In another thread, Z wrote:

>> I think that Brian lives in Beaverton, or whatever the spelling. Just west of Portland. <<

Close, but no cigar. I do work in Beaverton.

>> An idea we have been kicking around in meetings about how to handle global warming and energy problems involves Oregon. What would you think about Oregon becoming a test case. Sort of a large experiment to see if we can do it. A total change organized around mass transit sites. Many limitations on personal transit.

What do you think? <<

You are talking about a state with only one large metro area and a really huge number of square miles of extremely low density. We have one county (Harney County) that is bigger than a lot of states, but it only has a couple of thousand inhabitants. It is so empty that the school district has to run the high school as a boarding school. Maybe the elementary school, too - I forget.

So you'll have to forget about implementing mass transit and heavy restrictions on personal transport on a statewide basis. Most of the state would secede the next day - for excellent reasons I might add.

What Oregon could use in the way of mass transit is an integrated surface transport system in the greater Portland area, mixing light rail and bus for better coverage than we now have. We also need to have a high frequency, high speed rail link from Portland south to Salem and Eugene, and north to Seattle. Especially to Seattle.

The major problem in the Portland area that is not solved by our current system is that Portland is that the business districts have become balkanized (centers of business downtown and in the suburbs in all directions) while our bus system is conceived as a single hub system centered on downtown. Almost all lines of mass transit run to and from downtown, but a very high volume of traffic is lateral between suburban centers.

For example, to get from my house in one suburb to my work in an adjoining suburb, I would need to travel in to downtown and then back out to my destination. Driving my car, I cover 5 miles in 15 minutes one way. By bus, I would cover closer to 25 miles and consume more like 120 minutes one way!

Increasingly, this single downtown hub system is becoming ill-suited to the actual point to point needs of the local residents.

But, if your group of brainstormers are willing to build us an efficient system of mass transit that meets our needs, I am more than willing to use it. I would be grateful, too. You'd just have to do a vast amount of planning and educating first. Then you'd need to phase in the restrictions only after the infrastructure became operative. That could take 10 years and many billions of dollars, even on an accelerated schedule.

But, it is is nice to think about having a European level of efficient mass transit for Portland, so I am more than happy to discuss the idea.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), October 24, 2000

Answers

Pssssst.........teletransportation!

BEAM ME UP, SCOTTY

-- (Dr_Spock@CapnKirk's.cabin), October 24, 2000.

Brian, your reasoning is sound and when looked at within the Bbig pictureB is helpful in identifying the major obstacles in the way of any solution. There are just too many agendas to serve, special interest groups to please, and of course funding to acquire. Few will be willing to sacrifice their current way of living in order to preserve the ecostructure for those in the generations to comeB..no surprise here.

-- I (h@ve.spoken), October 24, 2000.

Wouldn't it be nice if every city could have a neato mass transit like the Metro in DC? Trouble is, the Metro was built with Federal dollars for the Imperial City. Other cities could never afford it.

But money aside, I see a paradox in the whole idea of mass transit. Don't get me wrong, I like it. But the paradox is that a good mass transit system will encourage even more urban sprawl. Even more transportation and pollution problems would result.

It might just be that the best way to protect the environment is to not improve mass transit.

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), October 24, 2000.

Howdy Brian:

At least give me credit for remembering that you were associated with Beaverton in some way. I just got back from Oregon. Everytime I go there I come back ill. Maybe it is because everyone I meet with is ill. I expect to come back with Ebola some day.

Now to the point of your questions. You are correct. Much of Oregon is not suitable for mass transit. The area east of the mountains lacks the water to sustain a large enough population. More of the coast disappears everytime I come out there. Rte 101 will eventually be an underwater highway. Projections are that population will increase in much of what is now the I-5 corridor.

This will be a short presentation of ideas. Feel free to comment. It is clear that mass transit will not work in the present cities [if you consider working to mean reduce automobile use and reduced congestion on the highways because of increased use of mass transit: if you want documented evidence see information on the somewhat successful light rail in Saint Louis or the studies of the proposed light rail in Seattle; If your question is about bus service, look at the empty buses outside of the inner city anywhere.]. Why? The cities were not designed to make mass transit a viable option. They are totally decentralized. A normal, daily routine, for most people, would be impossible using public transit.

Therefore, what is required is the complete redesign of our urban and semi-urban areas. It will require development of light rail with business [where you work], shopping areas and high density living areas clustered near stations [or within easy reach using other mass transportation options]. This would take at least a generation to develop. That why one considers the whole I-5 corridor. As you noted, this would take education and cooperation from the public. That is why we have elected government. I would forget about Seattle; because of its physical location, I consider success there unlikely [although they are beginning to discuss a similar approach]. It would be a big change.

I havenBt gone through the details from studies [they are volumes and just guesses anyway]. It is something to think about and discuss.

By-the-way, this approach is un-American. It is centralized planning [which of course all zoning is]. It may just be the price we have to pay because of our population increase.

Best wishes,,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), October 24, 2000.

Brian:

By-the-way, I am interested in these concepts because the city I live near is growing very rapidly; both in population and new businesses. It already owns and operates a 20 mile rail line which passes through land that is prime for development. The concept would work well here. We will see. The problem is: what do you do with the old city that wasn't designed for mass transit.

Best wishes,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), October 24, 2000.

Therefore, what is required is the complete redesign of our urban and semi-urban areas. It will require development of light rail with business [where you work], shopping areas and high density living areas clustered near stations [or within easy reach using other mass transportation options].

Z--

Are you serious? Pretty draconian.

Are you familiar with works of Edwin Moses in NYC? Well, it is one way, but don't forget that people live where you might suggest "complete redesign".

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), October 24, 2000.

Lars:

Not really. Looking at where Urban growth will occur in the next 2 decades. That is why I asked the question; What do you do with the older parts of the city which are not designed for mass transit? This is mostly a design directed towards where growth with occur in the future; not where folks live now.

Best wishes,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), October 24, 2000.

Lars:

One last point; this is the beginning of contingency planning. [Remember that; what do we do if the computers fail]. The discussion needs to be started. If you donBt think so I suggest that you fly to Seattle and drive 520 during rush hour. I-5 and I-405 can also be bad. In Sept. it took me 2 hr to drive 20 miles on I-5 [southbound from Marysville]. The areas being discussed are where the cities will be in the future; they will be where population density is now small. Regardless of what happens we need to begin these discussions now. I do have a fever, so pardon any incorrect use of words.

Best wishes,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), October 24, 2000.

Brian:

I hate to crowd all of these comments in one thread, but I am not here that often. Oregon is ~96,000 sq mi. I live in a midwestern state that is ~70,000 sq mi. We differ in the fact that we have lots of water and all of it can be lived-on. I moved here from Montana. You could lose Oregon in Montana. Size is not an issue. Population density is an issue. These questions deal with what people want for the future. Discussion should start now. By-the-by; those who think the system in DC is great, should try to drive to roads there [ie. Lars].

Best wishes,,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), October 24, 2000.

Sorry about the fever, Z1X4Y7. Get well, soon.

>> This is mostly a design directed towards where growth with occur in the future; not where folks live now. <<

Then absolutely the first imperative would be to put rail through the I-5 corridor from Portland to Eugene. That is the hot zone where the most growth in Oregon will be coming. Due to the land-use planning that must be done in Oregon, it should be possible to predict the knots of population on that cord.

The next imperative would be to go to the predictable knots and start telling the current residents, "Growth is coming! Growth is coming!" Then give them an earful of what their options are to handle it. Disseminate as much information into those communities as you can, and do it through churches, schools and community centers. Make it small and personal. Let them know whatgrowth means. Let them know they have chices to make. Let them know that not growing is not a choice that is in their power to decide. Outsiders will make that choice, not them. That will sober them up.

Then try to initiate a community-based, community-directed planning process that incorporates the I-5 rail resources that will be coming through. They can choose to either catch that train, or miss it, but the rails will be coming through - guaranteed.

Also, in Portland and vicinity, the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB to those who wrestle with it) means that many, many places will be gaining density. The process of gaining density means that old buildings will be coming down and new ones will be going up. This can be grasped as an opportunity for transit integration.

For those who are unfamiliar with Oregon's way of doing this, in the mid-1970s Oregon decided that we needed to beef up government planning for growth. Each city now must create and file a long term growth plan. The plan must pay some attention to preserving farmland. This was because some of the richest farmland on earth (no kidding!) was being paved and sprawled over at a fantastic rate in the 1970s. The idea was to bring some order to chaos and to preserve values that Oregonians thought were worth preserving, like open space and green living things. And clean rivers. And farms that grow food, not houses.

There has been constant friction over this decision since it was made, but a signifigant majority of Oregonians have stayed the course and challenges to this land us e planning system have been consistantly turned back. So far. [He crosses his fingers and knocks on wood.]

Part of the Portland growth plan is an urban boundary. On one side of the boundary, city uses are permitted. On the other side, farms are encouraged. There is often a buffer zone of "gentleman farms" of only 5 acres between the urban area and the truly rural.

The existance of this urban boundary means that, in order to increase the population that lives and works in Portland, that population must live closer together - get denser. The process is dubbed infill. Suburbs, such as I live in, are becoming more and more urban over time and less suburban. If we stay on course, we won't have suburbs around Portland at some point. It will be city, or it will be country. Not suburbs.

Anyway, I've rambled enough for one reply. I'm punting.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), October 24, 2000.

Z--

I misunderstood. I thought you might be suggesting a large scale urban renewal/urban removal a la 1950s Interstate urban-butchery. I am all in favor of some growth planning, altho the best laid plans of mice........

Regarding DC, I was referring to the Metro Rapid Transit, not to Xways. Metro is pretty neat don't you think?

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), October 24, 2000.

Z, don't worry about picking up a case of Ebola here. I did pick up a case of Eola, though. (Brian, I'll bet you know what I'm referring to)

The reason everyone is sick here all the time is because it's cold and rainy all the time, except in the summer. But at least the rain makes the trees grow, and makes the rivers and creeks full of fairly pure green water!

And you're wrong about Hwy. 101. It will never be an underwater highway. We just keep moving it farther and farther east. :)

I did get to discuss the mass transportation issue with the head of Oregon DOT a couple or four months ago on public radio. He basically said that mass transportation will never eliminate congested roads, because not enough people will ride it unless (and UNTIL, in my area) the roads get so crowded that people take mass transportation out of desperation. I feel this attitude is fatalistic, but he may be correct. I'll stay out here in the boonies, thank you very much, and drive into town once or twice a week in my pickup truck, rather than have the roads get congested enough to get DOT to look at mass transportation here.

Day before yesterday, also on public radio, the director (I think it was) of Amtrack totally pissed me off. A caller told him that his community of about 100 people have a philosophy of taking the train everywhere possible. They love amtrack, but have to drive their cars sixty miles to catch it, because it does not stop in their town, though it goes through it.

The Amtrack guy said, "well, of course the bottom line is profits". Why can't the bottom line be serving the amtrack customer?

"Regardless of what happens we need to begin these discussions now" Right on, Z

" Let them know that not growing is not a choice that is in their power to decide. Outsiders will make that choice, not them. That will sober them up. " Brian, I do not accept that as an option. I believe that the folks who live along the 5 have a RIGHT to determine their own destiny. Whether they decide to grow or not, I can't say, but they can choose. We already have the rails going through there, as you know. Maybe you're talking about high speed rails? I can now, finally, catch an Amtrack connector bus from here (near here, anyway, in Grants Pass) to Eugene, where I take Amtrack to Vancouver to see my mom. Amtrack tells me they have no plans to bring actual train service down through the Rogue Valley, because the tunnels between here and Eugene aren't large enough for the Amtrack passenger trains. Don't ask me why they can't run some of the older, smaller, passenger cars in place of the "Coast Starlight" type double deckers to deal with the tunnels, 'cause I don't know. They could also, without much trouble, I should think, run a "Bud" car (what they used to run from Willits, Calif, to Eureka, Calif.--basically a streetcar on the railroad track) to connect some of the areas which have rails but no amtrack currently, e.g. Rogue Valley to Eugene, and Rogue Valley to Dusmuir or K Falls.

Brian, I am a participant in the SB 100 spinoffs, e.g. UGB's etc. I am chairman of the Jumpoff Joe Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC to those of us wrestling with UGB and other issues)

I used to abhor the whole LCDC "police state" until I witnessed the urban sprawl evolving throughout my area, and especially your area. I thought it was a police state plot to get everyone to move into cities, where they are more easily controlled. Now I realize that the plan IS to get everyone possible to move into cities, but not only to control them . It's also to prevent sprawl. This is a mixed blessing, of course, since it results in a much greater density in the cities, with all the problems that go along with that.

Another problem with the whole LCDC concept, as I see it, is that it has failed to prevent building on farmland. Look at the Willamette Valley. Where is all the building taking place? Right on the farmland! Salem and Portland are rapidly closing in on each other. Why isn't the growth being funnelled to other areas, such as Eastern Oregon, instead of onto the fabulous Willamette Valley farmland?

My experience includes seeing small builders getting majorly hassled by LCDC rules for daring to build a house or two on scrub land, while the "good old boys" continue with business as usual, building large subdivisions on farmland. It's frustrating, to say the least.

I truly believe there is no good solution to this other than controlling our population, and that is not likely to happen any time soon, from all I can see.

Sorry to sound so pessimistic; I think the Oregon Plan is probably the best thing we've got. I just wish it worked better. I personally have no use for living in a giant city; I feel sorry for anyone who doesn't already live in a fantastic area such as I do, when the prices go even farther into the ozone, due to less and less land being available to them. Lots of conflicting solutions, that's for sure.

I guess I should just be glad that so many people either like to live in megalopolises, or have to live there for their jobs, and enjoy my own personal nirvana.

JOJ

-- jumpoffjoe (jumpoff@echoweb.net), October 26, 2000.

JOJ:

radio. He basically said that mass transportation will never eliminate congested roads, because not enough people will ride it unless (and UNTIL, in my area) the roads get so crowded that people take mass transportation out of desperation. I feel this attitude is fatalistic, but he may be correct.

From looking at information from around the country, I think that he is correct. Taking Seattle as an example since I was there not long ago [you know that Portland is in good shape compared to Seattle]; bumper to bumper traffic moving at 5 mph with empty busses in the HOV lane. That is my point, with decentralized cities, mass transit doesn't work. That is why planning is necessary for areas that will be cities. I also agree that this has to be done in a bottom up fashion; not something imposed from the top. Otherwise it won't work. Brian's point is essential. All of the transportation modes must be integrated. Let us say that I live in Salem and need to go to Denver. I should be able to jump on a buss to the station and catch a train in Salem that will drop me off at the airport; perhaps inside the airport; it is done in Europe. That kind of integration needs to be planned.

I must say that the young folks moving here are more receptive to the idea of higher density residency. Off course they are generally folks escaping California. They consider anything not surrounded by pavement to be rural. For me, my house is in the middle of 25 or so acres and surrounded by ponds. I wouldn't be that happy in the this future. But the future is for future people.

Best wishes,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), October 26, 2000.

JOJ:

The Amtrack guy said, "well, of course the bottom line is profits". Why can't the bottom line be serving the amtrack customer?

Don't intend to be partisan here, but the Republican leadership in Congress mandated that Amtrack must be self sufficient by 2003. So they will cut every run that doesn't make a profit. It will no longer be a service but a business.

Another point to discuss. Is this a good idea? The rail service in Europe, which everyone mentions, is primarily a government supported enterprise. Should we do this?

Best wishes,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), October 26, 2000.

JOJ,

"My experience includes seeing small builders getting majorly hassled by LCDC rules for daring to build a house or two on scrub land, while the "good old boys" continue with business as usual, building large subdivisions on farmland. It's frustrating, to say the least."

Unfortunately, the independent small 'rancheros' turn out to be the most wasteful use of a developed piece of land.

Good discussion, gang.

{Oh yeah, it was Robert Moses in New York. Fascinating fellow. Imagine what the subway series could've been like without his massive ego - {Brooklyn might well still have its Dodgers}.

-- flora (***@__._), October 27, 2000.

Final monkey wrench for today, regarding transit & profit.

Funny thing happened to mass transit in LA. The old Red Car Line was effectively wiped out in the first half of the last century, by the oil & tire companies. {Yes, believe it or not - the movie Who Framed Roger Rabbit was framed on a true story - 'Chinatown' too, but those were water issues}. They are just now getting around to seriously addressing some of these mass transit issues there.

Z,

I know this is ancient history, & hopefully we've learned from it. Do you see much potential for these kind of hijinks nowadays?

-- flora (***@__._), October 27, 2000.

Flora begorrah,

Yes! It was Robert Moses. Fifty years can fuzzy the brain. Edwin Moses was a track star I believe.

Robert Moses was an interesting character in the history of urban planning. He typified one approach---the "you can't make an omelet wihout breaking the egg" approach. He was very strong, very autocratic and ruthlessly pushed thru the projects in which he believed, regardless of human dislocations. The Cross-Bronx Xway is the classic example. OTOH, he did some grandly visionary thins for NYC. I believe he was the author of Jones Beach.

Did he also champion subway developement? I thought all the subways were finished before his time. Subways are another classic example of sacrificing current lives and neighborhoods for a future greater good. Should it be done? Whose ox is being gored?

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), October 27, 2000.

One of my relatives was county surveyor for LA when the freeways were layed out, etc. These projects have always interested me. My brother is a sucessful developer, & at times we seem like opposite sides of the same coin. With the population boom, & finite resources in California - we've come suprisingly close in our outlook. This is not just a problem in the states, but all over the world at this point. Our population has tripled in just 75 years.

There is a tremendous biography out on Moses. I think you'd enjoy it.

-- flora (***@__._), October 27, 2000.

flora,

What is the name of the Moses book? I think that the notion of grand utopian urban planning is well out of favor. It began its decline in the 60s with the Jane Jacobs book advocating organic urban growth and has suffered further as time has shown what a disaster urban renewal projects have been (many built in the 60s have been razed with many more to follow--I am amazed that Cabrini-Green and Robert Taylor "Homes" in Chicago are still standing). Of course there are real people living in those decaying high-rises (that were supposed eliminate slums). What is to become of those people?

There are some interesting examples of failed urban Xways too. I'd be curious to know your brother's viws on SF's Embarcadero Freeway, Boston's Central Artery (now being replaced by the Big Dig) and NY's West Side Highway.

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), October 27, 2000.

Cart before the horse? ThatBs what the arguments about mass transit always are. (And, of course they are always for others to use.)

Mass transit grew because most people lived and worked in the city. There really werenBt any suburbs until the middle of the 20th Century. There was the city and the country. The change between them was rather abrupt. Mass transit will only BworkB if people leave the suburbs and move back to the city. Any bets on that? If you look at Europe many of the countries didnBt really have room for suburbs and most people still live in cities.

Flora, sorry but the story about the old Red Car is an urban myth. It was the spread of the suburbs that did in the old lines. The trend was happening for a long time. GM did want to sell them buses and part of what they did could be looked at and unethical. But the it was just a matter of time. The trends were all there. Ditto on Chinatown.

The thing about Mass Transit is that you canBt really stop on the way home and go grocery shopping or stop at the dry cleaners, or a 1000 other things. It cuts down on your options. If you just want to go to work and then go home itBs fine. I think that is the main reason it will never really take off. Most mass transit plans are designed by people who want other people to use it so the designers can drive their cars.

-- The Engineer (spcengineer@yahoo.com), October 27, 2000.

Mass transit is essentially fascist. It takes you where it wants you to go when it wants you to go there.

-- (Paracelsus@Pb.Au), October 27, 2000.

Engineer:

The thing about Mass Transit is that you canBt really stop on the way home and go grocery shopping or stop at the dry cleaners, or a 1000 other things. It cuts down on your options. If you just want to go to work and then go home itBs fine.

That was my point, exactly. If we want mass transit to work, we have to plan a reorganization of our living style in urban areas. It won't work in decentralized cities. We will have to do something. This is one option. Plan new urban areas around mass transit so they can work. The task is so large we have to start talking about it now. Our present system probably won't be an option in 2050. Taking Oregon as an example; by 2050 the largest part of the population should be in what is now lightly settled land. How should we plan to deal with the urbanization that will occur in those areas? Older folks like us would probably not be happy with these kind of changes. It's not what we grew up with. Newer generations seem more at home with the idea; and it is their future.

Best wishes,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), October 27, 2000.

By-the-by, I typed the previous post directly in the submit box and it changed them all to B. Let,s go with the al-D method and see if that works.

Best wishes,,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), October 27, 2000.

Not sure I can concede on the 'myth' of Mullhullond {sp?}, & know that the fella that had the job before my surveying relative disappeared under suspicious circumstances with loads of cash. Some of that interpretation is just as subjective as anything else.

-- flora (***@__._), October 27, 2000.

While poking around, looking for information on the old Red Car Lines, I found a nice page on historic LA's mass transit system. It's nostalgic for anyone who has spent time there & supports The Engineer's statement:

http://www.usc.edu/isd/archives/la/historic/redcars/

I also turned up a policy study on the 'Myths of Light-Rail Transit'. It will give you fellas who are still On Topic some food for thought:

http://www.rppi.org/ps244.html

{Let me also say that this outfit has another piece calling 'vanishing farmland' a myth. Bwaha}

-- flora (***@__._), October 28, 2000.

 Engineer, I don't think the Red Car story is an urban myth (by the way, in first grade my class was taken on a field trip to ride the streetcar line all the way out and back--the last trip it ever made. This was in Dallas, Texas, and must have been in 1951):

  The 1920s were a heyday for public transit in the United States; buses, trolleys and streetcars (on 45,000 miles of tracks) provided more than 20 billion rides each year. During the 1930s and 1940s, however, a company called National City Lines - with backing from General Motors, Firestone, Standard Oil, Phillips Petroleum, Mack Truck and others profiting from motor vehicle sales - bought and shut down more than 100 electric trolley systems in 45 U.S. cities, including lines in the Bay Area and Southern California. The conspirators were convicted in 1949, but were fined a mere $5,000 apiece. -- Michael Mechanic (his real name), San Francisco Examiner

-- jumpoffjoe (jumpoff@echoweeb.net), February 22, 2001.

Brian,

As a LA resident I spend way too much time in traffic and have kicked around several ideas for a mass transit system. While speaking with other engineers on this problem one of them mentioned a project in Chicago which breaks away from traditional mass transit in an attempt to bring individualism to the customer. I.e. instead of piling on to a bus or train that has designated stops for mulktitudes of people the system is divided into much smaller transit cars that are better able to service a greater number of people with greater flexibility. I understand this sounds very futuristic but I think that there is technology available that could accomplish this. For example, the company I work for manufactures a control board that can simultaneously commutate, to the thepto meter (10E-12m), 32 motors and essentially limitless I/O and this is only the tip of the iceburg of what you can do when considering that 32 of these boards can be daisy chained using Fiber Optics, or Ethernet, or USB. Add to this adavces in linear motors, ride on a track, and all you have left to do is find a slick way of providing power...Of course it is not that easy but I wanted to kick you my two cents on the idea that mass transit could be made more flexible than is traditional. -Good luck

-- Paxton (paxtonshantz@aol.com), April 13, 2001.