Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Maximize transit, minimize traffic
The Oregonian ^ | 05/06/03 | editorial

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.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Editorial; Government; US: Oregon
KEYWORDS: masstransit; transportationlist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160161-165 last
To: TexasCajun; Willie Green
Houston's such a sprawled out mess. They're completely screwed. It would cost a fortune to build a decent public transport system that got to every chunk of it, and the more the thing grows out devouring the country side the more dummies there will be tring to drive through it.

They just need to bulldoze everything outside of 610 or at least the Sam Houston Toll Way. Well no, but some zoning might be in order. Otherwise there will always just be one more redneck insisting on living right on the edge, demanding we give him power, water, and a nice road so he can drive all the way to the center.
161 posted on 06/02/2003 8:27:37 AM PDT by Lefty-NiceGuy (It's going to hell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
You are slow. Let me spell this out for you. Public transportation requires OTHERS to pay for the method of transport and gasoline (not to mention those who operate the transportaion, the bureaucracy, etc.). With automobiles, you foot that bill. Road construction costs are a footnote comparatively- in terms of per capita costs. Thus, not only does automobile transport cost taxpayers less than public transportation, the amount of mileage and users dwarfs public transport. Now, I'll give you time to understand a nuanced argument and get your head out of your ass. I've debated to this to my satisfaction.
162 posted on 06/11/2003 7:13:36 PM PDT by jagrmeister
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: Risa
Taxpayers subsidize the costs associated with car travel, too, such as roads and highways. And in my experience, building more roads and highways relieves the problem for a short time, only.

And light rail relieves the problem once and for all?
163 posted on 06/11/2003 7:28:12 PM PDT by gitmo (Maybe we should just take "The United States of" out of the nation's name.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: gitmo
>>And light rail relieves the problem once and for all?<<

Public transportation issues are extremely complex, and controversial, too. I haven't the education or knowledge in that discipline to make the claim that light-rail will relieve U.S. transportation problems. I meant only to report my observations.
regards,
risa

164 posted on 06/12/2003 3:15:27 AM PDT by Risa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: jagrmeister
It's easy to "argue" when you don't have to stick to facts. Where are your numbers? I'm sure whatever you rely upon is complete, unbiased, and leaves nothing out - for example, comparative land costs. Oh, I'm sure all of your numbers also include costs of policing and traffic management as operating costs of the roadways. I'm sure you have it all under consideration, and that your view is informed only by facts and not by your political bent. And probably also informed by your vast experience with public transportation.
165 posted on 06/12/2003 7:37:41 AM PDT by lugsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160161-165 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson