Dudes, first off, if I were to travel it wouldn't be to check out their metro-stations. I mean, seriously who travels to Europe to ride around in a bus (with the exception of those double-decker buses in London; what can I say? I'd be a tourist).

At any rate, Zilfondel, what I was trying to highlight in my post(s) is that the car is going to remain the dominant form of transportation, whether people like it or not; and thought it best for the City of Portland to admit this to itself and prepare for it. That isn't to say I don't think the idea of car-free areas anathema, necessarily, just I'd be less likely to frequent them (and just to be completely honest, I live in East Portland-that area between 82nd and Gresham-and wouldn't normally visit inner parts of Portland, anyway).

In regards to my comment on costs: I was referring to the general perceived costs by an individual between using a car, and a MAX ride. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you didn't understand me. In simple economic terms, "costs" are not always necessarily in dollars and cents. There are generally, three specific areas of costs (in economic terms): financial, moral/ethical, and social. So, when a father of three must weigh the costs (financial, ethical, and social) of taking an extra half-hour using public transit or the costs of driving a car (financial, ethical and social) and chooses to use the car-by his estimation it is cheaper to drive the car so he can spend time with his family, as opposed to the environmental benefit of using mass transit. When I speak of costs in general terms, that is what I'm referring to; the estimation of each individual who chooses a car over mass transit, of the costs of choosing a car over mass transit. I hope I've clarified my earlier statement.

Returning to an earlier point: those same people are choosing en masse, in my estimation (by no means a scientific measurement, but at least a basis to form an argument), to drive their cars because the effects on their lives is to their benefit, and the environmental costs are minimal (you may want to quibble with that) in their estimation. It is for that reason, that people are preferring to drive (it seems) in which I think.

Last point, for now, as to the so-called deliterious effects of the auto on American life; I sincerely think you misread history. I mean, come on, are you going to honestly argue that cities were BETTER in the earlier 20th Century than the latter? Seriously? I mean, do you know the comparative crime, grime, et al. that festered in inner cities? If you want an example, read Dickens, or read T.S. Eliot's "The Wasteland," or even "The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" or even just watch Van Sant's Drugstore Cowboy, for an idea(of course, with the exception of Eliot, these are descriptors of 19th Century London, but I think that they hold true for a great deal of American inner-cities). I mean, it has only been in the last 30 years that saw drastic change which revitalized inner cities into the Yuppie boutiques that we have now. Maybe you should stop getting out all the time, and start staying in to read a little bit:)

Okay, the last "last point" Are you absolutely sure that these "car free zones" are in places like their Central Business District? The skeptic in me thinks, "no these are probably in retail areas and wouldn't work in a working district." If I'm wrong about this, then by all means correct me.

**forgot to add this: I am totally in love with the commuter rail as a better mode of rapid transit; god, it's just so cheap!**

ok...

while it is true that cities in the past were pretty nasty, that was largely the result of the industrial revolution and slum living conditions in the cities. Considering that cities are were virtually all of the economic development activity is happening...

While automobiles replaced horses as a major mover in cities, they also have largely replaced buses, trams, and all other forms of rail, bicycling, and walking in most cities in the US. This is not a good thing!

Infrastructure costs a lot of money, to be sure, but the social costs incurred by increasing traffic (and not just the ginormous freeways steamrolling through existing neighborhoods) threatens the very (tenuous) livability of our existing urban places.

As I've said before, a highway a city does not make. In other words, roads with high levels of traffic overwhelm any other aspect of a place. While it is true that many retail businesses thrive on auto traffic, those ones have NOTHING on the MASSIVE retail streets to be found overseas (the so-called 'shopping streets'). I've included a picture I took last year in London, the Camden Markets.

http://img69.imageshack.us/img69/5731/londonsf2.jpg
the sheer number of people on this street stretched out for about half a mile - with virtually no auto traffic. Sure, London is famous for these kinds of street markets (it has at least 4), and people from all over the world fly there specifically to shop at them, but the point is - they get by without cars!
Go to Pike's Place up in Seattle for a little taste of what a pedestrian experience can be like - but might I suggest leaving the car parked a few blocks away?

Precisely.
You also have to realize that in major cities with major white-collar workers in centralized CBD's, such as San Fran, Moscow, New York, London, Tokyo, Shanghai, Paris, etc, all move the majority of their workers using mass transit, not cars.
For a truly eye-opening experience, visit any Dutch or Danish cities! Cars are relegated to second-rate status, at best, there. Here's a video from Copenhagen:

http://www.streetfilms.org/archives/...om-copenhagen/

While I'm not too familiar with the history of transportation in the U.S. I'm think that, with the exception of the trolley and the train, none of the above mentioned forms of transport became serious means of moving people until a while AFTER the car (and for god's sake, the bicycle was for all intents and purposes considered a toy-it was an object of amusement!)

Anyway, the point you seem to make is that the big cities of the planet have predominant use of mass transit-so why shouldn't we? Well, I'll tell you why: because they're all ten times the size of Portland, that's why! The cities are too big to handle roads capable of moving people in cars that way! Portland is just a dinky little town in comparison! I can't believe you would even bother to make a comparison; and in terms of business and finance, it'd be easier for companies in Portland to just move to the suburbs than have to deal with the kind of congestion that would require that kind of demand for mass transit! That's a city-killing idea! Cities like London, New York, Paris, Tokyo et al. all have HUGE economies that dwarf anything cities like Portland could produce-people take mass transit because, it just makes sense for that situation. Portland is dinky! We have room for roads, and growth-we don't need to cram everyone into a tiny little space and we really shouldn't. I mean, no one could afford it, the costs would be gigantic, and really the entire idea is just silly anyway (I mean, only a tiny minority even thinks it should be that way). So, to sum up: there is no way that those instances are even remotely applicable to Portland.

^I can't stress how strongly I disagree with that statement...I mean, damn not only is that short sighted, putting your head into the sand, and raked with opinions trying to pose as fact, but c'mon, you obviously aren't too familiar with Portland or Oregon history either...

I do have one question. What American city has a transportation system you think Portland should emulate?

Please be more specific. To which points were you contesting specifically? Just the prior post or all? I admit that I don't know too much about the history of transportation, but I do know a bit about the city-scape of early
20th century cities. Anyway, I'm going to need more in order to respond.

And I don't think any other city's transportation plan is applicable to Portland; by the virtue that each city is located in a different region, and with different problems--I think the Portland Region needs to look at solutions to its problems without just aping what other cities are doing (European, American, Asian or even African).

Umm... so I'm not sure why I'm even responding to your comment, Snowden, but let me put it this way:

-larger cities will find it more expensive to implement alternative transit systems, because they have more miles to install, and must be higher capacity.
-smaller cities, such as Copenhagen (1.7 million) move the majority of residents are by bicycle, not cars (I suggest watching the video above to get a clue)
-smaller homes cost less than larger, sprawled out homes

now, for the last point, because I assume you won't believe me - take this example:
-For a 1,000 sq foot house @ $250/sq foot (reasonable price for Portland), it will cost you $250,000.

-For a 2-bedroom unit 800 sq foot unit @ $250/sq foot, it would only cost $200,000.

-For a 1-bedroom 600 sq foot apartment in south waterfront or the Pearl District, let's assume a higher cost of $350/sq foot (a bit on the cheap side) it will cost $210,000. That is $40,000 cheaper.

That's why you should check out Frankfurt if you ever get the chance (and, really, if you don't go to Europe to check out the transit systems then, I'm sorry, but you're not a true nerd) - its metro area is about one and a half million people - yet it has around 7 subway lines and numerous commuter rail and streetcar lines. In fact, lots of places in western europe are smaller than Portland, yet have huge rail transit systems. Munich is another good example. So "it can't be done here" doesn't really hold much water. Yes, all that infrastructure costs money, which inevitably comes from taxes, but I didn't see the Germans walking around looking poor. In fact, when I was there in April, Frankfurt's street cafes (not particularly cheap, BTW) were packed to the gills. Someone's got money. So I think it's clearly a matter of choices we make. It's also a matter of perspective and experience. Before I'd ever been to Europe it was all fairly abstract for me - seeing it in person was what I needed to understand how it could all work.

If the U.S. would stop trying to be a imperialist, super power nation then "that tax money" spent on the military could be redirected to building/maintaining our highways, and funding mass transit across the U.S. Those European nations spend a smaller % of their taxes on their military. Our military, then, could be funded to actually defend our country. By the way, before any Bushies get their panties bound too tight, I served my time in the U.S. Military. 3 of those years I spent in Germany, and yes, their transportation system (throughout Europe) was a joy to experience for this small town, N.E. Oregon farm boy.

**Edit: I'm REALLY REALLY sorry for this big, big post. I think the we've drifted off of topic (which I kind of brought up, but am NOT sorry for-I always favor discussion over silence), and I'm partly to blame. To Zilfondel, and anyone else, if you're still interested in debating/discussing/foruming on this, just tell me the place and I'll be there. Again, sorry sorry sorry.**

Okay, I think people might be confused as to my arguments, (or I just haven't expressed this point): I am not opposed to mass transit. What is my concern is blowing half of our transportation funds on a mode transport that will remain underused and under-utilized. Roads, not just super-highways but connectors like Powell's and 82nd, are far more conducive to serving the needs of people who are far more likely to drive than to travel via mass transit. I really support it; that said, I just have not seen any evidence to suggest that demand for mass transit as an alternative to roads and automotive transportation is going to be replaced. There is a demand for more access to it, as it is built across the country, but it will remain a minor means of moving people compared with roads. That was my initial, and primary point: we need roads more than mass transit. Now, to rebutt the points made.

Zilfondel, I'm sorry, I didn't watch the video and am in the process of letting it load (it's a slow process). In regards to the price of housing: single family housing (is that the right name?) is cheaper to build, and includes a backyard, though of questionable size. For a large number of people, the yard, the nice neighborhood is a very important quality in the house they purchase. What we're talking about is, again, cost. Besides, a 600 square foot condo is a terrible place to raise children (and while cheaper, even in your own words, it has a higher price per square foot compared with that 250,000 1,000 sq. ft. house which would come with a yard, and be in the safe neighborhoods). It comes down to COST (emphasis to bring attention to this, not frustration or anger-well, maybe a little frustration). COST is the value a person places on a particular thing, so for one person the value of not driving outweighs the loss of excess time; for another person, the value of that time outweighs environmental concerns? <PLEASE READ THAT. While I do like the idea of people wanting to live downtown, there just is not any opportunity for families to live there, due to inflation (to explain this, image two people are bidding on an item and one person has more money than the other-that person can cause the price of that item to rise beyond what it normally would be--sort of like an auction). So, the actual costs of people living downtown exceed that of the suburbs (plus there's the idea of safety, cleanliness, and a certain homogeneity that appeals to many families; which again relates to safety). CAN YOU DIG WHAT I'M TELLIN' YA? It's not that I'm arguing against urban living or mass transit, but I am being practical about the current state of things: people prefer driving their cars to taking mass transit. Well, Americans. Which brings me to the video, which I can explain in two words: different culture. You might hate the difference, or simply bear it mild animus, and fetishize the Europeans for loving to ride around so much, but that's them and we're us. And no, I don't think you can get Americans to stop driving; maybe you can get them to drive less or drive smart, but we will keep on driving. Anyway, I've gone WAY off-topic, and for that I apologize.

Okay, bvpcvm, I would LOVE to go to Europe-but again, I'd be going for the history and the culture (not the mass transit culture, just the regular ol' architecture, artistic history et al. That may not make me a transit geek, but I was always more of a development geek anyway).

And PacificNW, let me say this delicately, "I don't give a shit about your military experience. That was your choice, and does not give any creedence to any arguments about military spending; which is only marginally related to this discussion anyway. Please stay on topic. And I'm not a 'Bushie.'"

Very delicate....:slob: Maybe, I wasn't clear enough. I only mentioned that I was in the military because I didn't want to give the impression that I am anti-military. The military was brought up by me because so much of our national budget is going to supporting our military under the current administration. Many nations spend much more on their national infrastructure simply because of their lack of spending for their military. (Plus, it probably is less expensive to provide transportation options to their citizens simply because of the land size of their particular country as compared to the wide open U.S.)

By the way, it wasn't a choice (draft) to be, or not to be, in the military during that time...the only choice was not to enlist in the Army.

I am sorry about putting my two cents into your conversation....In the future, whenever I see a post from you, I will give you the courtesy of ignoring you. I will attempt to remain focused on the topic....my bad.

BTW, I'd just like to say that it's very nice that we can disagree but still discuss it in a civilized manner. This forum has taken a turn for the better.

OK, sorry, but I take extreme exception to this (the 600-s.f. comment). This is fine if it's just your opinion (you present it as fact, though), but it's just that: COMPLETELY SUBJECTIVE. Here's why: most of the rest of the world grows up in tiny little apartments. My wife grew up overseas in a 2 bedroom apartment that was 650 square feet. Guess what? She turned out just fine. As did all of her friends and relatives. THERE IS NO NEED WHATSOEVER FOR TONS OF SPACE FOR CHILDREN TO TURN OUT NORMALLY. We've all been taught that "kids need a yard" and "the bigger the better" but it's all crap. Sorry, but this little meme just gets under my skin. We don't all need a ranch to survive. </rant>

off topic, yes. sorry.

and sorry to yell.

While spending "my time" in Europe I had the great opportunity to get to know many of the nationals. It was not uncommon for people to raise their families, or be raised, in "small" living configurations....and they seemed okay too me but I may not be an expert on being "okay". Their priorities in living their lives appeared to be different than I was accustomed. I mention this because it was eye opening and a positive experience for me.

I just want improved transit in all areas...buses, rail, highways. But seeing as that probably won't happen i would at least want to be excellent in one area. So, if improvement and expansion of freeways is not going to happen then i sure as hell better see some amazing, european-esque mass transit in the future. Because right now, at least in oregon, the highways are atrocious and the mass transit is mediocre IMO. I (and i think i speak for more than a few) don't want to be stuck with crappy roads AND an average transit system. Pick one and go with it!

Dr. Strange and His Menagerie or How I learned to stop caring and love the thread...
 

Okay. I'll be brief (I've taken up a lot of space for the last page and a half). I think a good mass transit system is better than mediocre or bad; and actually posted a large-ish idea of a city-wide commuter rail network (because, come on, commuter rail is so cheap and connects directly to major job areas, which I'd stressed).

And yeah, cost IS a relative term. I've been sort of stressing that for a while. I was speaking from a perpsective of Economics, that individuals weigh costs; but I digress. And while I don't know anything about psychology, I have read some articles that sort of argued that people who grow up in smaller spaces are, on average, more neurotic than those who didn't (which isn't to say it's impossible for people to be normal and healthy from those conditions or that given all the space we need, we won't be fucked up either--personal point: I grew up in a surprisingly big house and am as neurotic as hell!).

And PacificNW, dude I have been making every effort to be polite and congenial to everyone who's been posting, and everyone but you reciprocated in kind. I mean, when you first posted in the argument, no one had even been discussing national budgets or the military, and you came in looking for a fight (and I was willing to oblige-you seemed to be trying to insult me). If you broached your points with the same respect that everyone else was, in a civil manner, I would be happy to respond. And let me be clear: I didn't give a shit, and I still don't. I'm SORRY that you were drafted, and that must've really sucked, but it didn't bear any relevance to the discussion up to that point. It's nothing personal, seriously; and by all means ignore me if you choose, but if I wanted to get my point across I'd do it by respecting the opinions of the person with the opposing view and treating them respectfully. But what do I know?

Sorry that was longer than I intended. Last post for a while (read, a couple of days).

The Frankfurt Metro Area has about 5 million people, Munich about 3 million.

Where'd you get that? Wikipedia says 1.4m (Frankfurt) / 2.6m (Munich).

Frankfurt:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_am_Main
Area 248.31 km² (96 sq mi)
- Elevation 112 m (367 ft)
Population 661,877 (31/12/2006)[1][2]
- Density 2,666 /km² (6,904 /sq mi)
- Metro 5,800,000 (06/2007)
Founded 1st century

Munich:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich

the Munich Metropolitan Area is home to around 2.6 million people.

From Wikipedia...
"The Frankfurt urban area, which extends beyond the city boundaries, had an estimated population of 1,468,140 in 2000. The city is at the center of the larger Frankfurt Rhine Main Area which has a population of 5 million and is Germany's second largest metropolitan area."

So, you're both right.

Not much in news, but lets get back on topic!
 

Light Rail Construction on 5th Avenue Progressing on Schedule

Trimet

Light rail construction has wrapped up on 5th Avenue between Irving and Oak streets and between Salmon and Jefferson streets.

Crews have replaced the roadway and laid rail track and new pavement. Cars and bikes again can access these sections of 5th Avenue.

Moving forward, you’ll still see crews in these areas as lighter construction work continues. The next phase of the work includes creating station platforms and finishing pedestrian walkways. Work will be quieter and new parking spaces soon will appear on 5th.

-------------------------------------------------------


Smile – you’re on light-rail camera
TriMet surveillance will expand to five local MAX stations

By Mara Stine
The Gresham Outlook, Jun 5, 2007

Thanks to a $560,000 federal grant, TriMet will install security cameras at five Gresham MAX stations by late 2008.

The money is part of $14.2 million in grants to urban areas across the nation through the Transit Security Grant Program, part of the Department of Homeland Security’s Infrastructure Protection Program. Grants are to help the nation prevent, protect against, respond to and recover from terrorist attacks, major disasters and other emergencies that could affect the nation’s infrastructure, said Jennifer Peppin, spokeswoman for the Transportation Security Administration’s Northwest region.

TriMet is using the grant to expand its closed-circuit television system by adding more surveillance to busy light-rail stations, said Fred Hansen, TriMet general manager.

Cameras will be installed at Gresham MAX stations at East 162nd Avenue; Northeast 181st Avenue; the Rockwood Transit Center at East Burnside Street and Northeast 188th Drive; the Gresham Central Transit Center off Northeast Eighth Street and Kelly Avenue; and Cleveland Avenue. Also, cameras at the westside MAX tunnel will be upgraded.

TriMet already has surveillance cameras at 19 of its 64 stations, including 10 stations on the Interstate MAX Yellow Line, five Portland stations with elevators and four others at busy Portland stops, including the Lloyd Center, Skidmore Fountain, the Rose Quarter and Portland Airport, said Mary Fetsch, TriMet spokeswoman.

Nine more stations in downtown Portland will be equipped with cameras by mid-2008. Cameras at Gresham’s five stations will be purchased and installed by late 2008.

In addition, four parking garages/park and rides have surveillance cameras, including Gresham Central Park & Ride and the Gateway Transit Center.

Gresham Police Chief Carla Piluso was happy to hear about the cameras coming to Gresham. At a safety summit this March in which Hansen served as a panelist, Gresham residents complained that they didn’t feel safe on the MAX or at eastside light-rail stations, particularly at night.

“It’s nice to be heard,” Piluso said.

“Clearly when we look at crime activity, it has increased in the areas along the platforms,” she said. “So using these cameras allows us to see some areas that have popped up as areas of concern. At a time when we don’t have the staffing that allows us to be everywhere we want to be, this just helps fill a huge gap.”