Comments on: Portland light-rail route goes where the money is

By: Cascade Policy Institute – Oregon Public Policy » Proposed Charges Stifle Growth

Tue, 17 Aug 2010 23:43:54 +0000

[…] The Portland Bureau of Transportation calls these new overlays, and last year’s North Macadam overlay, “a new innovation.” But where the city sees innovation, developers see extra costs. The overlay scheme adds a layer of fees to the original transportation charges imposed in 1997, saddling developers with the cost of transportation projects like Milwaukie light rail. City planners hope the overlay charges will generate $20 million for this project alone. […]

By: Foreign Urbanist

Foreign Urbanist — Tue, 06 Jul 2010 14:42:21 +0000

Of course light rail goes where the URA $$$ go. That’s called coordinating transit and land use.

Transit is infrastructure to support compact development, after all.

By: Weekend Links « The Transport Politic

Weekend Links « The Transport Politic — Sun, 04 Jul 2010 15:41:44 +0000

[…] may be orienting the route of its future Milwaukie Light Rail project in the interests of wealthy developers. Is […]

By: Alexander Craghead

Alexander Craghead — Sat, 03 Jul 2010 03:03:52 +0000

My apologies, Nick. It was unclear where Mildner’s positions ended and yours began.

By: Nick Bjork

Nick Bjork — Fri, 02 Jul 2010 22:50:51 +0000

First of all, Craghead, I was implying that it went south because of the URA dollars, not Mildner. And second, Tim, how does making the statement that the city’s transit options follow funding programs mean I am encouraging sprawl? It’s not a bad thing, just something I have noticed. And how are light rails a more viable option than busses? They both compliment each other.

By: Tim Davis

Tim Davis — Fri, 02 Jul 2010 22:38:44 +0000

Well put, Mr. Craghead! There’s clearly a bias shown by those who wish for the metro area to continue to sprawl and be increasingly auto-dominated. A real transit system must be far, far more than merely (as you put it so well) a system of last resort for the poor and the elderly.

By: Alexander Craghead

Alexander Craghead — Fri, 02 Jul 2010 22:10:35 +0000

I’m sorry but this is just more anti-light rail bunk.

How would a line crossing further north better serve inner southeast? To squeeze another station in north of OMSI, the line would need tonrun all the way back up to the Steel Bridge (which is already near light rail capacity) or it would have to have stop spacing closer to streetcar stops than light rail.

Making this chamge would also remove the ability to serve the OHSU/South Waterfront area by MAX. Hemmed in by the river and freeways, that area needs as much additional non-auto mobility as possible if it is to ever succeed.

Such a scheme would also remove the ability to directly connect PSU to OHSU and OMSI.

Mildner seems to imply that the only reason light rail is going south out of the Bus Mall is because of urban renewal dollars, and that is just not true. It’s going there because those alignments make the most operational, service, and development sense.

As for Mildner’s comments about busses vs. light rail, that is the same stalking horse that has been used by anti-transit activists for the last decade. It ignores issues such as operational costs, attracting choice riders, and system capacity. Busses are an invaluable piece of the region’s transit system, but they do not provide the same level of service or capacity. The bus vs. rail argument is a fallacy perpetuated by those who would see transit be only a system of last resort for the poor and the elderly, rather than a complete transportation system.