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 guess I failed to make my point clear so I'll try to abbreviate. People don't like to be forced to do things they don't want to do and those who want to drive into town will eventually no longer choose to do so. They will go elsewhere to get their errands done. ..
Yes, that is true.
The cost benefit ratio will break different ways for different people.
For some, regardless of the cost of driving a car to work, the car will be mode of choice; example: warehouse worker who starts shift 5:00am, before Buses start running. Many, many other examples.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rosecitywanderer
..This method of pro-mass transit would work great in harmony with some automotive accommodation but when you criminalize the car, it's eventually going to start having the opposite effect (which it has). The mass transit system works great for those who live in the city but for everybody else, it's a burden and an inconvenience.
Criminalize is a harsh word....
But yes, there is a strong anti suburban commute to downtown factor.
Hold back the tide of Urban Growth as long as possible. And then realize that people will move and live where they want... the maximum policy can do is just to influence the economic factors that decide the "wants" people have for housing. And let the free market do the rest. More parking and better roads would lead more people to move to the 'burbs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rosecitywanderer
There's a reason my hairdresser moved to Beaverton. She used to work at the Bob Shop right off 5th Avenue and after the transit mall opened, her business went down 40% to 50%. Many businesses are moving out of downtown because of the difficulty in getting down there and in fact I saw a downtown intersection where EVERY business on that corner was empty and had a 'FOR LEASE' sign in the window. I've never seen that in the 'burbs.
If your hairdresser moved from downtown to out in the 'burbs where you live, you are driving fewer miles and burning less gas when you visit her; the objective of 'less gas' has been accomplished.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rosecitywanderer
And to those saying the downtown core would be great as a completely car-free zone. How would you like to lug that new TV or building supplies on to a MAX train, then on to a bus, and then lug them several miles home? I don't know about you but that just doesn't sound appealing to me which is probably why I will never fit in here. I will keep my evil, city-destroying car and be on time for my appointments because of it.
Actually that is the market hole that Zipcars, and its Avis Rent a car clone, are trying to fill. Works great for car-less people up on NW 23rd and pearl district shoppers to go out to Ikea, or electronic stores.
Look at this way, assume that car payments and insurance and parking is around $550.00 per month. That is a lot of Taxi money, Zipcar rental hours, monthly bus pass and so on. For some, (in the city of Portland) who can afford the time (that means NOT people with small kids) they can save one of two hundred dollars per month by not having a car.
Yes, there are 'burbs like Beaverton, Oregon City, Clackamas Township where the car is King and owning and operating a car is mandatory for daily survival. If you choose to live in such a place, that is your choice. But why should you expect the voters in the City of Portland to accommodate you in downtown Portland (where you, and other suburbanites, have no, none, nadda, zippo political vote?) If your employer moves out to your suburban community, the stores you shop at open up near you, you are still using less gas; this is a good thing. And, if you so choose, your visits to downtown for entertainment, recreation, or just to visit using your car to do so will have much less impact than a daily commute to downtown.
Obviously you, and a lot of others disagree with my view on this, which is why you live where you do, and I love living in the City.
Location: Still in Portland, Oregon, for some reason
890 posts, read 3,699,404 times
Reputation: 743
Phil...thank you for your well thought out and polite reply to our discussion. It is refreshing to be told politely that somebody disagrees with me rather than saying, "Get out and stop bitching" as most people have in this thread. The way many have responded, you would think I'm not entitled to my opinion.
If you ask me, the tactics that the City and Metro are using to discourage car use in Portland are slowly killing this city. MAX helped to revitalize the downtown area in the 1980s but now over-saturation of mass-transit and excessive bicycle and pedestrian accommodation is having the opposite of the intended effect. I have talked to a number of people who don't even go downtown anymore because it's so difficult to drive and find parking and because MAX is too inconvenient for where they live.
I think it IS killing a lot of the city. In the 80's and part of the 90's it wasn't unusual for us to go to a restaurant in Portland, even mid-week after work. I went there often. In due time, after so much parking had been removed, we pretty much stopped. I cannot remember the last time we patroned a restaurant downtown. (We did dine at Jarra's in SE Portland recently.) And it's particularly "weird" to me to see blocks of food wagons using up prime parking lots.
About the only time I go downtown anymore is for the occasional weekend jaunt to the Saturday Market (sometimes by Max, sometimes by car), and to Powell's (usually by bus). I don't Christmas-shop down there anymore.
It's always easy for a poster to say "Stop bitching!". . . until they have one of their own. LOL!!!
Yes, that is true.
The cost benefit ratio will break different ways for different people.
For some, regardless of the cost of driving a car to work, the car will be mode of choice; example: warehouse worker who starts shift 5:00am, before Buses start running. Many, many other examples.
Criminalize is a harsh word....
But yes, there is a strong anti suburban commute to downtown factor.
Hold back the tide of Urban Growth as long as possible. And then realize that people will move and live where they want... the maximum policy can do is just to influence the economic factors that decide the "wants" people have for housing. And let the free market do the rest. More parking and better roads would lead more people to move to the 'burbs.
If your hairdresser moved from downtown to out in the 'burbs where you live, you are driving fewer miles and burning less gas when you visit her; the objective of 'less gas' has been accomplished.
Actually that is the market hole that Zipcars, and its Avis Rent a car clone, are trying to fill. Works great for car-less people up on NW 23rd and pearl district shoppers to go out to Ikea, or electronic stores.
Look at this way, assume that car payments and insurance and parking is around $550.00 per month. That is a lot of Taxi money, Zipcar rental hours, monthly bus pass and so on. For some, (in the city of Portland) who can afford the time (that means NOT people with small kids) they can save one of two hundred dollars per month by not having a car.
Yes, there are 'burbs like Beaverton, Oregon City, Clackamas Township where the car is King and owning and operating a car is mandatory for daily survival. If you choose to live in such a place, that is your choice. But why should you expect the voters in the City of Portland to accommodate you in downtown Portland (where you, and other suburbanites, have no, none, nadda, zippo political vote?) If your employer moves out to your suburban community, the stores you shop at open up near you, you are still using less gas; this is a good thing. And, if you so choose, your visits to downtown for entertainment, recreation, or just to visit using your car to do so will have much less impact than a daily commute to downtown.
Obviously you, and a lot of others disagree with my view on this, which is why you live where you do, and I love living in the City.
Phil
Phil, I just want to give you rep points all the time, but I can't...
Phil...thank you for your well thought out and polite reply to our discussion. It is refreshing to be told politely that somebody disagrees with me rather than saying, "Get out and stop bitching" as most people have in this thread. The way many have responded, you would think I'm not entitled to my opinion.
OK. I apologize for my mean spirited response. Phil is, indeed, a more patient person that I am. However, if you will notice, I am the only one to have a negative response to your posts. Everyone else has been very adult in this conversation.
I think it IS killing a lot of the city. In the 80's and part of the 90's it wasn't unusual for us to go to a restaurant in Portland, even mid-week after work. I went there often. In due time, after so much parking had been removed, we pretty much stopped. I cannot remember the last time we patroned a restaurant downtown. (We did dine at Jarra's in SE Portland recently.) And it's particularly "weird" to me to see blocks of food wagons using up prime parking lots.
About the only time I go downtown anymore is for the occasional weekend jaunt to the Saturday Market (sometimes by Max, sometimes by car), and to Powell's (usually by bus). I don't Christmas-shop down there anymore.
It's always easy for a poster to say "Stop bitching!". . . until they have one of their own. LOL!!!
I don't believe the lack of parking is the only reason that downtown is suffering. For example all the lots in my area are completely full during a weekday when people are working...although occasionally at night or on the weekends(when people might come to shop or eat) the nearby Smart Park has a ton of spots open. But if parking is difficult to find--like in destination areas near Powell’s, there is obviously a large amount of people downtown either working, shopping, or eating. There's a limited amount of on-street parking--yes, but the businesses that are failing aren't necessarily closing because of lack of parking--although you could make the case that the constant construction has scared away some people from downtown. There are annoying things about downtown like the new restrictions on turning left off of SW 6th---but I don't find it much harder to get around downtown than it was 10 years ago for me. And Portland has the lowest costs to park of any city on the West Coast..
Downtown has a lot more competition these days. You've got small boutiques in formerly run-down neighborhoods in North and NE Portland. You've got places like Bridgeport Village or Tannasbourne in the suburbs trying to emulate the shopping of NW and the Pearl. And there is no point in putting a big box retailer like Ikea or Best Buy in a small downtown area like Portland's. Add to this to perception of downtown Portland being overcrowded with homeless vagrants and an awful local economy and it's easy to see why specialty downtown businesses have a difficult time making it in the last few years.
And those food carts are some of the best things about downtown Portland these days(especially for someone like me who works downtown)...They aren't taking up that much parking. Besides those carts are in privately owned lots---the policies of the city don't have much to do with it. At least it's a example of free-enterprise actually succeeding in Portland.
What would make downtown more car-friendly--tear down some old office buildings and putting up some more parking lots(like they did in the 50s and 60s)? Get rid of the Transit Mall? Build another highway through the middle of it? Either way, the government would be subsidizing and paying for most of those options as well...
Phil...thank you for your well thought out and polite reply to our discussion. It is refreshing to be told politely that somebody disagrees with me rather than saying, "Get out and stop bitching" as most people have in this thread. The way many have responded, you would think I'm not entitled to my opinion.
If you want to stake a claim for an equally valid footing in the marketplace of ideas, it is always helpful to propose an alternative solution rather than simply voice an objection. Your principle transportation mode reliance is a destructive and unsustainable one. Yet, you haven't mentioned what YOUR SOLUTION to the car problem is...other than to ask the City to pretend it doesn't exist (as if the mathematics of traffic volume and sustainabilty were simply "one person's opinion" that we aren't necessarily obliged to acknowledge).
Your inconvenience is the natural outcome of life choices that you've made in a world that we've all known for a long time is becoming increasingly congested. You DO have choices as to where you reside, how you get around and what neighborhoods are within the travel radius of your other two choices. But you don't get to have your cake and eat it, too. The lifestyle of the 20th century is long gone and can never come back. Things will get worse in the future, so enjoy the relative freedom of the status quo while you have it. If you lived in London, you'd have to pay a daily penalty of ₤8 every time you entered the urban core by private vehicle. We'll get to that soon enough ourselves.
Location: Still in Portland, Oregon, for some reason
890 posts, read 3,699,404 times
Reputation: 743
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deezus
What would make downtown more car-friendly--tear down some old office buildings and putting up some more parking lots(like they did in the 50s and 60s)? Get rid of the Transit Mall? Build another highway through the middle of it? Either way, the government would be subsidizing and paying for most of those options as well...
That's not what I'm saying....please stop putting words in my mouth. What I'm saying is you need balance. When you lean too far in either direction, the whole thing gets thrown out of balance and bad things happen.
That's not what I'm saying....please stop putting words in my mouth. What I'm saying is you need balance. When you lean too far in either direction, the whole thing gets thrown out of balance and bad things happen.
Sometimes, in order to correct a great wrong an imbalance in the other direction is exactly what is needed. It was wrong to empower the individual to pilot thousands of pounds of steel, aluminum, copper, etc. ad hoc through the countryside, consuming nearly a gallon or more, of (now) precious gasoline per jaunt. Unsustainable as Brenda says. And if so, why half measures to ease the pain for some who have difficulty adjusting?
I agree with the OP. and after reading all of this BS supporting the theory that people shouldn't even drive cars is completely ludacris in my opinion.
I too think that there should be a balance. San Francisco and the greater bay area have a TON of public transportation, yet they also do what they can to cater to vehicles and alleviate at least SOME of the car congestion. Because they realize that no matter what they do. CARS are something that will be involved with the average American far longer than we will be around.
there are too many people demanding vehicles for small urban cities to make an impact on the stoppage of private vehicular use.
I think that its fantastic to have public transportation, and while i don't think they should start tearing down buildings to create more driving lanes. I don't agree with the ever increasing of ridding vehicle lanes on the road.
People mention "have you ever been to NYC London etc..." if someone wanted that lifestyle and to live like that, wouldn't you think that they would live THERE? Are some of your Portlanders trying to make your city something it isn't? Why not keep it Portland? But since NYC was brought up, I have been there, I have a good friend who lives there. He hasn't been outside of 16 city blocks from his home in almost a year because literally EVERYTHING is that close...NY is just THAT BIG...Portland may have a vast amount of things nearby, but i don't see that same thing happening with everyday people as much
For people like myself with 2 children both under 3yrs old it would be ridiculous to attempt to take public transit everyday. Yeah i want to tug a stroller/diaper bag/tots on a subway, or hey lets go ahead and haul 2 carseats around to throw in a taxi. (i will say though, dropping the kids off at daycare and then driving to a park and ride location works fine. its almost like the best of both worlds.) There are NUMEROUS scenarios when simply driving yourself around is simply more convenient. Not to mention people who have transplanted from other states where public transit isn't as large or popular. They may find it weird or uncomfortable or confusing at first. I am from Arizona originally, I took a city bus maybe 4 times my entire life down there and 2 of the times i felt like i was going to get mugged. It may not be the same in other cities, but people are scared of change. When I lived in the Bay, I took public transit all the time and it was great and convenient. Went EVERYWHERE and was almost always open
If the arguement is pollution and consumption of oil...Instead of stopping the use of cars, why not push harder for the creation of hydrogen or electric powered vehicles? Why not put that pressure on to the Corporations, not us the consumer? I challenge you to explore the consumption and pollution daily from things like International Cargo ships and tankers and Airline travel. Sheesh, Maybe we should burn down all commercial airliners along with the cars and require everyone to either A: take a subway out of state or B: a horse and buggy. How many Natural Resources are used in the manufacturing of public transportation, be it the subway cars, the rail system, the demolition/construction to roads (which require large diesel polluting machinery). etc etc etc.
What i am trying to say is, no matter which angle you approach you cannot avoid the inevitable. I'm not saying okay so just give up. But there may be more than just one simple answer of HEY LETS ALL TAKE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION!
issues such as purchasing a TV and hauling it on the max and what not as big of a problem as may seem. I mean how often are you buying new TV's and furniture? Let's not forget a lot of appliance/furniture stores deliver so that also helps out.
And Zip cars, those are great alternatives too! Especially for people who may occasionally need to drive but don't necessarily NEED their own car. But lets look at it from a different perspective, its $50 a year to have a plan with zipcar, and then $69 PER DAY of use...If i need to drive 1x a month then its not looking so bad. But if I need a personal vehicle twice a month, thats $140 a month. That number would be the same as financing a vehicle worth ~$6,000 on avg. credit. Some downfalls are yes, you need to have parking for that car available and it may need maintenence etc. But at the same time I ALWAYS have access to a car if i need one. And i can choose to buy just a beater for $1500 bucks if i want to. And then hey, all of a sudden you realize you are using your car more than you thought because of maybe convenience, privacy, comfort, time saving, weekend outdoors trips ETC ETC.
Last edited by enigmadsm; 05-15-2010 at 08:58 PM..
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.
