hohum

Heavy truck traffic takes a heavier toll on the roadway, especially if it was not designed as a major truck route (and I have no knowlege of whether it was or not). Roads that see a lot of truck traffic also usually see more potholes, require more repair, etc. Given that this route is harder to shut down for major repairs, given the commuter traffic it sees, this seems to at least one argument for restricting heavy truck traffic somewhat. This is one of the reasons that some states have vehicle excise taxes based upon the vehicle gross weight.

Question - how much traffic on Portland's streetcar comes from people who are riding light rail in and then the streetcar? Firstly, I have never seen that number, so I doubt Cheryl has either. Secondly, what exactly is the relevance of that number? It has some relevance, but surely the weight she puts on that factor in her letter isn't likely justified by facts. Secondly, again she is falling back to the density argument which has been so thoroughly and completely shot down (by myself and others), that its quite laughable (if it weren't for the fact that she constantly stands up and spouts this garbage from a "position of authority"). This one of those letters that really gets under my skin, and if I have the time I will likely try to write a response. We shall see... PS - John, how many times will any of us have to refute Cheryl's baseless claims in general (only to be called "vicious attackers") *sigh*

Ugh, its always useful to say you have studied something when not a single number you rely on is actually correct.

The situation is that Skoda is partnered with that company in Oregon (I think that company actually makes Skoda cars under license). I think, but I could be wrong, that the plan called for Skoda cars, so who knows if they will come from that facility in Oregon.

OK, tis now really the season to be out and riding around... So, post up some pictures of what will be carrying you around this fine season! Here's my singlespeed daily commuter :) Anyone else do the singlespeed mountain bike conversion?

^ That, is awesome!

That average cost per mile (25M per mile) is actually the cost per track mile not per route mile. See John's post here - http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,9.msg273664.html#msg273664 for a better description than I can give for the difference. We are at nearly 4 track miles, and the estimate is about 102 million.

I'd like to see Bortz's motion, but just to throw this out there... If Uptown is such a priority, why not do a fixed bus route along the proposed uptown connector routes and sus out which would be the best? I understand this opens up the streetcar proponents to the argument "why don't we just do bus routes along the proposed line?". However, its distinguishably different for development purposes. We all know that bus routes don't spur the type of high density TOD's we are hoping for in OTR. However, given that a connector minus an uptown circulator is not likely to serve any need beyond "guaranteeing that an uptown circulator is built" and certainly not the development related results of a streetcar line, why not explore this to figure out which uptown connectors would be more profitable?

^ even without seeing Bortz's motion, its not infinite delay. This was the competing motion we were suspecting. I certainly expected some delay on a contrary motion. No ideas of replays on citicable.

Good news John, thanks for the update (edit) the Reds sucked it up, what else is new!!! Come on Bronson!! On the streetcar note - is there a copy of Bortz's motion online somewhere?

Baha, I thought it but didn't go there. Indeed.

Thats a great article... Makes all the right point about how we can't pidgeon hole the benefits of streetcars into just one silo. The hard part is convincing people that while another means might be more beneficial within one particular silo, when you consider the benefits accross the spectrum of silos, the streetcar wins for this type of environment. Is he for real? You're talking about a guy that used to wear capes around town. Literally, and not just on Halloween. He's basically a short notch above the wacky hat guy. Bahahahahhaha...Literally laughing out loud at work. SO true. Who is the wacky hat guy btw, never actually talked to him about his agenda...

Hmmm, not sure who fills the dorms in Boston, never paid much attention to whether it was students or what, they all seemed young... the big dorms at BU and BC seem to always be mostly full over the summer... I spent many summers just paying the housing fee for summer housing... And the student housing in NYC for the summer I was there seemed to be mostly full too...

This is true. There is more and more on campus living. The only quibble I have with these numbers is that I think (I could be wrong here) that they include such things as Stratford Heights, etc. To me, thats not really "on campus" living. I realize that lots of folks live really close to campus, you can't walk anywhere on Jefferson or upper Clifton (or even on Straight St near my house) and not see that its primarily students. That said, its a different picture from a retailer's perspective than what they might expect for other universities. Many other universities still have half of the university housing filled with students over the summer as well. Its pretty dead up there in the summer...

^ That has something to do with the fact that its a commuter rather than a resident campus. I wish UC would build some real dorms....

Hmmm, I thought Seattle was shorter than 2.6, in fact I think I just told someone 2.3 the other day... oops. Anyhow, good numbers to know and have at the ready ;)

Yeah, I get that too, I just question the need for that article. It just says "things look like any other project of this scale at this stage"

I actually kind of like that it will be the largest initial phase so far. Right now, most of the studies use Portland as a model because they were the first. I like to think that if ours is successful, future studies done for other cities might debate the benefits of Portland's small initial phase with Cincinnati's large initial phase as models for cities with different types of demand. I agree, I just want to see it get much bigger... As it stands, its ambitious.

Hmmm, imagine that, on a giant project there are still loose ends, *gasp* You would think that these people think projects like this are only secure if theres 100s of millions in minty fresh $100 bills locked in the vault somewhere.

The meetings are at 1:00, and yes this would be a good time to come. It already is the largest intial first phase of a modern streetcar (3.9 miles, longer than all the first phases in places that have built systems) The argument is not that there is no demand, its simply that the demand is light right now, so why require the connector as part of the first phase given that the connector is VERY expensive, and without the circulator only serves a very small population close to where it terminates. I think the connector should be built, it just doesn't make sense to do it in phase 1. (This doesn't mean that we can't look at phasing in a connector early on, I am just questioning where this "need to have uptown to make it work" argument comes from) Come to the finance meeting on monday.

Bah humbug, compete on quality or fail. That is the restaurant business. Also, notice where those closings are happening.... In other words, why would I spend $15 on an entree at one of those giant chains when I can spend $15 at a local and get like 4x the quality.

I am not in the know as to whether there will actually be a new motion introduced at Finance on Monday or not. That was where it was left last week. Ideally, Bortz presents his motion, it passes, then it passes general council on Wednesday. (in an ideal world). But there's been a lot of wrangling going on, and I really don't know what will actually end up happening on Monday.

I always found that amazingly ironic. Libertarians supporting such massive tax funded programs. When you take that irony into consideration with who some of those groups are funded by (Shell Oil, Exxon Oil, etc), their agenda becomes crystal clear - we all need fossil fuel pollution makers in the driveway and we all need to have 100 mile round trip commutes to work.

Heh, sure you can, just like all those other places, its a special night out. OR, you eat on a budget. I can't eat the dollar value I would like to eat at Lavomatic, but that doesn't keep me from going and grabbing an appetizer and a glass of wine for $14 when thats all I can afford, and then going out on a special night out for $50 per person (my cost last time I went). Most of the restaurants of that caliber end up falling between the 35 - 50 pp dinner rates. They will still attract plenty of YP's, just not the "I eat here every night" type ;) (Then there is always the "I don't eat here but I drink here crowd" -- see Nada)

This is true, but the economic development can and will begin well before transit is a success. Along any proposed line. I have already talked to many who are investing and building along the proposed circulator downtown. Again, anecdotal evidence, but this is my perspective (I only keep qualifying with anecdotal evidence because I understand what weight anecdotal evidence has in a scientific/factual arguments - when I say this it is merely to qualify my opinion with my perception of reality, not to offer evidence in general) But how MANY cars will they need to have, that is the question. It will drastically reduce construction costs (and of course environmental impact) if the building can proceed with a < 2 cars per household presumption. We can only really attain full development (while retaining its architectural character) of OTR, naturally conceding some new parking, if we can reduce the average cars per household to the 1 - 1.5 level.