[PRCo] Re: StreetCars!~?~!~?~!

[Jim Holland]

 >> fws3 wrote:
.
 >> The Sunday Forum on bringing back streetcars where it
 >> talks about how wonderful they are in Kenosha and
 >> Little Rock. I agree it's bull. Obviously the person
 >> who wrote it has never been there. The only
 >> one that makes any sense is Portland.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07245/813807-35.stm

Don't know anything about Little Rock. Only know what I hear about 
Kenosha and wish it well (many large systems started from relatively 
nothing, but that was 100 or more years ago!~!~!) but I would hardly 
want to use Kenosha as an example of a modern streetcar system -- hours 
of operation are extremely limited among other things. Kenosha is 
apparently using fixed rail to revitalize and that is often, but not 
always, a good approach.
.
Y~E~S -- Portland is an exceptional _Transit_System_ that utilizes 
Suburban Rail and City StreetCars ala TrolleyCars. I personally am not 
enamored with modern rail and after visiting a few cities I gave up the 
notion of visiting new rail installations. But I like to return to 
Portland. When MAX was installed downtown bus routes were turned into 
feeders and some of the people with whom I talked said the ride is 
considerably longer as a result - transferring from bus to MAX. I 
haven't seen the new streetcar system and even though in the area 
recently I didn't take the time to visit:::::
.
 > On Tue 28-Aug-2007, Jim Holland wrote:::

I have always liked Portland and on the announcement in the 1980s that 
they were building light rail, I thought: """Nice, but so what -- small 
sleepy town - what could it do?!""" I Was Very Pleasantly Surprized -- 
Fantastic system from the word Go!! They did their homework which 
resulted in an extremely well built system with much attention to detail 
and emphasis on operations and results. As the system grew communities 
were planned around stations while growth beyond a certain perimeter was 
restricted to keep open space.

This article indicates that the desired results of more people using 
transit with such development has not been achieved. In fact, Portland 
fits the national average of 3% using public transit!!

As Portland has grown and become more affluent I have become less 
enamored with the town -- such growth often spawns reckless leisure 
behavior that encroaches on the rights and privileges of others with 
near total abandon. Altitude problems -- don't like that -- those are 
the operative words around the Bay Area and I go to Portland to escape 
the same. I like a more industrious Portland but one which could still 
relax and enjoy life without interfering with or hurting others.

A recent trip to Portland found me stuck in massive traffic jams The 
Whole Time -- even on the weekends when bikers have successfully lobbied 
to have Interstates and Bridges shut down for their exclusive usage. It 
was insanity. I didn't spend Any Time In Portland but rather went to 
Washington to explore and see the Columbia River Gorge from their 
perspective -- Breath takingly Beautiful! Saw MAX from a distance (Very 
Nice to see that the Bombardier cars are still operating -- Excellent 
Equipment) and haven't even seen let alone ridden the local streetcars 
in Portland -- some other time -- mebbee!!


Portland has used POP fare on the MAX (Metropolitan Area Express) trains 
since opening in 1986 -- donut know about the beeses. (Sacramento, San 
Jose, San Diego, and as someone mentioned, all those systems built as 
new from 1970s forward have used POP fare -- Quite A Few Systems in 
U.S.A. alone.)

With the opening of new MAX lines Tri-Met has rerouted buses to be 
feeders to rail and this makes a longer trip for many people who were 
used to the one seat ride into town on their bus -- but at least these 
people were still riding.


http://www.examiner.com/a-901418~Story_of_the_little_train_that_can_t.html

O-R:::::

http://tinyurl.com/2ww92y <http://tinyurl.com/2ww92y%5B2>

SF Examiner

Story of the little train that can’t


SAN FRANCISCO - ‘Transit-oriented development” is the buzz word for 
policies that promote high-density, mixed-use growth clustered around 
mass transit lines instead of more traditional settlements along 
suburban highways. TOD is much favored among urban planners who assume 
that people who live and work near rail lines won’t use cars to get 
around. That’s the theory, but it doesn’t always work in practice, as 
folks in Portland, Ore., have discovered.

Portland has been a TOD leader since 1973, and won numerous awards for 
strictly limiting growth in outlying sections of the city — the 
so-called growth boundary — aggressive rezoning of existing 
neighborhoods and significant investment in light rail. But, as former 
Portland resident RandalO’Toole points out, after spending billions of 
dollars on TOD, there islittle evidence that Portland residents have 
significantly changed their travel habits.

In fact, by 2005 less than half (38 percent) of Portland residents who 
commuted downtown were taking mass transit to work.

“More than 97 percent of all motorized passenger travel in the Portland 
area is by automobile,” writes O’Toole, a senior fellow at the Cato 
Institute, in “Debunking Portland: The City That Doesn’t Work.” TOD has 
had the net effect of taking “less than 1 percent of cars off the road.”


Portland was also one of the first cities in the nation to take 
advantage of a federal law that allowed it to spend highway funds on 
mass transit, including a no-bid contract with San Francisco-based 
Bechtel Corp. But littlewas done to ease the traffic congestion caused 
by tens of thousands of former city residents who moved to Vancouver, 
Wash., and other areas outside the growth boundary in their quest for 
affordable housing. “Rather than preventing sprawl, Portland’s planning 
has to some degree accelerated it,” O’Toole maintains.

Despite huge subsidies — including 10 years of property tax waivers — 
Portland still has trouble filling all the vacant street-level shops 
along its light-rail line. And after diverting billions of tax dollars 
from schoolsand other essential services to subsidize TOD projects, it 
turns out that they “only work when they include plenty of parking.” For 
cars, that is.

All of this is a cautionary tale for our region’s urban planners, who 
fortunately have a much more extensive multi-agency mass transit network 
to work with. Comparisons of problems shared by two metropolitan areas 
don’t always suggest the same solutions, but let’s hope that the future 
of commuting in an already congested Bay Area doesn’t mirror Portland’s 
unexpectedly excessive car-dependent reality.



--- Links ---
1 
http://www.examiner.com/a-901418~Story_of_the_little_train_that_can_t.html 
<http://www.examiner.com/a-901418%7EStory_of_the_little_train_that_can_t.html>
2 http://tinyurl.com/2ww92y

http://tinyurl.com/2ww92y