Milwaukie Light Rail
In my free time from teaching high school, I have the honor of representing the citizens of Milwaukie on the City Council. Our hot button issue is bringing light rail south from Portland through Milwaukie. Unfortunately, this has brought out a campaign of misinformation from some of our local residents (and a few folks that don't even live in Milwaukie.) The Oregonian weighed in on the debate in their Clackamas County Weekly section.
So, what do the opponents of light rail want? They have bombarded my email box with a form letter urging the Council and Metro to reconsider the location of the light rail line. Their argument is based on fear and misinformation. They want our residents to believe we will have new crack houses popping up in Milwaukie. They tell local folks they can expect their property values go down. They say no one will ride light rail. They say Metro is pushing the issue down their throats.
Milwaukie is a beautiful City that is changing. Our downtown is growing and we all know Clackamas County continues to expect to see a growth in folks moving into our communities in the years ahead. So, what makes light rail so scary? What is it I can share with my fellow residents of Milwaukie to help them as we move through this issue once again.
|
May 10, 2007 |
Deborah Barnes | Comments (216 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: lestatdelc | May 10, 2007 6:41:19 PM
Is there some huge rise in crack houses and declining property values in Beaverton since the MAX line opened up there that the world failed to notice?
/snark
My only complaint about extending light-rail to Milwaukee is that it doesn't continue on South to Wilsonville and back around to Tigard/Tualatin (where I live) and closing a loop with Beaverton.
Posted by: john | May 10, 2007 7:01:36 PM
Anyone have an actual statistical analysis of crime rates as they are related to light rail? I'd like to see whether it makes a difference one way or the other.
Posted by: Ross Williams | May 10, 2007 7:06:58 PM
Its interesting that Metro removed light rail from the table and it was residents of Milwaukie and Southeast Portland who put it back on again. The crack house argument ought to make it clear that this opposition is at least partially fear mongering by people with a hidden agenda.
I suspect there are two things going on here. One is the ideological crazies who helped kill light rail in the past are back. The other is that there are a bunch of economic interests elsewhere in the region who want to push in front of Milwaukie. They want light rail to boost the value of property in the communities where they have speculated. And the first place to start is by derailing (sorry) the Milwaukie line.
Posted by: Bob R. | May 10, 2007 7:08:21 PM
John -
You could try these two documents (on a Sacramento transit agency web site) as a starting point... the PDFs list other published studies:
http://www.slp2.org/documents/crimefs04.pdf
http://www.slp2.org/documents/propertyvalfs04.pdf
- Bob R.
Posted by: Bob R. | May 10, 2007 7:09:44 PM
I also attempted to post links to the official TriMet and Metro South Corridor pages, but Movable Type intercepted them... perhaps a moderator can usher the comments through?
- Bob R.
Posted by: David English | May 10, 2007 7:34:52 PM
Deb,
I don't know if you remember me, but I have also been involved in Milwaukie Elections in the past. Even though I am not a resident of Milwaukie anymore, I still care deeply about the area and hope to end up back there someday when I return to the US.
It seems like since the light rail measure went down in flames years ago that the light rail to Milwaukie has become the lowest priority. I think that's sad and hope that one of these days it actually gets finished.
Ross has a good point, some issues seem to pull the loonies out of the closet better then others. For Milwaukie, light rail is one of those issues. As long as opponents are screaming as loud as they can pitching the fear angle, light rail will not happen.
Posted by: doretta | May 10, 2007 7:57:17 PM
The argument that the light rail would decrease property values was also used in my neighborhood, now home to the Interstate line.
Even with the rapid appreciation in the rest of the city, my area has consistently outpaced pretty much everywhere else since the light rail was built. There are reasons besides the light rail for that, but it's pretty clear that it hasn't hurt.
Posted by: Janice | May 10, 2007 9:43:44 PM
Yeah Hang in there Deborah,
Just make sure you do your part to help Metro, TriMet and the CoP avoid any public vote.
Posted by: Bob R. | May 10, 2007 9:46:56 PM
Janice -
Deborah is an elected representative in a position which carries the authority to influence these kinds of decisions.
If you are a constituent, I encourage you to present your arguments, as I would encourage any constituent regardless of whether they favor or oppose a particular light rail proposal.
- Bob R.
Posted by: Jennifer | May 10, 2007 9:52:56 PM
Deb. I've lived in Milwaukie for several years although I just moved out of town into unincorporated Clackamas County. I still think of downtown Milwaukie as my local downtown and I love the Milwaukie Farmers Market on Sundays. Everyone in Milwaukie I talk to supports light rail and thinks the angst displayed by the anti-everything crowd is just ridiculous. The region is growing, global warming is real, and the era of cheap oil is over. We'd be fools not to invest now in expanding light rail. I think you and the other councilors deserve an award for leadership and I hope that you dont back down.
Clackamas County is ten years behind the rest of the region in expanding public transit. I am hopeful that we can change this in the next ten years through progressive leadership from people like you. Good luck and don't let a few loud voices mislead you into thinking that the majority of us in Clackamas County dont support light rail. Even my 72 year old republican neighbor supports more transit!
Posted by: lw | May 10, 2007 9:57:09 PM
I encourage Deborah to put the Milwaukie lightrail on the ballot so that all those who pay for it gets to vote. A good idea should have real public support.
Posted by: Hawthorne | May 10, 2007 10:16:54 PM
lw-
Do you think that we should start voting on all significant expenditures? Highway interchanges, lane additions, water pipe replacements- or is it just for things you don't like? Why bother to have representative democracy?
Posted by: Jenni Simonis | May 10, 2007 10:33:51 PM
Deborah--
Part of it might be the news coverage the occasional incident on a MAX line receives. Sure makes it seem like that kind of stuff happens a lot more often.
Lots of luck on the project. I'd really like to see mass transit expanded in the area. A lot of the people willing to use it live in areas that aren't very well served. When the nearest bus is a distance away and only runs once an hour, it sure makes using public transportation early. I always hated it -- I'd get there to the stop early, yet many times I'd still miss the bus. Which meant I was out of luck for another hour... which meant I was driving the car to work.
With gas prices continuing to climb, and no one doing anything about it, we've got to look at other options. There are a lot of people out there who can't afford $60+ per week to fill up their tank to drive back and forth to work. Without transit options, they're going to be in a lot of trouble.
We're lucky, as where we moved is within walking distance of a grocery store (unfortunately it's an expensive Albertsons), a movie theater, a few fast food restaurants, and our favorite Mexican restaurant. So my daughter and I regularly go for walks to these places. But plenty of people don't have that option.
Posted by: Deborah | May 11, 2007 6:59:03 AM
Janice,
I would have responded directly to you via email but your personal information didn't allow me to. Please let me know if you live in Milwaukie so I can chat with you directly. I had a question about your post...what is "CoP"? In addition, I hope you have had the opportunity to go to the information sessions we have held so you can voice your concerns. I would rather have an informed electorate who can explain their position to me so I can better understand your concerns. I would be more than happy to hear from you.
Posted by: Jay Lake | May 11, 2007 7:28:52 AM
I'm a parent of a child at the Portland Waldorf School in Milwaukie, and am currently purchasing a home in Milwaukie. There's a lot of opposition to the current version of the light rail plan from the school's parent body -- who may be "the few folks that don't even live in Milwaukie" you refer to with apparent casual disparagement. That opposition isn't based on an opposition to light rail in principle, or light rail in Milwaukie in specific, but on the fact that one of the most likely sites for a station will severely impair the viability and safety of a school campus that is the educational home to hundreds of children. I think you'd find that with some plan adjustments, the school parents would largely be enthusiastic supporters of the light rail.
This is a legitimate issue of both private and public interest, not some Luddite reaction to public transit issues.
Posted by: Deborah Barnes | May 11, 2007 8:09:09 AM
Jay,
I do understand your concerns regarding Waldorf School. I want you to know I am not taking your concerns lightly. I would love the opportunity to work with you and the other parents through this process. I know our staff and Council will continue to work on developing the right solution for this situation.
I apologize if my comments appeared to be too casual. I believe we all want to work toward a good solution and making sure everyone has all the facts so there are no misunderstandings. Thank you for caring about your new city. We look forward to working with you in the future.
Posted by: nuovorecord | May 11, 2007 8:42:41 AM
Deborah:
CoP = City of Portland.
Keep up the good work!
Posted by: WantAnAnswer | May 11, 2007 8:44:26 AM
On first read, the smug condescension and cartoonish representations in the dismissal of other views by a scripted light rail partisan like Deborah seemed to just be that very common character flaw one encounters in these parts that one learns one has to just to shrug off. However, after her extremely patronizing but factually vacuous answer, to this very reasonable and respectfully made point:
That opposition isn't based on an opposition to light rail in principle, or light rail in Milwaukie in specific, but on the fact that one of the most likely sites for a station will severely impair the viability and safety of a school campus that is the educational home to hundreds of children.
the issue to which I would like to hear someone speak in detail who is more responsible, respectful, and apparently more honest, than Deborah are the specific alignment and station siting decisions being made, including this specific case, and the actual deals that have to be cut in each case.
Also, this argument by another advocate that one frequently hears demonstrates a typical level of meaninglessness:
When the nearest bus is a distance away and only runs once an hour, it sure makes using public transportation early. I always hated it -- I'd get there to the stop early, yet many times I'd still miss the bus. Which meant I was out of luck for another hour... which meant I was driving the car to work.
1) most people are not going to live any closer to a light rail stop than a bus stop because light rail. Light rail, after all, run on a single path just as a bus runs down a single street.
2) - and buses can be made to run more and more busses can be put into service, cheaper than building a single light rail line.
The light rail solution to public transportation is just an expensive life-style choice by a certain group of people in these times, and a business opportunity for a certain market sector. If it were fairly and honestly discussed on that basis, we would actually get good public policy that may or may not include light rail, and perhaps would make for a genuinely more harmonious community. However, that is the last thing a lot of folks want. (And by the way, I too have always preferred to take light rail, the bus, or the streetcar any chance I can instead of drive):
Posted by: Janice | May 11, 2007 8:48:13 AM
Bob R.,
Who the heck are you with your "Deborah is an elected representative in a position which carries the authority to influence these kinds of decisions"?
Could you be a little more condescending?
I mean no kidding? She's elected?
Who are you to "encourage" anything?
What difference does is make if am one of her "constituents"? Her constituents aren't paying for the light rail. And none of them, like anyone else will be voting on it.
What's the point of "presenting arguments" with people like you ambushing the opposition and providing cover for politicians working the anti-voting schemes for more light rail? Presenting opposition arguments in this rigged process, of which you area clearly a part, is a total waste of time. This is all a time tested process launched after light rail was voter defeated and the Airport MAX and Cascade Station Urban Renewal scheme developed.
And you know it. Little good it will do but I would encourage you to keep your transparent insults to yourself.
Deborah,
There is no need to respond directly to one taxpayer.
"CoP" is the City of Portland.
Having been to many "information sessions" I know they are for distribution of propaganda to justify the predetermined policies. Voicing concerns is a not so funny joke and a waste of the taxpayer's and voters time.
I am an exceedingly informed voter/taxpayer who recognizes the familiar rhetoric which signals this deal is done.
With all the usual activists trotting out their handy work our politicians find comfort is avoiding a public vote. It's really quite a slick effort equating the propagandized public support to an actual election and public vote. Me? I say there's nothing quite like the authentic public support signaled by a genuine election. But here at Blue that's just me.
Hawthorne threw in the so very predictable "Do you think that we should start voting on all significant expenditures?" line suggesting our "representative democracy" was preserved once our regional politicians figured out how to get around the voters for more light rail.
I look forward to hearing from you touting a new round of Milwaukee Urban Renewal spending on the heels of this done deal light rail extension. Of course Milwaukee, like other locales in the region, will need to siphon away many millions from basic services to "spur" (that's subsidize to the layperson) the development which Light Rail always fails to "spur".
Having grown up in SE Portland and Milwaukee I know the area.
Having studied all of our light rail and TODs I know that this Light Rail extension you support will not produce any of the traffic relief or private development you wrongly believe will occur because of it. And when you get done diverting countless millions in property taxes meant for basic services you'll be busy dreaming up every money grabbing tax and fees increase possible to backfill the revenue you recklessly spent on private development and light rail schemes. You'll claim no general fund will be spent on Urban Renewal. That's not true with any UR int he region. You'll claim all of the Urban Renewal money will be generated by the new development. That's not true at any UR in the region. With each and every politician touted UR district large swaths of adjacent real estate gets thrown into the district "plan" in order to siphon away and spend more property taxes. For decades this money which would have fed the rising costs of basic services will be used instead to retire the massive debt created by the Urban Renewal subsidized development and light rail.
So yes indeed you are advocating the diverting of Milwaukee's' general fund revenue to be spent on light rail and private development. But with Bob R.'s (et al. help you don't quite say it that way while blocking any chance of a public vote.
Instead you politely invite your constituents to "information sessions" which don't quite say it like it is either.
Out in Rockwood along the first MAX light rail line a massive Urban Renewal spending plan is needed these 20 some years later, in part, to "deal with the crime and blight along the Max Line"
Gresham Station to this day has two Metro owned parcels sitting idle and about to be handed over for a song, along with additional subsidy to "spur" something to be built.
On the heals of 205 MAX approval Clackamas County approved a $25 million Urban Renewal plan to expand Clackamas Town center and to do the same "spurring" along
82nd avenue which County Commissioners had just used to justify light rail.
Posted by: Mel | May 11, 2007 8:56:20 AM
This is the line that was VOTED DOWN twice in Oregon and once inn Clark County.
Concerned politicians and voters should get the McLouglin EIS prepared by ODOT to see what would be a real solution for Milwaukie.
Mel
Posted by: torridjoe | May 11, 2007 9:08:28 AM
"the development which Light Rail always fails to "spur"."
Come again? Do you even LIVE here?
Posted by: Bob Tiernan | May 11, 2007 9:23:04 AM
Do you suppoort having a vote of the people on this,
or to continue the current strategy (pushed by those
who will make money off these projects, including
the family Serena Cruz-Walsh married into) of bypassing
voters?
If there is any misinformation, it cvomes from those
pro-rail project people who stand to gain a great deal
from the construction and post-construction corporate
welfare projects along the line. Ridership figures
mean nothing to them.
How about more buses for a fraction of the money this
line would cost? Oh, that's right -- transit advocates
started to trash buses as part of the campaign to get
light rail lines. Fat Cats get more money from light
rail projects, so they use all light rail supporters
(including those who mean well) to pass on their
propaganda and then they laugh all the way to the bank.
Bob Tiernan
Bob Tiernan
Posted by: torridjoe | May 11, 2007 9:37:21 AM
"Ridership figures mean nothing to them."
On the contrary--ridership figures make the case. Opponents with rational objections to the PSU line showed their concern in part based on OVERCROWDING of trains, not empty ones.
Buses are certainly better than cars, but they've got nothing on light rail for efficiency, speed and environmental soundness.
Posted by: WantAnAnswer | May 11, 2007 9:39:39 AM
"the development which Light Rail always fails to "spur"."
Come again? Do you even LIVE here?
There is little evidence light rail spurred actual causes an increase in the total level of development of a region.
Light rails does, however, radically alter development patterns in the ways we see in Portland.
The best example I've heard is that a diversified and spatially distributed public transportation system is like the capillary system of healthy tissue. Light rail kills that capillary system, and leaves just the larger vein/artery system to the heart (the urban center). As a result, gentrified development happens along the light rail vein/artery, displacing healthier true socio-economic diversity away from the light rail line. The economic health of a particular neighborhood decreases proportional to the distance it is from the light rail line out in territory increasingly underserved by a capillary public transportation systems.
There are economic winners both in business and in the community under that pattern of development, that's why we have it in Portland. Light rail is the transportation component of a certain approach to planning that has all kinds of implications for the distribution of political and social power, there are alternate planning approaches which support equal urban density, and arguably healthier patterns of economic, political, and social development, that rely on alternate, more flexible, public transportation models. The NW just happens to be a place where the self-serving naivete of those who think they are pretty smart, like torridjoe, makes them particularly amenable to the corrupting influences of those who benefit economically from one particular approach to urban planning. Their values of the advocates and the business interests are hardly what anyone would label "progressive", but that is another issue.
Posted by: Scott in Damascus | May 11, 2007 9:53:12 AM
Fat Cats get more money from light
rail projects
Bob Tiernan:
Could you supply a list of elected officials, lobbyist, and others who got rich off the last extentions and those who will get rich via no-bid contracts and the like from the Milwaukee extensions?
Thank you in advance.
Posted by: Deborah Barnes | May 11, 2007 10:00:56 AM
I really do appreciate the dialogue this topic has brought forth. For the record, my being polite should not be construed as being:
"On first read, the smug condescension and cartoonish representations in the dismissal of other views by a scripted light rail partisan like Deborah seemed to just be that very common character flaw one encounters in these parts that one learns one has to just to shrug off.
Because I live in Milwaukie, I would appreciate folks to not confuse my city with that of the one found in Wisconsin.
Posted by: VR | May 11, 2007 10:09:50 AM
We can't vote on every expenditure - because if we did, nothing at all would get done.
A true democracy, where we all vote on every issue - cannot ever be implemented in a real world. Especially not one where we have hundreds of thousands, or millions of "voters".
That is why we have a representative form of government.
If we are going to start demanding a vote on expenditures - I want a public vote on Iraq.
I suspect that the average person would be quite surprised on how much money is spent in various areas. All over the place. Light-Rail is simply an easy target - but government is expensive all over.
More money is spent every year on abstinence only sex education, or faith based government initiatives - than has been spent in Oregon on light-rail. Why didn't I get to vote on those?
There are always objections to any development plan. There were on the red line in Hillsboro, I remember signs in people's back yards "THANKS MAX FOR RUINING OUR LIVES" and things like that.
But those are usually extreme emotional responses that have little basis in reality. I have lived near the Red Line in Hillsboro - in fact purposely bought there because I wanted to be near the MAX. It was great.
Now I live in Southeast PDX, near where the Milwaukie line would come through. I support it fully.
There are people in Forest Grove that claim that if they extend the red line into Forest Grove that the trains will bring crime. Well, busses already go there - and so do roads. Should we get rid of roads if we find out that a criminal might use them?
Get real people.
The things that we should be focusing on is route alignment, station location, and station design. I agree that if a station could harm a school, it should be looked into. However - I am not sure that the claims that the station would harm the Waldorf school are well founded. They may just be knee-jerk reactionary type statements without much reality involved. I just don't know. I would need to see the station designs and hear what about them concerns the parents.
The public should have input. Absolutely.
But we can't vote on everything. It just doesn't work.
In my opinion the biggest criticism of the Milwaukie line is that it doesn't go all the way to Oregon City.
Here is what I would do if I were able to make the future plans:
Yellow line from Vancouver WA to Oregon City - without going through downtown, stay on the east side.
Blue Line - Forest Grove to Sandy. Plan for a station or two in between Gresham and Sandy - but keep it "express" at the current time.
Extend red line service to at least 185th in Beaverton / Hillsboro - and cross the river into Vancouver.
Green line extend from Clackamas to Oregon City, meeting up with Yellow Line.
Switch Washington County commuter rail to regular service - not just peak hours or peak directions.
New light rail line down Barbur / 99W corridor to Sherwood - possible future service to Newberg.
Streetcar to Lake Oswego. Streetcar down Powell / Foster. Streetcar on Hawthorne. Streetcar on Broadway to Sandy blvd, Sandy blvd to Park Rose.
Express bus service in 217 corridor - connecting St Vincents hospital, Sunset transit center, Beaverton Town Center, Washington Square, Tigard Triangle, Kruse Way / Kruse Meadows, Lake Oswego transit center and the streetcar line. 8 to 10 stops maximum. Regular service (not just peak hours).
And I would add several suburb to suburb express routes (cross town). Gresham to Clackamas to Oregon City, to Tualatin, to Hillsboro.
Eventually - we should start planning now - for a regional high speed subway type rail, with larger distances between stops.
Those changes with existing bus service - I think we would do pretty well.
But I am just dreaming...
Posted by: torridjoe | May 11, 2007 10:16:54 AM
Now I've heard it all--light rail is a pernicious power play!
The NW just happens to be a place where the self-serving naivete of those who think they are pretty smart, like torridjoe, makes them particularly amenable to the corrupting influences of those who benefit economically from one particular approach to urban planning.
Self-serving how? I take the bus, and will have to continue to do so without other public options for the next decade, at a minimum. How does backing the Clackamas/PSU or Milwaukie lines serve me??
Just because I am not convinced by the cassandras who repeatedly throw factless absurdities around on this topic, does not make me naive. You'd have to be naive to believe some of the things anti-transit people say, like driving a car is better for congestion than taking a bus, or that TODs have no positive development effect. I've read the reports; I know different.
Posted by: torridjoe | May 11, 2007 10:21:04 AM
VR, I like your thinking! Except that I might run the Lake Oswego line down through West Linn and across to OC that way, rather than down through Milwaukie and Gladstone. (Of course, better still would be to link them both and create a loop).
Posted by: Garlynn - http://undergroundscience.blogspot.com | May 11, 2007 10:32:26 AM
Hi Deborah, and thanks for coming to BlueOregon for counsel on this matter!
I'm not sure where the evidence is that light rail *reduces* property values. All of the evidence in the Portland region suggests that light rail causes property values to rise *significantly* above the natural level of increase for properties with redevelopment potential, and stay flat or rise slightly for existing developed properties (see here: http://www.urban.uiuc.edu/projects/portland/lincoln.html and here: http://www.lgc.org/freepub/land_use/articles/whybuild/page01.html)
and of course the classic:
http://trimet.org/pdfs/publications/beyonddreams.pdf)
I'm not sure what it is about light rail that might be scary. I'd love to have a new light rail line built within a half mile of my house. I'm sure that my land value would go up, that it would cause transit-oriented development that would bring new services and amenities to my neighborhood, and that my ability to get places within the region comfortably would increase.
I wish you all the best with this effort. Light rail could really be the best thing to happen to Milwaukie in a long time.
Posted by: Chris McMullen | May 11, 2007 10:37:38 AM
"Their argument is based on fear and misinformation..."
Oh really? Sounds like a real objective conclusion you've drawn there.
What has light rail done for the area? I'll tell you:
-It has lined the pocket of developers with TOD tax breaks and subsidies.
-It does nothing to ease vehicle congestion. Is HWY-26 or I-84 any less congested then before MAX?
-It sucks up millions of tax dollars and transports a small fraction of the populace.
Light rail has been voted down time and time again, but you Dems still push it on us. Just like M7 and M37 -- we vote it in, you try and usurp the will of the people.
Posted by: Janice | May 11, 2007 10:47:34 AM
Torrid,
"the development which Light Rail always fails to "spur"."
"Come again? Do you even LIVE here?"
For someone who pretends to be at some higher level of awareness your ignorance on light rail, TOD's (Transit Oriented Development) and Urban Renewal is stunning.
You can't even read so it's "come again" from you.
Light rail did not spur anything but the same government agencies and their advocates to then spend countless millions to spur what the light rail did not do, anywhere around here. Every single UR plan and TOD devours millions in tax subsidies for high density experiments which don't deliver the promised accommodations for growth.
Then at the end of the day we get the same car oriented rat race which you all condemn while the working "alternative" you tout never materializes as a legitimate substitute for accommodating growth. And the public is out the countless millions used to subsidize your high density experiments.
Heavily tax subsidized Gresham Station is a car-oriented shopping center not much different from privately built Bridgeport Village. Gresham Station having a MAX stop has meant nothing anywhere near proportionate to the tax expense, if at all. And the subsidy is about to soar these two decades later with Metro handing over millions more in real estate and cash.
But if you don't know this, don't want to know this and are attempting to mislead people well,,,, come again yourself.
Heavily tax subsidized Airport Way Cascade Station is becoming the very car-oriented BIG BOX cluster it was intended to avoid and prohibit. MAX will mean little and the $200 million Urban Renewal Plan for a ped/bike/transit oriented mini-city was a total failure.
Tax subsidized Orenco Station is a car oriented rat race similar to any suburb of LA. Land adjacent to MAX was some of the last to develop.
Hillsboro Transit Oriented Development plans for market rate housing have been canceled and is being replaced with a parking garage.
The Beaverton Round is another MAX stop and it's plans have so changed after millions in tax subsidies that it now hosts Beaverton's tallest building. A 7 story parking garage. In stark contrast to the Round, Beaverton Town Center shopping center, well away from MAX, is always a bustling pedestrian center, most of which arrived by car.
Now those are some kind of transit oriented success stories eh?
Now tell us again the "theory" of what light rail "spurs" and what it will spur in Milwaukie - editor changed spelling.
This is about Milwaukie. - editor changed spelling.
While you're at it go ahead and propagandize how SoWa is a shinning success of biotech jobs or how successful the voter defeated, yet built anyway, convention center expansion has been and how a cc hotel is now needed.
Throw in a lecture on how Washington County commuter rail will serve Washington Square. From the wrong side of 217?????
I could go on and on with the loony tune plans of yesterday today and tomorrow.
But you first Joe, come again.
Come again Joe.
Scott in Damascus,
MAX is always a no bid contract, as was the Tram. Former politicians and bureaucrats find themselves working as lobbyists and consultants for the industry and campaign coffers are forever stuffed with the money from the beneficiaries of these light rail, street car, Tram, TOD and Urban Renewal schemes. Is you are new to these matters you may want to google and bone up yourself and not rely on others to use their non tax funded time walking you by hand through the issues.
I hear Torrid and others are getting paid with tax dollars while they propagandize.
How about you?
Posted by: VR | May 11, 2007 10:58:16 AM
"we vote it in, you try and usurp the will of the people"
The will of the people is not always the best option.
It was once the "will of the people" to own slaves. It was once the "will of the people" to not let women vote.
The majority of people want cheap clothes, new video games, unhealthy snacks, and a good TV show. Throw in beer and a sporting event.
While none of those things are bad - I am simply trying to point out that most people don't ACTIVELY concern themselves with things other than what is comfortable and easy.
Which is why when confronted with questions like "should we raise taxes by 1% to pay for a transit system that you might not even use" they will almost always answer no. Because they have not studied the benefits and downsides, or done research or anything like that. They simply take 30 seconds and mark a box on a form.
I have lived lots of places that did not have light rail, and a couple that didn't even have busses.
Let me tell you why I think light rail is nicer and better than busses for the general population. No numbers, just general observations.
1. Light Rail runs clean and quiet.
2. Light Rail rides smoothly.
3. Light Rail routes are well defined and it is easy to learn where the stops are.
4. Light Rail - in most cases - is not affected by traffic.
5. Light Rail is larger and more convenient to board and ride than busses.
6. Light Rail stations can be more easily "secured" or "patrolled" than endless numbers of stops along a bus line.
7. Light Rail stops can have better amenities - like seating, rain cover, and even vending.
There you go, my complete unscientific analysis on why people like Light rail compared to busses.
But I bet that the operational costs of busses compared to Light Rail is a lot closer than Light Rail opposition thinks. I don't have numbers though.
And finally, one last tidbit of my own thinking. If we have trains that are run by electricity - we can change how we generate that electricity or where we get it from without changing the transportation infrastructure. If we have busses that we want to change their energy source - it may not be possible, and if it is it would take changing thousands of power-trains in thousands of busses. So while electric powered transport may not be the absolute cleanest or most efficient NOW - it is very very upgradable.
Also, while Light Rail trains are expensive, their life-span is much longer than most busses.
So all in all, that is why I, as a taxpayer, and a transit rider - prefer rail systems to bus systems.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | May 11, 2007 11:13:43 AM
It does nothing to ease vehicle congestion. Is HWY-26 or I-84 any less congested then before MAX?
Chris, that's hardly the point. A better question: Are 26 and 84 less congested than they would be without MAX?
Don't forget, we've also added people.
Also, it's worth some time studying and understanding the Law of Triple Displacement. Basically, when there's congestion, people change their time, mode, and route of travel.
If you ponder that, it means that if there's more demand than there is capacity - then the peak time/mode/route (i.e. the Sunset Hwy at 5:30 in a car) will always stay full. When you add or subtract capacity, that peak will stay the same... but you'll see reductions in demand at other times, modes, or routes.
To put it more bluntly, if you were to suddenly double the capacity of light rail, the peak (Sunset/5:30/car) would stay the same... but you'd see less traffic at non-peak times and on alternate routes.
If that doesn't work for you, try the reverse: If you were to suddenly remove a lane of traffic, the peak (Sunset/5:30/car) would still be just as bumper-to-bumper as before. But the traffic would extend earlier and later, you'd get more people spilling onto side streets, and yes, some people would shift to other modes (light rail).
It's really not that complicated. And efforts to pretend otherwise ("But wait! Light rail didn't reduce traffic at 5:30 on the Sunset!") are just plain silly.
Posted by: lestatdelc | May 11, 2007 11:16:40 AM
Posted by: torridjoe | May 11, 2007 10:21:04 AMVR, I like your thinking! Except that I might run the Lake Oswego line down through West Linn and across to OC that way, rather than down through Milwaukie and Gladstone. (Of course, better still would be to link them both and create a loop).
I posted up-thread that continuing south and closing a loop that extended down to Wilsonville and Tualatin/Tigard would make sense as well. Wilsonville is rapidly growing and would serve as the ideal Southern end/loop turn point. In essence making a wide-area bottom half of a clover leaf that tied to a Clackmas Town Center line with one "loop" circuit and another that "loops" west to make a circuit with the west Beaverton line.
Posted by: torridjoe | May 11, 2007 11:23:16 AM
For someone who pretends to be at some higher level of awareness your ignorance on light rail, TOD's (Transit Oriented Development) and Urban Renewal is stunning. You can't even read so it's "come again" from you.
I've done the reading--it doesn't sound like you have:
http://www.urban.uiuc.edu/projects/portland/lincoln.html http://trimet.org/pdfs/publications/beyonddreams.pdf
and a new one I hadn't seen before:
http://www.lgc.org/freepub/land_use/articles/whybuild/page01.html)
I think the sputtering misinformation you provide here is best exemplified by your comment that somehow a MAX station with development finally occuring as intended, now becomes "car-oriented." I wasn't aware that only cars now ran out to that station. And beyond that, it's not called the Cascade Station Line, it's called the AIRPORT line. And yeah, the million people that used the airport station last year must really be thinking what a waste of time THAT project was!
Posted by: lestatdelc | May 11, 2007 11:24:45 AM
Posted by: Chris McMullen | May 11, 2007 at 10:37 AMLight rail did not spur anything but the same government agencies and their advocates to then spend countless millions to spur what the light rail did not do, anywhere around here
Yet in, North Portland along the Interstate line is one of the most upwardly developed areas around and the MAX line has a lot to do with it. I know numerious peopel who work dowtown who have moved into North Portland becuase of the access the MAX gives them to their jobs and because the housing there was more affordable and has resulted in what amounts to a non-predatory style gentrification boom.
MAX had a lot to do with it.
Posted by: Ross Williams | May 11, 2007 11:28:57 AM
Light rail has been voted down time and time again
I believe the west side light rail line was funded with voter approval.
Voters in the region approved funding for south/north, then a statewide measure that included south/north was defeated (although it won support in the Portland region), then the region defeated raising taxes across the region to fund south/north.
The fact is the voters have never "voted down light rail" on any level. In fact they have approved raising their taxes to pay extra for it on two occasions - three if you look just at the Metro region. The fact that they found a way to fund both the Interstate line and the I-205 line without additional taxes may indicate the voters were on to something.
Posted by: lestatdelc | May 11, 2007 11:29:59 AM
Posted by: torridjoe | May 11, 2007 11:23:16 AMAnd yeah, the million people that used the airport station last year must really be thinking what a waste of time THAT project was!
I personally know of hundreds of business travelers (out-of-town) that weekly would love to be able take easy, efficient, hassle free MAX line service type to Wilsonville instead of arranging car rental/shuttle transportation.
Posted by: Scott in Damascus | May 11, 2007 11:45:57 AM
Janice:
Stop spewing your strawman arguement of "lobbyists and consultants for the industry and campaign coffers are forever stuffed with the money" blah blah blah bullcrap. YOU do your homework and if there is corruption - spell it out.
And as far as your "Light rail did not spur anything" all I can add is "BWWWAAHHHHHHH" as I sit in my corner office across from Rasmussen BMW in D/T Portland and watch them putting up another office building and condo complex on in-fill property directly on the Max line. Land that had been a vacant lot for the last 15 years I've been here.
But I guess you would prefer to pave another farm further and further out until we look like Houston or Atlanta with a dry cleaner, yogurt shop, and 7/11 on every corner.
Posted by: Coyote | May 11, 2007 11:54:45 AM
Kari,
Actually a more accurate question would be:
Are I-84 and 26 more congested now than they would be if there had been another lane of traffic or even a bus express lane built. At a fraction of the cost.
Light Rail does not in any study, move more people than does a lane for cars.
Another question one might ask is:
Would all of this mythical development along LR lines have taken place WITHOUT the tax breaks given to those at TODs?
Will the politicians promise that if they build the line south to M there will be no extra use of taxpayer dollars to in essence pay developers to develop in areas they would not develop without said taxpayer dollars.
They won't promise that because development will not follow LR without the giveaways...cough...Beaverton Round...cough...
I am just wondering if Bechtel is one of those companies again who will be on the recieving end of those no-bid contracts. After all Bechtel has done very well with the LR projects in Portland and as most folks may know, has done pretty well under the Bush administration no-bid contracts as well.
Rest assured LR will go down south into the Portland suburbs. Because the Portland metro area politicians have done a fine job at creating a perfect Hydra as it relates to this issue. They can effectively rob money from schools, police and fire (through TIF) and hide that money shift quite well.
However thankfully the city of Spokane Washington caught on to the gig when they realized there would be no development without additional taxpayer dollars. Once the people of Spokane heard that they would be required to not only pay for the line but that they would also have to pay the developers for the "economic development" around the line they killed the project.
Yip Yip
Posted by: Bob Tiernan | May 11, 2007 12:03:24 PM
Bob T: Ridership figures mean nothing to them.
Torrid Joe: On the contrary--ridership figures make the case.
Bob T: People making money off of the projects and subsidized follow-up developments will do well even if the trains carry no one. That's the point. Oh, they'll cite BS
statistics that inflate ridership because they want the line
to be built and must do that, but in the end they don't give a rip -- they just want it built.
Torrid Joe: Buses are certainly better than cars, but they've got nothing on light rail for efficiency, speed and environmental soundness.
Bob T: Their main "flaw", as the establishment see it,
is that they aren't sexy like light rail, and make for poor photo-ops and ribbon-cutting ceremonies -- important things to politicians (remember the dreadful Mark Hatfield with the giant scissors cutting the ribbon for West Side light rail?).
Anyway, please don't demonize buses in order to get more expensive rail projects. You're only helping the Fat Cats.
Jeez, didn't you learn anything from "Roger & Me" ?
Bob Tiernan
Posted by: torridjoe | May 11, 2007 12:03:57 PM
"After all Bechtel has done very well with the LR projects in Portland"
they also provided 25% of the funding for the Airport line, allowing it to be built with no new tax dollars.
Posted by: Coyote | May 11, 2007 12:05:14 PM
Ross,
What?
The voters killed LR in portland in 1998. It was measure 26-74 and they spent over $2 million dollars trying to pass it.
I know, I am looking at a plaque hanging on my wall right now that says "Thank You" and is from our "Don't Buy The Lie" campaign.
The issue is that you can't believe the Raillies even when they have over $2 million dollars to tell you they don't have the money to build it without taxpayer support.
It has lost hard anytime there has been a solid debate. The time is has won is when there was no opposition around to bring to the fore the data that debunks the Rallie argument.
Heck, I remember sitting in the WWeek editorial meeting with three members of the 26-74 campaign. We began confronting the pro campaign with real data that debunked any "trasnportation" value that the north LR was supposed to provide. The three folks began getting more and more frustrated in that the data did not support their argument.
Finally, I think it was Shragg? (was that his name) One of the WWeek editorial board members turned to the pro rail campaign and said something like "so what you are saying is that there is really no transportation value to LR and it is merely an aesthetic and economic development tool?"
After a pregnant silence the answer was "Yes."
A week later WWeek recommended a "NO" vote on the measure.
I just wish the whole debate in that room could have been on video tape. It was classic.
Yip Yip
Posted by: torridjoe | May 11, 2007 12:07:54 PM
"Bob T: Their main "flaw", as the establishment see it, is that they aren't sexy like light rail, and make for poor photo-ops and ribbon-cutting ceremonies -- important things to politicians (remember the dreadful Mark Hatfield with the giant scissors cutting the ribbon for West Side light rail?).Anyway, please don't demonize buses in order to get more expensive rail projects. You're only helping the Fat Cats.
Jeez, didn't you learn anything from "Roger & Me" ?
Actually, their main flaws are that they're noisy and polluting, and don't carry as many people.
Who's demonizing buses? I believe buses are a necessary core for any city's transportation plan, and I use them every day I commute (unless I use the scooter instead). But you do better when buses also feed more efficient rail lines, such as we have here.
Posted by: Brian Newman | May 11, 2007 12:14:01 PM
Hi Debra. As chair of the project steering committee, I have received many of the same emails you received. While there is a vocal minority of people who are opposed to any public transit in Milwaukie, the majority of emails that I have received are thoughtful and constructive from concerned parents at the Waldorf school. Most of them even indicate their support for light rail. I am optimistic that most if not all of their concerns can be addressed though the design process when we evaluate station locations and safety issues.
When the Waldorf community purchased the school site, the alignment behind the school was already selected. The school president at that time indicated their support for light rail, but also made clear their concerns about a station adjacent to the building. This concern is fair and certainly worth evaluating during this phase of the project. Since day one, the Waldorf School has been a positive and thoughful presence in the Milwaukie community.
Thanks for your post Debra and I look forward to working with you and the rest of the city council to resolve these design issues. Have a good weekend.
Brian Newman
Posted by: Bob R. | May 11, 2007 12:15:52 PM
Coyote -
You state that light rail does not move as much as a single vehicle lane. "Studies" which have purported to show this simply divide ridership over the entire 24 hour day.
What matters is peak hour. At peak hour, 11 trains per hour move in one direction Westbound along US26. (4 Red Line + 7 Blue Line).
Fully loaded (check them out at 5PM) each 2-car train carries 300-400+ people. At minimum, that's 3,000 people in one direction at the peak. (Design load of a single MAX Type-I light rail car is 211 people, 256 people "crush" load).
Cars in the Portland area, on average, carry 1.27 people per vehicle (ODOT figures).
Thus, at minimum, peak hour MAX service is providing a level of service similar to at least 2,360 cars. (And how much would it have cost to widen the US26 Vista Ridge tunnels to add a lane?)
That's way more than a single lane of vehicle traffic, possibly 2 lanes depending on the conditions.
Simply added to US-26, 2,360 cars is a new car entering the freeway every 6.5 seconds.
While it would be theoretically possible to build a 3rd automobile tunnel with two flexible peak-direction lanes, the cost wouldn't necessarily be any cheaper than MAX, and you'd also have to upgrade many local roads and parking areas to handle all those additional cars.
- Bob R.
Posted by: Janice | May 11, 2007 12:30:03 PM
"Land that had been a vacant lot for the last 15 years I've been here."
You better study harder Scotty. Your naievity has you hoodwinked.
That land being vacant had nothing to do with a MAX line or streetcar. And there is no new MAX line so why the building now? Likely Urban Renewal subsidies or the free market and nothing to do with MAX. If it's Riverplace there are zoning changes, subsidies and the Streetcar not MAX.
SoWa sat idle for years because the city itself blocked previous private plans which would not have required millions in tax subsidies.
lestatdelt, I can assuure you those 100s of business travelers you personally know, would prefer free limosene service. Why not have the taxpayers provide that?
You defenders don't understand anything do you? You don't understand anything mentioned about Gresham Station or Cascade Station or anything else. Your dodge ball tactics are ridiculous as well.
Andecdotal jibberish and quoting TriMet propaganda. Marvelous.
Ross, you are piece of work.
The ways they found to fund the Airport, Interstate and the I-205 line without additional taxes was by among other things, stealing money from property taxes desdined for basic services. Countless millions. The voters turned down light rail any way you look at it. Your spin is Karl Rove-like propaganda.
Worse, your stuff is right out of Metro's boiler room.
Torrid,
What's wrong with you?
The Max stations haven't development as intended. What planet are you on? As I stated and you know very well.
I can only concude that you are hopelessly dishonest.
Cascade Station is now going to be a BIG BOX cluster.
Here "Ill go slower.
Cascade Station is now going to be a car-oriented or car-dominant BIG BOX cluster.
The opposite of what was intended.
Urban Renewal at it's worst.
What game of yours is this "I wasn't aware that only cars now ran out to that station"
"only"? "now"? Did you add that to make some stupid point? What is it with you?
If you don't think Cascade Station is a complete failure to bring about what is intended, then you have never read the condemnation BIG BOXES got when the plan was hatched. A plan which prohibited BIG BOXES because they were perceived and presented by public officials and planners as auto dominated horrible outcomes.
NOW we are to told by TriMet, who you like to quote, that MAX helped attract the BIG BOXES.
Now can you stay focused, for once, long enough to actually respond to my central point about Cascade Station failure? Or any other failure I mentioned and you dodged around?
Posted by: jim karlock | May 11, 2007 12:37:44 PM
Here are some facts about light rail:
1. Light rail DOE NOT REDUCE CONGESTION because 2/3 or more of the riders would be in a bus and light rial sucks up money that otherwise could have been used to reduce traffic congestion. Bottom line is that MAX on US 26 & I84 relieves about 1/4 of one lane of traffic at a cost greater than building several new lanes. It simply costs too much and does too little see PortlandFacts.com/RailAttractsDrivers2.htm
2. Light raid DID NOT CAUSE DEVELOPMENT along MAX, tax breaks did as this testimony to Portland’s city council shows:
Mr . Saba [planning bureau] said during the 10 years MAX has been in existence, the City has seen no mixed-use developments adjacent to the light rail lines . Most of those that occurred were in the Central City, Lloyd Center and Gresham .
Wayne Rembold, Portland contractor, said tax abatements are essential to getting these projects built as otherwise they do not pencil out
See PortlandFacts.com/Transit/LightRailDevelopment.htm for the full story. Some claim that this is no longer true and development can occur without the tax subsidies. If so, why are they still giving subsidies?
3. Light rail HAS INCREASED TRAFFIC CONGESTION on Interstate avenue. First two lanes of the four were replaced with tracks. Second light rail controls ALL traffic signals, breaking up the smooth flow of traffic.
4. Traffic congestion will get much worse as high density housing puts more cars on the road. Only a small percentage of the new people will be using MAX, the rest will be in cars on the grid locked streets. See PortlandFacts.com/Smart/DensityCongestion.htm
5. Tax abatements and REZONING to high density are the driving force behind the development and increased property values along Interstate Ave. The toy train is merely and excuse. See portlandstreetcar.org/pdf/development.pdf
6. Light rail divides neighborhoods. For safety reasons, they put a fence down the middle of Interstate ave. Crosswalks are now several blocks apart instead of every block.
7. Bus stops used to be every block or so, now they are much further apart (1 mile?). Some people quit using transit because of the longer walking distance.
8. Light rail kills people at about THREE times the rate of buses. see PortlandFacts.com/Transit/MAXSafetyChart.html
9. Light rail is electrically powered which means that it is powered about 50% by coal which emits Uranium, Thorium and Mercury into the air. See ornl.gov/ORNLReview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html
10. Who really profits form light rail? Here is a list.
In 1996, the voters rejected the building of a north-south light rail system.
Here is a list of big contributors ($5000 and over) who were in favor of building light rail. Their contributions totaled $980,000 . All pro-rail contributions totaled over $1,156,340.
The light rail opponents spent about $110,000 and won.
NAME OF CONTRIBUTOR AMOUNT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Portland General Electric............................................$52,500
Pacific Power..............................................................$52,500
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers........$50,640
Fred Meyer..................................................................$50.000
International Union of Operating Engineers...............$44,710
U.S. Bancorp...............................................................$35,000
First Interstate Bank....................................................$30,000
Siemens Duewag Corporation.....................................$30,000
Oregon Public Employees Union................................$27,400
Legacy Health..............................................................$25,000
Portland Trail Blazers..................................................$22,750
Local Union Legal Foundation....................................$20,000
Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Quade & Douglas....................$20,000
Bridge Structural, & Ornamental Iron Workers...........$17,400
Sheet Metal Workers....................................................$16,350
Bank of America..........................................................$15,000
Intel Corporation..........................................................$15,000
Bricklayers & Allied Craftsmen...................................$14,000
LTK Engineering Services...........................................$13,400
BRW Inc.......................................................................$12,500
Middleton & Compauy.................................................$12,000
Greenbriar Company....................................................$10,000
Tom Walsh....................................................................$10,000
Zummer Grinnel Frasca Partnership.............................$10,000
Goldman Sachs & G.)...................................................$10,000
Nike, Inc.......................................................................$10,000
Kiewit Pacific...............................................................$10,000
Morse Brothers.............................................................$10,000
Union Pacific Railroad.................................................$10,000
Hanley Industrial properties.........................................$10,000
Bombardiere Corporation.............................................$10,000
City Center Parking......................................................$10,000
Obie Outdoor Advertising............................................$10,000
OTAK Architects.........................................................$10,000
Standard Insurance.......................................................$10,000
U.S. West Communications.........................................$10,000
United Infrastructure....................................................$10,000
Amalgamated Tran it Union..........................................$8,100
Cement Masons.............................................................$7,650
Hoffman Corporation....................................................$7,500
CH2M Hill....................................................................$6,000
O'Brien Kreizberg.........................................................$5,600
James Furman & Co-....................................................$5,000
Dames & Moore...........................................................$5,000
Providence Health Systems..........................................$5,000
Slayden Construction....................................................$5,000
Kaiser Permanente........................................................$5,000
David Evans & Associates............................................$5,000
Class PAC.....................................................................$5,000
CFI Pro Services...........................................................$5,000
Davis, Wright, Tremaine..............................................$5,000
NW Natural Gas Co-....................................................$5,000
Zidell, Inc-....................................................................$5,000
Stoel, Rives, Boley, Jones, & Gray..............................$5,000
Yeon Properties............................................................$5,000
Pacific Gas Transmission.............................................$5,000
AT & T Wireless..........................................................$5,000
Block 216 Partners.......................................................$5,000
Keylorp Management..................................................$5,000
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, CONTRIBUTIONS OVER $5,000...........................................$884,800
PERCENTAGE OF ALL CONTRIBUTIONS............................... 76.5%
TOTAL, CONTRIBUTIONS OVER $1,000............................................$980,640
PERCENTAGE OF ALL CONTRIBUTIONS............................... 84.8%
TOTAL, ALL CONTRIBUTIONS.........................................................$1,156,340
Source: Records for Oregonians for Roads and Rails and for Oregonians for Local Control at Secretary of State's Office, Elections Division, Salem, Oregon.
Bottom line: If you want to destroy Milwaukie as you know it, then go for the toy train.
Thanks
JK
Posted by: janice | May 11, 2007 12:41:05 PM
Metro Counselor Newman,
Can you name me even one person who is "opposed to ANY PUBLIC TRANSIT in Milwaukie"?
No you cannot. You made that up. And you think it is OK to distort.
You, like your peers, like to cast light rail oppostion as opposed to all transit. One of your many misrepresentations.
There is much thoughtful and constructive opposition to our light rail system with plenty of non-biased non-TriMet, non-Metro data to back it up.
You should always identify yourself as Metro councilor.
And you too should openly pronounce that you are opposed to any public votes on light rail.
Posted by: torridjoe | May 11, 2007 12:43:05 PM
What game of yours is this "I wasn't aware that only cars now ran out to that station""only"? "now"? Did you add that to make some stupid point? What is it with you?
Yes, it was to make the stupid point that you can't call it car-oriented development when there's a TRANSIT STATION THERE, that directly instigated the development. That's rather the point--if you put alternate transport near by, cars need not dominate access methods.
And let's not forget that buildout is scheduled to continue until 2015; we're not able to evaluate the project fully for a while.
Posted by: jim karlock | May 11, 2007 12:48:26 PM
Bob: You state that light rail does not move as much as a single vehicle lane. "Studies" which have purported to show this simply divide ridership over the entire 24 hour day.
What matters is peak hour. At peak hour, 11 trains per hour move in one direction Westbound along US26. (4 Red Line + 7 Blue Line).
Fully loaded (check them out at 5PM) each 2-car train carries 300-400+ people. At minimum, that's 3,000 people in one direction at the peak. (Design load of a single MAX Type-I light rail car is 211 people, 256 people "crush" load).
JK:Nice throry, but that is not the reality. The reality is that Trimet istelf only claims carrying a number of people equal to 1.2 lanes of US 26, but the neglect to admit that 2/3 (maybe even 80%) of those people would be in buses if they hadn’t spent a BILLION on that toy train. When you discount for the majority who woul dbe in buses, the number of cars actually removed from the road is about 1/3 of one lane of traffic. see PortlandFacts.com/Transit/RailAttractsDrivers2.htm
And that is not counting those that gave up on transit and went back to cars because light rail turned out to be slower and less convenient than the bus that it replaced.
Thanks
JK
Posted by: Brian Newman | May 11, 2007 1:15:09 PM
Janice-
A) I didn't misrepresent myself in the email. I used my real name, I said I was chair of the project steering committee, and I said "we" when I referred to Metro. I post here enough that most people know I am a Metro Councilor, but thanks for making that clear if you thought I was hiding my identity.
B) There is certainly a small group of people that I have encountered who oppose light rail, oppose bus transit centers, oppose park and rides (for buses), and oppose new bus stops whenever they are proposed in Milwaukie. I think it is fair to characterize them as anti-public transit, not just light rail.
C) I am not against public votes on funding transit or roads. In fact, I am working on one right now for the November 2008 ballot. This is not being done in secret as the Metro Council just adopted a resolution yesterday (in public session and on TV) authorizing me to do this work.
Thanks.
Brian Newman (aka Metro Councilor Brian Newman)
Posted by: Scott in Damascus | May 11, 2007 1:17:27 PM
Janice spewed:
That land being vacant had nothing to do with a MAX line or streetcar.
That one little piece of vile you spewed up post (along with all the name calling) just showed everyone how very little you know or understand about development in downtown.
So here's your homework Bitter Janice (wow, this name calling is really easy to do!) - find me one building owner along Max who didn't 1) love having the tracks at their front door, 2) choose not to develop because of the Max, or 3) did not do significant upgrades because of the Max Line.
Otherwise, Pfffft, I'm done with you. Dismissed.
Oh, and one other thing Bitter Janice, when you pepper you post with "What's wrong with you", "I'll go slower", and "You are a piece of work", you are showing everyone that your argument is void of any facts and that, well frankly, you're an assclown.
Posted by: pam | May 11, 2007 2:01:11 PM
Light rail costs $100 million per mile. Enough said really. Those of us who are opposed to it are not crazy or "loonies" on the right. We simply do not see how the cost can be justified. The metro bus system is excellent for the 3% who actually use public transportation.
Posted by: VR | May 11, 2007 2:06:09 PM
It is specifically arguments like these that bring out the best in people.
Why is it we can't discuss differing opinions without resorting to personal attacks?
It seems to me that there is a legitimate disconnect on both sides. Both sides have an agenda and statistics.
But despite what the anti light rail crowd would have you believe - the Portland metro area is growing and prospering. Everyone I know who has come here in the last 10 years loves Portland, and uses Light-Rail in some way or form. People who have come here from Detroit, Los Angeles, Atlanta, Albuquerque, and other places.
So apparently MAX isn't destroying the city the way some people would make it sound... Real estate values across the region are climbing and remain strong - unlike some locations in the country.
They wouldn't be that way if it MAX was destroying the city.
Posted by: Eric J. | May 11, 2007 2:08:24 PM
The only viewpoint I have is this: While it is probable that there will be lots of commuters during rush hours on this line proposed for Milwaukie, it is the times in between those commutes that you should be worried about. Those are the times when the real Rif-Raff get on board. I used to ride the rails from East Portland to the City Center, but I got so fed up with Tri-Met excusing away the very rude and innapropriate behavior of the riff-raff (mostly the foul language, foul human odors, and threatinging others to shut thier mouths or suffer beatings)that I stopped and went to the buses. The drivers of the rail cars have no control over their vehicules as does the bus drivers.
The question is: do you want to have your children learn offensive language and offensive behavior? If you do, ride the Max! Its a great tool to show how offensive and rude the human being can be.
Posted by: Bob R. | May 11, 2007 2:34:34 PM
Light rail costs $100 million per mile. Enough said really.
The current Green Line project is $67 million per route mile, including new rail cars, new stations, 8.3 miles of double-tracked route and the complete reconstruction of 44 blocks of the downtown transit mall.
The Interstate MAX Yellow Line cost $60 million per route mile including about 2/3 of a mile of elevated viaduct. (2004 dollars).
No MAX project has yet exceeded the $100 million per route-mile figure, however by the time the Milwaukie extension is finally built along with a brand new bridge across the Willamette (serving Light Rail and other transit, possibly peds/bikes/cars as well), your "enough said" $100 million figure may finally come true.
The metro bus system is excellent for the 3% who actually use public transportation.
Although the percentage of people in the region who utilize transit on a given day may be low (it is higher than 3%), the percentage of people who use transit in a given period such as a month is far, far higher. According to TriMet, 43% of adults in the region use TriMet at least twice a month.
"Enough said."
- Bob R.
Posted by: Chris McMullen | May 11, 2007 3:01:37 PM
"According to TriMet, 43% of adults in the region use TriMet at least twice a month."
Yeah right, Bob. Let's all believe Tri-Met's numbers. They won't even release ridership info because of "security rules."
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/1177295119198741.xml&coll=7
Enough said.
Posted by: pam | May 11, 2007 3:09:15 PM
43% monthly ridership by adults is the most laughable statistic I've ever heard. There is no way on earth it is true. I live in Milwaukie, and I don't know anyone personally who uses trimet. I have lived here for 21 years and never used public transportation, althought I am glad it is available for the few who need it.
Posted by: The Unsilent Majority | May 11, 2007 3:16:17 PM
"They won't even release ridership info because of "security rules."
Actually, they do release ridership numbers:
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/1178069126270410.xml&coll=7
You = wrong again. Is that enough said?
Posted by: Eric J. | May 11, 2007 3:18:03 PM
Tri Met won't release ridership numbers because they are so severely inflated due to Fareless Square riders and the Bums who abuse the fareless sqare concept. We could get more true numbers if Tri Met would eliminate fareless square. Besides - Homeland Security thinks Fareless Square is a nightmare to begin with.
Posted by: Bob R. | May 11, 2007 3:23:09 PM
Eric -
TriMet does release ridership numbers including stop-by-stop boarding counts. They have never refused to do it. The only issue under contention was whether time-of-day at specific location boardings could be released under security rules. They probably over-reacted a bit. Nonetheless, the are now releasing that information as well. (And if you check over at PortlandTransport, every transit advocate posting there supported the release of the information.) Tempest over.
Pam -
I'm sorry you don't know any adults that utilize transit. Everyone I know does, even my parents, from time-to-time. My own household is two car yet we use transit multiple times a week both for commuting and shopping/recreation trips. TriMet has among the highest Saturday and Sunday ridership, for example (as a percentage of total ridership) of any transit agency.
- Bob R.
Posted by: Eric J. | May 11, 2007 3:26:46 PM
Still - the ridership totals are WAY over inflated because of Fareless sqaure. Most of those free riders are the riff-raff that make MAX unsafe for any child or God-fearing citizen.
Posted by: Chris McMullen | May 11, 2007 3:36:39 PM
Nowhere in that article does it state Tri-Met will be releasing the data, Unsilent.
Take another shot at it and try reading for comprehension next time.
Posted by: The Unsilent Majority | May 11, 2007 3:44:10 PM
Reality: "TriMet required to release ridership data! TriMet to release ridership data! Extra, extra!"
Chris: "Yeah, well it doesn't say they are actually going to do it."
Reality: "TriMet places ridership in envelope, stamps envelope, puts envelope in mailbox."
Chris: "There was no proof it was actually deilvered."
Did you read Bob's explanation above? I can't believe I'm wasting my time talking to you.
Posted by: Chris McMullen | May 11, 2007 3:48:23 PM
It's not my fault you have substandard reading comprehension abilities, Unsilent.
Posted by: Coyote | May 11, 2007 3:51:55 PM
Scott In Damascus,
You said: "- find me one building owner along Max who didn't 1) love having the tracks at their front door, 2) choose not to develop because of the Max, or 3) did not do significant upgrades because of the Max Line."
Perhaps you are only referring to downtown Portland and if so then I can only think of one. He was the fellow who used to own the Portland Music Store.
Pffft... Can I get an "ok you are right?"
I am more familiar with the Interstate line and there were at least three that I remember.
One was the owner of the Nighthawk reseraunt. However the Portland Development Commission paid him off with some goodies. So, yes he wanted it, but only after the taxpayers ponied up some money. He did not want it on it's face.
A second was the owner of the gas station on Killingsworth (it was a BP station at the time) and he was dead set against it. Again, maybe in the end the PDC had to ante up more taxpayer dollars to pay him off I'm not sure. But I know he did not it on it's face.
Pffft... (that is the term you used right? Pfft?)
A third property owner was a vacum cleaner sales and service store on Interstate. His name escapes me but I remember he was irate in that Light Rail killed his business on Burnside so he moved to Interstate Ave. Then in his words "they followed me."...
Pfffft....
So you asked for property owners. However why do I have this funny feeling that you either won't respond or that somehow you will dismiss the examples that I have given?
Yip Yip
Posted by: The Unsilent Majority | May 11, 2007 3:53:50 PM
Ooh, snap! Insult my reading comprehension. That'll learn me not to provide you with an update to the newspaper article you read a month ago! You know, the one that totally invalidates your point? Sorry, I'll never do that again!
Posted by: Scott in Damascus | May 11, 2007 4:25:46 PM
Coyote:
Wow, three businesses or so that expressed displeasure years ago when it went in. Well, at least you provided actually data unlike most of the postings here.
Now, would you like a full list of all the businesses who love having light rail? It numbers in the hundreds.
Add to that list my business. All of my employees at one time or another take LR at least once a week (and that is even with free paid parking). I also built bike rakes for $350 and those fill up all summer long. And if you think we're all a poor bunch of "riff raff" that clog up the system in fareless square - you need a Masters degree to work here with a minimum 5 years experience.
And if you think LR is used just during rush hour, I always know when an event is happening D/T based on the extreme ridership coming and going to the event - something most of the restaurant owners thrive on mid-week.
Posted by: torridjoe | May 11, 2007 4:35:15 PM
"Tri Met won't release ridership numbers because they are so severely inflated due to Fareless Square riders and the Bums who abuse the fareless sqare concept."
Is the implication here that they are somehow riding without actually riding? Why does a ridership figure that includes people who ride, become 'inflated?'
Nightmare for Homeland Security = cops can't use a fare check as a pretext for a suspicionless stop.
Posted by: Bitter? Janice | May 11, 2007 4:52:18 PM
Councilor Newman,
Having trouble reading ? I never said you A)misrepresented yourself, obviously you used your real name, and it doesn't matter how much you post here. You were speaking as a Metro Councilor without identifying yourself as such. No I did not think you "hiding your identity", I suggested you were neglectful in identifying your elected position.
On your "B)" No you did not "fairly characterize" rail opposition when you claimed there is a small minority who oppose "any transit for Milwaukee". There is no group opposing "ANY transit for Milwaukee". Again, you made that up, as Metro does best, and offer not a single name of anyone in that group who opposes "any" transit for Milwaukee. Even your new version, referring to the "group" as "anti-public transit" is a deliberate mischaracterization. As is always the case with Metro addressing the opposition to light rail.
Your "C)" made me laugh. You must have been working tirelessly for the vote than never happened with the I-205 MAX. Transit Mall. You being all for votes on light rail and all. I notice you were careful and said you are "am not against public votes on funding transit or roads" versus not against voting on light rail.
If you are "in fact working on one right now for the November 2008 ballot" it is only because there is little chance of the schemes used to fund Airport and Interstate MAX being available for Milwaukee. You won't be able to raid schools, police, fire, libraries, parks and other basic services for millions in funding. I believe Airport took $57 million and Interstate took $40 million from general fund property taxes.
Whatever you are crafting now for public vote will likely be anything but an up or down vote on light rail. You'll bundle it together, under the banner of congestion relief, with needed road improvements and hold hostage real traffic relief for light rail approval. This scheming is absolutely done in semi-secret and when the "package" comes out it will be mischaracterized by all the usual suspects in the push for voter approval.
Scott in Damascus,
What a whopper load you deliver and funny as can be. You haven't the slightest idea how much of downtown Portland is inside an Urban Renewal Districts and heavily subsidized. You don't even know whether or not the one building you cite is being subsidized. How about an address? Someone else will do the work to find out. But then it won't matter how much the public money was diverted from schools to help that high rise will it?
"Bitter Janice" ? That's so Blue and so planner like. Funny though.
On North Interstate there was nothing wrong with the street and bus lines before. The PDC doled out millions more in school, park money etc. to pay for the makeover upgrades. Newman and company have misled people into believing property owners just did it because of the Max Line.
That's all part of the perpetual campaign to mislead and misrepresent.
Boy does it ever work on guys like you.
Oh, and one other thing. When you pepper your post with things that are completely false you are showing everyone that your argument is void of everything but Metro/TriMet propaganda.
But you're probably a good guy and that makes this troublesome.
There is not even a slight chance Newman or anyone at Metro or TriMet will be advocating a public vote for Milwaukee light rail. They, their bureaucrats and helpful activists are busy behind the scenes brainstorming how to fund this light rail without a light rail public vote of approval.
They'll stop at nothing, say anything and do anything. Just as TriMet's Fred Hanson claimed MAX attracted BIG BOXES to Cascade Station the truth is always optional.
No go google " PDC light rail urban renewal" and study up there fella.
You're weak, very weak.
Posted by: Brian Newman | May 11, 2007 5:02:40 PM
Janice (if that is your name), its MilwaukIE not MilwaukEE. Where do you live?
Posted by: Mel | May 11, 2007 5:08:06 PM
Scott,
Check the C & E's for each light rail vote and the undervaluation of the property give-away for the airport line.
Mel
Posted by: Janice | May 11, 2007 5:14:57 PM
Yeah right Milwaukie, sorry
And it's an election, not a poll, that is a vote.
Brian, you could very easily, right now, tell us if you will be working on enabling a stand alone public vote on Milwaukie light rail.
If you are not and will not please clarify?
Posted by: Deborah Barnes | May 11, 2007 6:06:59 PM
On your "B)" No you did not "fairly characterize" rail opposition when you claimed there is a small minority who oppose "any transit for Milwaukee". There is no group opposing "ANY transit for Milwaukee". Again, you made that up, as Metro does best, and offer not a single name of anyone in that group who opposes "any" transit for Milwaukee.
Janice...it appears YOU are opposed to light rail in Milwaukie.
And please, it is MILWAUKIE.
Would you like a chance to chat with our staff or me or other members of Council? Your drive could help us do so much in Milwaukie.
Posted by: jim karlock | May 11, 2007 6:31:27 PM
Deborah Barnes Would you like a chance to chat with our staff or me or other members of Council? Your drive could help us do so much in Milwaukie.
JK: If you truly have an open mind and care about your city I urge you to look into information from the rail critics. Many of the rail proponents are profiting from rail, while all of the critics that I know personally are just sick of the waste of rail’s high cost and ineffectiveness at congestion relief. (Yes, I do know that congestion relief is not a goal of Metro’s transportation policy.)
PortlandFacts.com
americandreamcoalition.org
ti.org/antiplanner
demographia.com
publicpurpose.com
cato.org
reason.org
saveportland.com
Also, if interested in both sides, the americandreamcoalition.org has speakers available. Note that two of them are from the Portland area (Cox & O’Toole), although they now reside elsewhere.
Thanks
JK
Posted by: Jenni Simonis | May 11, 2007 6:38:29 PM
WantAnAnswer said:
Also, this argument by another advocate that one frequently hears demonstrates a typical level of meaninglessness: in response to my post on this issue, citing that the MAX wouldn't make people any closer to the bus.
Apparently, this person need to read closer. You'll see I specifically said:
"I'd really like to see mass transit expanded in the area. A lot of the people willing to use it live in areas that aren't very well served. When the nearest bus is a distance away..."
It's pretty obvious I'm not just talking about MAX, I am talking about expanding mass transit. When I mean just light rail, I'll say light rail. But when I say "mass transit," it is pretty obvious that I am meaning it in its various forms -- bus, light rail, etc.
The light rail solution to public transportation is just an expensive life-style choice by a certain group of people in these times...
I'd like to know which group of people this is. Could it be those who live on one side of town, are unemployed, and the jobs they need to get to are 2 hours away by bus, but 45 minutes away by MAX? Or those who would like to cut down their driving, but the bus ride is just too long?
There are a lot of people who would use MAX, but not the bus. They may not be close, but they can take a quick trip in their car to a park and ride (yes, it is a use of a car, but much less than driving into work, adding to street congestion, parking, etc.). Or they could catch a ride with a neighbor and be dropped off near a stop. Or maybe they're close enough to walk. Or their spouse, driving age teenager, etc. drops them off.
I used to get my husband to drop me off at the 182nd/Burnside MAX stop in the morning for my commute to work. If I could get him on the phone, he'd also pick me up (we had dial-up internet at the time), or I'd catch whichever bus came first and go home that way. It might mean I got dropped off in front of our place (if I was early enough to catch the once an hour bus), or was dropped off on Powell and got to walk up the butte home.
There are a lot of people out there who use MAX. I'd just like to know who you think this "group" of people are.
Posted by: Deborah Barnes | May 11, 2007 7:30:24 PM
JK...
I believe I am open minded enough to do the research to understand both sides of the issue. I appreciated the links you provided. I went to your webpage and actually went to the Hibbits poll. Ironically, it actually indicated those polled supported the expansion of light rail as a priority.
I will continue to review the links you provided and appreciate your voice in the discussion.
Posted by: Hawthorne | May 11, 2007 7:57:54 PM
JK has suggested that his perspective is without bias and that light rail proponents are beholden to corporate funding. For a perspective on who is funding some of the people JK points to, try this:
http://www.lightrailnow.org/facts/fa_lrt_2007-01a.htm
As far as I know JK has refused to answer whether he recieves income from any of these groups or others with interests in planning, public policy, transportation, etc- even though he often demands to know this of others
Posted by: Janice | May 11, 2007 7:58:03 PM
Deborah,
With all due respect I can't imagine how any dialogue will serve an purpose when right here I can't get anyone to repond to the most germane points I raised.
I asked you for instance if the city of Milwaukie was preparing another or more Urban Renewal to align with the upcoming light rail?
Others here have steered clear of addressing my very cogent points of how other areas responded to light rial and what role UR played.
Can you please tell what is it in the region which Milwaukie hopes to duplicate? Are you planning some significant additional use of Urban Renewal to fund development along the upcoming light rail line?
Brian hasn't answered, but can you please tell me if YOU would support a stand alone up or down vote on the Milwaukie light rail? A vote by EVERYONE who wil be asked to pay for it?
Watch now as not a single elected official in either Portland, Milwaukie or Metro will advocate an up or down stand alone vote. Not one.
Posted by: Hawthorne | May 11, 2007 8:00:57 PM
Janice said "With all due respect I can't imagine how any dialogue will serve an purpose when right here I can't get anyone to repond to the most germane points I raised."
Err Janice, it's not what you say so much as how you say it. I suggest you take a look in the mirror, consider the names you call and then think about why no rationale person would not want to engage you in honest discourse. If you act with little integrity you can't expect people to treat you with respect.
Posted by: torridjoe | May 11, 2007 9:01:50 PM
Others here have steered clear of addressing my very cogent points of how other areas responded to light rial and what role UR played.
Horseshit. The information was provided to you--TWICE--and you simply ignored it.
It seems you've already fallen under his thrall, but once you free yourself from the contortionist scribbles of Jim Karlock and the Cascade Policy Institute, you'll notice things become much more rational and clear. Give it a try.
Posted by: jim karlock | May 11, 2007 9:13:45 PM
Deborah Barnes Ironically, it actually indicated those polled supported the expansion of light rail as a priority.
JK:
Did you miss this:
Knowing that financial resources are limited, what priority should local and regional governments give to each goal:
..........................................................................Priority:...Urgent....High.....Med...Low.......DK
22. Building new roads and highways-------------------------11% --- 35% -----31% -- 22%---- 2%
27. Building light rail extensions ------------------------------- 5%---- 33% -----29% -- 31%---- 2%
Or did you miss this:
30. Which of these goals is most important?
Building new roads and highways --------------------------------------16%
Building light rail extensions --------------------------------------------- 7%
Or did you miss this:
31. Second most important?
Building new roads and highways --------------------------------------- 6%
Building light rail extensions --------------------------------------------- 4%
(Of course, the main reason that people want any rail at all is because they have been led to believe that it will relieve congestion. See questions 1 & 2.)
If you did not miss the above items and in view of your comment, I’m sorry have wasted both of our times.
Thanks
JK
Posted by: Janice | May 11, 2007 9:16:13 PM
Hawthorne,
That's the biggest load of bull. I get plenty of response but most of it's diverting and avoids the greater points.
Look above in the posts.
For crying out loud, this is such a dysfunctional conversation that Ross, who lives in Minnesota I think says light rail was never voted down here. What a spin.
You don't think that is insulting?
But you play this worn out bit about the "tone" as if kindness reigns supreme with your side.
Give me a break. That's such a lame old song you sing.
Any one of you could easily point to a model Milwaukie hopes to duplicate. Any of you could respond to my comments about Gresham Station, the Beaverton Round, Cascade Station etc. or even the commuter rail on the wrong side of 217 to serve Washington Square.
How about all the money in property taxes diverted from schools and other basic services to pay for light rail and the development it doesn't "spur" on it's own.
I haven't called names to any extent at all while you and yours evade, avoid and insult in your own manner.
This whole light rail-Urban Renewal high density scheme is a snow job boondoggle that does not and will not provide for the needs of growth, ever. There will not be an end to the automobile and the so-called "alternatives" are no substitute. Not in Gresham, not in Hillsboro, not in Beaverton not in Portland and will not be in Milwaukie. The vision and theories are stuck in fantasy mode without at authentic plan to accommodate the real needs of growth in sight.
Our elected officials can't play it straight on what they are planning. We fund probably 500 planners in the Metro region and another 100 full time PR/spokes persons to conjure up fresh doses of rhetoric to push the agenda.
And it aint making the region work. From the pretty little Pearl to the milked for far more than it was ever worth Orenco Station the irrational exuberance for rail transit and overcrowded high density development is just plain wrong.
At the end of the days Beaverton builds a massive parking garage because the Round is a farce, Cascade Station welcomes BIG BOXES because the mini-city was a fantasy, Gresham/Metro has to give away land at a 20 year old light rail station, and Rockwood needs millions to deal with blight and crime along the Eastside MAX. On and on the beat goes on.
Defend one of these, advocate for the convention center hotel, call SoWa a biotech research jobs boost, tell us Milwaukie MAX will do for Milwaukie what it did for Beaverton. But hold on to you wallets and get ready to cough up much more to back fill what is taken from schools, libraries, parks police and fire to pay for this chaos in the making.
This choice quote from the former head of Metro, 7 years ago, says it all.
Be sure and ignore it.
"Traffic congestion is bad and getting worse.
It is a nightmare for commuters and it is choking freight mobility.
There is no more clear illustration of our inability to meet growth needs than our failure to address our transportation needs.
Within the transportation arena we are facing utter chaos."
from Metro head, Mike Burton's State of the Region Speech, 2000
Posted by: Hawthorne | May 11, 2007 9:18:52 PM
JK,
You don't seem to every mind wasting people's time. What is your point? People are supportive of both new roads and light rail (and other transit). Is this a shock to you? Why is this a reason to not support a light rail extension? It's not like we are not undertaking improvements to the road infrastructure. We should do both. You seem to think we should only build roads. In this opinion you are in the minority.
You're Welcome.
Posted by: Hawthorne | May 11, 2007 9:25:57 PM
Janice,
Cry me a river you poor down trod upon one. At least you have learned how to spell Milwaukie. There is hope. Are you Jim Gridlock's wife, or do you just play one on the internet?
Seriously, you are all bluster. Take your meds and chill. If you think that the way you conduct yourself is going to get a rationale reply, you need to take a double dose.
In the meantime, I hear that Houston is a nice place for people of your persuasion. You might consider it.
Posted by: jim karlock | May 11, 2007 10:03:07 PM
Hawthorne (to Janice)Are you Jim Gridlock's wife
JK: I see you are back to childish name calling again.
Hawthorne JK has suggested that his perspective is without bias
and that light rail proponents are beholden to corporate funding.
jk: Many are. see file:///k:/DebunkingPortland.com/Transit/WhoWantsRail.htm
Hawthorne For a perspective on who is funding some of the people JK points to, try this:
http://www.lightrailnow.org/facts/fa_lrt_2007-01a.htm
jk: You have to forgive Hawthorne, he is one of those people who cannot look at clear, credable, data and make a decision. Instead he has to look at the funding of the person who pointed out the data. Sad, really.
Hawthorne As far as I know JK has refused to answer whether he recieves income from any of these groups or others with interests in planning, public policy, transportation, etc- even though he often demands to know this of others
jk: Why don’t you start by using your real name. Then assure us that you don’t receive any money from government (employment, grants or in any form) or industries associated with government contracts, transportation etc.
In case some here missed it, Jack’s blog caught a number of Portland city employees blogging in support of the city’s policies to give the false impression that those policies have wide support.
Thanks
JK (who receives no income from city planning, city policy, city projects or smart growth, social engineering, or driving people out of their cars - can you say the same?)
Posted by: Hawthorne | May 11, 2007 10:19:45 PM
JK (who receives no income from city planning, city policy, city projects or smart growth, social engineering, or driving people out of their cars - can you say the same?)
Yes I can. And I can also say that I don't get money from politically related activities. Can you say the same?
Posted by: Hawthorne | May 11, 2007 10:22:29 PM
jk: You have to forgive Hawthorne, he is one of those people who cannot look at clear, credable, data and make a decision. Instead he has to look at the funding of the person who pointed out the data. Sad, really.
Dude, you can't have it both ways. You can't contend that people who support light rail are beholden to commerical interests and then, when I point out your beholden interests suggests otherwise.
What is sad is your ability to reason (and spell).
Posted by: Urban Planning Overlord | May 11, 2007 11:04:57 PM
Well, Deborah, your predecessors in the light rail fight in Milwaukie got run out of the Council on a recall.
I sincerely hope this doesn't happen to you. If it does, it will show me that the people of Milwaukie are just as stupid as they were 10 years ago.
Here's hoping they are not.
www.urbanplanningoverlord.blogspot.com
Posted by: jim karlock | May 12, 2007 12:40:15 AM
Urban Planning Overlord Well, Deborah, your predecessors in the light rail fight in Milwaukie got run out of the Council on a recall.
JK: That’s what I hear, but that was before I was politically active.
Which leads me to this for Deborah Barnes,
Did you know that once light rail arrives, metro has density targets for the area around EVERY station?
Here is the relent section of Metro code:
3.07.170 Design Type Density Recommendations
A. For the area of each of the 2040 Growth Concept design types, the following average densities for housing and employment are recommended to cities and counties:
Central City - 250 persons per acre
Regional Centers - 60 persons per acre
Station Communities - 45 persons per acre
Town Centers - 40 persons per acre
(bold added)
...
(from metro code at metro-region.org/library_docs/about/chap307.pdf )
Note that many of those station areas are now low density single family neighborhoods and they may not like having high densities imposed on their neighborhoods.
Although the above are NOT mandates, I assume that you already know that if your city doesn’t meet its Metro MANDATED density targets, Metro can FORCE YOU.
And, I hope that you know that increased density is a direct cause of increased traffic congestion. See PortlandFacts.com/Smart/DensityCongestion.htm
OK, Hawthorne, your turn. (BTW, do you have a real name?)
Thanks
JK
Posted by: Bob R. | May 12, 2007 12:49:22 AM
Hawthorne -
Don't worry about JK's taunts. He's asked me multiple times in multiple forums to disclose my real name and any potential external biases, and I have done so repeatedly. Sadly, JK has failed to disclose all his interests in return.
- Bob Richardson
(Who receives no funding and has no contracts with any government agency or pro-transit organization, although my company did once bid to operate Milwaukie's cable access program. My main business is software development, web design, and a hint of video production. Recently, I began serving on Portland's streetcar citizen advisory committee. I've attended two meetings hand have received the following perks: A streetcar pass, two one-time tram courtesy tickets, coffee, and cookies. Other than that, I'm clean.)
PS... The coffee, cookies, and tram passes were made available to anyone who attended the public meetings, no matter what their opinion.
Double PS... Thus far, there has been no Portland Kool-aid served at any meeting I've ever attended.
Posted by: Bob R. | May 12, 2007 12:56:03 AM
And one additional disclosure: I am the webmaster for the Rose City Park Neighborhood Association ( rcpna.org ). I invoice that organization periodically for actual costs incurred, and I receive zero profit from the arrangement.
Clearly, my support of transit and especially rail transit is biased (I'm part of the cabal now, you know... don't tell anybody) because of this.
- Bob R.
Posted by: Bob R. | May 12, 2007 12:58:03 AM
Oh, and I once took a bus to Milwaukie and transferred to another bus to Oak Grove because my previous car was broken down. Without that service, I would have had to pay for a very expensive cab ride. Clearly I am permanently maliciously biased toward transit because of this immense public subsidy. I beg forgiveness.
- Bob R.
Posted by: Michael Wilson | May 12, 2007 6:33:22 AM
BusRapid Transit can be built for about one-tenth the cost of light rail and provide the same level of service. Lot's of good info on BRT available.
MW
Posted by: Coyote | May 12, 2007 6:54:28 AM
Scott In Damascus,
Thanks for proving my point that you would simply dismiss the examples I provided. Funny how reality gets in the way of what you thought was an incredibly bold strategic move.
I will tell you this about the Interstate LR. I used to publish a community newspaper in the area. I worked up and down Interstate with virtually every business on the strip and I don't remember ONE of them being in favor of the construction. I do remember a land owner though I forget his name. He was a balding fellow who wore bow ties. HE was in favor of it and tried to push it from the Overlook Neighborhood perspective. Then it came out that he owned a bare piece of land near where one of the stops would be. Of course he stood to make bank on that little gold rush.
Hawthorne,
Your retorts regarding who's backing who are just plain silly. So Randall O'toole works for a non-profit that receives some funding from businesses who are indirectly interested in transportation. In receiving said funding ROT points out that 2+2 does indeed equal 4. OOOHHH big surprise.
Meanwhile you are able to dismiss the direct conflicts of interest from businesses and landowners who attempt, in their rush to the gold, to say that 2+2 equals 5?
As with Scott in Damascus: Move along here folks... Nothing to see... Move along.
Yip Yip
Posted by: Steve | May 12, 2007 8:47:49 AM
THe real issue is that, yes, it would be nice to have light-rail running everywhere, even Milwaukie. However, there is a limited amount of money from the one source that pays for it, taxpayers.
When we see lousy schools, not enough jails/police and yet unlimited money for light-rail, it is annoying. Please, don't giver me the different buckets of money stuff since there always seems to be a way to transfer money to light-rail, but never the other direction. As far as METRO support, since when do they care about schools/police (as evidenced by doing anything about it?)
Light-rail is becoming a monomanical pursuit for the backers. It's a simple fix for all of society's ills. I am just waiting for the statement that light-rail will cure cancer in the next couple of years.
Posted by: Max | May 12, 2007 9:50:54 AM
Metro Councilor Newman presents yet another disingenuous argument: "Why, I didn't hide my identiy!" Yes, Councilor, you did. As one who has a dog in this fight, as you do, it is wilfully deceptive and, I suggest, unethical to fail to fully identify yourself and your affiliation to the great unwashed masses.
Moreover, your text contains misrepresentations which can only be construed as deliberate. Remember, Councilor, that according to your own HR department: "It doesn't matter what your intent was. All that matters is the perception of the recipient."
Please bear it in mind.
Note: The presence of any individual above does not imply an endorsement by BlueOregon. The selection of faces shown is done by Facebook. Visit BlueOregon on Facebook.
Posted by: Bob R. | May 10, 2007 6:31:16 PM
Hang in there Deborah, you're about to get a wild ride on the Internets! :-)
Personally I'm in favor of LRT to Milwaukie (which should come as no surprise to anyone who has been following the many debates over at PortlandTransport).
I like some of the recently proposed alternatives such as extending all the way south to Park Ave. I'm not fond, however, of the idea of running the system behind the industrial area (Southgate Theater site) rather than along 99E. I'd prefer the more direct highway route remain, along with a stop to serve the industrial area.
- Bob R.