Posted on 05/09/2003 2:39:43 PM PDT by Willie Green
For education and discussion only. Not for commercial use.
Some simplifying force in human nature loves to set up false dichotomies. You know what we're talking about. As in: You're a cat person, I'm a dog person. You're a wine person, I'm a beer person. You're a bus person, I'm a car person.
Some of the criticism of two new light-rail extensions, planned for Clackamas County, stems from this kind of black-and-white thinking, carried over into the realm of public policy. Exaggerate the "transit vs. car" quarrel via a talk show or two, and before you know it, a thick layer of rhetorical asphalt has paved over all the complexities of our transportation system.
If you champion light rail, you're falsely painted as anti-highway. But our light-rail system -- in addition to helping the 36,500 or so people who use it every day -- is a huge help to everyone who loves to drive.
Some people in Clackamas County have discovered this for themselves over the past few years, as they studied the best transportation alternatives to connect them to downtown Portland. They didn't necessarily start out hospitable to light rail. Indeed, in 1997, Milwaukie voters ousted their mayor and two city council members in part over a planned light-rail route.
But after exhaustive public meetings and an in-depth look at other options -- including river transport -- light-rail re-emerged victorious. Part of the credit goes to Metro Councilor Brian Newman, a planner by training, who helped forge a new consensus during three years of meetings, first as a private citizen, later as a member of the Milwaukie City Council and finally as a Metro Councilor.
Recently, the Metro Council approved plans for two light-rail extensions, one along Interstate 205 from Gateway to Clackamas Town Center, which would open in 2009. A second extension is planned from downtown Portland to Milwaukie, which could open by 2014. These would cost $1 billion, and they aren't done deals (the second route would likely require a public vote). Something may change along the way, of course, but based on what we know now, it appears prudent to keep moving forward with these plans.
Just consider what a difference light rail makes at rush hour on Interstate 84 and U.S. 26. Figures collected by Metro's transportation planners indicate that, between 5 p.m. and 6 p.m., roughly 10,000 people are headed eastbound from downtown Portland. Another 9,000 are headed westbound. In both directions, at rush hour, about 26 percent of the total number of people traveling are on light rail.
Freeway travel is bad enough, but just imagine the congestion if all those light-rail travelers, eastbound and westbound, were added to the road.
Although it's true, and nice perhaps, that Portland has become synonymous with the success of its light-rail system, that's not why Portland should keep pursuing light rail. The reason has nothing whatsoever to do with Portland's image. It has everything to do with keeping up a smoothly running transportation system.
First, this is a bus, not a rail system. Second, it is a bus ROUTE, not a bus system.
There may even be a bus ROUTE in Houston that's profitable. That doesn't change the fact that the bus system loses hundreds of thousands of dollars DAILY. And when our toy train goes into operation, the bleeding will increase dramatically.
Buy the riders new Cadillacs every three years. It's cheaper. Of course when rail gets going we can hire chauffeurs for the Cadillacs and still be ahead.
What don't you understand about the term monorail that is being funded by private enterprise?
I'm not sure where you live, but in my experience it works exactly the opposite. As congestion has increased tremendously here in the Washington D.C. area the last 10-15 years, the areas with by far the most growth have been the outer-ring suburbs more than 20 miles away from the city. I believe that the cost of real estate and whether one is single or married are far bigger factors in determining where people choose to live than congestion.
Hey, that should give you a clue as to which routes have the potential for upgrade to light rail and which routes should be curtailed due to lack of use.
If you didn't have the negative mindset of an anti-transit obstructionist, your commentary might actually be useful in making the SYSTEM more efficient.
The profitability of that yet-to-be-built monorail system is in the future, not the present.
Try again, Willie. Show us a light rail transit system that is not a loser, and a parasite upon the public.
There ain't one !
And if you didn't have the pie-in-the-sky mindset of a socialist utopian, you might recognize these schemes have never worked anywhere in the US, ever ! They have all been massive failures, constantly draining the public purse for dubious results at best.
I guess you don't get around much.
Mass-transit is a vital component of our transportation infrastructure.
The need is most glaringly obvious in our largest cities: New York, Chicago, Washington DC... etc.
Where would any of these cities be without their commuter mass-transit systems?
Your extremist demagoguery using political smear labels like "socialist utopian" is simply juvenile, ignorant and irrelevant. Get your head out of your butt.
Screw that...
Maximize horsepower, minimize MPG!
Aside from your ad hominems, you do nothing but speak in glowing generalities for your position. You cannot cite a rail system that isn't a money loser (except one that hasn't been built yet !) so you resort to describing my purported "state of mind" and tell me to get my head out of my butt.
The fact is that these systems are socialist boondoggles. They beggar the taxpayers and enrich the fat cats. The taxpayers take it in the shorts for a socialist utopian dream that never materializes.
Sorry if the truth hurts, Willie. Economics has reality just like engineering. Wishing your family sedan would do 300 mph and get 150 mpg sounds good, but it just isn't happening.
Just calling a spade a spade.
We live in a complex society, necessitating development of a complex transportation infrastructure.
If you're too simpleminded to understand that, that's YOUR character flaw, not mine.
Travel on mass-transit, it'll make gasoline more available for your SUV!
From your modus operandi you could work for the Houston Chronicle. That's the way they do it too.
Please take that as a personal insult of your engineering "expertise" from somebody who is both a true conservative and a true engineer.
Except that you're the "engineer" advocating systems that lose money. You want to take money from people to build your utopian system, because you like the idea.
Construing that as "conservative" is a stretcher worthy of any Tom Sawyer tale, and construing it as "engineering" only makes sense if you're on a goobermint payroll.
Here in the real world engineering designs have to a) work, and b) be profitable. Yours do neither.
No, I'm an engineer that promotes mass transportation as a cost effective means of conveying people in densely populated urban areas while alleviating traffic congestion and reducing our national fuel consumption. Mass transit is certainly not suitable for every community in the nation, and I've already stated several times on this thread that there are many routes and services that should be discontinued to make the entire system more cost effective.
You want to take money from people to build your utopian system, because you like the idea.
Utopian?
Not quite.
But they are solid, constructive proposals to address the challenges that we confront.
And that's precisely what makes YOU a lousey engineer.
You're void of any ideas for improvement.
Instead, you thrive on sitting on your butt obstructing the efforts of others, with little ambition to envision solutions to real world challenges. You're a charlatan, a fraud, you don't have the aptitude of a real engineer.
You're deadweight, jimt.
You offer no constructive solutions.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.