Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I hate to say this...but rybert's post of the photos seems consistent with this week's report that 46 percent of the Albuquerque public school students in the cohort class of 2008 managed to graduate, compared to a national average of 70 percent. If that's accurate, it doesn't bode well for Albuquerque's future.
Stimulus funds=Streetcar. Phase 1 only.
Check the Stimulus watch webpage. It says we are getting funding for it.
I went to that page and many people in ABQ who've accessed this site and voted, seemed to have voted against green infrastructure and infrastructure that enhances a cities sustainability and livability.
Infrastructure like pedestrian bridges, a solar plant, the street car, and bike lanes were voted against.
However expansion of roads and intersections and enhancements for auto traffic were voted for.
It seems better things happen in places with a good quality of life - sustainable, liveable cities. Companies, creative people and better retailers want to re-locate to those sustainable cities.
I just don't get the 20th Century mentality of building a city around the automobile in the 21st Century era of green initiatives and high gas costs.
Here's some great quotes (from the latest issue of Monocle - which was about the most liveable cities in the world) about urban planning trends in the rest of the world:
Urbanist & Former Mayor of Detroit:
"In Detroit almost every motorway ever dreamed of was built, while the street network and transit was removed. This reduced conjestion but the side effect was fewer jobs, businesses and people".
Urbanist:
"The more densely populated a city, the higher the chance of encounters that can lead to economic opportunities".
Architect:
"Infrastructure is important enough....It means talking about museums and hospitals rather than access roads to green-field McMansions; schools rather than highways, and soaring bridges and train stations rather than mundane road repairs and widenings".
I really hope the a more diverse offering of public transportation becomes a reality in Albuquerque. It would make that city an even more amazing place to live!!!
Laying rail lines down Central Avenue won't do anything to make Albuquerque more densely populated.
Really? How can you know this for sure? Even Urban Planners can't determine exactly what's going to happen in a built environment - they plan according to what's happened in the past under the same circumstances... and the majority of the time when commuter trains, light rail and modern streetcars are initiated in a city they catalyze more dense development near their stops.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mortimer
Laying rail lines down Central Avenue WILL reduce the diversity of the public transportation options in this city.
Which one shows a higher number of transportation options?
You left off ...
3) Buses, Rapid Ride, Rail Runner, bikes, taxis, high-speed light rail.
It's a zero-sum game. Money you put into one option takes away from others.
There is a crying need to solve the transportation gridlock commuting from the West side to the East side.
There IS NO possible improvement to transportation down Central Avenue that can be provided by a trolley.
There IS an opportunity to waste a lot of money doing it, however. Also, an additional effect of putting a trolley down Central is that after everyone has had a chance to ride it and see what an ineffective use of money it was, public support for other ( actually useful ) rail options will dry up.
Unlike the city representatives, consultants, outsiders and drive-bys, etc who are pushing the trolley,
I ACTUALLY USE and ride the Rapid Ride.
I've ridden light rail in Portland, L.A., San Francisco and because of my experience with that and knowledge of the Albuquerque area, I know what I'm talking about. If you are not running rails at high speeds then you are just wasting money on the line and causing future maintenance headaches in the future.
The only advantage you get from putting in a trolley on Central is glamour, but you'll get no functionality. You'll also suck money from other worthwhile projects. Just because the road your bus is running on shines in the sun doesn't make it a good thing.
Do a search on "Zoidberg spur," or as I prefer "Zoidberg loop."
That spur/loop would be a much more practical use for light rail dollars.
How not so. Central Avenue is already a dense corridor.
Dense corridor????
Not quite that dense, but I lived in San Francisco and now live in Chicago.
I guess it's a matter of perspective.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mortimer
You left off ...
3) Buses, Rapid Ride, Rail Runner, bikes, taxis, high-speed light rail.
Have I missed something? What high-speed light rail?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mortimer
It's a zero-sum game. Money you put into one option takes away from others.
Isn't the money initially coming from the stimulus funds? ...but, ok, this statement makes a little sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mortimer
There is a crying need to solve the transportation gridlock commuting from the West side to the East side.
OK - so build more and wider roads and highways, then you'll really see no density on Central or anywhere else in ABQ, leading to the demise of that cities soul.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mortimer
There IS NO possible improvement to transportation down Central Avenue that can be provided by a trolley.
There IS an opportunity to waste a lot of money doing it, however. Also, an additional effect of putting a trolley down Central is that after everyone has had a chance to ride it and see what an ineffective use of money it was, public support for other ( actually useful ) rail options will dry up.
Unlike the city representatives, consultants, outsiders and drive-bys, etc who are pushing the trolley,
I ACTUALLY USE and ride the Rapid Ride.
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but the plan is for a "Modern Streetcar" which is an entirely different thing from a "trolley"
Quote:
Originally Posted by mortimer
I've ridden light rail in Portland, L.A., San Francisco and because of my experience with that and knowledge of the Albuquerque area, I know what I'm talking about. If you are not running rails at high speeds then you are just wasting money on the line and causing future maintenance headaches in the future.
I've done the same, and I've used them in SF and Chicago (and still do in Chicago) daily to get to work, etc. I also have many, many years of experience in Albuquerque, so I would like to think that I know what I'm talking about also.
So it sounds like you think the METRA (not a high-speed rail) in San Francisco is "wasting money"? In all the years I lived in San Francisco, the METRA Streetcar lines I rode were almost always filled to the gills, and I wasn't aware that they were losing money by running them at lower speeds than BART (high-speed rail).
Quote:
Originally Posted by mortimer
The only advantage you get from putting in a trolley on Central is glamour, but you'll get no functionality. You'll also suck money from other worthwhile projects. Just because the road your bus is running on shines in the sun doesn't make it a good thing.
Depending on who you talk to this project is just as worthwhile as the one's you think are worthwhile - especially in the eyes of many of the people who actually study urban environments and plan for the infrastructure of growing cities. Many think that without proper infrastracture cities wither and lose valuable economic dollars and creative people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mortimer
Do a search on "Zoidberg spur," or as I prefer "Zoidberg loop." This is a much more practical use for light rail dollars.
Maybe for getting to the airport on the RailRunner - yes I would agree here, but not for transporting high numbers of people and creating more liveable spaces in the central part of Albuquerque.
Buses can only do so much in alleviating a densley populated area. Granted ABQ is only semi-densley populated, but there will be a time when ABQ will have more densely populated areas, and something more than a lower capacity bus every 20 minutes will be needed. And at that point, a higher capacity modern streetcar will be phenomenally more expensive than it is currently. Some people just believe in investing wisely in a cities future, and I happen to believe that it would be a much wiser and greener investment than more highways and buses.
That's my opinion - and I know that in most cities all over the world there are a very large and growing number of people who feel the same way.
casden, you are missing Mortimer's most important point. You keep talking about getting into "21st Transportation Options". Well why would would anyone want to change instruments of transportation if it didn't benefit them. What would be the benefit of taking light rail that stops every 100 yards down central over driving? What would be the benefit of taking light rail over the current rapid ride system? Green only matters to people when it doesn't affect the green in their pocket. To have a truly "21st century" mode of transportation, it has to be better than the last form of transportation. Mortimer believes this to be high-speed rail. If it could get you places at a comparable or better time than the automobile, then it will be successful. When it is an inferior option, it will have been a waste of money.
Laying rail lines down Central Avenue won't do anything to make Albuquerque more densely populated.
It could, Newer more uban like buildings would go up..
We actually were talking about this in a meeting today.
It would make some parts of Central better than what they are now thats forsure.
Better in reducing traffic, this streetcar really does not use road space, nothing but median.
Before this city grows out we need to start foucusing on the West side and transporation for that side of town, becuase it will be a mess. If we could plan a freeway system around that area, like what we did in Las Vegas things would be alot better. Traffic in the future will not be a problem.
casden, you are missing Mortimer's most important point. You keep talking about getting into "21st Transportation Options". Well why would would anyone want to change instruments of transportation if it didn't benefit them. What would be the benefit of taking light rail that stops every 100 yards down central over driving? What would be the benefit of taking light rail over the current rapid ride system? Green only matters to people when it doesn't affect the green in their pocket. To have a truly "21st century" mode of transportation, it has to be better than the last form of transportation. Mortimer believes this to be high-speed rail. If it could get you places at a comparable or better time than the automobile, then it will be successful. When it is an inferior option, it will have been a waste of money.
Maybe I am missing his point, but I really don't think that I am. I think I understand what he's saying about people feeling that the streetcar will not benefit them as "individual" citizens. But the question to the "individual" is will the Modern Streetcar benefit the entire community of citizens - everyone who lives in the city?
I understand that everyone has a perspective of what is needed in, and what is not needed in a growing city, and I understand it's difficult for an "individual" to want to invest in something in which s/he will not see an immediate return. But it seems evident from these "community" investments made in other cities that the sustainability of those cities is enhanced. Then the "individual" indirectly benefits by better restaurants, shopping, entertainment - just better quality of life in their city. Also potentially better resale value on their house/condo because the city becomes more desirable, etc.
My understanding about this thread is that we should describe what the "future" of Albuquerque would be like in our perspective, NOT what Albuquerque is like now, or was like ten years ago. I happen to think that the "future" of ABQ's public transportation will probably include a Modern Streetcar, or other forms of high-capacity public transportation.
The future of a fast growing city would (in most cases) include several different forms of public transportation - and evidently (in most cases) that transportation will likely be "green".
Even Phoenix, Tuscon, Dallas, Houston and many other Western cities have realized the benefits of high-capacity rail public transportation for its entire community of "individuals". Unfortunately, they had to experience the rude awakening of uncontrolled and sterile sprawl and terrible traffic surrounding their urban centers, after many years of neglecting the urban core public transportation issues.
ABQ is at a very critical and pivotal point in it's history, in that the decisions made now are going to greatly affect the future sustainability of the city - its economics, liveability, etc.
Anyway - this is simply my opinion - take it as you will.
Last edited by casden; 08-08-2009 at 07:24 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
