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.
Either way, you support capitalism, thus you support rents going up so that people can make more money off those properties.
What does that have to do with cutting transit service to have-not neighborhoods so you can run a toy train that costs more to operate and is slower than the buses it replaced in the urban playpen?
I don't support than anymore than I support Anaheim's shiny schools and great great parks in the affluent Anaheim hills neighborhoods while the schools in the flats are falling apart and the parks are completely neglected. Now, if Anaheim hills wants to create a special tax district to pay for having fancier parks that's fine in my opinion. But just letting the flats have their parks dry up and die so you can put in a new frisbee golf course and tennis courts in the municipal parks up in the hills is warped.
There's been a huge investment in MAX. Wiki puts it at $3 billion through 2004. Since then they've expanded the system by about 20%, so that's probably over $4 billion. What it hasn't done, however, is increase transit usage.
1) Transit ridership could have decreased more without MAX
2) Mostly just switched people from buses. Or going by your post (disinvestment in buses), though in outer bus-dependent areas switched to cars, while others switched to rail.
Or you could argue even if transit ridership stayed the same, the fact that they're on rail is still an improvement. Perhaps it's my Long Island bias: I always used to assume a bus to the center city is inferior by a lot to rail.*
I'm not sure why so many (including urbanlife78) use Portland as a transit success story. It's not bad, but there's a much better example 300 miles north: Vancouver. Its transit ridership did shoot up after rail lines were built.
At a high enough increase that the author previously used that number for an April Fool's post. The most recent Canadian census [data released after that post] is slightly less, 19.7% than Alon Levy's estimate, but not by much. Two more rail lines are going to built, so numbers should go even higher.
*Hicksville, NY (Long Island about 28 miles east of Manhattan) is 48 minutes to NYC by LIRR, 1hr20min by car. This is after rush hour. A bus, of course, unless it had its own lane the whole way would be worse.
Well, going into Manhattan is a world apart from going into Portland. Portland is mid-sized city that's not particularly urban, which is being generous. Look at Settle versus Portland. Similar size, Seattle is way more urban although some of that is the much larger metro population. One-size-fits-all works about as well as those horrible tube socks that bunch up in your shoes since you don't have size 16 feet.
Well at least a local I spoke to (not a hipster, but seemed a more working-class type living in the eastern part of the city) said the MAX rail line made it easier and more pleasant to access the city center.
The MAX is a great tool for getting people into the city from further out in the metro. I remember cramp trains on my commutes when I lived out by Beaverton. Also the streetcar is always full during rush hour as well because a lot of people will use it to get from Northwest to downtown or down to SoWa to get up to OHSU.
Well, going into Manhattan is a world apart from going into Portland. Portland is mid-sized city that's not particularly urban, which is being generous. Look at Settle versus Portland. Similar size, Seattle is way more urban although some of that is the much larger metro population. One-size-fits-all works about as well as those horrible tube socks that bunch up in your shoes since you don't have size 16 feet.
Yes, obviously Manhattan is completely different. However, surely going into the center by bus is clumsier and slower than train, especially during rush hour, but I don't know by much. But Portland isn't that dense, so a few rail lines aren't going to cover much of the population. The rest could use the rail via park and rides or feeder buses. Both require going out of your way, it too far people will either drive or take a direct bus. And park and rides are only useful for those with cars, so the benefit of transit for those without car access is gone.
There's been a huge investment in MAX. Wiki puts it at $3 billion through 2004. Since then they've expanded the system by about 20%, so that's probably over $4 billion. What it hasn't done, however, is increase transit usage.
What does that have to do with cutting transit service to have-not neighborhoods so you can run a toy train that costs more to operate and is slower than the buses it replaced in the urban playpen?
I don't support than anymore than I support Anaheim's shiny schools and great great parks in the affluent Anaheim hills neighborhoods while the schools in the flats are falling apart and the parks are completely neglected. Now, if Anaheim hills wants to create a special tax district to pay for having fancier parks that's fine in my opinion. But just letting the flats have their parks dry up and die so you can put in a new frisbee golf course and tennis courts in the municipal parks up in the hills is warped.
That is purely a false statement that you are pushing. And it is a contradiction if you think those "have not" neighborhoods have priced out low renters.
Also, light rail doesn't have to sit in traffic like buses do. As for the streetcar, the neighborhoods it goes to are anything but have not neighborhoods.
1) Transit ridership could have decreased more without MAX
2) Mostly just switched people from buses. Or going by your post (disinvestment in buses), though in outer bus-dependent areas switched to cars, while others switched to rail.
Or you could argue even if transit ridership stayed the same, the fact that they're on rail is still an improvement. Perhaps it's my Long Island bias: I always used to assume a bus to the center city is inferior by a lot to rail.*
I'm not sure why so many (including urbanlife78) use Portland as a transit success story. It's not bad, but there's a much better example 300 miles north: Vancouver. Its transit ridership did shoot up after rail lines were built.
At a high enough increase that the author previously used that number for an April Fool's post. The most recent Canadian census [data released after that post] is slightly less, 19.7% than Alon Levy's estimate, but not by much. Two more rail lines are going to built, so numbers should go even higher.
*Hicksville, NY (Long Island about 28 miles east of Manhattan) is 48 minutes to NYC by LIRR, 1hr20min by car. This is after rush hour. A bus, of course, unless it had its own lane the whole way would be worse.
In the US Portland is a success story with transit and bikeable streets. Outside of the US American cities fall behind. Case in point, Vancouver BC is more of a model than anything you could find in the US, which is a shame because we should be on par with Canadian cities.
The human transit does not support that there has been an increase in transit users.
It only starts at when the MAX first started, and not before. Also, while the percentage hasn't increased the number of people living in the Portland metro have, which means more people are riding transit, but everything else has seen an increase too, especially biking.
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.
