Quote:
Originally Posted by RED_PDXer
Of course it'd be nice to travel more quickly on transit than riding a bus in mixed traffic, but that requires more density and more transit ridership to justify that level of investment. We're investing in more MAX lines on certain corridors where the right of way and opportunity for TODs are more conducive to regional transit, but we're never gonna have regional transit lines on every corridor.
It seems like you're gripe is with the adequacy of our transit system, which is totally justified from where you are on Division near Mt. Tabor. I think there's a huge demand for transit connections between the whole of SE Portland and N/NE Portland and there's currently no easy way to serve that demand. For one thing, there are few streets that directly provide that type of trip. Transferring once or twice is necessary for most "suburb to suburb" trips at this point, but it doesn't haven't be in the future. We can invest in better transit, and use it more frequently.
In summary, there are two things going on here.. personal decisions and level of investment in non-auto infrastructure. If you really want a quick trip into downtown for work or otherwise, you could live close to a MAX station (like I purposely did) or close-in on a bus line. If you want a quick trip to work in general, you could move closer to work (for some people that's Wilsonville, Hillsboro or wherever those human factories are located). Most people have a choice and until recently, the decision to reduce the commute distance or locate near transit hasn't even registered for the majority of the population. Secondly, there needs to be more investment in "other" ways for people to get around to reduce the harmful side effects of "too much" driving and automobile dependence. This means better bike facilities, more intelligent transportation systems for transit (traffic signal coordination with buses), bus-only lanes, more MAX lines, more buses, etc. However, to justify spending more on transit and other modes, we need more people making personal decisions in support of these modes such as choosing to live in higher density housing near work/transit connections, commuting by bus, MAX or bike, walking to your neighborhood store instead of driving to a big box store 6 miles away, etc...
I can't spend all day speaking to the ill-effects of auto-dependence and sprawl, but hopefully this is step toward that understanding.
|
I actually considered these things when I chose this location to live. Unfortunately this is as close to town as I could get where I could still afford more than a cardboard box.
I also couldn't have moved to the west side because most of the people I visit, including all of my family, are on the east side. From where I am it's already a 45 minute ride and two transfers to get to my sisters house at 102nd and Halsey.
It would have been at least three transfers and an hour and a half from the west side.
I suppose that chosing a more accessible location would be something that people could pay more attention to if the $/sq.ft. didn't get completely rediculous close to city center.
Thank you for the reply though, that actually did go in to a lot more detail on the things I was confused about.
It does seem to be a self-feeding cycle. In that sense, investment in public transit would have to be the bitter pill that is horribly inefficient for a while. I certainly don't want Portland to be like LA, and I can sorta see why people went nuts when I asked abotu adding one lane at the Rose Garden.
I still think that needs to happen, but it should definitely be part of a larger effort to minimize the impact of highways. The tunnel concept seemed the best asthetically... but it also sounds really expensive. The east bank south of the Burnside bridge is just so ugly and noisy... it'd be nice if they could bury that all.
Anyway, thanks for the reply, it was certainly enlightening. (And despite my gripes with it, I have been planning on biking most places I go.)