In Sunday's Oregonian, Jim Mayer has an article about light rail in Portland. It mentions that Tri-Met is seriously considering light rail out the Powell/Foster corridor. Basically, after light rail is installed on the Portland Mall, the first branch would head south to Milwaukie. The second line would branch off of this where it crossed Powell, and head east, probably just past I-205 to 122nd Ave or somewhere thereabouts (see the .pdf here).
Wow!
This article was the first time I've seen a serious discussion of light rail in the Powell/Foster corridor. (Did I miss something?)
This corridor has been a subject of much debate, in the Portland blogosphere and elsewhere, for some time now. However, I think this is a good proposal. While at first blush, this would actually seem to be a natural streetcar route... the more you think about it, the more you realize that, no, light rail out Powell/Foster makes the most sense.
Why?
Two reasons:
1. Capacity
2. Development Potential
1. Combined, that corridor already produces enough capacity on its bus lines to overload a streetcar-only solution. Two-car MAX trains would be the only solution for upgrading transit. The 14-Hawthorne could make a little loop out of 50th, Foster and 52nd, and then turn back around and increase headways down Hawthorne Blvd. (Or, a streetcar could do the same thing, as a Hawthorne-only streetcar line would probably have the capacity handle Hawthorne-only loads.)
2. Development potential. Both Powell and Foster have a *lot* of underdeveloped land, including large parking lots, strip malls, etc., which would be ripe for redevelopment into TODs. Light Rail could be the catalyst to add some significant density to these neighborhoods, and in doing so, raise the general standard of living by bringing the customers to make more and higher-quality services (shops, etc.) available to the neighborhood populations.
If Tri-Met builds a light rail line out the Powell/Foster corridor, then a Hawthorne-only, or Hawthorne to 50th to 52nd & Foster streetcar line would probably work like a charm, and also be able to handle all of the capacity in a basically Hawthorne-only corridor.
And I think that Hawthorne still has some room to densify... that Safeway on Hawthorne could probably be redeveloped to add a couple hundred units, ala the Safeway downtown. Ditto for Freddys and most of the other businesses that currently still have surface parking. So, there might be a little bit of room for additional infill TOD around a Hawthorne streetcar alignment.
Wow. What a great proposal. And finally, it could be funded by a Multnomah-county-only referendum, which would most likely pass, as opposed to recent tri-county referendums or referendums involving Clark County, which have failed.
Three cheers for Tri-Met on the Powell/Foster LRT idea!
Monday, May 15, 2006
Monday, May 08, 2006
Beer, Pubs & Maps
I just knew, when I declared the coming year to be the Year of the Geographical Revolution, that there would be good things in store.
... and this is one of them. Yes, that's right, I've taken this Platial.com thing (itself a mashup between Google and, uh, I dunno, Tribe and Yelp) and used it to create an online, interactive Fabulous Map O' Beer, along with a companion site, the Fabulous Blog O' Beer.
So, what is it?
It's a way to let people in the Ecotopia region (the Pacific Northwest & Northern California get to know more about the wild bounty o' beer that we have available to us here on the West Coast. And talk about it. And offer critiques. Who has the best ESB? Seasonal Winter Ale? Dopplebock? You get the picture. :-)
Go check it out, and let me know watcha think!
cheers,
~Garlynn
... and this is one of them. Yes, that's right, I've taken this Platial.com thing (itself a mashup between Google and, uh, I dunno, Tribe and Yelp) and used it to create an online, interactive Fabulous Map O' Beer, along with a companion site, the Fabulous Blog O' Beer.
So, what is it?
It's a way to let people in the Ecotopia region (the Pacific Northwest & Northern California get to know more about the wild bounty o' beer that we have available to us here on the West Coast. And talk about it. And offer critiques. Who has the best ESB? Seasonal Winter Ale? Dopplebock? You get the picture. :-)
Go check it out, and let me know watcha think!
cheers,
~Garlynn
Wednesday, April 05, 2006
So, these were our ancestors?
A fossil of a "fishapod" has recently been discovered, according to the NY Times. This fossil represents the long-sought missing link, of a fish in the process of evolving from a sea-dwelling creature to a land animal. It looks a lot like a fish... but it's developing rudimentary arms, and it has a neck that allows its head to swivel.
This pretty much kills the creationist theory, and is seen by many to be solid proof that evolution, Darwin's proposal for how we got here, is no longer just a theory but is pretty much the best available explanation -- science fact, scientific doctrine, as it were.
Which means that ultimately, us humans evolved from these guys.
Wow.
Wonder what it must have been like, to be a fishapod? I wonder what proto-fishapod-me would have been like?
Original "Fishapod" story from the NY Times:
April 5, 2006
Scientists Call Fish Fossil the 'Missing Link'
By JOHN NOBLE WILFORD
Scientists have discovered fossils of a 375 million-year-old fish, a large scaly creature not seen before, that they say is a long-sought "missing link" in the evolution of some fishes from water to a life walking on four limbs on land.
In addition to confirming elements of a major transition in evolution, the fossils are widely seen by scientists as a powerful rebuttal to religious creationists, who hold a literal biblical view on the origins and development of life.
Several well-preserved skeletons of the fossil fish were uncovered in sediments of former stream beds in the Canadian Arctic, 600 miles from the North Pole, it is being reported on Thursday in the journal Nature. The skeletons have the fins and scales and other attributes of a giant fish, four to nine feet long.
But on closer examination, scientists found telling anatomical traits of a transitional creature, a fish that is still a fish but exhibiting changes that anticipate the emergence of land animals — a predecessor thus of amphibians, reptiles and dinosaurs, mammals and eventually humans.
The scientists described evidence in the forward fins of limbs in the making. There are the beginnings of digits, proto-wrists, elbows and shoulders. The fish also had a flat skull resembling a crocodile's, a neck, ribs and other parts that were similar to four-legged land animals known as tetrapods.
The discovering scientists called the fossils the most compelling examples yet of an animal that was at the cusp of the fish-tetrapod transition. The fish has been named Tiktaalik roseae, at the suggestion of elders of Canada's Nunavut Territory. Tiktaalik (pronounced tic-TAH-lick) means "large shallow water fish."
In two reports in Thursday's issue of the journal Nature, the science team led by Neil H. Shubin of the University of Chicago wrote, "The origin of limbs probably involved the elaboration and proliferation of features already present in the fins of fish such as Tiktaalik."
Dr. Shubin, an evolutionary biologist, let himself go in an interview. "It's a really amazing remarkable intermediate fossil — it's like, holy cow," he enthused.
Two other paleontologists, commenting on the find in a separate article in the journal, said that a few other transitional fish had been previously discovered from approximately the same Late Devonian time period, 385 million to 359 million years ago. But Tiktaalik is so clearly an intermediate "link between fishes and land vertebrates," they said, that it "might in time become as much an evolutionary icon as the proto-bird Archaeopteryx," which bridged the gap between reptiles, probably dinosaurs, and today's birds.
The writers, Erik Ahlberg of Uppsala University in Sweden and Jennifer A. Clack of the University of Cambridge in England, are often viewed as rivals to Dr. Shubin's team in the search for intermediate species in the evolution from fish to the first animals to colonize land.
In a statement by the Science Museum of London, where casts of the fossils will be on view, Dr. Clack said the fish "confirms everything we thought and also tells us about the order in which certain changes were made."
H. Richard Lane, director of paleobiology at the National Science Foundation, said in a statement, "These exciting discoveries are providing fossil 'Rosetta Stones' for a deeper understanding of this evolutionary milestone — fish to land-roaming tetrapods."
The science foundation and the National Geographic Society were among the financial supporters of the research. Besides Dr. Shubin, the principal discoverers were Edward B. Daeschler of the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia and Farish A. Jenkins Jr., a Harvard evolutionary biologist.
Michael J. Novacek, a paleontologist at the American Museum of Natural History in Manhattan, who was not involved in the research, said: "Based on what we already know, we have a very strong reason to think tetrapods evolved from lineages of fishes. This may be a critical phase in that transition that we haven't had before. A good fossil cuts through a lot of scientific argument."
While Dr. Shubin's team played down the fossil's significance in the raging debate over Darwinian theory, which is opposed mainly by some conservative Christians in the United States, other scientists were not so reticent. They said this should undercut the creationists' argument that there is no evidence in the fossil record of one kind of creature becoming another kind.
One creationist Web site (emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/evid1.htm) declares that "there are no transitional forms," adding: "For example, not a single fossil with part fins part feet has been found. And this is true between every major plant and animal kind."
Dr. Novacek responded in an interview: "We've got Archaeopteryx, an early whale that lived on land and now this animal showing the transition from fish to tetrapod. What more do we need from the fossil record to show that the creationists are flatly wrong?"
Dr. Shubin and Dr. Daeschler began their search on Ellsmere Island in 1999. They were attracted by a map in a geology textbook showing the region had an abundance of Devonian rocks exposed and relatively easy to explore. At that time, the land was part of a supercontinent straddling the equator and had a warm climate.
It was not until July 2004, Dr. Shubin said, that "we hit the jackpot." They found several of the fishes in a quarry, their skeletons largely intact and in three dimensions. The large skull had the sharp teeth of a predator. It was attached to a neck, which allowed the fish the unfishlike ability to swivel its head.
"Fish feeding in water readily orient the mouth toward food by maneuvering the entire body," said Dr. Jenkins, who assisted in the interpretation of the fossils. "The head is rigidly attacked to the trunk by bones linking the skull and shoulder girdle, and thus fish have no neck."
If the animal spent any time out of water, he said, it needed a true neck that allowed the head to move independently on the body.
Embedded in the pectoral fins were bones that compare to the upper arm, forearm and primitive parts of the hand of land-living animals. The scientists said the joints of the fins appeared to be capable of functioning for movement on land, a case of a fish improvising with its evolved anatomy. In all likelihood, they said, Tiktaalik flexed its proto-limbs primarily on the floor of streams and may have pulled itself up on the shore for brief stretches.
In their journal report, the scientists concluded that Tiktaalik is an intermediate between the fish Panderichthys, which lived 385 million years ago, and early tetrapods. The known early tetrapods are Acanthostega and Ichthyostega, about 365 million years ago.
Tiktaalik, Dr. Shubin said, is "both fish and tetrapod, which we sometimes call a fishapod."
This pretty much kills the creationist theory, and is seen by many to be solid proof that evolution, Darwin's proposal for how we got here, is no longer just a theory but is pretty much the best available explanation -- science fact, scientific doctrine, as it were.
Which means that ultimately, us humans evolved from these guys.
Wow.
Wonder what it must have been like, to be a fishapod? I wonder what proto-fishapod-me would have been like?
Original "Fishapod" story from the NY Times:
April 5, 2006
Scientists Call Fish Fossil the 'Missing Link'
By JOHN NOBLE WILFORD
Scientists have discovered fossils of a 375 million-year-old fish, a large scaly creature not seen before, that they say is a long-sought "missing link" in the evolution of some fishes from water to a life walking on four limbs on land.
In addition to confirming elements of a major transition in evolution, the fossils are widely seen by scientists as a powerful rebuttal to religious creationists, who hold a literal biblical view on the origins and development of life.
Several well-preserved skeletons of the fossil fish were uncovered in sediments of former stream beds in the Canadian Arctic, 600 miles from the North Pole, it is being reported on Thursday in the journal Nature. The skeletons have the fins and scales and other attributes of a giant fish, four to nine feet long.
But on closer examination, scientists found telling anatomical traits of a transitional creature, a fish that is still a fish but exhibiting changes that anticipate the emergence of land animals — a predecessor thus of amphibians, reptiles and dinosaurs, mammals and eventually humans.
The scientists described evidence in the forward fins of limbs in the making. There are the beginnings of digits, proto-wrists, elbows and shoulders. The fish also had a flat skull resembling a crocodile's, a neck, ribs and other parts that were similar to four-legged land animals known as tetrapods.
The discovering scientists called the fossils the most compelling examples yet of an animal that was at the cusp of the fish-tetrapod transition. The fish has been named Tiktaalik roseae, at the suggestion of elders of Canada's Nunavut Territory. Tiktaalik (pronounced tic-TAH-lick) means "large shallow water fish."
In two reports in Thursday's issue of the journal Nature, the science team led by Neil H. Shubin of the University of Chicago wrote, "The origin of limbs probably involved the elaboration and proliferation of features already present in the fins of fish such as Tiktaalik."
Dr. Shubin, an evolutionary biologist, let himself go in an interview. "It's a really amazing remarkable intermediate fossil — it's like, holy cow," he enthused.
Two other paleontologists, commenting on the find in a separate article in the journal, said that a few other transitional fish had been previously discovered from approximately the same Late Devonian time period, 385 million to 359 million years ago. But Tiktaalik is so clearly an intermediate "link between fishes and land vertebrates," they said, that it "might in time become as much an evolutionary icon as the proto-bird Archaeopteryx," which bridged the gap between reptiles, probably dinosaurs, and today's birds.
The writers, Erik Ahlberg of Uppsala University in Sweden and Jennifer A. Clack of the University of Cambridge in England, are often viewed as rivals to Dr. Shubin's team in the search for intermediate species in the evolution from fish to the first animals to colonize land.
In a statement by the Science Museum of London, where casts of the fossils will be on view, Dr. Clack said the fish "confirms everything we thought and also tells us about the order in which certain changes were made."
H. Richard Lane, director of paleobiology at the National Science Foundation, said in a statement, "These exciting discoveries are providing fossil 'Rosetta Stones' for a deeper understanding of this evolutionary milestone — fish to land-roaming tetrapods."
The science foundation and the National Geographic Society were among the financial supporters of the research. Besides Dr. Shubin, the principal discoverers were Edward B. Daeschler of the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia and Farish A. Jenkins Jr., a Harvard evolutionary biologist.
Michael J. Novacek, a paleontologist at the American Museum of Natural History in Manhattan, who was not involved in the research, said: "Based on what we already know, we have a very strong reason to think tetrapods evolved from lineages of fishes. This may be a critical phase in that transition that we haven't had before. A good fossil cuts through a lot of scientific argument."
While Dr. Shubin's team played down the fossil's significance in the raging debate over Darwinian theory, which is opposed mainly by some conservative Christians in the United States, other scientists were not so reticent. They said this should undercut the creationists' argument that there is no evidence in the fossil record of one kind of creature becoming another kind.
One creationist Web site (emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/evid1.htm) declares that "there are no transitional forms," adding: "For example, not a single fossil with part fins part feet has been found. And this is true between every major plant and animal kind."
Dr. Novacek responded in an interview: "We've got Archaeopteryx, an early whale that lived on land and now this animal showing the transition from fish to tetrapod. What more do we need from the fossil record to show that the creationists are flatly wrong?"
Dr. Shubin and Dr. Daeschler began their search on Ellsmere Island in 1999. They were attracted by a map in a geology textbook showing the region had an abundance of Devonian rocks exposed and relatively easy to explore. At that time, the land was part of a supercontinent straddling the equator and had a warm climate.
It was not until July 2004, Dr. Shubin said, that "we hit the jackpot." They found several of the fishes in a quarry, their skeletons largely intact and in three dimensions. The large skull had the sharp teeth of a predator. It was attached to a neck, which allowed the fish the unfishlike ability to swivel its head.
"Fish feeding in water readily orient the mouth toward food by maneuvering the entire body," said Dr. Jenkins, who assisted in the interpretation of the fossils. "The head is rigidly attacked to the trunk by bones linking the skull and shoulder girdle, and thus fish have no neck."
If the animal spent any time out of water, he said, it needed a true neck that allowed the head to move independently on the body.
Embedded in the pectoral fins were bones that compare to the upper arm, forearm and primitive parts of the hand of land-living animals. The scientists said the joints of the fins appeared to be capable of functioning for movement on land, a case of a fish improvising with its evolved anatomy. In all likelihood, they said, Tiktaalik flexed its proto-limbs primarily on the floor of streams and may have pulled itself up on the shore for brief stretches.
In their journal report, the scientists concluded that Tiktaalik is an intermediate between the fish Panderichthys, which lived 385 million years ago, and early tetrapods. The known early tetrapods are Acanthostega and Ichthyostega, about 365 million years ago.
Tiktaalik, Dr. Shubin said, is "both fish and tetrapod, which we sometimes call a fishapod."
Tuesday, March 28, 2006
The Portland Public School System
Students should definitely be considered the customers of the school system. Parents are the legal guardians of those customers, and along with local businesses and taxpayers in general, are the shareholders in the system.
Regarding the latest from the Portland Public School System: Merging all elementary and middle schools into a citywide network of K-8 schools actually sounds like a great proposal. I attended the Metropolitan Learning Center in NW Portland from 5th through 10th grade, and the presence of kids of all ages definitely made that school feel more like a family, it created more community, and it expanded the range of options available to all children (library, swimming pool, etc.) I understand why high schools need to generally be separate from K-8 -- that's the only way that the district can reasonably supply the foreign languages, science labs, etc. that high school students require.
However, I think that many high school students are, by the completion of the 10th grade, ready to begin working at the college level, and often those last two years of high school are sort of wasted, in terms of academic progress. I think Oregon needs to seriously consider making it more of a mainstream option for kids to go to college after the 10th grade, both by establishing early admission programs at some of the institutions of higher learning across the state (or starting a new institution, along the lines of the Evergreen State College, perhaps to be located in Astoria), and by making the option to leave high school after the 10th grade more generally available and acceptable within the high school environment. As in, if students perform at a high enough level (measure by their GPA, standardized testing and SAT scores, I imagine) while in grades 7-10, then they will have the option of going to college after grade 10 if they so choose.
Finally, when it comes to school consolidation... I sure hope the school district is using GIS, preferably ArcGIS with Network Analyst. Somebody needs to make a map of Portland, with all of its K-8 schools. They then need to plot quarter, half and one-mil walking distance buffers around each school. If the walking buffer of any school is completely overlapped by the buffers of the surrounding schools, then it might make sense to close it. However, if a school's buffer is not overlapped by any surrounding buffers, then under no circumstances should it be closed! This would do WONDERS for easing parents concerns, easing traffic congestion due to parents driving kids to school, and empowering students to walk and ride their bicycles to their neighborhood school!
OK, I think that's it for now.
Regarding the latest from the Portland Public School System: Merging all elementary and middle schools into a citywide network of K-8 schools actually sounds like a great proposal. I attended the Metropolitan Learning Center in NW Portland from 5th through 10th grade, and the presence of kids of all ages definitely made that school feel more like a family, it created more community, and it expanded the range of options available to all children (library, swimming pool, etc.) I understand why high schools need to generally be separate from K-8 -- that's the only way that the district can reasonably supply the foreign languages, science labs, etc. that high school students require.
However, I think that many high school students are, by the completion of the 10th grade, ready to begin working at the college level, and often those last two years of high school are sort of wasted, in terms of academic progress. I think Oregon needs to seriously consider making it more of a mainstream option for kids to go to college after the 10th grade, both by establishing early admission programs at some of the institutions of higher learning across the state (or starting a new institution, along the lines of the Evergreen State College, perhaps to be located in Astoria), and by making the option to leave high school after the 10th grade more generally available and acceptable within the high school environment. As in, if students perform at a high enough level (measure by their GPA, standardized testing and SAT scores, I imagine) while in grades 7-10, then they will have the option of going to college after grade 10 if they so choose.
Finally, when it comes to school consolidation... I sure hope the school district is using GIS, preferably ArcGIS with Network Analyst. Somebody needs to make a map of Portland, with all of its K-8 schools. They then need to plot quarter, half and one-mil walking distance buffers around each school. If the walking buffer of any school is completely overlapped by the buffers of the surrounding schools, then it might make sense to close it. However, if a school's buffer is not overlapped by any surrounding buffers, then under no circumstances should it be closed! This would do WONDERS for easing parents concerns, easing traffic congestion due to parents driving kids to school, and empowering students to walk and ride their bicycles to their neighborhood school!
OK, I think that's it for now.
Wednesday, March 22, 2006
A Regional DMU Network for Portland, OR & Vancouver, WA
OK, so I've got another proposal for the Columbia River Crossing:
A regional commuter rail network, based initially on DMU technology. The relevant two links would be Vancouver to Washington County, and Vancouver to Downtown Portland.
This would not replace light rail, but rather supplement it.
Gee, I must be a DMU fan, this is the second time in as many weeks that I've brought up the topic.
The Vancouver to Washington County connection would utilize abandoned rail ROW that runs from near the west end of the St. Johns Bridge to the Beaverton/Hillsboro area, and would require extension track, bed and trestle reconstruction. I bet that DMU passenger service between Washington County and Clark County could be initiated for a fraction of the cost of a new freeway, and if everybody is right about the volume of traffic between those two points, it would do quite well.
Of course, there is the matter of the spectacular railroad trestle that burned to the ground about a decade ago, which would need to be re-built along with much of the rest of this line (if, in fact, any of the rails/trestles/tunnels are still serviceable). However, the fact that the ROW exists already should still bring the cost of implementing a new service in this corridor way down.
Perhaps DMU service could be implemented before light rail service; in this scenario, the Portland to Vancouver run might ultimately be replaced by light rail into downtown Vancouver... or it might remain as a more expensive (fare-wise) express service.
It would be interesting to determine if a stop near St. Johns might be possible for both of these services, as the only interim stop between Portland and Vancouver.
Longer-term, this basic network could add routes to Columbia County (St. Helens & Scapoose), to McMinnville, and out the Gorge to Hood River & The Dalles.
The era of building freeways in Oregon is over. We now need to think of better ways to get people around, for less money and less damage to the natural landscape. Putting old railways back to use to serve new markets is an example of the type of innovative thinking that will cause Oregon to emerge as a leader in the 21st century.
A regional commuter rail network, based initially on DMU technology. The relevant two links would be Vancouver to Washington County, and Vancouver to Downtown Portland.
This would not replace light rail, but rather supplement it.
Gee, I must be a DMU fan, this is the second time in as many weeks that I've brought up the topic.
The Vancouver to Washington County connection would utilize abandoned rail ROW that runs from near the west end of the St. Johns Bridge to the Beaverton/Hillsboro area, and would require extension track, bed and trestle reconstruction. I bet that DMU passenger service between Washington County and Clark County could be initiated for a fraction of the cost of a new freeway, and if everybody is right about the volume of traffic between those two points, it would do quite well.
Of course, there is the matter of the spectacular railroad trestle that burned to the ground about a decade ago, which would need to be re-built along with much of the rest of this line (if, in fact, any of the rails/trestles/tunnels are still serviceable). However, the fact that the ROW exists already should still bring the cost of implementing a new service in this corridor way down.
Perhaps DMU service could be implemented before light rail service; in this scenario, the Portland to Vancouver run might ultimately be replaced by light rail into downtown Vancouver... or it might remain as a more expensive (fare-wise) express service.
It would be interesting to determine if a stop near St. Johns might be possible for both of these services, as the only interim stop between Portland and Vancouver.
Longer-term, this basic network could add routes to Columbia County (St. Helens & Scapoose), to McMinnville, and out the Gorge to Hood River & The Dalles.
The era of building freeways in Oregon is over. We now need to think of better ways to get people around, for less money and less damage to the natural landscape. Putting old railways back to use to serve new markets is an example of the type of innovative thinking that will cause Oregon to emerge as a leader in the 21st century.
Wednesday, February 15, 2006
The Case for a Large Hotel in Portland's Rose/Lloyd District
This post is in response to the Willamette Week editorial, "Ill-Starred," that makes the case that the reason why Portland, an NBA city, has never hosted the NBA All-Star Games (in 35+ years of having an NBA team in a league with only 30 total teams) is related simply to one fact: It doesn't have a large enough hotel to host the 800+ people who the NBA would need to host adjacent to the stadium.
This got me thinking that Portland is also not really taking full advantage of the Oregon Convention Center, also due to the lack of an adjacent large hotel that would allow it to attract the sort of large conferences that make the circuit of places with these facilities.
You know, as somebody who goes to conferences sometimes, I wish I could go to a large conference in Portland. The Convention Center actually *is* large enough to accommodate a large conference (10-12,000 people or so). However, there is no appropriate mix of nearby large hotels to support such an endeavour. There certainly is no single large (800+ room) hotel.
Let me be straight: I don't really like large hotels. I don't like the rich Republicans who run them; I don't like their exhorbitant rates; I don't like their rather white-bread cuisine; I don't like the generic stamped-out-of-a-moldness of their rooms.
However, I think that it would do Portland good to have a large hotel in the Lloyd District/Rose Quarter area, or preferably, a cluster of large hotels. It would be *best* if they were locally-owned, so that *all* the profits stayed within the city. It also would be best if they didn't drive the other hotels in town out of business (maybe their high rates wouldn't be such a bad thing, actually...).
This NBA All-Star Game issue is just another reason why such a large hotel/cluster of large hotels would be a great addition to the city, a boon to tourism, and allow for the possibility of attracting larger conferences and other events.
Why are these events good? They DO boost the economy. Sure, no sales tax, but those dollars brought here stay here, for some time, recirculating around within the local economy. Might be a while before they end up in the tax coffers, but they help the small businesses out for a while in the interim. Plus, I do believe Portland has a hotel tax, so the fact of having a large hotel or cluster of large hotels would in and of itself boost the tax base.
I don't think Portland is a po-dunk town (as one other commenter of Willamette Week's article suggested); I think it's a major cosmopolitan city that goes rather largely under-appreciated outside of Oregon and the West Coast, mainly because most people outside of this region *haven't been here yet*. More large hotels, as inherently evil as they may be in some respects, certainly could do a lot towards alleviating that problem.
This got me thinking that Portland is also not really taking full advantage of the Oregon Convention Center, also due to the lack of an adjacent large hotel that would allow it to attract the sort of large conferences that make the circuit of places with these facilities.
You know, as somebody who goes to conferences sometimes, I wish I could go to a large conference in Portland. The Convention Center actually *is* large enough to accommodate a large conference (10-12,000 people or so). However, there is no appropriate mix of nearby large hotels to support such an endeavour. There certainly is no single large (800+ room) hotel.
Let me be straight: I don't really like large hotels. I don't like the rich Republicans who run them; I don't like their exhorbitant rates; I don't like their rather white-bread cuisine; I don't like the generic stamped-out-of-a-moldness of their rooms.
However, I think that it would do Portland good to have a large hotel in the Lloyd District/Rose Quarter area, or preferably, a cluster of large hotels. It would be *best* if they were locally-owned, so that *all* the profits stayed within the city. It also would be best if they didn't drive the other hotels in town out of business (maybe their high rates wouldn't be such a bad thing, actually...).
This NBA All-Star Game issue is just another reason why such a large hotel/cluster of large hotels would be a great addition to the city, a boon to tourism, and allow for the possibility of attracting larger conferences and other events.
Why are these events good? They DO boost the economy. Sure, no sales tax, but those dollars brought here stay here, for some time, recirculating around within the local economy. Might be a while before they end up in the tax coffers, but they help the small businesses out for a while in the interim. Plus, I do believe Portland has a hotel tax, so the fact of having a large hotel or cluster of large hotels would in and of itself boost the tax base.
I don't think Portland is a po-dunk town (as one other commenter of Willamette Week's article suggested); I think it's a major cosmopolitan city that goes rather largely under-appreciated outside of Oregon and the West Coast, mainly because most people outside of this region *haven't been here yet*. More large hotels, as inherently evil as they may be in some respects, certainly could do a lot towards alleviating that problem.
Saturday, February 11, 2006
Sharing the BART tube with Commuter Rail
In reading Wikipedia's entry on railroad switches, I found the following quote rather inspirational:
"A gantlet track can also be used when two railroads of different gauges share right-of-way; the standard-gauge Delaware, Lackawanna and Western Railroad used the wide-gauge Erie Railroad's tunnel through the New Jersey Palisades in this way before the DL&W built its own tunnel."
Gee, so... in the SF Bay Area, BART has a tunnel. Which is nearly at capacity, not because of the physical limit on the space between trains, but because of the physical limit of the stations at each end only being able to hold one train at a time.... basically, headways through the tunnel are limited by the time it takes a train o slow down, stop, open doors, load/unload passengers, close doors, and move on. Two to three minutes or so, it how long I believe this takes.
One potential solution to this problem, which I believe Portland, OR is attempting to enact to solve the light rail capacity problems over the Steel Bridge, is to build a wye and two sets of stations on either side of the bridge/tunnel.
BART pretty much hosed this option for themselves using BART technology by locating their wye after West Oakland station, and not accommodating a wye prior to Embarcadero Station.
However... with Caltrain being planned to extend underground to within two blocks of the tube entrance in San Francisco, it would make potentil sense for Caltrain and BART to share the tube underneath the Bay, using a gauntlet track construction to accommodate the various gauges and kee the Caltrain cars away from the third rail. Caltrain could enter the tube just after Embarcadero, then exit where the tube crosses the grade prior to West Oakland (and from there be given the option of its own split, to either Jack London to the south or Emeryville to the north).
Operationally, it might be tricky to run Caltrain and BART through the same tube, EXCEPT that I believe BART trains may actually be slightly longer in length with 10 cars. There may be a height issue through the tube for the double-decker Caltrain rolling stock, but that might just be a matter of only running lower-height-profile rolling stock on transbay runs.
Anyways, it is definitely a point worth considering.
"A gantlet track can also be used when two railroads of different gauges share right-of-way; the standard-gauge Delaware, Lackawanna and Western Railroad used the wide-gauge Erie Railroad's tunnel through the New Jersey Palisades in this way before the DL&W built its own tunnel."
Gee, so... in the SF Bay Area, BART has a tunnel. Which is nearly at capacity, not because of the physical limit on the space between trains, but because of the physical limit of the stations at each end only being able to hold one train at a time.... basically, headways through the tunnel are limited by the time it takes a train o slow down, stop, open doors, load/unload passengers, close doors, and move on. Two to three minutes or so, it how long I believe this takes.
One potential solution to this problem, which I believe Portland, OR is attempting to enact to solve the light rail capacity problems over the Steel Bridge, is to build a wye and two sets of stations on either side of the bridge/tunnel.
BART pretty much hosed this option for themselves using BART technology by locating their wye after West Oakland station, and not accommodating a wye prior to Embarcadero Station.
However... with Caltrain being planned to extend underground to within two blocks of the tube entrance in San Francisco, it would make potentil sense for Caltrain and BART to share the tube underneath the Bay, using a gauntlet track construction to accommodate the various gauges and kee the Caltrain cars away from the third rail. Caltrain could enter the tube just after Embarcadero, then exit where the tube crosses the grade prior to West Oakland (and from there be given the option of its own split, to either Jack London to the south or Emeryville to the north).
Operationally, it might be tricky to run Caltrain and BART through the same tube, EXCEPT that I believe BART trains may actually be slightly longer in length with 10 cars. There may be a height issue through the tube for the double-decker Caltrain rolling stock, but that might just be a matter of only running lower-height-profile rolling stock on transbay runs.
Anyways, it is definitely a point worth considering.
Monday, February 06, 2006
The OregonBike
There's a good discussion going on now over on the www.portlandtransport.com blog, where Bob R. said:
"What would really give bike commuting as serious boost among the general populace would be to promote a simple, durable commuter bike for under $500 (even under $400 if it can be managed.) Something with fenders, a unisex design, a comfortable adjustable seat, and easy shifting."
This was in response to a post about Portland's announcement of its mission to achieve Platinum certification (it currently has Gold) as the most bicycle-friendly city, anywhere. It's attempting to get 15% of its trips to be made by bicycle. In response, Trek has produced a new model of bicycle, called the Portland, which retails for about $1500.
I agree completely with Bob's comment, which was in essence that $1500 was a bit steep for most Portlanders, and that there needed to be a good mike for the masses. When I was in Amsterdam, I noticed how the same bike was *everywhere*. It was called the AmsterBike, and it was what most people rode in the central city.
Of course, the AmsterBike was really heavy, like 45 pounds or so, which doesn't matter because the tallest hills in Amsterdam are the ones that you climb as you go over the little bridges arching gently over the canals. And, I don't know exactly how much an AmsterBike actually costs, as I only rented one for $6/day, rather than purchasing one.
Still, it seems like some Oregon-based bicycle manufacturer could probably provide some living-wage jobs for some employees, and some affordable, good-quality bicycles for the riding population, by stepping up and designing an OregonBike that would be light enough to make it up most hills, cost $400 or so, have fenders and a rack, rechargeable lights, and either be unisex or have enough models in the same price range that it didn't matter.
Any entrepreneurs care to step up and fill this market niche?
:-)
cheers,
~Garlynn
"What would really give bike commuting as serious boost among the general populace would be to promote a simple, durable commuter bike for under $500 (even under $400 if it can be managed.) Something with fenders, a unisex design, a comfortable adjustable seat, and easy shifting."
This was in response to a post about Portland's announcement of its mission to achieve Platinum certification (it currently has Gold) as the most bicycle-friendly city, anywhere. It's attempting to get 15% of its trips to be made by bicycle. In response, Trek has produced a new model of bicycle, called the Portland, which retails for about $1500.
I agree completely with Bob's comment, which was in essence that $1500 was a bit steep for most Portlanders, and that there needed to be a good mike for the masses. When I was in Amsterdam, I noticed how the same bike was *everywhere*. It was called the AmsterBike, and it was what most people rode in the central city.
Of course, the AmsterBike was really heavy, like 45 pounds or so, which doesn't matter because the tallest hills in Amsterdam are the ones that you climb as you go over the little bridges arching gently over the canals. And, I don't know exactly how much an AmsterBike actually costs, as I only rented one for $6/day, rather than purchasing one.
Still, it seems like some Oregon-based bicycle manufacturer could probably provide some living-wage jobs for some employees, and some affordable, good-quality bicycles for the riding population, by stepping up and designing an OregonBike that would be light enough to make it up most hills, cost $400 or so, have fenders and a rack, rechargeable lights, and either be unisex or have enough models in the same price range that it didn't matter.
Any entrepreneurs care to step up and fill this market niche?
:-)
cheers,
~Garlynn
Thursday, February 02, 2006
Outrage over... cartoons. (?)
So, it seems that certain individuals within the Muslim world are aghast at a series of cartoons that depict the prophet Muhammed in a less than flattering manner.
One quote attempts to make the case that, if it were Jesus being defamed, the Western world might react differently:
"Freedom of speech has its limits when it concerns others... How would it feel if Jesus Christ was the one insulted instead?"
Randa Ahmed Essa, Egypt
(from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4675462.stm)
In fact, according to this story at scotsman.com, Jesus has been insulted by a new comic book, entitled The Life of Jesus. And indeed, the article concludes that the book is jumping off the shelves, this in a country where the population is predominantly Christian (or at least, more Christian than Muslim).
Apparently, the Muslim world has trouble comprehending what us Westerners mean when we say "Freedom of Speech." This is the freedom to defame leaders, to poke fun at deities, and to laugh at current world events.
In fact, I thought that some of the cartoons were actually rather funny. See for yourself:
http://www.di2.nu/files/Muhammed_Cartoons_Jyllands_Posten.html
Insensitive to another world religion? Perhaps. But, learn to laugh. In this country (the United States), people make fun of one another all the time. I could see myself having laughed at this cartoon that implicitly compares the Unibomber to back-to-the-land environemntalists back in the 90's. Similarly, what conservative wouldn't at least chuckle at this liberal cartoon site?
Frankly, on this one I must say that I'm going to come down on the side of freedom, liberty, and the free press. At the same time, people do have the freedom to peacefully assemble and express their viewpoints, so if some people in the Arab world would like to come together to express their outrage at these cartoons, sure, that's perfectly OK. As long as it ends there, and nobody, you know, does anything drastic.
And, I sense that some people in the Arab world share this viewpoint. According to that same British (BBC) article, "In Jordan, an independent tabloid, al-Shihan, reprinted three of the cartoons on Thursday, saying people should know what they were protesting about."
Comments?
One quote attempts to make the case that, if it were Jesus being defamed, the Western world might react differently:
"Freedom of speech has its limits when it concerns others... How would it feel if Jesus Christ was the one insulted instead?"
Randa Ahmed Essa, Egypt
(from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4675462.stm)
In fact, according to this story at scotsman.com, Jesus has been insulted by a new comic book, entitled The Life of Jesus. And indeed, the article concludes that the book is jumping off the shelves, this in a country where the population is predominantly Christian (or at least, more Christian than Muslim).
Apparently, the Muslim world has trouble comprehending what us Westerners mean when we say "Freedom of Speech." This is the freedom to defame leaders, to poke fun at deities, and to laugh at current world events.
In fact, I thought that some of the cartoons were actually rather funny. See for yourself:
http://www.di2.nu/files/Muhammed_Cartoons_Jyllands_Posten.html
Insensitive to another world religion? Perhaps. But, learn to laugh. In this country (the United States), people make fun of one another all the time. I could see myself having laughed at this cartoon that implicitly compares the Unibomber to back-to-the-land environemntalists back in the 90's. Similarly, what conservative wouldn't at least chuckle at this liberal cartoon site?
Frankly, on this one I must say that I'm going to come down on the side of freedom, liberty, and the free press. At the same time, people do have the freedom to peacefully assemble and express their viewpoints, so if some people in the Arab world would like to come together to express their outrage at these cartoons, sure, that's perfectly OK. As long as it ends there, and nobody, you know, does anything drastic.
And, I sense that some people in the Arab world share this viewpoint. According to that same British (BBC) article, "In Jordan, an independent tabloid, al-Shihan, reprinted three of the cartoons on Thursday, saying people should know what they were protesting about."
Comments?
Wednesday, February 01, 2006
Comments on the Oregon Transportation Plan
to: michael.d.rock@odot.state.or.us
principal planner for the 2006 oregon transportation plan update
***
Hi Michael,
First off, the plan looks great, and I support Investment Strategy 3, with the addition of a north/south rail transit super corridor (to complement an east/west transit super corridor).
Specifically, however, I would like to recommend that the State, in partnership with regional and local jurisdictions as well as the private sector and community groups, take a *strong* look at constructing a new multimodal rail system to serve the major north/south and east/west axes out of Portland (that is, Astoria to Pendleton via Portland, and Portland to Medford/Ashland via Eugene, in addition to examining the Eastern Oregon corridors). While the road system in the state is in fairly good shape (certainly better than that in most states), the rail transportation system could be better.
I would use Switzerland as the example, where in addition to roads connecting all towns, rail systems connect most towns, and most trains are electric. The trains tend to carry both passengers and freight, and most destinations are accessible by foot, bicycle or connecting transit from the train station.
How would this work in Oregon?
As with Switzerland and Germany, there would be commuter-level service on specific links in the system (Astoria to Portland, The Dalles to Portland, Grants Pass to Ashland, Portland to Salem, etc.) with multiple a.m. and p.m. peak period trips. The backbone of the system would be twice-daily service throughout the state on most other links. Certain backbones would have priority for upgrading of the trackbed to high-speed standards, with the ultimate goal of 200+mph service on the main north/south and east/west spines, with the potential for service of up to 100mph on the feeder lines made possible by improved trackbeds and tilting/high-speed rolling stock. Small freight would travel with the twice-daily service; large freight would, as now, travel in separate trains.
Around each station in the system, Tax-Increment Financing would collect the improvement in tax collect as a result of the upgraded transit service, and in addition to user fees collected from passengers and freight, provide all of the operating expenses for the system, as well as contribute to capital cost recovery and debt service on bonds needed to build the initial infrastructure.
Public/private partnerships would allow increased development intensity around each station to proceed in tandem with station construction/expansion/upgrade, and commencement of service (or improved service in areas that already have some service).
Statewide growth management goals could be achieved by allowing existing communities with struggling economies to host new transit-oriented growth. Astoria, for instance, could build more housing for commuters near its transit station, and an upgrade rail connection would allow them to commute into the Portland market in well under an hour, while saving money on housing costs. Astoria would reap the benefit of hosting families with greater income, contributing tax revenue and cashflow to the local economy; Portland would benefit by having Astoria take some of the burden of providing market-rate workforce housing. In time, the hosting of more knowledgeable workers could allow Astoria to develop a more intensive local knowledge-based economy, and even eventually play host to an expansion of the state higher education system.
Oregon's congressional delegation could lobby for federal support to assist with constructing interstate links to connect this with systems elsewhere, but the main bulk of the system would be an in-state effort, with the state reaping the rewards.
The existing rail network ROW would provide most of the ROW necessary for the upgraded system; existing operators would be encouraged to participate as willing partners, rather than risk condemnation and state takeover of their facilities.
Oregon may double its population over the coming century. By beginning to invest now in this expanded rail/public transportation system, it can easily accommodate the transportation needs of this growth without needing to make significant changes or expansions to its highway system, as well as meet its environmental and sustainable growth objectives.
Finally, with the aging of the population over the coming decades, more and more people are going to need mobility without needing to use cars, as they lose the ability to drive. Building this sort of integrated rail/public transportation system will allow Oregon's aging population to travel and live with grace and dignity without needing the automobile for long- and medium-distance in-state trips.
This is not a pipe dream. This is the future of Oregon's transportation system, and it is the natural conclusion of the policies quoted below, as laid out in the current draft of the OTP.
Thank you for your careful consideration of this matter.
Sincerely yours,
~Garlynn Woodsong
6610 SE 50th Ave
Portland, OR 97206
garlynn@gmail.com
Selected Policies from the current draft of the Oregon Transportation Plan:
POLICY 1.1 – Development of an Integrated Multimodal System
It is the policy of the State of Oregon to plan and develop a balanced, integrated
transportation system with modal choices for the movement of people and goods.
STRATEGY 1.1.1
Plan and develop a multimodal transportation system that increases the efficient
movement of people and goods for commerce and production of goods and services
that is coordinated with regional and local plans. Require regional and local
transportation plans to address existing and future:
a. Centers of economic activity,
b. Routes and modes connecting passenger facilities and freight facilities,
c. Intermodal facilities, and
d. Major intercity and intra-city transportation corridors and supporting
transportation networks.
STRATEGY 1.1.2
Promote the growth of intercity bus, truck, rail, air, pipeline, and marine services to
link all areas of the state with national and international transportation facilities and
services. Increase the frequency of intercity services to provide travel options.
STRATEGY 1.2.1
Develop and promote inter and intra-city public transportation.
• Optimize existing services and find innovative ways to augment public
transportation infrastructure and travel options to levels appropriate to the
community size and to an effective network of connections.
• Where opportunities for coordination with other transportation service
providers exist, work to integrate programs and align investments of service
providers involved with the design, delivery and funding of mobility
services. Focus on mobility management and customer needs.
• Use information technologies to effectively link customers and
transportation services, and support local transportation options programs
including individualized marketing programs.
• Promote frequent public transit and passenger rail services as a method to
increase ridership and decrease travel times, especially during peak travel
periods and on heavily traveled highway corridors.
STRATEGY 1.3.2
Develop and manage the transportation network so that local trips can be conducted
primarily on the local system and the interstate and statewide facilities can primarily
serve intercity movement and interconnect the systems. Develop, maintain and
improve parallel roadways, freight rail, transit, bus rapid transit, commuter rail and
light rail to provide alternatives to using intercity highways for local trips where
possible.
STRATEGY 3.2.3
Support intercity, interstate and international rail and air services to facilitate business
and recreational travel.
STRATEGY 3.2.5
Promote tourism via air, bicycle, motor vehicle, rail and ship. Support connections to
hiking trails.
STRATEGY 4.2.1
Encourage the sustainable development of land with a mix of uses and a range of
densities, land use intensities and transportation options in order to increase the
efficiency of the transportation system.
STRATEGY 4.2.3
Promote location efficient incentives in Oregon to help increase the opportunities for
individuals and families to purchase homes and businesses within areas well-served
by transit.
STRATEGY 6.1.3
Increase the diversity of funding sources to provide greater stability, predictability
and flexibility for funding transportation facilities and services.
STRATEGY 6.1.6
Fund projects through public/private partnerships that balance statewide
environmental, land use and economic goals and state, regional and/or local plans.
STRATEGY 6.2.1
Examine mechanisms to fund major capacity-adding and related transportation
facilities that raise revenues including but not limited to tolling, congestion pricing
and capturing increases in real estate value resulting from investments or potential
investments. Funding mechanisms may include system development charges, tax
increment financing and other forms of value pricing.
Passenger and Freight Rail
While private firms own and operate rail short lines and mainlines for freight, Amtrak
operates passenger rail services. The state supports two daily round trip rail passenger
services from Eugene to Portland and connecting bus services with state general or
lottery funds. Oregon has five programs for rail improvements based on revenue from a
corporate income tax on private rail operators. State funds have also been used to upgrade
the Union Pacific rail infrastructure to better support passenger rail services.
Ensuring that Oregon’s rail system can efficiently move freight into and out of ports and
into and out of the state is a state concern. However, the level of future investment in
mainline railroads in Oregon is dependent on national rail company investment choices;
short line rail operators lack sufficient revenue to make capital investments. Elimination
of bottlenecks at river crossings and mountain tunnels may require more resources than
private sector rail operators can currently afford on their own. While common in other
states, public investments in privately owned systems have been limited in Oregon. State
funding for passenger services and rail improvements depend on biennial legislative
appropriations. The lack of a long-term funding source creates an obstacle to long term
investments and expansion of rail in Oregon.
IV-10: Investment Strategy Level Three includes major investments in new infrastructure. Some
of these investments would be financed from traditional sources, while others would be
funded in part through mechanisms such as value capture, including tolls.
Investment Strategy Level 3: Adding and Expanding Facilities
Intercity Bus and Rail:
Add two round trips to rail
service between Eugene and
Portland. Add Eastern Oregon
Rail and commuter rail
between Wilsonville and
Salem after 2020.
Capital costs are estimated to
be $116 million, with
increased operating costs of
$7.5 million annually.
Funding source: State general funds and fares
Convenient rail alternatives
attract intercity passengers,
improve auto/rail/bus mode
split and improve intercity
passenger access, especially
to Eastern Oregon after 2020.
The technical analysis for OTP development supported the following potential
investments. This list is not inclusive:
• Build a north-south highway and rail super corridor.
• Preserve and extend highway, public transportation and rail options in east-west
and north-south corridors.
• Expand public transit services.
• Create second day rail freight service to Southern California.
• Expand regional air services, especially air freight services.
--
O
O ...let's go do
O something
O i n t e r e s t i n g
O .garlynn.g.woodsong.
principal planner for the 2006 oregon transportation plan update
***
Hi Michael,
First off, the plan looks great, and I support Investment Strategy 3, with the addition of a north/south rail transit super corridor (to complement an east/west transit super corridor).
Specifically, however, I would like to recommend that the State, in partnership with regional and local jurisdictions as well as the private sector and community groups, take a *strong* look at constructing a new multimodal rail system to serve the major north/south and east/west axes out of Portland (that is, Astoria to Pendleton via Portland, and Portland to Medford/Ashland via Eugene, in addition to examining the Eastern Oregon corridors). While the road system in the state is in fairly good shape (certainly better than that in most states), the rail transportation system could be better.
I would use Switzerland as the example, where in addition to roads connecting all towns, rail systems connect most towns, and most trains are electric. The trains tend to carry both passengers and freight, and most destinations are accessible by foot, bicycle or connecting transit from the train station.
How would this work in Oregon?
As with Switzerland and Germany, there would be commuter-level service on specific links in the system (Astoria to Portland, The Dalles to Portland, Grants Pass to Ashland, Portland to Salem, etc.) with multiple a.m. and p.m. peak period trips. The backbone of the system would be twice-daily service throughout the state on most other links. Certain backbones would have priority for upgrading of the trackbed to high-speed standards, with the ultimate goal of 200+mph service on the main north/south and east/west spines, with the potential for service of up to 100mph on the feeder lines made possible by improved trackbeds and tilting/high-speed rolling stock. Small freight would travel with the twice-daily service; large freight would, as now, travel in separate trains.
Around each station in the system, Tax-Increment Financing would collect the improvement in tax collect as a result of the upgraded transit service, and in addition to user fees collected from passengers and freight, provide all of the operating expenses for the system, as well as contribute to capital cost recovery and debt service on bonds needed to build the initial infrastructure.
Public/private partnerships would allow increased development intensity around each station to proceed in tandem with station construction/expansion/upgrade, and commencement of service (or improved service in areas that already have some service).
Statewide growth management goals could be achieved by allowing existing communities with struggling economies to host new transit-oriented growth. Astoria, for instance, could build more housing for commuters near its transit station, and an upgrade rail connection would allow them to commute into the Portland market in well under an hour, while saving money on housing costs. Astoria would reap the benefit of hosting families with greater income, contributing tax revenue and cashflow to the local economy; Portland would benefit by having Astoria take some of the burden of providing market-rate workforce housing. In time, the hosting of more knowledgeable workers could allow Astoria to develop a more intensive local knowledge-based economy, and even eventually play host to an expansion of the state higher education system.
Oregon's congressional delegation could lobby for federal support to assist with constructing interstate links to connect this with systems elsewhere, but the main bulk of the system would be an in-state effort, with the state reaping the rewards.
The existing rail network ROW would provide most of the ROW necessary for the upgraded system; existing operators would be encouraged to participate as willing partners, rather than risk condemnation and state takeover of their facilities.
Oregon may double its population over the coming century. By beginning to invest now in this expanded rail/public transportation system, it can easily accommodate the transportation needs of this growth without needing to make significant changes or expansions to its highway system, as well as meet its environmental and sustainable growth objectives.
Finally, with the aging of the population over the coming decades, more and more people are going to need mobility without needing to use cars, as they lose the ability to drive. Building this sort of integrated rail/public transportation system will allow Oregon's aging population to travel and live with grace and dignity without needing the automobile for long- and medium-distance in-state trips.
This is not a pipe dream. This is the future of Oregon's transportation system, and it is the natural conclusion of the policies quoted below, as laid out in the current draft of the OTP.
Thank you for your careful consideration of this matter.
Sincerely yours,
~Garlynn Woodsong
6610 SE 50th Ave
Portland, OR 97206
garlynn@gmail.com
Selected Policies from the current draft of the Oregon Transportation Plan:
POLICY 1.1 – Development of an Integrated Multimodal System
It is the policy of the State of Oregon to plan and develop a balanced, integrated
transportation system with modal choices for the movement of people and goods.
STRATEGY 1.1.1
Plan and develop a multimodal transportation system that increases the efficient
movement of people and goods for commerce and production of goods and services
that is coordinated with regional and local plans. Require regional and local
transportation plans to address existing and future:
a. Centers of economic activity,
b. Routes and modes connecting passenger facilities and freight facilities,
c. Intermodal facilities, and
d. Major intercity and intra-city transportation corridors and supporting
transportation networks.
STRATEGY 1.1.2
Promote the growth of intercity bus, truck, rail, air, pipeline, and marine services to
link all areas of the state with national and international transportation facilities and
services. Increase the frequency of intercity services to provide travel options.
STRATEGY 1.2.1
Develop and promote inter and intra-city public transportation.
• Optimize existing services and find innovative ways to augment public
transportation infrastructure and travel options to levels appropriate to the
community size and to an effective network of connections.
• Where opportunities for coordination with other transportation service
providers exist, work to integrate programs and align investments of service
providers involved with the design, delivery and funding of mobility
services. Focus on mobility management and customer needs.
• Use information technologies to effectively link customers and
transportation services, and support local transportation options programs
including individualized marketing programs.
• Promote frequent public transit and passenger rail services as a method to
increase ridership and decrease travel times, especially during peak travel
periods and on heavily traveled highway corridors.
STRATEGY 1.3.2
Develop and manage the transportation network so that local trips can be conducted
primarily on the local system and the interstate and statewide facilities can primarily
serve intercity movement and interconnect the systems. Develop, maintain and
improve parallel roadways, freight rail, transit, bus rapid transit, commuter rail and
light rail to provide alternatives to using intercity highways for local trips where
possible.
STRATEGY 3.2.3
Support intercity, interstate and international rail and air services to facilitate business
and recreational travel.
STRATEGY 3.2.5
Promote tourism via air, bicycle, motor vehicle, rail and ship. Support connections to
hiking trails.
STRATEGY 4.2.1
Encourage the sustainable development of land with a mix of uses and a range of
densities, land use intensities and transportation options in order to increase the
efficiency of the transportation system.
STRATEGY 4.2.3
Promote location efficient incentives in Oregon to help increase the opportunities for
individuals and families to purchase homes and businesses within areas well-served
by transit.
STRATEGY 6.1.3
Increase the diversity of funding sources to provide greater stability, predictability
and flexibility for funding transportation facilities and services.
STRATEGY 6.1.6
Fund projects through public/private partnerships that balance statewide
environmental, land use and economic goals and state, regional and/or local plans.
STRATEGY 6.2.1
Examine mechanisms to fund major capacity-adding and related transportation
facilities that raise revenues including but not limited to tolling, congestion pricing
and capturing increases in real estate value resulting from investments or potential
investments. Funding mechanisms may include system development charges, tax
increment financing and other forms of value pricing.
Passenger and Freight Rail
While private firms own and operate rail short lines and mainlines for freight, Amtrak
operates passenger rail services. The state supports two daily round trip rail passenger
services from Eugene to Portland and connecting bus services with state general or
lottery funds. Oregon has five programs for rail improvements based on revenue from a
corporate income tax on private rail operators. State funds have also been used to upgrade
the Union Pacific rail infrastructure to better support passenger rail services.
Ensuring that Oregon’s rail system can efficiently move freight into and out of ports and
into and out of the state is a state concern. However, the level of future investment in
mainline railroads in Oregon is dependent on national rail company investment choices;
short line rail operators lack sufficient revenue to make capital investments. Elimination
of bottlenecks at river crossings and mountain tunnels may require more resources than
private sector rail operators can currently afford on their own. While common in other
states, public investments in privately owned systems have been limited in Oregon. State
funding for passenger services and rail improvements depend on biennial legislative
appropriations. The lack of a long-term funding source creates an obstacle to long term
investments and expansion of rail in Oregon.
IV-10: Investment Strategy Level Three includes major investments in new infrastructure. Some
of these investments would be financed from traditional sources, while others would be
funded in part through mechanisms such as value capture, including tolls.
Investment Strategy Level 3: Adding and Expanding Facilities
Intercity Bus and Rail:
Add two round trips to rail
service between Eugene and
Portland. Add Eastern Oregon
Rail and commuter rail
between Wilsonville and
Salem after 2020.
Capital costs are estimated to
be $116 million, with
increased operating costs of
$7.5 million annually.
Funding source: State general funds and fares
Convenient rail alternatives
attract intercity passengers,
improve auto/rail/bus mode
split and improve intercity
passenger access, especially
to Eastern Oregon after 2020.
The technical analysis for OTP development supported the following potential
investments. This list is not inclusive:
• Build a north-south highway and rail super corridor.
• Preserve and extend highway, public transportation and rail options in east-west
and north-south corridors.
• Expand public transit services.
• Create second day rail freight service to Southern California.
• Expand regional air services, especially air freight services.
--
O
O ...let's go do
O something
O i n t e r e s t i n g
O .garlynn.g.woodsong.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
