Portland's losing war on cars
How about transit in Portland? Wendell Cox in New Geography:
For more than a quarter century, the leaders in the Oregon portion of the Portland metropolitan area have sought to transfer demand for urban travel from automobiles to transit. Six rail lines have been built, five of which are light rail and bus service has been expanded. If their vision were legitimate, transit’s market share should have risen substantially and automobile travel should have declined. Neither happened...Since 1980, before the first rail line was opened, transit’s share of work trip travel in the metropolitan area has declined by one-quarter, from 8.4 percent to 6.3 percent. Overall, the share of travel by car remains about the same as before the first light rail line opened.
With all those transit alternatives, why do people still drive to work in Portland---and in San Francisco? Cox: "According to the latest American Community Survey data, the average work trip by people driving alone in Portland is 23.6 minutes, while the average transit commute trip is 43.8 minutes."
Portland squanders money on rail projects and neglects its roads.
Portland squanders money on rail projects and neglects its roads.
posted by Rob Anderson @ 11:55 AM
5 comments
5 Comments:
.Since 1980, before the first rail line was opened, transit’s share of work trip travel in the metropolitan area has declined by one-quarter, from 8.4 percent to 6.3 percent. Overall, the share of travel by car remains about the same
Transit declining but car usage staying the same? How can this be? OH NO! CYCLISTS! OH NO!
Yes, but the point of the piece is that the millions spent on public transportation have been wasted as the city's roads deteriorate.
Rob, you are revealing your true self when you start arguing against transit as well. You like to use the argument that disability access is more important than bicyclist perception of safety, yet disability access has no value to you when "roads are neglected". Transit is the only system that is accessible to almost all, so improving conditions for those 6% who do use it is important. In San Francisco where no real investments in transit have been made, transit mode share has decreased alarmingly.
I can understand if you were complaining that transit investments were not targeted properly (similarly to Central Subway), but to say roads deserve more money than transit given that roads have always been subsidized a heck of a lot more than transit reveals you are the one raging a war on non-auto transportation.
The latest ECONOMIST magazine has an article regarding Portland called "Biking and Hiking, but No Parking".
http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21582315-are-oregons-strict-planning-rules-stifling-growth-biking-and-hiking-no-parking
"When Metro allowed developers to build apartment buildings without any parking in districts near railway stations, Ms. Bennett recalls, existing residents “went bananas” at the prospect that parking spaces on the street might get harder to find."
"I can understand if you were complaining that transit investments were not targeted properly (similarly to Central Subway), but to say roads deserve more money than transit given that roads have always been subsidized a heck of a lot more than transit reveals you are the one raging a war on non-auto transportation."
Way off! You must be only a recent reader of this blog, since I've made it clear over the years that I think, for example, that Muni is the only realistic alternative to driving in SF. And I've complained often about how Muni is underfunded and how the city is instead wasting money on projects like the Central Subway.
By the way, transit uses the same roads as cars and bikes, and bad roads damage Muni vehicles just like they do cars. Bad, pot-holed roads are even more dangerous for cyclists, since they can cause injury accidents to them, while only leading to repair bills for motorists and Muni vehicles.
Post a Comment
<< Home