High Speed Rail (insert some devisive political phrase to attract attention)

[barfo]

That's what's being proposed throughout California though.

Not everyone gives a crap about California, though.



barfo

 

[PapaG]

I don't have time to go through multiple sites to check you math so I just pulled one article touting Portland's Rail system (maybe WES is not one of it's strengths)

LINK



Besides the money argument rail has a lot of quality of life advantages over cars like less air pollution, ability to use time productively while commuting and reducing stress.

This is a country of choices. You can't say "the car is the best method for everybody to commute to work". We should have a balanced infrastructure

I read this entire thread, but wanted to comment on the bolded. I agree we should have a balanced infrastructure. As I read it, though, the counter-point is that the tax-based funding of this infrastructure is extremely imbalanced, at least in terms of end users. I think that is also worth noting and considering when assessing the benefits of any rail system. I live in Tualatin, and the WES train was supposed to be some sort of big deal. I literally don't know a single person who uses it, and when my wife and I wanted to take our girls on it on a Saturday to have some fun, we found out it doesn't even run on weekends!

 

[barfo]

I read this entire thread, but wanted to comment on the bolded. I agree we should have a balanced infrastructure. As I read it, though, the counter-point is that the tax-based funding of this infrastructure is extremely imbalanced, at least in terms of end users. I think that is also worth noting and considering when assessing the benefits of any rail system. I live in Tualatin, and the WES train was supposed to be some sort of big deal. I literally don't know a single person who uses it, and when my wife and I wanted to take our girls on it on a Saturday to have some fun, we found out it doesn't even run on weekends!

It's a commuter train, not a toy.

That said, it isn't clear to me that it will be a success. The line was laid out because that's where they had right-of-way, not because that's where the commuters were going. In the long run, commuters/employers may adjust to take advantage of the line, but that certainly isn't guaranteed.

barfo

 

[andalusian]

"The calculation is as follows: The median commute in the 33 most populous cities is 24.3 miles per day. In Portland, thanks to its excellent transit system, is 20.3 average commute miles per day."

The commute in Portland is shorter not because of the train, it's because of the UGB and the compact size of the city. Once you figure this out - it is pretty clear that the entire argument is flawed... - it was shorter before the Max was extended - for the exact same reason.

The two things are not related - as the number of people the Max carries daily is less than 10% of the traffic in the city. It simply does nothing for this argument.

Besides the money argument rail has a lot of quality of life advantages over cars like less air pollution, ability to use time productively while commuting and reducing stress.

Sure it does, for those lucky enough to use it. Since the Max can not serve most of the commuters - and the funds going to it instead of the cheaper, higher impact solution of adding lanes to existing, outdated highways, it actually causes more stress and more time waste for the vast majority of commuters.

 

[PapaG]

It's a commuter train, not a toy.

We were going to commute to Beaverton for the day, where we used to live, and show our kids some of the areas. Instead, we stayed local and drove to Bridgeport Village for a movie.

That said, it isn't clear to me that it will be a success.

It's been a disaster so far. Success is out of the question at this point. Managing losses should be the focus.

The line was laid out because that's where they had right-of-way, not because that's where the commuters were going. In the long run, commuters/employers may adjust to take advantage of the line, but that certainly isn't guaranteed.

barfo

More pie-in-the-sky bullshit rammed through by Metro. What the hell, it's only tens of millions of tax dollars to build and maintain the boondoggle that is mostly empty on weekdays, and out of service on weekends.

 

[bluefrog]

The commute in Portland is shorter not because of the train, it's because of the UGB and the compact size of the city. Once you figure this out - it is pretty clear that the entire argument is flawed... - it was shorter before the Max was extended - for the exact same reason.

The two things are not related - as the number of people the Max carries daily is less than 10% of the traffic in the city. It simply does nothing for this argument.



Sure it does, for those lucky enough to use it. Since the Max can not serve most of the commuters - and the funds going to it instead of the cheaper, higher impact solution of adding lanes to existing, outdated highways, it actually causes more stress and more time waste for the vast majority of commuters.

Could you please post links to these numbers so I know you're not pulling them out of your ass?

 

[PapaG]

Could you please post links to these numbers so I know you're not pulling them out of your ass?

The links have already been posted, and the numbers have been shown in this thread.

Do you think it makes sense for nearly a billion dollars to be spent on a transportation system that services only those who live close to it in a convenient manner, while the majority has much less money spent on making a car commute easier?

 

[barfo]

The links have already been posted, and the numbers have been shown in this thread.

Do you think it makes sense for nearly a billion dollars to be spent on a transportation system that services only those who live close to it in a convenient manner, while the majority has much less money spent on making a car commute easier?

When the next gas crunch hits, those car commuters will be glad there is an alternative available.

In the long term, the suburbs are going to wither and die (or become self-sufficient for jobs) because no one will be able to afford to drive to work in the city.

It's not the 1950s anymore. We can't just build more and more freeways. One, there's no place to put them, and two, people have seen the result now, and it is not that nice.

barfo

 

[andalusian]

When the next gas crunch hits, those car commuters will be glad there is an alternative available.

Electric cars. We do not have the density to really make light-rail a cost effective solution.

In the long term, the suburbs are going to wither and die (or become self-sufficient for jobs) because no one will be able to afford to drive to work in the city.

Unlikely. Telecommuting, electric grid cars and staggered shifts are much more likely to solve these issues.

It's not the 1950s anymore. We can't just build more and more freeways. One, there's no place to put them, and two, people have seen the result now, and it is not that nice.

Everything that can be invented has already been invented. Charles H. Duell, Commissioner, U.S. patent office, 1899

 

[PapaG]

When the next gas crunch hits, those car commuters will be glad there is an alternative available.

The "gas crunch" is of our own doing. We don't allow drilling in most areas, while other countries has less restrictive laws. We are legislating ourselves into high energy costs. It is this sort of naivete from you that I have to blame on a lack of life experience/intellectual curiousity.

In the long term, the suburbs are going to wither and die (or become self-sufficient for jobs) because no one will be able to afford to drive to work in the city.

Most people I know here in the sticks of Tualatin don't work in Portland. I'm not sure what your point is.

It's not the 1950s anymore.

I know. It's the 1850s, and trains are the wave of the future. History does repeat itself.

We can't just build more and more freeways.

I don't see anybody advocating this stance. We can improve on existing freeways, though. For example, 205-South expanded lanes, and what used to be an hour commute is almost cut in half.

One, there's no place to put them, and two, people have seen the result now, and it is not that nice.

barfo

People have seen what result? More lanes + less people working = a smooth commute. At least we have a rad way to go to Blazer games, though.

 

[MARIS61]

Not everyone gives a crap about California, though.



barfo

repped for your eloquent understatement.

 

[barfo]

Electric cars. We do not have the density to really make light-rail a cost effective solution.

Electric cars may indeed be a solution. Then again, they may not... As for light-rail, light-rail supplemented by a good streetcar network would be a cost-effective solution even with the density we have now.

Unlikely. Telecommuting, electric grid cars and staggered shifts are much more likely to solve these issues.

Those are all good things - but not all universally applicable. Some jobs don't lend themselves to staggered shifts or telecommuting.

Everything that can be invented has already been invented. Charles H. Duell, Commissioner, U.S. patent office, 1899

If you have an idea for a space-saving freeway, I'm sure everyone would be excited about that.

barfo

 

[PapaG]

Some jobs don't lend themselves to staggered shifts or telecommuting.


barfo

Many jobs do, though. At least those that can use video-conferencing. Pounding rivets or teaching kids are in your "some jobs" scenario. The problem is that those pounding rivets aren't finding it necessary to commute, anyhow, because their jobs are leaving Portland.

 

[MARIS61]

Besides the money argument rail has a lot of quality of life advantages over cars like less air pollution, ability to use time productively while commuting and reducing stress.

I guess the stress part depends on which line you ride and when you ride it.

The first and most noticeable impact from Tri-Met's Max lines was the immediate and prolific saturation of Portland's outer reaches by the Bloods and the Crips and the Aryans and the Asian and Hispanic gangs. As in New York and California it became their personal highway and they expanded their operations from the isolated neighborhoods they were previously stranded in and spread like a bad case of herpes.

A deafening roar that shakes your home every time it passes while bringing graffiti and a gang of home-invaders to your door isn't my idea of improving real estate values, but then I'm only a Realtor.

I absolutely hate Tri-Met. One of their dumb bimbo articulated-bus drivers got off her route in a silver thaw and slid her 90' long POS into my mint condition car which I had only 2 more payments to make on. It was totalled and completely knocked off it's axles. I got about 1/3 of it's value after having to hire an attorney since Tri-Met carries no insurance and has a guy on retainer whose job is solely to be an dick and stall and obstruct and lowball and threaten. I'm sure the tactic makes a lot of people just walk away. Tri-Met is the best example I can think of where the inmates run the asylum. It's the most bloated, overpaid agency in the state, serving perhaps the smallest number of taxpayers.

If you think teachers are overpaid for educating your children, check out what a bus driver makes just driving back and forth on a predetermined route all day.

http://blog.oregonlive.com/commuting/2010/11/trimet_salary_database_shows_h.html

 

[andalusian]

If you have an idea for a space-saving freeway, I'm sure everyone would be excited about that.

We already have roads that are wide enough to be freeways but are littered with constant stop-lights for no good reason - as the businesses around them are not exactly thriving. Rt. 10 is a prime example on the west side. Columbia Blvd. is a good example on the east side. It really is rather silly that a Metro area of 2.5 million people has a network of one freeway going East/West (26 on the west side of town, 84 on the east) and 2 and a half going north/south (I5, 205 and 217 for the South/West side of town.

 

[MARIS61]

I'm all for greater density in big cities, but only because it lessens the density here in Beautiful Central Oregon.

Density invokes what I call the lemming syndrome, and it's why I left Portland with no regrets 9 years ago. People simply can't behave like human beings when cramped together into tight spaces. Crime explodes, manners become extinct, and viruses, bacteria and sickness spread like wildfire. Public transportation increases these ills and annoyances tenfold.

The only transportation that really matters to me is a vehicle of my own, with drive to all wheels, that can tow 5000lbs uphill at up to 65mph and handle off-road terrain.

 

[STOMP]

SD to LA to SF would kind of be a waste for a high speed rail system. It just would. People doing real business can fly pretty easily or even in this age of telecommuting, its kind of unnecessary. Even for casual travel, flying from LA to SF is extremely easy.

easy? You're supposed to arrive an hour and a half early to get through all the security check BS. Unless you're getting dropped off, arranging to get to and from an airport is an extra expense in both time and money especially if you're going to do long term parking. I'd love to have a HSR option going up and down the West Coast... hell I'd ride my bike to it if it goes to SF. I really enjoyed Europe's rail system when I was there for a year... very easy and much more comfortable then air travel. You're not trapped in an assigned seat next to a screaming baby or somebody with an obvious cold. Bring it!

STOMP

 

[PapaG]

easy? You're supposed to arrive an hour and a half early to get through all the security check BS. Unless you're getting dropped off, arranging to get to and from an airport is an extra expense in both time and money. I'd love to have a HSR option going up and down the West Coast... hell I'd ride my bike to it. I really enjoyed Europe's rail system when I was there for a year... very easy and much more comfortable then air travel. You're not trapped in an assigned seat next to a screaming baby or somebody with an obvious cold. Bring it!

STOMP

Huh? I'm not sure how much you travel, but I can still show up 45 minutes before my flight boards, with my ticket printed, and be at my gate with a good 15 minutes to spare. Also, I got a stomach virus from a Euro train, or so I think. That said, for my tourism need, and my treating the train as a "toy", I can't complain.

 

[barfo]

Many jobs do, though. At least those that can use video-conferencing.

What percentage of jobs in the metro area do you think involve (or could involve) video-conferencing? Sounds like you've been a "Consultant" a bit too long.

barfo

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

easy? You're supposed to arrive an hour and a half early to get through all the security check BS. Unless you're getting dropped off, arranging to get to and from an airport is an extra expense in both time and money especially if you're going to do long term parking. I'd love to have a HSR option going up and down the West Coast... hell I'd ride my bike to it if it goes to SF. I really enjoyed Europe's rail system when I was there for a year... very easy and much more comfortable then air travel. You're not trapped in an assigned seat next to a screaming baby or somebody with an obvious cold. Bring it!

STOMP

I live 5 minutes from lax. Never check anything in. planes are a cake walk. At the gate from my place in 15 minutes. Security is never a problem.

You have to wait for trains too. I'm not going to take a 3 hour train when i can take a 30 minute flight.

X

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

Especially when the plane is cheaper

X

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

What percentage of jobs in the metro area do you think involve (or could involve) video-conferencing? Sounds like you've been a "Consultant" a bit too long.

barfo

Probably more than involve having to actually travel to another city.

X

 

[barfo]

Probably more than involve having to actually travel to another city.

X

Yes, certainly. But we were discussing it as an alternative to commuting by car to work within the Portland metro area.

barfo

 

[MARIS61]

What percentage of jobs in the metro area do you think involve (or could involve) video-conferencing? Sounds like you've been a "Consultant" a bit too long.
barfo

All but the real ones.

 

[STOMP]

I live 5 minutes from lax. Never check anything in. planes are a cake walk. At the gate from my place in 15 minutes. Security is never a problem.

You have to wait for trains too. I'm not going to take a 3 hour train when i can take a 30 minute flight.

your relayed experience is not that of the masses at all with no check in/security delay, plus 99% of the world doesn't know the joy of living right next to an international airport. On top of that you are ridiculously exaggerating the difference in time of travel between the two. It's HSR not Am-Trak

STOMP

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

your relayed experience is not that of the masses at all with no check in/security delay, plus 99% of the world doesn't know the joy of living right next to an international airport. On top of that you are ridiculously exaggerating the difference in time of travel between the two. It's HSR not Am-Trak

STOMP

I've "commuted" from Portland and Seattle (and Vegas) to LA many times before. Take the Monday 6am flight to LAX and I'm at work in LA by 9 or 930. Can't do that on HSR..not even within california.

HSR makes no sense for commuter travel, it takes much longer, its more expensive. The USA is not like Europe or Asia. Its a different dynamic of people. It'll be primarily leisure travelers. Even then, airplane travel would be more reasonable.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

I believe high speed rail would be good in close proximity large cities that are within 2 or 3 hours driving distance from one another. For example, from Portland to Seattle. The Amtrack isn't too bad (although there are delays) or from San Diego to LA.

any further and taking a plane makes much more sense.

 

[MARIS61]

Trains for actual travel across our great country, such as the great network Amtrak once ran before Bush gutted it, make a ton of sense and I'd be happy for my tax dollars to be directed to restoring and improving Amtrak.

Exorbitantly costly high speed trains which will only serve a select few citizens in a select few cities and mostly just to get them to work and back which they do just fine already without the train is nothing I would support.

High-speed trains for actual cross-country travel makes more sense and would unite this great country by making it easier for citizens to visit other areas.

If there was a high speed train to Florida or Maine I'd be certain to ride it.

 

[STOMP]

I've "commuted" from Portland and Seattle (and Vegas) to LA many times before. Take the Monday 6am flight to LAX and I'm at work in LA by 9 or 930. Can't do that on HSR..not even within california.

there is currently no HSR in California so what are you talking about? If there were a connection between SF and LA (thats what you and I were talking about) it's estimated the travel time would take about 2.5 hours and thats with stops in multiple outlying communities. It's also estimated to cost significantly less then a plane ticket.

http://sftravel.com/blog/2010/03/25/californias-high-speed-train-arriving-soon.html

HSR makes no sense for commuter travel, it takes much longer, its more expensive. The USA is not like Europe or Asia. Its a different dynamic of people. It'll be primarily leisure travelers. Even then, airplane travel would be more reasonable.

More stuff from your ass. Again, between LA to SF it's significantly cheaper and plenty fast. Besides the travelers who live in the bookend major cities, people who live in outlying communities along the route won't have to travel to an airport... think those people wouldn't prefer to commute at 220 MPH then drive to an airport, park their car at 12$ a day and then wait in line to remove their shoes?

yeah, it makes no sense for the commuter traveler at all

STOMP

 

[MARIS61]

Yes, certainly. But we were discussing it as an alternative to commuting by car to work within the Portland metro area.

barfo

That's not Obama's plan though.

He envisions a train from Eugene to Vancouver BC, for example. I'd ride that one twice a year to BC if it stopped in Bend, but I doubt I'd ever drive to Eugene, leave my car and ride the train to BC.

I used to ride Tri-Met busses (3 with transfers) to work and back in Portland, wasting about 1-1/2 extra hours of my life every weekday, until one day my wife had a medical emergency in Tigard while I was at work. If I had driven to work I could have reached her in 15 minutes, but on Tri-Met it took nearly 2 hours and a lot of jogging. I never rode a bus to work again.

Being independently mobile is a huge priority for me. I simply have to be able to go where I want, when I want, without relying on anyone else's aid or permission.