scott's talking about Amtrak Cascades.
Stephen Sprunk
2007-08-02 21:16:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by lein
Post by Scott en Aztlán
One of the main reasons I ride the train is because it has an
exclusive right-of-way, takes precedence at grade crossings,
and can go up to 90 MPH.
Well, it can go 90mph but here in Portland, they average about
18mph.
That's a flaw in implementation, not concept. Dallas's Blue Line LRT
averages more than double MAX's number on the type of track that Scott
refers to. The Red Line does "only" 72% better, mainly because the stations
are closer together.

S
--
Stephen Sprunk "Those people who think they know everything
CCIE #3723 are a great annoyance to those of us who do."
K5SSS --Isaac Asimov
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Paul Johnson
2007-07-30 03:55:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott en Aztlán
Post by Paul J. Berg
~
From The (Portland) Oregonian - July 21, 2007
Could you imagine a streetcar line up Northeast Sandy Boulevard?
I can't imagine a streetcar working well in ANY modern American city
as long as it has to share a right-of-way with automobiles. Congestion
is already nightmarish; throwing a bunch of lumbering streetcars into
the mix will only make things worse.
Not if there are fewer cars.
Post by Scott en Aztlán
And who is going to give up their car to ride a streetcar through the same crap they have to drive
through?
So they can be lazy and not pay attention to traffic and save on
fuel. Getting around on TriMet is much more economical than driving,
and Google is more than happy to give you the side by side
comparison. See http://www.google.com/transit
Post by Scott en Aztlán
One of the main reasons I ride the train is because it has an
exclusive right-of-way, takes precedence at grade crossings, and can
go up to 90 MPH.
The cheap bar is nice, too. Nothing like screaming along the
McGloughlin Expressway at 60 MPH with a Jack and Coke in hand watching
the standstill traffic suck fumes.
lein
2007-08-01 03:20:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Johnson
Post by Scott en Aztlán
Post by Paul J. Berg
~
From The (Portland) Oregonian - July 21, 2007
Could you imagine a streetcar line up Northeast Sandy Boulevard?
I can't imagine a streetcar working well in ANY modern American city
as long as it has to share a right-of-way with automobiles. Congestion
is already nightmarish; throwing a bunch of lumbering streetcars into
the mix will only make things worse.
Not if there are fewer cars.
Post by Scott en Aztlán
And who is going to give up their car to ride a streetcar through the same crap they have to drive
through?
So they can be lazy and not pay attention to traffic and save on
fuel. Getting around on TriMet is much more economical than driving,
and Google is more than happy to give you the side by side
comparison. Seehttp://www.google.com/transit
1 hr with Trimet, 24 minutes driving, so if you factor the cost of
losing an hour a day, it doesn't work economically for my
neighborhood.
Jack May
2007-08-01 15:58:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Johnson
Post by Scott en Aztlán
Post by Paul J. Berg
~
From The (Portland) Oregonian - July 21, 2007
Could you imagine a streetcar line up Northeast Sandy Boulevard?
I can't imagine a streetcar working well in ANY modern American city
as long as it has to share a right-of-way with automobiles. Congestion
is already nightmarish; throwing a bunch of lumbering streetcars into
the mix will only make things worse.
Not if there are fewer cars.
Post by Scott en Aztlán
And who is going to give up their car to ride a streetcar through the
same crap they have to drive
through?
So they can be lazy and not pay attention to traffic and save on
fuel. Getting around on TriMet is much more economical than driving,
and Google is more than happy to give you the side by side
comparison. Seehttp://www.google.com/transit
1 hr with Trimet, 24 minutes driving, so if you factor the cost of
losing an hour a day, it doesn't work economically for my
neighborhood.

The transit advocates always ignore the cost of time and the high taxes to
pay for transit to claim transit is cheaper.

Of course how often do you meet a transit advocate that is even capable of
telling the truth.
Baxter
2007-08-01 18:48:46 UTC
Permalink
-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by lein
Post by lein
1 hr with Trimet, 24 minutes driving, so if you factor the cost of
losing an hour a day, it doesn't work economically for my
neighborhood.
The transit advocates always ignore the cost of time and the high taxes to
pay for transit to claim transit is cheaper.
Transit critics always ignore location and catchment to claim that if it
doesn't work everywhere then it doesn't work anywhere.
Post by lein
Of course how often do you meet a transit advocate that is even capable of
telling the truth.
About ten time more often that you meet a transit critic that is capable of
telling the truth.
Paul Johnson
2007-08-03 15:07:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by lein
Post by Paul Johnson
Post by Scott en Aztlán
Post by Paul J. Berg
~
From The (Portland) Oregonian - July 21, 2007
Could you imagine a streetcar line up Northeast Sandy Boulevard?
I can't imagine a streetcar working well in ANY modern American city
as long as it has to share a right-of-way with automobiles. Congestion
is already nightmarish; throwing a bunch of lumbering streetcars into
the mix will only make things worse.
Not if there are fewer cars.
Post by Scott en Aztlán
And who is going to give up their car to ride a streetcar through the
same crap they have to drive
through?
So they can be lazy and not pay attention to traffic and save on
fuel. Getting around on TriMet is much more economical than driving,
and Google is more than happy to give you the side by side
comparison. Seehttp://www.google.com/transit
1 hr with Trimet, 24 minutes driving, so if you factor the cost of
losing an hour a day, it doesn't work economically for my
neighborhood.
The transit advocates always ignore the cost of time and the high taxes to
pay for transit to claim transit is cheaper.
Of course how often do you meet a transit advocate that is even capable of
telling the truth.
Try finding a transit critic that gave some thought about how far they
live from the office.
lein
2007-08-03 17:58:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Johnson
Post by lein
Post by Paul Johnson
Post by Scott en Aztlán
Post by Paul J. Berg
~
From The (Portland) Oregonian - July 21, 2007
Could you imagine a streetcar line up Northeast Sandy Boulevard?
I can't imagine a streetcar working well in ANY modern American city
as long as it has to share a right-of-way with automobiles. Congestion
is already nightmarish; throwing a bunch of lumbering streetcars into
the mix will only make things worse.
Not if there are fewer cars.
Post by Scott en Aztlán
And who is going to give up their car to ride a streetcar through the
same crap they have to drive
through?
So they can be lazy and not pay attention to traffic and save on
fuel. Getting around on TriMet is much more economical than driving,
and Google is more than happy to give you the side by side
comparison. Seehttp://www.google.com/transit
1 hr with Trimet, 24 minutes driving, so if you factor the cost of
losing an hour a day, it doesn't work economically for my
neighborhood.
The transit advocates always ignore the cost of time and the high taxes to
pay for transit to claim transit is cheaper.
Of course how often do you meet a transit advocate that is even capable of
telling the truth.
Try finding a transit critic that gave some thought about how far they
live from the office.
All well and good but people tend to change employers.
lein
2007-08-01 19:21:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Johnson
Post by Scott en Aztlán
Post by Paul J. Berg
~
From The (Portland) Oregonian - July 21, 2007
Could you imagine a streetcar line up Northeast Sandy Boulevard?
I can't imagine a streetcar working well in ANY modern American city
as long as it has to share a right-of-way with automobiles. Congestion
is already nightmarish; throwing a bunch of lumbering streetcars into
the mix will only make things worse.
Not if there are fewer cars.
Post by Scott en Aztlán
And who is going to give up their car to ride a streetcar through the same crap they have to drive
through?
So they can be lazy and not pay attention to traffic and save on
fuel. Getting around on TriMet is much more economical than driving,
and Google is more than happy to give you the side by side
comparison. Seehttp://www.google.com/transit
I tried a more interesting comparison, google vs trimet.
With google, I get an all bus route that takes 64 minutes
With trimet, I get 87 minutes for an all bus route (it gives me a
different route), or if I want to use MAX, 94 minutes.

Trimet needs to work on their algorithms
Steven
2007-08-01 19:49:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by lein
Post by Paul Johnson
Post by Scott en Aztlán
Post by Paul J. Berg
~
From The (Portland) Oregonian - July 21, 2007
Could you imagine a streetcar line up Northeast Sandy Boulevard?
I can't imagine a streetcar working well in ANY modern American city
as long as it has to share a right-of-way with automobiles. Congestion
is already nightmarish; throwing a bunch of lumbering streetcars into
the mix will only make things worse.
Not if there are fewer cars.
Post by Scott en Aztlán
And who is going to give up their car to ride a streetcar through the same crap they have to drive
through?
So they can be lazy and not pay attention to traffic and save on
fuel. Getting around on TriMet is much more economical than driving,
and Google is more than happy to give you the side by side
comparison. Seehttp://www.google.com/transit
I tried a more interesting comparison, google vs trimet.
With google, I get an all bus route that takes 64 minutes
With trimet, I get 87 minutes for an all bus route (it gives me a
different route), or if I want to use MAX, 94 minutes.
Trimet needs to work on their algorithms.
Seven minutes. That's almost anal. You will die exactly then and not
some other time, so please quit worrying about SEVEN MINUTES and do as
you need.

REALLY!
lein
2007-08-01 21:27:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven
Post by lein
Post by Paul Johnson
Post by Scott en Aztlán
Post by Paul J. Berg
~
From The (Portland) Oregonian - July 21, 2007
Could you imagine a streetcar line up Northeast Sandy Boulevard?
I can't imagine a streetcar working well in ANY modern American city
as long as it has to share a right-of-way with automobiles. Congestion
is already nightmarish; throwing a bunch of lumbering streetcars into
the mix will only make things worse.
Not if there are fewer cars.
Post by Scott en Aztlán
And who is going to give up their car to ride a streetcar through the same crap they have to drive
through?
So they can be lazy and not pay attention to traffic and save on
fuel. Getting around on TriMet is much more economical than driving,
and Google is more than happy to give you the side by side
comparison. Seehttp://www.google.com/transit
I tried a more interesting comparison, google vs trimet.
With google, I get an all bus route that takes 64 minutes
With trimet, I get 87 minutes for an all bus route (it gives me a
different route), or if I want to use MAX, 94 minutes.
Trimet needs to work on their algorithms.
Seven minutes. That's almost anal. You will die exactly then and not
some other time, so please quit worrying about SEVEN MINUTES and do as
you need.
REALLY!
Umm, must be a public school grad, you can put a rubber on a cucumber
but you apparently can't read.

Now go back and look at Google's transit trip calcuator vs Trimet's -
it's 23 minutes.
Lobby Dosser
2007-08-01 21:57:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by lein
I tried a more interesting comparison, google vs trimet.
With google, I get an all bus route that takes 64 minutes
With trimet, I get 87 minutes for an all bus route (it gives me a
different route), or if I want to use MAX, 94 minutes.
Do any of them factor in waiting and getting to and from the endpoint
stops?
lein
2007-08-01 23:35:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lobby Dosser
Post by lein
I tried a more interesting comparison, google vs trimet.
With google, I get an all bus route that takes 64 minutes
With trimet, I get 87 minutes for an all bus route (it gives me a
different route), or if I want to use MAX, 94 minutes.
Do any of them factor in waiting and getting to and from the endpoint
stops?
yes, plus they add walking time

The route Google picked had 10 minutes of waiting while the trimet
says 87 minutes (including 9 minutes walking and 32 minutes
waiting). I selected the "quickest trip" option for trimet.

Trimet has me arriving at the 185th station at 7:40am then boarding
max at 7:59. There is a MAX train that stops at 7:45am but ignores
it.
Baxter
2007-07-30 05:30:16 UTC
Permalink
-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by Scott en Aztlán
Post by Paul J. Berg
~
From The (Portland) Oregonian - July 21, 2007
Could you imagine a streetcar line up Northeast Sandy Boulevard?
I can't imagine a streetcar working well in ANY modern American city
as long as it has to share a right-of-way with automobiles. Congestion
is already nightmarish; throwing a bunch of lumbering streetcars into
the mix will only make things worse. And who is going to give up their
car to ride a streetcar through the same crap they have to drive
through? One of the main reasons I ride the train is because it has an
exclusive right-of-way, takes precedence at grade crossings, and can
go up to 90 MPH.
In Portland, it's been working fine. Not every trip has to be high-speed
and/or long distance.
g***@yahoo.com
2007-08-01 02:56:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Baxter
Post by Scott en Aztlán
I can't imagine a streetcar working well in ANY modern American city
as long as it has to share a right-of-way with automobiles. Congestion
is already nightmarish; throwing a bunch of lumbering streetcars into
the mix will only make things worse. And who is going to give up their
car to ride a streetcar through the same crap they have to drive
through? One of the main reasons I ride the train is because it has an
exclusive right-of-way, takes precedence at grade crossings, and can
go up to 90 MPH.
In Portland, it's been working fine. Not every trip has to be high-speed
and/or long distance.
It may be moving people, but is it moving any more than would have been
moved with a bus operating at similar frequency on the same route?

I wouldn't say it is "working fine" because it hasn't decreased the per
passenger costs of operating transit.
--
-Glennl
The despammed service works OK, but unfortunately
now the spammers grab addresses for use as "from" address too!
e-mail hint: add 1 to quantity after gl to get 4317.
Baxter
2007-08-01 15:16:53 UTC
Permalink
-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by g***@yahoo.com
Post by Baxter
Post by Scott en Aztlán
I can't imagine a streetcar working well in ANY modern American city
as long as it has to share a right-of-way with automobiles. Congestion
is already nightmarish; throwing a bunch of lumbering streetcars into
the mix will only make things worse. And who is going to give up their
car to ride a streetcar through the same crap they have to drive
through? One of the main reasons I ride the train is because it has an
exclusive right-of-way, takes precedence at grade crossings, and can
go up to 90 MPH.
In Portland, it's been working fine. Not every trip has to be high-speed
and/or long distance.
It may be moving people, but is it moving any more than would have been
moved with a bus operating at similar frequency on the same route?
I wouldn't say it is "working fine" because it hasn't decreased the per
passenger costs of operating transit.
Since the Streetcar operates mostly in Fareless Square I'm not sure we have
good ridership statistics, but there are plenty of sources to show that rail
is cheaper per passenger-mile than bus -- why would the Portland Streetcar
be an exception?

I'm not finding studies on the PS, but there's plenty of other studies for
other Streetcar proposals that show streetcar systems outperforming their
bus counterparts.
g***@yahoo.com
2007-08-02 04:32:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Baxter
Since the Streetcar operates mostly in Fareless Square I'm not sure we have
good ridership statistics, but there are plenty of sources to show that rail
is cheaper per passenger-mile than bus -- why would the Portland Streetcar
be an exception?
+ Much smaller cars than are typically in use in most other rail
applications. In Europe, you would never see such small, uneconomical
cars in use. They would have at least 3 or 4 articulated sections. This
cuts down on the maintenance costs per passenger, as well as the labor
costs per passenger.

+ The cars have no ability for MU operation, so they must always operate
as single cars. The stations also do not have the ability to accept
multiple car trains. Thus, there is no ability to reduce labor costs or
transport masses of people at one time by operating a multiple car train.

In short, the line is a combination of the worst of bus operations (small
passenger capacity that has little opportunity for expanding to longer
consists and reducing labor costs, no signal pre-emption, operation mixed
with regular auto traffic and congestion) with the worst of rail
operations (high capital costs, little flexibility, follow the leader type
operation with no express service). About the only thing that was done
right is the level boarding, which is currently happening on bus route #14
Hawthorne at the improved bus platforms, so even here in Portland we have
bus routes that are doing just as good if not better than what the
streetcar is doing.
--
-Glennl
The despammed service works OK, but unfortunately
now the spammers grab addresses for use as "from" address too!
e-mail hint: add 1 to quantity after gl to get 4317.
Baxter
2007-08-02 05:07:14 UTC
Permalink
-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by g***@yahoo.com
Post by Baxter
Since the Streetcar operates mostly in Fareless Square I'm not sure we have
good ridership statistics, but there are plenty of sources to show that rail
is cheaper per passenger-mile than bus -- why would the Portland Streetcar
be an exception?
+ Much smaller cars than are typically in use in most other rail
applications. In Europe, you would never see such small, uneconomical
cars in use. They would have at least 3 or 4 articulated sections. This
cuts down on the maintenance costs per passenger, as well as the labor
costs per passenger.
Streetcar capacity is 156 -- 29 seats, 127 standees plus bike rack, etc.
Post by g***@yahoo.com
+ The cars have no ability for MU operation, so they must always operate
as single cars. The stations also do not have the ability to accept
multiple car trains. Thus, there is no ability to reduce labor costs or
transport masses of people at one time by operating a multiple car train.
They run every 12 - 15 minutes
Post by g***@yahoo.com
In short, the line is a combination of the worst of bus operations (small
passenger capacity that has little opportunity for expanding to longer
consists and reducing labor costs, no signal pre-emption, operation mixed
with regular auto traffic and congestion) with the worst of rail
operations (high capital costs, little flexibility, follow the leader type
operation with no express service). About the only thing that was done
right is the level boarding, which is currently happening on bus route #14
Hawthorne at the improved bus platforms, so even here in Portland we have
bus routes that are doing just as good if not better than what the
streetcar is doing.
As of mid-2003, only 2 years after starting, ridership was 5,000 to 6,000
per day. Both the line length and ridership have gone up since then.
g***@yahoo.com
2007-08-02 06:26:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Baxter
Streetcar capacity is 156 -- 29 seats, 127 standees plus bike rack, etc.
You will find that they are very uncomfortable at quite a lot less than
that, and due to the number of people who stand around in the doorways
rather than the aisle, the boarding speed becomes quite slow at anything
more than about 30 standees.
Post by Baxter
They run every 12 - 15 minutes
Which is well into the range covered by many of the Portland bus routes,
and in fact for a while #15 Belmont and #5 (its number at the time)
Hawthorne were running every 7 minutes at peak. Those have been cut back
in recent years because of a lack of operating funds to keep them going at
a level that meets the ridership demand. That lack of operating funds is,
in my opinion, caused by Portland spending money on rail projects that
were inappropriate, and therefore did not reduce the cost per rider in
places where it could have.
Post by Baxter
As of mid-2003, only 2 years after starting, ridership was 5,000 to 6,000
per day. Both the line length and ridership have gone up since then.
And the ridership on bus route #72 is somewhere around 30,000 per day,
with almost every single bus, even at 11:00 at night on Sunday having
standing room only. We can only hope that some of that overcrowding goes
down when the Clackamas MAX line gets completed.
--
-Glennl
The despammed service works OK, but unfortunately
now the spammers grab addresses for use as "from" address too!
e-mail hint: add 1 to quantity after gl to get 4317.
Baxter
2007-08-02 14:46:43 UTC
Permalink
-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by g***@yahoo.com
Post by Baxter
Streetcar capacity is 156 -- 29 seats, 127 standees plus bike rack, etc.
You will find that they are very uncomfortable at quite a lot less than
that, and due to the number of people who stand around in the doorways
rather than the aisle, the boarding speed becomes quite slow at anything
more than about 30 standees.
Post by Baxter
They run every 12 - 15 minutes
Which is well into the range covered by many of the Portland bus routes,
and in fact for a while #15 Belmont and #5 (its number at the time)
Hawthorne were running every 7 minutes at peak. Those have been cut back
in recent years because of a lack of operating funds to keep them going at
a level that meets the ridership demand. That lack of operating funds is,
in my opinion, caused by Portland spending money on rail projects that
were inappropriate, and therefore did not reduce the cost per rider in
places where it could have.
And what is the cost per ride? For MAX it is substantially less than a bus
ride - why would the Streetcar be substantially different?
Post by g***@yahoo.com
Post by Baxter
As of mid-2003, only 2 years after starting, ridership was 5,000 to 6,000
per day. Both the line length and ridership have gone up since then.
And the ridership on bus route #72 is somewhere around 30,000 per day,
For a MUCH longer route.
Post by g***@yahoo.com
with almost every single bus, even at 11:00 at night on Sunday having
standing room only.
Depends where on the route.
Post by g***@yahoo.com
We can only hope that some of that overcrowding goes
down when the Clackamas MAX line gets completed.
Clearly rail transit is better than bus transit!
g***@yahoo.com
2007-08-03 04:46:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Baxter
And what is the cost per ride? For MAX it is substantially less than a bus
ride - why would the Streetcar be substantially different?
That has already been stated in a previous post.
Post by Baxter
Post by g***@yahoo.com
We can only hope that some of that overcrowding goes
down when the Clackamas MAX line gets completed.
Clearly rail transit is better than bus transit!
It is better at moving large numbers of people if it is built right. The
Portland streetcar could probably be moving 3x the people it is now had it
been designed correctly.
--
-Glennl
The despammed service works OK, but unfortunately
now the spammers grab addresses for use as "from" address too!
e-mail hint: add 1 to quantity after gl to get 4317.
Steven
2007-08-03 05:05:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@yahoo.com
Post by Baxter
And what is the cost per ride? For MAX it is substantially less than a bus
ride - why would the Streetcar be substantially different?
That has already been stated in a previous post.
Post by Baxter
Post by g***@yahoo.com
We can only hope that some of that overcrowding goes
down when the Clackamas MAX line gets completed.
Clearly rail transit is better than bus transit!
It is better at moving large numbers of people if it is built right. The
Portland streetcar could probably be moving 3x the people it is now had it
been designed correctly.
--
-Glennl
The despammed service works OK, but unfortunately
now the spammers grab addresses for use as "from" address too!
e-mail hint: add 1 to quantity after gl to get 4317.
The designer were illegals in pickup trucks working for a stingy tight
ass newspaper?
george conklin
2007-08-03 12:10:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@yahoo.com
Post by Baxter
And what is the cost per ride? For MAX it is substantially less than a bus
ride - why would the Streetcar be substantially different?
That has already been stated in a previous post.
Post by Baxter
Post by g***@yahoo.com
We can only hope that some of that overcrowding goes
down when the Clackamas MAX line gets completed.
Clearly rail transit is better than bus transit!
It is better at moving large numbers of people if it is built right. The
Portland streetcar could probably be moving 3x the people it is now had it
been designed correctly.
Streetcars, if the system is reproduced, move people to where the jobs
were in 1915.
Steven
2007-08-03 12:31:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by george conklin
Post by g***@yahoo.com
Post by Baxter
And what is the cost per ride? For MAX it is substantially less than a bus
ride - why would the Streetcar be substantially different?
That has already been stated in a previous post.
Post by Baxter
Post by g***@yahoo.com
We can only hope that some of that overcrowding goes
down when the Clackamas MAX line gets completed.
Clearly rail transit is better than bus transit!
It is better at moving large numbers of people if it is built right. The
Portland streetcar could probably be moving 3x the people it is now had it
been designed correctly.
Streetcars, if the system is reproduced, move people to where the jobs
were in 1915.
More beer and meatpacking and midwives! Johnny, play the polka!
Steven
2007-08-03 05:03:09 UTC
Permalink
dunno...have NEITHER.

Rollfast transportation is fast.
Paul Johnson
2007-08-03 15:11:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@yahoo.com
Post by Baxter
Since the Streetcar operates mostly in Fareless Square I'm not sure we have
good ridership statistics, but there are plenty of sources to show that rail
is cheaper per passenger-mile than bus -- why would the Portland Streetcar
be an exception?
+ Much smaller cars than are typically in use in most other rail
applications. In Europe, you would never see such small, uneconomical
cars in use. They would have at least 3 or 4 articulated sections. This
cuts down on the maintenance costs per passenger, as well as the labor
costs per passenger.
I seem to recall Amsterdam has really similar cars. Nottingham has
even shorter, unarticulated streetcars. San Fransisco doesn't even
have streetcars that can run under their own power.
Post by g***@yahoo.com
+ The cars have no ability for MU operation, so they must always operate
as single cars. The stations also do not have the ability to accept
multiple car trains. Thus, there is no ability to reduce labor costs or
transport masses of people at one time by operating a multiple car train.
Actually, they do have multiple unit operation capability. The bumper
hides a retractable coupler. The couplers can't be exposed to traffic
per federal regs.
Post by g***@yahoo.com
In short, the line is a combination of the worst of bus operations (small
passenger capacity that has little opportunity for expanding to longer
consists and reducing labor costs, no signal pre-emption, operation mixed
with regular auto traffic and congestion) with the worst of rail
operations (high capital costs, little flexibility, follow the leader type
operation with no express service). About the only thing that was done
right is the level boarding, which is currently happening on bus route #14
Hawthorne at the improved bus platforms, so even here in Portland we have
bus routes that are doing just as good if not better than what the
streetcar is doing.
Until you consider that electricity is cheaper than diesel and there's
no reversing that trend at this point.
Clark F Morris
2007-08-05 19:03:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Johnson
Post by g***@yahoo.com
Post by Baxter
Since the Streetcar operates mostly in Fareless Square I'm not sure we have
good ridership statistics, but there are plenty of sources to show that rail
is cheaper per passenger-mile than bus -- why would the Portland Streetcar
be an exception?
+ Much smaller cars than are typically in use in most other rail
applications. In Europe, you would never see such small, uneconomical
cars in use. They would have at least 3 or 4 articulated sections. This
cuts down on the maintenance costs per passenger, as well as the labor
costs per passenger.
I seem to recall Amsterdam has really similar cars. Nottingham has
even shorter, unarticulated streetcars. San Fransisco doesn't even
have streetcars that can run under their own power.
Nottingham, England has 5 section articulateds that are 37 meters long
as I recall.
Post by Paul Johnson
Post by g***@yahoo.com
+ The cars have no ability for MU operation, so they must always operate
as single cars. The stations also do not have the ability to accept
multiple car trains. Thus, there is no ability to reduce labor costs or
transport masses of people at one time by operating a multiple car train.
Actually, they do have multiple unit operation capability. The bumper
hides a retractable coupler. The couplers can't be exposed to traffic
per federal regs.
Post by g***@yahoo.com
In short, the line is a combination of the worst of bus operations (small
passenger capacity that has little opportunity for expanding to longer
consists and reducing labor costs, no signal pre-emption, operation mixed
with regular auto traffic and congestion) with the worst of rail
operations (high capital costs, little flexibility, follow the leader type
operation with no express service). About the only thing that was done
right is the level boarding, which is currently happening on bus route #14
Hawthorne at the improved bus platforms, so even here in Portland we have
bus routes that are doing just as good if not better than what the
streetcar is doing.
Until you consider that electricity is cheaper than diesel and there's
no reversing that trend at this point.
g***@yahoo.com
2007-08-07 02:26:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Clark F Morris
Post by Paul Johnson
I seem to recall Amsterdam has really similar cars. Nottingham has
even shorter, unarticulated streetcars. San Fransisco doesn't even
have streetcars that can run under their own power.
Nottingham, England has 5 section articulateds that are 37 meters long
as I recall.
Small cars have been used in several cities, but only in cases where they
are able to operate in MU.
Post by Clark F Morris
Post by Paul Johnson
Post by g***@yahoo.com
+ The cars have no ability for MU operation, so they must always operate
as single cars. The stations also do not have the ability to accept
multiple car trains. Thus, there is no ability to reduce labor costs or
transport masses of people at one time by operating a multiple car train.
Actually, they do have multiple unit operation capability. The bumper
hides a retractable coupler. The couplers can't be exposed to traffic
per federal regs.
My understanding is that the Portland cars were built without MU capacity,
since none of the stations on the line are able to accept anything longer
than a single car.
--
-Glennl
The despammed service works OK, but unfortunately
now the spammers grab addresses for use as "from" address too!
e-mail hint: add 1 to quantity after gl to get 4317.
Mr. Berg
2007-08-04 02:06:25 UTC
Permalink
~

Portland city commissioner Sam Adams said that the City of Portland
has more than $400 million worth of bridge repairs to do without
enough money to do it.

Source: <http://publicbroadcasting.net/opb/news.newsmain?
action=article&ARTICLE_ID=1124252&sectionID=1>

~
Orval Fairbairn
2007-08-04 03:15:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mr. Berg
~
Portland city commissioner Sam Adams said that the City of Portland
has more than $400 million worth of bridge repairs to do without
enough money to do it.
Source: <http://publicbroadcasting.net/opb/news.newsmain?
action=article&ARTICLE_ID=1124252&sectionID=1>
~
That was the problem in Minneapolis -- they spent a bunch on transit --
and -- a new sports stadium!
Lobby Dosser
2007-08-04 03:17:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Orval Fairbairn
Post by Mr. Berg
~
Portland city commissioner Sam Adams said that the City of Portland
has more than $400 million worth of bridge repairs to do without
enough money to do it.
Source: <http://publicbroadcasting.net/opb/news.newsmain?
action=article&ARTICLE_ID=1124252&sectionID=1>
~
That was the problem in Minneapolis -- they spent a bunch on transit
-- and -- a new sports stadium!
Which, IIRC, they were going to open the day after the bridge collapse.
Steven
2007-08-05 14:20:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Orval Fairbairn
Post by Mr. Berg
~
Portland city commissioner Sam Adams said that the City of Portland
has more than $400 million worth of bridge repairs to do without
enough money to do it.
Source: <http://publicbroadcasting.net/opb/news.newsmain?
action=article&ARTICLE_ID=1124252&sectionID=1>
~
That was the problem in Minneapolis -- they spent a bunch on transit
-- and -- a new sports stadium!
More out of state tickets...they just don't go there THAT way...
Ted Mittelstaedt
2007-08-04 06:53:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Orval Fairbairn
Post by Mr. Berg
~
Portland city commissioner Sam Adams said that the City of Portland
has more than $400 million worth of bridge repairs to do without
enough money to do it.
Source: <http://publicbroadcasting.net/opb/news.newsmain?
action=article&ARTICLE_ID=1124252&sectionID=1>
~
That was the problem in Minneapolis -- they spent a bunch on transit --
and -- a new sports stadium!
This I don't understand. Since when do the state governments pony up the
money to repair Interstate highways?

About 56% of the construction and maintenance costs are funded through
user fees, primarily gasoline taxes, collected by states and the federal
government, and tolls collected on toll roads and bridges. The rest of the
costs are borne by the federal budget.

No general fund money there, that I can see.

See:

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/ohim/hs03/htm/hf10.htm

Ted
Baxter
2007-08-04 15:08:58 UTC
Permalink
-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by Orval Fairbairn
Post by Mr. Berg
~
Portland city commissioner Sam Adams said that the City of Portland
has more than $400 million worth of bridge repairs to do without
enough money to do it.
Source: <http://publicbroadcasting.net/opb/news.newsmain?
action=article&ARTICLE_ID=1124252&sectionID=1>
~
That was the problem in Minneapolis -- they spent a bunch on transit --
and -- a new sports stadium!
Spending on transit helped releive the pressure on the bridge.
Steven
2007-08-05 14:23:12 UTC
Permalink
-
---------------------------------------------------------------------------­---------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworkswww.baxcode.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------­---------
Post by Orval Fairbairn
Post by Mr. Berg
~
Portland city commissioner Sam Adams said that the City of Portland
has more than $400 million worth of bridge repairs to do without
enough money to do it.
Source: <http://publicbroadcasting.net/opb/news.newsmain?
action=article&ARTICLE_ID=1124252&sectionID=1>
~
That was the problem in Minneapolis -- they spent a bunch on transit --
and -- a new sports stadium!
Spending on transit helped releive the pressure on the bridge.
By wearing out more roads more quickly to get fed funds on emergency
basis, of COURSE, I couldn't be any more braindead if I joined the
Zombies!
Don Homuth
2007-08-04 15:26:04 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 03:15:49 GMT, Orval Fairbairn
Post by Orval Fairbairn
That was the problem in Minneapolis -- they spent a bunch on transit --
Transit is a form of transportation infrastructure. Folks in the Twin
Cities seem, thus far, rather to like their light rail transit. If
they do, who's to say they shouldn't have done it?
Post by Orval Fairbairn
and -- a new sports stadium!
I opposed that hereon, and will continue to oppose it in the future.
Nevertheless, it was what the good people of the Twin Cities decided
that they really Wanted to have.

Democracy, as has been noted in another context, is messy. But folks
make choices and then get to live or die with them.

In the future, there will continue to be public support for sports
stadia at the professional and college and probably even high school
levels. People value their entertainment -- even at public expense.

Odd, but there it is.

Which will leave the entire transportation infrastructure discussion
pretty much unchaged. Folks need to become aware that past public
capital investments in such stuff eventually reach the end of their
useful lives, and must be repaired and/or replaced on a regular basis
-- and that yes, those funds will come from Taxes.
William
2007-08-04 20:49:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Homuth
On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 03:15:49 GMT, Orval Fairbairn
Post by Orval Fairbairn
That was the problem in Minneapolis -- they spent a bunch on transit --
Transit is a form of transportation infrastructure. Folks in the Twin
Cities seem, thus far, rather to like their light rail transit. If
they do, who's to say they shouldn't have done it?
Post by Orval Fairbairn
and -- a new sports stadium!
I opposed that hereon, and will continue to oppose it in the future.
Nevertheless, it was what the good people of the Twin Cities decided
that they really Wanted to have.
Democracy, as has been noted in another context, is messy. But folks
make choices and then get to live or die with them.
In the future, there will continue to be public support for sports
stadia at the professional and college and probably even high school
levels. People value their entertainment -- even at public expense.
Odd, but there it is.
Which will leave the entire transportation infrastructure discussion
pretty much unchaged. Folks need to become aware that past public
capital investments in such stuff eventually reach the end of their
useful lives, and must be repaired and/or replaced on a regular basis
-- and that yes, those funds will come from Taxes.
How come nobody here has mentioned the bridge collapse yet?
Paul Johnson
2007-08-05 08:26:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by William
Post by Don Homuth
On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 03:15:49 GMT, Orval Fairbairn
Post by Orval Fairbairn
That was the problem in Minneapolis -- they spent a bunch on transit --
Transit is a form of transportation infrastructure. Folks in the Twin
Cities seem, thus far, rather to like their light rail transit. If
they do, who's to say they shouldn't have done it?
Post by Orval Fairbairn
and -- a new sports stadium!
I opposed that hereon, and will continue to oppose it in the future.
Nevertheless, it was what the good people of the Twin Cities decided
that they really Wanted to have.
Democracy, as has been noted in another context, is messy. But folks
make choices and then get to live or die with them.
In the future, there will continue to be public support for sports
stadia at the professional and college and probably even high school
levels. People value their entertainment -- even at public expense.
Odd, but there it is.
Which will leave the entire transportation infrastructure discussion
pretty much unchaged. Folks need to become aware that past public
capital investments in such stuff eventually reach the end of their
useful lives, and must be repaired and/or replaced on a regular basis
-- and that yes, those funds will come from Taxes.
How come nobody here has mentioned the bridge collapse yet?
Because it's not on topic when the topic is Portland.
Steven
2007-08-05 08:53:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Johnson
Post by William
Post by Don Homuth
On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 03:15:49 GMT, Orval Fairbairn
Post by Orval Fairbairn
That was the problem in Minneapolis -- they spent a bunch on transit --
Transit is a form of transportation infrastructure. Folks in the Twin
Cities seem, thus far, rather to like their light rail transit. If
they do, who's to say they shouldn't have done it?
Post by Orval Fairbairn
and -- a new sports stadium!
I opposed that hereon, and will continue to oppose it in the future.
Nevertheless, it was what the good people of the Twin Cities decided
that they really Wanted to have.
Democracy, as has been noted in another context, is messy. But folks
make choices and then get to live or die with them.
In the future, there will continue to be public support for sports
stadia at the professional and college and probably even high school
levels. People value their entertainment -- even at public expense.
Odd, but there it is.
Which will leave the entire transportation infrastructure discussion
pretty much unchaged. Folks need to become aware that past public
capital investments in such stuff eventually reach the end of their
useful lives, and must be repaired and/or replaced on a regular basis
-- and that yes, those funds will come from Taxes.
How come nobody here has mentioned the bridge collapse yet?
Because it's not on topic when the topic is Portland.
To borrow the old chestnut, "It's the BRIDGES, stupid"! You've got
everything but TODD BRIDGES in PDX.
Lobby Dosser
2007-08-05 08:57:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven
Post by Paul Johnson
Post by William
Post by Don Homuth
On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 03:15:49 GMT, Orval Fairbairn
Post by Orval Fairbairn
That was the problem in Minneapolis -- they spent a bunch on transit --
Transit is a form of transportation infrastructure. Folks in the
Twin Cities seem, thus far, rather to like their light rail
transit. If they do, who's to say they shouldn't have done it?
Post by Orval Fairbairn
and -- a new sports stadium!
I opposed that hereon, and will continue to oppose it in the
future. Nevertheless, it was what the good people of the Twin
Cities decided that they really Wanted to have.
Democracy, as has been noted in another context, is messy. But
folks make choices and then get to live or die with them.
In the future, there will continue to be public support for
sports stadia at the professional and college and probably even
high school levels. People value their entertainment -- even at
public expense.
Odd, but there it is.
Which will leave the entire transportation infrastructure
discussion pretty much unchaged. Folks need to become aware that
past public capital investments in such stuff eventually reach
the end of their useful lives, and must be repaired and/or
replaced on a regular basis -- and that yes, those funds will
come from Taxes.
How come nobody here has mentioned the bridge collapse yet?
Because it's not on topic when the topic is Portland.
To borrow the old chestnut, "It's the BRIDGES, stupid"! You've got
everything but TODD BRIDGES in PDX.
Is Lloyd in Portland?
Steven
2007-08-05 14:19:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Orval Fairbairn
Post by Mr. Berg
~
Portland city commissioner Sam Adams said that the City of Portland
has more than $400 million worth of bridge repairs to do without
enough money to do it.
Source: <http://publicbroadcasting.net/opb/news.newsmain?
action=article&ARTICLE_ID=1124252&sectionID=1>
~
That was the problem in Minneapolis -- they spent a bunch on transit --
and -- a new sports stadium!
When the hell have they had much good sports other than the Vikings?
Loading...